BEFORE THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS AT WHANGAREI. IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS AT WHANGAREI IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) AND IN THE MATTER of Proposed Plan Change 87 Coastal Areas to the Whangarei District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR MICHAEL BRUCE ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WATER AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH LIMITED Dated: 23 June 2017 Vicki Morrison-Shaw PO Box 1585 Shortland Street AUCKLAND 1140 Solicitor on the record Vicki Morrison-Shaw (09)

2 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Fifteen years ago, NIWA established a facility at Bream Bay to further research and develop opportunities for aquaculture and marine science. Both aquaculture and marine science are of significant national importance with extensive local benefits. 2. The Bream Bay Facility site is a highly modified environment, which has been used since the 1960s to allow the pursuit of nationally beneficial opportunities initially power generation and now aquaculture and marine science. 3. NIWA is concerned that the provisions of PC87 currently fail to recognise the highly modified nature of the site, the underlying Business 4 zoning, and the importance of providing for existing operations and appropriate expansion and development of those operations. In NIWA s view, the rule framework as it currently stands puts at risk the significant national and local benefits associated with NIWA s current and planned operations. 4. Accordingly, NIWA would like PC87 to be amended to more appropriately address its concerns.

3 3 INTRODUCTION Qualifications and experience 1. My name is Dr Michael Bruce. 2. I obtained a BSc in Marine Biology, University of Portsmouth, UK and PhD in Aquaculture from the Institute of Aquaculture at Stirling University, Scotland. 3. I am currently the Auckland Assistant Regional Manager at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited (NIWA), with specific responsibility for the operations management of NIWA s Northland Marine Research Centre located at Station Road, Ruakaka (Bream Bay Facility or the site). I have held this position for five years. 4. In my role I am charged with the operations management and strategic development of the site, managing staff and facilities to deliver on NIWA s mission to conduct leading environmental science to enable the sustainable management of natural resources for New Zealand and the planet. 5. Prior to my current role at NIWA I was the National Centre Leader for Fisheries and Aquaculture and prior to that a research scientist in NIWA s aquaculture group. Purpose and scope of evidence 6. The purpose of this evidence is to explain why NIWA is concerned that proposed plan change 87 (PC87) may adversely affect the future of our operation and the benefits it offers to Northland and New Zealand. 7. This evidence will address: a) the history of the site and the surrounding area; b) the current NIWA operation at the Bream Bay site; c) planned future development of the Bream Bay facility; d) NIWA s concerns about the implications of PC87 on our current operations and future development; and e) the changes NIWA is seeking to the plan change.

4 4 HISTORY 8. The NIWA site is the area enclosed in RED located on the land bordered by Station Road and Te One Street in Ruakaka, as shown on Figure 1 below (Pink line PC87 line designation and Blue line Business 4 designation). 9. NIWA has occupied the site since 2002 initially under lease from the then owners Mighty River Power (MRP) and subsequently as owner after NIWA purchased the site in The 8.4 hectares NIWA now owns was part of a larger 42 hectare plot of land owned by MRP and the balance of the land was recently sold to the Office of Treaty Settlements. 10. Since the 1960 s the site has been used for industrial purposes. Initially the site was developed by the Electricity Corporation New Zealand (ECNZ) to build key power station infrastructure for New Zealand. The land was heavily developed and at its peak contained two power stations, extensive warehousing, service buildings, roading, internal light rail and even housing for key personnel at the southern end of the property adjacent to Ruakaka village. 11. To create the flat area required for the site, the natural landscape of low lying sand dunes was levelled, pushing the sand east toward the shoreline and west toward the area now occupied by the supermarket in Ruakaka. The NIWA owned portion of that larger property was used to site four large fuel storage tanks, two of which are now located next to the road just before the refinery. When the fuel tanks were removed, the area was dressed with a layer of sand but the extensive foundations for fuel tanks were left in situ and can be seen whenever site excavations are carried out. Also

5 5 covering this area is an extensive earth net of sizable copper wire cables which were required for the power station when it was in operation but which were left behind when it ceased power generation in From then until 2010 support components of the abandoned infrastructure - in particular the synchronous condenser - were used to provide voltage support to Transpower who own and continue to operate the transfer station directly adjacent to the NIWA property shown in the photo above. 12. The entire site was purchased by MRP in 1999 with a view to recommissioning the Marsden B power station to use coal rather than its original oil-fired configuration. 13. In 2002 NIWA began leasing the site from MRP. 14. In 2012 the Marsden B power station, on the land adjacent to NIWA s, was dismantled and shipped to India, followed by the complete demolition of the Marsden A power station in Both operations left behind the exposed foundation mega-structures and sub-surface cooling water galleries deemed too expensive to remove as well as the four large concrete pipelines which extend out into Bream Bay. NIWA recognised the value of the pipeline assets and the exposed foundation platforms to future aquaculture operations and, as noted above, purchased this industrial site in CURRENT OPERATION 15. NIWA, along with commercial tenants on site, have developed approximately five of the 8.4 hectares available. Over the next three years NIWA expects that all or most of the remaining 3.4 hectares will be developed. 16. The Bream Bay Facility is currently the largest aquaculture and marine science facility of its kind in New Zealand, and in my view, also the most fit for purpose, given the availability of land and water supply. Research and Consultancy Activities 17. Over the last 15 years NIWA s activities have covered a wide range of services and research activities to support the aquaculture sector and marine sciences sector in New Zealand. 18. The largest activity continues to be research and development into the hatchery and early on-growing phase for two commercially potent marine finfish, the yellowtail

6 6 kingfish and Hāpuku or groper. NIWA has also carried out extensive research and opportunity assessment for several other species that are commercially significant for aquaculture including snapper, eel or tuna, butterfish, yellow belly flounder, mussel, oyster, and red and pack horse lobster. 19. To support activities in aquaculture NIWA carries out research into: a) nutrition and feed development for internal and external clients; b) system and technical development for recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS), for our current and future commercial operations; c) waste-water treatment using marine anaerobic digestion systems; d) genetics and selective breeding for NIWA s finfish species; and e) commercial consultancy services for NIWA s partners. This includes the current commercial tenant but also commercial entities and other scientific institutions from abroad who require our facilities and expertise. 20. Other wider marine science activities include research on the impacts of global climate change and ocean acidification, using existing species on site. This research goes beyond the work on bivalves and molluscs into new areas including coastal erosion, biophysical processes, biosecurity and mitigation of invasive species. Use as a Diving Base 21. In addition to research and commercial aquaculture activities the site is used as a base for NIWA s research diving operation. This activity contributes significantly to the monitoring, risk mitigation and deployment of the services supplied by Biosecurity New Zealand, tasked with the constant vigilance of New Zealand s coastal waters to identify and prevent or mitigate biological threats. Commercial Tenant 22. The current commercial tenant on site, Moana Ltd (New Zealand s largest fisheries and aquaculture company shown

7 7 on Figure 1 above bordered in BLACK), leases two hectares from NIWA and produces 100 tonnes of pāua annually. Over the next three years Moana Ltd plan to double their production, to meet the growing demand for this iconic seafood product. Current Employment 23. Total employment combining both NIWA and Moana Ltd personnel is currently 60 full time equivalent employees. This employment is dominated by Ruakaka locals. 24. The number of personnel is expected to increase by at least 50% over the next three years (due to the planned expansions), with seasonal increases of 10% to 20% made up of visiting students and scientists from New Zealand and abroad. Other Contributions 25. NIWA currently spend around $3 million per year on the Bream Bay Facility, with Moana Ltd spending several million on the pāua facility. The planned new fish farm expansion will be a $35 million per annum operation. 26. In addition, NIWA offers a programme of student training in aquaculture from Bachelor and Masters of Science to Doctorate level both nationally and internationally. 27. NIWA also has an MOU with Patuharakeke hapu one component of which is to seek opportunities for members of the hapu to become involved in its operations. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 28. The importance of developing aquaculture to the Northland Region was recognised in the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan (February 2016), where aquaculture and in particular the Kingfish farm development was recognised as a priority area of opportunity NIWA has commenced a programme of significant infrastructure investment (some $5.6 million) to develop the site in order to fully enable NIWA s research activities in 1 Section 3.2, page 5 and section 5.2 page 16 of the Economic Action Plan. Available from: Prosperity-Roadmap-February Web.pdf?mtime=

8 8 aquaculture and marine sciences, and the endeavours of its existing (Moana Ltd) and planned commercial partners. 30. NIWA is well down the track to be able to engage a commercial partner to make use of its technology developed for the production of kingfish. NIWA has earmarked 2.5 hectares for development of a recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) facility and associated infrastructure (including roading, water and wastewater treatment, seawater supply, water discharge and storage/office space), with the option to increase the footprint if required. The available technology is a direct derivation from NIWA s extensive publicly funded research to develop new high value aquaculture species opportunities for New Zealand s aquaculture sector. The opportunity is sizable and NIWA expects that it would add in excess of $35 million dollars per annum to the Northland economy directly through kingfish sales. It would also support industries such as trades, catering, material supplies, and feed manufacture which are all expected to flourish as a direct result of NIWA s planned investment in facilities and science. 31. Based on current projections, the RAS facility install and infrastructure upgrades are expected to be complete by March 2018, with the commercial entity marketing its first farm-grown kingfish by over the next two to five years. CONCERNS WITH PC NIWA s concerns with PC87 are that it will inappropriately constrain the current operations of the site as well as the planned future development and the economic and scientific benefits flowing from those activities. In particular I am concerned that investment in our operations will be put at risk if a fully notified consent is required for required maintenance works and our planned development works given the delays, cost and inherent uncertainty of outcome associated with such a process. 33. I do not consider that this is an appropriate or necessary outcome given: a) The site is designated Business 4 in line with the area and neighbouring properties. There is an expectation of reasonable commercial/industrial use in line with that zoning and the applicable standards.

9 9 b) The site was heavily modified from its natural state due to the work carried out by ECNZ in the early 1960 s to develop the vast power station infrastructure which continued to operate until It is by no means a pristine site. c) Before developing the site, NIWA carried out an extensive and careful assessment of several properties around New Zealand, using criteria based on suitable availability of industrial land, available water supply coupled with the greatest potential for local employment and social development. The Marsden power station site met all those criteria and was supported by regional and local government - through the granting of consents as well as subsequently through the Te Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Development Plan mentioned above. Based on all these factors, NIWA committed to the development of operations at the Ruakaka site. d) NIWA and Moana Ltd s ability to maintain their existing infrastructure will be affected by PC87. Further, the development plans of NIWA and its current partners and the involvement of future commercial entities in the planned development is now put at risk due to the uncertainty, delay and cost of resource consenting processes. WHAT NIWA IS SEEKING 34. NIWA would like the plan change to be amended: a) to better recognise the existing highly modified nature of the site; b) to better recognise the regional and national significance of the Bream Bay facility; c) to better align with the economic development priority areas (which include aquaculture) in the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan; d) to better provide for the Bream Bay Facility s current operation as well as the planned future development; and e) to recognise the significant contribution the Bream Bay Facility s scientific endeavours make to

10 10 developing new high value species for the aquaculture sector. 35. The specific changes that NIWA is seeking to PC 87 s provisions are detailed in the evidence of Dr Philip Mitchell. PLANNERS REPORT 36. NIWA is pleased to see that the planners report has recommended changes to better recognise the highly modified and commercial/industrial nature of the land zoned business 4 and the significance of the Bream Bay facility. 37. In particular NIWA supports the changes which adopt the amendments NIWA proposes and/or proposes other changes with similar effect. 38. However, NIWA considers further changes are necessary to ensure that the plan change is appropriate for both its current operation and planned development. The detail of these changes is set out in the evidence of Dr Mitchell. CONCLUSIONS 39. There is at present a window of opportunity in terms of emergent aquaculture markets. NIWA s, and indeed New Zealand s, ability to capitalise on this opportunity, and secure investment depends on the ability for organisations such as NIWA to be nimble in the development and reconfiguration of existing facilities. 40. What we need from the plan is more appropriate recognition of the highly modified nature of site, underlying heavy industrial zoning and the need to provide for the continued operation and development of the Bream Bay Facility which has local regional and national significance. This significance is firmly rooted in the ability of NIWA s facility to continue to provide a base of operations and expertise for aquaculture, marine science and the prudent and effective development and use of freshwater resources, cornerstones of Northlands future success. Dr Michael Bruce 23 June 2017

11 BEFORE THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS WHANGAREI IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) AND IN THE MATTER of Proposed Plan Change 87 Coastal Areas to the Whangarei District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR PHILIP HUNTER MITCHELL ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF WATER AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH LIMITED Vicki Morrison-Shaw PO Box 1585 Shortland Street AUCKLAND 1140 Solicitor on the record Vicki Morrison-Shaw (09)

12 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 6 Qualifications and experience 6 Involvement in the Project 6 Code of conduct 7 Purpose and scope of evidence 7 PC EXISTING ENVIRONMENT... 9 Current Whangarei District Plan provisions 9 NIWA Site under PC RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS CA.1 Coastal Area Description and Expectations CA.1 Coastal Area Objectives and Policies CA.2- CA.4 Coastal Area - Landuse Rules PLANNERS REPORT SUBMISSION POINTS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE S42A REPORT Reverse Sensitivity 16 Permitted Activities 19 Existing Pipeline Infrastructure Activities 21 Summary 24 STATUTORY ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ATTACHMENT 1 WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL OPERATIVE PLANNING MAP NO ATTACHMENT 2 WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 87, MAP NO ATTACHMENT 3 - WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL PROPOSED PLANNING MAP, MAP NO ATTACHMENT 4 NIWA S PROPOSED RELIEF NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE S42A REPORT

13 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited (NIWA) operates an aquaculture and marine science research and development facility at 33 Station Road, Ruakaka (the NIWA site). The NIWA site is approximately 8.4ha in size and includes four underground pipelines which traverse from the site through the adjacent coastal sand dune area out into the coastal marine environment of Bream Bay. 2. The facility is recognised as the largest of its kind in the country and its proximity to the coastal environment is key to its current and future operations. The NIWA site is located within the Business 4 zone of the Operative Whangarei District Plan (WDP) which provides for activities associated with commercial and heavy industry in the Whangarei district. Under this zoning, NIWA s current and future activities at the site are generally provided for as permitted activities. 3. The NIWA site is also identified as a significant contributor to the local and regional economy that should be developed for the benefit of the region in the long-term. 4. Under the Proposed Plan Change 87 Coastal Area to the Whangarei District Plan (PC 87) - the general purpose of which is to protect the values of the coastal area through the provision of a Coastal Area Resources overlay including associated objectives, policies and rules - the NIWA site falls within the Coastal Area with the four underground pipelines being located in the High Natural Character area. 5. NIWA has lodged both a Primary and Further Submission on PC 87 which identifies the need for PC 87 to: (a) (b) (c) (d) Better recognise the existing highly modified nature of the NIWA site; Recognise the regional and national significance of their Bream Bay facility with regard to aquaculture and marine science; Better align with the economic development priority areas (which include aquaculture) in the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan; Better provide for the Bream Bay facility s current operations as well as planned future development; and

14 4 (e) Recognise the significant contribution the Bream Bay facility s scientific endeavours make to developing new high value species for the aquaculture sector. 6. NIWA requested a number of amendments to address the matters raised in their submissions. 7. Following the close of submissions, the Whangarei District Council (WDC) released the Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Area, Section 42A Hearing Report, June 2017(s42A Report). This sets out the WDC s recommendations on the submissions received on PC The s42a Report accepted some of the relief sought by NIWA, particularly regarding the recognition of commercial and industrial activities. NIWA considers that further amendments to PC 87 are necessary to appropriately recognise and provide for the existing, lawfully established activities, and future activities, noting that they have a functional need to be located adjacent to the coastal environment. 9. The additional relief sought, as outlined in this brief of evidence, primarily relates to : (a) Reverse sensitivity effects on the NIWA site and other existing land use activities in the underlying Business 4 zone; (b) Inclusion of earthworks activities, construction, maintenance and upgrading of buildings and structures associated with the NIWA site, and other commercial and industrial developments within the Coastal Area, as permitted activities; and (c) Provision for minor earthworks, and disturbance of the Coastal Area associated with any maintenance, upgrades and / or replacement of NIWA s existing four pipelines which are located within the coastal sand dune area and the High Natural Character area adjacent to the NIWA site. 10. In addition to the amendments to PC 87 recommended in the s42 Report, I consider that the additional amendments outlined in my evidence are necessary to ensure that NIWA s existing and future operations at their Bream Bay site will be appropriately protected and provided for.

15 5 11. Further, the proposed amendments to the WDP will not result in an activity status that will be more restrictive than that which is already provided for in the underlying zone rules of the WDP. 12. Overall, I consider that: (a) (b) (c) The provision for, and protection of, NIWA s activities, including future developments at the site, will provide significant local and regional benefits in terms of employment and the economy; The proposed amendments to PC 87 will ensure that any potential adverse effects can be appropriately controlled; and The relief sought is consistent with the overall direction of the relevant statutory planning documents.

16 6 INTRODUCTION Qualifications and experience 1. My full name is Philip Hunter Mitchell. 2. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) and Doctor of Philosophy, both from the University of Canterbury. 3. I am a founding Director of Mitchell Daysh Limited, an environmental consultancy practice with offices in Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Taupo, Napier, Wellington and Dunedin, which was established in October Previously I was a Director of Mitchell Partnerships Limited, which I founded in July 1997, and prior to that I was the Managing Director of Kingett Mitchell & Associates Ltd, a firm that I co-founded in I am a past president and a founding executive committee member of the Resource Management Law Association, a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and in 2015 was a recipient of the New Zealand Planning Institute s Distinguished Service Award. 5. I have practised in the field of resource management for the past 30 years during which time I have had a lead resource management role in many significant projects throughout New Zealand, including a significant number in the coastal environment. 6. My principal areas of practice are providing resource management advice to the private and public sectors, facilitating public consultation processes, undertaking planning analyses, managing resource consent acquisition projects and developing resource consent conditions. I also regularly act as a Hearings Commissioner and am accredited as a Hearing Chair. Involvement in the Project 7. I was engaged in May 2017 by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited (NIWA) to provide planning advice in relation to Proposed Plan Change 87 Coastal Areas to the Whangarei District Plan (PC 87). 8. I have prepared this statement of evidence at the request of NIWA. 9. In preparing this evidence I have reviewed the following:

17 7 (a) NIWA s Primary Submission on PC 87 dated 6 November 2016; (b) (c) NIWA s Further Submission on PC 87 dated 13 January 2016; Plan Change 87, Coastal Area, Section 32 Evaluation Report, June 2016 (s32 Report); (d) Part 1 Proposed Plan Changes 85, 85A D, 86A & B, 87, 102 and 114 General Topics, Section 42A Hearing Report, June 2017 (s42a General Report); and (e) Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Area, Section 42A Hearing Report, June 2017(s42A Report). Code of conduct 10. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the 1 December 2014 Environment Court Practice Note. I agree to comply with this Code. This evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express. Purpose and scope of evidence 11. In my evidence I will: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Provide an overview of PC 87 and what it seeks to achieve; Summarise the existing environment as it relates to NIWA s Bream Bay site (the NIWA site) under the current district planning framework and detail the implications PC 87 has on it; Outline NIWA s key concerns about PC 87 and the relief sought; Summarise the s42a Report as it relates to the NIWA submissions, identifying where NIWA s concerns have been addressed; Identify where further relief is needed including justification for this relief;

18 8 (f) (g) Provide a high level summary of the statutory considerations; and Provide a conclusion. PC PC 87 is part of the Whangarei District Council s (WDC) Part 7 Rural Plan Changes process that was notified in August Section 1.2 of the s32 Report provides an overview and description of the background of PC 87 which the Panel will be familiar with. 14. To briefly summarise, the intention of PC 87 is to protect the values of the coastal area through the provision of a Coastal Area Resources overlay within the Operative Whangarei District Plan (WDP). This area includes both High Natural Character (HNC) and Outstanding Natural Character (ONC) areas, and replaces the previous Coastal Countryside Environment zone under the WDP. 15. Paragraph 32 of the s32 Report identifies that the mapping used for PC 87 is based on the Regional Policy Statement for Northland, May 2016 (RPS) maps, which map the Coastal Environment and HNC and ONC areas defined using the criteria outlined in Appendix 1 of the RPS. I consider that this approach is appropriate and I concur with the statement in paragraph 32 of the s32 Report stating: that adopting this mapping in the WDP is consistent with the NZCPS, the RPS and the purpose of the RMA. 16. PC 87 provides objectives and policies, and land use rules for the Coastal Area. 17. With regard to the planning hierarchy of considerations, paragraph 34 of the s32 Report states: the proposed CA overlay applies to all underlying zones expect where specified in a rule. 18. NIWA lodged Primary Submission (#542) and Further Submission (#X-372 and X-502 to X-512) to PC 87.

19 9 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 19. The evidence of Dr Michael Bruce 1 provides an overview of NIWA s current operations on-site and the planned development for the NIWA site. Of particular relevance are the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) The NIWA site is a research and development facility for aquaculture and marine science and is the largest facility of its kind in the country; The NIWA site is fit for purpose given its proximity to the coastal environment and the availability of land and water supply; The land has been used for industrial purposes since the 1960s and was previously part of the Mighty River Power power station; Due to its past land use, the site is highly modified; and (e) The site contains remaining power station infrastructure, in particular the four underground pipelines out into Bream Bay, which have been identified by NIWA as having long-term benefits for future developments at the site supporting aquaculture and marine farming activities. Current Whangarei District Plan provisions 20. The NIWA site is approximately 8.4 ha located at 33 Station Road, Ruakaka, and is zoned Business 4 under the WDP. The site is shown in Whangarei District Council Operative Planning Map No 55 provided as Attachment As shown on in Attachment 1, the NIWA site is located approximately 80 m west of the Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) and is bordered by the Open Space zone to the south, east and west, and a mix of Business 2 and Business 4 to the north. 22. Chapter 42 of the WDP describes Business 4 zone as: It includes the heavy industrial areas of the District. In accordance with the nature of the heavy industrial activities within this Environment, the threshold levels are higher than other Business Environments. 1 Statement of Evidence of Dr Michael Bruce, paragraph 8-31

20 Under the Business 4 Zone Activity Rule Table, the existing activities at the NIWA site are provided for as permitted activities 2 and I note the intention of the permissive rule status is: The Business 4 Environment needs to provide an environment in which heavy industry can function effectively, and which ensures that public health and safety is not compromised by inappropriate location of sensitive uses. 24. Any future construction and expansion works within the NIWA site (including the planned Kingfish development) 3 would also likely be considered as permitted activities under the WDP, provided compliance with the various criteria outlined in Rules (General Activities) and (Building Rules) was achieved. 25. Given the general nature of the NIWA activities on-site and the future activities identified by Dr Bruce, I consider that NIWA would typically be able to comply with the Business 4 permitted activity criteria thus enabling the proposed future growth / development on-site to be undertaken without the need for resource consents under the WDP. I note that there are other sections of the WDP, and regional consenting requirements, which would also need to be complied with however, I have not considered these as part of this evidence as they are not directly related to PC Under the WDP, the underlying Environment Rules which relate to the individual zones must be considered alongside any Resource Area Rules 4 and the most restrictive rule status then applies. Currently, the NIWA site does not fall within a Resource Area under the WDP. NIWA Site under PC Under PC 87, the majority of the NIWA site is located within the Coastal Area in the Whangarei District Council Proposed Plan Changes 87, Map No 55 (Refer to Attachment 2). 28. While the NIWA site is not located within any other specific overlay under PC 87, the strip of coastal land between the 2 Whangarei District Plan - Chapter 42, Rule Activities Generally 3 Statement of Evidence of Dr Michael Bruce, paragraph The Resource Area Rules apply to areas of the District which have particular characteristics, values and qualities that require special management to protect these features, and to control activities that would adversely affect them.

21 11 NIWA site and MHWS, through which the four underground pipelines pass, is identified as an area of HNC. 29. I note that the underlying zone requirements (Business 4)are still relevant for consideration for any activities occurring at the NIWA site under the WDP as identified in the last paragraph of CA.1.1 Description and Expectations which states: The objectives, policies and rules for the Coastal Area as set out below apply in addition to the rules for the underlying Environments 30. Further, while PC 87 does not capture activities within this overlay, the Whangarei District Council Proposed Planning Map, Map No. 55 (Refer to Attachment 3) identifies the strip of coastal land as an Outstanding Natural Landscape. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS 31. As stated in the evidence of Dr Bruce 5, NIWA considers that PC 87 needs to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Better recognise the existing highly modified nature of the NIWA site; Recognise the regional and national significance of their Bream Bay facility with regard to aquaculture and marine science; Better align with the economic development priority areas (which include aquaculture) in the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan; Better provide for the Bream Bay facility s current operations as well as planned future development; and Recognise the significant contribution the Bream Bay facility s scientific endeavours make to developing new high value species for the aquaculture sector. 32. NIWA s Primary Submission (#542), seeks the following decision from WDC: (a) That the description and expectations, objectives and policies in CA.1 be amended to more appropriately recognise and provide for the ongoing 5 Statement of Evidence of Dr Michael Bruce, paragraph 34

22 12 operation, maintenance and upgrade of existing developments, activities and uses in the coastal area and those activities which have a functional need to locate there (Submission #542/1); and (b) The restriction on earthworks within the coastal area (Rule CA.2.3.2) be amended to specifically exempt earthworks associated with any lawfully established use within the Business 4 environment (Submission #542/2). 33. These matters are further addressed in NIWA s Further Submission (X-372 and X502 to X-512) and the specific amendments sought by NIWA are as follows: CA.1 Coastal Area Description and Expectations (a) (Submission #X-504) CA.1.1 Description and Expectations Amend to include words along the following lines: It is also recognised that a number of activities and development have a functional need to locate in the Coastal Area. CA.1 Coastal Area Objectives and Policies (b) (Submission #X-503) CA.1.2 Objective 11 amend to provide for the existing activities within the Coastal Area as well as recognising them as follows: Recognise and provide for existing development (c) (d) (e) (Submission #X-510) CA.1.2 Objectives provide an additional objective addressing reverse sensitivity effects as they relate to sites of local or regional economic significance (which includes the NIWA site); (Submission #X-372) CA.1.3 Policy 3 - amend to recognise that only significant adverse impacts are required to be avoided, not all impacts ; (Submission #X-503) CA.1.3 Policy 23 amend to recognise and provide for the ongoing operation, maintenance and upgrade of existing developments, activities and uses in the Coastal Area as follows: To recognise that there can be a functional need to locate, operate, maintain and expand infrastructure, commercial or industrial developments and facilities in

23 13 certain locations in the Coastal Area proximate to existing infrastructure, developments and facilities. CA.2- CA.4 Coastal Area - Landuse Rules (f) (Submission #X-507) CA2.2 Permitted Activities amend to specifically include activities associated with existing lawfully established land uses within the Coastal Area as follows: 1. Construction of new non-habitable buildings ancillary to rural production, commercial, industrial or network utility activities outside a High or Outstanding Natural Character Area is a permitted activity. 2. Maintenance and minor upgrading of buildings and structures associated with public parks and reserves, commercial or industrial activities, network utilities, or community infrastructure is a permitted activity. (g) (Submission #X-510) CA Discretionary Activities inclusion of an additional assessment criterion to address reverse sensitivity effects on existing lawfully established activities from the construction of residential units within the Coastal Area as follows: Construction or external alteration of a residential unit within both the Coastal Area and the Rural Production Environment but outside a High or Outstanding Natural Character Area: d. Proximity of the residential unit to existing commercial or industrial development, facilities, infrastructure or network utilities and the risk of adverse reverse sensitivity effects. (h) (Submission #X-503 and X-509) CA Discretionary Activities amend to specifically exempt earthworks associated with any lawfully established existing use within the Business 4 environment as follows: Earthworks within the Coastal Area but excluding those within the Business 4 zone, where (i) (Submission #X-372) CA Discretionary Activities - amend the criteria to exempt minor activities associated with the existing pipeline infrastructure from the NIWA site to the coastal environment as follows:

24 14 Earthworks within sand dunes, with the exception of earthworks associated with: f. Maintenance, minor upgrading or replacement of existing lawfully established pipeline infrastructure. (j) (Submission #X-372) CA Discretionary Activities - amend the criteria to exempt earthworks minor activities associated with the existing pipeline infrastructure from the NIWA site to the coastal environment as follows: Earthworks within a High Natural Character Area where: c. The earthworks are not associated with: i. The repair and maintenance of fences, utility connections, existing underground pipelines, driveways, parking areas (k) (Submission X-372) CA Non Complying Activities amend to exempt minor earthworks activities associated with the existing pipeline infrastructure from the NIWA site to the coastal environment as follows: Earthworks with a volume greater than 150m 3 within an Outstanding Natural Character Area, unless the work is directly associated with: a. The repair and maintenance of fences, utility connections, existing underground pipelines, driveways, parking areas 34. The adoption of the above relief is intended to secure the existing and future activities at the NIWA site while also protecting the specific values PC 87 identifies. PLANNERS REPORT 35. The s42a Report outlines WDC s recommendations on the submissions received on PC In respect of NIWA s submission points, the s42a Report recommends as follows:

25 15 (a) Accepted in Part Submission Point 542/1 6 to include the following wording within the first paragraph of CA.1.1 Description and Expectations: Over the years, the Coastal Area has been substantially modified, with coastal forests, dune vegetation and indigenous wetlands being largely replaced by productive land, and residential development and industrial developments that rely on their proximity to the coast for their ongoing operations. (b) Accepted Submission Point X relating to Objective CA to include the following wording: Recognise and provide for existing development and regionally significant infrastructure which has a functional or operational need to be located in the Coastal Area. (c) Accepted Submission Point X relating to Objective CA to include the following wording: To recognise that there can be a functional need to locate, operate and maintain infrastructure, commercial and industrial activities in certain locations in the Coastal Area proximate to existing infrastructure, commercial and industrial activities. (d) Accepted Submission Point X relating to Earthworks Rule CA to include the following wording in the rule: Earthworks within the Coastal Area but outside a Business 4 Environment or Strategic Rural Industrial 37. While not specifically referencing the NIWA submission, paragraphs of the s42a Report address the concerns associated with the relief sought in paragraph 33(c) above. The s42a Report recommends that Policy CA be amended to state: To maintain natural character values by locating and designing buildings to avoid adverse impacts effects on High or Outstanding Natural Character Areas and to avoid significant adverse effects on High Natural Character Areas. 6 Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Are, Section 42A Hearing Report Paragraph 52 7 Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Are, Section 42A Hearing Report Paragraph 96 8 Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Area, Section 42A Hearing Report Paragraph Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Area, Section 42A Hearing Report Paragraph 236

26 I consider that the above relief goes some way to providing for, and recognising, commercial / industrial activities within the Coastal Area and will assist in enabling sustainable development and economic growth for these activities, including NIWA s operations, as is consistent with Section 4.4 Economy of the Whangarei Growth Strategy Sustainable Futures 30/50 (30/50). However, there is still further relief sought which is considered necessary to appropriately provide for, NIWA s existing and future activities at the site. These are discussed below. SUBMISSION POINTS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE S42A REPORT 39. The following submission points have not been accepted in the s42a Report: (a) Reverse sensitivity effects on the NIWA site and other existing land use activities within the underlying Business 4 zone, as outlined in Paragraphs 33(c) and (g) above; (b) Inclusion of earthworks activities, construction, maintenance and upgrading of buildings and structures associated with the NIWA site, and other commercial and industrial developments within the Coastal Area, as permitted activities, as outlined in Paragraph 33(f) above; and (c) Provision for minor earthworks, and disturbance of the Coastal Area associated with any maintenance, upgrades and / or replacement of NIWA s existing four pipelines which are located within the coastal sand dune area and the HNC area adjacent to the NIWA site, as outlined in Paragraph 33(i) - (k) above. Reverse Sensitivity 40. Paragraphs , 207 and 212 of the s42a Report considers Radio New Zealand s submission requesting a new objective and additional assessment criterion regarding reverse sensitivity effects insofar as they relate to existing lawfully established activities. 41. The s42a Report 10 concluded that: 10 Part 4 Proposed Plan Change 87, Coastal Area, Section 42A Hearing Report Paragraph 102 and 212

27 reverse sensitivity effects are best managed through provisions in the underlying Environments. These provisions will apply in addition to the Resource Area provisions. The CA provisions are intended to manage effects on the CA rather than land use conflicts between activities. In my opinion introducing reverse sensitivity provision to the Resource Area would create unnecessary duplication in the WDP I consider that potential reverse sensitivity effects are more appropriately dealt with in the underlying Environment provisions. 42. While it is good planning practice to minimise unnecessary duplication when drafting planning documents, it is also important to provide sufficient recognition of existing and future activities particularly where these activities have a functional need to be located in a specific place, or are locally or regionally significant. These activities may take the form of industrial activities located within heavy industrial zones, network utilities and infrastructure, and / or activities which have been targeted as economic growth areas for the wider communities in which they are located which therefore have an important role in the long-term economic development of the Northland Region. 43. While taking into consideration the current recognition of reverse sensitivity provided within the WDP (as outlined below), I consider that the NIWA site - along with many others within the Coastal Area under PC 87 - need to be specifically protected from reverse sensitivity effects. This is consistent with the direction within the wider statutory framework which is discussed further below. 44. The WDP already acknowledges the need to protect existing land uses from reverse sensitivity effects. Policy Reverse Sensitivity and Incompatible Land Use Part C Policy Built Form and Development of the WDP states the need to avoid such effects within the region. Additionally, Section 6.6 Anticipated Environmental Results Part C Policy Built Form and Development of the WDP identifies that avoiding such effects needs to be provided for through objectives, policies and methods within the WDP. Policy and the relevant part of Section 6.6 state: Policy Reverse Sensitivity and Incompatible Land Use i) To ensure that land use activities, subdivision and development are designed and located so as to avoid or mitigate conflicts between incompatible land uses.

28 18 ii) To facilitate separation of incompatible land uses through location of District Plan Environments and Resource Areas, and specific requirements for land use activities. Explanation and Reasons: Reverse sensitivity issues arise where different land uses occur in close proximity (for example: residential and rural, residential and commercial, residential and industrial. As Whangarei s urban area expands conflict between different types of land use has the potential to increase. This can affect the potential uses and users of the land. Council needs to recognise the adverse effects that reverse sensitivity can have on amenity values, and the ability of land owners to utilise their land to its full potential. 6.6 Anticipated Environmental Results The following results are expected to be achieved by the foregoing objectives, policies and methods: Avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects and appropriate separation of incompatible land uses. Avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects. 45. Further, with regard to reverse sensitivity effects in the underlying zone, Section 42.5 Principal Reasons for Rules / Explanations - Part D, 42 Business 4 Environment Rules of the WDP states: Activities Generally The Business 4 Environment needs to provide an environment in which heavy industry can function effectively, and which ensures that public health and safety is not compromised by inappropriate location of sensitive uses. Examples of sensitive uses are residential activities, care of elderly or sick people, education or care of children, places of assembly and retail activities. The rule is intended to indicate the activities that require resource consent due to their sensitivity to the effects of heavy industrial activities. 46. In addition to the WDP, Objective 3.6 of the RPS identifies that there needs to be protection of key activities which have positive economic effects to the region from reverse sensitivity effects particularly sub-division and residential development. The Explanation in Objective 3.6 states: The establishment of any sensitive activity in close proximity to the above mentioned activities, without appropriate mitigation, has the potential to cause reverse sensitivity effects. In Northland, the activities that are most likely to give rise to these effects are residential subdivision and development..

29 19 Primary production, commercial and industrial activities, mining and infrastructure have been highlighted because of their particular contribution to the economy (actual and potential) and their sensitivity to the impacts of reverse sensitivity and sterilisation [Emphasis added] 47. I consider that the proposed relief sought below addresses the matter of reverse sensitivity with regard to the NIWA site and the wider region. I consider that granting of such relief would be consistent with the direction of the RPS and the WDP. 48. On that basis I propose that an additional provision be added to CA1.2 Objectives as follows: 13. To protect existing commercial and industrial developments and facilities, infrastructure and network utilities from adverse reverse sensitivity effects. And an additional Criterion be added to Rule CA.2.3.1: Construction or external alteration of a residential unit within both the Coastal Area and the Rural Production Environment but outside a High or Outstanding Natural Character Area: Permitted Activities d. Proximity of the residential unit to existing commercial or industrial development, facilities, infrastructure or network utilities and the risk of adverse reverse sensitivity effects. 49. With regard to Rule CA.2.2.1, paragraph 199 of the s42a Report states: This rule recognises the importance of rural production activities and seeks to allow them to continue unencumbered by the resource consent process. I consider that the benefits of allowing rural production activities to operate unencumbered by the resource consent process outweigh the risk of adverse effects on the CA. This rule continues the status quo in the CCE, where only residential units require resource consent. The addition of a new definition for rural production activities will assist in clarifying when buildings meet the permitted activity standards. 50. Similarly, the s32 Report states: It is considered that the benefits of allowing farming activities to operate unencumbered by the resource consent process outweigh the risk of adverse effects on the coastal environment 51. I consider that those same arguments apply to the commercial and industrial activities within the Coastal Area and, when considering the aquaculture activities at the NIWA

30 20 site, greater weight should be given to the benefits from this activity given the higher order policy support for activities of this nature within the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) and the RPS as discussed below. 52. The recognition of aquaculture activities undertaken at the NIWA site as commercial and industrial activities, is consistent with the statutory direction provided in Policy 8 Aquaculture of the NZCPS: Policy 8 Recognise the significant existing and potential contribution of aquaculture to the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities by: a) including in regional policy statements and regional coastal plans provision for aquaculture activities in appropriate places in the coastal environment, recognising that relevant considerations may include: i. the need for high water quality for aquaculture activities; and ii. the need for land-based facilities associated with marine farming; b) taking account of the social and economic benefits of aquaculture, including any available assessments of national and regional economic benefits; and c) ensuring that development in the coastal environment does not make water quality unfit for aquaculture activities in areas approved for that purpose. [Emphasis added] I also note that Policy 8 has been given effect to by Policy 4.9 of the RPS. 53. I consider that PC 87 must provide appropriate recognition of existing commercial and industrial sites, including the NIWA site, and must sufficiently provide for the ability to utilise existing sites within appropriately zoned areas with minimal restrictions. This approach is consistent with the direction of Policy 8 of the NZCPS and in turn Policy 4.9 of the RPS. 54. Therefore, I consider that the permitted activity Rule CA should be amended to expressly provide for commercial and industrial areas as follows: Construction of new non-habitable buildings ancillary to rural production, commercial, industrial or network utility activities outside a High or Outstanding Natural Character Area is a permitted activity

31 For the same reasons, I consider that Rule CA should also be amended to provide for commercial and industrial activities as follows: Maintenance and minor upgrading of buildings and structures associated with public parks and reserves, commercial or industrial activities, network utilities, or community infrastructure is a permitted activity. 56. I consider that this approach is also consistent with the permissive nature of the rules for the same activities within the underlying Business 4 zone as referenced in paragraph 24 above. Existing Pipeline Infrastructure Activities 57. The four underground pipelines on the NIWA site that pass from the site below the sand dune area into the coastal marine area in Bream Bay are critical to NIWA s current and future operations. 58. I note that the future development of the NIWA site is reliant on this infrastructure and development of the NIWA site is in line with the region wide direction identified in the Te Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Development Plan, as discussed in Dr Bruce s evidence As identified in paragraph 28 above, the four pipelines are located within the proposed HNC area under the Coastal Area overlay. Under the proposed wording of the Coastal Area Landuse, High Natural Character Area Landuse and Outstanding Natural Character Area rules, earthworks and disturbance activities associated with NIWA s existing pipeline infrastructure is not explicitly exempt from requiring consent and therefore, would be considered as either a discretionary or non-complying activity under the proposed rules. 60. Paragraph 43 of the s32 Report identifies that Objective 6 of the NZCPS recognises the need for people to be able to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing through subdivision, use, and development. Objective 6 specifically identifies that there needs to be recognition that: functionally some uses and developments can only be located on the coast or in the coastal marine area 11 Statement of Evidence of Dr Michael Bruce, paragraph 28

32 22 This is the case with the activities and infrastructure at the NIWA site, including the pipelines to the coastal marine area. 61. Further, as mentioned in paragraph 58 above, Te Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Development Plan (section 5.2) identifies the activities at the NIWA site (with respect to the commercial Kingfish production) as a key work stream for the development of the aquaculture sector in the region. 62. In order to give effect to both the NZCPS and RPS 12 and the direction identified in the Te Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Development Plan, PC 87 needs to provide for appropriate recognition and protection of lawfully established activities / infrastructure which has a functional need to be within the Coastal Area. 63. With regard to Coastal Area Landuse, I consider earthworks associated with the lawfully established infrastructure should be specifically provided for as one of the exemptions in Rule CA I note that paragraph 233 of the s42a Report discusses the New Zealand Defence Force s submission that requested temporary military training activities be expressly exempted from the Coastal Area rules that relate to works within the sand dunes. The s42a Report accepted that submission and recommended that Rule CA be amended to include temporary military activities and stated: I agree that some minor earthworks to sand dunes may be acceptable to provide for TMT in the CA. I consider these activities will happen very rarely 65. I consider this reasoning applies equally to NIWA s pipeline infrastructure and on that basis I propose the following addition to the list of the exemptions in Rule CA.2.3.3: Earthworks within sand dune, with the exception of earthworks associated with: f. Maintenance, minor upgrading or replacement of existing lawfully established pipeline infrastructure. 66. With regard to the earthworks associated with maintenance and repairs within the HNC and ONC areas, the rules exempt Policy Demonstrate the need to occupy space in the common marine and coastal area - Regional Policy Statement for Northland.

33 23 particular activities (including fences, utility connections, driveways, parking areas, effluent disposal systems, existing tracks, swimming pools, dune restoration, etc) from requiring resource consent. NIWA s existing lawfully established pipeline infrastructure is not included within this list. 67. I consider that NIWA s pipelines, and similar infrastructure, should be specifically identified as being exempt from the earthworks rules. Doing so will ensure that existing lawfully established infrastructure (which has a functional need to be located within the coastal area) is recognised in the rules as well as in the objectives and policies of the Coastal Area section of the WDP. 68. I consider that the above approach is consistent with the general statutory direction provided in the NZCPS and the RPS, which is discussed below. 69. When considering minor earthworks that relate to the underground pipelines within the HNC and ONC areas, Policy 13 of the NZCPS is relevant for consideration. This policy identifies that not all effects need to be avoided only those that are deemed to be significant as stated below: Policy 13 Preservation of natural character (1) To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: a) avoid adverse effects of activities on natural character in areas of the coastal environment with outstanding natural character; and b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on natural character in all other areas of the coastal environment; 70. This policy is also given effect to in the RPS through Policy which states: (1) In the coastal environment: a. Avoid adverse effects of subdivision use, and development on the characteristics and qualities which make up the outstanding values of areas of outstanding natural character, outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes. b. Where (a) does not apply, avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse

34 24 effects of subdivision, use and development on natural character, natural features and natural landscapes. Methods which may achieve this include: (ii) In areas of high natural character, minimising to the extent practicable indigenous vegetation clearance and modification (including earthworks / disturbance, structures, discharges and extraction of water) to natural wetlands, the beds of lakes, rivers and the coastal marine area and their margins; and [Emphasis added] 71. As the nature of any earthworks works would only relate to maintenance and repair of the pipeline infrastructure, and be short-term and temporary in nature, these works would not be significant. 72. Therefore, I recommend the following amendments to Rule CA and Rule CA.4.1.1: CA Earthworks within a High Natural Character Area where: c. The earthworks are not associated with: i. The repair and maintenance of fences, utility connections, existing underground pipelines, driveways, parking areas CA Earthworks with a volume greater than 150m3 within an Outstanding Natural Character Area, unless the work is directly associated with: a. The repair and maintenance of fences, utility connections, existing underground pipelines, driveways, parking areas Summary 73. I consider that provision of the relief sought by NIWA as outlined above is appropriate and is consistent with the wider policy direction of the relevant statutory documents. 74. To assist the Panel, I have provide a complete version of the relief sought that was not provided for in the s42a Report as Attachment 4 to this evidence.

35 25 STATUTORY ASSESSMENT 75. Section 6 of the s32 Report provides an overview of the statutory matters that influence the outcome of PC 87 and how the proposed changes give effect to the relevant higher order statutory documents. 76. On the basis that the amendments / relief identified in this evidence is accepted, I consider that the conclusions of the s32 Report are appropriate, being that PC 87: (a) Is consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 and promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical resources 13 ; (b) Is consistent with the provisions of the NZCPS 14 ; (c) (d) (e) Gives effect to the objectives, policies and methods of the RPS 15 ; Is consistent with the key themes of 30/50 16 ; and Gives effects to the anticipated environmental results of the WDP 17. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 77. In addition to the amendments to PC 87 recommended in the s42a Report, I consider that the additional amendments outlined in my evidence are necessary to ensure that NIWA s existing and future operations at their Bream Bay site will be appropriately recognised and provided for. 78. Further, the proposed amendments to the WDP will not result in an activity status that will be more restrictive than that which is already provided for in the underlying zone rules of the WDP. 79. I consider that recognition and provision for the NIWA activities, including future developments at the site, will provide significant local and regional benefits in terms of employment and the economy and that the proposed 13 Plan Change 87: Coastal Area, section 32 Evaluation Report June 2016 Paragraph Plan Change 87: Coastal Area, section 32 Evaluation Report June 2016 Paragraph Plan Change 87: Coastal Area, section 32 Evaluation Report June 2016 Paragraph Plan Change 87: Coastal Area, section 32 Evaluation Report June 2016 Paragraph Plan Change 87: Coastal Area, section 32 Evaluation Report June 2016 Paragraph 57

36 26 amendments will ensure that any potential adverse effects are appropriately controlled. Philip Hunter Mitchell 23 June 2017

37 ATTACHMENT 1 WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL OPERATIVE PLANNING MAP NO 55

38

39 ATTACHMENT 2 WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 87, MAP NO 55

40

41 ATTACHMENT 3 - WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL PROPOSED PLANNING MAP, MAP NO. 55

42