Minutes of an ordinary meeting of the Hearings Committee held in the Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, , The Octagon, Dunedin, on Wednesday 31 August 2016, commencing at 9.00 am
Cr Andrew Noone
Cr Lee Vandervis
Cr Andrew Whiley
Kirstyn Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Advisor), Jeremy Grey (Planner), John Eteuati (Asset Planning Engineer, Water and Waste Services) and Lee Paterson (Geotechnical Engineer, MWH)
Governance Support Officer Wendy Collard
1 RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION LUC 2016-189,
40 BEACH STREET,
The Committee considered an application to undertake earthworks at 40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers.
The Committee was required to make a thorough assessment of the application using the statutory framework of the Resource Management Act 1991.
The applicant was represented by:
· Len Andersen (Legal Counsel)
· Rene Bakx (General Manager, Infrastructure capacity, Port Otago Ltd)
· Geoff Plunket (Chief Executive, Port Otago)
There were two submitters present at the hearing.
· Don Anderson
· Naomi Wilson
The Committee Advisor (Kirstyn Lindsay) advised that Mr Owens has withdrawn his submission on 29 August 2016. The Committee advised that they accepted the withdrawal and that no consideration would be given to it.
Councillor Noone advised that he was a member of the Chalmers Community Board and that had withdrawn from the meeting during the presentation from Port Otago Limited.
Presentation of the Planner’s Report
The Planning Officer (Jeremy Grey) spoke to a summary of his report and provided an overview of the proposal before commenting on the notification of the application and the submissions received.
Mr Grey advised that Resource Consent was sought to undertake earthworks which exceeded the scale thresholds and the permitted proximity of the works to Council-owned infrastructure of the Operative Dunedin City District Plan (the Operative Plan). He commented that the subject site comprised of 1.0878 ha and that the legal road reserve within the area was misaligned with actual road formation and as such, some of the earthworks necessary for the stability management would also occur within road reserve. Mr Grey advised that up to 45,000 m3 of material would be removed, benched terraces would be formed and that the proposed method of works predominantly involved ripping but might require some blasting.
Mr Grey commented that the Proposed Dunedin City District Plan (2GP) was notified on 26 September 2015 but at this time none of the proposed rules were relevant to the proposed activity. He advised that overall, that the proposal was assessed as a restricted discretionary activity.
Mr Grey advised that in his assessment he had considered that the actual and potential effects associated with the proposed activity would likely be no more than minor. However, his position was contingent on strict adherence to recommended conditions of consent. Mr Grey sought further clarification regarding two matters; the first relating to the Council-owned site at 2 Island Terrace and whether the works would encroach onto the land and the second how the works would account for the Council-owned sewer pipe located within the subject site. Subject to these issues being addressed satisfactorily, Mr Grey recommended to the Committee that the consent be granted.
In response to questions regarding the reuse of the spoil, Mr Grey confirmed that it was likely that any reuse would require new consents under the Operative District Plan.
Len Andersen (Legal Counsel) tabled and spoke to his legal submissions. Mr Andersen advised that the purpose of the works was to ensure that the applicant’s operation and public safety was safeguarded from future instability. He commented that currently Beach Street was obstructed by shipping containers put in place to protect road users from further slippage on the site; however the containers reduced the width of the road and redirected traffic onto the railway line.
Mr Andersen commented that the draft conditions as proposed were acceptable to the applicant. He advised that the works would be carried out in accordance with an approved construction management plan, erosion and sediment control plan, stormwater management plan and a traffic management plan. He accepted the conditions which related to noise and blasting. In response to questions, Mr Andersen noted that draft condition 14 which required notice to be given to neighbours of blasting could be further refined to restrict when blasting could occur and advise neighbours of those specific times.
Mr Andersen advised that the landscape management plan had been prepared by Landscape Architect Mike Moore and it was the intention of the applicant to plant the existing benches at the top of the slope that were to be extended by the earthworks and that these were planted in appropriate indigenous species. The slopes below the benches would also be planted in native species and hydro-seeded and left to revegetate naturally.
Mr Andersen commented on the submissions on the application noting Ms Wilson’s concerns regarding the future stability of the slope. He advised that proposed conditions of consent requires the works to be overseen by a suitably qualified engineer to ensure the works were stable and did not create areas of instability on the site or adjacent land. Further to Ms Wilson’s submission, he noted in respect to her concerns regarding replacement planting, that the landscape plan submitted with the application detailed the planting and its maintenance proposed for the site.
Mr Andersen advised that with regard to Mr Don Anderson’s submission regarding the reuse of the spoil material, the applicant was supportive of the reuse of the material for the cycleway should this option be available.
Rene Bakx (General Manager, Infrastructure capacity, Port Otago Ltd) provided a background to the history of the subject site; which included a slope failure in 1999 and remediation works undertaken to correct this. He reaffirmed the need for the works to stabilise Flagstaff Hill. Mr Bakx commented that he considered the proposed works would provide a long-term engineering solution to the current instability of the hillside. He advised that Port Otago Ltd had engaged reputable engineers to assess the site and was confident in the solutions that had been proposed. Mr Bakx acknowledged Mr Don Anderson’s submission regarding the use of the material for the proposed cycleway and commented that Port Otago had been in discussions with the New Zealand Transport Agency with regard to the timing and prospects of the reuse of the material.
In response to questions, Mr Bakx advised that Beach Street would be closed for periods of time but that this would be managed through the traffic management plan which included options to ensure that alternative public access remained available to the boat harbour.
Mr Bakx commented on the Council-owned infrastructure and the property at 2 Island Terrace and clarified that the property at 2 Island Terrace was only affected by a minor degree at the northwest corner of the property. He noted that the stability of the land would not be impacted. Mr Bakx advised that the land was owned by Dunedin City Council and leased by the applicant and the any works located on the land would be subject to lease negotiations. If the Dunedin City Council (as landowner) was not amenable to these works, these could be redesigned to avoid the property which would not be fatal to the application. Mr Bakx noted that there was a swale drain proposed to intercept stormwater and divert it away from the slope face across 2 Island Terrace. While this was the preferred location for the swale, the applicant had engineering advice that it could be relocated outside of the property boundary if necessary but that this would require further modifications to the slope design.
With regard to the impacts of Council owned water and waste infrastructure, Mr Bakx advised that he expected that the sewer pipe which traversed the property would be affected by the excavation and would need to be demolished as a result of the works. He also expected the man hole located in the Island terrace road reserve to be affected. Mr Bakx advised that Water and Waste services had confirmed that the sewer pipe could be decommissioned or vested as private sewer. It was the applicant’s preference that the pipe be removed and capped at the man hole.
Mr Bakx advised that the works were expected to take between 3 and 12 months but this depended on the contractor engaged to run the project, the conditions of consent and weather conditions. He noted that the contractor would be responsible for providing the various site management plans and for adhering to any conditions of consent. In response to questions, Mr Bakx confirmed that it was in the applicant’s best interest to complete the works as quickly as possible. The use of blasting to expedite the works would not be confirmed until a contractor had be confirmed but it was a possibility that blasting would occur. Mr Bakx responded to concerns regarding access to the boat harbour along Beach Street and commented that a condition of consent required a traffic management plan which would address public access along Beach Street.
It was moved (Noone/Vandervis)
"That the meeting be adjourned until 10.55 am."
The meeting adjourned at 10.40 am and reconvened at 10.53 am.
Council Officers Evidence
Lee Paterson (Geotechnical Engineer, MWH) responded to questions regarding the engineering design of the works. Mr Paterson advised that he considered that the design work had been undertaken by a reputable engineering company and conditions of consent accepted by the applicant would require the works to be overseen by a suitably qualified person. He believed that the works would improve the Factor of Safety. With regard to the potential blasting, Mr Paterson commented that he believed that there was the capacity on the site to utilise large machinery which would reduce the need for blasting. When asked about the quality of the spoil material, Mr Paterson confirmed that it was good quality material and could be put to a number of uses, including the cycleway.
Mr John Eteuati (Asset Planning Engineer, Water and Waste Services) responded to regarding Council's foul sewer which traverses the area of works and commented noted that the foul sewer was a virgin pipe and could be decommissioned if required. With regard to the man hole in Island Terrace, Mr Eteuati advised that if this was to be damaged then the applicant would need to relocate this. He commented that in regard to the stormwater and foul sewer pipes in Island Terrace, Water and Waste Services would require these to be filmed prior to the works commencing to establish the condition of the pipes. Water and Waste Services would also require the water pipes in Island Terrace to be pressure tested before the works and inspected to for any leaks after the works to ensure the integrity of these was maintained.
Naomi Wilson spoke to her submission which raised concerns about the ongoing stability of the site, landscape planting, potential damage to her property and prolonged noise effects. Ms Wilson commented that, in her opinion, the stability works were only required due to the poor management of the site by the applicant. She advised that her house had historic value and given its connection with artist, Ralph Hotere, she considered it to be taonga. Ms Wilson advised that she was concerned that the vibration and blasting would adversely affect the house. She highlighted the poor management of the landscape treatment to that portion of the hill that was remediated after the previous slip. She sought reassurance from the Committee that any consent conditions would be carefully monitored and that non-compliance would result in enforcement action.
Don Anderson spoke to his submission and he advised that he was concerned that an opportunity to reuse the spoil from the proposed earthworks was being missed by not diverting the spoil to the proposed cycleway. Mr Anderson showed the Committee a range of photos and gave commentary regarding his preferred route for Sawyers Bay-Port Chalmers leg of the proposed cycleway.
The Planner’s Review of his Recommendation
Mr Grey reviewed his recommendation in light of the evidence presented at the hearing, maintaining his recommendation to grant consent. He commented that a key aspects of the application related to the timing of the works and the timeframes within which the works would be undertaken. He advised that he believed that it was important that the surrounding community remain informed and involved and regular updates should be made to affected parties. Mr Grey considered that the timing of any blasting should be controlled and specific notice of blasting be given to affected parties. Mr Grey noted the concerns raised by Ms Wilson regarding the landscape treatment and determined that the weed control outlined in the landscape plan should also become a specific condition of consent. Mr Grey accepted that the effects of the works on council infrastructure could be managed and that the potential effects on the property at 2 Island Terrace would be best managed through the existing lease.
Applicants Right of Reply
Mr Andersen commented that the timing was dependant on a number of factors and as such it was hard to lock it down definitively. In relation to any potential damage caused to neighbouring properties, Mr Andersen cautioned the Committee to ensure that they did not impose conditions to address issues where reasonable civil remedies were available. He advised that the blasting condition could be tightened to impose more specific timeframes and notice service requirements. Overall, Mr Andersen sought that the consent be granted with conditions.
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
It was moved (Noone/Vandervis):
“That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely, Item 1.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the making of this ruling were as follows:
General subject of each matter to be considered
Reason for making this ruling in relation to each matter.
Ground(s) under section 48 (1) for the passing of this resolution.
Resource Consent Application – 40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers, Dunedin
That a right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the Dunedin City Council in these proceedings.”
MINUTES OF THE NON-PUBLIC PART OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE, HELD IN THE EDINBURGH ROOM, MUNICIPAL CHAMBERS, ON 31 AUGUST 2016, COMMENCING AT 12.40 PM
PRESENT: Councillors Andrew Noone (Chairperson), Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley
IN ATTENDANCE: Kirstyn Lindsay (Senior Planner/Committee Planning Advisor) and Wendy Collard (Governance Support Officer)
RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION – LUC-2016-189, 40 BEACH STREET,
The Committee gave consideration to the Planner’s recommendation and to the points raised by the applicant. A site visit was undertaken during the non-public section of the hearing.
The meeting adjourned at 12.50 pm and reconvened on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 at 9.15 pm.
It was moved (Vandervis/Whiley):
"Pursuant to sections 34A(1) and 104C and after having regard to Part 2 matters and section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Dunedin City Council granted consent to a restricted discretionary activity being to undertake earthworks that would breach the maximum change in ground level and volume of excavation thresholds and boundary and water and waste infrastructure proximity provisions at 40 Beach Street, Port Chalmers, legally described as Lot 1 DP 26574 (CFR-OT18D/5), Sec 466 and 467 SO 21294 Town of Port Chalmers (CFRs OT10C/180 and OT10C/181), along with portions of Aurora and Island Terrace road reserve, subject to conditions imposed under section 108 of the Act as shown below:
1 The proposed activity must be undertaken in general accordance with the site plan, elevations and relevant information, including the Project Specification contained in the report by the report by Opus International Consultants Limited, entitled “Flagstaff Hill Proposed Cut Design North East Slope” dated 1 January 2010, provided with resource consent application LUC-2016-189, received by the Council on 4 May 2016.
2 The consent holder must provide notice to the Resource Consent Monitoring team by email to email@example.com of the start date of the works. The notice must be provided at least five (5) working days before the works were to commence.
3 The consent holder must provide written notice to the neighbouring properties of the start date of the works. The notice must be provided at least five (5) working days before the works were to commence.
4 The consent holder must send by email to firstname.lastname@example.org a progress update at the end of each two month period following commencement of the works. The update must detail the extent of the work already undertaken and give a projection on the earthworks will be complete. The same details must be provided in writing to neighbouring properties, within the same time period.
5 The Consent holder must serve 48-hours’ notice of any blasting to the neighbours and the Council. The notice must give the time that blasting is to occur and the duration of the blasting. No blasting must occur if notice has not been served. Notice to the neighbours must be in a written form and to Council via email to email@example.com.
Engineering and Construction
6 The consent holder must:
a) be responsible for all contracted operations relating to the exercise of the consent; and
b) ensure that all personnel (contractors) working on the site were made aware of the conditions of the consent, had access to the contents of consent documents and to al associated erosion and sediment control plans and methodology; and
c) ensure compliance with land use consent conditions.
7 The consent holder must complete all earthworks within 18 months from when they commenced.
8 The proposed earthworks must be designed, specified and have its construction supervised by a suitably qualified person.
9 The consent holder must prepare a Construction Management Plan, which detailed the construction methodology. Construction Management Plan must include a Construction Programme which must confirm construction timing and details of storage and disposal of excavated material. A copy of the Construction Management Plan must be provided to Resource Consent Monitoring team by email to firstname.lastname@example.org, one month prior to works commencing.
10 A suitably qualified person must be engaged to determine any temporary shoring requirements at the site during earthworks construction and the consent holder must install any temporary shoring recommended.
11 Following completion of the works, certification by a suitably qualified engineer that the worked areas were suitably stable and that additional instability has not been created that could affect the subject site or any adjacent land. The certification must be submitted to Resource Consents Manager within one month of the works being completed.
12 The earthworks must be undertaken with the principles of industry best practice applied at all stages of site development including site stability, stormwater management, traffic management, along with dust and noise controls at the sites.
13 At least one month prior to the works commencing, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan to manage storm water run-off, sedimentation and erosion effects before, during and upon completion of the earthworks, must be submitted to the Resource Consents Manager for approval. These plans might be incorporated into the Construction Management Plan required by Condition 9 above.
14 All measures (including dampening of loose soil where possible) must be maintained to ensure that dust, resulting from the earthworks, does not cause a nuisance.
15 All on-site stockpiling must be undertaken in a manner to ensure that visual impact and sediment generation effects were minimised.
Noise and Vibration
16 Works must not occur outside of the hours of 7.30am - 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday. Works must not occur on public holidays.
17 All construction noise must comply with the following noise limits as per New Zealand Standard NZS 6803:1999:
Time of Week
L max (dBA)
18 All blasting must occur at least 100m away from any residential dwelling and must be undertaken in accordance with German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999-02. Blasting must only occur between the hours of 9am and 4pm, Monday to Friday with blasting only authorised in one hour blocks for no more than two hours on any given day.
19 The consent holder must prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which must be submitted to, and approved by, the Transport department, prior to works commencing. The TMP must include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) Confirmation that TMP must comply with the requirements of the NZTA Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management.
b) All rock/earthworks material taken away from the site by truck must be taken away via Beach St direct to George Street/State Highway 88.
c) Road closures are at the discretion of the DCC Traffic Management Coordinator, and may require further public notification.
of any catch fences that may be required to ensure the operational safety of
e) Confirm that any excavation work proposed within legal road must be undertaken in accordance with the National Code of Practice for Utility Operators' Access to Transport Corridors, and will require an authorised corridor access request prior to these works commencing.
f) Provide details of the full extent of proposed works, especially those within legal road.
20 The foul sewer pipe which traversed Lot 1 DP 26574 might be decommissioned if required. All decommissioning works were the sole responsibility of the consent holder. Notice of the decommissioning works must be given to Water and Waste Services at least 14 days prior to these works commencing.
21 Should Water and Waste Services determine that the final design and methodology of the works threaten the integrity of the man hole located at the eastern termination of Island Terrace, then the man hole must be relocated at the cost of the consent holder. Relocation of the man hole must be undertaken in consultation with Water and Waste Services
22 Prior to the works commencing, the consent holder must arrange for Water and Waste Services (or their agent) to film the stormwater and foul sewer pipes and pressure test the water pipe in Island Terrace. Water and Waste Services require at least 14-days’ notice to arrange the testing.
23 At the completion of the works, the consent holder must arrange for Water and Waste Services (or their agent) to film the stormwater and foul sewer pipes and test the water pipe for leakage in Island Terrace. Any damage (and subsequent repairs) to the infrastructure network caused by the works authorised by this consent must be the responsibility of the consent holder.
24 A Landscape Development and Management Plan must be submitted to Council for approval of the Resource Consents Manager. The plan must be submitted at least one month before the works commence. The Landscape Development and Management Plan must manage the entire area of land contained within Lot 1 DP 26574 (CFR OT18D/5). At a minimum the plan must include species to be planted, spacing of planting, care and maintenance programme and weed control.
25 All post-care landscaping works must be completed within 12 months from when the earthworks were completed.
26 For five years following the completion of the landscaping works, all plants which become moribund must be replaced.
27 Active weed management and control must be undertaken for Lot 1 DP 26574 (CFR OT18D/5).
28 If the consent holder:
(a) discovered koiwi tangata (human skeletal remains), waahi taoka (resources of importance), waahi tapu (places or features of special significance) or other Maori artefact material, the consent holder must without delay:
(i) notify the Consent Authority, Tangata whenua and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand Police.
(ii) stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery to allow a site inspection by Heritage New Zealand and the appropriate runanga and their advisors, who must determine whether the discovery was likely to be extensive, if a thorough site investigation was required, and whether an Archaeological Authority was required.
Any koiwi tangata discovered must be handled and removed by tribal elders responsible for the tikanga (custom) appropriate to its removal or preservation.
Site work must recommence following consultation with the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, Tangata whenua, and in the case of skeletal remains, the New Zealand Police, provided that any relevant statutory permissions have been obtained.
(b) discovers any feature or archaeological material that predated 1900, or heritage material, or disturbs a previously unidentified archaeological or heritage site, the consent holder must without delay:
(i) stop work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery or disturbance; and
(ii) advise the Consent Authority, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, and in the case of Maori features or materials, the Tangata whenua, and if required, must make an application for an Archaeological Authority pursuant to the Historic Places Act 1993; and
(iii) arrange for a suitably qualified archaeologist to undertake a survey of the site.
Site work must recommence following consultation with the Consent Authority."
Reasons for the Decision
1 The Committee determined that the works as applied were a restricted discretionary activity. The Committee noted that in making its decision, its discretion was restricted to the following relevant maters:
Adverse effects on the amenity of neighbouring properties
2 The Committee recognised that the works would occur over a prolonged period of time (up to 12 months) and that for the duration of the works there was the potential for adverse effects such as noise, dust and vibration. The Committee looked to the Marshal Day acoustic report submitted with the application. While the Committee found the report light and lacked specific positions of claimed noise levels and did not quantify sub-sonic or vibration effects, Marshal Day did confirm that where works were taking place within the line of sight of neighbouring properties, noise levels were anticipated to be 65 dB LAEQ. These levels fall with the long-term construction noise standards for the hours between 7.30am to 6.00pm as set out in NZS 6803:1999. The noise of the operation would preclude works occurring outside of these times. The Committee believed that was appropriate for those noise standards to be adopted.
3 Turning their mind to timing of the works, the Committee were mindful that it was a balancing act where any restriction on the time periods placed on the works had the potential to extend the duration of the works overall. That said, the Committee considered that the neighbouring properties should have some respite from the effects of the construction and, as such, have determined that works should not occur on Sundays and Public Holidays.
4. In terms of vibration effects, the Committee recognised that the Marshal Day report stated that vibration effects would be noticeable but of short term and limited in duration. The Marshall Day report suggested that any blasting should maintain a separation distance of at least 100m from any dwelling to ensure the 5mm/s as promoted in the accepted German Standard DIN 4150-3:1999-02. The Committee considered that the standard should be complied with during any blasting. To further reduce any effects on neighbours, the Committee restricted the hours of blasting to between 9am and 4pm, Monday to Friday with blasting occurring in one hour blocks for no more than two hours on any given day.
5. The Committee also considered that it appropriate that notice of the blasting should all be served on the neighbours a minimum of 48 hours before blasting occurs. The notice should give the time that blasting was to occur and the duration of the blasting. No blasting should occur if notice had not been served.
6. Turning its mind to the potential dust effects, the Committee accepted the draft condition 12 of the S42A report and would require dust suppressant measures to be employed.
7. The Committee noted that there was the potential for the works to extend into 2 Island Terrace and also occur within the Aurora Terrace and Island Terrace Road Reserve. The Committee reminded the applicant that these works might only occur at the pleasure of the Dunedin City Council. The applicant was advised to get permission from the Council’s Property and Transport department who administered these pieces of land.
8. The Committee considered that it was important that the works were undertaken in a timely manner. That was, once the works commence there should not be any unnecessary delays in their completion. The Committee noted that the applicant had stated that the works would be completed within 3-12 months. To provide certainty for the neighbours, the earthworks should be completed within 12 months from when they commenced and post-care landscaping works should be completed within 12 months of when the earthworks were completed.
9. The Committee considered overall, that it was important for the applicant to actively engage and inform the neighbouring community regarding these works. To that end, five days prior to the start of works, the applicant should provide written notice to the neighbours and Council advising them of the impending commencement of the works. The applicant should also provide two-monthly updates detailing the progress of the works to neighbouring properties and the Council. The progress reports should detail the extent of the work undertaken and provide a projection of the works still be completed and estimated timeframes for these.
Effects on Visual Amenity and Landscape
10. With respect to the effects on visual amenity and landscape, the Committee recognised that the site would have an adverse visual impact while the earthworks were being undertaken and that this effect would be present for the duration of the works and until planting became established. The Committee acknowledged mitigation proposed by the landscape development and management plan prepared by Mike Moore and submitted with the application.
11. The Committee noted that previous benching work had occurred within Lot 1 DP 26574. The Committee considered that it was important that the lot be managed as a contiguous unit and believed that the landscaping management should occur across the entire site. As such, the landscape and development plan should be amended to extend the landscaping over the northern and north-western portion of Lot 1 DP 26574. The landscape and development plan with incorporated changes should be resubmitted as part of the construction management plan for approval by the Resource Consents Manager.
12. The Committee noted Ms Wilson’s concerns regarding the ongoing maintenance of the landscaping and sought to address this by imposing specific conditions requiring active weed control to be undertaken and moribund plantings to be replaced.
Effects on any Archaeological Site and any Cultural Site
13. The Committee accepted the recommendation in the s42A report that an accidental discovery protocol be imposed on the consent.
Effects on the Transportation Network
14. The Committee were mindful that management of the road, including any temporary closures were managed through the Local Government Act and a separate process under this legislation would manage those effects. A condition of consent required the applicant to submit a Traffic Management Plan for approval by the Council’s Transport department.
15. The Committee recognised that without a defined end point for the spoil it was difficult to assess the effects on the traffic network. The Committee recognised that if the spoil was transported by truck back to Dunedin, once off Beach Street, transportation would occur on the State Highway network which was designed for heavy traffic movements. The applicant was encouraged to consider the suitably of alternative transport options such as rail or barge to transport the spoil from the site.
16. Post-works, the Committee encouraged the applicant to revisit the current legal road corridor within Beach Street and apply for appropriate amendments to the location of the legal road to ensure that legal public access was secured.
Effects from the Release of Sediment
17. The Committee accepted that the nature of the works was such that sediment and erosion effects would need to be managed. It supported the recommendation in the s42A report that a Stormwater Management Plan and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan were necessary to contain effects within the subject site. It noted that these plans would need to be approved prior to any works commencing on the site.
Design and Engineering Effects
18. The Committee recognised that the works had been designed by a reputable engineering company and that this design work had been subsequently peer reviewed by the Council’s Consultant Engineer. The Committee were satisfied that the works were viable and could be undertaken as applied for. It noted that the details of the works including methodology and timing were reliant on the contractor engaged. The Committee accepted the recommendation of the s42A report that a construction management plan be submitted for approval by Council prior to works commencing.
19. The Committee noted that the contractor would be responsible for ensuring all conditions of consent were complied with but reminded the applicant that the ultimate responsibility for compliance lies with it.
Effects on the Stability of Land and Buildings
20. The Committee referred to the direction given above regarding the restrictions imposed on the blasting works to limit the extent of vibration effects on neighbours. The Committee recognised that, as with any works, there was the potential for damage to occur to neighbouring properties. The applicant was encouraged to assess the pre and post work state of neighbouring properties to ensure that no damage had occurred as a result of actions undertaken on its site.
Effects on Underground Utilities
21. The Committee acknowledged that the foul sewer pipe traversing the subject site was likely to be interfered with as a result of the works. It noted that this was a virgin pipe and could be decommissioned without impact on the provision of infrastructure services. It further accepted that the man hole in Island Terrace might need to be relocated if its integrity was threatened by the works. The relocation of the man hole would be subject to approval of Water and Waste Services. The Committee recognised the concerns raised by Water and Waste Services regarding the integrity of the Council’s infrastructure network. It noted that Water and Waste Services had requested a number of pre and post work testing of the network to be undertaken. The Committee considered that these tests were appropriate and imposed as conditions of consent.
22. The Committee appreciated the well-considered submission of Mr Anderson but noted that the issues raised in his submission fall outside of the scope of matters which could be considered through the consent process. The Committee did however recognise the quality of material to be removed and encouraged the applicant to actively investigate all economic and environmentally sustainable reuse options for the spoil won from site.
23. The Committee considered that the proposed activity was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative Dunedin City District Plan predominantly Objective 17.2.3 and Policy 17.3.9 (Earthworks Section) that sought to control the location and scale of earthworks and to ensure that earthworks were undertaken in a manner that was safe and in a manner that minimised adverse effects on the environment.
24. The Committee also considered that the proposed activity was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the proposed Dunedin City District Plan, significantly objective 30.2.3 and policies 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168.
Effects on Underground Utilities
25. The Committee acknowledged that the foul sewer pipe traversing the subject site was likely to be interfered with as a result of the works. It noted that this was a virgin pipe and could be decommissioned without impact on the provision of infrastructure services. It further accepted that the man hole in Island Terrace might need to be relocated if its integrity was threatened by the works. The relocation of the man hole would be subject to approval of Water and Waste Services. The Committee recognised the concerns raised by Water and Waste Services regarding the integrity of the Council’s infrastructure network. It noted that Water and Waste Services had requested a number of pre and post work testing of the network to be undertaken. The Committee considered that these tests were appropriate and imposed as conditions of consent.
26. The Committee appreciated the well-considered submission of Mr Anderson but noted that the issues raised in his submission fall outside of the scope of matters which could be considered through the consent process. The Committee did however recognise the quality of material to be removed and encouraged the applicant to actively investigate all economic and environmentally sustainable reuse options for the spoil won from site.
27. The Committee considered that the proposed activity was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative Dunedin City District Plan predominantly Objective 17.2.3 and Policy 17.3.9 (Earthworks Section) that sought to control the location and scale of earthworks and to ensure that earthworks were undertaken in a manner that was safe and in a manner that minimised adverse effects on the environment.
28. The Committee also considered that the proposed activity was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the proposed Dunedin City District Plan, significantly objective 30.2.3 and policies 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52.
The meeting ended at 10.35 am.