Resource Management Act 1991
Report / Decision on a Resource Consent Application
(Sections 95A, 95B and 104, 104B)
Application number:
RMA/2023/629
Applicant:
Duncans Lane Limited
Site address:
228 Tuam Street, 230-232 Tuam Street, 255 St Asaph Street, 144-155, 177 and
181 High Street
Legal description:
Lot 1 DP 527970 (228 Tuam Street) and others.
Zone:
District Plan:
Commercial Central City (South Frame) Mixed Use; Designation V5 The Frame
- South
Proposed Plan Change 14:
Central City Mixed Use (South Frame)
Overlays and map notations:
District Plan:
Central City Building Height 17m; Central City Frame; Central City Innovation
Precinct; Central City Inner Zone; Category 2 – Lower Noise Level
Entertainment and Hospitality Precinct; and CMUA – Outer Noise Insulation
Area; Flood Management Area (FMA); Liquefaction Management Area (LMA)
Proposed Plan Change 14:
Central City Building Height 21m
Road classification:
Main Distributor (Tuam Street)
Activity status:
Restricted Discretionary
Description of application:
At grade carparking to service commercial activity on site
Proposed activity
The application is for consent to establish and operate an at grade car parking area in association with other activity on
the site (being the “Little High” and “Duncans Buildings” developments). The nominated site includes more land than just
the land parcel at 228 Tuam Street. The Tuam Street land parcel has an area of 405m2, the wider site some 9300m2. The
addresses and legal descriptions are set out above.
The nominated site includes extensive hospitality provision with a relatively short stay, retail, and office activity.
The site is subject to a designation, V5 The Frame -South, in the Plan. The requiring authority was Ōtākaro limited, this
organisation is now known as Rau Paenga Limited. The designation remains in force. The applicant obtained an approval
from the requiring authority for the proposed use of the land in early-mid June 2023.
The proposal is described in detail in paragraphs 11-14 of the application report and the plans attached to that report as
Appendix 2 of the application. The key aspects are:
Access one directional from west to east from and to Tuam Street
Sixteen parking spaces
A 2.0 metre wide landscape strip at the road frontage (planted with three specimen trees and underplanting)
and a 1.72 metre wide strip at the rear of the site (planted with 4 trees and underplanting)
Pontoon lighting is proposed along the eastern and western boundaries of the site (228 Tuam in this context)
The applicant has volunteered several conditions.
Description of site and existing environment
The application site and surrounding environment are described in paragraphs 4 - 8 of the application. I adopt the
applicant’s description and note the following additional points:
P-400a, 13.07.2023
1 of 12
Immediately west bordering Memory Lane is a link strip (a 0.1m wide land parcel) that prevents legal access to 228 Tuam
street from Memory Lane. The applicant has been advised of this situation and that an easement from the land owner
(Christchurch City Council) will be required before access can be taken over this parcel of land. This situation is not a
consideration here as it is not a District Plan matter but a property law one. I have sought and received confirmation
from Council’s Property Unit staff that an easement is required.
The applicant has chosen not to begin consultation or to request an easement prior to the issue of the consent. Access to
the car park as proposed will however rely on that easement.
I note also that the land either side of the application site proper at 228 Tuam Street is owned by the Christchurch City
Council. It is not legal road although it serves an access function for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In October of 2021
Council resolved to implement no stopping requirements on the land either side of 228 Tuam Street (as it forms part of
the South Frame laneway network).
I have included an advice note regarding access and easements below.
I include below an image from the application report indicating the wider site and showing 228 Tuam Street – the
grassed area at the top left of the outlined red site. Access is proposed at the left of the site from Memory Lane and out
to Tuam Street over the land at about the location of the numbers 232 and 230 on the image.
Activity status
Christchurch District Plan
The site is zoned Commercial Central City (South Frame) Mixed Use in the Christchurch District Plan. This zone has the
following purpose:
The Commercial Central City (South Frame) Mixed Use Zone’s development should provide a clear delineation between
the Commercial Central City Business Zone and the Commercial Central City Mixed Use Zone and also enable a
compatible mix of activities within a connected, safe and attractive open space landscape; enable a range of activities
that do not compromise consolidation of the Commercial Central City Business Zone; and provide for precincts that will
accommodate technology based businesses and research and health related activities.
P-400a, 13.07.2023
2 of 12
The proposal requires resource consent for a restricted activity under the following rules:
Activity status
Standard not met
Reason
Matters of control or
Notification
rule
discretion
clause
7.4.3.1 RD1
7.4.3.1 b. Minimum
Four car parking spaces (end
7.4.4.1 – Parking space
No clause
and maximum number
spaces) for non-residential
dimensions
and dimensions of car
activities do not meet the
parking spaces
minimum dimension in
required (within the
Table 7.5.1.3 in Appendix
Central City) b. ii.
7.5.1. Width of these spaces
is impacted by proposed
pontoon lighting supports, a
300mm clearance is not
provided to these
structures.
7.4.2.3 RD1
7.4.3.4 Manoeuvring
On-site manoeuvring does
7.4.4.5 - Manoeuvring
Must not be
for parking areas and
not meet the requirements
for parking areas and
limited or
loading areas a.
of Appendix 7.5.6 as
loading areas
publicly
additional movements may
notified
be required to enter some
spaces (end spaces as
above). Vehicles will still be
able to leave the site and
enter the road in a forward
gear.
7.4.2.3 RD1
7.4.3.7 Access design a.
Appendix 7.5.7 requires a
7.4.4.9 - Vehicle access
Must not be
b. and e.
maximum access width of
design
limited or
4.5m at the road boundary,
7.4.4.10 – Queuing
publicly
and clear visibility above 1m
spaces (if 4+ spaces or
notified
within a triangle measured
units)
for a width of at least 1.5m
7.4.4.11 – Visibility splay
either side of the entrance,
and for a length of at least
2m measured from the road
boundary.
The proposed vehicle access
does not comply as queuing
space is indicated as 7
rather than the 12 metres
required; there are some
features in the visibility
splay areas.
8.9.2.3 RD1
8.9.2.1 P1
The proposed earthworks
Relevant matters of
8.9.1 a. - Must
a. Volume of
are likely to exceed the
discretion:
not be publicly
earthworks
40.5m3 maximum volume in
8.9.4.1 - Nuisance
notified
Table 9
b. Depth of earthworks
8.9.4.3 - Land stability
The proposed excavations
8.9.4.6 – Amenity
required may exceed the
0.6m maximum depth for
A.
installation of services
P-400a, 13.07.2023
3 of 12
Activity status
Standard not met
Reason
Matters of control or
Notification
rule
discretion
clause
relating to stormwater
treatment.
Proposed Plan Change 14 Housing and Business Choice
Proposed Plan Change 14 (PC14) was notified on 17 March 2023 and submissions closed on 3 May 2023. It proposes
amendments to the objectives, policies and rules associated with residential development across ‘relevant residential
zones’ in accordance with the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in Schedule 3A of the RMA (as modified by
the sunlight access qualifying matter).
PC14 also includes other residential intensification provisions directed by the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development 2020 and seeks to amend the objectives, policies and rules associated with commercial development
within and around the central city, suburban commercial centres and planned high frequency and capacity public
transport. Additionally, it contains a number of new heritage protection provisions with immediate legal effect.
The MDRS (including objectives and policies) does not apply to this proposal as the zoning of the site is not a ‘relevant
residential zone’ (Policy 2, Schedule 3A). There are other provisions in PC14 that might be relevant to this application
including policies in relation to location of car parking and placement of buildings along street edges. At this point in the
cycle I cannot however give a significant weight to those PC14 provisions. I note that similar matters are canvassed in my
assessment below in any event as they exist presently in the Plan’s objectives and policies.
National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (NES)
The NES controls soil disturbance on land where an activity on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) is being
carried out, has been carried out, or is more likely than not to have been carried out.
The application references a previous NES consent that does not in fact apply to this land. The land is likely covered by a
previous consent issued to others but is noted there as not having been tested. No records of testing or a DSI exist in
Council’s database. None have been provided with the application.
The application site has been identified as HAIL land therefore the NES applies. The proposal requires consent as a
discretionary activity under the following regulations:
Activity status
Matters of control or
Notification
Regulation not met
Reason
regulation
discretion
clause
Regulation 8(3)
Likely more than 25m3 will
Disturbing soil
be disturbed
Regulation 11
A Detailed Site Investigation
N/A
No clause
Discretionary
has not been carried out /
activities
has not been provided to
the Council.
Overall activity status
Overall, the application must be assessed as a Discretionary activity, being the most restrictive activity status.
Written approvals [Sections 95D, 95E(3)(a) and 104(3)(a)(ii)]
No written approvals have been provided with the application.
P-400a, 13.07.2023
4 of 12
NOTIFICATION ASSESSMENT
Adverse effects on the environment and affected persons [Sections 95A, 95B, 95E(3) and 95D]
When assessing whether adverse effects on the
environment will be, or are likely to be, more than minor, any effects on
the owners and occupiers of the application site and adjacent properties must be disregarded (section 95D(a)). The
assessment of
affected persons under section 95E includes persons on adjacent properties as well as those within the
wider environment.
The applicant has volunteered / agreed to a number of conditions relating to landscaping, stormwater treatment,
signage, and contaminated land. These form / are deemed to form part of the application and can be taken into account
in assessing the effects of the proposed activity.
As a discretionary activity, assessment of this proposal is unrestricted and all actual and potential effects must be
considered. Guidance as to the effects that require consideration is contained in the relevant objectives and policies, and
any associated matters of discretion or control.
Notwithstanding the above statement I note that is it matters of soil contamination that result in the discretionary
status. The other matters requiring consent are of a lesser activity status. As some of the breaches are not covered by
non-notification clauses there remains a requirement for a section 95 decision in respect of the whole activity.
There is no relevant permitted baseline for the car parking activity. As a consequence of this discussing the permitted
baseline in relation to other aspects of the application is not warranted.
In the context of this planning framework, I consider that the potential effects of the activity relate to street scene/visual
amenity/urban design, transport, and earthworks/land contamination. The applicant’s assessment is in line with my
position.
Visual amenity
Visual amenity/streetscape/urban design effects are assessed in paragraphs 24-32 of the application under the relevant
headings of 15.13.2.11. I generally agree with and adopt the applicant’s assessment and note the following points:
I specifically agree that while the proposal does not result in the use of the site in buildings, the general
treatment proposed here is not at odds with the immediate surrounding context
I specifically agree also that in terms of a longer term use of the land (i.e. a use in buildings as generally
envisaged by the Plan) the proposal will not ultimately prevent such a use occurring when economic conditions
are in favour of a building being erected on the land parcel
I note that despite including reference to matter e. under the urban design assessment rule the matter is not
particularly addressed.
At present Council do not have an ability to seek cultural advice regarding design in the central city.
I note that in terms of the matters listed under e. it is realistically only at this time the use of the first and last
points (landscaping and low impact design principles) that are directly relevant to the creation of a car park.
Stormwater treatment (most likely though the use of proprietary devices) will be required in order for the
applicant to gain a stormwater approval to discharge to Council’s stormwater network. This will result in an
improved outcome in terms of water ultimately entering waterways. This provides some reduction in impact of
additional hard surfacing and associated runoff.
It is indicated in the landscape plan (an indicative plan) that native species (but not necessarily locally sourced)
may be used in the planting (that is apparent from the species list for the underplanting) however the principal
trees in the landscape strips are not specifically identified as native and only one of the four species is not an
introduced one. Having said that it may be that another tree type is preferable for reasons of form or growth
rate than a native species. I would consider the use solely of native species in the underplanting was a positive
response.
Overall I consider that the visual amenity/urban design assessment matters are suitably addressed. In its context the car
park will not appear as an anomaly and will generally fit with the design theme of the wider site.
P-400a, 13.07.2023
5 of 12
I have also circulated the application to Council’s Transport Network Planner Mr Liqi Chen, as well as Council’s Senior
Environmental Health Officer Ms Agnes van der Erf. Both have commented on the application and its generation of
effects.
Transport
The application includes an assessment of transport matters by Mr Wayne Gallot at Novo Group. This assessment is
contained in paragraphs 34 – 45. The conclusion reached is that transport effects arising from the non-compliances are
less than minor and acceptable.
Mr Chen comments that the non-compliances with parking space size and, manoeuvring and queuing will not – owning
to the specifics of the site situation and access arrangements from Tuam Street – cause any issues in terms of the
transport network, or in terms of the use of the parking spaces. Mr Chen queried whether access and egress was
directional (one way) – this has been confirmed by the applicant and a signage option to deal with directing users has
been offered as a condition.
On the basis of both Mr Gallot’s and Mr Chen’s comments I consider any transport effects to be less than minor in nature
and acceptable.
Land contamination
Ms van der Erf has indicated that as the land is potentially contaminated and no DSI has been provided that the
application is a fully discretionary activity, however we can proceed with conditions in place to require soil testing and to
limit disposal to authorised sites without confirmation by testing of a clean status for soils to be removed from the site.
Ms van der Erf also notes that the final state (a sealed car park) will provide a good long term barrier to any
contaminated soil and remove the need for ongoing management of the surface.
I raised this issue with the applicant’s agent who accepted this situation and agreed to conditions regarding testing of
soils and restrictions on disposal locations.
On that basis and with conditions to require testing and controlled disposal of soils I consider any effects of the works on
human health to be less than minor and acceptable.
In terms of general earthworks matters I consider that the proposal despite being likely to breach earthworks volume
and depth standards in some measure will general less than minor effects with appropriate conditions in place. Again the
matter of earthworks breaches was raised with the agent who accepted this point and control of those effects by
conditions. Standard earthworking conditions to control nuisance effects are included below.
Conclusion
Overall, I consider that any adverse effects on the wider environment will be less than minor and that there will be no
affected persons.
Notification tests [Sections 95A and 95B]
Sections 95A and 95B set out the steps that must be followed to determine whether public notification or limited
notification of an application is required.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TESTS – Section 95A
Step 1: Mandatory notification – section 95A(3)
Has the applicant requested that the application be publicly notified?
No
Is public notification required under s95C (following a request for further information or
No
commissioning of report)?
Is the application made jointly with an application to exchange reserve land?
No
Step 2: If not required by Step 1, notification is precluded if any of these apply – section 95A(5)
Does a rule or NES preclude public notification for all aspects of the application?
No
Is the application a controlled activity?
No
P-400a, 13.07.2023
6 of 12
Is the application a boundary activity?
No
Step 3: Notification required in certain circumstances if not precluded by Step 2 – section 95A(8)
Does a rule or NES require public notification?
No
Will the activity have, or is it likely to have, adverse effects on the environment that are more
No
than minor (discussed above)?
Step 4: Relevant to all applications that don’t already require notification – section 95A(9)
Do special circumstances exist that warrant the application being publicly notified?
No
In accordance with the provisions of section 95A, the application
must not be publicly notified.
LIMITED NOTIFICATION TESTS – Section 95B
Step 1: Certain affected groups/persons must be notified – sections 95B(2) and (3)
Are there any affected protected customary rights groups or customary marine title groups?
No
If the activity will be on, adjacent to, or might affect land subject to a statutory acknowledgement
No
- is Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu an affected person in this regard?
Step 2: If not required by Step 1, notification is precluded if any of the following apply – section 95B(6)
Does a rule or NES preclude limited notification for all aspects of the application?
No
Is this a land use consent application for a controlled activity?
No
Step 3: Notification of other persons if not precluded by Step 2 – sections 95B(7) and (8)
Are there any affected persons under s95E, i.e. persons on whom the effects are minor or more
No
than minor, and who have not given written approval (discussed above)?
Step 4: Relevant to all applications – section 95B(10)
Do special circumstances exist that warrant notification to any other persons not identified
No
above?
In accordance with the provisions of section 95B, the application
must not be limited notified.
Notification recommendation
That, for the reasons outlined above, the application be processed on a
non-notified basis pursuant to sections 95A and
95B of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Reported and recommended by: Sean Ward, Team Leader Planning
Date: 15 August 2023
Notification decision
That the above recommendation be accepted for the reasons outlined in the report.
Delegated officer:
Paul Lowe
Manager Resource Consents
18/08/2023 01:07 pm
P-400a, 13.07.2023
7 of 12
SECTION 104 ASSESSMENT
Actual and potential effects on the environment [Section 104(1)(a)]
The adverse effects on the environment are assessed in the preceding section 95 discussion, and that assessment is
equally applicable here.
In addition, I note that the proposal will have the following positive effects:
The additional small volume of car parking will assist businesses in the wider site to provide for customer parking
Overall, I consider that the effects on the environment are able to be mitigated through compliance with recommended
conditions such that they will be
less than minor and acceptable.
Relevant objectives, policies, rules and other provisions of a Plan or proposed plan [Section 104(1)(b)(vi)]
Regard must be had to the relevant objectives and policies in the District Plan.
The application contains an assessment against the objectives and policies of the District Plan in paragraphs 48 and 49
and the associated table 2. This assessment is adequate as far as it goes but, in my view, does not encompass the
objectives or policies that are most directly relevant to the proposal and the site. Rather than the more general
objectives and policies of 15.2.1 / 15.2.2.1 and 15.2.4 / 15.2.4.2 I consider that the relevant objectives and policies from
the commercial chapter of the Plan are 15.2.9 (role of the Commercial Central City (South Frame) Mixed Use Zone and
its supporting policy 15.2.9.1, and 15.2.10 Built Form and Amenity in the South Frame and supporting policies 15.2.10.1 –
Amenity and 15.2.10.4 – Innovation Precinct.
Also relevant are the objectives and policies in the transport chapter specifically 7.2.1 – Integrate Transport System for
the Christchurch District and supporting policies 7.2.1.3 – vehicle access and manoeuvring and 7.2.1.5 Design of car
parking areas and loading areas.
Adverse effects arising from the proposed use of the land are covered above. The assessment addresses many matters in
the relevant objectives and policies.
The proposal will not threaten intended outcomes for the South Frame Mixed Use zone, will not compromise the use of
public space adjoining the site, and provides a minimum amount of landscaping as required on sites where no building is
built ot site boundaries. the provision of car parking also supports other activity on the site that more fully delivers the
intent of the zone.
The proposed parking arrangements do not compromise the safety and function of the transport network or the site.
I consider that the proposal is consistent with the thrust of the objectives and policies for the zone.
As noted above the MDRS objectives and policies in PC14 do not apply outside ‘relevant residential zones’, and other
proposed objectives and policies that may be relevant to the proposal are at an early stage in the process. In any event I
consider that the relevant objectives and policies are not materially different to those already in place in respect of this
application.
Relevant provisions of a National Environmental Standard, National Policy Statement, Regional Plan, Regional
Policy Statement or Coastal Policy Statement [Section 104(1)(b)]
The National Environmental Standard for managing contaminants in soil to protect human health is relevant to this
application and is discussed above.
The District Plan gives effect to the higher order documents referred to in s104(1)(b) for all matters except the National
Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) which came into effect on 20 August 2020. The Council has
commenced the Plan change process to give effect to the NPS-UD, with Plan Change 14 including provisions enabling
urban intensification around centres and other amenities, services, and transport corridors, however its provisions do
not yet have legal effect.
Overall I consider this proposal is not inconsistent with the NPS-UD as proposed to be given effect to by PC14.
P-400a, 13.07.2023
8 of 12
Part 2 of the Resource Management Act [Section 104(1)]
Taking guidance from the most recent case law1, the District Plan is considered to be the mechanism by which the
purpose and principles of the Act are given effect to in the Christchurch District. It was competently prepared through an
independent hearing and decision-making process in a manner that appropriately reflects the provisions of sections 5-8
of the Act.
Accordingly no further assessment against Part 2 is considered necessary.
Section 104(3)(d) notification consideration
Section 104(3)(d) states that consent must not be granted if an application should have been notified and was not. No
matters have arisen in the assessment of this application which would indicate that the application ought to have been
notified.
Section 104 Recommendation
That, for the above reasons, the application
be granted pursuant to Sections 104, 104B, 108 and 108AA of the Resource
Management Act 1991, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The development shall proceed in accordance with the information submitted with the application, including the
stamped approved plans entered into Council records as RMA/2023/629 pages 1-4 and the conditions below.
Land contamination
2.
The consent holder shall prior to the commencement of any earthworking on site have a Detailed Site
Investigation (DSI) prepared by a Suitably Qualified and Experienced Practitioner (SQUEP). The results of the DSI
shall inform site works and soil disposal notwithstanding conditions 3 and 13 below. The DSI report shall be
supplied to the Team Leader Environmental Health by way of [email address] no later than 10 working days
prior to the proposed start of any onsite works.
3.
Any soils removed from the site during the course of the activity must be disposed of to a facility authorised to
accept the material. The consent holder shall submit evidence (i.e. weighbridge receipts or waste manifest) of the
disposal of surplus soils from the site to an authorised facility to the Council, Attention: Team Leader
Environmental Health by way of email to [email address], no later than 20 working days following this
disposal.
Transport
4.
Signage shall be installed on the west boundary of the car park area facing inward to the car park indicating to
users that there is no exit to Memory Lane, and on the east side of Duncan’s Lane facing toward Tuam Street and
oncoming traffic indicating no entry to the site from this point. A single east pointing arrow shall also be installed
in the carparking aisle.
Landscaping
5.
The proposed landscaping shall be established in general accordance with the plan labelled RMA/2023/629 Page 1
of the Approved Consent Plans. Trees shall be a minimum of 1.8m tall at planting.
6.
Tree species may be from the four tree species shown on the indicative tree/plant species plan contained in the
application documents. Trees may also be selected from those listed in the tree planting guide at the following
address Tree planting guide : Christchurch City Council (ccc.govt.nz).
1
R J Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2018] NZCA 316
P-400a, 13.07.2023
9 of 12
Note: In tree selection consideration should be given to ultimate form, and to protection of visibility for drivers
leaving and entering the site.
7.
The species mix of underplanting shall be locally sourced native plants in its entirety.
8.
The landscaping shall be established on site within the first planting season (1 April - 30 September) following the
commissioning of the car park.
9.
All landscaping required for this consent shall be maintained. Any dead, diseased, or damaged landscaping shall
be replaced by the consent holder within the following planting season (extending from 1 April to 30 September)
with trees/shrubs of similar species to the original landscaping and capable of achieving the same or similar scale,
growth form and amenity outcome.
Stormwater
10.
Prior to the construction of the car park the consent holder shall submit for acceptance engineering plans
demonstrating how the first flush of stormwater will be treated prior to discharge into the Council stormwater
network. The plans shall be submitted to [email address]
The acceptable options for first flush treatment are:
A rain garden or tree pit designed to CCC's Rain Garden Design Criteria and/or CCC's Tree Pit Design Criteria
A soil adsorption or sedimentation basin designed to capture the runoff from the first 25mm of rainfall
A vegetated swale designed in general accordance with Auckland Council's TP10 to treat the runoff from a
5mm/hr intensity storm
One of the following proprietary devices designed to treat the runoff from a 5mm/hr intensity storm:
a)
Stormwater360 Stormfilter
b) Stormwater360 Filterra
c)
Hynds Up-Flo Filter
d) SPEL Bayfilter
e) SPEL Hydrosystem
11.
The consent holder shall install and commission stormwater first flush treatment system in accordance with the
accepted plans. The system shall be commissioned prior to sealing and operation of the car park.
12.
The consent holder shall demonstrate that authorisation for the discharge of construction phase and operational
phase stormwater has been obtained from Christchurch City Council, otherwise separate authorisation from
Environment Canterbury shall be obtained. Contact [email address] for further detail.
Earthworks
13.
All earthworks shall be carried out in accordance with a site specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP),
prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced professional, which follows the best practice principles,
techniques, inspections and monitoring for erosion and sediment control contained in Environment Canterbury’s
Erosion and Sediment Control Toolbox for Canterbury http://esccanterbury.co.nz/. The ESCP must be held on site
at all times and made available to the Council on request.
14.
The consent holder must notify Christchurch City Council no less than three working days prior to works
commencing, (via email to [email address]) of the earthworks start date and the name and contact details of
the site supervisor. The consent holder shall at this time also provide confirmation of the installation of ESCP
measures as per the plan referred to in Condition 13 above.
15.
Run-off must be controlled to prevent muddy water flowing, or earth slipping, onto neighbouring properties, legal
road (including kerb and channel), or into a river, stream, drain or wetland. Sediment, earth or debris must not fall
or collect on land beyond the site or enter the Council’s stormwater system. All muddy water must be treated,
using at a minimum the erosion and sediment control measures detailed in the site specific Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan, prior to discharge to the Council’s stormwater system.
P-400a, 13.07.2023
10 of
12
Note: For the purpose of this condition muddy water is defined as water with a total suspended solid (TSS)
content greater than 50mg/L.
16.
No earthworks shall commence until the ESCP has been implemented on site. The ESCP measures shall be
maintained over the period of the construction phase, until the site is stabilised (i.e. no longer producing dust or
water-borne sediment). The ESCP shall be improved if initial and/or standard measures are found to be
inadequate. All disturbed surfaces shall be adequately topsoiled
and vegetated or otherwise stabilised as soon as
possible to limit sediment mobilisation.
17.
Dust emissions shall be appropriately managed within the boundary of the property in compliance with the
Regional Air Plan. Dust mitigation measures such as water carts, sprinklers or polymers shall be used on any
exposed areas. The roads to and from the site, and the site entrance and exit, must remain tidy and free of dust
and dirt at all times.
18.
All loading and unloading of trucks with excavation or fill material shall be carried out within the subject site.
19.
Any surplus or unsuitable material from the project works shall be removed from site and disposed at a facility
authorised to receive such material.
20.
Any public road, shared access, footpath, landscaped area or service structure that has been damaged, by the
persons involved with the development or vehicles and machinery used in relation to the works under this
consent, shall be reinstated as specified in the Construction Standard Specifications (CSS) at the expense of the
consent holder and to the satisfaction of the Council.
Advice Notes:
The Council will require payment of its administrative charges in relation to monitoring of conditions, as
authorised by the provisions of section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The current monitoring
charges are:
(i) An administration fee of $107 to cover the cost of setting up the monitoring programme; and
(ii) A monitoring inspection fee of $185 for the first inspection to ensure compliance with the conditions of this
consent; and
(iii) Time charged at an hourly rate if more than one inspection, or additional monitoring activities (including
those relating to non-compliance with conditions), are required.
The monitoring programme administration fee and initial inspection fee will be charged to the applicant with the
consent processing costs. Any additional monitoring time will be invoiced to the consent holder when the
monitoring is carried out, at the hourly rate specified in the applicable Annual Plan Schedule of Fees and Charges.
Easements are required for access over land in other ownership (the link strip separating the site from Memory
Lane). Obtaining the relevant easement is the responsibility of the consent holder. This resource consent does not
constitute landowner approval or an easement right to cross the link strip.
This resource consent has been processed under the Resource Management Act 1991 and relates to
District
planning matters only. You will also need to comply with the requirements of the Building Act 2004 and any other
legislative requirements (including but not limited to Environment Canterbury Regional Plans, health licence,
liquor licence, archaeological authority, certificate of title restrictions such as covenants, consent notices,
encumbrances, right of way or easement restrictions, landowner approval where required).
This site may be an archaeological site as defined and protected under the provisions of the Heritage New Zealand
Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Archaeological sites are defined in the HNZPTA as any place in New Zealand where
there is physical evidence of pre-1900 occupation, regardless whether the site is known or not, recorded in the
P-400a, 13.07.2023
11 of
12
NZAA Site Recording Scheme or not, or listed with Heritage New Zealand or the local council. Authority from
Heritage New Zealand is required for any work that affects or may affect an archaeological site.
Please contact
the Heritage New Zealand regional archaeologist on 03 363 1880 or [email address] before
commencing work on the land.
Reported and recommended by: Sean Ward, Planning Team Leader
Date: 15 August 2023
Section 104 Decision
That the above recommendation be accepted for the reasons outlined in the report.
I have viewed the application and plans.
I have read the report and accept the conclusions and recommendation.
Delegated officer:
Paul Lowe
Manager Resource Consents
18/08/2023
P-400a, 13.07.2023
12 of
12
