David Mills
4 Smith Street
Paekākāriki
Kapiti Coast
Wellington 5034

7th April, 2026

Attention: The Chief Executive: Nigel Corry.
Group Manager, Environment Group: Lian Butcher.
Group Manager, Finance and Risk: Alison Trustrum-Rainey.

Subject: FORMAL NOTICE regarding the Paekākāriki Commercial Vehicle Safety Centre Resource Consent Compliance.

Dear Nigel, Lian and Alison,

I am writing to place the Greater Wellington Regional Council on Formal Notice regarding significant environmental risks and potential breaches of the Resource Management Act 1991, that are being permitted at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Centre, currently under construction at Mackay’s Crossing, State Highway 59, Paekākāriki.

This letter also contains a formal request for documentation under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) to address these systemic failures. I will also be tabling this through www.fyi.org.nz for transparency.

I have served a Formal Notice of Deficiency to the Kapiti Coast District Council detailing systemic failures in the consenting process for this facility, including what I believe is the incorrect classification of the site as a Standard Working Business (WB) “Risk Group”.

This Risk Group classification ignores its actual intended use as a hub for processing heavy vehicles carrying, but not limited to, Class 3 and Class 8 hazardous substances. I believe this misclassification of the [new] development and its actual intended use has resulted in a significant shortfall in compliant infrastructure but significant development savings to the Developer.

The current site design utilizes uncontrolled soak pits and Wisconsin Swales that discharge directly to the ground. There is no secondary containment for toxic, hazardous materials as part of the new development, despite the C/AS2 Consent Pathway being selected and consented by Kapiti Coast District Council.

The C/AS2 Pathway specifically requires compliance with the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017, in addition to the requirements of the C/AS2 “Acceptable Solution”.

Compliance with the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017, given Class 3 and Class 8 Hazardous Substances will be present, or are reasonably likely to be present, at the development at any time, mandates a secondary containment system that is capable of retaining 110% of the volume of a worst-case scenario.

An example of this would be an incident involving a Class 3, 3YE Petrol Tanker carrying 35,000 L of Petrol, a type of heavy vehicle that is reasonably likely to be present at the [new] development.

Kapiti Coast District Council maintains the discharge of run-off into the environment at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Centre is solely the responsibility of Greater Wellington Regional Council. I formally challenged this assertion, given mandatory secondary containment would have been required if the C/AS2 Pathway had been correctly applied and a Consent issued accordingly. The inclusion of secondary containment would have mitigated, to a large extent, the risk of toxic, hazardous materials being drained directly into the environment.

The Kapiti Coast District Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council were both obligated to consider the intended use of this facility, as provided by the Developer (The New Zealand Transport Agency), under Section 14D of the Building Act 2004. By approving the C/AS2 Consent Pathway, the Kapiti Council invoked mandatory requirements that it subsequently appears to have ignored.

Equally, Greater Wellington Council has consented to the uncontrolled discharge of everything that is present on the hardstand, including hazardous materials that result from spills, truck fires or accumulation over time from the estimated 20+ heavy vehicles called into the site daily.

The control of run-off and the actual run-off are intimately connected. Under Section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991, no person may discharge any contaminant into or onto land in circumstances which may result in that contaminant entering water, unless expressly permitted by a rule in a Regional Plan, a Resource Consent, or Regulations. Furthermore, under Section 17 of the Resource Management Act 1991, every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity.

The current design fails to provide a mandatory secondary containment system capable of retaining the necessary volume of any potential incident at the development, such as a 3YE petrol tanker. Any firefighting measures employed at the site in the event of a hazardous materials incident will inevitably compound this lack of secondary containment, resulting in massive volumes of toxic run-off being discharged directly into the environment and the local aquifer.

I have acknowledged to the Kapiti Coast District Council that the Greater Wellington Regional Council is responsible for the regulation of the discharge itself, which, as I have demonstrated, is inherently linked to the structural deficiencies permitted by the Territorial Authority.

The consequences of allowing toxic, hazardous materials to discharge as run-off into the environment will be catastrophic. Within 100 meters of the [new] development is a Wetland, which is identified in the Consent Document. As the name suggests, the wetland relies on a wet environment that is free from toxic, hazardous materials for its healthy survival.

Within 700 meters of the [new] development are the two bores that provide drinking water for the community of Paekākāriki. The Wisconsin Swales and Soak pits provide a direct connection to the aquifer that these bores draw from.

As consented by Greater Wellington Regional Council, any hazardous materials that drain from the hardstand discharge directly into the environment and the aquifer.

Besides not meeting the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991, this has the potential to be an environmental disaster that could irreparably damage the environment, the aquifer, a drinking water source, and endanger public health long-term.

Pursuant to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, I request evidence of:

1. The Regional Council’s environmental risk assessment for the site concerning the discharge of hazardous substances at the new development.

2. All correspondence between the Regional Council and the Kapiti Coast District Council regarding the requirements for secondary containment and environmental run-off management for this new development.

3. All communication between Greater Wellington Regional Council and NZTA regarding the requirement for secondary containment and environmental run-off management at the new development.

4. Verification of the site’s compliance with the relevant provisions of the Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region, such as the Hazard risk management
strategy, Hazardous Substances and Hazardous Waste.

5. Verification of the site’s compliance with Section 3.1 – 3.6 of the Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region.

The potential for catastrophic contamination of the local aquifer and the subsequent financial burden this presents to Ratepayers for remediation is a direct result of both Council's failure to enforce mandatory safety and environmental standards as part of the consenting process. The mitigation of these risks is a mandatory requirement under both Council’s regulatory functions.

Under Section 30 of the Resource Management Act, Greater Wellington Regional Council is the primary authority for controlling discharges to the environment. This Formal Notice identifies the lack of secondary containment at the [new] development that allows the potential discharge of hazardous substances directly into the environment, including but not limited to wetlands, the aquifer and a community drinking water source.

By the nature of the development and its intended use, hazardous materials will be present at the Commercial Vehicle Safety Centre; this Formal Notice identifies this fact. It also identifies the requirement to manage the risk by providing (correctly) for a worst-case scenario at the [new] development.

I believe the lack of secondary containment permitted by the Kapiti Coast District Council creates a high-risk environment that, under Section 15 of the Resource Management Act, necessitates the Greater Wellington Regional Council intervening to prevent the illegal discharge (of potentially toxic, hazardous materials) into the environment and aquifer.

I look forward to your prompt response regarding how the Greater Wellington Regional Council intends to address these systemic non-compliance issues and mitigate the risk to the local aquifer and environment.

Regards,

David Mills
Paekākāriki Resident and Volunteer Firefighter