David Mills
4 Smith Street
Paekākāriki
Wellington 5034

June 26th 2026

Greater Wellington Regional Council
PO Box 11646
Manners Street
Wellington 6142

Re: FORMAL NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES – SECOND NOTICE AND LGOIMA.

Attention: Fathima Iftikar, Acting Group Manager, Environment.

Thank you for your initial response dated 9 June 2026 and your subsequent clarification letter dated 11 June 2026 regarding file reference OIAPR 1274023063-52441.

Please accept this correspondence as my second formal notice regarding the severe lack of regulatory oversight and missing compliance documentation for the Commercial Vehicle Safety Centre (CVSC) development.

As you should be aware, the proposed development is situated within a highly sensitive receiving environment and a critical water supply catchment, directly threatening vital local infrastructure and adjacent Significant Natural Areas (SNAs). Specifically, the facility sits just 100 meters from the Mackay's Crossing Wildlife Reserve and its adjacent wetlands, 230 meters from Queen Elizabeth Park, 600 meters from the Wainui Stream, and 700 meters from the Paekākāriki water bores.

As it stands, the entire 10,000m2 site discharges all its run-off into Wisconsin Swales and then directly into the environment via uncontrolled soak pits. These currently provide a direct path to the aquifer for heavy metals, petroleum products and any hazardous substances that accidentally spill or are a result of an emergency at the site.

As a Firefighter who regularly attends and extinguishes vehicle fires, I would say that, should this occur at the site, it would, at a minimum, result in thousands of litres of toxic run-off being given a direct path to the ground, the aquifer, and the sensitive ecosystems surrounding the development.

Given the proximity of this clean sheet development, any failure to implement robust secondary containment presents a catastrophic risk to all the sensitive environments listed above. An uncontrolled discharge or hazardous materials spill at this location would rapidly infiltrate the shallow groundwater table and local surface waterways, and potentially permanently destroy protected wildlife habitats, poisoning the Wainui Stream ecosystem, and directly compromising the primary drinking water supply for the Paekākāriki community. Sections 15 and 17 of the Resource Management Act 1991 specifically forbid this from happening and require measures to prevent it.

Furthermore, the financial burden of containing, decontaminating and remediating such an environmental disaster would be staggering. Because an operational chemical or fuel spill constitutes a strict liability offence under the Resource Management Act, the complex technical extraction of contaminants from the aquifer, soil remediation, and the provision of emergency alternative drinking water infrastructure would inevitably result in tens of millions of dollars in unbudgeted liabilities, forcing local Ratepayers to bear the immense cost of the Council's regulatory failure. This is not acceptable.

In your letter dated 11 June, you state that resource consent WGN230282, issued in December 2023, covers both the environmental risk assessment and the compliance monitoring requirements for the site. However, looking at that consent and the associated correspondence between Greater Wellington Regional Council, the New Zealand Transport Agency, and Downer reveals that this consent relates strictly to temporary land disturbance, earthworks, and construction phase sediment discharges.

The email chains provided deal almost exclusively with construction phase mechanics, such as winter works applications, sediment retention ponds, and perimeter Swale stabilization. They do not contain any engineering scrutiny, risk assessment, or conditions regarding long-term operational storm water run-off, secondary containment, or the interception of hazardous substances transiting the completed facility.

Furthermore, your records show a complete absence of communication with the Kāpiti Coast District Council regarding containment or run-off management. This lack of inter-agency coordination is highlighted by the fact that your own monitoring team was completely unaware during pre-construction meetings that the site design had been changed to include an on-site wastewater treatment plant rather than a town supply connection.

By treating a construction phase earthworks consent as a blanket approval for the long-term operation of a high-risk heavy vehicle transit facility where hazardous materials will be present, Greater Wellington Regional Council is failing its statutory duties under Section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to effectively monitor the state of the environment and the ongoing effects of resource consents. A temporary sediment plan does not mitigate the permanent, acute risk of hazardous substance spills on a 10,000 square meter hardstand catchment once the site is operational.

Please note that until comprehensive independent documentation, engineering reviews, and risk assessments exist regarding operational run-off and hazardous substance containment, Greater Wellington Regional Council can not legally issue a final compliance certification or sign off on the completion of works for this site. Doing so without verifying compliance with Sections 3.1 to 3.6 of the Natural Resources Plan would constitute a direct breach of the Council's statutory obligations.

Please provide clarification on the following:

1. What specific operational discharge consents have been applied for or issued to manage post-construction storm water and hazardous substance containment at this site once it opens?

2. If no operational consents exist outside of the December 2023 earthworks consent, on what legal and/or empirical basis does Greater Wellington Regional Council intend to issue a compliance certification for the operational phase of this facility, given the total absence of existing compliance verification and independent risk assessment documentation?

I look forward to your urgent response.
Regards,

David Mills