in the matter of the resource management act 1991 (the act) fileunder the resource management act...

BEFORE THE HEARING PANEL

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER A hearing of an application

APP-2016200983.00 from the Palmerston North

City Council for resource consents in relation to

the construction of a pedestrian and cycle bridge

over the Manawatu River

SECTION 42A REPORT OF LUKA LYNN DE JONG

PLANNING

2 FEBRUARY 2017

Section 42A Planning Report

Application No. APP-2016200983.00 Palmerston North City Council Prepared by Luka Lynn de Jong – Consents Planner for Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council 31 January 2017

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 3

B. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................................... 3

C. REPORT OUTLINE ..................................................................................................... 4

D. APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT ............................................................. 5

E. LOCATION .................................................................................................................. 7

F. NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................... 8

G. SECTION 104 ............................................................................................................ 12

H. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ............................. 13

I. STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 22

J. OTHER MATTERS THE CONSENT AUTHORITY CONSIDERS RELEVANT ........... 27

K. ASSESSMENT AGAINST RMA PROVISIONS .......................................................... 28

L. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 32

M. RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................ 34

Section 42A Planning Report

Application No. APP-2016200983.00 Palmerston North City Council Prepared by Luka Lynn de Jong – Consents Planner for Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council 31 January 2017

3

A. INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Luka Lynn de Jong. I am a Consents Planner at the Manawatu-Wanganui

Regional Council (hereafter referred to as ‘MWRC’). I have held this position since

June 2014. I hold the qualification of a Bachelor of Resource and Environmental

Planning from Massey University. I am a member of the New Zealand Planning

Institute, holding an intermediate class membership.

2. I have 4 years experience in planning and resource management. Following my

graduation in 2013, I was employed at The Surveying Company Ltd (Wellington) as a

Planner. From 2013 to 2017 I have had a range of experiences in planning, including

providing assistance to organisations to process consent applications as well as

preparing consent applications on behalf of clients. As a Consents Planner at MWRC, I

have processed a diverse and complex range of Land Use Consents, Discharge

Permits, Water Permits and Coastal Permits.

3. I have visited the site, most recently being 11 January 2017. The site visit included

both the true right and true left banks of the Manawatu River where the bridge is

proposed to be constructed. I am familiar with the location of the proposed activities.

B. SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

4. This report provides an analysis of the resource management issues relating to the

resource consent application sought by the Palmerston North City Council (hereafter

the ‘Applicant’) associated with the construction of a Pedestrian and Cycleway Bridge

over the Manawatu River.

5. This report considers the potential environmental effects and statutory obligations that

are set out in section 104 of the Resource Management Act (the “Act”) is relevant to

the resource consent application to the MWRC.

6. The assessment and recommendations contained within this report are intended to

help inform the commissioners with their decision.

7. In preparing this report I have considered:

a. The application and Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE); Resource

consent application and AEE, He Ara Kotahi: Manawatu Pedestrian and Cycle

Bridge, November 2016, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd;

b. He Ara Kotahi: Manawatu Bridge response to request for further information,

prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, 13 January 2017;

c. Draft Erosion and Sediment Control Sketches, prepared by Tonkin & Taylor on

24 January 2017;

Section 42A Technical Hearing Report

Resource Consent Application APP-2016200983.00 Palmerston North City Council Prepared by Luka de Jong – Consents Planner for Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council 3 February 2017

4

d. The submissions that have been made on the above applications; and

e. The Section 42A reports prepared by Dr Alex James (Ecology and Water

Quality Consultant), Mr Hamish Sutherland (Senior Consents Monitoring

Officer) Mr Philip Wallace (Engineering Consultant), and Mr James Lambie

(Senior Environmental Scientist).

8. The recommendations and conclusions within this report may be reconsidered

following the pre-circulation of applicant and submitter evidence and presentations at

the hearing.

9. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the

Environment Court Practice Note. I agree to comply with the Code of Conduct.

Except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person,

my evidence in this statement is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to

consider any material facts known to me that might alter, or detract from, the opinions

that I express.

C. REPORT OUTLINE

10. My report has been prepared and covers the following matters:

i. a brief outline of the background to the applications;

ii. a description of the proposal;

iii. a brief description of the site and environment;

iv. an outline of the notification process;

v. a summary of the matters raised in submissions made on the consent

application;

vi. an assessment of the environmental effects associated with the activities

proposed application;

vii. an assessment of the proposal against the planning framework including the

relevant National Environmental Standards, National Policy Statements,

Regional Policy Statements and Regional Plans as they relate to the proposal;

viii. an analysis of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it relates to the resource

consent application, including S107 and Part 2 of the Act;

ix. conclusion; and

x. recommendation.

11. In accordance with section 42A (1A) and (1B) of the RMA, I have minimised the

repetition of information included in the application and where I have considered it

appropriate, adopted that information.



5

D. APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

Background

12. The Applicant has applied for a number of resource consents to both PNCC -

Regulatory and MWRC for the construction a shared pedestrian and cycle bridge over

the Manawatu River.

13. The proposed works are part of a wider project to design and construct a pedestrian

and cycle shared pathway from Fitzherbert Bridge to Linton Army Camp in Palmerston

North. The project is referred to as He Ara Kōtahi. A summary of the wider project is

contained within the application1.

Applications for resource consent

14. On 9 November 2016 MWRC and PNCC received an application prepared by Tonkin

& Taylor Limited on behalf of Applicant. The following resource consents are sought by

the Applicant from MWRC:

ATH-2016201107.00 Land Use Consent (Earthworks)

15. A Land Use Consent is sought to undertake large scale land disturbance and

vegetation clearance associated with the construction of a bridge and movement of a

stopbank and any ancillary discharges of sediment into water resulting from the land

disturbance.

16. The proposal comprises of approximately 5,500m2 of ground clearance and 4000m3 of

fill on the northern embarkment to raise the existing stopbank and construct the bridge

abutment. The southern embankment, bridge abutment and ramps will require a

approximately 3,500m2 of ground clearance and 5000m3 of fill.

17. A detail description of the proposed earthworks and associated vegetation clearance

relating to this application, including the timing of works, reasons for the works, erosion

and sediment control devices and monitoring required, has been provided in Section

3.9 of the application and the amended draft ESCP received on 14 January 2017. In

addition, draft sketches of the proposed river diversions were submitted on 24 January

2017 in response to the further information request under s92A of the RMA.

ATH-2016201172.00 Discharge Permit (Cleanfill)

18. A Discharge Permit is sought to discharge cleanfill material to land which will exceed

2,500m3 per year per property. As mentioned above, fill is required to create bridge

abutments and movement of the existing stopbanks.

1 Application, Section 1.1, Page 1



6

ATH-2016201173.00 Water Permit (Diversion)

19. A Water Permit is sought to temporarily divert the Manawatu River using in situ river

bed gravels to provide machinery access to construct two bridge piers in the bed of the

Manawatu River. This is intended to take place between October and April (inclusive)

during lower river levels. It is expected to take 8 weeks for each pile site to be

completed with the true left side pile being completed followed by the true right hand

side.

20. The draft ESCP outlines a brief methodology for the proposed in stream diversion

associated with construction of the piles and the proposed mitigations to address any

potential adverse effects.

ATH-2016201174.00 Land Use Consent (Beds, Rivers & Lakes)

21. Land Use Consent is sought to carry out earthworks, vegetation clearance, alteration

of a stopbank, construction of a new bridge and install rock armouring abutments in a

reach of river and its bed with Schedule B values of Sites of Significance – Cultural

and Flood Control and Drainage. This includes the associated disturbance of the bed

of the river and any ancillary sediment discharges into water or onto land resulting from

the construction works.

22. A 4-span bridge approximately 195m in length and 4.5m wide, which includes two

bridge piles within the Manawatu River and one bridge pile on the true right bank of the

Manawatu River. The proposed bridge elements are described in Section 3.3 of the

application and are illustrated in the Layout Plan, in Appendix D of the application.

23. Section 3.4 of the application2 outlines the proposed alterations to the northern

stopbank to enable the construction of the proposed bridge, parking area and shared

pedestrian and cycle pathway. A change to the existing stopbank over a length of

approximately 100 metres is required. The application notes maintaining the integrity of

these stopbank during construction and operation of the new bridge has been a central

part of their design.

24. There are no other resource consents required from MWRC.

25. A term of 35 years has been sought by the applicant.

26. Further information was requested by both PNCC – Regulatory and MWRC under

section 92A of the RMA on 20 December 2016. A copy of the information requested is

attached as Appendix 10.

2 Application, Section 3.4, Page 10



7

27. The applicant responded to the further information request on 13 January 2017 and

24 January 2017.

Rule Assessment and Overall Activity Status

28. The application3 states resource consents sought from MWRC associated with the

proposed construction of the bridge is to be assessed as Discretionary Activity. I agree

with the assessment provided and that the application is assessed as a Discretionary

Activity.

Permitted Activities

29. The application states there will be a surface water take from the Manawatu River to

assist with dust control on the southern bank. The application states the abstraction of

15m3 of surface water per day will not be exceeded. The activity can be a Permitted

Activity, provided the Applicant must ensure all conditions outlined under Rule 16-1 of

the One Plan are being implemented by the contractor to ensure aspects with Rule 16-

1 of the One Plan (2016) are met.

E. LOCATION

30. The site is located south-west of Palmerston North city centre. The proposed bridge

and associated works are located on Crown land, administered by Land Information

New Zealand and on Dittmer Reserve owned by the Palmerston North City Council. An

aerial photo of the site and location of the site are shown in the Layout Plan, in

Appendix D of the application4.

One Plan – Water Management Zones

31. The One Plan 2016 identifies Water Management Zones (WMZs) as a means of

managing water quality. The proposed site is located within the Lower Manawatu

(Mana_11) WMZ and Lower Manawatu (Mana_11a) sub-zone as identified within the

One Plan. The values associated with the zone are identified in Schedule B of the

One Plan and include the following:

Zone wide values

Life supporting capacity

Aesthetics

Contact Recreation

Mauri

Stock water

Existing Infrastructure

3 Application, Section 7.1, page 22

4 Application, Appendix D, Engineering Drawings



8

Industrial Abstraction

Irrigation; and

Capacity to assimilate pollution

Reach specific values

Amenity

Site of Significance – Cultural (SOS-C)

Site of Significance – Riparian (SOS-R)

Trout Fishery (Other)

Flood Control and Drainage

Existing Environment and Site Description

32. A description of the environment has been detailed in Section 2 of the application5. I

do not consider it necessary to repeat this information rather I will highlight the key

points below:

(a) The site of the proposed He Ara Kotahi bridge development (the site) spans the

Manawatu River adjacent to the intersection of Ruha Street and Dittmer Drive,

in Palmerston North.

(b) The Manawatu River runs in a southeast direction toward the sea. The

southern side of the river is a floodplain; generally flat pastoral land used for

dairy farming, research and educational purposes. The northern side of the

river (true right bank) is primarily park reserve with residential housing and

roading setback approximately 80 metres from the Manawatu River.

(c) Vegetation in the area includes exotic grasses, poplar, willow, Pohutukawa and

pine.

(d) The Manawatu River, which essential divides the proposed site in two parts

(northern and southern bank), is approximately 100 metres wide at the site and

around 4 metres at its deepest point near on the northern side of the river (true

right bank).

(e) There is an existing stopbank on the true right bank of the Manawatu River at

the proposed bridge location. The Manawatu River has been heavily modified

with in the urban landscape using flood protection structures, particularly rock

protection structures along the true right bank toward Fitzberbert Bridge,

approximately 1.3 kilometres upstream.

F. NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS

5 Application, Section 2, Pages 4-7



9

33. The applications sought from both MWRC and PNCC were jointly, publically notified on

21 November 2016. The notice was served on a number of potentially affected

parties. The submission period closed on 19 December 2016.

34. A total of 27 submissions were received within the submission period.

35. There were 2 late submissions received 1 working day after the submission closing

date. A decision has already been made by the Regional Council with agreement of

the Applicant to extend the submission period pursuant to Section 37A of the RMA. A

copy of the Decisions, both from MWRC and PNCC is attached as Appendix 12 and

Appendix 13. The result of the extension means all submissions are considered to be

received within the statutory timeframe.

36. A complete summary of submissions on the project is attached as Appendix 15. The

key points are as follows:

a. A total of 29 submissions were received. 9 submitters wished to be heard, 18

submitters do not wish to be heard and 2 submitters did not comment on

whether they wish to be heard.

b. The following are what I consider to be the key points raised within the

submissions (in no particular order):

i. Cultural effects;

ii. Location, connectedness and accessibility between the northern and

southern sides of the River and their associated land uses;

iii. Design and materials of bridge, appearance, road user conflict and

safety; and

iv. Increased walker and cyclist safety by not using main roads;

v. Resilience against natural hazards and potential damage to the existing

Fitzherbert Avenue bridge;

vi. Alternative forms of transport;

vii. Recreational potential within the reserve;

viii. The location of the bridge in relation to other features and surrounding

land-uses;

ix. Effects on residential amenity and quietness;

x. Construction effects including timing of year, traffic, dust, vibration,

hours of operation and noise;



10

xi. On-street parking and vehicle movements;

xii. Potential for crime;

xiii. Community consultation during options assessment; and

xiv. Vegetation removal and effects on bird and fish habitat including habitat

biodiversity.

37. The above is a summary of all issues raised, however some submissions relate solely

to PNCC matters. Tables 1, 2 and 3 below identify the issues pertaining to the MWRC

that were raised in the submissions. The identified issue is linked to the submission

number.

Table 1: Summary of Submissions in Support

Issues / Concerns raised through submissions

Comment Submission Number(s)

Cultural effects Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Inc (TMI)

who represents Rangitāne as an "iwi

authority" for the purposes of the

RMA, support the application noting

management of cultural elements

have been agreed upon

1

Public access Provision of access to the Manawatu

River and flood protection measures

2, 18

Infrastructure and power Discussed benefits of proposed

installation of power cables

3, 13

Civil defence Benefits of an additional bridge

following a natural hazard event

6, 7

Flood protection Noted flood protection will be retained 10, 20, 21

Table 2: Summary of Submissions in Opposition

Issues / Concerns raised

through submissions

Comment Submission

Number(s)

Cultural effects Iwi involvement in the project unclear 26

Construction effects Concerns relating to public access,

timing of works, dust prevention and

potential property damages as a result

of the construction works

2, 20, 9, 26

Infrastructure and power Opposes inclusion of electricity cables 9, 26, 28



11


through submissions

Comment Submission

Number(s)

Ecology impacts Potential impact on biodiversity,

herpetofauna, birdlife, native and

game fish species, biodiversity

9, 25

Civil defence and Existing

Infrastructure

Potential damages to Fitzherbert Ave

Road bridge following natural hazard

event

26, 28

Consultation Community consultation not

adequately addressed

9, 26

Table 3: Summary of submissions that neither support nor oppose the application


through submissions

Comment Submission

Number(s)

Construction effects Submissions raised concerns relating

to public safety during construction

works, timing of works and dust.

4, 22, 27

Ecology impacts Potential impact on biodiversity,

herpetofauna, birdlife, native and

game fish species, biodiversity.

Conditions required to protect

ecological values.

4, 22, 27

Civil defence matters Potential damages to Fitzherbert Ave

Road bridge following natural hazard

event

27

Legislation requirements RMA, LGA, and community

consultation issues raised

4, 27

Flooding and flood

protection

Flooding during and after works 27

38. Of these submissions above, overall a total of 15 submitters stated that they support

the application, 9 submitters stated they oppose the application and 5 submitters have

been considered neutral as they did not clearly outlined their position or have stated in

their submission whether they support or oppose the application.

39. While I have not listed all submitters, it is considered that their matters raised are

considered a District Council matter and will be addressed by PNCC’s Reporting

Planner; Mr Mark St.Clair, Consultant Planner.



12

G. SECTION 104

40. The provisions of section 104 of the Act must be considered by the consent authority in

making a decision on the resource consent application. The applicant has identified

some of the relevant provisions under s104 of the Act within the application6. I have

expanded on this analysis where I consider appropriate. In my opinion, the matters

contained in section 104 include:

104(1) Actual and potential environmental effects. An assessment of the

environmental effects has been provided with the application7. The following

assessment of the actual and potential effects of the proposed activities is

given below.

b.(i) National Environmental Standards. The applicant considers there are no

National Environmental Standards (NES) considered to be relevant to the

proposed works. I agree with the assessment that there is no relevant NES

in relation to the application.

b.(ii) Other regulations. There are no other regulations of relevance to this

application.

b.(iii) Relevant National Policy Statements. An assessment against the National

Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2014) is provided below.

b.(v) Relevant Regional Policy Statements or Proposed Regional Policy

Statements. An analysis of the operative Regional Policy Statement (Part I

of One Plan, 2016) is given below.

b.(vi) Relevant Regional and District Plans. I have undertaken an assessment

of the proposal against the Operative Regional Plan (Part II of the One Plan,

2016) and is given below.

(c) Other Matters the Consent Authority Considers Relevant. In this section,

I address other relevant matters which include term, the Manawatu River

Accord, and the Regional Transport Plan.

6 Application, Section 9, pages 34-40

7 Application, Section 8, Page 27-33



13

H. ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

41. Section 3 of the Act encompasses a broad definition of what constitutes environmental

effects. The Act requires the consideration of both actual effects and potential future

effects.

42. This assessment includes positive or adverse effects, any temporary or permanent

effect, any past, present of future effects and any cumulative effects on the

environment. In addition, consideration must be given to any potential effect of high

probability and any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.

43. In the following sections I provide an assessment of the actual and potential effects on

the environment.

Actual and Potential Effects

44. In assessing the actual and potential effects of the proposed activities, I have

considered the information from the application, further information provided, and the

evidence provided in the s42A reports of the technical experts for the Regional

Council. In my view there are six principle categories of environmental effects relevant

to the application:

i. Positive Effects;

ii. Construction effects;

iii. Effects on flood risk;

iv. Effects on the water quality, aquatic habitat and species within Manawatu

River;

v. Effects on terrestrial ecology and biodiversity; and

vi. Cultural effects.

Positive Effects

45. The application8 notes the proposal aims to enhance amenity outcomes in the

community. In addition, submissions noted positive effects of the bridge relating better

transport routes in the city and a safer active transport link as oppose to cycling over

the existing bridge on Fitzherbert Avenue to access key areas such as Massey and the

Linton Camp.

8 Application, section 8.2, Page 27



14

46. Overall, I consider the anticipated outcomes of the proposal will have positive effects

for the community by providing access to areas of employment and education facilities

on the southern side of the city. The bridge project is likely to have environmental,

social and economic benefits for the community by encouraging the uptake of walking

and cycling as a transport mode and for recreational purposes.

Construction Effects

47. The construction activities associated with the proposed bridge are of a scale and

duration has the potential to cause adverse effects on the River. These effects are

considered temporary in nature with the construction phase anticipated to be

completed within approximately 12 months. However, effects will require careful

management to ensure any significant adverse effects are avoided, remedied, or

mitigated. The following assessment considers the potential affects associated with the

construction.

Effects from dust

48. The project involves a large amount of earthworks which has the potential to create

dust. The applicant has noted that in the event that dust emissions become a problem

during dry, windy conditions, portable water sprayers can be used as necessary to

dampen down problem areas on the site. The application states 15m3 of surface water

per day can be abstracted from the Manawatu River for dust control purposes.

49. The effects from dust are expected to be temporary in nature and the dust effects can

be appropriately managed through conditions of consent (Appendix A). Overall the

effects from dust during construction are expected to be no more than minor if

managed appropriately.

Sediment release

50. Submitter 26 raised concerned that a finalised Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

(hereafter ‘ESCP’) was needed and information was missing from the application, such

as the location of stock piles required on site. The Applicant has since provided an

amended draft ESCP in response to the further information requested.

51. The draft ESCP has been reviewed by Mr Sutherland. Mr Sutherland has assessed the

application against the Greater Wellington Regional Council document titled; “Erosion

and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region” (2002, reprint 2006) (the

GW Guidelines).

52. The amended draft ESCP including a brief methodology to minimise the potential

adverse effects during construction of the piles. The Applicant proposes to redistribute

in situ river bed gravels to divert part of the river flow in the Manawatu River to provide

dry working conditions for machinery accessing the two pile sites.



15

53. The draft ESCP states that cleanfill is expected to be gravel material with limited fines.

This Mr Sutherland states in his evidence that the proposed soil used for fill purposes

is considered ‘low risk’, however the soil type needs to be confirmed by the fill

specification. If the fill specification indicates a finer particle size soil type, a Universal

Soil Loss Equation (USLE) will need to be completed, to determine sediment yield and

clearly define this risk. Based on Mr Sutherland’s recommendation, I have included a

requirement for a USLE to be provided if necessary.

54. Mr Sutherland considers the proposed draft ESCP meets the GW Guidelines, however

a Final ESCP is necessary prior to works commencing to ensure the proposed

methodology is confirmed. The application provides a sequence of works and

construction methodology, however the applicant has requested that there is flexibility

in the consent conditions to allow for changes to the methodology to be made. Mr

Sutherland considers this a reasonable request. Mr Sutherland notes a Management

Plan is appropriate and will need to include a detailed winter works management plan

to ensure the Applicant can minimise the effects and comply with the recommended

conditions of consent.

55. Mr Sutherland’s evidence states the project presents a ‘Medium Risk’ of discharging

into the Manawatu River. Based on Dr James evidence regarding the receiving

environment, Mr Sutherland has assessed the overall site risk for the earthworks

component of the project to be ‘Medium Risk’ on the Site Risk Assessment Matrix.

56. Taking into account the predicted level of risk assessed by Mr Sutherland, I am

satisfied the potential effects from the earthworks resulting in sediment release can be

managed through conditions of consent. Therefore, I have included conditions to

ensure best practice is carried out in terms of erosion and sediment controls that will

minimise potential effects on the Manawatu River during the construction works. A

finalised ESCP is recommended to be required for approval prior to construction

commencing, and is included as a condition of consent in Appendix A of this report.

Potential Effects on Flood Risk

Flooding and drainage – Construction

57. The application outlines the hydraulic design developed for the preferred bridge in the

following reports: Preliminary Hydraulic Report; Detailed Business Case – Hydraulic

Report, Piers & Abutments technical note v2; and Interim advice for DBC.

58. Mr Wallace has assessed the potential effects of the application, specifically the

change in water level in the Manawatu River (including the long-term effect of both the

abutments and piers).

59. The application recognises there is an element of risk during the proposed construction

works as a result of damages from high flows in a flood event which could occur during



16

the course of construction. Measures can be put in place for the Applicant to ensure

they are aware of any flood warnings and there is a procedure in place which will be

carried out to ensure that the city’s level of flood protection and infrastructure are not

put at risk during a flood event while the construction phase of the works is still in

progress.

60. Stockpiled material could be washed down stream in a flood event, and depending on

what stage construction is at, partially completed structures could be damaged. An

area on the northern side is allocated for surplus materials, yet it is unclear whether a

stock pile site is required on the true left side of the river. Conditions has been

recommended to ensure this is addressed in the final ESCP, including a requirement

for a Flood Contingency Plan.

Flood risk (Northern side)

61. The proposed works on the true right bank of the river are located on a stopbank

designed to contain a 1 in 500 year return period flood event. The application9 states

the proposed works undertaken on a stopbank has the potential to alter existing flow

paths in the river and operational performance of the stopbank. Figure 2 of the

Preliminary Hydraulic Report shows the potential change in water levels.

62. Mr Wallace has confirmed the modelling approach and the method of estimating the

effects of the bridge is sound. Paragraph 13 of Mr Wallace’s report notes some

elements of the modelling require revision. Mr Wallace recommends the model review

findings outlined in Appendix A of his evidence, be taken into consideration during the

detailed design stage. In addition, he notes the applicant needs to confirm at that stage

that the effects are of similar order of magnitude as documented or better. This can be

taken into account in the final design of the bridge.

63. Despite changes being suggested in Mr Wallace’s evidence, overall he considers the

increase in water level as a result of the bridge is likely be an imperceptible effect on

peak water levels and the flood protection measures.

64. Based on Mr Wallace’s advice, I consider the potential effects can be managed

through conditions of consent, being certification of the final design and methodology

of the proposed bridge and associated construction works. The final design plans and

construction methodology will need to be certified by MWRC against the integrity and

functionality of the existing level of river flood protection structures.

65. Further information provided notes the integrity of the stopbanks will be preserved;

crest level of the stop banks will be preserved, with the slope and crest width locally

improved in some locations. Also, the Applicant’s response noted “proposals for

temporary stopbanks, or other measures required to preserve the performance of the

9 Application, Section 8.4, page 28



17

stopbanks will be developed by the contractor”. The evidence prepared by Mr Wallace

confirms that this is reasonable, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure this is

achieved. A condition is recommended to ensure the integrity of the stopbank is

maintained and any damage is rectified by the consent holder.

Flood risk (Southern side)

66. Mr Wallace has considered the effects of flooding on the southern side of the river,

specifically Massey Campus on the northern side of Tennant Drive. Opus assessment

calculates that, in a 1 in 500 year flood event, depths in that area would be up to 800-

900 mm in that area. Mr Wallace recommends that the final design plan confirms that

the predicted increase in that area remains no more than 10 -15 mm to the existing

area. This would mean no additional areas would be flooded.

67. Although uncertainty exists in terms of the final bridge design, I consider that this

uncertainty can be addressed through adequate conditions, as recommended in

Appendix A of this report.

Potential scour and erosion

68. During a flood event, there is potential for scour or erosion to occur. The evidence of

Mr Wallace discusses the potential of local scour, in addition to general river bed

scour, during flood events. Paragraph 16 of Mr Wallace’s evidence notes this needs to

be considered in the final design of the river bridge crossings. He is satisfied that this

can be addressed through adequate conditions. Conditions outlined in Appendix A

require scour and erosion prevention to be incorporated into the final design plans

which will need to be certified by the MWRC prior to works commencing.

Surface Water Quality

69. The proposed works will result in the discharge of sediment to the Manawatu River

while instream works are carried out, specifically during the proposed stream

diversions which are required to construct two piers in the bed of the river. There is

also risk of a change in pH as a result of any concrete wash or wastewater discharge

to the river. This release of sediment and other containments may have adverse

effects on the water quality and consequently has the potential to have adverse effects

on aquatic life.

70. The application proposes two river diversions. Each river diversion aims to create a

bunded area to enable piles to be construction in the dry. Based on Mr Sutherland’s

opinion, the Applicant will need to work within the bed of the river for approximately 3-5

days to create each bund. In addition, the Applicant will need to work within the river to

de-construct each temporary bunded area around the pile. Likewise, Mr Sutherland

estimates approximately 3-5 days to complete this stage.



18

71. To mitigate potential effects of the temporary plumes of sediment discharge during the

proposed diversions and de-watering works, the applicant suggests the following

monitoring requirement:

- “The establishment of a reference monitoring site upstream of the project, a site at

the end of the zone of reasonable mixing (200 m downstream of the discharge

point) and a third downstream site. Sites should be on the same side of the river

that works are occurring.

- The establishment of appropriate water quality trigger levels for adaptive

management at the end of the zone of reasonable mixing. We understand that a

general standard for such works is <30% change in visual clarity.

- The collection of visual clarity, pH and suspended sediment measurements at the

above sites during sediment generating works or discharges.

- The establishment of a reference monitoring site upstream of the project, at the

end of the zone of reasonable mixing (200m downstream of the discharge point)

and a third downstream site to ensure water quality trigger levels are not breached;

no greater than 30% change in visual clarity within the water body”.10

72. Provided instream works are limited to 3-5 days and in accordance with the

application, the effects of the discharge of sediment on aquatic life are considered no

more than minor.

73. The accidental release of fuel, oils or other chemicals from machinery working in the

riverbed may have adverse effects on water quality. The application11 recommends pH

is monitored. Mr James concurs that pH monitoring should be required. In addition, Mr

James recommends a requirement for some corrective management actions wherever

trigger levels of any monitored parameters are exceeded.

74. I concur with the recommendations provided in Dr James evidence, and have outlined

recommended conditions of resource consent, if granted, that minimise any adverse

effects.

Effects on Aquatic Life

75. The application12 outlines an assessment of the potential effects of the proposal on

aquatic life. Dr James evidence provides a detailed assessment of the potential effects

of the bridge construction on benthic ecology and fish fauna.

10

Application, Appendix C, Section 3.4.2, page 7 11

Application, Appendix C, Section 3.4.2, page 7 12

Application, Appendix C, Section 3.4.2, page 7



19

76. Dr James agrees with the Applicant’s conclusion that the Manawatu River has “high”

fishery values in the vicinity of the bridge project. Dr James’s suggests that additional

site specific information is required to determine if the proposal would have any

potential adverse affects on fish. The applicant did not carry out a site-specific

assessment.

77. The application provides a list of fish species known within the Manawatu River

catchment at or upstream of the site derived from New Zealand Freshwater Fish

Database (NZFFD) records. Dr James report provides a list of migratory species likely

to be present in the river and the fish species likely to pass the bridge site at certain

times of the year. Schedule B of the One Plan recognises ‘Other Trout Fishery’ values

for this reach of the Manawatu River.

78. Submission 4 (Fish and Game) outlined proposed conditions to minimise the impact on

trout and the health of the supporting ecosystem. One of these proposed conditions is

that works be limited to the summer low flows. The Applicant has indicated that this

may not be achievable with works possibly required during the winter to meet project

deadlines. Dr James has recommended measures to ensure the instream values are

protected, particularly reach specific values under Schedule B of the One Plan which

includes Trout Fishery (other).

Effects on bank birds, herpetofauna and vegetation

79. The Applicant’s assessment did not include an onsite assessment of riparian

vegetation and herpetofauna (lizards) assessment. Mr Lambie has assessed the

application and provided an opinion on the ecological risks associated with the

proposed bridge with specific regard to the bank vegetation, lizards and birds.

Birds

80. The site is identified as a “Site of Significance-Riparian”. This is associated with gravel

beaches suitable for nesting wader birds (in this instance banded dotterel), Mr Lambie

has recommended measures to ensure the Dotterels are protected. I have recommend

conditions in Appendix A.

81. Mr Lambie considers that the bridge will not adversely affect the flight paths of

indigenous birds, given birds can navigate around the piers and under (or over) the

bridge.

82. Submission 9 noted moreporks nest in the pines on the southern bank of the river

which will be removed as part of the project. The Applicant has since assessed the

potential effects on bird habitat in response to the further information requested. Mr

Lambie’s evidence notes the Applicant’s assessment is reasonable with regard to the

use of trees for prey roosts of falcon and nesting for morepork. Mr Lambie



20

recommends tree removal should be done after March and before October to avoid

their nesting time. I have suggested a condition in Appendix A of this report.

Herpetofauna

83. Mr Lambie has confirmed gecko’s may be present in suitable habitat in the Esplanade

and so he can not disregard potential effects on herpetofauna. Pohutukawa trees on

the site (and are subject to removal) are within the construction envelope which may

provide a suitable habitat for geckos (skinks). Given there is potential for geckos to be

present, Mr Lambie has recommended a condition to remedy effects. I have suggested

a condition in Appendix A of this report to take into account his recommendation.

Vegetation

84. Mr Lambie considers the on-site vegetation of both banks does not meet the One Plan

definition of significance (i.e. is not a rare, threatened or at-risk habitat type listed in

Schedule E Table F1). Similarly, none of the species present trigger the species-

specific triggers for significance listed in Table F2a of the One Plan.

85. Mr Lambie notes it is highly unlikely that there are any rare or threatened native

grasses, herbs, or other vulnerable native plant species present in the areas to be

cleared. Based on Mr Lambie’s opinion, I consider that the proposed vegetation

clearance to be no more than minor.

86. Relying on Mr Lambie’s assessment, I have recommend conditions to address the

effects on birds, herpetofauna and vegetation, outlined in in Appendix A and overall,

consider the effects to be no more than minor.

Cultural Effects

87. The application discussed cultural effects in general terms. There are no known waahi

tapu or sites of cultural significance within the works area, however this reach of the

Manawatu River is identified as a “Site of Significance – Cultural” under Schedule B of

the One Plan, signalling the Manawatu River is of great importance to iwi. Accordingly,

the application states that regular consultation with Rangitaane o Manawatu has

occurred as part of the wider project to ensure cultural values have been considered

with respect of the proposal.

88. Written approval from Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated (TMI) as mandated

authority for Rangitaane o Manawatu has been obtained and provided with the

application.

89. The Applicant has provided the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

documentation, dated 11 November 2016, as part of the s92A information request. The

MOU outlines the relationship and responsibilities of the two parties in relation to the

wider He Ara Kōtahi project and the construction of the pedestrian and cycle bridge for



21

which consents are sought. Consideration to matters raised in the memorandum of

understanding between TMI and the Applicant have been included in recommended

condition of resource consent.

90. A submission was received from Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated (TMI) which

did not raise any concerns with regards to effects of the proposed development. TMI

indicated they wish to be heard at the hearing. I consider it may be helpful to hear from

the respective submitter before being satisfied cultural matters have been fully

addressed.

Conclusion

91. The submissions received highlight the benefits associated with the bridge, including

amenity, health and wellbeing benefits for the community.

92. Flood risk can be managed through consent conditions.

93. Based on the evidence presented by the Applicant and MWRC experts, the potential

effects from the construction of the bridge, subject to the recommended conditions, are

likely to give rise to both temporary and long-term effects that overall, I consider to be

no more than minor.

94. There is general agreement that potential adverse effects can be managed through

consent conditions.

95. The proposal is unlikely to result in more than minor adverse effects, however

additional monitoring is recommended to ensure effects on herpetofauna, water quality

and macroinvertebrates are appropriately mitigated.

96. A final ESCP can be provided to ensure the effects of the construction, in particular, in-

stream works, will mitigate potential contaminants entering the Manawatu River.

97. Given a letter of support has been provided from TMI and a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) has been provided with the application, I consider the cultural

effects to be no more than minor, provided matters raised in the MOU are adhered to.

98. Potential effects on effects on birds and vegetation will be no more than minor.

99. While recognising the uncertainty that remains with regards to the bridge design, I

consider that the bridge will not adversely impact flood flows and flood protection

structures provided the final design recommended conditions of consent are adhered

to.



22

I. STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

100. When considering an application for a resource consent (as a discretionary activity)

and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have

regard to sections 104 and 104B of the Act.

Relevant National Environmental Standards (NES)

Section 104(1)(b)(i)

101. Section 104 requires consideration of any NES’s that are relevant. The applicant has

provided an assessment against the National Environmental Standard for Freshwater

Management 2014 in the application13 and I concur with the assessment provided.

Relevant National Policy Statements (NPS)

Section 104(1)(b)(iii)

102. Section 104 requires consideration of National Policy Statements that are relevant. In

this case the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, 2014 (NPSFM

2014) is relevant. The NPSFM outlines a number of national values of freshwater

where fresh waters intrinsic values, such as safeguarding the life-supporting capacity

of water is recognised and considered. I understand that the One Plan aims to give

effect to the NPSFM 2014.

103. In this case, the application has regard to the adverse effects on the life-supporting

capacity of the Manawatu River and its ecosystem. While the discharge of sediment

resulting from the disturbance of the river bed during construction will not be

completely avoided, all practical measures will be taken to minimise sediment release

and any discharge will be temporary in nature.

104. Taking into account the recommended conditions, I consider the proposal is consistent

with the objectives and policies of the NPSFM 2014.

Operative One Plan (2016)

105. The One Plan (2016) contains the relevant Regional Policy Statement and Regional

Plan provisions applicable to the application.

Relevant Regional Policy Statement

106. Section 104(i)(v) of the RMA requires consideration of a Regional Policy Statement

(RPS), in this case part one of the One Plan (2016).

107. The applicant has provided an assessment of the RPS in the application14. Rather

than repeat the objectives and policies, I have provided commentary of the relevant

13

Application, Section 9.1.2.1, Page 35



23

objectives and policies below and included additional objectives and policies where I

consider it to applicable.

Chapter 2: Te Ao Māori

108. In addition to the objectives and policies identified in the application, I consider that the

relevant Te Ao Māori Objectives and Policies that apply to the proposal are:

Objective 2-1: Resource management

Policy 2-1: Hapū and iwi involvement in resource management

Policy 2-2: Wāhi tapu, wāhi tūpuna and other sites of significance

Policy 2-3: The mauri of water

Policy 2-4: Other resource management issues

109. The Manawatu River at this location is a “Site of Significance – Cultural” under

Schedule B of the One Plan (2016). Iwi have been involved in the development of the

proposal to ensure matters of social, economic, cultural and environmental importance

are taken into account.

110. The application notes there are no known waahi tapu sites within the works area. The

Applicant and Tanenuiarangi Manawatū Incorporated (TMI) have entered a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which outlines the relationship and

responsibilities of the two parties in relation to the wider project and the construction of

the pedestrian and cycle bridge for which consents are sought. These commitments

are recommended to be conditions of resource consent, if granted (as shown in

Appendix A).

111. Overall, I consider the proposal is consistent with Objective 2-1 and Policies 2-1, 2-2,

2-3 and 2-4 of the One Plan.

Chapter 3: Infrastructure, Energy, Waste, Hazardous Substances and

Contaminated Land

112. I concur with the applicant’s identification of applicable provisions and the assessment

relating to infrastructure in Table 9.2 of the application15. Policy 3-1 recognises benefits

of infrastructure and other physical resources of regional or national importance. Policy

14

Application, Section 9.1.4, Page 36 15

Application, Table 9.2, Page 37



24

3-2 highlights the potential adverse effects of other activities on infrastructure and

other physical resources of regional or national importance.

113. The proposed bridge is likely to play an important role in servicing communities,

providing an additional transport link across the Manawatu River. The bridge will

provide value to the community by enhancing public access while not having an

adverse effect on the existing flood protection structures (stopbank). Therefore, I

consider the proposed structures are not inconsistent with the Objective 3-3, Policies

3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 of the One Plan (2016).

Chapter 5 Water

114. The applicant has identified the relevant provisions within the application16. Chapter 5

addresses the management of fresh water in the Region. I have provided a brief

summary below of the key objectives and policies I consider relevant to this

application.

115. Objective 5-1 seeks to manage surface water bodies and their beds in a manner which

safeguards their life supporting capacity and recognises and provides for the values

listed in Schedule B of the One Plan. Dr James has assessed the adverse effects on

instream values. Based on Dr James advice, I am of the view that conditions can be

imposed to adequately mitigate adverse effects on Schedule B values, and water

quality is carefully monitored to ensure the One Plan targets are not exceeded to a

level that would adversely effect the Schedule B values relating to life supporting

capacity and Trout Fishery.

116. Policy 5-1 identifies WMZs and the individual values and management objectives

associated with them. Policy 5-2 identifies water quality targets which must be used to

inform surface water quality management.

117. The proposed activities have potential to generate significant sediment release posing

a threat to aquatic life. As discussed in Dr James evidence, water quality targets

should be met in relation to the sediment discharge to protect in-stream values. Based

on Dr James advice, I consider water quality targets are applicable to this application

and therefore I have included conditions to ensure the discharge of sediment does not

breach the relevant One Plan standards thereby protecting in-stream values.

118. The site is within the Lower Manawatu WMZ. The application has correctly identified

the values associated this WMZ, as set out in Schedule B of the One Plan and surface

water quality targets are described in Schedule E of the One Plan.

16

Application, Section 9.1.4, Page 36



25

119. Policy 5-22 recognises and provides for the Schedule B Values for the Water

Management Sub-Zone in which the activities takes place, in the manner described in

Policies 5-23, 5-24 and 5-25, all of which are relevant to this proposal.

120. Subject to the conditions being imposed to avoid adverse effects on the Schedule B

values, I consider the proposal consistent with policies 5-22, 5-23, 5-24 and 5-25 of the

One Plan.

Chapter 6 Indigenous biological diversity, landscape and historic heritage

121. Chapter 6 of the Plan deals with Indigenous biological diversity, landscape and historic

heritage. Objective 6-1 is designed so as to protect areas of significant indigenous

vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and maintain indigenous

biological diversity, including enhancement where appropriate. Policy 6-1 is a process

policy which directs the Council to develop objectives, policies, methods and rules for

the purpose of managing biological diversity in the Region. The Regional Council has

achieved this policy through the relevant objectives, policies and rules contained in

Chapter 13.

122. Policy 6-2 states habitats are determined to be rare or threatened habitats under

Schedule F of the One Plan. Mr Lambie’s evidence confirms on-site vegetation, on

both the true left and true right side of the river, does not meet the One Plan definition

of a threatened or at-risk habitat type listed in Schedule E Table F1.

123. I consider the proposal is consistent with objectives 6-1 and 6-2 and policies 6-1 and 6-

2 of the One Plan, provided, monitoring of herpetofauna is carried out in accordance

with Appendix A of this report.

Regional Plan – One Plan (Part 2)

Objectives and Policies of the Operative Regional Plan

124. The following is an assessment of the proposal against the Objectives and Policies of

the Regional Plan being Part II of the One Plan. The Applicant has identified some of

the relevant Objectives and Policies within the Application17. Rather than repeat the

objectives and policies, I have provided commentary of the relevant objectives and

policies below.

Chapter 13

125. Objective 13-1(b) regulates the vegetation clearance and land disturbance activities

relating to the application, specifically the potential increased sedimentation in water

17

Application, Section 9.1.5, Pages 36 and 37



26

bodies as a result of human activity is avoided as far as reasonably practicable, or

otherwise mitigated. Policy 13-1 is relevant to the proposal as it manages those effects

by requiring resource consents for activities adjacent to some water bodies, large-

scale land disturbance, in this case, large scale earthworks within 5 metres of the

Manawatu River.

126. In terms of this proposal, I consider adequate sediment and erosion control measures

are vital to ensure sedimentation effects are mitigated. Mr Sutherland’s evidence has

provided an assessment against the “Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the

Greater Wellington Region”. This document aims to minimise disturbance, protect

waterbodies, stabilise exposed areas quickly, install sediment and erosion controls and

inspect the site. Mr Sutherland has confirmed that the draft ESCP is sufficient in that it

can be assessment against best practice guidelines ensure any adverse effects on

water quality are avoided where possible and otherwise minimised. Therefore, I

consider the application is consistent with Objective 13-1 and Policy 13-1 of the One

Plan.

127. Policy 13-2 outlines matters that need to be considered when making decisions on

resource consent applications for vegetation clearance, large-scale land disturbance

and the ancillary discharges to and diversions of surface water. As noted above, the

ESCP can be used to manage the effects of land disturbance. Policy 13-2 states the

Regional Council must set consent conditions on a case-by-case basis, having regard

to a number of matters, including preparing a ESCP and relevant codes of practice,

standards and guidelines and accepting compliance with them to the extent that they

can be used as conditions on resource consents. Given there is general agreement

that the guidelines can be adopted through a Finalised ESCP, I consider the

application is consistent with Policy 13-2.

128. Under Policy 13-2 (m), matters under Policy 14-9 need to be considered given I the

activities involve an ancillary discharge to surface water. For the reasons discussed in

the assessment against the NPSFM, the application is consistent with Policies 13-2

(m) and 14-9.

129. Objective 13-2 relates to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation

and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and maintenance of indigenous biological

diversity, including enhancement where appropriate. Mr Lambie’s evidence does not

identify any significant indigenous vegetation. Significant habitats of indigenous fauna

have not been fully addressed by the Applicant. Given there may be geckos present,

which have a protected status under the Wildlife Act 1953 in New Zealand, I consider it

appropriate to require further monitoring and consent conditions to imposed, if the

consent is granted.

Chapter 14



27

130. Chapter 14 relates to Discharges to Land and Water. Objective 14-1 seeks to manage

discharges and land use activities in a manner which safeguards the life supporting

capacity of water and provides for the Values associated with waterbodies and avoids,

remedies or mitigates adverse effects of discharges to land on surface or groundwater.

131. Policy 14-1 requires consideration of the relevant objectives and policies of Chapter 5

when making a decision or setting consent conditions for the discharge of

contaminants to water. I have dealt with this in paragraphs 29-32 above. I agree with

the Applicant’s identification of relevant Objectives and Policies under Chapter 14.

Therefore, I will not repeat the assessment in my evidence.

Chapter 17

132. Chapter 17 relates to regulation of structures within the bed of a river. Objective 17-1:

Regulation of structures and activities in artificial watercourses and in the beds of

rivers and lakes, and damming, has regard to the effects discussed under Chapter 5

that relate to structures in the beds of rivers. It is my view that Objective 17-1 and

Policy 17-1 are the relevant provisions under Chapter 17.

133. As outlined in Section H of this report, the draft ESCP has been against best

management practices to mitigate adverse effects from deposited sediment into

aquatic environments. Conditions have been recommended in Appendix A of this

report which seek to mitigate any adverse effects on ecological health. For this reason,

I consider the proposed activities are consistent with the relevant provisions.

J. OTHER MATTERS THE CONSENT AUTHORITY CONSIDERS RELEVANT

Manawatu River Accord

134. The Manawatu River Accord is a non-statutory document which records an agreement

between various parties to achieve the goal of improving the health of the Manawatu

River, such that it sustains fish species, and is suitable for contact recreation, in

balance with the social, cultural and economic activities of the catchment community.

PNCC are signatories of the Accord. I consider the construction of a pedestrian and

cycle bridge over the Manawatu River aligns with the direction of the Accord.

Regional Transport Plan

135. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) requires the Horizons Regional

Council Transport Plan (which sets out the strategic direction for land transport in the

region), to include a statement of transport priorities for the first 10 years of the plan.

The identified strategic priorities will guide investment in the land transport network.

136. I consider Strategic Priority 4 of the Regional Transport Plan (Section 2.2.4) broadly

aligns with the He Ara Kotahi bridge project. Strategic Priority 4 recognises the need

for an increased focus on pedestrian and cycling. Over the past 20 years there has



28

been a decline in walking and cycling throughout New Zealand. The government has

recognised the important role walking and cycling can have in positive economic,

social and environmental outcomes. The priority highlights walking and cycling in

urban, and between, urban centers can support economic growth and productivity

through the provision of better access to employment areas. It also improves capacity

on existing roads through mode shift and so lessens the amount of maintenance and

construction of new roads.

137. While the He Ara Kotahi bridge is not currently recognised in the Regional Transport

Plan, I consider the wider project to contribute to its overall goal.

K. ASSESSMENT AGAINST RMA PROVISIONS

Section 107

138. Section 107 of the RMA notes the restrictions on the granting of a discharge permit.

A consenting authority shall not grant a discharge if, after reasonable mixing, the

contaminant discharged is likely to give rise to any of the following:

a) The production of conspicuous oil or grease files, scums or foams, or floatable

or suspended materials;

b) Any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity;

c) Any emission of objectionable odour;

d) The rendering of freshwater unsuitable for consumption by farm animals;

e) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

139. The discharge of sediment into the Manawatu River associated with the construction

works is anticipated as a result of bed disturbance in the active channel and

earthworks within 5 metres of the bed. The discharge effects may give rise to a

conspicuous change in water clarity, however the discharge is expected to have a

short duration, thus, does not give rise to significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

140. Subject to the recommended conditions I am comfortable that the proposed discharge

would not give rise to the effects listed in Section 107.

Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Purpose and Principles

Section 6: Matters of National Importance

141. Section 6 of the Act sets out the matters of national importance which are to be

recognised and provided for when considering applications for resource consent. In

terms of this proposal, I consider that (a), (c) (d), and (e) to be relevant.



29

142. Part (a) seeks to preserve and protect the natural character of rivers and their margins

from inappropriate use. In terms of 6(a), I consider that the proposal does not impact

on the natural character of the Manawatu River. The Manawatu River is a heavily

modified river, such as construction of stopbanks to control erosion and flooding at the

proposed bridge site.

143. Part (c) being the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and

significant habitats of indigenous fauna, has been assessed within Section H of this

report. 127. The assessment of effects undertaken in Section H of this report has

addressed indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna effects

and addressed the various mitigation measures. I consider the proposed bridge is

consistent with this matter.

144. Section 6(d) requires recognition of public access to rivers. Currently there is public

access to the reserve area on the northern side. An alternative route around may need

to be considered for recreational purposes. Nevertheless, I consider the proposal does

not restrict public access to the Manawatu River, except where it may be necessary for

public safety reasons. In addition, in the long-term the bridge will enhance public

access.

145. Section 6(e), relates to the relationship between Maori and water and their culture and

traditions associated with the water. The connection between the River and Maori is of

considerable importance being identified as a Site of Significance – Cultural. Section H

highlights the involvement local iwi have had in the development, including prior to the

resource consents being lodged with the MWRC. For the reasons outlined in Section H

of this report relating to water quality, aquatic life and cultural effects, I consider that

matters under Section 6(e) have been addressed.

146. Accordingly, I consider that the proposal has recognised and provided for those

relevant matters of national importance outlined in Section 6 of the Act.

Section 7: Other Matters

147. Section 7 sets out other matters which the decision maker must have had particular

regard to when making a decision on an application for resource consent. Of particular

relevance to this application are sections 7(a), (aa), (b), (c), (d), (f), (h) and (i):

(a) Kaitiakitanga (stewardship);

(aa) The ethic of stewardship;

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems;



30

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment;

(h) The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon; and

(i) The effects of climate change.

148. Regarding section 7(a) and (aa), the RMA requires a decision maker to have particular

regard to kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship. The application outlines that

consultation with TMI was undertaken to ensure tangata whenua interests were

acknowledged and any cultural implications of the bridge were addressed.

149. Section 7(b) requires the efficient use and development of natural and physical

resources. The bridge has been designed taking into account the natural physical

characteristics of the Manawatu River.

150. Sections 7(c) (d) and (f) outline the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values,

the intrinsic value of ecosystems and the maintenance and enhancement of the

environment. I am comfortable that subject to the recommended conditions the

proposal is not contrary to these sections.

151. Part (h) requires regard to be had to the protection of the habitat of trout. The habitat of

trout in the river will not be adversely affected by the proposed works. A number of

conditions have been recommended that will assist with the protection of habitat.

152. Overall, the proposal will has particular regard to matters outlined in Section 7.

Section 8: Treaty of Waitangi

153. Section 8 of the Act requires the consent authority to take into account the principles of

the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court of Appeal (New Zealand Māori Council Case 54/87)

identified four major principles, which are:

a. The Essential Bargain – the exchange of Kāwanatanga (in Article 1) for the

protection of tino rangatiratanga (in Article 2).

b. The Principles of Tino Rangatiratanga and Kāwanatanga – the guarantee to

Iwi and Hapū of full chieftainship or authority over their lands, resources and

taonga, and therefore the control and management of tribal resources

according to Māori cultural preference, as balanced against the Crown’s right to

make law and govern.

c. The Principle of Partnership and Good Faith – the shared obligation of both

Treaty partners to meet their respective commitments and to act reasonably

and in good faith to one another.

d. The Principle of Active Protection – the Crown’s obligation to actively protect

the interests of Māori in their land and resources.



31

154. The application details consultation was undertaken with Rangitane o Manawatu prior

to the application being lodged. A submission from TMI has been received in support

of the application. I would anticipate that an opinion would be expressed at the hearing

which would be useful to allow for further assessment against Section 8.

155. I am satisfied that the principles of the Treaty have been taken into account given

written approval has been received from TMI.

Section 5: Purpose

156. Section 5 states that the purpose of the Act is to promote sustainable management of

natural and physical resources. Section 5(2) of the Act then proceeds to state that:

“sustainable management” means managing the use, development, and protection of

natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and

communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their

health and safety while:-

(a) sustaining the potential of the natural and physical resources (excluding

minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the air, water, soil and ecosystems;

and

(c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the

environment.

157. I consider the applications are consistent with the purpose of the Act for the following

reasons:

It is anticipated that the life-supporting capacity of the water will be adequately

safeguarded, as highlighted in the assessment of effects undertaken in Section

H of this report.

Any adverse effects on the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and

ecosystems are considered temporary in nature.

Short-term effects that may potentially have an adverse effect on the life

supporting capacity of the Manawatu River can be managed through imposing

consent conditions. In addition, any adverse effects on flood risk, bank stability,

water quality, aquatic life, herpetofauna and birds can be mitigated by way of

recommended conditions of consent.

Consideration of Term



32

158. In making a recommendation about term I have considered the provisions in Policy 12-

5 of the One Plan. Chapter 12 of the One Plan sets out general objectives and policies,

and Policy 12-5 deals with consent durations. The applicant has sought a term of 35

years.

159. Under policy 12-5, consents are generally granted for the term sought by the Applicant,

other than when considering an application under ss13, 14 and 15 of the Act, set under

Policy 12-5 (b). Accordingly, I give consideration to the matters set out under (b).

160. Under Policy 12-5 (b) consideration must be given to common catchment expiry dates.

Consents should expire or have the ability to be reviewed on these dates and every 10

years thereafter. The common catchment expiry for the Lower Manawatu is 1 July

2013. If granting at next common catchment, matters under 12-5(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) are

relevant.

161. The applicant proposes works with be carried out within 12 months. Provisions under

Rules 17-4 and 17-5 of the One Plan allow the use of an existing structure and

maintenance. Therefore, I consider that only the construction phase needs to be

consented. Taking into account unanticipated delays such as weather constraints, I

consider the next common catchment being 1 July 2023, an appropriate duration.

162. Policy 12-6 details the situations where consent review conditions are considered to be

appropriate. I do not consider a review relevant to this application given the short

duration of construction as well as any adverse effects being avoided, remedied and

mitigated through conditions on consent.

163. It would be helpful if the applicant could clarify its position on this matter in their s41B

report or at the hearing to ensure a shorter duration of consent is appropriate.

L. CONCLUSION

164. I have considered the application, the further information, the submissions and Section

42A reports. In particular I have considered the following:

The actual and potential effects of the activities identified within the AEE;

The matters raised in the written submissions;

The statutory framework being the NPS for Freshwater Management, the

Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan; and

Part 2 of the RMA.

165. There are long-term positive effects associated with the proposal. The proposed bridge

will provide better pedestrian and cycle access to southern urban areas of the city.



33

Broadly, the projects focus on enhancing recreational opportunities that encourage

walking and cycling in urban areas.

166. Given TMI have provided written approval, I consider the proposed works will not have

any adverse cultural effects. Consideration to matters raised in the MOU between TMI

and the Applicant have been included in recommended condition of resource consent

(excluding the fencing in Stage 2 of the project) to ensure commitments are

addressed.

167. The proposal will result temporary adverse effects relating to water quality and aquatic

habitats as a result of sediment release during construction of the river diversions.

However, the sediment discharge can be minimised by adopting best practice erosion

and sediment control measures. It is recommended conditions are imposed to ensure

water quality standards under the One Plan are achieved, in accordance with Policy 5-

3 and Schedule E of the One Plan.

168. Policy 13-2 states the Regional Council must set consent conditions on a case-by-case

basis, having regard to relevant codes of practice, standards and guidelines and

accepting compliance with them to the extent that they can be used as conditions on

resource. It is therefore considered appropriate to set conditions to carry out works in

accordance Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines and allow the draft ESCP to be

certified once the methodology is confirmed.

169. Once the temporary diversions are established the majority of the construction works

associated with the bridge construction will take place in the ‘dry’ river bed and hence

minimises the release of sediment into the river.

170. The proposed bridge will have a no more than minor adverse effect on water quality

and freshwater ecology, provided appropriate consent conditions regarding riverbed-

breeding birds, erosion and sediment control, concrete pouring, fish relocation, and

lighting design are included in the resource consent.

171. The proposed activity is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies in the NPS

for freshwater management, RMA and the objectives and policies of the relevant

Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan.

172. The potential adverse effects of the proposed development in terms of flood control

and drainage is considered no more than minor.

173. Overall, subject to any additional evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that

consent should be granted with the recommended conditions imposed.

174. A term of 6 years is appropriate, provided the applicant considers this sufficient time to

complete the proposed works.



34

M. RECOMMENDATION

175. Based on the above assessment, I recommend that subject to the conditions included

in Appendix A, resource consents ATH-2016201107.00 (Earthworks), ATH-

2016201172.00 (Discharge of Cleanfill), ATH-2016201173.00 (River Diversion) and

ATH-2016201174.00 (Beds, Rivers & Lakes) can be granted.

in the matter of the resource management act 1991 (the act) fileunder the resource management act...

Documents