page 1
BEFORE INDEPENDENT HEARING COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED BY THE TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
In the matter of Application RM150369, RM150372 and RM150371 by Tasman District Council for resource consents associated with the extraction of river gravel for river management purposes
Summary Statement - Evidence of Janan Dunning
25 November 2019
RM150369 Hearing-Applicant Evidence Summary-DUNNING-Planning 2019-11-25 page01
page 2
Qualifications and experience
1 My name is Janan Dunning. I am a Principal Planner with Stantec, engaged by the applicant to provide planning advice and evidence regarding the proposed activity.
Scope of evidence
2 The applicant has applied for:
a. Land use consent RM150369 – to extract gravel material from land b. Discharge permit RM150371 – to discharge contaminants to water
c. Coastal permit RM150372 – to disturb the foreshore and seabed to extract gravel material from the CMA.
3 RM150369 and RM150371 are to be exercised for river management purposes across Tasman District other than in those areas noted in the application where the activity would be excluded.
RM150372 would authorise the activity in the CMA, near the mouths of the Motueka and Takaka Rivers. It is appropriate in my view that the current applications are considered in the context of the existing global riverworks consents which provide for river management activities that include activities and effects that are substantially similar in nature to those associated with gravel extraction as proposed.
4 In my view, the key matters for the Hearing Panel to consider are:
(a) Whether the activity as a whole is appropriate in the regulatory context, and will achieve the purpose of the RMA;
(b) Whether RM150371 would be prevented from being granted by s107 of the RMA; and (c) Whether RM150372 is prevented from being granted under s140D of the RMA or can
be determined under s104B.
5 The primary positive effect of the activity is the management of flood risk across Tasman District, and the associated adverse effects on the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the District’s community.
6 The anticipated adverse effects of the activity include effects on:
- water quality;
- landscape and amenity, including noise, dust and visual effects during works;
- public access to and along rivers during active works;
- terrestrial, aquatic and avian ecology;
- natural sediment supply to lower reaches and the coastal environment
RM150369 Hearing-Applicant Evidence Summary-DUNNING-Planning 2019-11-25 page02
page 3
7 I consider that with careful management inappropriate adverse effects can be avoided or suitably mitigated.
S104D
8 I assessed the proposal to disturb the CMA in the context of the policy frameworks in Attachment A of my evidence in chief. In my view, the activity satisfies both the policy and the effects gateway tests of s104D and so may be determined under s104B of the RMA.
Section 107
9 In my opinion, s107 of the RMA does not prevent the granting of RM150371. In the event that s107(1)(d) could not be met, s107(2)(a) and (c) would enable the application to be granted since the discharges would be both temporary and associated with necessary river maintenance works.
Policy frameworks
10 In my view, the proposal is appropriate in the context of the relevant national and regional policy frameworks subject to the recommended conditions as on the whole it will meet the relevant objectives and be consistent with the applicable policies. In particular, I consider that the extraction of gravel from rivers is provided for in the provisions of the RPS and the TRMP as the applicable lower order documents, in respect of providing for the health and safety, and the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of the community.
11 I agree with the recommendation in the Officer’s Report that if these applications are granted, the expiry date should align with the expiry of the applicant’s global riverworks consents.
12 The applicant agrees with the proposed conditions as modified by the Reporting Officer, with the noted exceptions.
13 My assessment of the application in the context of the relevant statutory documents does not identify anything that prevents the applications from being granted. In my opinion, granting the application, subject to the proposed conditions included in Attachment B of my evidence would be consistent with the promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources envisaged by the RMA, and reflected in the provisions of the TRMP.
Janan Dunning
Principal Planner – Stantec New Zealand
