HJC Agenda - 18-12-17 Page 188 - Hauraki District · Safety Manual Green Canvas Ltd 2017 HJC Agenda - 18-12-17 Page 200

HJC Agenda - 18-12-17 Page 188



!"#$%&'(%)&*)"+,")-.#/&-#&01-.2)-%&3"##4&3"#51 !,22)(6&#7&8&01-.2)-%1

9$1-(%)2 :.4;$#./- <#5/1-(%)2 =/-%()-.#/ 8 >,//./?&'@%()?%

<%1+(.$-.#/&#7&A#+)-.#/ B).-%5C%-)&DEF B).-%5C%-)&G D DHHIJG3"##4&A%@%"&K2L DDIGFG DGIMNN FIHJG J DJFIEJ DEOIPD

B)-%(5)6&'(%)&K'L EHIJGG EGIFNG MNIOGG M DENIGJB%--%4&Q%(.2%-%(&KQL JOINGG JGIGGG E DMFIGF DEJIGNR64(),".+&>)4.,1&K'SQL DIHPG DIOPN N DEDIENR64(),".+&>)4.,1JSM DIEDM DIEOD H DEGINM DEGIFF>#,?C/%11&K/L GIGMN GIGMN O DEGIPF

&&&*#(#".1&*#%77.+.%/- DIMGG DIMGG DIMGG P DEGION DEGIPJ*#/@%6)/+%&KTL DPHNIEMN DHOMIJPE DNGGIFJN F DEGIPG*C)./)?%&K2%-(%1L G ON DEF DG DEGIOP DEGIOFA%/?-C&#7&>%)+C&KAL DEF DD DEGIOFR64(),".+&!"#$%&K!L GIGDG DJ DEGIOF DEGIOF

!DSJ GIGFF DM DEGIOFD 8&K7.(1-&%1-.2)-%L DHH DE DEGIOF DEGIOFU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GINOF DN DEGIOF0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGHG DH DEGIOF DEGIOF

!%DSJ GIGOO DO DEGIOFJ 8 DJF DP DEGIOF DEGIOFU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GIMND DF DEGIOF0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGON JG DEGIOF DEGIOF

!%DSJ GIGPO JD DEGIOFM 8 DEN JJ DEGIOF DEGIOFU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GIEEG JM DEGIOF0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGHF JE DEGIOF DEGIOF

!%DSJ GIGPM JN DEGIOFE 8 DMF JH DEGIOF DEGIOFU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GIEGN JO DEGIOF0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGOD JP DEGIOF DEGIOF

!%DSJ GIGPN JF DEGIOFN 8 DED MG DEGIOF DEGIOFU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GIEDF MD DEGIOF0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGOD MJ DEGIOF DEGIOF

!%DSJ GIGPE MM DEGIOFH 8 DED ME DEGIOF DEGIOFU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GIEDE MN DEGIOF0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGOD

!%DSJ GIGPEO 8 DEDU%"#+.-6&R%)4&<.77&K4C@L ;GIEDH0/%(?6&!"#$%&K!%L GIGGOD

!%DSJ GIGPE

G

JG

EG

HG

PG

DGG

DJG

DEG

DHG

DPG

G N DG DN JG JN MG MN EG

!,22)(6&#7&=/-%()-.#/1


Appendix2



Slope Area Calculation to Estimate Flood Flows Summary of Q Estimates

Upstream Mid-point Downstream Interation Q Running Average

Description of Location Waitewheta 245 Waitewheta 149 1 189.00Flood Level (m) 12.010 11.550 11.090 2 164.87 176.94

Waterway Area (A) 51.600 48.900 46.200 3 170.95Wetted Perimeter (P) 32.700 27.500 4 169.52 170.23

Hydraulic Radius (A/P) 1.578 1.680 5 169.86Hydraulic Radius2/3 1.355 1.413 6 169.78 169.82

Roughness (n) 0.035 0.035 7 169.80 Corolis Coefficient 1.300 1.300 1.300 8 169.79 169.80

Conveyance (K) 1998.249 1930.700 1865.435 9 169.79Chainage (metres) 149 197 245 10 169.79 169.79

Length of Reach (L) 96 11 169.79Hydraulic Slope (S) 0.010 12 169.79 169.79

S1/2 0.098 13 169.791 Q (first estimate) 189 14 169.79 169.79

Velocity Head Diff (dhv) -0.220 15 169.79Energy Slope (Se) 0.0073 16 169.79 169.79

Se1/2 0.085 17 169.792 Q 165 18 169.79 169.79


Se1/2 0.089 21 169.793 Q 171 22 169.79 169.79


Se1/2 0.088 25 169.794 Q 170 26 169.79 169.79


Se1/2 0.088 29 169.795 Q 170 30 169.79 169.79


Se1/2 0.088 33 169.796 Q 170 34 169.79 169.79

Velocity Head Diff (dhv) -0.177 35 169.79Energy Slope (Se) 0.0077

Se1/2 0.088

Summary of Interations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40


Appendix3






Safety Manual

Green Canvas Ltd 2017


2

Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................3 Our Commitment – Health & Safety Policy.....................................................................................3 Emergency Planning and Readiness.............................................................................................5 Fire Evacuation Procedure……………………………………………………………………….………6 Flood Evacuation…………..…………………………………………….……………………….….……8 Flood Evacuation Procedure…………..…………………………………………….…………………..9 Evacuation Site Map……………………………………………………………………….…………….11 Other potential areas of Serious Incident……………………………………………………….…..…12 Medical Event……………………………………………………………………………..……….…..…12 Communications Plan...................................................................................................................13 Camp Closure...............................................................................................................................14 Responsibility to Inform.................................................................................................................14 Reporting and Investigation..........................................................................................................15 Annual Review……………………………………………………………………………………………15 Accident Reporting and Investigation Form..................................................................................16 Hazard Management....................................................................................................................18 Hazard & First Aid Assessment Register......................................................................................19 Contractors and Temporary Staff..................................................................................................19 Workplace Induction Checklist......................................................................................................20


3

Introduction The Safety Manual details our commitment and the practical steps we have taken to prevent harm to all of our patrons, campers, visitors, contractors, employees, or any other person on site. This Manual is aimed at providing the ‘need-to-know’ information. This Safety Manual forms a part of our Green Canvas Camp Management Plan.

Our Commitment - Health and Safety Policy

The management of Green Canvas Ltd is committed to a safe and healthy environment for everyone using the premises as accommodation, recreation, a place of work, as patron or visiting on business. Note: This safety manual does not cover general public accessing the queens chain riverside riparian margin, who are not residents, employees, visitors, patron, campers or tenants. General Public accessing the queens chain riverside margin do so at their own risk. Green Canvas Management wil l : • Encourage accurate and timely reporting and recording of all incidents and injuries • Investigate all reported incidents and injuries to identify all contributing factors and, where appropriate, formulate plans for corrective action • Actively encourage the early reporting of any pain or discomfort • Identify all existing and new hazards and take all practicable steps to eliminate, isolate or minimise the exposure to any significant hazards • Ensure that all employees are made aware of the hazards in their work areas and are adequately trained so they can carry out their duties in a safe manner • Encourage employee consultation and participation in all health and safety matters • Ensure that all contractors and subcontractors are actively managing health and safety for themselves and their employees • Promote a system of continuous improvement, including regular reviews of policies and procedures • Meet our obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (as amended by the Amendment Act 2002) (the HSE Act), the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995, codes of practice and any relevant standards or guidelines. Every employee is expected to share in the commitment to health


4

and safety. • Every manager, supervisor or foreperson is accountable to the employer for the health and safety of employees working under their direction. • Each employee is expected to help maintain a safe and healthy workplace through:

– Following all safe work procedures, rules and instructions – Properly using all safety equipment and clothing provided – Reporting early any pain or discomfort – Reporting all incidents, injuries and hazards to the appropriate person.

Signed by Green Canvas Company Directors: Seugnet Toweel: Caroline Steward: Alastair Sorley: Rachel Sorley: Caroline Harrell: Rob Harrell: Dated:


5

Emergency Planning and Readiness The following Evacuation Plans and Procedures have been made and will be implemented in the event of an emergency at The Log Cabin Holiday Accommodation and Riverside Camping Site - 209 Franklin Rd, Waihi. Supporting Infrastructure and systems:

• SmokedetectorsarelocatedinLogCabin,CampManagersoffice,campamenitiesandtheaccessiblecabin.

• Visualevacuationplansarelocatedinthesebuildings.• VisualevacuationplanandSiteplanatCampEntrancegate.• EmergencyphonecontactlandlineatManagersresidence.• Firstaidkitislocatedintheamenitiesbuilding.• EmergencyLightingswitchlocatedinCampManagersresidence,Amenities

blockandLogCabin.• FireExtinguishersarelocatedintheAmenitiesblockkitchenarea,Accessible

cabin,LogCabinandCampManagersresidence.• 3monthlyevacuationpracticewilltakeplace• Emergencyequipmentwillbeinspectedonamonthlyroutineiesmokealarms,

fireextinguishers,lightingandemergencyloudhailer.• Allvisitorsmustbesignedinuponentry,thisVisitorLogandthecampers

confirmedbookinglist,andcampplanwillformtheevacuationlistsincaseofemergency.

• TwoevacuationroutesasmarkedontheEmergencyEvacuationPlan.TheseEvacuationroutesmustbekeptclearandavailableforunhinderedevacuationatalltimes.

• ElectronicEvacuationplanandSafetyManuallodgedwithCivilDefence,Fire,PoliceandStJohn’sAmbulance.

The two most likely emergency scenarios are Fire or Flood. Evacuation Procedures for both Fire and Flood are clearly displayed at

• The Log Cabin • Camp Amenities Block • Camp Managers Residence and Office • Camp Main Entrance • Camp Accessible Cabin

These Evacuation Procedures have also been provided to Police, Fire, Ambulance and a master copy is held in the Camp Managers Office.


6

Fire The Log Cabin and Camp site is located in a valley partly surrounded by native bush and is adjacent to the Waitawheta River, Franklin Road and farm land. A Fire Permit is required from the Waikato Regional Council for any outside fires that may be required. Any external fires must follow the Particulars and conditions as outlined in the Fire Permit. 4 x 25,000lt water tanks are situated alongside the Amenities Block for the campsite, a further 2 x 25,000 lt water tanks are in the vicinity of The Log Cabin and Camp Mangers residence and a further 1 x 25,000lt water tank is situated at the farm sheds. Fire extinguishers are located in:

1. Camp Ground Amenities block kitchen 2. Camp Managers Residence and office 3. The Log Cabin Holiday Accommodation 4. Accessible cabin

A total fire ban is in place for all patrons and this includes a ban on any fire toys or fireworks. There are Total Fire Ban signs around The Log Cabin and Campsite including all entry points. Fire Evacuation Procedure In the event of a fire the following procedures will be followed:

1. Immediately alert the Camp Ground Manager.

2. If it is safe to do so, the Camp Ground Manager, or a patron may attempt to extinguish the fire using an accessible fire extinguisher or water hose.

3. If it is unsafe to attempt extinguishing the fire then 111 will be called. This

call can be made from the Camp Managers office using the Landline.

4. If The Log Cabin or Camping patrons, staff or any other persons are at risk then the immediate area will be evacuated an announcement will be made over the loud hailer (held in the Camp Managers office). The Camp Manager or delegate will go site-to-site to advise everyone to evacuate.


7

• During a night evacuation, Emergency lighting will be turned on by Camp

Management. The Emergency lighting will outline the evacuation route and will also light up the Assembly Point. EmergencyLightingswitchlocatedinCampManagersresidence,AmenitiesblockandLogCabin.

5. All persons will be moved to the evacuation point.

The Evacuation Point: Visitor Parking Area below Camp Managers residence (at the base of the Camp entrance at 209 Franklin Road).

This Evacuation Point location is an open area and there is little risk of fire or flood spreading to here. The Driveway entrance into the Camp site will not be used to evacuate as this is the likely access-way for emergency vehicles. If safe to do so, Camp Management will ensure this access-way is clear of all pedestrians and any objects that may impede emergency response vehicles.

6. Camp Management will check all present. 7. Do not return to your camp site or anywhere on site until the ALL CLEAR

has been provided by Emergency Services.


8

Flood Evacuation Flood Camp management keep a regular watch on current and forecast weather via internet rain radar and weather sites. The Waitawheta River can rise quickly and sustained periods of heavy rain can see a rise in river levels in just a few hours. Campers will be notified of any Civil Defence Warnings for heavy rain on arrival and on the Notice Board in the Amenities Block, and direct notification to any guests in the Log Cabin. The Campsite is registered and notified by the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) early warning system for heavy rain and potential high river levels. Early Warning System: Heavy rainfall can trigger an early warning of potential flood. In the event of heavy rain received at the rate of: 50mm over a 3 hour sustained period. Heavy rainfall at this level will trigger an early warning by Camp Management. Rainfall is measured and recorded on-site daily by Camp Management, or during weather warnings or high rainfall, on a more frequent basis. In the event of a Civil Defence warning, or WRC early warning, or high rain warning from weather reports, or sustained heavy rain, or an Easterly cyclone over the headwaters, the following Early Warning system will take place. This Early warning will include:

• Rain Radar check. • River level watch and level check. The Camp Manager or delegate will

walk and inspect the river banks and document the river level against the permanent flood markers. Depending on the severity of the warning this inspection will be, at the discretion of the Camp Manager, as follows:

o Minimum 4 hourly intervals when an Easterly cyclone is forecast over the Waitawheta headwaters.

o Up to 1 hour intervals with severe heavy rain, WRC and Civil Defence warnings.

• Notification to campers of high river levels. Campers will be notified directly at any time if river levels exceed High Water marker in South East picnic area.

• Campers will be asked to prepare for evacuation. If any Campers wish to


9

remove vehicles from the Campsite, this will be discussed directly with Campers at this point (prior to full campsite evacuation). Camper vehicles will move to the carpark of the Log Cabin, the Camp Managers residence and then to the carpark opposite the campsite at the end of Franklin Road, only if necessary.

• Evacuation will follow the following procedures on the basis that the river has reached the Evacuation Flood Markers in the South East Picnic area. These markers are positioned to provide 2 hours of Evacuation time before a flood is potentially estimated.

The Camp Manager has the right to close the camp at any time should the Early Warning system information, or any imminent hazards that may be, or could be present due to weather, or any other factor that could potentially create a safety risk for patrons. The Early Warning system may result in the Camp Manager closing the camp before the rain or inclement weather arrives. In this instance, Campers will be advised of the camp closure and requested to depart at a time determined by the Camp Manager before the inclement weather arrives. Any current bookings over this period will be advised by the Camp Manager of the camp closure, and the estimated re-opening time. This will prevent future campers that are booked, coming to the camp while it is closed. Campers will be advised by email and phone (where possible), and a CLOSED sign will be placed on the Camp Road sign. Evacuation Procedure In the event of a flood requiring evacuation the following procedures will be followed:

1. If Campers, patrons, staff or any other persons are at risk then the immediate area will be evacuated an announcement will be made over the emergency Loud Hailer.

2. The Camp Manager or delegate will go from site-to-site to advise everyone to evacuate.

3. All affected persons will be moved to the evacuation Assembly point. The evacuation will be lead by Camp Management and delegates who, if practical, will be wearing high visibility clothing. The areas highlighted in blue mark the low lying areas of the camp site that could be flooded.

3. All affected persons will be moved to the evacuation Assembly point.

The Evacuation Point: Visitor Parking Area below Camp Managers residence (at the base of the Camp entrance at 209 Franklin Road).


10

This evacuation point location is an open area and there is little risk of fire or flood spreading to this point.

4. If required further retreat can be made up the Camp Managers and Log Cabin driveway to higher ground. The Evacuation point in the Visitors carpark below the Camp Managers residence has access to higher ground if needed but is generally safe from high river levels. The driveway into the Camp Managers residence and The Log Cabin will be used to evacuate people from the Visitors Carpark if necessary.

5. The Driveway entrance into the Camp site is a two lane driveway. Care must be taken with any personnel movement up the driveway as this is the likely access-way for emergency vehicles. Camp Management will ensure this access-way is clear of all pedestrians and any objects which may impede emergency response vehicles.

6. Camp Management will check all present using the Camper Registration and Visitor Log books.

7. If safe to do so Camp Management will sweep through The Log Cabin and the Campsites to make sure everyone has moved to higher ground.

8. If evacuation is necessary emergency services will be notified as assistance on site may be required.

9. The ALL CLEAR must be provided by Emergency Services before campers can return to their camp site or anywhere on site.

10. Should Campers not be able to return to the Campsite, alternative shelter will be provided in the Log Cabin, Camp Managers residence, and enclosed 3-bay half round barn located on the property. The Camp Manager will be responsible for the relocation of any campers to other sites that can provide comfortable shelter. This may include: • Waitawheta Campsite • Salvation Army • Waihi and Waihi Beach campsites


11


12

Other potential areas of serious incident Vehicle Access-ways into the Camp Site – 209 Franklin Road The driveway entrance into the Camp site is a dual access way (two lane). The right lane may be used to evacuate to higher ground if necessary. The left lane (coming down into the site) is the access-way for emergency vehicles. Camp Management will ensure this access-way is clear of all pedestrians and any objects, which may impede emergency response vehicles. Once checked in and parked at The Log Cabin and in the camping areas, vehicles are prohibited from driving around the site except for the purposes of site entry and exit. The driveway entrances to The Log Cabin and Managers residence and the Camp site must be kept clear at all times to enable access for emergency vehicles, if required. Medical Event In the event of any medical emergency, contact the Camp Manager immediately at the Camp Managers residence, or make contact with any Camp staff on site. The Camp Manager is first aid qualified and can provide any local assistance. If there is a serious medical event, a call will be made to 111 and an ambulance requested.


13

Communications Plan

In the event of an emergency, the following communications plan will be used. The Camp Manager is responsible for communication to emergency services, campers, residents, employees, contractors, patrons, Visitors and neighbours. The Camp Manager must inform the Green Canvas Directors of any Emergency situation or calls to emergency services for any reason.

In an EMERGENCY: • Call 111 (Land line phone in Camp Managers residence/ Camp Office). • Ask for the Fire, Police or Ambulance • Give the Address as 209 Franklin Road, Waihi, Waikato • Outline the emergency situation to the receiver.

In the event of a FIRE: • Call 111 (Land line phone in Camp Managers residence/ Camp Office). • Ask for the FIRE SERVICE • Give the Address as 209 Franklin Road, Waihi, Waikato • Outline the emergency situation to the receiver.

In the event of an INJURY: • Call 111 (Land line phone in Camp Managers residence/ Camp Office). • Ask for the AMBULANCE • Give the Address as 209 Franklin Road, Waihi, Waikato • Outline the emergency situation to the receiver.

In the event of a FLOOD: IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY. • Call 111 (Land line phone in Camp Managers residence/ Camp Office). • Ask for the POLICE • Give the Address as 209 Franklin Road, Waihi, Waikato • Outline the emergency situation to the receiver.

In the event of a FLOOD: NO EMERGENCY BUT UNDER EVACUATION • Use land line phone in Camp Managers residence/ Camp Office • Call WAIHI POLICE STATION: 07 863 8179

o Address: 55 Kenny St, Waihi, 3610 • OR Call PAEROA POLICE STATION: 07 862 8744

o Address: 6 Willoughby St, Paeroa, 3600 Give the Address as 209 Franklin Road, Waihi, Waikato

• Outline the evacuation situation and the site map and evacuation plan location (Entrance to Campsite) to the Police.

• State what help is required, if any.


14

Camp Closure

The Camp Manager has the right to close the camp at any time should the Early Warning system information, or any imminent hazards that may be, or could be present due to weather, or any other factor that could potentially create a safety risk for patrons. The Camp Manager must inform the Green Canvas Directors of any camp closure.

The Early Warning system may result in the Camp Manager closing the camp before the rain or inclement weather arrives. In this instance, Campers will be advised of the camp closure by going from camp site to camp site, and walking Camp perimeter, and requested to depart at a time determined by the Camp Manager before the inclement weather arrives.

Any current and future bookings (that may be affected) over this period will be advised by the Camp Manager of the camp closure, and the estimated re-opening time. This will prevent future campers that are booked, coming to the camp while it is closed.

Campers will be advised by email and phone (where possible), and a CLOSED sign will be placed on the Camp Road sign.

The Camp Manager will only re-open the camp after discussion with Green Canvas Directors (and if appropriate Emergency Services) and a decision has been made to the safety of the site, elimination of hazards, or potential hazards, and any early warning information is clear. Responsibi l i ty to Inform

The Green Canvas Directors will inform the Hauraki District Council Civil Defence and the Waihi and Paeroa Police of any Emergency or any reason the camp is closed, or any site evacuation (except 3 monthly practice drills), even if emergency services were not required.

Information will be provided to:

• HaurakiDistrictCouncilCivilDefence:ResponseManager

o [email protected]

o Phone:078628609

• WAIHIPOLICESTATION:078638179o Address:55KennySt,Waihi,3610

• PAEROAPOLICESTATION:078628744o Address:6WilloughbySt,Paeroa,3600


15

Reporting and Investigation

Once an incident occurs some kind of emergency response may be required. This may be anything from a medical emergency, or an evacuation, to using the first aid kit – or nothing at all. Once the situation is safe and people have been treated, then it is important to report the incident. We expect all accidents and incidents to be reported and recorded. These include near misses, or things that occur which make you think ‘that was lucky’. This can be done verbally or in writing – by using the reporting form. Camp Site Management will then document the incident and investigate. If the injury is Serious Harm, then Green Canvas management will be informed immediately. Green Canvas will then inform the Department of Labour both verbally and in writing using the required “Worksafe Accident Investigation form“ (see page 12)1. This process is detailed in the following ‘Reporting and Investigation Flowchart’. The key to learning comes down to a thorough investigation of each incident. The only reason to investigate is to determine action steps we can put in place to prevent future occurrences. Annual Review This Safety Plan will be reviewed annually for effectiveness and any corrective actions or improvements will be added or amended as needed to keep the document current and effective and ensure the safety of all on site.

Corrective actions or improvements can arise from: • Annual review of Safety Plan • 3 monthly Evacuation Plan drills • Hazard Investigation • Accident Investigation • General Reporting • Ideas from any source • Updates from Emergency services or relevant authorities • Any Audits or external reviews

It is the responsibility of the Green Canvas Directors to ensure the Annual Review takes place.


16


17


18

Hazard Management

Green Canvas Ltd follows a systematic process to identify, record and manage potential hazards around The Log Cabin and Camp site. What is important is that all staff must be aware of any object, process or person that looks dangerous. If you notice anything potentially dangerous (hazardous) then we expect you to inform Camp Management or staff, or completing the Hazard ID form. Identifying and managing hazards to prevent harm to The Log Cabin and Camp Site patrons, staff, contractors or visitors to our site is important. These hazards have been included in the Hazard Register. The identification and management of these hazards have been conducted in consultation with management. Camp Management, any staff and contractors will ensure they do understand how to operate safely when facing these hazards. Any necessary training and equipment will be provided by Green Canvas Ltd and we expect our employees to operate to these standards.


19

Contractors and Temporary Staff

Green Canvas Ltd will ensure that contractors, subcontractors and their employees do not cause harm to employees or themselves, or anyone else, while undertaking the work required by the contract. This requires that Green Canvas Ltd and the contractor first identify potentially hazardous equipment or processes that exist both within our work premises or that the contractor is bringing onto the premises, and then to communicate these hazards to each other. To achieve this requirement, Green Canvas Ltd are responsible for ensuring an appropriate induction has occurred. An induction may be a simple conversation for irregular, short-term contractors to a more formal process for long term contractors. Green Canvas Ltd’s hazard register and emergency procedures form the basis of such and induction. The Contractor Induction Checklist will ensure we conduct a thorough induction. Records of the induction must be made.


20

Green Canvas Ltd


21


APPENDIX B

























APPENDIX C




























SUBMISSION ON APPLICATION CONCERNING RESOURCE CONSENT

THAT IS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OR LIMITED

NOTIFICATION BY CONSENT AUTHORITY

FORM 13

Sections 95A, 95B, 95C, 96, 127(c), 136(4), 137(5), and 234(4) of

Resource Management Act 1991

To: Hauraki District Council

Name of Submitter: SERENA MARGARET PATRICIA GRIVE AND GARY WILLIAM GRIVE

This is a submission on an application from: GREEN CANVAS PTY LTD (“GCL”)

for a resource consent.

FOR A CAMPGROUND AND TOURIST ACCOMMODATION AT “LOG CABIN” AT 209 FRANKLIN ROAD, WAITAWHETA: LOT 2 DPS 48970

I AM NOT a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308B of the Resource Management Act 1991.

I AM directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submission that –

a) Adversely affects the environment

The parts of the application that my submission relates to are:

Commercial activity in a rural zone: Reverse sensitivity issues:

It is considered that a campground in a rural zone will produce conflicting situations between camp ground residents and local residents permanently residing within the rural zone, as noted below but not limited to;

Farming practices – pest control, dog training, livestock slaughter, protection of stock, aerial spraying and topdressing

Artificial lighting – glare and intermittent lighting from camp ground Excessive noise – stock being frightened, traffic movements, people noise Stock movement – shifting of stock and horses along road between properties

I have concerns that the proposed camp ground will cause conflicting issues that will restrict me from carrying out normal daily practices on my property. These include but are not limited to shooting of rabbits and opossum’s, training dogs. Screening between the properties by planting will not reduce these issues to any significant level.


Traffic congestion and increased road safety issues:

Franklin Road is currently at saturation point with increased traffic resulting from recreational visitors. This raises safety issues and conflict with road usage by rural activities:

Traffic flow increase generated from hikers entering DOC walkways

Waitawheta Camp visitors walking along road to DOC walkways

Increasing popularity of local swimming holes

Stock trucks and large agricultural machinery requiring access to farms

Recreational horse riding and carriage driving

Droving of stock along Franklin Road to access run-off blocks

Traffic count data from Council’s RAMM system (Appendix A) shows traffic count data for Franklin Road. It also shows that the upper portion of Franklin Road and in particular from Hume Road to ‘Width Change’, (reference points 1646 to 2195) has not been subject to a traffic count since 08/10/2002. This is almost 15 years ago, and well before the full impact of tourism was felt in this area.

As a comparison has been made by the applicants between Dickeys Flat Road and Franklin Road, being that the proposed camp ground would have no more than a minor effect on the road, I would request of Council that in order for this reference between the two roads to be relevant and data to be consistent, that a more up-to- date and relevant traffic count be undertaken in order to more accurately ascertain the impact of traffic movements on Franklin Road, taking into account the upper reaches of the road. Franklin Road will be heavily impacted-upon, should the campground application be approved, thus creating even greater stress on an already under-strain network.

Current road conditions along Franklin Road, which at points are practically reduced to one lane, cause safety issues for both vehicular traffic, hikers, livestock, farmers and residents. The addition of campervans will only exacerbate this further. The parking bay at the end of Franklin Road, (opposite proposed campground entrance) is congested and at times unsafe due to the number of parked vehicles, off-loading of hikers, reduced site distance visibility, and speed of traffic. Franklin Road has a 100 km speed zone, which causes safety issues for non-residents who are not aware or experienced with the unpredictability of road conditions in a rural zone.


Protection and preservation of natural resources:

There are currently a number of natural resources in the immediate vicinity that will be adversely affected by the increased number of people generated by the campground establishment, all of who will have direct and unrestricted access to these local treasures:

Identified SNA area on western river boundary Glow worm colony along banks of Franklin Road Native bat population Native Flora and Fauna River water quality and ecosystems Rural Fire Risk – DOC Estate

The proposed camp ground, with the potential of increasing on-site residence of 100 people per day, (plus their proposed ‘visitors’) will have an extreme negative impact on the surrounding delicate natural environment and resources in the immediate area. It is my concern that people will disturb and destroy the precious ecological environment that supports these areas.

The SNA area identified on the eastern bank of Waitawheta River hosts a wealth of untouched flora and fauna. It is only natural that people will explore the river banks and disturb these areas. The increase in bathing in the river will also have detrimental effects, not only on the river dwellers, but on the quality of the water downstream, which a number of us residents draw water directly from for our own personal use and for the watering of stock.

The glow worm colony, bats and bird life and nocturnal animals will all be adversely effected by the increase in night activity at the camp, vehicle movements, noise and night lighting from the camp, and most unfortunately of all, the ignorance of people who do not respect the environment, which is quite often the case with visitors and tourists. There will also be an increased risk of fire within close proximity to the DOC estate.

I’m sure there are many other ecological issues that need to be investigated and

request that Council require a report be commissioned by a suitably qualified specialist to ensure that under no circumstances any and all of the above mentioned and any that I have failed to identify are protected at all costs.

Camp ground situated in a natural hazard zone:

Campsites located in an area known to flood

Waitawheta River is a wild and unpredictable beast. I have lived there for eight years and on a number of occasions seen flood waters over some of the areas that are proposed for the camp ground. Reports presented by the applicants are understated, whilst it is noted that this property is not identified as being within a flood hazard area, it must be acknowledged that there is NO flood management plans or recorded data for this area within the HDC District Plan.


Minimum floor levels are in compliance with the building code and do not relate to ground level activities. Local and past valley residents can all recall times when this area was inundated with flood waters, remembering having to move stock to higher ground, and at times loss of stock and even whole fence lines due to being swept away by flood waters. I have grave fears that in the event of a flooding event that campers will be placed at risk, with potential loss of property and life being an unthinkable but real possibility.

In addition to this, support from emergency services can sometimes be unachievable due to poor to non-existent cell phone reception in this valley, and the fact that not all residents have access to landlines due to network overload. Whilst it would never be a consideration at the time, by allowing the campsite to proceed, local residents will also be placed at risk when called upon to assist with the evacuation of the campground residents. We also are susceptible to regular power outages.

Wastewater, Stormwater & Refuse disposal:

The report presented to WRC for discharge consents raises a number of issues in relation to the safe and sanitary disposal of sewage, waste water, storm water and refuse and potential contamination of the environment and neighbouring ecosystems. Based on a review of the technical reports supplied as supporting information there appears to be a number of discrepancies and contradictions in information supplied. As per report received from Dr Kelvin Wells, PhD, MIPENZ, MRICS, MAANZ, Director for and on behalf of Building Code Consultants Ltd. (Appendix B), I wish to draw your attention to all of the information provided and in particular to:

D Conclusions

(72) The documents observed by us suggest that there has not been a

comprehensive review of this proposed development and that these documents

may have been preliminary ones as early information to potentially affected

person and neighbours of the applicant.

(73) We suggest that some specific aspects should be further and better

assessed, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:

A review of the proprietary toilet system showing how its characteristics

are suitable for the proposed development

The area of the effluent disposal field

Method of removal and disposal details of the solid faecal waste

Treatment and disposal details of the liquid faecal waste

Design water consumption per person details

Soil permeability details and soil characteristics

Design flood levels

Noise Levels

Potential copper contamination mitigation details

Potential LED lighting contamination mitigation, and

Lighting effects on wildlife and neighbours


It is requested of Council that a peer review be commissioned by an independent and suitably qualified specialist or specialists to ensure that any or all potential adverse effects that may cause contamination of the environment are eliminated.

Significant problems with existing unpermitted ‘Log Cabin’ accommodation

Some Log Cabin visitors have come uninvited onto our property seeking the manager of the ‘Log Cabin’, as none is on site. We have had verbal abuse in past from some of

the ‘Log Cabin’ guests when we politely requested that they decrease the noise they

were making, after eleven p.m.

Concern that our property will be substantially devalued

Due to a Commercial venture being established in this Rural Zone area.

My submission is:

I oppose the application in its entirety due to the adverse effects a commercial activity (campground and tourist accommodation) will have within the rural zone. My reasons are as identified above. I believe the proposal is not in keeping with the rural zone purpose or its objectives and policies as set out in the HDC District Plan. In addition, I request that the current illegal operation of tourist accommodation be referred to Regulatory and Enforcement Services for assessment and abatement of this unauthorised commercial activity until the Land Use consent application is considered by the hearings committee and a decision is given.

I seek the following decision from the consent authority:

That the application be declined

I wish to be heard in support of my submission

If others make a similar submission, I will consider presenting a joint case with

them at a hearing.

Signature not required if submitting by electronic means, per Form 13 sent to

us on 12 June 2017

……………………………………….

Signature of submitter

Date: 11h July 2017

Address for service of submitter:

Serena and Gary Grive

194 Franklin Road, RD 2, Waihi 3682


Telephone: (07) 863 6276

[email protected]

CC: Green Canvas Pty Ltd

PO Box 304, Waihi, 3641


Appendix A - Franklin Rd Dickey Flat Traffic DataTraffic count data from Council’s RAMM system


Appendix B - Report received from Dr Kelvin Wells,

PhD,MIPENZ,MRICS,MAANZ, Director for and on behalf

of Building Code Consultants Ltd


Page 1 of 10

Building Code Consultants Ltd Chartered Building Surveyor - Civil& Structural Engineer

Building Act & Code Specialist - Construction Disputes

Adjudicator - Construction Contracts Act

Litigation & Insurance Investigations - Construction Management

Research

PO Box 99 613

Newmarket, Auckland 1149, New Zealand

Phone (09) 524 9064

Mobile 027 280 8691

Director

Kelvin Walls

PhD, MIPENZ, MRICS, MAANZ

Website - www.bccl.b iz

Email - [email protected]

30 September 2016

Waitawheta, RD 2

WAIHI

By email

209 FRANKLIN ROAD, WAITAWHETA, WAIHI - PROPOSED CAMPSITE

A BRIEF

(1) At your request, this report has been prepared based on some concerns that you have in

relation to a proposed campsite.

(2) The owner of the subject land and future applicant for approval for the development, Mr Alast air

Sorley, has given you documents relating to the proposal.

(3) You gave us copies of some of the documents which we have noted and commented on below.

(4) This report has been prepared on the basis that you have disclosed to us all information/ report

s known to you that may have a material bearing on the advice that we are able to give.

(5) Where the author(s) of t his report use the singular phrase "I" or the plural "we", or similar

phraseology, they are referring to their role acting on behalf of Building Code Consultants Ltd and

not as individuals .


http://www.bccl.b/

mailto:[email protected]

Page 2 of 10

B FINDINGS ANO COMMENTS

Consent application for a Campsite document by Alastair Sorley dated 14 July 2016

(1) The description for consent application from Green Canvas Pty Ltd ("GCL") forms the basis

of the comments and observations which follow.


Page 3 of 10

(2) GCL is the applicant and owner of the subject site. Alastair Sorley is identified as the contact

person who is the author of this application and he is a director of GCL.

(3) The proposal comprises 28 campsites to cater for 16 tent sites and 12 campervan sites, along with an

amenities building containing ablutions, cooking area and dining area.

(4) There will be a rubbish recycling area and composting area screened with trees.

(5) What about facilities for solid waste? How will solid waste be disposed of?

(6) Stormwater is to be piped to a natural depression and enhanced with native grasses and wetland

plants.

(7) Greywater from showers, handbasins and the laundry, and liquid waste from the toilet separation

system will be drained into a large soakage area.

(8) How does the system deal with the fact that the liquid content of the toilet waste will be highly

contaminated?

(9) Water for kitchen, showers, laundry and toilets will be sourced from rainwater tanks from the

amenities building roof.

(10) Unless concrete storage tanks are used it would be prudent not to use copper water pipes

in the building as this could cause copper corrosion leading to copper contamination of the water at the t aps1

. (Walls et al 2014). As well as potential health risks for occupants the wastewater would have higher copper levels which may be detrimental to the environment.

(11) The land is not believed to be in a designated flood zone within the Hauraki District Council and

Waikato Regional Council plans. However, the data includes engineer's calculations and a report

outlining any potential flood effects. We have concerns over some aspects of this assessment as

discussed further below in this report.

(12) The dining area is to provide seating for 48 persons at one time.

(13) Based on a maximum occupancy, an average of four persons per campervan site and three per tent

site = 100 persons.

1 "Health risks associated with copper exposure through drinking water are well described, but the exposure-risk scenario may

change in future decades due to human-induced climate change. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, a direct result

of burning fossil fuels, can be expected to lower the pH of ambient dry air, and lead to rainwater becoming increasingly acidic......

This is because, in contrast to some town water supplies, pH controls are not normally applied to private on-site rainwater tanks,

and more acidic water may lead to greater corrosion of copper water pipes in buildings. ...... The continued use of copper pi ping

for domestic rainwater supplies should therefore be reviewed, particularly considering a climate change-related scenario of

wider use of rainwater tanks for private water supplies and increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The risk due to the stasis of

increasingly acidic drinking water in copper pipes can be reduced by using other than copper water-supply pipes to the taps in

buildings, by applying pH controls to town water supplies, or in the case of private on-site rainwater tanks, countering low pH

levels of collected water by using concrete (rather than plastic or corrugated steel)".


Page 4 of 10

,

(14) Although not stated in this part of the applicant's description, there are an extra 12 persons

catered for in the existing Log Cabin.

(15) There is reference to the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985 and the requirement for five unisex flush

toilets.

(16) The water supply from rain water from the roof of the amenities building is to be stored in two 25,000

litre t anks. 2

(17) All lighting is to be of LED (light-emitting diode). Since this is an eco development the applicants

are likely to be concerned about any potential adverse environmental effects, not only from

copper contamination in the water supply, but also from the use of LED lighting. If broken, LED

lights can cause environmental pollution due to the release of lead, nickel and copper (Lim et al

2011).

(18) Toilets are to be of flush type with the effluent separated into liquids and solids using an Aquatron

Low Flush Toilet system supplied by Ecomagic Ltd.

(19) The greywater system will also be supplied by Ecomagic Ltd, although there seems to be no mention

of what type is to be used.

(20) Section 1.3 - Overview of consent requirements - sets out what appears to be the focus of this

proposed application, which are:

• Land-use projects

• Discharge of stormwater

• Onsite sewage discharge

(21) There will be two treatment systems for the Aquatron Low Flush Toilet system supplied by Ecomagic

Ltd.

(22) The effluent disposal field for the toilets is intended to be 250m 2 but this may be an under-assessment

as we comment on later in this report.

(23) The Ecotoilets are said to have a Swedish patent to separate urine from faeces. How does it

decontaminate the urine from the faeces?

(24) The proposal advises that urine is rich in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. "Ecotoilets collects this

perfect fertiliser separately in a dark and cool tank for later use in the soakage field".

(25) What does the author mean by this statement, as the "perfect fertiliser" in the form of urine from

grazing animals is contributing to widespread contamination of waterways and aquifers throughout

New Zealand (Joy 2015)? Fertilisers are contaminants in a natural environment.

2 Ibid


Page 5 of 10

(26) The report advises that the four chamber bins of the ecotoilet system "reduces the solids to just

5% of their volume so that the clean humus needs to be removed only once a year''. Mr Sorley

does not advise of the method of removal and to where the waste will be deposited. How is it

proposed to remove this "perfect fertiliser" from the site and dispose

of it appropriately and safely?

(27) He advises that the separated urine goes into the "Septic Grey Water System" where it goes through

filtration and other processes, after which "the effluent is safe to be dispersed into the ground

through perforated pipe (50-60 mm dia.) that is placed in a trench". This needs to be further

explained in terms of treatment of the urine.

(28) Under section 2.7 - Traffic - it is noted that "the Log Cabin has been operating for some time

and any traffic to the Log Cabin is existing".

(29) The projected data for additional traffic flow under this application is therefore based on lower

figures, and Mr Sorley's statement here assumes that the additional traffic attributable to the Log

Cabin is irrelevant (without stating what it is). It would be reasonable to assume that the present

proposal should also factor in the effects of the extant situation.

(30) Under section 2.9 - Lighting - there is further discussion about lighting provIsIons, including with

reference to the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985 which have no prescriptive requirements, apart

from lights being kept on during hours of darkness in the occupied areas of the camp. All site lighting

is to be by way of wired LED lamps.

(31) Mr Sorley further advises that "due to the position of the campsite on the land, the lighting

cannot be seen by any neighbours". This needs to be verfified with some evidence, as it is clearly

a potential environmental concern.

(32) Furthermore, it is believed that the site has relatively large areas of native bush which are going to be

protected under this proposal. This presupposes that there would also be significant bird-life. As an

Eco Campsite it would appear important to consider the potential adverse effects that the night

lighting may have on birds (Gaston et al 2012; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

2016) and any other wildlife, which has not been dealt with in the proposed application.

(33) The description advises that "the log cabin has a separate recycling and waste area where

recycling is sorted in appropriate types. This area is outside adjacent to the car parking and is

fenced off and screened".

(34) It is advised that noise complaints from neighbours have been made in the past relating to the Log

Cabin, but that "each time this has occurred the Log Cabin has met with the

neighbour/complainant and put in place further remedies to address the concerns".

(35) Given that there would be up to an additional 100 persons on the site under the subject proposal this

response appears inadequate in dealing with the potential for increased noise levels affecting

neighbours (and bird-life, given that eco principles are said to be at the fore-front of the proposal).


Page 6 of 10

Flood estimation calculations by Civil Engineering Services (1994) Ltd dated 30 November

2015

(36) In establishing the design rainfall intensity, M J Preston the author of the report, advises that "using

a 40 mm/hr rainfall within the critical 2hr period (say 50- 60 mm in 2hrs), close agreement

with the slope area discharge was achieved".

(37) This estimate of rainfall intensity (for a 1 in 10 year storm event) seems inadequate. NZBC/El/VMl

states the following requirement:

Either local rainfall intensity curves produced by the territorial authority or rainfall

frequency duration information produced by NIWA shall be used to determine the

rainfall intensity.

(38) Prior to some further discussion Mr Preston advises that "this goes some way in explaining the

discharge at the site being around a 5 Yr event as calculated (i.e. around 170 m3/ sec)".

(39) The system should be designed for at least a 1 in 10 year storm event in accordance with standard practice

as set my NZBC/El.

(40) He then advises that "with floor levels proposed for the building to be in the order of 1.0m

above the river flats ground levels, then flood events in excess of a 20 yr return period would

likely remain short of the building floor level".

(41) The performance requirement El.3.2 of NZBC/El requires that:

Surface water, resulting from an event having a 2% probability of occurring annually,

shall not enter buildings

(42) This refers to a 1 in 50 year storm event (and not 1 in 20 year event as is assumed by Mr Preston) and

it applies "only to Housing, Communal Residential and Communal Non residential

buildings". It appears, therefore, that this building does not need to comply with the more stringent

requirement as stated by us above, but it important that the owner understands the potential

increased risk of flooding affecting the building.

(43) There seems to be no rationale for these statements and they are further difficult to understand given

that floor levels under NZBC/El are required to be based on a 1 in 50 year storm event.

(44) Furthermore, some territorial authorities require floor level designs to meet 1 in 100 year storm

events, under jurisdiction of their District Plans. The Building Act provisions (1 in 50 year event) applies

to low density residential development in the Hauraki District Council area (Hauraki District Council

2016).


Page 7 of 10

Review of effluent and stormwater system proposals for campsite by Civil Engineering Services (1994) Ltd

dated 5 May 2016

(45) This covers the assessed volumes of effluent and stormwater to ensure that they are able to be

disposed of to the ground at long-term acceptance rates in accordance with NZS 1547: 2012 and

clause El of the New Zealand Building Code.

(46) The objective of the subject proposal is stated as being: "efficient use of resources and keeping the

system eco-friendly is a high priority''.

(47) Referring to the toilet effluent system, Mr Preston stated that "we have observed an earlier

model of the proposed system that has been installed and used at the property that clearly

works appropriately''.

(48) One example of a seemingly adequate system is inadequate proof and this appears to be a very broad

statement which is bereft of the standard of evidence that one would normally expect in relation to a

proposed system.

(49) The design flow is again stated as being 100 persons but it excludes that from the Log Cabin which is

said to be designed for 12 persons. Would this not be a total of 112 person capacity for the new

system? If not, and the Log Cabin has its own separate system, how well is it working?

(50) There is reference to AS/NZS 1S47: 2012 - On-site domestic wastewater management - which

suggests that a daily water use of 50 litres/person/day be used for design purposes. Mr Preston,

however, considers that 3S litres/person/day is more appropriate based on the "previously mentioned

water saving devices" which he advises is beyond the scope of his brief to assess. From what appear

to be some speculative assumptions he concludes therefore that there would be a peak daily water

use of 3,500 litres/day.

(51) AS/NZS 1547: 2012 Section 1.2.1.2. - System design, states that:

"the systems covered in this Standard are normally designed for domestic wastewater

flows up to 14,000 L per week from a population equivalent of up to 10 persons"

(52) This means that this Standard is not appropriate to use in this case where 100 or more persons

are catered for.

(S3) This is further reinforced in that the Standard "does not cover systems for the treatment of

wastewater from commercial and industrial sources, or stormwater". (Scoop Business 2012).

(S4) In paragraph S1 above there is reference to 14,000 litres per week from up to 10 persons.

This equates to assumed water usage of 200 litres/day/person (based on AS/NZS 1547), which is in contrast to Mr Preston's advice that NZS 1547 assumes only 50 litres/person/day (paragraph SO). This apparent anomaly needs to be investigated.


Page 8 of 10

(55) This further throws into doubt and confirms our view that an estimate, as used in this application,

of 35 litres/person/day is likely to be a gross under-estimate of water usage. Design standards for

daily water consumption often use 180 litres. Watercare advises of figures between 130-180 litres

approximately (Watercare 2016).

(56) Mr Preston acknowledges that "for land disposal of primary treated effluent, an appropriate

soil type to give final treatment is important, and so the terrain and soil type must be carefully

considered for the purpose". Is he relying on the soil to treat the "perfect fertiliser" (i.e. contaminant)

when it is put to "later use in the disposal field"?

(57) He then advises that "inundation of the proposed campsite effluent area (as well as the whole

camp site) would take a flood event probably in excess of a 10 year event", referring to his

previous report.

(58) The evidence however of that assertion was not clear or even apparent from that report.

(59) It is stated that "the soil in the upper layers is considered a category 3 soil over category 2".

The reference criteria and the category characteristics however have not been disclosed.

(60) He then opines that "a conservative loading rate for primary treated greywater for such soil

is considered to be around 20 - 30 mm I day for a conventional gravity trench/bed system". There appears to be no evidence supporting this assumption.

(61) This is followed by the statement that "other ETS mound systems may also be appropriate to

avoid direct disposal to the sandy underlying sands". If there is confidence of the above

mentioned soil permeability why are these further measures needed? Who is going to determine if

they are needed, as that would assume a situation well after the proposed

system had been commissioned and in fact was seen to be failing by contaminating the area and Waitawheta River?

(62) Under the heading - Septic tank- Mr Preston states that:

The use of composting toilets results in only greywater treatment tanks being

necessary, hence a reduced size ground disposal trench/bed system is necessary.

The specific treatment system proposed covers this, but based on conventional

greywater tank sizing for the peak flow a tank of no less than 5000 litres would be

required.

(63) There appears to be no evidence supporting these conclusions. How does the system cater for

faeces contaminated urine - the "perfect fertiliser" (contaminant)?

(64) He further advises that "disposal to the ground treatment trenches from the greywater septic

tank should be via a filter as scum formation from grey water does occur". Is this detailed

anywhere?

(65) There is a calculation of 140 m2 for the effluent trench area. This is based on a daily water use of 35

litres/person (which we disagree with, as discussed in paragraph 55 above) and a soil flow rate

25mm/day, which has not been substantiated.


Page 9 of 10

(66) Under the heading - Comment on effluent proposals, Mr Preston sets out proposals for the campsite

based on the eco toilet system which is a proprietary system the efficacy of which he is not commenting

on as "this is not appropriate as it is outside the scope of this report".

(67} This appears to be an inexplicable situation given that the system is pivotal to the whole

assessment upon which many other professional opinions are based. This potentially raises a question over the robustness of the whole proposal.

(68} "Soil types at the site" are included in the assessment criteria without any apparent soil

permeability testing.

(69} Mr Preston then states that "we consider the proposals to be soundly based and will able

to comply with the principles and design requirements of On Site domestic wastewater [sic] management AS/NZS 3604: 2012".

(70) What he obviously intends to refer to is AS/NZS 1547: 2012 - On-site domestic wastewater

management, as AS/NZS 3604 is the Standard for Timber-framed buildings.

(71) We disagree that compliance with AS/NZS 1547 is demonstrated but furthermore it is a legal

requirement to comply with NZBC/El, but which appears to have been given lesser consideration in

this assessment.

C LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT

This is a report of a desk-top assessment of a range of documents as included in this report, with no site

inspection.

Any area or component of the proposed development not specifically identified in this report is excluded from

the scope of this report.

Since this report has been prepared on the basis of an assessment of a few documents only, it is confirmed

that no foundation, geotechnical/ or flood potential investigation has been included in this brief. No

warranty can be given in relation to any defects whatsoever due to the nature of this report.

This report has been prepared safely for the benefit of Ms Catherine Lawrence, as our client, with respect to the

brief The conclusions and recommendations given do not necessarily mean that the building and development

in general will meet the requirements of the current building code or any other legal standard. The reliance by

other parties on the information or opinions contained in this preliminary report shall, without our prior review

and agreement in writing, be at such party's sole risk.

D CONCLUSIONS

(72) The documents observed by us suggest that there has not been a comprehensive review of this

proposed development and that these documents may have been preliminary ones as early

information to potentially affected persons and neighbours of the applicant.


Page 10 of 10

(73) We suggest that some specific aspects should be further and better assessed, including, but not

necessarily limited to, the following:

• A review of the proprietary toilet system showing how its characteristics are suitable for

this proposed development;

• The area of the effluent disposal field;

• Method of removal and disposal details of the solid faecal waste;

• Treatment and disposal details of the liquid faecal waste;

• Design water consumption per person details;

• Soil permeability testing details and soil characteristics;

• Design flood levels;

• Noise levels;

• Potential copper contamination mitigation details;

• Potential LED lighting waste contamination mitigation, and

• Lighting effects on wildlife and neighbours

If you require any clarification on any matters discussed, or if you require any further assistance, please feel free to give us a call.

Yours faithfully

Dr Kelvin Walls

Director, for and on behalf of

Building Code Consultants Ltd


Page 10 of 10

References

Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985

http://www.legislation.co.nz/regulation/pub1ic/1985/0261/latest/whole.html#DLM103336

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2016. http://myfwc.com/conservation/you

conserve/lighting/pollution/birds/

Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Bennie J, Hopkins J (2012). Reducing the ecological consequences of night time light

pollution: options and developments. J Appl Ecol. 49(6). 1256-1266.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546378/

Hauraki District Council (2016). Standards for low density residential development. http://www.hauraki-

dc.govt.nz/assets/services documents/1229125 Standards LowDensity. pdf

Joy, M. (2015). Polluted Inheritance - New Zealand's Fresh Water Crisis. Bridget Williams Books Ltd,

Wellington.

Lim, SR, Kang, D, Ogunseilan OA, Schoenung SM. 2011. Potential environmental impacts of light emitting

diodes (LEDs): Metallic resources, toxicity and hazardous waste classification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(11). 320-327. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21138290

New Zealand Building Code (NZBC/El) https://www.building.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/building code-

compliance/e-moisture/el-surface-water/asvm/el-surface-water-amendment-9.pdf

Scoop Business 2012. On-site domestic wastewater

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1203/S00623/on-site-domestic-wastewater

management,htm

management.


http://www.legislation.co.nz/regulation/pub1ic/1985/0261/latest/whole.html#DLM103336

http://myfwc.com/conservation/you

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546378/

http://www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/assets/servicesdocuments/1229125StandardsLowDensity.pdf

http://www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/assets/servicesdocuments/1229125StandardsLowDensity.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21138290

http://www.building.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/building

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1203/S00623/on-site-domestic-wastewater

Page 10 of 10

Walls KL, Walls HL, Benke GP, McMichael AJ, Ensuring climate change adaptation avoids increased

health risks from drinking-water copper exposure. Air Quality and Climate Change. 48(2), May

2014.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275833729 Ensuring climate change adaptation

avoids increased health risks from drinking-water copper exposure

Water care (2016). Household water use in Auckland

https://www.watercare.eo.nz/community/Be%20Waterwise/Water%20use%20in%20Auckland/P

ages/Household-water-use-in-Auckland.aspx


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/275833729Ensuringclimatechangeadaptationav



https://www.watercare.eo.nz/community/Be%20Waterwise/Water%20use%20in%20Auckland/Pa

https://www.watercare.eo.nz/community/Be%20Waterwise/Water%20use%20in%20Auckland/Pa

APPENDIX D












Page 1

R

E

P

O

R

T

TO Wendy Harris – Senior Planner

FROM Warwick Meyer – Development Engineer

FILE REF LUSE-202.2016.00000568.001 ( Magiq # 2197674)

DATE 01/05/2017

SUBJECT

Engineering Report: Campground located at 209 Franklin Road for Green Canvas Ltd

This application is to establish a campsite with capacity for 28 temporary sites with ablutions and cooking facilities and a 12 guest log cabin that is existing at 209 Franklin Road. The application is assessed using the operative Hauraki District Plan, Rural Zone. This report details the engineering assessment for this development and it provides appropriate engineering conditions.

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT Site Considerations

The site is generally level at a lower elevation to Franklin Road. The Waitawheta River is located to the east of the site. The buildings are located at a

higher level than the campsites which may flood in extreme weather conditions. The site is virtually at the end of Franklin Road and is opposite parking provided for

DOC walks, the available parking on the road.

Roading

Franklin Road is a low volume Local Road with about 32 vehicles per day and has a nominal seal width of 6m to the DOC parking area.

A part of Franklin Road does narrow to a single 4m plus lane with advisory signs although passing can occur. There is good visibility and the additional traffic from the camping ground is unlikely to impact on the roading environment.

It is estimated that at peak times if the campground were 100% occupied, there would be an additional 84vpd which is sustainable on the roading environment. The log cabin and dwelling would add a further 16 vpd giving a potential additional 92 vpd.

The entrance is in good condition and will be upgraded for a double lane. Entrance sight distances are poor but mitigation measures are proposed in the

application. The proposed mitigation measures will form part of the design plan approval process prior to implementation to ensure that maximum visibility is achieved and appropriate warning measures are installed.

12 Visitor carparks have been provided that exceed the standard required by 8.4.1.3 of the District Plan.

Internal access and parking area shall be an all-weather surface – dust will not be an issue to the neighbours in this environment.

Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd have done a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment that concludes that the proposed campsite development is considered to be acceptable from a traffic planning point of view and I have no issues with these findings.


Page 2

Storm Water

Roof water will be collected and stored on site. Excess stormwater from the tanks will be piped to a natural depression and enhanced

with native grasses and wetlands. No stormwater issues have been identified. The Waikato Regional Council has advised that the stormwater discharge is a Permitted

Activity and as a result, a stormwater discharge consent isn’t required. Effluent Disposal

The WRC have granted a consent for Discharge of Sewage to Land AUTH137355.01.01.

This will be installed under a building consent.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

Access

1) That the existing entrance crossing point shall be upgraded to a double access Class B

entrance generally in accordance with section in 8.4.3.3(e) (i) of the operative Hauraki District Plan and diagram HDC-302, Hauraki District Council Engineering Manual 2010 - Version 1. The entrance shall match minimum rural right of way standards and is to include, 20m of seal from the carriageway.

2) Internal access ways and parking shall be constructed to an all-weather standard.

3) Sight distances are to be improved at the entranceway to the satisfaction of the

Hauraki District Council, Group Manager Engineering Services, and managed in perpetuity.

Stormwater

4) That stormwater is be treated within the boundaries of the property and the stormwater management design is to comply with Volume 2 Part 4 of the HDC Engineering Manual – this includes generally meeting the requirements of TP124 (Auckland Council Low Impact Stormwater Design Manual) and TP10 (Stormwater treatment devices).

General

5) All design and specifications must be generally in accordance with the Hauraki District Council Engineering Manual (2010) (HDCEM), incorporating the Hamilton City Development Manual (2009) (HCDM), Volumes 2 and 3.

6) That engineering drawings and specifications shall be submitted to the Group Manager Engineering Services for approval prior to commencement of any work. This shall include but not limited to the vehicle crossing, access road, on-site parking, stormwater management and should include any necessary design calculations supporting the engineering design drawings submitted.

7) The consent holder shall appoint a representative to be the contact person for Council on all technical matters.


Page 3

8) “As built” plans and associated compliance documentation detailing physical works associated with this development must be submitted to Council upon completion of construction. This shall be in accordance with the HDCEM Volumes 3 and 4.

9) That the consent holder shall make good any damage to Council infrastructure during the construction operations. This shall be to the satisfaction of the Hauraki District Council, Group Manager Engineering Services.

ADVICE NOTES

A Corridor Access Request (CAR) is required for all works within the road corridor.

Please submit your request via www.beforeUdig.co.nz or www.submitica.co.nz The consent holder should maintain compliance with the WRC consent for Discharge of

Sewage to Land. AUTH137355.01.01. Note: the wastewater and associated effluent field design must be undertaken under a building consent

The consent holder should maintain compliance with the WRC consent for Discharge of Stormwater AUTH137355.01.02.

Regards

Warwick Meyer

Development Engineer


http://www.beforeudig.co.nz/

http://www.submitica.co.nz/

Page 4


Page 5


Page 6


Memorandum

To: Wendy Harris – Senior Planner

From: John McIver

Date 8 August 2017

File reference & attachments: Document: 2256713 Appendix A: 2256836 (Copy of Safety Manual)

Subject: The Log Cabin Safety Manual Review

Background The applicant – Green Canvas PTY Ltd – have applied to Council for consent to establish a campground at 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta, Waihi [x 1846065 y 5850391]. Due to recent weather events affecting the Waitawheta River which resulted in the evacuation of a camp site known as Dickeys Flat, the local Civil Defence Response Manager (CDRM) was asked to comment on the proposed application from an emergency management perspective. The areas of concern related to the possibility of a significant flooding event that would affect the site and consequently isolate the campers from the wider community, and/or endanger life and property. The CDRM met with the applicant (Alistair Sorley), Council staff (Wendy Harris, Ian McLeod) and Consultant Planner for Council (Louise Cowan) to review the content of the camp sites Safety Manual. The manual as presented covered the organisations commitment to health and safety along with procedures for responses to events such as fire, flooding and medical issues. Issues and options The Safety Manual is concise with a good practical approach relating to flooding. If the procedures in the Safety Manual are followed, it is considered that it will provide adequate measures to ensure the safety of campers. The onus will be on ensuring good communication networks during the lead up to a possible event; the manual needs to include a detailed communications plan i.e. who to call, how to call, when to call etc. The applicant is also encouraged to be prepared to support themselves in an emergency using the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management’s (MCDEM) “Get Ready - At Work1” recommended guideline for civil defence cabinets. A recommendation that a detailed site communications plan be developed and that it be updated regularly was taken on board by the applicant and a copy attached to their Safety Manual 1 http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/get-ready/at-work/guideline-for-civil-defence-cabinets/


https://docs.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/docs/~D2256836

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/place/209+Franklin+Rd,+Waihi+3682/@-37.4615005,175.7791846,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x6d6d90bc109bb779:0x364a29776407fdee!8m2!3d-37.4615005!4d175.7813733

Conclusion The applicant has demonstrated a clear understanding of the need to monitor weather or flood events and the like to ensure they are able to respond in an appropriate manner; this is demonstrated in their Safety Manual and Communications Plan. John McIver Community Engagement Manager Civil Defence Response Manager






1

HAURAKI DC LUSE-202.2016.00000568.001 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management

Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of a hearing for resource consent

for land use being a camping ground and retrospective consent to a “Log Cabin” visitor accommodation, at 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta

FOR APPLICANTS Green Canvas Pty Limited

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DONALD ALAN SANGSTER

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Donald Alan Sangster. I became a registered surveyor under the

Survey Act in 1981 and hold the degree of Bachelor of Surveying (Otago). I am a

full member of both the New Zealand Planning Institute (Inc) (“NZPI”) and the

New Zealand Institute of Surveyors (Inc) (“NZIS”), and also the Resource

Management Law Association. I had thirteen years of experience working for the

Wellington City Council and Thames-Coromandel District Council under the Town

and Country Planning Act 1977, the Local Government Act 1974 and the

Resource Management Act 1991. I have been consulting in planning , resource

management and surveying from a sole practice based in Thames since April

1998.


2

2. My areas of experience include preparation of assessments of environmental

effects for many types of subdivision and land use consents, rural and urban,

acting both for applicants and for territorial authorities in the consenting role. I

have prepared a number of camp management plans including the Draft that

forms part of the application.

3. I am familiar with the provisions of the Hauraki District Plan and other statutory

planning instruments which are relevant to the proposals, the subject of this

application.

4. I attest that the following evidence and expert opinion therein are given from

within my area of expertise. For this hearing I have been instructed by the

applicants to give evidence.

5. I have read the code of conduct for expert witnesses in the Environment Court

Practice Note 2014. I understand my obligations under the Practice Note and

agree to comply with it and attest that I have considered all material facts

including those that may alter or detract from the opinions that I express in my

evidence.

6. In preparing this statement, I have read the Council’s Notification Decision report

dated 4 May 2017, I have studied the submissions that were received by the

Council as a result of limited notification of the application, and I have read the

Council's Planning Report dated 15 November 2017. I do not propose to repeat

the detail that was contained in the AEE and associated documents, but rather to

address matters which have been raised in the submissions and in the

recommended conditions. I have visited the site on a number of occasions over

the last year, most recently on 27 November 2017.


3

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF MY EVIDENCE

7. The purpose of my evidence will cover the following matters:

(a) The Site, Proposal and History.

(b) Matters raised in submissions.

(c) The recommended conditions in the s42A report.

(d) Section 104 RMA.

(e) My conclusions.

THE SITE, PROPOSAL AND HISTORY

8. The property and the proposal are described in detail in the original application

documents by the applicant, the accompanying AEE, and the s42A report. One

minor point of clarification is that “campervans” cover caravans and the like as

well as fully self-contained self-propelled vehicles. Otherwise there is no need to

further describe the proposals in this evidence.

9. As part of preparation for the RMA applications, the applicants undertook a round

of consultation with neighbours, none of whom signed approvals as potentially

adversely affected parties.

10. From there the applications were lodged with both Hauraki District Council

(“HDC”), and the Waikato Regional Council (“WRC”). Where required the WRC

consents have been granted.

11. Council made a decision under section 95 RMA to “limited notify” the HDC

applications for the Log Cabin and the camping ground. The owners / occupiers

of five properties, plus two iwi groups were “limited notified”. Submissions were

received from owners and occupiers of four of the properties. No submissions

were received from iwi.


4

12. The report on flood hazard formed part of the original application. Upon review by

Council and after meetings with Council staff the report was re-examined and

submitted. In this respect the reports by Civil Engineering Services dated

30/11/15 and 3/11/17 refer. Another report on wastewater and stormwater

management dated 5/5/16 applies to that matter.

THE DISTRICT PLAN

13. The s42A report covers all relevant matters in the Council’s Operative District Plan

(“ODP”) and finds that the proposal is consistent with all relevant objectives and

policies. I concur with this view.

14. It is of particular importance that the report considered objectives and policies in

relation to “off-site” issues including indigenous biodiversity, significant natural

areas, management of water supply catchments, riparian margins and

esplanades, and the transport network. The report concluded that the proposal

would not or was unlikely to engender adverse effects on these matters. In

general the report stated that the proposal was consistent with the outcomes

anticipated from those objectives and policies, with in some instances,

particularly rural landscape character and signs, the recommendation of suitable

conditions of consent.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

15. The s42A report assesses environmental effects in considerable detail, and

addresses all of the matters raised by submitters. It is noted that a number of the

issues raised by submitters are not matters that can be considered in the context

of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”), or the District Plan.

16. Firstly, the s42A report concludes that with suitable conditions of consent, and on-

site management, that “potential adverse effects of the use of the “Log Cabin”

for visitor accommodation are considered to be less than minor”.


5

17. Secondly the report considers the campground proposal and addresses all

environmental effects that are applicable. In respect to all environmental

impacts, the report has concluded that adverse effects will be less than minor.

18. In particular, the issues surrounding flooding have been examined in detail. Mr

Preston has examined the land catchment and assessed a location for a “flood

line” which per conditions of consent will be marked permanently on the ground,

to advise campers of the ideal location for camping. This “flood line” is a line of

varying height which drops in level by about 2.7 metres from south to north,

along the flow of the Waitawheta River.

19. In addition the camp management plan and safety plan include conditions under

which the camp will be closed for the safety of guests. The day to day running of

the camp will ensure that adverse effects on amenity and on surrounding land

will be less than minor.

20. Other matters including noise and traffic, parking and access, are dealt with in

detail in the specialists’ evidence. The s42A report notes that with appropriate

conditions and management, that adverse effects will be less than minor.

21. The camping ground itself is a discretionary activity under the ODP. This means

that Council has the power to grant or refuse consent. The s42A report notes

that the campground could mean a loss of land for primary production, but also

notes that the land could be reverted to primary production if the campground

ceased operations. I note that the large areas of grass could continue to be used

for grazing or haymaking which has been at a hobby farm level erstwhile, thus

continuing to use the land for primary production purposes.


6

22. Effects on amenity enjoyed by local land owners and occupiers will be less than

minor. The camp ground area is contained below a terrace to the west and

beyond a small spur to the north. The camping area is thus shielded from other

property. These topographical features act as both a noise barrier and visual

barrier to the nearby residential properties.

23. In my opinion it is unlikely that the camping ground operation will have a “chilling”

(reverse sensitivity) effect on the primary use of other surrounding property.

Various activities within those properties would remain as permitted activities. I

note that all of the properties owned by submitters are of a smaller size to that

owned by the applicants. The application property has an area of 4.6830

hectares. Those properties owned by the submitters vary in size from 8446 m2 to

2.8134 hectares. The degree to which these properties are used for primary

activities is not known although from the road it appears that some primary

activity takes place within some of them.

THE SUBMISSIONS

24. In summary the submissions traverse the following RMA matters:

Log Cabin and use of it for visitor accommodation

Appropriateness of the site

Flooding

Traffic

Noise

Visual effects from lighting

Rural amenity

Water supply, effluent disposal, stormwater, cellular network access

(utilities)

Effects on Waitawheta River and public access

Effects on adjacent SNA area and biodiversity

Nuisance effects

Rural fire


7

25. In addition a number of matters outside of the RMA are canvassed by the

submitters as follows:

Trespass

Property values

Stock access and movements

26. The submissions that refer to technical matters being utilities, traffic, noise

and flooding have been assessed by the relevant engineering experts. In all

cases, the findings of the experts and the s42A report are that the effects

are either less than minor, or appropriately addressed through conditions to

ensure that effects will be less than minor.

27. WRC has issued its consent for the wastewater system being satisfied that it

is appropriate to the size of the proposed facility and that it will not cause

adverse effects to the Waitawheta River and hence the Paeroa water supply

catchment.

28. In particular relation to flooding risk, the camp will have an operational

management plan and safety plan. There will be on-site management all

year round and procedures are being put in place to monitor weather

forecasts and make decisions about camp closure. Recommended

conditions of consent include a ground marking system that shows the limit

of the camping area to that area calculated to be above the 2% AEP flood

level.

29. The site is appropriate for use by temporary visitor accommodation in the

form of tents, caravans and campervans. With the continuing closure of

town based camping grounds in the Coromandel – Hauraki area, demand

for “experience” based travel is growing.


8

30. The site is sheltered from other surrounding land, has its own independent

access from a sufficiently wide sealed road, and can achieve all of its utility

requirements on site without adverse effects on other property or the wider

community.

31. The occupancy level is low when considering the size of the property. The

Camping Ground Regulations 1985 provide for camping sites of a minimum

area of 53 m2 at no greater distance than 75 metres from ablutions

facilities. On this basis and allowing say 25% of the site only being used for

the camping sites themselves, to allow for roads, facilities etc, the site could

have say 220 sites depending on the ability for wastewater systems, water

supplies and stormwater systems, to work appropriately . The proposal is

for 28 sites being only about 13% of that theoretical capacity with the sites

operating above the 2% AEP flood levels as determined by Mr Preston and

reviewed by Mr De Laborde of HDC.

32. Submitters have raised an issue about the proposed security lighting. The

proposal is for a system that uses downlights near ground level to ensure

safe walking access at night to the ablutions facilities. It is highly unlikely

that these lights will cause glare issues outside of the property given the

topography and the extensive vegetation along the east side of Franklin

Road. An issue was raised that these lights may cause concern to bats. The

applicants undertook monitoring for bats and did not detect any. This is

addressed in the statement by Mr Sorley.

33. With adverse effects on matters that would affect other sites as being less

than minor, and with the screening of the campsite from other residential

property, adverse effects on rural and residential amenity are unlikely.

Franklin Road is already used for tramping and forest access with a car park

established within legal road just south of the site entrance. This has

established a traffic use that is not compounded by the campground as it

will provide its own on-site parking.


9

34. Some submissions have referred to access to the Waitawheta River. It is

bounded by a legal “paper” road (Spence Road) giving full legal access to the

public along its length from south of the subject site to the intersection

with Franklin Road. Northern access to the river is available from Spence

Road which extends from its intersection with Franklin Road as far as the

entrance to 75 Spence Road, as shown below. As this is public land

swimming is permitted within it by all, including future campers.


10

35. Other safety matters raised include Rural Fire which is covered in the camp

safety manual including a total ban on fires including fireworks and fire toys.

The “nuisance effects” cited can be managed by the camp management

plan. The Health Act 1956 also applies.

36. The campground is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the SNA located on

the east side of the Waitawheta River. This steep land rising from the river

bed is unlikely to be visited by any person due to its difficulty in access.

Visitors and residents alike generally have access to the Forest Park and

tramping huts to the south of the property, although not immediately at the

moment due to closure of the track for Kauri Die Back work.

37. Some other matters raised by the submitters listed in paragraph 25 above

that are outside of the ambit of the hearing have been appropriately

reported in the s42A report.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

38. The proposed conditions are generally acceptable to the applicants.

However, a few of them may benefit from small alterations for clarification

and timing and these are addressed as follows.

39. Condition B1. This condition refers to “generally in accordance with” and this

approach is agreed with as it covers intention and allows for modifications

such as building details within the scope of the resource consent, at the

time of building consent.

40. Conditions A6 and B26: The night times should refer to “10:00 pm to 7:00

am”. Amendment is needed to both tables.


11

41. Conditions B30 and B31: Condition B30 needs to be altered to refer to daily

clearance of small bins in the camping area, whilst emptying as necessary of

larger bins outside of the immediate camping area as required but not

exceeding 72 hour intervals, and emptying of recycling bins which contain

products such as glass and paper that would not attract vermin and other

nuisances, only as required. It is suggested that the term “rubbish

receptacles” for the small bins in the camping area be replaced with

“campsite area refuse containers” or something similar and that the same

terminology be used in Condition B31.

42. Condition B35 bullet point 5. It is considered that this is not needed as this

Communications Plan is already incorporated into the Safety Plan on page

13.

43. Conditions B24, B34, B35 B39, and B40. These all cite compliance “at the time

of building consent…”. None of these matters need to be completed until

such time as the campground is to commence operation which will be some

time after building consent is issued for the facilities. It is suggested that

these be worded “prior to the camping ground activity commencing”.

44. Conditions A9 and B47: These conditions relate to the Complaints Register

proposal. It is suggested that the reported complaints should be those made

in writing, with writing including letters, and emails, with the complainant(s)

clearly identified, but not cellular network text messages or phone calls of

any type. The reason for this is to ensure an accurate record of what a

complaint may be, and not left open to potential misunderstanding from a

phone call, or non-reception of a text message. This will also be useful in

ensuring that complaints are unlikely to frivolous in nature.


12

45. Condition B40c. This condition requires replacement of any plants that fail or

are removed. It is suggested that the last sentence be replaced to read as

follows: “The general planting plan be maintained to retain the general flow

of the landscape plan and plants replaced accordingly or as required.”

46. Conditions B48 and B49. These are the s128 RMA review conditions.

Condition B48 is a possible yearly review for 3 years and includes “a bullet

point 1” referring to noise. Condition B49 is an additional review clause on

noise which refers to a permanent ability to undertake such reviews. It

appears that there would be no need for this additional condition given that

over a 3 yearly period of annual reviews (if undertaken), it would be clear if

there was a noise issue associated with the camp. I question the need for

the additional condition B49.

SECTION 104 RMA MATTERS

47. When considering an application for a discretionary activity, section 104 RMA

must be assessed. This section was addressed in detail in both the AEE and

the officer’s s42A report. The conclusions arrived at in both documents was

similar, and accordingly it is not proposed to further comment on specific

matters.

48. With the proposal being consistent and complying with matters of

importance under all statutory planning documents and legislation,

particularly with Part II of the RMA, and with conditions being

recommended to ensure that the proposal appropriately avoids, remedies

and mitigates potential adverse environmental effects, consent can be

granted under section 104B RMA.


13

CONCLUSION

49. The proposal supports Part II of the Act. It will not cause adverse effects on the

environment that are more than minor.

50. The proposal is consistent with all relevant objectives and policies of the Operative

Plan.

51. The proposal is consistent with all relevant statutory planning documents.

52. In my opinion, consent can be granted subject to the proposed conditions

with modifications as suggested.

Donald Sangster MNZPI

1 December 2017


1

GreenCanvasHearingStatement–HaurakiDistrictCouncil29Nov2017GreenCanvasareproposingtoprovidealow-impact,familyfriendly,fullymanaged,ecocampsiteattheendofFranklinroad,WaihiadjacenttotheentryoftheDoCwalkwaysandKaimaiMamakuforestpark.Thiscampwillcontain28sites,ofwhich12sitesarepowered.AsingleAmenitiesblockwithkitchen,showersandtoiletswillbeprovided.Themaximumoccupancyatpeakwillbe100persons.ThepropertyalsocontainsTheLogCabin,whichisafullyselfcontained,uniqueloghouse,offering(boutique)holidayhomestyleaccommodationforupto12persons,asonegroupbooking.TheLogCabinhasbeenoperatingasaccommodationsince2005.TheNeedInconsideringourdesignapproachtothiscampsite,webelievethattheenvironmentcomesfirstandforemost.Weallknowthathavingacampsitewhichhaszeroimpactisunrealistic...(Asanycampsitehasanimpact)….soshouldtherebenocampsitesatall?Shouldtheyallbeinpopulatedbuiltupareas?Campingisakiwitradition,whichunfortunatelyisbecomingincreasinglydifficultasmoreandmorecampsitesaresoldupanddevelopedas theyaresituatedonprimerealestate. Between1990–2005, 190 campsites have closed as referenced by NZ Geographic (2005). Karangahake’s motorcamprecentlyclosedalso.Eachclosure isa losstothosewhowantthesimplicityofano-frillscampingholiday-noTV's,nominigolf,nounnecessaryadd-onstowhatisessentiallyanopportunitytoexperiencewildernessinallitsnaturalbeauty.Opportunities for a 'back to basics' kiwi camping holiday are fast disappearing and yet there aremanypeoplewhodonotwanttolosethisoptionofalowcostfamilyholiday.LogCabinguestshaveaskedusonnumerousoccasionswhethertheycouldpitchatentdownbytheriverasthelocationissoidyllic.RecentlytheAlpineSportsClubofAucklandapproachedus,requestingtoholdtheirannualsummercampontheexactsitewhereweareproposingtosetupthecampsite,astheywereafteranaturalnon-commercialsite.We feel there isaneed fora low impact,affordable,naturalholidaydestinationwhichwouldbeused by locals, national and international visitors alike, especially as demand for this type ofaccommodationinourareaisincreasingwiththegrowingpopularityoftheHaurakiRailTrail,with34,000annualusersatWaikinoandamassive92,250usersatKarangahakebridge,andevidencedbyDickeyFlatcampburstingattheseamsinsummer.A (2006) survey carried out by DOC found that 90% of the 1200 respondents described theavailabilityofcampingaseitherimportantorextremelyimportanttothem.Thesamesurveyfoundthat themost important draw cards for the camping couple or familywere; proximity towater,beautiful views of bush, mountains and trees and wildlife. Birdsong was a key element of anenjoyablecampingexperience.We have thought about this long and hard. We have the ideal location, it is a great businessopportunity,weareallpassionateabouttheenvironment,andifwearewantingtoprovidesuchaservice,whatisthebestwaytodothatwhilstpreservingtheenvironment?


2

'WebelieveEducationisthekey'.Lowimpactandecologicalandsustainableinitiativesareaprimarycomponentofthisproposal.ThisisnotaTop10Holidayparkorevenastandardcampsitewithallamenities.WehavetheknowledgeandexperiencewithintheGreenCanvasteamofhowto livesustainablywithalowimpactontheenvironment.OurTeamincludes:

• SoilandClimateChangeScientist• EnvironmentalScientists• SolarPowerCompanyDirector• Travelandtourismconsultant• HealthandSafetyspecialist• Eventorganisers• Community leaders (Green Gold Enviro-school, Keep NZ Beautiful clean up coordination,

Communityplantingdays,Sustainableeventmanagement,CommunityCentreChair,SearchandRescueVolunteer…..)

Wesee thecampsiteasa fantasticopportunity toeducatevisitorsonamoresustainableway toholidayandlivelifeingeneral.AkeyfacetofthatforGreenCanvasis:Demonstration and Education of low usage and low impact utilities and Services. This wouldinclude,butnotbelimitedto:

• lowerwaterusage:o Usinglowflowshowerheads(5ltperminuteontimers)usessignificantlylesswater.o Smallkitchensinkstoreducewaterusageo Smallbathroomsinksfittedwithtimerso Lowflushtoilets(3ltperflush)o Waterlessurinalso Signage&education

• Kitchen Sink: 12 litres per day per campsite = 336 litresShower: 1 shower per day at 5 litres per minute x 4min = 20 litres x 98 = 1960 litresBathroom sink: 3 litres per day per person = 294 litresToilet: Waterless urinals or 3 flushes per day per person at 3 litres per flush (low flushtoilets)=882litres

• Total:3,472litres/day=3.5cubicmeterso Themaximumwaterusagewouldbe35ltperpersonperday.o Therearenowashingmachines

Recyclingdepotwithfullsortingfacilitiestominimizelandfill(WealreadyhavethissysteminplaceattheLogCabin)

CompostingoffoodscrapsandvegetationusinghungrybinwormfarmorsimilarAlternativeseptictanksystemsforeffluentandgreywaterwhichalthoughmaynotberelevantto


3

most urban housing where many of our visitors may come from, but shows a cost effective,environmentallyfriendlyalternative.Solar power using low wattage LED bulbs on sensors and low to the ground downlighting onpathwaystominimizelightingandpowerusage.Properriveretiquette, ienouseofsoap/shampoosetc.Makingpeopleawareweneedtoprotectthewaterqualityforallthosefurtherdownstream.Nativeplantingofriparianrivermargins,swalesandinbetweensitesforprivacy.Thisplantingswillalsoenhancebirdlifeanddemonstratenativebirdsandcamperscanco-exist.Using DoC approved traps and pest control methods to reduce pests. (We already utilise aGoodnatureratcatcherattheLogCabin)Wewould provide knowledge that people could take awaywith themanduse in their everydaylivesandtheircommunityasawhole.Thevalleyiscertainlynostrangertonon-ruralactivities.We understand there used to be an unofficial campsite situated just across the river from theproposedcampsiteontheSharpe'sproperty.Theareawasonceone largefarmwhichwassubdividedandsoldfordevelopmentbyoneofthesubmitters.Allsubmitterstothisproposalhavebenefitedfromdevelopmentinthisarea.TheNambassa festival in1981brought around15,000people into thevalleyand themain stagewassituatedintheexactsamespotasourproposedcampsite.Itisinterestingtonotethatourpropertyisnotunfamiliarwithpeoplecomingtoenjoythenaturalenvironmentonofferalready,fishermenandlocalsusingtheriverforswimming,makinguseofthecouncil paper road running along the length of theWaitawheta river, adjacent to the proposedcampsite,notonlyonourproperty,butonneighbouringpropertiesalso.Toquote formerConservationMinisterChrisCarter "Theconsistent theme fromeveryone is thatthemostpleasantholidaymemoriesinevitablyinvolvewater.Coastalareas,rivers,lakes,streams.It'sthebasicexperience intheseremoteplacesthatpeopleoverwhelminglyseemto like,andwewanttoreassurefuturegenerationsthatthey'llbeabletohavetheseexperiencesthatwedidwhenwewereyoung."Wefeelthatthiscampsitewillbeofbenefittothegreatercommunityasawhole.MitigationStrategiesSince this campgroundwas firsta thought,wehavebeenopenand transparentaboutourplans.Consultationwas heldwith our neighbours however agreement has not been reached.We havelistened to our neighbours concerns and we have put in place mitigation strategies to addressthese.CampManagementAsanadjacentlandownertotheDickeyFlatDoCcamp,wehave8yearsfirsthandexperienceoftheeffectsacampthatisnotactivelymanaged.Withthisexperienceinmind,ourproposalisthatourCampwill be activelymanaged. This ensures the CampManager canmanage all aspects of the


4

comprehensive CampManagement Plan (meeting the requirements of the Camping regulations1985),andtheSafetyPlan,thatincludesCamperssafety.Expectationsofcampersareprovideduponbooking,onourwebsiteandatthecampsite.TheCampManager,usingtheCampRegulations,willhavetheabilitytoevictpeoplethatmaynotfollowthecamprules.Noiseconcerns:HegleyAccousticshaveassessedthecampplansanddeterminedthenoise levelswill not exceed the maximum level requirement based on the camp proximity in the valley,surroundedbyhillsinthedirectionsofneighbourswithnolineofsitetoanyneighbour.GreenCanvasacknowledgetherehavebeentheoccasionalnoisecomplaintsinrelationtotheLogCabin.Thesewerequicklyaddressedatthetimeandanupdatednoisepolicyhasnowbeeninplaceforanumberofyears.Guests are always advised at booking of the noise policy, and this has resulted in some of thepeoplechoosingnottobookwithusHaving a CampManager,with a direct line of sight, in close proximity to the camping area,willensure that anynoisewill be addressed immediately.Anoisemeterwill alsobeprovided to theCampManagertoassessnoiselevels.Wewanttoemphasisethatwhatweareproposingisalowimpactcampsite,ourtargetmarketisfamilies and likemindedpeoplewhoenjoy the tranquillity andbeautyof nature. These camperscomeforarelaxingandquiettime–wedonotwantthemdisturbedbynoisefromothercampers.We have a responsibility to our guests to provide an unforgettable, peaceful and tranquilexperience.Lighting:Ourpowerforthecampwillbedeliveredbyasolararraywithabatterybanktoprovidenighttimeelectricalsupply.OurlightswillbelowpowerLEDdown-lightswithintheAmenitiesblockand anypathwayswill be lit by low to the grounddown lighting thatwill bedesigned to ensureminimal lightpollution to the surroundingenvironment.Guidedby theCampRegulations,wherepossiblelightswillbeonsensorstoensuretheywillbeoffwhennotinuse.Aswearerunningtheentirecamponsolarpower,wealsowishtoconserveelectricity.Traffic: Traffic Planning consultants have assessed our proposal and determined that the road issuitableforthepeaktrafficflowscalculated.Toassistthetrafficflowinandoutofthecampweareproposingatwo-laneentryandexitattheCampentrancetopreventanytrafficcongestion.Theseentryandexitlaneshavealsobeenagreedtoasanecessaryrequirementwithinoursafetyplan,shouldtherebeaneedforanyemergencyvehicleonsite.Whetherwe like itornotthepubliccarparkat theDoCtrackwillcontinuetogrow inpopularity,howevertherewillbenoimpactfromourguestsaswewillhaveampleparkingonsite.PotentialforFloodingTheproposedcampisneighbouringtheWaitawhetariverwiththeWaitawhetacatchmenthavingminimalfarmlandupstreamofthecampsite.WerecognisetheWaitawhetariver levelscanrisesignificantlyduringheavyrainandconcernhasbeenraisedofcamperssafetyduringfloodevents.Asaprecaution,theAmenitiesblockisdesignedwiththefloorlevel1mabovethegroundlevelasprotectionfromfloodingwhichwouldbewellinexcessofeventhepredicted100yrfloodevent.


5

Anumberofwarningsystemsareinplace,includingbeingontheCivilDefenceandWRCheavyraincontact list, pre-floodmarkers at the site to assess the river level, daily weatherwatch and theabilityoftheCampManagertopre-empttheimpactofinclementweatheronthecampandclosethecampduringhighriskperiods.NotethecommentsfromtheCivilEngineer:Itrequiressignificantrainfallinthearea,asseenbyrecenthighrainfallevents;boththe10March2017,(180mmrainatsite)and12April2017CycloneCook(150mmrainatsite)resultedinheavyrainfallatthesite.Suchrainfall isthewarning–whileweatherforecasting,weatheralertsetccanraiseinitialawareness(andplanningproceduresforsucheventscanbeinstigated),heavyrainovermanyhoursgiveitsownwarningthatriverlevelswillincrease.Withtheheadofthecatchmentonly15 km from the proposed campsite, the state of theweather and subsequent river flows is notgoingtobeasurprise.

CouncilandNeighbourshaveshownconcernovercamperssafetyatourproposedsite,but therearenumerouscampsitesintheareaandallaroundNewZealandthatarenotactivelymanaged,e.g:theDickeyFlatDoCcamp,thataresubjectedtoflooding.Thisdownstreamcampsitescannotbecomparedtotheproposedsiteastheir farmlandandtotalcatchmentsaremuchgreaterandthepositioningofthesecampsinrelationtotheriverislower.In complete contrast to this, we propose that our camp be managed, with audited safety andevacuation procedures,with routine safety drills in place,with high river levelwarning,weatheralerts, considering building and layout design, and the ability of the CampManager to close thecampatanytimeofsuspectedhighwater,willprovideforthesafetyofcampers.GreenCanvashavebeengrantedaresourceconsentbytheWRCforeffluentdischarge,usinglowflushtoiletswithassociatedgreywaterandcompostablesolids.Thetanksareabovegroundlevelunder theproposedAmenitiesbuildingtopreventpotential forcontaminationshouldthegroundwaterlevelbecomesaturatedbyheavyrainorsurfacewater.TheproposedcamprunsalongsideaCouncilpaperroad,whichborderstheWaitawhetariver.Thispaper road (most of which wemow regularly) has been used extensively by neighbours, locals,fishermen,trampersandothersforrecreationalaccess,andwillcontinuetodoso.Publicrecreationbytheproposedcampsiteisnotnewtothisland.Ourplanistoprovideeducationand management of the recreation along the river through signage (no Shampoo’s or soaps,protection of the native plantings and existing flora and fauna, further native riparian plantings,education of the local wildlife and treading lightly). Camp management will assist with thiseducation.GreenCanvasproposeto increasethenativeplantingonthesite,providingforcamperscreeningandprivacy,visualattractivenessandreducedimpactonthenativefloraandfauna.Werecogniseconcernofthepotential impactonbatsandhavebeenresearchingthepresenceofbatsattheproposedsite.ThishasbeenthroughusingWRCprovidedbatmonitoringdevicesandsearchingforbatguano.Nobatshavebeendetectedattheproposedsite.CampOccupancywillpeakat100persons,onthebasisthatall28campsitesarefilled.Itmustbenotedthatpeakcampoccupancywillonlyoccuratshortintervalsonafewoccasionsoftheyear.


6

Weunderstandthepeaktimesofoccupancyare:• LabourWeekend• Boxingday–7thJanuary• AucklandAnniversary• Waitangiweekend• Easter

Throughthewintermonthstheremaybeonlyoneortwocampersandmanytimestheremaybenocamperspresent.TheLogCabinhasbeeninoperationastouristaccommodationforthepast12years.TheLogCabinsleeps up to 12 persons per booking and has been deemed to have sufficient parking andinfrastructureforthepeakoccupancy.Achangeinownershipandclosermanagementhasleadtoimprovedpoliciesfornoisemanagement.SummingupOurvisionforthecampgroundhasbeeninthemakingforover4years.Ourproposal is comprehensive,has receivedrigorouschallengeanddebate fromneighboursandCouncil,whichwehavelistenedtoandfollowedupwithmitigationstrategiesandimprovementstoourplans.Theownersof the landareenvironmentalists,educators, safetyconscious, communityleaders and successful business people who do have the experience, skills and knowledge toundertakethisproject.Itisourintentiontocreateasafe,educational,familyfriendlycampsitewithminimal impact on the environment and surrounds, that we believe will support the growth oftourisminthisregion.GreenCanvasLtdAlastairSorleyRachelSorleySeugnetToweelCarolineStewardRobHarrellCarolineHarrell


IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of an application to construct an ecocampground which will include 28 campsites, an office building, accessible cabin and an amenities building, along with retrospective consent for the 'log cabin' which provides visitor accommodation for a maximum of 12 people.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF NEVIL IAN HEGLEY

Introduction

1 My name is NEVIL IAN HEGLEY. I have the following experience and

qualifications relevant to the evidence I shall give:

(a) I have more than 40 years’ professional experience in acoustic

engineering;

(b) I have an MSc from Southampton University where I undertook

research in acoustics in 1975/76;

(c) I am a Member of the Institute of Professional Engineers New

Zealand, the Institute of Civil Engineers London and the Acoustical

Society of America;

(d) I have appeared on the majority of the Standards sub-committees

dealing with sound issues since 1977 and I was the Chairman of the

1984 and 1999 versions of the Construction Noise Standard

NZS6803;


2

(e) In 2010 I received the Meritorious Award by Standards New Zealand

for outstanding commitment to the development of New Zealand

Acoustic Standards; and

(f) I have advised on the noise effects for ten different camping grounds

throughout the country as well as a number of motel type facilities.

2 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2014) and I agree to comply

with it. My qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the

issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I

have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or

detract from the opinions expressed.

3 I am familiar with the subject site and the surrounding environment.

The Proposal

4 I have assumed the commissioners have read our report entitled Green

Canvas Campground, 209 Franklin Road, Waihi, Acoustic Assessment

dated November 2016. The above noise report was prepared by my

colleague under my supervision and I had an ongoing input regarding the

content and findings. I confirm I agree with that report.

5 Rather than repeat information contained in our report I have limited this

evidence to comments regarding the Council’s planning report.

6 I have reviewed the Council’s report and agree with the findings and

proposed noise conditions without any changes.

Submissions

7 I have reviewed the submissions and address each of the concerns raised.

8 Paula Hesterman has raised the potential for noise. The District Plan sets

the noise limits anticipated in the area, which are at the lower level of what is


3

generally adopted in a rural area. In addition, the no noise policy after 10pm

will ensure noise does not become a nuisance for the neighbours.

9 Derek Kelsall is concerned that sound travels a long way within the rural

environment. The calculations take into account how sound travels in a

rural environment and from the calculations and proposed site management

the noise from the facility will be controlled to within a reasonable limit at all

times.

10 Gary and Serena Grive have raised the issues of excessive noise from

camp residents frightening stock and from additional traffic movements. I

have been involved in a number of cases regarding effects of noise on

livestock. From this work, and from research available, the effects of noise

from the proposed facility will not cause any adverse effects for any type of

stock and this includes cows that may be milked.

11 Existing traffic noise in this area is minimal and even during the peak traffic

flows that are ever likely to be generated by the facility the noise from traffic

will remain well within a reasonable level. This conclusion is supported by

NZS 6806:2010 Acoustics- Road-traffic Noise - New and Altered Roads

where it is stated that the Standard does not apply to new and altered roads

that are predicted to carry less than 2,000 AADT at the design year,

including a new road in a greenfield area. This traffic flow has been set as it

was considered that for any flow below 2,000 AADT traffic flow the noise

would be well within a reasonable level regardless of the distance from the

road.

12 Elizabeth Thompson is concerned about excessive noise from camp

residents frightening stock and additional traffic movements. These points

have been addressed above.

13 Dennis and Sandra Blake are concerned about the potential increase in

noise and traffic, within 70m of their bedroom. Traffic noise has been

addressed above. In addition, there are many rural dwellings that have

been constructed closer than 70m to the road with significantly higher traffic

flows than will occur at the subject site. As set out above, for a rural


4

dwelling where the traffic flow is well below 2,000vpd and the dwelling is

70m from the road traffic noise will be well within what is considered to be a

reasonable level.

Conclusions

14 The proposed noise conditions, which reflect the requirements of the District

Plan, are 5dB within the upper noise limit as recommended in

NZS6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise and 5dB within the limits

recommended in both NZS6802 and the WHO1 recommendation to allow

undisturbed sleep.

15 By adopting the proposed conditions the noise from the proposed

development will be well within a reasonable level at all times for the closest

neighbour. By controlling noise to the closest neighbour the noise to all

other neighbours will be lower so noise will not be a nuisance for the

residents in the area.

16 It is recommended that the recommendations of the Council’s Planner

should be adopted without change for any consent granted.

Nevil Hegley December 2017

1 Guidelines for Community Noise, Edited by Birgitta Berglund, Thomas Lindvall and Dietrich H

Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1999


Hauraki District Council: Land use consent 202.2016.00000568.001

IN THE MATTER of Resource Managemant Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of a hearing for resource consent for land use being a log cabin and camping ground at 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta FOR APPLICANTS Green Canvas Pty Limited

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MURRAY JOHN PRESTON

INTRODUCTION

1. My Name is Murray John Preston, I am a director and the Principal of Civil Engineering Services (1994) Ltd. I am a Civil Engineer who commenced work as an Engineering Cadet receiving formal engineering training with the Hauraki Catchment Board from 1972. I have a New Zealand Certificate in Engineering (Civil) and am a Registered Engineering Associate and am a technical member of the Institution of Engineers (now Engineering New Zealand).

2. I Confirm that in preparing this statement of evidence, I have read the Environment

Court’s Code of conduct for Expert witnesses and agree to comply with it.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

3. The work done for this project was carried out by me or my technical staff under my supervision as requested by Alastair Sorley representing Green Canvas Pty Limited to provide information to support an application for building and resource consent for the campground as proposed.

4. The work was within our area of experience and competence and consistent with

other projects carried out for other clients.

5. I appear on behalf of Green Canvas Pty Limited in support of its land use application to establish and operate an eco-campsite on the property at 209 Franklin road, Waitawheta. I prepared the following reports for the applicant which are the subject of evidence provided.

a) Hydro Report of 30/11/15. (In summary this report outlined flood flow that occurred in

a moderate, but not insignificant storm event and demonstrated that the flood flow was contained within the normal river channel at the site)

b) Effluent and Stormwater review document of 5/5/16 This was prepared following Information regarding such proposals prepared by the applicant was provided for us to review.

c) A Flood estimation report of 12/4/17 (Now Superseded), A letter of 20/7/17,

commenting on rainfall and runoff (also Superseded). These documents were


provided to the client, and there was an error made in interpreting gauged data. The return period of the described flood event was subsequently overstated. The following letter was also affected by the same error. As these documents had been circulated, simply removing them as evidence did not seem appropriate

d) November Hydro Report of 3/11/17. This report was prepared to provide more

information as requested by Council, and with the benefit of greater scrutiny, this report provides more information with the benefit of additional flood information since the report of 30/11/15, plus provides estimated 50 yr (2%) flood profiles. I note that the Council’s engineer has accepted the updated information as being appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

I agree with Councils Infrastructure Systems and Planning Manager’s assessment along with the additional explanations and reiterate that evacuation procedures should start long before any inundation of the site occurs. I concur with the Council’s recommended engineering conditions.

Signed Murray Preston 30 November 2017


Statement of Evidence of John Burgess on behalf of Green Canvas Limited

1

Before the Hauraki District Council


AND

IN THE MATTER of LUSE-202.2016.00000568.001, being an application for a land use consent to establish an eco-campground which will include 28 campsites, and accessible cabin and an amenities building, and an application for retrospective consent for an existing "Log Cabin" which provides visitor accommodation for a maximum of 12 persons, at 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JOHN MICHAEL BURGESS

ON BEHALF OF GREEN CANVAS LIMITED

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is John Michael Burgess and I have been a director of Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd,

a company which I founded, for the past 30 years. For 13 years I was an Associate and Senior

Traffic Planner with Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, Consulting Engineers in Auckland,

responsible for traffic planning work undertaken by the company, and prior to that I was a traffic

engineer in local government in the UK. I have a Bachelor of Engineering degree, and I am a

Chartered Engineer, a Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a Chartered Member of

Engineering New Zealand.

2. I confirm that, in preparing this statement of evidence, I have read the Environment Court’s Code

of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and agree to comply with it. I also confirm that I have not omitted

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

in my evidence and that, except where I am relying on evidence of another person, the issues I

address are within my area of expertise.

3. I appear on behalf of Green Canvas Limited in support of its land use application to establish and

operate an eco-campsite on its property at 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta. I prepared the Traffic


Statement of Evidence of John Burgess on behalf of the National Trading Company of NZ Limited

Ref: 16384-e1v1

2

Impact Assessment1 (TIA) that accompanied the application, and I also prepared the Section 92

response2 relating to the various traffic matters that were raised by the Council.

4. In preparing this statement, I have read the Council’s Notification Decision report dated 4 May 2017,

I have studied the submissions that were received by the Council as a result of limited notification

of the application, and I have read the Council's Planning Report dated 15 November 2017. I do

not propose to repeat the detail that was contained in the TIA and s92 response, but rather to briefly

summarise the key transportation matters relating to the proposal, and which have been raised in

the submissions.

KEY TRANSPORTATION ISSUES RELATING TO THE PROPOSAL

5. The following summarises the key conclusions from my assessment of the proposal.

6. The total predicted additional trip generation of the proposed campsite is 84 vehicle movements

per day, although this prediction assumes 100% occupation of the 28 campsites in the peak

summer period, and the amount of traffic generated will be much lower for most of the time. During

the busiest hours of the day traffic volumes are commonly about 10% of daily flows, which would

result in a predicted peak flow of about 8 vehicle movements per hour (vph). If this was

conservatively assumed to be higher at 20% for the campsite, the peak hourly flow would be 16

vph, and the resulting additional flow on Franklin Road would be 8 vph to and 8 vph from the

campsite.

7. From the end of Franklin Road there are two basic routes to/from the campsite. The first is via

Waitawheta Road (north) to SH2 at Owharoa Falls in Karangahake Gorge, which will be used by

all traffic to/from destinations to the west of the Kaimai Ranges. The second route is via Waitawheta

Road (east) and Frankton Road to Waihi, which will be used by traffic to /from areas to the east of

the Kaimai Ranges (Tauranga and beyond, and the Coromandel Peninsula). "Local" trips to/from

Waihi (eg provisioning) will also use this eastern route. Assuming 75% use the SH2 route from the

north, this would equate to some 12 vph (6 vph each way) on Waitawheta Road (north).

8. No specific safety issues have been identified at the intersection of SH2 and Waitawheta Road,

and I consider that the addition of perhaps 6 vph entering and leaving SH2 at this point will have

minimal effect on its continuing safe and efficient operation.

1 Proposed Eco campsite, 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta, Waihi, Traffic Impact Assessment, Ref: 16384-r1v1, 15 November 2016 - Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd. 2 Response to traffic related items raised in the Council's request for further information, Ref: 16384-r2v1, 21 March 2017 - Traffic Planning Consultants Ltd.



Ref: 16384-e1v1

3

9. There is a one lane bridge close to the intersection of Franklin Road and Spencer Road, where

sight distances are good and traffic flows are low. There have been no reported crashes in the

vicinity of the bridge during the 2012-2016 period, and the addition of 8 vph each way in the busiest

hours will have minimal effect on its operation.

10. Midway between this one-way bridge and the subject site, there is a short section of narrow road

over a length of about 200 metres. For a very short distance in the centre of this section the

carriageway narrows to 4 metres in width, then widens out to about 5.5 metres in each direction

over the remainder of the narrow section, widening further to 6 metres beyond that. Over this length

(including the short section that is 4 metres wide), two opposing vehicles can easily pass at slow

speed, if necessary utilising part of the verge along both sides of the road. Forward visibility through

this section is good, and the appropriate "road narrows" signs are present. The road operates

safely at present (no reported crashes), and will continue to do so with the small amount of

additional traffic from the proposed campsite.

11. Overall, these additional traffic flows are small in the context of the wider road network, and the

effects will be less than minor. The Council's Development Engineer clearly agrees with these

conclusions, as summarised in the Planning Report (at pages 20-21).

12. In terms of the site itself, appropriate driveways are to be established to provide access and

circulation within the site so that the internal layout will meet all normal traffic engineering standards,

ensuring that all queuing, manoeuvring and parking will occur entirely within the site with no spill-

over effects onto the road network. The proposal complies with all of the rules and standards of

the Hauraki District Plan in relation to access, parking and loading.

SUBMISSIONS

13. The Council's Planning Report provides (at pages 13-15) a good summary of the content of the

various submissions, but in terms of transportation matters they make specific reference to:

• the effects of substantial extra traffic, on a typical rural road where cattle are moved, dogs and

cats are walked every day and where horses have been ridden,

• Franklin Road being currently at saturation point with increased traffic resulting from

recreational visitors, raising safety issues and conflict with road usage by rural activities, and

• the effects of noise from additional traffic on the road.



Ref: 16384-e1v1

4

14. Quite clearly Franklin Road is not "at saturation point", and traffic flows remain quite low and in

keeping with a rural road of this nature. There will always be some peak times which coincide with

peak activity for recreational visitors, including users of the proposed campsite, but the road is

easily able to accommodate this traffic without compromising capacity or safety. The Council's

Engineer agrees with this conclusion, and the Planning Report notes (page 21) that "subject to the

imposition of appropriate conditions, I concur with the findings of the various engineers that the

proposal will not have an adverse impact in terms of the road environment associated with Franklin

Road".

15. I will leave the question of traffic noise to Mr Hegley.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CONSENT

16. The Planning Report includes a series of recommended conditions of consent, with those relating

directly to transportation matters being as follows.

17. In relation to the existing Log Cabin, Condition 10 requires the provision of three on-site parking

spaces to be available for use by occupants of the Cabin, and I agree that this is a reasonable

requirement for a facility that has a maximum occupancy of 12 persons.

18. In relation to the proposed camp site, Condition 14 requires the vehicle crossing to be designed

and constructed to meet the design standards in the Council's Engineering Manual 2010, and

Conditions 15 and 16 require the sight distances at the entrance to be improved to the satisfaction

of the Council.

19. In the TIA, I observed that the speed of traffic along this section of road is low, particularly bearing

in mind that the subject site is located close to the end of the public road. I concluded that the

existing sight distances are adequate for that environment, these being in excess of 70 metres in

each direction, the standard required for a speed environment of 40 km/hr. Nevertheless, I agree

with the recommended conditions that appropriate sight distances need to be established and

maintained to meet the Council's standards.

20. Condition 20 requires the on-site access, parking and turning areas to be formed and drained, and

maintained with a permanent all-weather surface. I concur with this condition.



Ref: 16384-e1v1

5

CONCLUSIONS

21. Overall, I agree with the conclusions of the Council's Engineer that the effects of the proposed

campsite on the transport environment along Franklin Road will be less than minor, and I agree

with the recommendations set out in the Council's Planning Report insofar as transportation matters

are concerned. I consider that consent can be granted to the application.

John Burgess

29 November 2017



IN THE MATTER: of the Resource Management Act 1991

(“the Act”)

AND

IN THE MATTER: of a resource consent application to

the Hauraki District Council by “Green

Canvas Ltd” to obtain retrospective

consent to an existing unauthorised

travellers’ accommodation facility and

to obtain consent to a proposed new

campground facility (HDC application

reference LUSE-

202.2016.00000568.001)

__________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RUSSELL DE LUCA

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT & PLANNING CONSULTANT

ON BEHALF OF GARY AND SERENA GRIVE

8 DECEMBER 2017

___________________________________________________________________________


1

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

[1] My full name is Russell Wayne De Luca and I hold the tertiary qualifications of BSocSc

(Waikato), Diploma in Town Planning (Auckland) and GradDipBusStud (Dispute

Resolution – Mediation) (Massey). I am also a certified Hearing Commissioner (with

Chairing endorsement) under the Ministry for the Environment’s RMA “Good Decisions”

programme.

[2] I am a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and the Resource Management

Law Association. I have over 30 years post qualification experience in the field of

planning and resource management.

[3] For the past 22 years I have been a self-employed planning consultant based in the

western Bay of Plenty. Immediately prior to that time I was employed for five years as

a planner with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council in a role roughly equivalent to

the current position of Resource Consents Manager.

[4] In addition to resource consent application and plan submission work on behalf of

private clients, I regularly undertake hearing commissioner work as well as both

regulatory and policy work for district and regional councils. In recent times, this has

included work for the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Whakatane District

Council, Waikato District Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

[5] I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the

Environment Court Practice Note and agree to comply with it. This evidence is within

my area of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that

may invalidate or detract from the opinions expressed.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

[6] I have read Ms Cowan’s RMA section 42A hearing report and Mr Sangster’s planning

evidence, as well as the other pre-circulated expert evidence prepared in support of the

application.

[7] I agree with most of the descriptive content of Ms Cowan’s hearing report as well as the

content relating to the District Plan context and status of the current application.

However, I disagree with her opinion in respect of the subject site’s susceptibility to the

natural hazard flooding risk as well as her assessment of the actual and potential

adverse effects relating to rural character and amenity values. This evidence focuses

on those areas of disagreement.


2

RMA SECTION 104 – STATUTORY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

[8] In my opinion the most relevant matters to consider in respect of the assessment of the

current application are:

Actual and potential environmental effects;

Relevant Regional Policy Statement and District Plan provisions.

The foregoing are subject to an overarching judgement to be made under Part 2 of the

Resource Management Act (RMA).

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

[9] RMA section 5(2)(c) requires that in conjunction with achieving the sustainable

management of resources purpose of the Act so as to enable people to meet their

needs (including their health and safety), a number of specified environmental bottom

lines need to be satisfied, including the avoiding, remedying and mitigating of any

adverse effects of activities on the environment.

[10] In respect of the current application I note that it comprises two components:

Retrospective consent to the existing unauthorised accommodation facility on

the subject site known as the “Log Cabin” and which can accommodate up to

12 people at any one time;

Consent to a proposed campground to accommodate up to 100 people.

[11] The existing Log Cabin facility has not been lawfully established (ie it is an illegal

activity) and for environmental effects assessment purposes does not form part of the

existing environment. Any assessment of effects of the current proposal must therefore

include effects created by the Log Cabin as well as those of the proposed campground.

[12] With respect to the “permitted baseline”, I am of the opinion that the effects of the

activities subject of the current application go well beyond those created by activities

permitted as of right in the Rural Zone (eg home occupations, home/farm stays). There

is therefore no “discount” to be applied to an assessment of the actual and potential

environmental effects created by the two activities applied for.


3

Flooding effects

[13] Dr Joynes has prepared detailed expert evidence on this issue, the conclusion of which

is that because of the nature and magnitude of the flooding hazard, there is a real risk

to the health and wellbeing of campers if the campground component of the current

application is granted consent. In my view his evidence is compelling and clearly

warrants the campground component of the application being refused consent.

Notwithstanding Dr Joynes’ unequivocal assessment and conclusions in respect of the

flooding hazard, I consider it helpful to also put this issue into the statutory context of

the RMA, the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and the Hauraki District Plan.

[14] The meaning of “effect” is set out in section 3 of the RMA and includes:

(e) any potential effect of high probability; and

(f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.

[15] I note that in the third paragraph on page 20 of her hearing report, Ms Cowan states:

“The probability of a flood event large enough to completely inundate the campground

is low, but the potential consequences would be high, particularly if the flooding

occurred at night.”

[16] I believe that in making this statement Ms Cowan is confusing “probability” with

“frequency”. Even the applicant’s own expert evidence on flooding acknowledges that

the campground site will flood, albeit infrequently, with reliance placed on monitoring,

management and emergency evacuation procedures in an endeavour to mitigate the

effects of this inevitable eventuality. Therefore the flooding hazard is an effect of both

“high probability” and “high potential impact”.

Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS)

[17] RMA section 75(3) requires a District Plan to give effect to an RPS while under RMA

section 104(1), a consent authority must “have regard to” to any relevant provisions of

an RPS when considering an application for a resource consent.

[18] Section 13 of the operative Waikato RPS relates to Natural Hazards and Policy 13.2

within that section is to manage activities so as to reduce the risks from natural hazards.

Under clause (c) of the policy, such management includes:

“(c) avoiding intolerable risk in any new use or development in areas subject to

natural hazards.” [my emphasis]

In my opinion, Dr Joyne’s evidence demonstrates that the risk of significant flooding of

the subject site is an “intolerable” one , which in this case should be avoided by refusing

consent to the proposed campground.


4

District Plan

[19] Under RMA section 31(1)(b)(i), one of the specific functions of a territorial authority such

as the Hauraki District Council is “the control of any actual or potential effects of the

use, development or protection of land for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of

natural hazards.” A District Plan should therefore contain provisions to control land use

so as to avoid or mitigate the effects of natural hazards.

[20] In sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the Hauraki District Plan both climate change and natural

hazards are specifically identified as significant resource management issues facing

the District. I note at this point that in section 7(i) of the RMA “the effects of climate

change” is listed as one of the matters to which a Council is to have particular regard

when exercising its functions and powers under the Act.

[21] In District Plan Section 3.2 (Climate Change) it is stated that:

Predicted temperature increases may create “extreme weather conditions such

as heavy rainfall causing flooding” (3.2.2(c));

“Based on the research that has been undertaken it is thought that the Hauraki

District is likely to experience higher rainfall intensity in the future ….[and] …. it

is anticipated that this rainfall is likely to be in the form of extreme weather

conditions.” (3.2.3(1));

Likely effects include “increased flows in rivers, with more intensive

precipitation causing flooding, especially to low lying areas.” (3.2.3(3)(c));

The District Plan has a role in “balancing the conflict between land use activities

and the potential risks associated with climate change.” (3.2.5(1)(c)).

[22] District Plan Section 3.3 (Natural Hazards) identifies “river and stream flooding”, “severe

storm” and “debris flows” as “natural hazards of existing or potential threat to the

Hauraki District.” (3.3.1). Section 3.3.2 specifically refers to river and stream flooding

as follows:

River and stream flooding is the most common natural threat to the Hauraki District,

with most rivers and streams posing a potential hazard. The Waihou, Piako, and

Ohinemuri River systems have been identified as being the highest risk of creating a

flood hazard. Vulnerability to flood events is primarily due to the following factors:

(a) The geographic location of the Hauraki District makes it susceptible to storms

of tropical origin;

(b) The orographic effect of the Kaimai and Coromandel ranges which “attract”

high intensity rainfall events on a regular basis;

(c) Many of the catchments that drain the ranges are steep and short, creating

flood events that are generally intense although of short duration;


5

(d) The majority of the Hauraki Plains is very low-lying and subject to high

groundwater tables, therefore flooding results from flows that exceed the

protection scheme design standards;

(e) Rising sea levels and climate change (i.e. increased rainfall) have the

potential to exacerbate flooding effects in the District;

(f) Existing development in the District is situated in close proximity to the banks

of rivers.

[23] In Section 5.1 of the District Plan (Rural Zone), Objective 4 is:

“To ensure that adverse effects of a land use activity are avoided, remedied or

mitigated”

Policies to implement this objective include:

“(iv) Development in natural hazard areas that is likely to be adversely affected by

such hazards should be avoided, where necessary, in preference to mitigating

adverse effects.” [my emphasis]

[24] In summary:

The vulnerability of the subject site to flooding is not in dispute;

The site has flooded in the past and will continue to flood in the future;

The predicted impact of climate change is that the frequency of extreme

weather events causing flooding will increase and the magnitude of the flooding

effects on the subject site will be more severe;

Both the RPS and District Plan contain provisions which specifically identify the

increased frequency and severity of flooding as a natural hazard, and that

where the identified risk is “intolerable”, any resource consent application to

establish new activities on the affected land should be refused.

[25] Further, it is my opinion that with respect to the current application and the inherent

uncertainty as to extent to which both the increased frequency and increased

magnitude of flooding effects of the subject site will occur as a result of climate change,

there is a strong case for applying the “precautionary principle” whereby the identified

natural hazard risk should again be avoided by refusing resource consent.

[26] I acknowledge that the applicant has prepared detailed camp management and safety

plans which are intended to mitigate any harm to occupants of the proposed

campground created by the flooding of the site which will inevitably occur. However,

such measures are totally dependent on effective monitoring, rigorous management

and strict adherence to all of the procedures and protocols set out in the relevant

documents. Implementation of all of these measures is vulnerable to human error and

breakdowns in the associated communication systems. Natural hazard emergencies


6

are by their nature unpredictable and the management of their effects is susceptible to

human and technical failings. I believe that the potential consequences in terms of

human health and wellbeing are simply too great for the campground application to be

granted consent on the basis that the identified risk can be adequately mitigated,

particularly given the total reliance on good management and the absence of human

error and breakdowns in technology upon which such mitigation would rely.

[27] Given the foregoing, I believe that the subject site’s vulnerability to the clearly identified

flooding risk is, in itself, sufficient reason to refuse consent to the campground

component of the current application.

Effects on rural character and amenity values

[28] The existing locality within which the subject site is situated is a secluded, tranquil, low-

density rural environment in which pastoral farming uses predominate. While there are

a number of smaller “lifestyle” properties in the vicinity, including along Franklin Road

itself, the locality retains its predominantly rural character, with the associated amenity

values currently enjoyed by people living and working in the area.

[29] Objective 4 in Section 5.1 of the District Plan (Rural Zone) is:

“To ensure that adverse effects of land use activity on the environment or on the

amenities of neighbours are avoided, remedied or mitigated.”

One of the policies to give effect to this objective is:

“(iii) Other adverse effects (eg noise, smell, glare, vibration, visual) on the

environment and amenity of the District (particularly where they are near to

residential or other sensitive activities) should be avoided, remedied or

mitigated.”

The stated reasons for the foregoing District Plan provisions include to ensure that

“there is minimal detraction from the amenities of the locality either at present or in the

future, including cumulatively.”

[30] One of the listed matters in section 7 of the RMA to which a locality authority is to have

particular regard when exercising its functions and powers under the Act is:

“(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:”

[31] “Amenity values” are defined in section 2 of the RMA as:

“Those natural and physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to

people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and

recreational attributes.”


7

[32] In my opinion, integral to the concept of amenity values is the notion of a “sense of

place” felt by those who experience and enjoy the amenity values of an area. This is

particularly applicable to people who have a strong association with the area such as

those who live and/or work there or who are regular visitors.

[33] To me, it is clear from the content of the submissions on the application lodged by local

residents, that they all have a high regard for and greatly enjoy the amenity values

currently prevailing in the Franklin Road locality and that they feel a strong “sense of

place” in respect of that environment.

[34] The introduction of an additional 112 people into the existing environment which

currently accommodates only 20 people (a more than five-fold increase) has the

potential to significantly detract from the enjoyment existing residents derive from the

area. Potential adverse environmental effects include those relating to:

Noise;

Traffic;

Loss of privacy.

[35] I note at this point that notification of the application was served on the owners and

occupiers of five Franklin Road properties and one property on Hume Road. Somewhat

surprisingly, the owners and occupiers of the farm property at the southern end of

Franklin Road (Alistair and Pat Sharpe) were not notified. In my view the Sharpes

should have been notified as their property lies immediately across the Waitawheta

River from the subject site and their elevated house site has a direct line of sight to the

subject site itself. From their house, they will therefore be looking directly down on to

the proposed campground.

Noise

[36] I accept the findings of both the Hegley Acoustic Consultants noise assessment report

and Mr Hegley’s own pre-circulated evidence that any noise generated by the proposed

activities will be well within the limits stipulated in the District Plan. However, it is my

understanding that compliance with the District Plan limits doesn’t mean that noise from

the activities proposed in the application will not be heard and be noticeable to the

existing residents, particularly given the very low background noise levels currently

prevailing in the locality. It is also my understanding that the Leq noise measurement

is in effect the average noise level recorded over a specified period of time, in this case

15 minutes. This means that within any measurement period there may be noise events

created which are significantly above the background noise level prevailing in the area

and which may be disturbing to people who are accustomed to the very low background

noise levels currently experienced.


8

[37] Adverse noise effects will be created not only by the activities associated with the use

of the subject site accommodation and campground purposes, but also by the additional

road traffic associated with these increased activities. The fact that “traffic noise” is not

included in the assessment of compliance with the noise limits stipulated in the District

Plan does not mean that such noise is not a valid consideration when considering the

amenity effects of a proposed activity.

Traffic

[38] Again, I accept the findings of the TPC Traffic Impact Assessment and Mr Burgess’

evidence that Franklin Road currently has ample spare capacity to physically

accommodate the traffic predicted to be generated by the proposed activities.

However, the traffic assessment does not address the actual or potential adverse

effects on rural character and amenity values created by the increased traffic.

[39] The submitters, and other Franklin Road residents, regularly use the road for walking,

horse-riding, cycling and the like. It is currently an attractive and enjoyable environment

for such activities because of the existing very low volume of traffic using the road. The

significant increase in traffic generated by the proposal will inevitably make the existing

road environment less attractive and less enjoyable for such purposes. In addition to

the numerical increase in traffic movements, the drivers of the vehicles associated with

the proposed activities are likely to be unfamiliar with rural road driving conditions and

aware of other road users, particularly those not in motor vehicles.

Loss of privacy

[40] People occupying both the Log Cabin and the proposed campground will not be

confined to the subject site. Inevitably they will wander around the immediate locality

and may unknowingly (or knowingly) encroach into adjacent private properties, thereby

disturbing the privacy of local residents. Disturbance to stock and other animals on

adjacent private properties is also possible, particularly by people unfamiliar with a rural

farming environment.

[41] Local residents currently use the Waitawheta River and margins as a recreation

resource, including for swimming, fishing, picnicking and the like. Whilst legal public

access to the river and its margins will remain, the presence of a campground will likely

“privatise” the use of the immediately adjoining section of the river which will be

dominated by campground users. At the very least, use of this part of the river and its

margins will be less attractive to locals because of the substantial change in character.

[42] In summary, and taking the foregoing matters into account, it is my opinion that the rural

character and amenity values currently prevailing in the vicinity of the subject site will

be degraded to an extent which will significantly detract from the level of enjoyment and


9

pleasure that local residents currently derive from living in the area, including in the

undertaking of activities both on their respective properties and off-site. I therefore

disagree with the conclusion Ms Cowan reaches on page 23 of her hearing report that

“rural amenity values will therefore be maintained” and that any effects on rural amenity

“can be appropriately mitigated”. I also disagree with her overall conclusion at the

bottom of page 27 of her report where she states that adverse effects “can be

adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and overall are considered to be less than

minor”. I note that these conclusions are at odds with the assessment of the

environmental effects of the proposal as set out in the Council’s notification report on

the application prepared by another Council consultant planner, Ms Katie Treadaway,

who recommended limited notification of the application for the following reason:

“The potential adverse amenity effects caused by the additional vehicle movements to

and from the campground will cause a nuisance and minor effects to all the properties

that adjoin Franklin Road from Hume Road onwards.”

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

[43] Given the clearly identified vulnerability of the subject site to significant flooding from

adverse weather events, the frequency and magnitude of which will both increase over

time and become more difficult to predict, the site is in my opinion demonstrably

unsuitable to accommodate the proposed campground activity. In addition, the

mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to address the identified flooding risk

are subject to both human error and technological failure. The consequences of the

proposed mitigation measures not being effectively implemented in the prescribed

manner are grave and may include physical harm to humans or even death.

[44] While the current proposal may meet the applicant’s needs as well as those of the future

occupants of the campground (except when adverse flooding events occur when they

will be at risk of serious harm), it will not in my opinion meet the needs of the neighbours

of the subject site who should be reasonably able to expect that the rural character and

amenity values currently prevailing in the locality will be maintained for their continued

enjoyment.

[45] In my view, the actual and potential environmental effects of the proposal are such as

to render it contrary not only to the matters to which regard is to be had under RMA

section 104(1) but also to the sustainable management of resources purpose of the

RMA as set out in Part 2 of the Act.

Russell De Luca

Resource Management & Planning Consultant

8 December 2017


Joynes evidence Version-FINAL.docx

HAURAKI DC LUSE-202.2016.00000568.001


AND

IN THE MATTER of a hearing for resource consent for land use being a camping ground and retrospective consent to a “Log Cabin” visitor accommodation, at 209 Franklin Road, Waitawheta

APPLICANT Green Canvas Ltd

CONSENT AUTHORITY Hauraki District Council

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR STEVEN A JOYNES



1

Introduction

1. My full name is Dr Steven Anthony Joynes. I am a civil engineer in

private practice trading as Golovin. I hold a Bachelor of Science

Honours Degree in Civil Engineering and a Ph.D. in hydrodynamic

modelling, both being from the University of Salford, England. I have

also completed a Diploma in Management Studies from the University

of Waikato.

2. I have worked as a consultant civil engineer since 1988, working

predominantly in the field of water resources and hydraulic

engineering. I have specialised in the hydraulic analysis of rivers,

coastal zones, and stormwater and wastewater networks using

numerous software tools for the past 29 years.

3. I have predominantly worked as a specialist in stormwater

management and modelling since arriving in New Zealand in 1990. In

the course of my work I have undertaken numerous catchment studies

for City, District and Regional Councils throughout New Zealand.

Using computer-based hydraulic models to understand flooding

mechanisms, I have provided advice as to what mitigation measures

may be undertaken to lessen the frequency and magnitude of flooding.

Such advice typically includes pipeline upgrades, floodplain storage

area requirements, culvert sizes, detention ponds, swales, stopbank

heights and culvert floodgates.

4. My area of expertise is that of a hydraulic modeller to predict water

levels and flows for water resource systems from pipe networks to

rivers and harbours.

Scope of Evidence

5. I have been asked to provide evidence in relation to work I have

undertaken for Gary and Serena Grive and Alistair and Pat Sharpe in

respect of the extent and frequency of flooding of the Waitawheta

River.

6. My involvement with this matter commenced in November 2017 when

I was asked to assess the risks to the establishment of a campsite at

Franklin Road, Waihi. The issues that need to be determined in that

regard are:



2

(i) Are the parameters used in the applicant’s expert analysis of

flood flows at the campsite reasonable?

(ii) Are there any omissions in the flood analysis

(iii) Are the results reasonable?

(iv) What are the risks, if any, in using the land as a campsite?

7. In my evidence I will cover:

(a) A review of the applicants flood analysis report.

(b) My site visit in November 2017.

(c) A review of Waikato Regional Council data pertinent to storms

in the catchment.

(d) Issues I have discovered that assess the flood risk at the

campsite.

8. I have read and will comply with the Code of Conduct for Expert

Witnesses, Environment Court Practice Note 2014. I confirm that my

evidence is within my area of expertise and that I have not omitted to

consider any material facts known to me that might alter or detract

from my expressed opinions.

Initial Review of applicant’s report

9. I received a number of documents including two reports written by Civil

Engineering Services Ltd (CESL).

10. CESL have surveyed the floodplain in the campsite. They assert a

number of design parameters and calculated a peak flood flow. CESL

calculated peak flood levels using an iterative software tool (name

unknown).

11. CESL used the NIWA High Intensity Rainfall Design System

programme (HIRDS) to extract a rainfall event. The Rational Method

and TM61 formula were used to calculate a peak flow. The time of

concentration of the catchment was deemed to be 2 hours, the time of

travel for the peak flow.



3

12. In summary CESL assert that the March 2017 flood was a 1 in 10 year

event. This assessment was confirmed by others, but who are not

named or referenced. The peak flow adopted was 155m3/s. Similarly

CESL calculated the 30th November 2015 flood as a 140m3/s.

13. Using this information CESL calculated a 50-year flow of 230m3/s and

a flood map was produced. I have no real issue with the run-off

parameter of 0.45 as in my experience it can range from 0.2 for flat

catchments to 0.9 for steep rural catchments. The catchment size

also seems reasonable. I believe the bed roughness value of 0.035 is

too smooth and will under-estimate the flow depth. It value should be

0.050 at least based on text book parameters due to the size of the

boulders.

Site visit

14. On 27th November I visited the camp site catchment area and have

been provided with photographs.

15. Some things I noted were:

• The river bed contains many large boulders measuring 30cm

or greater. This suggests a high energy channel. See

Annexure 1.

• The meander of the river has two 90 degree bends

immediately upstream of the camp site. This would cause

severe turbulence and at a certain flow the floodplain would

be used as a short-cut. See Annexure 2

• There are a lot of broken trees and bush due to previous

flooding.

• The permanent timber hut on the property has been erected

well above the floodplain indicating that flooding is expected.

16. I was provided with photographs of previous floods. The March 2017

photograph indicated many locations where the grass on the floodplain

in the campsite area was laid flat. The actual depth of flow could not

be determined but the key issue is: whatever the flow during the



4

March storm, the floodplain was being utilised. Annexure 3 contains

two photographs showing the flattened grass on the subject site.

17. Having been on site I believe the hydraulic modelling done for the

applicant is inadequate for this project. Hydraulic models need to

extend sufficiently upstream and downstream so that one’s choice of

boundary does not influence the hydraulics at the site. For example,

there is a ford in the river about 450m upstream. It is a perfect starting

point because it has good hydraulic control. Furthermore by starting

the model here the tight meanders just upstream of the site can be

modelled as well. Similarly the downstream model should be at a

pinch-point where flow is restricted and any possible backwater effect

is included. See Annexure 4.

Review of March 2017 rainfall

18. The frequency of flooding leads me to believe that the March 2017 is

more frequent than a 1 in 10 year event. To check this hypothesis I

requested rainfall data from Waikato Regional Council. It has rain

gauge sites at Golden Cross and Queens Head. The Queens Head

site is within the Ohinemuri River catchment and is more relevant to

the camp site, but is not in the Upper Waitawheta catchment. I

considered Golden Cross because it was mentioned in the applicant’s

reports.

19. I extracted 90 minute, 2 hour and 3 hour rainfalls to compare that to

the HIRDS rainfall used for the catchment. What I discovered was for

Golden Cross the respective rainfall was 61mm, 67mm and 77.5mm. I

produced a graph using HIRDS data and compared that with rainfall

data measured by WRC – see Annexure 5. The worst-case return

period is between 5 and 10 years. Doing likewise for the more

pertinent Queens Head gauge, the depths are 37.5mm, 41mm and

48.5mm giving a worst-case of less than 1 in 5 years. Although rainfall

and flow return periods do not always correspond, this data shows the

rainfall in the Queens Head gauge was not even a 5-year return

period. An incremental leap from 5 to 10 years gives an increase in

rain of 19%, see Annexure 6.

20. Is this estimate of the March 2017 flood being a no more than 1 in 5

event supportable? Discussions with Alistair Sharpe, a local farmer



5

who has kept rain records since 1983, indicated that the floodplain

was utilised on 14 times in the past 34 years. Using simple statistics

this is every 2.4 years. Perhaps 1 in 5 years is reasonable.

21. The Waikato Regional Council report TR2017/21 reviewed extensively

the hydrology and flooding within the region for the March 2017 storm.

Their Table 2 states the Queens Head return period flow was 2-years

and at Karangahake the return period was 2-5 years.

22. Therefore asserting the March 2017 flow was a 1 in 10 year is in error.

23. It can be concluded that the skimming of flow on the floodplain in

March 2017 is a 1 in 5 year event.

Other issues

24. The time of concentration for the catchment has been given as 2

hours. The New Zealand Building Code Clause E1: Surface Water

(The Code) provides a method to determine this parameter for large

catchments. Item 2.3.6 in the document gives the Ramser-Kirpich

formula

25. The gradient of the catchment to the site is 4.6% using the slope area

method and 4.8% for a straight line grade. Therefore clause 2.3.7 of

the Code is satisfied and the Ramser-Kirpich method is appropriate.

26. Using a catchment length of 13.6km and a drop of 650m the time of

concentration is 96 minutes, rounded down to 90 minutes. This may

sound similar but it has a big effect. Using Annexure 7, the 50-year 90

minute rain depth is approximately 90mm with an intensity of 60mm/hr

while the 2-hour intensity is 53mm/hr. This is an increase of 13% to

be applied to the peak flow.

27. Section 4.6.3 of the Hauraki District Council Engineering Manual

(2010) requires rainfall to have an added 20% to allow for climate



6

change. Granted, it is acknowledged to apply only to stormwater

devices that are to become a public asset, which the proposed

campground is not. However, climate change impact is required for

the assessment of flooding in most local government jurisdictions,

including Waikato Regional Council, and it would be unwise not to

consider its influence.

28. Annexure 7 gives the Waitawheta HIRDS rain depths and Annexure 8

gives the climate change rain depths at the same location. The

change in 90 minute rain depth is (using interpolation) from 90mm to

106mm. An increase of 17%. Climate change has not been used in

the calculation of the peak flow by CESL.

29. A 50-year peak flow has been asserted by CESL to be 250m3/s. With

the changes due to time of concentration (13%), adjusted return period

use of March 2017 storm (19%) and including climate change (17%)

the 50-year peak flow is now increased by 49% to 373m3/s.

30. CESL assert that 155m3/s was the peak for the March 2017 and the

water flow traversed the floodplain. If 373m3/s is the actual adjusted

50-year flow then this raises the question as to how much will go

across the floodplain. In simple terms perhaps 50% of excess. This

gives 109m3/s across the camp-site.

Hydraulic Modelling

31. To determine the hydraulics on the floodplain I used HEC-RAS to

generate flow depths and velocities. HEC-RAS is public domain

software provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers and which is

used globally to analyse river flows. I have trained perhaps 70

engineers and surveyors in its use in New Zealand since 2012.

32. Unfortunately given the time available to review this application I was

unable to get the river surveyed. The Waikato Regional Council

LiDAR survey does not extend to the Waitawheta River. Therefore I

used the cross-section data supplied in the applicants report with the

obvious limitations I have highlighted earlier in this evidence.

33. In my hydraulic model I extended the reach further upstream and

determined the overflow behaviour onto the floodplain. Using the



7

cross-sections of CESL I created two-channels, the main river plus the

floodplain.

34. The model was run with a lateral overflow until the water levels and

the floodplain and river were closely matched. The floodplain was

additionally divided into 3 zones to isolate high velocity – high depth

areas.

35. The following flows were analysed

• 230m3/s - CESL estimated 50-year

• 260m3/s – as above plus more accurate time of concentration

• 303m3/s – as above plus correct return period

• 373m3/s – as above plus climate change impact

36. The equivalent floodplain flow across the camp-site to establish

compatible water levels at each cross-section were:

• 20m3/s - CESL estimated 50-year

• 35m3/s – as above plus more accurate time of concentration

• 57m3/s – as above plus correct return period

• 93m3/s – as above plus climate change impact

37. The velocity and depth on the floodplain for each scenario is tabulated

below. Cross-sections 2 and 3 are shown (CESL chainage in

brackets)

Cross-

section

CESL Plus ToC Plus return

period

Plus climate

change

2 (ch149) Velocity (m/s) 0.76 0.95 1.15 1.38

Depth(m) 0.61 0.73 0.85 1.02

3 (ch.245m) Velocity (m/s) 0.92 1.15 1.37 1.64

Depth (m) 0.79 0.91 1.04 1.20



8

38. Annexure 9 shows the water level profile for the four scenarios at

cross-section 2, CESL chainage 149m. Note that it floods right across

the floodplain.

39. The Waikato Regional Council has a method to identify risks during a

flood. The graphic in annexure 10 plots the eight situations from the

table above. Clearly as the flow increases it goes from medium to

high risk.

Closing Remarks

40. My evidence demonstrates that, although CESL have used reasonable

parameters in their analysis, I believe they have made omissions and

assumptions with little data rigour. I believe the 50-year flow to

estimate the floodplain line is under-estimated and the hydraulic

modelling does not extend far enough both up and downstream.

Based on Waikato Regional Council data, the March 2017 flood may

have been only a 1 in 5 year event. This is supported by 34 years of

anecdotal evidence of someone living in the catchment.

41. When analysing the floodplain reach more specifically, the localised

velocities and depths calculated suggest at best a medium hazard that

moves into the high risk zone depending upon whether there is

agreement on the time of concentration, climate change and/or return

period assumed for March 2017 event adjustments.

42. Based on my analysis the site of the proposed campground can be

considered to lie within a medium to high hazard zone during a 50-

year flood. The fact that the energy of the river will pick up small

boulders, broken trees to the south of the campground site, which may

itself contain tents which will become very mobile, the risk to campers

should not be under-estimated.

Dr Steven Joynes

December 2017



9

Annexure

Annexure 1 – Rocks in bed of river just upstream of campsite

Annexure 2 – 90 degree meanders just upstream of camp-site



10

Annexure 3 – Grass flattened by floodplain flow, March 2017

Annexure 4 – Hydraulic modelling extent – actual reach and advisable reach



11

Annexure 5 – WRC measured rainfall for March 2017 storm against HIRDs return periods

Annexure 6 – Increment change in rain depth from 5-year to 10-year storm of

duration 2 hours



12

Annexure 7 – HIRDS rainfall depths – used by CESL

Annexure 8 – HIRDS rainfall depths that includes climate change of 2.1° C



13

Annexure 9 – Floodplain levels for each scenario – 50-year flood

Annexure 10 – Flood hazard classification and camping ground scenario plotted in red


Documents

HJC Agenda - 18-12-17 Page 188 - Hauraki District · Safety Manual Green Canvas Ltd 2017 HJC Agenda - 18-12-17 Page 200