Recent Plan changes

Recent changes to regional plans

The three changes described below have been made to the Regional Plan for Discharges to Land and the Regional Freshwater Plan pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

1    Plan Change 2 to the Regional Plan for Discharges to Land

The Regional Plan for Discharges to Land has been amended in accordance with section 55 of the RMA to give effect to policy A4 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. Plan Change 2 amended the Regional Plan for Discharges to Land on 19 December 2011. The following new policy was inserted.

1.1    Policy 4.2.24A

1.      When considering any application for a discharge the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:

a)         the extent to which the discharge would avoid contamination that will have an adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water including on any ecosystem associated with fresh water; and

b)         the extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any more than minor adverse effect on fresh water, and on any ecosystem associated with fresh water, resulting from the discharge would be avoided.

2.         This policy applies to the following discharges (including a diffuse discharge by any person or animal):

a)         a new discharge or

b)         a change or increase in any discharge – of any contaminant into fresh water, or onto or into land in circumstances that may result in that contaminant (or, as a result of any natural process from the discharge of that contaminant, any other contaminant) entering fresh water.

2     Plan Change 4 to the Regional Freshwater Plan

The Regional Freshwater Plan has been amended in accordance with section 55 of the RMA to give effect to policies A4 and B7 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. Plan Change 4 amended the Regional Freshwater Plan on 19 December 2011. The following new policies were inserted.

2.1    Policy 5.2.10A

1.         When considering any application for a discharge the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:

a)         the extent to which the discharge would avoid contamination that will have an adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water including on any ecosystem associated with fresh water; and

b)         the extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any more than minor adverse effect on fresh water, and on any ecosystem associated with fresh water, resulting from the discharge would be avoided.

2.         This policy applies to the following discharges (including a diffuse discharge by anyperson or animal):

a)         a new discharge or

b)         a change or increase in any discharge – of any contaminant into fresh water, or onto or into land in circumstances that may result in that contaminant (or, as a result of any natural process from the discharge of that contaminant, any other contaminant) entering fresh water.

2.2    Policy 6.2.4A

1.         When considering any application the consent authority must have regard to the following matters:

a)         the extent to which the change would adversely affect safeguarding the life- supporting capacity of fresh water and of any associated ecosystem and

b)         the extent to which it is feasible and dependable that any adverse effect on the life-supporting capacity of fresh water and of any associated ecosystem resulting from the change would be avoided.

2.         This policy applies to:

a)         any new activity and

b)         any change in the character, intensity or scale of any established activity – that involves any taking, using, damming or diverting of fresh water or draining of any wetland which is likely to result in any more than minor adverse change in the natural variability of flows or level of any fresh water, compared to that which immediately preceded the commencement of the new activity or the change in the established activity (or in the case of a change in an intermittent or seasonal activity, compared to that on the last occasion on which the activity was carried out).

3    Plan Change 5 to the Regional Freshwater Plan (the Transmission Gully Plan Change)

Plan Change 5 to the Regional Freshwater Plan (the Transmission Gully Plan Change) was approved by the Wellington Regional Council on 19 December 2011. It implements the decision and report of the Board of Inquiry for the Transmission Gully Plan Change. Plan Change 5 becomes operative on 25 January 2012. It revises Regional Freshwater Plan provisions as follows.

3.1    Policy 4.2.10  

To avoid adverse effects on wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, identified in Appendix 2 (Parts A and B), (with the exception of the Transmission Gully Project and its effects on the Horokiri, Ration and lower Pauatahanui Streams where Policy 4.2.33A applies), when considering the protection of their natural character from the adverse effects of subdivision, use, and development. For the avoidance of doubt Rule 50 applies to the Transmission Gully Project, in relation to the Horokiri, Ration and lower Pauatahanui Streams.

Explanation. Wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, are identified in Appendix 2 as having a high degree of natural character when assessed against the characteristics outlined in Policy 4.2.9.

The preservation of natural character in this policy is achieved by avoiding adverse effects. In this policy "to avoid adverse effects” means that when “avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects”, as identified in subsection 5(2)(c) of the Act, the emphasis is to be placed on avoiding adverse effects. “To avoid adverse effects" means that only activities with effects that are no more than minor will be allowed in the water bodies identified unless Policy 4.2.33A applies. Further elaboration of the meaning of “minor” is contained in Policy 4.2.33 (Policy 4.2.33A provides the approach to be considered in relation to the Transmission Gully Project that includes avoidance, remediation, or mitigation of adverse effects). Activities can occur in the water bodies listed in Appendix 2 but the emphasis in this policy is on preserving the natural character of these water bodies.

In this context “To avoid … when considering” relates to consideration during the preparation of, variation to, or change to, district and regional plans, or the consideration of any relevant resource consent application.

The wetlands, rivers and lakes which are identified in Part A of Appendix 2 are to have their water quality managed in its natural state according to Policy 5.2.1. The wetlands, rivers and lakes that are identified in Part B of Appendix 2 are to have their water quality managed for aquatic ecosystem purposes according to Policy 5.2.6.

The characteristics of a water body that are commonly perceived to contribute to its natural character are identified in the previous policy.

3.2    Policy 4.2.33A            

To manage adverse effects of the development of the Transmission Gully Project, in accordance with the following management regime:

(1)        Adverse effects are avoided to the extent practicable;

(2)        Adverse effects which cannot be avoided are remedied or mitigated.

Explanation: This policy recognises that the Transmission Gully Project is identified in various statutory and policy documents as having both national and regional significance. In achieving the sustainable management objectives of the Act, resource managers and decision makers have the option of applying avoidance, remediation and mitigation in managing adverse effects. Accordingly, the adverse effects of aspects of the Project may be acceptable, even though they cannot be completely avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

Remedying or mitigating can include the concept of offsetting. “Offsetting” means the provision of a positive effect in one location to offset adverse effects of the same or similar type caused by the Transmission Gully Project at another location with the result that the overall adverse effects on the values of the waterbodies are remedied or mitigated.

Where offsetting is to be applied, there should be a clear connection with the effect and the offsetting measure.  The offsetting measure should preferably be applied as close as possible to the site incurring the effects.  Hence, there should be a focus on offsetting occurring within the affected catchments along the Transmission Gully route and to specifically address the effects at issue. 

Offsetting should, as far as can be achieved maintain and enhance the particular natural values affected by the Project when assessed overall.

The adequacy of a proposed offsetting measure should be transparent in that it is assessed against a recognised methodology.

In this policy “to the extent practicable” requires consideration of the nature of the activity, the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects, the financial implications and adverse effects of the measure considered compared with other alternative measures, the current state of technical knowledge and the likelihood that effects can be successfully avoided, remedied or mitigated.

3.3    Policy 7.2.1                

To allow the following uses within river and lake beds:

• structures or activities for flood mitigation or erosion protection purposes;
• structures for transportation and network utility purposes; or
• structures for activities which need to be located in, on, under, or over the beds of rivers and lakes; or
• structures for cultural harvest (e.g., pa tuna); or
•  the maintenance of any lawful structure; or
• the removal of aquatic weeds from farm drains and urban drains for drainage purposes; or
• the extraction of sand, gravel, or rock; or
• the diversion of water associated with activities that are otherwise authorised; or
• the enhancement of the natural character of any wetland, lake or river and its margins;

provided that any adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated and that the significant adverse effects identified in Policy 7.2.2 are avoided (unless the effects are of activities for the Transmission Gully Project and are addressed in accordance with Policy 4.2.33A).

 Explanation. Policy 7.2.1 lists criteria for appropriate uses within the beds of rivers and lakes. "Uses" refers to those activities identified in subsections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Act. Structures or activities that do not meet the criteria listed in the policy are inappropriate. For example, any structure associated with a use that does not have to be located in or on the bed of a river or lake is considered inappropriate.

 While a particular use of a river or lake bed may meet the criteria listed in the policy, it may need to comply with environmental controls, and is subject to Policy 7.2.2. The policy recognises that adverse effects of activities for the Transmission Gully Project can be considered according to Policy 4.2.33A.

3.4    Policy 7.2.2    

To not allow the use of river and lake beds for structures or activities that have significant adverse effects on:

• the values held by tangata whenua; and/or
• natural or amenity values; and/or
• lawful public access along a river or lake bed; and/or
• the flood hazard; and/or
• river or lake bed or bank stability; and/orwater quality; and/or
• water quantity and hydraulic processes (such as river flows and sediment transport); and/or
• the safety of canoeists or rafters;

unless the structures or activities are for the Transmission Gully Project and addressed in accordance with Policy 4.2.33A.

Explanation. This policy lists characteristics of rivers and lakes that should not be significantly affected by uses of river and lake beds which are identified as "appropriate" in the previous policy. "Uses" has the same meaning as in Policy 7.2.1.

When a new use of any river or lake bed is considered, due regard must be had to avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects on these characteristics.

In the context of this policy deciding on what are “significant adverse effects” is in part a value judgement which will be determined by the decision makers on resource consents, i.e., Regional Councillors or Hearing Commissioners. When deciding whether an adverse effect is significant or not, decision makers will have regard to:

• the significance of any values identified; and
•  the scale/magnitude of any adverse effects on the values identified; and
•  the reversibility of any adverse effects on the values identified; and
•  any other relevant provisions in the Plan.

Reference in the policy to “the Transmission Gully Project and adverse effects that would otherwise be significant” recognises that these potential effects shall be addressed through Policy 4.2.33A.

3.5     “Transmission Gully Project” is a strategic transport route as shown on the plan attached to this report as Appendix 14 and running from MacKays Crossing to Linden and the term includes works in proximity that are associated with the implementation of that project.

3.6     Appendix 14

Map showing indicative Transmission Gully route