Plan

Changes 85 A -

D,

86A B,

87,

102

and 114

Monday 3

July

2017 PROGRAMMEFRIDA Y

28TH JULY 2017

-

--

--

-

-

---

--- -

-

-

-

--------

---

Duration

Presenter

15mins

Arthur and

Collen

Rushton

15mins

Grant Edae

15mins

Robin

Grieve

15mins

Neil and

Moira

Dodds

1

0.15am -

10.30amM

R~ING-TE

30mins

Geoscience Socitev of

New

Zealand

1

hr

GBC

Winstone

30mins

Dickson Quarries and

Transport Ltd

12.30Rm -

1.:f0p.m[

’CH

30mins

Mine

Watch

Northland

30mins

Puhipuhi Minina Action Group

30mins

Southern

Whangarei Action Group

_3"p..Qp’m -

3.15p’m

AFTERNOON TEA

30mins

IAcacia Park

Landowners Assoc Inc

30mins

IAndrew Norman, Francis Spencer and

Taipari Munro

-

CI)wo

:::!

5>

C:::

_0

Ocr.

0

wZ

w

w

C’-l

cr.::>>

>

(fJ

<;{

0

wcr.

Z

00

Ow

~

Zf-

UJ~

<;{O

cr.

0

C’-l

~

F

C’-l

f-

CI)

CI)

~0

-CUST~ECE/VED .,SWAG MEA SERVICES 2 2 JUN 2017

Southern Whangarei Action Group

~HANGAREI " DIS I R/Cr COUNCil j

-

PO Box 11-0s7

WhengarelMel1 Centre 0148

My name is Graham and I am speaking on behalf of SWAG (Southern Whangarei Action Group).

GBC Winstones Quarry is close to entrance to Whangarei, with the quarry access

way on a junction with SH1. The Pegram Block is about 1.4kms from Whangarei Harbour and about 3.6kms from the CBO and because of this location the conflicts

are complex and numerous.

SWAG opposes PC102 MEA inclusion of overburden.

WOC undertook a full section 32 evaluation and the inclusion of the MEA

overburden was denied.

5 counsellors motioned to overturn this decision. SWAG asked to speak at the

WOC meeting and the motion was withdrawn.

In 2008, Wintones Quarry PC59, wanted a 200 metre MEA included on Pegram Block, it was reduced to 150 metres and then further reduced at the hearing to 80 metres as a provision for a future noise bund.

Under the heading of Text and Resource Maps 1.3.1 GBC Winstones state: After an options assessment analysis, GBC Winstone identified the Pegram Block as the most suitable land for the future placement of overburden material

from the quarry with no sign of supporting evidence or information as to what other options were considered? What was the next best solution? Or was it only because Winstone’s ownership of the Pegram Block presents the lowest cost

opportunity to dispose of overburden?

Overburden is an unavoidable waste product of quarrying. By its very nature

quarrying results in permanent damage to the landscape. It is large scale and intrusive. By seeking to use the Pegram Block for the disposal of overburden, Winstone’s operations would intrude further into the neighbouring communities.

Yet again, in their submission 250, GBC Winstones want to change the whole Pegram Block to MEA status, a mineral extraction area. In 2008

evidence was presented, a judgement was made. We ask for it to stand.

Other reasons:

1. GBC Winstones is socialising their business problems onto the community: visual amenity, dust, noise, vibration are a major components of the overall

negative impact and locals and residents already put up with dust and noise

nuisance, unsocial hours, vibrations, blasts, and a higher maximum noise limit. 2. The proposed disposal of overburden on the Pegram Block is excessive- 2.4

million cubic metres on land that is marked as unstable on WDC maps. This

proposed weight and mass could affect surrounding water courses according to Professor Jarg Pettinga.

3. The timeframe is too long. 35+ years is permanent, not temporary and the adverse effects could be passed to the next generation of owners.

4. Residents should be able to live in peaceful surroundings. 5. We are also concerned because this could potentially have a huge impact on

other bodies such as the environment and the harbour, visitors and tourists,

recreational areas, and the noise and dust nuisance could be a health hazard

and it is highly likely to devalue surrounding property and making them difficult to sell for over 35+ years.

6. Winstone’s Quarry has been operating for over 50 years. Suddenly overburden has become an urgent problem with only one solution and that solution has a significant impact on their immediate neighbours.

7. A change to MEA would allow a MW industrial activity adjacent to well- established Living 1 and 3 environments, which would not be compliant to RMA amenity and reverse-sensitivity rulings, on land that is designated L 1, L3 and countryside.

8. A Mineral Extraction Management Plan, regarding overburden, should exist viz. 64.3.1, v. The Plan should include the proposed location and dimensions of overburden storage and deposition areas and stockpiles of mineral material. Landowners and ratepayers should not be the band aid to poor business

management nor operational problems. 9. Quarry and residents should be separated. We have a ’buffer’, we would like it

to remain (Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co 1995 letter attached). 10. Environment Court Winstone Aggregates v Auckland Regional Council

A49/2002 - where it was held that effects such as noise and vibration could not

reasonably and economically be contained within the site and a reverse-

sensitivity buffer was imposed. Any proposals for extensions to existing Mineral Extraction Areas or new Mineral Extraction area, will require a plan change process to be undertaken. This will provide for an opportunity to consider the extent to which the effects should be avoided, remedied or

mitigated. This happened in 2008 PC59, we had a judgement and settled on an 80metre MEA for a future noise bund.

11. The Otaika Quarry operations and residents should be separated by a buffer

zone. The best practise is to internalise the effects, next option is a ’buffer’.

When Acacia Ltd sought their resource consent for the Park subdivision, Winstones requested a SOOm. buffer, and a 300m. interface was accepted. At

present the Pegram Block acts as a buffer; in the 2008 PCS9 Hearing, it stated

that the Pegram Block was bought as a ’buffer’ and reverse-sensitivity and this

works. We would like it to remain as is.

12. Most quarrying businesses place their overburden back into the pit. When will

this occur? We would like to know at the rate of 400,000 cubic metres a year, what your estimate would be for backfilling back to the pit and that GBC

Winstones will take an undertaking do this as soon as it is viable.

13. The residents should not find themselves in this position again. One of the prime reasons for town planning and the RMA is to avoid this sort

of conflict. The RMA states to avoid, remedy or mitigate. How can GBC

Winstones mitigate the loss of a comfortable, peaceful environment and the

loss in house values and that it may be difficult to sell our homes for the next

3S+ years, without making a loss.

To quote: "Simon Upton (Minister for the Environment) stated in his third reading

speech to Parliament that the purpose of the RMA was not concerned with

planning and controlling economic activity, nor about trade-offs, but about

sustaining, safeguarding, avoiding, remedying, and mitigating the adverse effects

of the use of natural resources. "

We would like WDC to show case the entrance of Whangarei, with tourism and

the Hundertwasser building, becoming ever more important to the district’s

economy. This is an unique diverse area, there are numerous aspects to weigh up

against each other. The Otaika, Raumanga, Toe Toe Structure Plan 2009

recognises this and identifies a number of opportunities.

GBC Winstones state: We know that our industry has the potential to significantly impact the communities and environments in which we operate, and for people to have both

negative and positive perceptions of who we are and what we do. There can be

conflicting values between our industry and the community. A balance has to be struck

between the potential disturbance of operations to our near neighbours, and the

requirement for sources of aggregates upon which society depends and environmental

outcomes. All management staff at our 26 sites are encouraged to engage in open and

active communications with all their neighbours, building strong and positive links with

the local community. In this wa,y, concerns around such issues as environmental

management and operational capability can be discussed and acted upon. At our larger

quarries this process has been formalised through the establishment of Site Liaison

Groups.

Firstly it is us that requested the liaison meetings; however when we challenged GBC Winstones, on the history, they ignored us and consequently overrode the

facts as if they are of no consequence and then in this case we think that we

cannot trust them. How can a balance be struck when they want to remove the buffer completely and not replace it with another one? We realise quarrying is a business, which entitles them to maximise their profits by any means they can, subject to the law of the land and local authority rules and constraints. SWAG is not against the mining for aggregate and recognise the

significance of the resource particularly because Transit NZ has announced

widening of SH1 from Whangarei to Ruakaka but we ask at what price to the

community? At what price to tourism? At what price to the environment?

Both the quarry and the residents are here for a long time and we both need

certainty, by managing reverse-sensitivity and buffering incompatible land uses. The residents should not be continually subjected to new plan changes, new

rulings or revised Quarry Management Plans.

Right now, we do not know if it’s GBC Winstone’s lack of planning, or WDC for not

managing the reverse-sensitivity or incompatibility of land uses, however the residents should not be the victim of such poor planning and unexpected surprises from business and Mineral Extraction Plan changes. Quarries should not be able to buy adjacent land and remove the ’buffer’, without creating another buffer. We

are pleased to note that on Page 67, 208, that Larissa Clarke, the Consultant

Planner, does not support the extension of the extent of the MEA area at MEA3 to

include the Pegram Block.

Therefore it is up to Regional Council, WDC and the Environmental Court, with use of objectives, structure plans, rules and the RMA(1991) to constrain industrial activities and manage environmental effects for the health, wellbeing and safety for current and future generations and because of our concerns above, SWAG would request the local authorities to support the ratepayers and residents to

maintain a buffer.

SWAG would like to be included in any future (resource consent) application on the Pegram Block.

Sources:

Prof. Jarg Pettinga, Head of Department of Geological Sciences,

University of Canterbury.

WDC Otaika-Raumanga-Toe-Toe Structure Plan; 2009

WDC Planners Report on Winstone’s Proposed Plan Change 59 - 2006

Please find attached a few supporting documents

16 January 2017

Whangarei District Council

Attention: Policy Department

Further submission on proposed changed to the District Plan

Re: OBC Winstones Submission no. 250

SWAO strongly oppose all the OBC Winstones proposed changes to the above viz. PC85 A-

D, PC86 A-B, PC87, PC 102, PCl14. Points 1,3,9, 10,23,30,36,39,44,46,47,49,51,54

Reasons:

1) SWAO is concerned that OBC Winstones proposal to extend their boundaries will

"intentionally" bring totally ~ disagreeable major effects into direct conflict with already

existing nearby residents who currently already suffer noticeable effects due to their location

near a quarry - vibration from blasts, unsocial hours, noise, and dust to the people our group

represent.

2) In OBC Winstones submission 250, we conclude that the amendments to the Plan

Changes (listed above) are in order to help and support their directive to seek to extend the

MEA to include the Pegram Block; to quote 1.2.3 ’these changes sought to provide for the

placement of overburden on the Pegram Block’. On the 8th June 2016, woe decided not to include overburden in PCI02 and we would like that to stand.

3) OBC Winstones also speak of reverse-sensitivity in their submission, yet OBC Winstones

seek to increase the MEA, and extend their activities close to the boundaries of lawfully established living areas (Acacia Park and Smeatons existed before Winstones bought the

Pegram Block), which will have further adverse effects: noise, loss of visual amenity, devaluation of properties, dust nuisance and a general detrimental impact on residents’

personal well-being.

4) Neighbouring residents were faced with the exact same issues 8 years ago, in Winstones

Aggregates Private PC59, when the neighbours were told that the Pegram Block was bought as a ’buffer’ for reverse-sensitivity. In 2008, Winstones Aggregates also wanted to extend

the MEA. Initially they wanted a 150 - 200m MEA on the Pegram Block. At the hearing, a 80 metre (bund) MEA was proposed and accepted. In the current OBC Winstones

submission, the whole of the Pegram Block is to be designated as a MEA. This will create

more sensitivity issues and conflicts between residents, landowners, tourists (this is at the

entrance of Whang are i) and Winstones Quarry.

5) OBC Winstones propose a very long-term plan (35+ years) to dispose of their

overburden- 1.3.2 Quote, "the proposed overburden placement will for a period of

approximately 6 to 9 months at a time within each open area, and would occur intermittently

every few years on a limited part of the site, and take place over an anticipated period of

35+ years". The volume of overburden is overwhelming. GBC Winstones want to dispose of 2.4 million cubic metres of waste material onto the Pegram Block, that is over 6 times

greater than the volumes of earth moved during the Brynderwyn Hills Project. This means that potentially we will see no end to the continual adverse affects.

6) Re Submission 250, we ask:

a) Point #39 - that Council do not accept the amendments sought to Resource Map 45

(Attachment IB)

b) Point #3,- that Council do not allow GBC Winstones redaction of the word protect with

the words ’Avoid, remedy, or mitigate’ because this offers little protection of amenity values

and is a contradiction to WDC’s policy to maintain and enhance amenity values.

c) Point #1 and #47- that the wording ’fully discretionary’ be retained since both GBC

Winstones Quarry and the Pegram Block are classed as coastal property. The Pegram Block

is only 20 metres above sea level and less than 1400 metres from Whangarei Harbour thus

we would like to see strong, stringent rules to protect the coast and harbour.

d) We oppose the addition of ’to the extent practical’ in Point 46.

- In their submission, GBC Winstones do not really give a clear picture of how important and sensitive this area is. North and West of the Pegram Block is Living 1,2 and 3. The

Pegram Block itself is Living 1,3, and Countryside. On the south side is a recreational area, which often acts as a flood plain. The GBC Winstones Quarry is flanked to the south by a

large block (548 hectares) of Outstanding Notable Forest, containing 39 ecological units-

the highest on record in Whangarei. To the north there is stand of notable forest where

Kiwis have been found and also the Raurangi Block, which is a significant archeological and cultural site for Maori. There also numerous caves and Pa sites within the surrounding area. All in all, a very important cultural area, a significant bio-diverse environment, and

geologically sensitive area. Therefore, we ask that WDC retain as much control in order to

protect environments and the rights of property owners.

e) We ask WDC to retain the wording ’discouraging of commercial and industrial activity’ in coastal areas.

f) We ask Council to implement WDC Rural Area objective: to protect the range of amenity values and character and that those values are a key element to the district because the

Quarry Road and Pegram Block are at the entrance to Whangarei,just 3 kms from the CBD.

g) In response to: 1.3.4 overburden, GBC Winstones state: "This conceptual design was

workshopped and assessed as part of an opportunities and constraints analysis approach with particular consideration of landscape and visual effects, noise and vibration effects".

The original landscape designs that were presented at the consultation looked like they were

burial grounds for overburden and the latest conceptual design for Resource Consent is

simply a large mountain of overburden.

With due respect, we also do not believe that GBC Winstones have taken a overall overview

of the potential hazards of landslips, the potential adverse effects to water and air on the

surrounding environments and the long-term inconvenience to residents with the dust, noise

and loss amenities in creating their new road and disposing of an immense volume of

overburden (more than the Pegram Block can hold). Maybe there could be a better use of

the overburden? Perhaps Council together with GBC Winstones can undertake a

comprehensive study of nearby low-lying land and consider opportunities for land

reclamation, which could include a new site for Whangarei Airport.

Neighbouring residents directly overlook the Pegram Block and are concerned about water

issues and potentiallandslips because the Pegram Block consists mostly of Northland

Allochthon (Onerahi Chaos). It is marked on a WDC map as unstable land. Please see

photos below.

Soil Creep Travelling east Examples of Soil Crumbling

We validated our geological concerns by seeking a professional opinion.

Prof. Jarg Pettinga (Head of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury) states: The local geology with the Onerahi Chaos Breccia is always going to be complex. The

clays and siltstone units are notoriously weak materials and therefore placement of any fill

over them will need to have been designed adequately for long-term stability. Groundwater

is also complex when there are clearly limestones and springs in the area.

It is for these reasons that we totally oppose GBC Winstones Submission #250,

especially PC102, as well as the redactions (additions, deletions and changes) throughout all the aforementioned Plan Changes because most of them are in

reference to help and assist in their objective to place overburden onto the Pegram Block; we also note some of the amendments are not in keeping with the nationwide

initiative to protect the environment.

u ...

...

s t’)

ii ::I :I:S =’ ~ I: t’)

"

8. ...

,

/")

~ I’)

I’)

i ...

" ,

...

~/") I’)

~ ;;; ::l.

~ ~ ::> ~ u

~ ~

i ~ ~

;..;

"

::l.

;s ~

I,)

)h

~ ,

en

0- <0

~

~ en o o (!)

~

< Or) -

r-: -

~ .......

00 N

CI)

~ C>

r--

o N

@

S m ’0

Q. m

::E

CI)" .Q o

Q S "5> i:3

0)

~ < .....

CI) W

Z Co)

,....

o N

@

~ CI)

I

’

I~’.. ~ ." :;;,’,\..(X’~) ’.:1N(

;:’1"::,:.1.’."’;".,>.., ,

.,,,.,.!...:;.....;"’: ’,H,\;-..\j-L\N

,;~qHI:l Iii I’: J\!,b ;.;:("rn~

I;H:AI-: I’:’,’.;ln:,!t’.

’\\lI$do\’ j-j.-\.\’I(,>\’. ~flt I’,:\,..h’.

IU~ I,,..~r) ,\I{~:’-i. f.!ua;

’.11)’ rlN";:,,’1 "’,’’’..\:-’\1’’1’1

lilll’" "AU. ;,,’,u’n ,~! nf"ir!.1> . .\"Ii(; N ilF’"~~’

~.W.i",~’ln ;I~’!’>I ’,1’.\ ~I’" ’I,"

1’.\’).:"."’: .’.1 ̂ , ,Ij,~t: fl(~I\U;!\

"11(11.: .\ !i:I.li-.. :’..,"

:H~I,"\ \:.tlf\iKi \1\.1:’:1(,’;(1-.;

\:!".’~:I r l’I’~f:,": In"’"’

j\(,!’ltU ~(’;’"I,~I) :"I\"I’IFf<

~-..t....,.." nt{f"FKI’. "(.!,:,,,,,

f~\f\:II"’XA\’;I<<Vli~ r!~R"’" "’,\\lLII. 1\1I1:..c.T(.\.’ 1’t111."", I!"KI l"’I.,.Kf,V,11

I.A\"’ru;".:’. L ""U’II(I\: \1,\\":,\1

A"’I)-I(H"\"llIl!\"’II~I(MiJ!,

JOhN ROMkT f!’Xf":<.t,I.( fAIWU.1

)OIINMAXWfU t I.lltl\((;"

rRfUf.RKKrOlf, rll(’IRI’

row." ~IU’U"N Io;.f....

GMEGOR’r \\11111.\\4 n ItU’:’(,):’\

AI.AN "hr.;t f....IA"’t’> A’t. OI’MI

I....UUEN<X MAtt" IL"’~’"

(’HIU’..n.’I’IILf’ I’A t~I’. K ""OW"Ilf

C",I\.IO"’jlJH"’’’I:II:R\ Gf{JFfJt!\.,.)tI""tfAtlIL’ t..~tlKI~T(’rtn;fll’AIR,n: n’f’)f;ll \I(MI!U.

MArTH"\’ """’01 ~... 1J1",..It~..

I "’r.;rFU."....llTo...un,...-N

"~l,.l. C(IfAkl) Il’)l l’

R.1(1UM.(’)&R,Uf COI.OIM, ’\IIHlllr....~

i),\\"DCrQft(;r wnltlKflt

rlllur CEOfC ( Sklt.TON

c;l(;:’l-UN 8R\:CE IHWI:

I’AUL r.RA!\:("ISM~lVfu’:r SI1I:U.f.’r A...."’I:i.I(’N’X;E tt.,lS\’,ANf\: HOWl;

II.~"W ’AI~ MA"-1Vo1; ~;MITlI

l’AUl WIL":’>. 0"\,"1

"It,AVIH: AJlNORA n..._"...

LI.O\’O ...’TH(.JX\’ lAM.:; .:......^’Atal "AIt", K’"’ ~"\’IN ’>IMO:o.l MI\:HAt,;l HOIl....ER

.;IC,\rMl UA....,OQIJ,(,UY ~’tt.:...’l(REx’-~I’

...’flR\W......""EfU..1Q’.

AI,AN "’l;Nlv,"" I’’’TFRSC’’

,"0’\"’: ~ ~~.’:..

’" ’IWoI I. ,\~;~ I;’ ...~(..t.:ltf

t. ~~I.\ ~1,\t(..... itOCHrV ("odl’.I.,,1

RUSSELL McVEAGH McKENZIE BARTLEET & CO

BARRISTERS, SOLICITORS & NOTARIES PUBLICso qL) 21s

THE SHORTLAND CENTRE, 51-53 SHORTLAND STREET, PO BOX 8, AUCKLAND 1, NEW ZEALAND.

DX CXI0085. FAX 0-9-377 1849. TELEPHONE 0-9-309 8839. :2;~4793

G: s. t1 .~t\. ’ep

OLt;{RH

....

~

_*14.’1’"

1

...

RF.r.FIVfn 2 1 SEP 1995

, ., .

... ~.".

’\ ...

’,(,1.1;:;;.1<

, .

\::#.. ’~" <~/RECORDS

W.D.C."

’. ;’ ,. ,-

-’

,.-’.-: i~"’; : i / ’; .- ~.

20 September 1995

The District Planner

Whangarei District Conncll Private Bag 9023 WllANGAREI

PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - D TAYLOR - TAUROA STREET, SOUTBDALE

1. We act for Wlnstone Aggregates Limited (’WiDstoDe"). Our client has referred to us your letter of 11 September 1995 regarding the above subdivision on land adjacent to Winstone’s Otaika quarry.

2. Winstone wishes to place on record its concern regarding residential activity in close proximity to the Otaika quarry. Tbe (’t)rnpan ~ view 19 that r~!dentia1 and

rural residential development and quarries are incompatible in close proximity to one another. New residential developments should be directed away from mineral resource areas, and particularly from operating quarries (as from other forms of industry).

3. The Otaika quarry contains reserves of very good quality aggregate and is a resource of major district and regional significance. The location of residential development in close proximity to the quarry w1ll have an adverse effect on

quarry operations in that it will constrain the way Winstone normally operates its quarry.

4. As you are aware. the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RIIA") imposes a duty on all landowners and occupiers to avoid adverse effects on the environment

arising from activities carried on by them. The areas adjacent to quarries are

commonly subject to the effects of noise and vibration from blasting. With

WELLINGTON OFFICE: THE TODD BUILDING, CNR BRANDON STREET I< LAMBTON QUAY, 1’0 BOX 10-214, WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND. DX SXttt89. FAX 0-4-499 9556. TELEPHONE 0-4-499 9555

RUSSELL McVEAGH McKENZIE BARTLEET & CO 2

residential activity in close proxtmtty to the quarry, Winstone would be restrained

from operating and continuing its long term development of the Otaika quarry in the way it might otherwise do so, particularly in carrying out blasting activities. As the Council is aware, if Winstone’s quarrying activities have an adverse effect

on adjoining residential land, then any owner of that land could bring an action in nuisance or apply for an enforcement order to stop those activities. Permitting residential activities to locate in close proximity to the quarry could therefore

compromtse the long term productive use of the mtneral resource. This effect

on Winstone’s operation of the quarry is a potential effect on the environment which the Council must take into account when considering the appl1cation.

5. FQr a llUmbel- of years. Winstone has taken action to ensure that residential

activity does not come too close to the quarry. For example, in the mtd-1980’s

Winstone requested the Council to include a notation on its planning maps indicating that ground vibration could occur within 1.000 metres of quarry workings. At that time. the need for a buffer area around the quarry was also considered by the Councll and it was proposed that this be a matter included in the next review of the district plan. Winstone has also made submtssions on the

draft strategy documents which have preceded the formulation of a new district

plan. Those submissions stressed the importance of buffering the quarry from

encroaching residential activity.

6. In our view. the potential adverse effects of the subdivision proposal could be remedied or mttigated by the imposition of a 500 metre buffer area in which no

dwel11ng units are allowed between the quarry boundary and the subdivision. In its present form. the subdivision plan fails to provide fully for such a buffer area as part of proposed lot 3 and almost half of proposed lot 18 are within 500 metres of the quarry boundary. If the subdivision were permitted as currently

proposed. a dwelling could be erected or a multi-unit development take place anywhere on those lots. bringing residences within 500 metres of the quarry.

7. Winstone therefore seeks an amendment to the subdivision scheme plan so that

no lots for residential purposes are located within 500 metres of the Otatka

quarry boundary. in our vIew. unless such amendments are ma e to the

subdivision scheme plan. the proposed activity would have adverse effects upon Winstone as the neighbouring occupier of the quarry which are more than minor. In our view. unless the suggested amendments are made. the appUcation w1ll have to be publ1cly notified because it would fail the tests contained in section

94(2) of the RMA.

8. We also note that there is support for such an amendment to the scheme plan in

the subdivision pol1cies contained in the Transitional District Plan. In particular. a subdivision must have regard for the characteristics of adjOining land and the

present and ltkely future pattern of development of that land.

RUSSELL McVEAGH McKENZIE BARTLEET & CO

9. We therefore look forward to your confirmation that the Council has required the

applicant to redesign the subdivision scheme plan to ensure that no lots for residential purposes are within 500 metres of the quarry boundary, or that other

means are found to exclude dweWng units fi’om this buffer area.

Yours faithfully RUSSELL McVEAGB McKENZIE BAR11JtET a: CO

’__ I, (/ ~~~~/ ADDe Bucb-afln

Senior Solicitor

ALA560M

,

to.

...

’" -", ~ nr

1"":;::::’::: ...

~

r

.’

’1

~ I

-

n’, J

’..-.~ ~~ 1’"

~

-

---,--Plan

Change Submitters Proposed 500m

Residential/Industry Interchange

Buffer

Between Acacia Park

(residential) &

Otaika Quarry

(industry)

A

500m buffer

between residential

dwellings and the

quarry was at

Winstones own

request ,via

their legal

representatives

Russell

Mcveagh. As

indicated by

the

contents and

intent of

the

1995

Russell

Mcveagh letter to

WDC &

Council’s subsequent 1997

subdivision planning report &

subdivision Approval. Working in

concert with

Winstone’s,WDC created a

buffer area

between the

quarry boundary and the

dwelling house (5~

Acacia Drive) thus

setting a

precedent for a

buffer area

between the

quarry

boundary and all

other Acacia Park

subdivision dwelling houses and this

500m

setback buffer is

entirely

consistent with the

current proposed plan

changes.

300m

Residential/Industry Interchange

(Reverse Sensitivity Boundary)

As

indicated by

contents of

1995

Russell Mcveagh

letter to

Council &

subsequent subdivison

Planning

report.Working with

Winstone’s Council created

300m buffer from

nearest residence

(52

Acacia Drive

-

thus

setting a

precedent for

the

other

residences)

Note this is

less

than the

500m

setback currently

being

considered by

Council.