Resolved

That the Flood Protection and Drainage Proposed Bylaw 2020 Hearing Panel:

1          Accepts all late submissions as at the date of the pre-hearings meeting on 14 August 2020.

von Dadelszen/Winters

CARRIED

5.1

Wayne Wharekura

Key Points:

·       The proposed bylaw would deeply affect the value of the property and limit where he was able to build on his site.

Points of clarification sought:

·       The District Council Plan did not have the same impacts as proposed by the bylaw.

5.2

Ian Gibson

Tabled Document 1 - Photos of 24 Bridge St, Edgecumbe: Objective ID A3613076   

Key Points:

·       The property flooded regularly since initially purchased 14 years ago, which damaged equipment over that time.

·       Undertook mitigation to avoid ongoing damage from flooding.

5.3

John Meikle (Fish and Game)

Key Points:

·       Read part 2 of the submission out in full, and particularly highlighted the wording proposed in point 4.2 and enforceability concerns about the environmental code of practice raised in point 4.3.

Points of clarification sought:

·       The submission was on the basis of current law within New Zealand, rather than proposed incoming amendments.

5.4

Maru Tapsell

Key Points:

·       Highlighted the quadruple bottom lines that needed accounting for in the proposed bylaw; economic, social, cultural, and environmental wellbeings.

·       Requested a literature review be undertaken in relation to any inclusion of Matauranga Māori and Tikanga within the proposed bylaw.

5.5

Chris Peterson

Tabled Document 2 - Submission on Proposed Flood Protection and Drainage Bylaw 2020 - Mr Chris Peterson: Objective ID A3613074  

Tabled Document 3 - Marine Industrial Precinct - Opotiki Marina and Industrial Park Limited, Project Overview: Objective ID A3613072   

Key Points:

·       Strongly opposed the proposed bylaw.

·       Concerned a 20 hectare development would be affected and cancelled.

·       Did not accept the reasoning and factual basis of the proposed bylaw had sufficiently proven it was necessary and capable of resolving the issues.

·       Raised concern for access to his proposed new development.

·       Advised the floodway would not be developed on.

Points of clarification sought:

·       Highlighted the inconsistency in the naming of animals allowed on the stopbank.

·       Regional Council had previously supported the zoning of the land to industrial.

·       Dredging work was not within the submitter’s purview.

5.6

Chris Timbs and Ian Connor

Key Points:

·       Raised concern for flooding and damage caused by proposed Waioeka Floodway.

·       Highlighted the Waioeka Floodway was first being identified within the proposed bylaw rather than a Rivers and Drainage Asset Management Plan.

·       If the Waioeka Floodway was to proceed as proposed, highlighted amendments raised at point 3 of the submission.

·       Commissioners were invited for a site visit.

Points of clarification sought:

·       Concerned Huntress Creek becoming a category 1 conservation area could change the course of the river in a flood event.

5.7

Momentum Planning and Design

Tabled Document 4 - Momentum Planning and Design - Rangiuru Business Park, Map highlighting open drain number 69: Objective ID A3613073   

Key Points:

·       Rangiuru Business Park had an existing open drain numbered 69 on the map provided as Tabled Document 4.

·       Sought relief to exclude open drain 69 from the proposed bylaw maps.

Points of clarification sought:

·       Open drain 69 was consented.

5.8

Mark Chrisp, Jonathan Richardson, Louann Hurrell (Fonterra)

Key Points:

·       Supported the proposed bylaw.

·       Proposed bylaw was too restrictive for carrying out urgent or maintenance works.

·       ‘Allowing to grow’ could be interpreted as including existing plantings.

·       Definition of backyard cultivation should be more specific.

5.9

John Strothers

Key Points:

·       Highlighted channelling of water underground in areas when the river was high.

·       Floods caused a build-up of silt on the island upstream from bridge and if it broke away could cause damage.

·       Sand bar protruding from Rangitāiki River mouth was too narrow and caused a choke point.

5.10

Daryl Jensen and Alan Law (Federated Farmers)

Key Points:

·       Needed to allow access for moving stock in emergency events.

·       Stopbank distances should measure from the centre of the stopbank.

·       Sought information on how the exemption request process would work.

·       Canal previously failed to function as intended in floods.

·       Earthworks should exclude drain-clearing and regular maintenance.

·       Concern for fencing costs.

·       Room for diggers to clear drains needed to be allowed for within the proposed bylaw.

Points of clarification sought:

·       Suggested communication could be in person as well as social media and within newspapers as well as notes on property titles to raise awareness of bylaw obligations.

5.11

William Akel

Key Points:

·       Agreed with Federated Farmers’ submission.

·       Suggested earthworks definition needed flexibility.

·       Concerned for existing trees under proposed bylaw.

5.12

Richard Weld

Key Points:

·       Raised concern for the technical basis of the proposed bylaw.