Appendices to Officer's Report - Greater Wellington Regional Council

Appendix 1: Suggested consent conditions 17 September 2009

WGN070230 [26013] 

To discharge sludge contaminants to land at the Southern Landfill. 

1. The location and nature of the discharge shall be in accordance with the 

consent application and its associated plans and documents lodged with the 

Wellington Regional Council on: 

• 26 April 2007 (original application); 

• 23 August 2007 (additional information and bioaerosol monitoring); and 

• 13 August 2009 (additional information and updates to the proposal). 

Where there may be contradictions or inconsistencies between the application 

and further information provided by the applicant, the most recent information 

applies. In addition, where there may be inconsistencies between information 

provided by the applicant and conditions of consent, the conditions shall apply. 

Note: Any change from the location, design concepts and parameters, 

implementation and/or operation may require a new resource consent or a 

change of conditions pursuant to Section 127 of the Resource Management Act 

1991. 

2. The discharge area shall be the same as those land parcels named in Schedule 

1 of this permit which has been developed as part of the Southern Landfill 

disposal area, and shall include the installed leachate collection measures as 

part of the consent suite WGN940045. 

3. Sludge contaminants and dewatered sludge shall be defined as dewatered 

human effluent sourced from the municipal waste water treatment plant 

process. 

No sludge contaminants having a dry solids content of less than 15% by 

volume shall be disposed of under this permit. 

4. The permit holder shall ensure that the sludge disposed of to landfill is no less 

than 20% dry solids content, based on a weekly average measurement of grab 

samples. 

Note: It is therefore possible to dispose of sludge which is at times less than 

20% dry solids (but no less than 15% dry solids) provided the overall weekly 

average is greater than 20%. 

5. No more than 150 wet tonnes per day (recorded at the weigh bridge) of sludge 

contaminants shall be discharged to the Southern Landfill. 

The permit holder shall ensure that this information shall be recorded at the 

weigh bridge for each skip bin disposed of to the Southern Landfill.

6. The permit holder shall keep a copy of this permit and provide all documents 

and plans referred to in this permit to each operator/contractor undertaking the 

operation. 

PAGE 2 OF 16 

A copy of this permit shall be kept within the site office and displayed in a 

prominent place at all times in a manner that meets the satisfaction of the 

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. 

A copy of this permit shall be presented to any Wellington Regional Council 

officer on request. 

7. The permit holder shall, at all times, operate, maintain, supervise and control 

all processes and equipment on site to ensure compliance with the Operations 

Management Plan pursuant to condition 9 and all other conditions of this 

permit. 

Administrative Conditions 

8. The permit holder shall keep a record of any incidences which may have led to 

adverse effects, or complaints received alleging adverse effects from the permit 

holder’s operations. The complaints record shall contain the following where 

practicable: 

• The name and address of the complainant, if supplied; 

• Identification of the nature of the incident/complaint; 

• Date and time of the complaint and incident/alleged event; 

• Weather conditions at the time of the incident/alleged event; 

• Results of the permit holder’s investigations; and 

• Any mitigation measures adopted. 

The incidents and complaints record shall be made available to the Wellington 

Regional Council on request. 

9. The permit holder shall prepare and maintain an Operations and 

Management Plan (OMP) for submission to the Manager, Environmental 

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council within three months of the 

commencement of this permit. 

The scope of the OMP shall include the sludge dewatering facility and the 

associated disposal of dewatered sludge to the Southern Landfill, and shall 

address, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 

• Timetabling to ensure that dewatered sludge is transferred from the sludge 

dewatering facility to the Southern Landfill on a seven days/week basis 

and dispatch of dewatered sludge as soon as practicable, but within 24 

hours of a skip bin being full (excepting Good Friday, Christmas and New 

Year’s Day); 

• Alternative procedures for the transfer of sludge from the skip bay to the 

landfill should the bins be full for more than 24 hours;

• Methods for ensuring the biofilter monitoring and recording parameters 

required by conditions of this permit are met; 

• The maintenance procedures for ensuring the good maintenance of the skip 

bins and containers to keep them clean and free of leaks and old sludge 

material; 

• The operation and maintenance of all emissions extraction and control 

equipment (such as the de-odorising spray used on the back of the 

compactor); 

• Staff training on the process requirement, use of emissions control 

equipment, and emergency response; 

The OMP shall be operated and developed in general accordance with the 

Draft Operations and Management Plan submitted to Wellington Regional 

Council as additional information on 13 August 2009. 

The OMP shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental 

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The permit holder shall ensure that 

the plan is consistent with the conditions of this permit, and shall be updated no 

less than annually by the anniversary of the commencement of this permit, with 

the latest copy made available to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council. 

Note 1: The consent suite WGN070230 [26013], [26014] and [26015] can fall 

under the ambit of one overarching OMP. 

10. Within 3 months of the commencement of this permit, the permit holder shall 

prepare and maintain a Sludge Disposal to Landfill Plan (SDLP) for 

submission and approval to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council. The SDLP shall address, but not necessarily be 

limited to, the following: 

• Procedures to ensure the mixing ratio of sludge to other waste (1 part 

sludge to 4 parts other waste) is met and the mixture covered after each 

skip bin is tipped; 

• The procedural steps to ensure that the sludge to municipal waste mixture 

being fully covered with a suitable, compacted cover by the end of each 

working day; 

• The procedural steps to ensure that a final capping layer of at least 600mm 

of suitable low permeability material (that meets the satisfaction of the 

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council 

specifically) being applied to each landfill stage; 

• Procedures to ensure that sludge contaminants are not tracked or otherwise 

taken off the disposal site; 

• Procedures to ensure that the public is excluded from contact with sludge 

contaminants at all times; 

• The operation and maintenance of the de-odorising spray used on the back 

of the compactor; 

• Any alternative disposal to landfill methodologies apart from the main 

‘mixing’ methodology for which the permit holder can seek additional 

PAGE 3 OF 16

PAGE 4 OF 16 

approval from the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington 

Regional Council to apply. 

The SDLP shall be operated and developed in general accordance with the: 

• Sewage Sludge Dewatering and Disposal Operational Management Plan, 

Wellington City Council submitted to Wellington Regional Council with 

the application on 26 April 2007; 

• Draft Operations and Management Plan submitted to Wellington Regional 

Council as additional information on 13 August 2009; and 

• Sludge Disposal Plan submitted to Wellington Regional Council as 

additional information on 13 August 2009. 

Note: The OMP required by condition 9 of this permit aims to be an overarching 

odour mitigation and treatment document. The SDLP required by this 

condition of the permit relates specifically to the methodology for the disposal 

of sludge to the Southern Landfill and should be included in the OMP as part 

of that document 

11. Long term reuse: Within six months of the fifth anniversary of the 

commencement of this permit, the permit holder shall provide to the Manager, 

Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council, a Long Term 

Sustainable Reuse Report. The assessment required by the report shall be 

undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced specialist or specialists in 

wastewater and sludge beneficial reuse. 

The report shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental 

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. The scope of the assessment shall 

address, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: 

a) An assessment of the compliance/consistency of the current method of 

disposal with any relevant national or legislation standards or 

guidelines in effect at that time; 

b) A summary of any actual or potential effects of the continued 

discharge of sludge to land, irrespective of whether those effects are in 

accordance with the conditions of this permit, or the associated 

Southern Landfill permits (consent suite WGN940045); 

c) An outline of technological changes and advances in relation to 

wastewater and sludge management, treatment and disposal with 

specific regard to beneficial use technologies which may be available 

to assess the above adverse effects; 

d) An assessment of whether there are any infrastructure improvements 

or new facilities which are available to address the adverse effects 

identified, and to ensure that the waste being disposed of to landfill is 

minimised;

Monitoring 

e) An assessment of whether any such options or combination of options 

represent the Best Practicable Option to minimise the effects of the 

discharge, to minimise the disposal of sludge to landfill, and to meet 

the intents of the principle of waste minimisation and sustainable 

management; 

f) Whether and when (if applicable) the permit holder intends to 

incorporate such changes. 

Note: The intent of this options report is to investigate the beneficial reuse of 

sludge contaminants beyond the life of this consent. 

12. All sampling techniques employed in respect of the conditions of this permit 

shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council. All analysis shall be performed by a 

International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) registered laboratory or 

otherwise as specifically approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 


13. The permit holder shall determine the dry solids content on a percentage by 

volume basis based on grab samples. 

A minimum of five grab samples per week from different skip bins shall be 

taken and analysed from the dewatered sludge component prior to its disposal 

at landfill. 

14. The permit holder shall ensure that sludge contaminants discharged to landfill 

be combined with municipal solid waste and/or bulking material at a ratio of at 

least four parts municipal solid waste/bulking material to one part sludge 

contaminants by mass on a daily basis. 

Should a four to one ratio be not possible due to limited municipal solid 

waste/bulking material, the highest ratio available shall be used. 

Irrespective of this provision, the weekly mean ratio shall be at least four parts 

municipal solid waste/bulking material to 1 part sludge contaminants. 

Alternative disposal methodologies as provided for in the SDLP do not need to 

meet this requirement. However, the prior approval of the Manager, 

Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council is required before 

proceeding with alternative disposal methodologies detailed in the SDLP. 

15. The permit holder shall keep daily records and weekly averages for: 

• The total tons per day of sludge contaminants disposed of to landfill; 

• The source of the dewatered sludge contaminants (e.g. the SDF or the 

Western Waste Water Treatment Plant); 

• The dry solids content of the sludge in the skip bins determined by the 

grab samples, presented as a weekly average; 

PAGE 5 OF 16

PAGE 6 OF 16 

• The volume of solid municipal waste deposited and mixed with the sludge 

at the landfill; and 

• The volume and type of any additional bulking material used to achieve 

the required mixing ratio. 

The records shall meet the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental 

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council. 

These records shall be submitted to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council. The records shall be submitted by 10 July of 

each year, and contain information for all reporting conditions for the previous 

year between 1 July and 30 June. 

Review Conditions 

16. Wellington Regional Council may review any or all conditions of this permit 

by giving notice of its intention to do so pursuant to section 128 of the 

Resource Management Act 1991, within six months of the second, fourth, 

sixth, eighth, tenth, twelfth and fourteenth anniversaries of the commencement 

of this permit, for any of the following reasons: 

a) To review the adequacy of any plan and/or monitoring requirements, 

and if necessary, amend these requirements outlined in this permit; 

b) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise 

from the exercise of this permit; and which are appropriate to deal 

with at a later stage; 

c) To require the implementation of Best Practicable Options, including 

new sludge disposal methodologies, to avoid, remedy or mitigate any 

significant adverse effect on the environment arising from the 

discharge; 

d) To enable consistency with any relevant Regional Plans or any 

National Environmental Standards. 

The review of conditions shall allow for the deletion or amendment of 

conditions of this permit; and the addition of such new conditions as are shown 

to be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effects on 

the environment. 

17. Wellington Regional Council shall be entitled to recover from the permit 

holder the costs of any review, calculated in accordance with and limited to the 

Council’s scale of charges in force and applicable at the time pursuant to 

Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

WGN070230 [26014] 

Discharge permit to discharge contaminants to air, namely odour, from 

the biofilter, centrate treatment plant and other structures and operations 

at Carey’s Gully Sanitary Landfill Sludge Treatment Facility. 














1991. 

2. The discharge area shall be from the site biofilter, the centrate ‘black boxes’, 

from the periodic opening and closing of the sludge skip bay doors for the 

removal and return of skip bins, and other minor fugitive emissions from the 

area defined by approximate map references NZMS 260: R27; 

2656037.5985429, NZMS 260: R27; 2656074.5985435, NZMS 260: R27; 

2656162.5985358, NZMS 260: R27; 2656097.5985285 and NZMS 260: R27; 

2656077.5985321. 

Note: ‘Minor fugitive emissions’ are expected to be minimal contributions to 

the overall discharges to atmosphere from the facility. These are expected to 

include emissions from the opening of skip bay doors, irregular maintenance 

areas such as the wet well, and other general activities which may result in 

odours being released which are generally out of the control of ‘best 

practicable option’ solutions for containing and treating odorous discharges. 



operation. 






PAGE 7 OF 16

4. There shall be no discharges to air that are, in the opinion of an enforcement 

officer of the Wellington Regional Council, noxious, dangerous, offensive or 

objectionable at or beyond the outer perimeter of the legal boundaries defined 

by the Wellington City District Plan (Designation No. 61, Planning Map 2). 




permit. 

6. The permit holder shall ensure that all installed emissions control equipment 

namely the biofilter, including all ducting and ventilation equipment shall be 

well-maintained and operating correctly in a fully functional state. 

PAGE 8 OF 16 

The emissions control equipment shall draw adequate negative pressure to 

ensure the effective capture and treatment of air discharged from the Sludge 

Dewatering Facility building, centrate wet well, and all other areas from which 

air is extracted from to ensure that fugitive emissions are minimised. 

7. The permit holder shall ensure that the minimum volume of ventilation air 

discharged from the biofilter shall be less than 6m³/s (or 518,400m³/day). 

8. The permit holder shall, as far as practicable, ensure that a full dewatered 

sludge skip bin is transferred to the Southern Landfill or other appropriate 

disposal facility within 24 hours of becoming full (excluding Good Friday, 

Christmas and New Year’s day). 

As far as practicable, the permit holder shall ensure, to minimise the time that 

sludge skip bins containing dewatered sludge are held in the facility, that filling 

of skips is sequenced so that skips are full before loading into an empty skip. 

Should any sludge skip bin not be transferred once full for a period of greater 

than 48 hours, the permit holder shall ensure that the sludge skip bin(s) be 

covered with an impermeable membrane or alternative cover during the 

transport of the skip bin from the sludge dewatering facility to the disposal 

point. 





practicable: 






• Any mitigation measures adopted.






commencement of this permit. The scope of the OMP shall include the sludge 

dewatering facility and the associated disposal of dewatered sludge to the 

Southern Landfill, but not be limited to the following information: 


dewatering facility to the Southern Landfill on a seven days/week basis to 

dispatch of dewatered sludge within 24 hours of a skip bin being full 

(excepting Good Friday, Christmas and New Year’s Day); 



• The maintenance procedures for ensuring the good, clean condition of the 

skip bins and containers to keep them free of leaks and old sludge 

material; 

• The operation and maintenance of all emissions control equipment 

(including the associated ducting for this equipment); 


equipment, and emergency response; 

The OMP shall be operated and modelled in general accordance with the Draft 

Operations and Management Plan submitted to Wellington Regional Council 

as additional information on 13 August 2009. 







Note: The consent suite WGN070230 [26013], [26014] and [26015] can fall 


Monitoring Conditions 

11. All sampling techniques employed in respect of the conditions of this permit 

shall be to the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council. All analysis shall be performed by a 

International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) registered laboratory or 

otherwise as specifically approved by the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 


12. General site monitoring: The permit holder shall record and monitor: 

PAGE 9 OF 16

PAGE 10 OF 16 

• The air quality in the vicinity of the sludge dewatering plant and biofilter 

for faecal coliforms and salmonella originating from the plant or filter by 

30 June of each year; 

• The times during which the Skip Bay doors are opened and closed each 

day; 

• The volume of raw liquid sludge received per day; 

• The number of skips used and the total volume of dewatered sludge 

produced and disposed of per day (as determined for the consent 

WGN070230 [26013]); 

The location and methodology of the recording and monitoring regimes shall 

meet the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington 

Regional Council. 

13. Building tightness: The permit holder shall ensure that an independent, 

appropriately qualified person who meets the satisfaction of the Manager, 

Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council conducts a ‘building 

tightness’ audit a minimum of once every two years (the first being conducted 

within one year of the commencement of this permit). At a minimum, the audit 

shall take into account the: 

• Design extraction rates of the ventilation system; 

• Actual rate of extraction; and 

• Negative pressure within the building. 

A report shall be produced and submitted with the findings and any 

recommendations to ensure compliance with the conditions of this permit (with 

specific regard to condition 6) to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council within one month of the completion of the audit. 

Should the report and audit find that the ‘building tightness’ is lower than 

necessary to ensure compliance with the conditions of this permit, the permit 

holder shall undertake any maintenance and repair works that are to the 

satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional 

Council within two weeks of the submission of the report or other timeframe as 

agreed with the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional 

Council. 

14. Annual biofilter monitoring: The permit holder shall undertake a 

comprehensive assessment of the quality of the biofilter media on an annual 

basis (or more frequently if deemed appropriate by the permit holder). The 

assessment shall involve an evaluation of the media size distribution and 

composition. 

The results of this assessment, including a summary of the findings, details of 

any action(s) to be taken to improve the efficiency and function of the biofilter, 

and a timetable for those actions to be undertaken, shall be submitted to the 

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council within one 

month of the assessment being undertaken.

Actions to be undertaken may include, but are not limited to: 

• Turning, restructuring and dampening of bed material; 

• The addition of supplementary bed material; 

• Partial bed material replacement; or 

• Total bed material replacement. 

15. Scheduled biofilter monitoring: The permit holder shall measure and record 

the following parameters: 

• Continuous online display of pressure in the final air duct ahead of the 

biofilter that is automatically logged; 

• Weekly recording of pressure across the biofilter bed; 

• Weekly general visual observations of the biofilter condition, including 

weed growth, compaction, and short circuiting; 

• Monthly media moisture content in the upper two thirds layer; and 

• Monthly monitoring of the pH of the biofilter bed media in the upper two 

thirds layer 

All monitoring results shall be recorded and compiled and be made available to 

an officer of Wellington Regional Council on request and as part of the overall 

reporting condition as required by condition 17 of this permit. 

16. Biofilter requirements: The permit holder shall ensure that the biofilter and 

bed complies with the following limits at all times: 

• A minimum bed depth of filter media of 1.2 metres; 

• A minimum gas retention time of 90 seconds; 

• A bed moisture content above 40% by weight; 

• A pH of filter media between 6 and 8; 

• An even distribution of gas flow through the filter bed; and 

• That there are no short circuits of untreated air through the filter bed. 

17. The permit holder shall prepare and submit the relevant monitoring results, 

data and other information as required by conditions 12 - 16 of this permit in 

the form of a report to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington 

Regional Council. 

The report shall meet the satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental 

Regulation, Wellington Regional Council and be submitted by 10 July of each 

year, and contain information for all monitoring conditions for the previous 

year between 1 July and 30 June. 

Management of the ‘black box’ centrate treatment 

18. In the event that the ‘black box’ centrate treatment process is found by a 

warranted enforcement officer of Wellington Regional Council to be the cause 

of odour at or beyond the boundary of the site (as defined by condition 4 of this 

permit) that does not comply with any condition of this permit, the permit 

PAGE 11 OF 16

PAGE 12 OF 16 

holder shall ensure that a suitably qualified person who meets the satisfaction 

of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council 

prepares and submits a report within three months of the event, providing: 

• A methodology to appropriately capture the emissions from the centrate 

‘black boxes’ and to adequately ensure that fugitive emissions from the 

‘black boxes’ are minimised; 

• A method to route this captured air to effective odour control equipment; 

and 

• Any changes to house-keeping measures to ensure that further discharges 

from the ‘black boxes’ are minimised. 

The permit holder shall undertake to provide for the recommendations 

contained within the report in a manner and timeframe that meets the 

satisfaction of the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional 

Council. 

Note: These activities may require further resource consent(s). 













new treatment technology (with particular regard to the centrate ‘black 

boxes’), to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant adverse effect on 

the environment arising from the discharge; 

d) To assess the capability of the biofilter and other odour control 

technology and equipment to control nuisance odours, and to review 

its appropriateness and alignment with ‘best practicable options’; and 

e) To enable consistency with any relevant Regional Plans or any 



conditions of this permit; and the addition of such new conditions as 

are shown to be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant 

adverse effects on the environment.




Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

WGN070230 [26015] 

To discharge contaminants to air, namely odour, from the disposal of 

sludge contaminants to land at the Southern Landfill. 














1991. 

2. The discharge area shall be the same as those land parcels named in Schedule 

1 of this permit which has been developed as part of the Southern Landfill 

disposal area, and shall include the installed leachate collection measures as 

part of the consent suite WGN940045. 



operation. 






4. There shall be no discharges to air that are, in the opinion of an enforcement 

officer of the Wellington Regional Council, noxious, dangerous, offensive or 

objectionable at or beyond the outer perimeter of the legal boundaries defined 

by the Wellington City District Plan (Designation No. 61, Planning Map 2). 

Note: This designation is appended as Schedule 2 to this resource consent. 

PAGE 13 OF 16




permit. 





practicable: 

PAGE 14 OF 16 






• Any mitigation measures adopted. 






commencement of this permit. 

The scope of the OMP shall include the sludge dewatering facility and the 

associated disposal of dewatered sludge to the Southern Landfill, and shall 

address, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 


dewatering facility to the Southern Landfill on a seven days/week basis 

and dispatch of dewatered sludge as soon as practicable, but within 24 

hours of a skip bin being full (excepting Good Friday, Christmas and New 

Year’s Day); 

• Alternative procedures for the transfer of sludge from the skip bay to the 

landfill should the bins be full for more than 24 hours; 



• The maintenance procedures for ensuring the good maintenance of the skip 

bins and containers to keep them clean and free of leaks and old sludge 

material; 

• The operation and maintenance of all emissions extraction and control 

equipment (such as the de-odorising spray used on the back of the 

compactor); 


equipment, and emergency response;

The OMP shall be operated and developed in general accordance with the 

Draft Operations and Management Plan submitted to Wellington Regional 

Council as additional information on 13 August 2009. 







Note 1: The consent suite WGN070230 [26013], [26014] and [26015] can fall 


8. Within 3 months of the commencement of this permit, the permit holder shall 

prepare and maintain a Sludge Disposal to Landfill Plan (SDLP) for 

submission and approval to the Manager, Environmental Regulation, 

Wellington Regional Council. The SDLP shall address, but not necessarily be 

limited to, the following: 

• Procedures to ensure the mixing ratio of sludge to other waste (1 part 

sludge to 4 parts other waste) is met and the mixture covered after each 

skip bin is tipped; 

• The procedural steps to ensure that the sludge to municipal waste mixture 

being fully covered with a suitable, compacted cover by the end of each 

working day; 

• The procedural steps to ensure that a final capping layer of at least 600mm 

of suitable low permeability material (that meets the satisfaction of the 

Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington Regional Council 

specifically) being applied to each landfill stage; 

• Procedures to ensure that sludge contaminants are not tracked or otherwise 

taken off the disposal site; 

• Procedures to ensure that the public is excluded from contact with sludge 

contaminants at all times; 

• The operation and maintenance of the de-odorising spray used on the back 

of the compactor; 

• Any alternative disposal to landfill methodologies apart from the main 

‘mixing’ methodology for which the permit holder can seek additional 

approval from the Manager, Environmental Regulation, Wellington 

Regional Council to apply. 

The SDLP shall be operated and developed in general accordance with the: 

• Sewage Sludge Dewatering and Disposal Operational Management Plan, 

Wellington City Council submitted to Wellington Regional Council with 

the application on 26 April 2007; 

• Draft Operations and Management Plan submitted to Wellington Regional 

Council as additional information on 13 August 2009; and 

PAGE 15 OF 16

PAGE 16 OF 16 

• Sludge Disposal Plan submitted to Wellington Regional Council as 

additional information on 13 August 2009. 

Note: The OMP required by condition 9 of this permit aims to be an overarching 

odour mitigation and treatment document. The SDLP required by this 

condition of the permit relates specifically to the methodology for the disposal 

of sludge to the Southern Landfill and should be included in the OMP as part 

of that document 

9. All conditions of the discharge permit WGN940045 [20346] shall be complied 

with at all times in addition to the conditions of this permit. 













new sludge disposal methodologies, to avoid, remedy or mitigate any 

significant adverse effect on the environment arising from the 

discharge; 

d) To enable consistency with any relevant Regional Plans or any 



conditions of this permit; and the addition of such new conditions as 

are shown to be necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant 

adverse effects on the environment. 




Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Schedule 1: Relevant land parcels for application 

Certificate of Title Area Description Registry 

1. 21D/612 861.3063 

hectares 

more or 

less 

2. 12D/875 37.6584 

hectares 

more or 

less 

3. 20C/479 37.3846 

hectares 

more or 

less 

Lot 1 DP 29398, and Lots 1 and 2 

DP 29742 

Situate in the City of Wellington 

being parts Subdivisions 8,9,10, 

11,12 and 13 of Section 19 Owhiro 

District, Parts Subdivision 15, 16 

and 17 of Section 21 Owhiro 

District, and Part 14 of Sections 19 

and 21 Owhiro District 


being Part Sections 4, 5 and 6 

Upper Kaiwharawhara District, and 

Part Section 17 Owhiro District 

Wellington 



Gazette Reference Index Reference Registry 

4. 25 March 1976, No. 30, Page 

639 

144043.1 Wellington 


5. 46B/601 13.3404 

hectares 

more or 

less 


being Part Section 22 Owhiro 

District 

Wellington

Schedule 2: Designation Map

8 9 

1 

2 

2 

10 

3 

2 

11 

A 

6 

4 

B 

LINZs CRS Digital Licence WN0853547/2 Crown Copyright Reserved 

H 

4A 

2650000 mE 

4C 

Karo ri Stream 

The conservation site 

provisions shall apply to 

the coastal unformed 

legal road from Te 

Rimurapa Headland to 

Makara Beach which is 

abutted by the Rural Area 

(Conservation Sites 3A 

& 4A) 

5982625 mN 

! 

M32 

SOUTH MAKARA ROAD 

0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 

Metres 

SOUTH M AKARA ROAD 

H 

3A 

Rimurapa Landscape 

Feature Precinct 

1 2 

! 

Karori Stm 

53 

M39 

53 

SOUTH KARORI ROAD 

R3 

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT PLAN MAP 

B 

SOU TH K ARORI ROA D 

A4 

B 

3A 

A5 

A6 

3A 

A7 

A8 

3B 

B 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! 

W3 

! M46 

61 

Rimurapa Landscape 

Feature Precinct 

3B 

B 

FORSYTH GR 

3C 

WATERHOUSE DRIVE 

FITCHETT 

LINGARD 

ASHTON 

L A NDFILL R O AD 

DRIVE 

M O NTEITH 

OHIRO BAY PARADE 

3C 

B 

K AREPA STR E E T 

2 

§ 

A 

B 1:20,000 

B 

COLORAD O GROVE 

M ITCHELL STREET 

HAPPY VALLEY ROAD 

KARE PA S TREET 

ARIZON A GROVE 

HAPPY VA L LEY ROAD 

! 

KAREPA STREET 

PHOENIX WAY 

A 

M79 

M80 

VIR GINIA GROVE 

BATA PL 

! ! 

Owhiro Bay 

OHIRO BAY PARADE 

ATLANTA GROVE 

NEBRASKA WAY 

HAPPY VALLEY ROAD 

TODM 

MITCHELL STREET 

AN STREET 

KARE 

HOOVER ST REET 

AMOS WAY 

OHIRO ROAD 

MURCH IS O N STREET 

M81 

2G 

DOMANSKI CRESCE NT 

E40 

A PUK A STREET 

B 52 # 

VA N C O U VER STREET 

S UGARLOAF ROAD 

CHA RLO 

TODMAN ST 

REUBEN AVENU 

OHIRO ROAD 

BO 

STOCK STREE 

CO L U MBIA WAY 

MON TREAL GROV E 

CLINTON WAY 

TEME WAY 

BRUCE AVENU 

E24 

ROBERTSON STREET 

A 

B 

B 

WEL LAND PLACE 

B 

LIVINGSTONE STREE 

CABOT PLA 

CAMROSE GR 

SEVERN S T REET 

E 

FR 

DART C ES 

2

Appendix 2: Relevant land parcels for proposal


1. 21D/612 861.3063 

hectares 

more or 

less 

2. 12D/875 37.6584 

hectares 

more or 

less 

3. 20C/479 37.3846 

hectares 

more or 

less 

Lot 1 DP 29398, and Lots 1 and 2 

DP 29742 


being parts Subdivisions 8,9,10, 

11,12 and 13 of Section 19 Owhiro 

District, Parts Subdivision 15, 16 

and 17 of Section 21 Owhiro 

District, and Part 14 of Sections 19 

and 21 Owhiro District 


being Part Sections 4, 5 and 6 

Upper Kaiwharawhara District, and 

Part Section 17 Owhiro District 




Gazette Reference Index Reference Registry 

4. 25 March 1976, No. 30, Page 

639 

144043.1 Wellington 


5. 46B/601 13.3404 

hectares 

more or 

less 


being Part Section 22 Owhiro 

District 

Wellington

Appendix 3: Summary of submissions

Date received Name of submitter Street Suburb City 


Summary of submission Heard? Support/Oppose 

1 18-Jun-07 C Paulin & K Lund 40 Harland Street Mornington 6021 


Odour, discharge to air No Oppose 

2 19-Jun-07 T W Seaman 1 Murchison Street Island Bay 6023 Odour No Oppose 

3 19-Jun-07 J Marshall 19 Kopiko Way Brooklyn Wellington Odour No Oppose 

4 19-Jun-07 J J C Hirst PO Box 20028 Newtown Wellington 


Odour No Oppose 

5 20-Jun-07 K Lim 10 Forsyth Grove Brooklyn 6002 Health No Oppose 

6 20-Jun-07 P na Nagara & N Becker 3 Laurent Place Kingston Wellington Odour No Oppose 

7 20-Jun-07 B T Parkes 80 Washington Ave Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

8 20-Jun-07 H A Symmes 5 Connaught Tce Brooklyn Wellington Overall common good No Support 

9 22-Jun-07 S & C Joblin 11 Connaught Tce Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living No Oppose 

10 25-Jun-07 L M J Devereux 7 St Louis Pl Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living, property values No Oppose 

11 26-Jun-07 B Fowler 140 The Ridgeway Mornington Wellington Odour, discharge to air No Oppose 

12 26-Jun-07 R Smith and M Easterbrook 12 McColl St Vogeltown Wellington Odour No Oppose 

13 27-Jun-07 R Young 29A Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, discharge to air Yes Oppose 

14 27-Jun-07 J Daue 8 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Neutral No Neutral 

15 27-Jun-07 P H Wright 6 Lingard Grove Brooklyn Wellington Odour, carbon emissions No Oppose 

16 27-Jun-07 H Scharnke 116 Ashton Fitchett Drive Brooklyn 

Strathmore 

Wellington Odour, devaluation of property Yes Oppose 

17 28-Jun-07 S Andis 36 Ahuriri St 

Park Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

18 28-Jun-07 C Peacock 11 Chalinor St Pakuranga Auckland Odour No Oppose 

19 28-Jun-07 M M Morrison 2/104 Quebec Street Kingston Wellington Neutral Yes Neutral 

20 29-Jun-07 D M Hooper 71 High Street Island Bay Wellington Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living No Oppose 

21 29-Jun-07 C Stewart 75 Mornington Rd Mornington Wellington Odour, No Oppose 

22 1-Jul-07 D Bridges 27 Ashton Fitchett Drive Brooklyn Wellington 


Odour No Oppose 

23 1-Jul-07 K B Mills 122 The Ridgeway Mornington 6021 Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living Yes Oppose 

24 1-Jul-07 A McArdell 15A Helen St Brooklyn Wellington 


Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living No Oppose 

25 1-Jul-07 E G C Smith 159 The Ridgeway Mornington 6021 Odour, lowers quality of life No Oppose (Cond) 

26 1-Jul-07 R M Fagan 88A Eden Street Island Bay Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

27 1-Jul-07 P Sparnaay 79 Ashton Fitchett Drive Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

28 3-Jul-07 F Ronchese 95 Ashton Fitchett Drive Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors, duration of consent No Oppose 

29 4-Jul-07 C S Pannell 36 Mornington Road Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

30 4-Jul-07 R Mills 34 Happy Valley Road Owhiro Bay Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors No Oppose 

31 4-Jul-07 G Seevens 256 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour, lowers our standard of living No Oppose 

32 5-Jul-07 J Mclean and D Castle 178 Ohiro Road Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

33 6-Jul-07 H Kaiwai 9 Maple Grove Kingston Wellington Odour No Oppose 

34 6-Jul-07 M P Anastasiadis 11 Atlanta Grove Brooklyn Wellington Odour No Oppose 

35 6-Jul-07 J Anderson 7A Arizona Grove Kowhai Park Wellington Odour, Health concerns, air quailty, unable to enjoy the outdoors Yes Oppose 

36 9-Jul-07 JC Gilmore 48 Farnham st Mornington Wellington Odour, unable to enjoy outdoor living, health concerns No Oppose 

37 9-Jul-07 C W G Mcnab 137 Washington Ave Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

38 9-Jul-07 Kingston Wellington Odour, air quality, health concerns No Oppose 

39 10-Jul-07 P Baylis 241 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

40 10-Jul-07 H Allardice 63 Owen Street Newtown Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

41 10-Jul-07 W Isaacs 36 Clarence Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

42 11-Jul-07 G M L Clark 55 Reuben Avenue Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors No Oppose 

43 11-Jul-07 R W Stutter 10 Virginia Grove Brooklyn Wellington Odour No Oppose 

44 11-Jul-07 B Roberts bruce.roberts@wcc.govt.nz Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

45 12-Jul-07 F M Macgregor 51 Frobisher St Owhiro Bay Wellington Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living No Oppose 

46 12-Jul-07 J M Vickers 12 Washington Ave Brooklyn Wellingon Odour, plant has not complied with consent conditions in past No Oppose 

47 12-Jul-07 P J Hickey 277 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour, unable to enjoy outdoor living No Oppose 

48 12-Jul-07 J & M Viatos 1 Phoenix Way Kowhai Park Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long, health concerns No Oppose 

49 12-Jul-07 N Hill 6 Virginia Grove Kowhai Park Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long, forced indoors, effect on local house prices No Oppose 

50 12-Jul-07 M Richards 274 Mitchell Street Brooklyn 

Marion 

Wellington Odour, health effects to asthma sufferers No Oppose 

51 13-Jul-07 W M Bond PO Box 27470 

Square Wellington Odour, air quality No Oppose 

52 13-Jul-07 E H Servian PO Box 6283 Wellington Odour No Oppose 

53 13-Jul-07 S Le Gros 76 Ashton Fitchett Dr Brooklyn Wellington Odour, health concerns, devaluation of property No Oppose 

54 13-Jul-07 N R Wright 224 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, health concerns, air quality No Oppose 

55 13-Jul-07 S Bagley 2 Montheith Gr Brooklyn Wellington Odour, unable to enjoy outdoor living, lack of action by council Yes Oppose 

56 13-Jul-07 A Graatland PO Box 14363 Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors, health concerns Yes Oppose

57 13-Jul-07 D Bagnall & R Randerson 103 Mornington Road Vogeltown Wellington Odour, forced indoors, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

58 13-Jul-07 P Lane 35 Whaui St Vogeltown Wellington Odour, unable to enjoy outdoor living, air quality Yes Oppose 

59 13-Jul-07 R Wilson & K Winefield 115 Mornington Road Vogeltown Wellington Odour, health concerns, responsibilities of council Yes Oppose 

60 13-Jul-07 J Randerson & T La Hood 111 Mornington Rd Vogeltown Wellington Odour, forced indoors, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

61 13-Jul-07 C H G Wright & P Wright 96 Karepa St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy outdoor living No Oppose 

62 13-Jul-07 C Galuszka 224 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour No Oppose 

63 13-Jul-07 V K Dravitzki & C M McKenzie 

Shenval Holdings & Shenval Wind & 

11 Cheesman St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, Yes Oppose 

64 13-Jul-07 Development PO Box 2084 Wellington Odour, property values, does not comply with regional plans and policy statements Yes Oppose 

65 13-Jul-07 G A Holley 44 McKinlay Cres Brooklyn 

Marion 

Wellington Odour, forced indoors, health concerns, toxic substances Yes Oppose 

66 13-Jul-07 Brooklyn Resident's Association PO Box 6332 

Square Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

67 13-Jul-07 G L Melvin 3 Cheesman St Vogeltown Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors Yes Oppose 

68 13-Jul-07 G E Rutherford & B L Rutherford 1 Caribou Pl Kingston Wellington Odour, unable to enjoy outdoor living, air quality Yes Oppose 

69 13-Jul-07 J L Robinson 131 Eden St Island Bay Wellington Odour, toxic chemicals discharged to the air, unable to enjoy the outdoors Yes Oppose 

70 13-Jul-07 M & B Agalou 18 Ontario St Kingston Wellington Odour No Oppose 

71 13-Jul-07 M Sundgren 198 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, discharge of toxic gases to air, health concerns, can't enjoy the outdoors, duration of consent too long No Oppose 

72 13-Jul-07 Z B A Blades & K Blades 

Southern Environmental Association 

6 Atlanta Gr Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

73 13-Jul-07 (Wellington) Inc 260 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

74 13-Jul-07 I Fagan 90 Eden Street Island Bay Wellington Odour No Oppose 

75 13-Jul-07 F Maynes 306 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Health concerns, Odour, Air Quality, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

76 13-Jul-07 E Parker 156 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour, long term health effects, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

77 13-Jul-07 S Parker 156 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

Date received Name of submitter Street Suburb City Summary of submission Heard? Support/Oppose 

78 13-Jul-07 P Young 48 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

79 13-Jul-07 D Skudder 48 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, air quality No Oppose 

80 13-Jul-07 K Skudder 48 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, air quality No Oppose 

81 13-Jul-07 FRST Developments Ltd C/- Steve Watson 48 Ashton Fitchett Dr Brooklyn Wellington Odour, lowers our quality of life, air quality, duration of consent too long, stress Yes Oppose 

82 13-Jul-07 T Galuszka 244 Mitchell Street Brooklyn Wellington Odour, duration of consent too long, council responsibilities Yes Oppose 

83 13-Jul-07 P Lane 35 Whau St Vogeltown Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors, air quality, duration of consent too long Yes Oppose 

84 13-Jul-07 Friends of Owhiro Stream 160 Washinton Ave Brooklyn Wellington concerned about contamination of Owhiro Stream Yes Neutral 

85 13-Jul-07 D H Cameron 14 Cabot Pl Kingston Wellington Odour No Oppose 

86 13-Jul-07 C Savage 1 St Louis Place Kowhai Park Wellington Health concerns, odour, discharge of toxic chemicals to air Yes Oppose 

87 13-Jul-07 S K Cheng 272 Mitchell St Brooklyn Wellington Odour, health concerns, unable to enjoy the outdoors No Oppose 

88 16-Jul-07 A J D Hille 153 The Ridgeway Mornington Wellington Odour Yes Oppose 

89 16-Jul-07 D Rout 7 Nebraska Way Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors No Oppose 

90 16-Jul-07 T Smith 121 Mornington Road Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors,location of faciltiy Yes Oppose 

91 16-Jul-07 T Garry 6 Dransfield Vogeltown Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors, health concerns, environmental concerns Yes Oppose 

92 17-Jul-07 Brooklyn Wellington Odour No Oppose 

93 17-Jul-07 Brooklyn Wellington Odour, can't enjoy the outdoors No Oppose 

94 17-Jul-07 Brooklyn 

Marion 

Wellington Odour No Oppose 

95 18-Jul-07 S R M Raquier PO Box 6308 

Square Wellington Waste miminisation, dumping of sludge to landfill No Oppose

Appendix 4: Prehearing meeting reports

1 November 2007 

File: WGN070230 [26013]-[26015] 

Report on a pre-hearing meeting held on 16 October 2007 

at 7:30pm in Vogelmorn Hall, Vogeltown 

Wellington City Council 

Application for resource consents to discharge contaminants 

to air and land at Carey’s Gully 

Present 

Regulatory representatives 

• Heather Sinclair, Facilitator, Team Leader Environmental Regulation, Greater Wellington 

Regional Council 

• Raymond Chang, Resource Advisor, Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Helen Dempster, Resource Advisor, Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Jeremy Rusbatch, Resource Advisor, Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Steve van Kampen, Resource Consents Planner, Wellington City Council 

• Bill Stevens, Team Leader Development Guidance, Wellington City Council 

Applicant representatives 

• Prithi Gajanayaka, Manager, Programme Management, Capacity 

• Tim Oughton, Engineer, Capacity 

• Mike Mendonca, Manager, CitiOperations, Wellington City Council 

• Paul Heveldt, Senior Environmental Scientist, MWH Limited (for the applicant) 

• Sylvia Allan, National Planning Team Leader, MWH Limited (for the applicant) 

• Sally Dossor, Partner, DLA Phillips Fox (for the applicant) 

• Sarah Coxhead, Lawyer, DLA Phillips Fox (for the applicant) 

Independent peer reviewer 

• Ron Pilgrim, Principal, Sinclair Knight Merz Limited 

Submitters and other attendees 

• Darren Hoskins 

• Amy Holden 

• Keri Mills 

WGN_DOCS-#688608-V2

• Raewyn Mills 

• Pam Wright 

• Colin Wright 

• Maureen Cooper 

• Jay Vicks 

• Stan Andis 

• Rick de Bes 

• J Viatos 

• M Viatos 

• Bernie Harris 

• Bruce Blades 

• Graham Le Gros 

• Martin Payne (for Friends of Owhiro Stream) 

• F Runchese 

• Stephan Le Gros 

• Debbie van Hamelsveld 

• George Rutherford 

• Tina de Bes 

• G A Holley 

• Philippa Boardman 

• Frank Boardman 

• Terry Galuszka 

• Catherine Galuszka 

• Jared Devereux 

• Bui Yetman 

• Mario Agalou 

• Peter Thornton 

• Pat Renshaw 

• Steve Watson 

• Rachel Smith 

• John Macalister 

• Carl Savage 

• Paul Lane 

• Jay Hirst 

• June Epson (for Southern Environmental Association) 

• Robert Logan (for Southern Environmental Association) 

• Stuart Bagley 

• Di Rout 

• Ted Rout 

• Joanne Craven 

• Colleen Cox (for Owhiro Bay Residents Association) 

• Robin Wilson 

• David Bagnall 

PAGE 2 OF 9

• Justine Leufkens 

• W Isaacs 

• M Vandenberg 

• Christine Mckenzie 

• Vince Dravitzki 

• Gilian Clark 

• Vivienne Pincott 

• Keith Flint 

1. Introduction 

Heather Sinclair opened the meeting by welcoming everyone. She explained that the 

purpose of the meeting was to clarify the application and explore any issues raised. Those 

present were asked to introduce themselves, and some took this opportunity to voice their 

views on the application and general odour issues. A record of attendees was separately 

circulated. 

Heather advised that the pre-hearing meeting was convened under section 99 of the 

Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act). She provided a brief overview of the three 

applications lodged with Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW) and the one 

application lodged with Wellington City Council (WCC). Heather also explained that all 

submitters would receive a copy of the officer’s report on the application at least five days 

prior to the hearing. The ground rules for the meeting were outlined and Heather advised 

that the predicted duration of the meeting would be approximately two (2) hours. An 

attendee said that this may not be enough time for all those present to express their views. 

In response, Heather advised that pre-hearing meetings were discretionary and reminded 

the submitters that they would have a further opportunity to talk to their submissions at the 

hearing itself. 

Mike Mendonca of WCC then gave a brief presentation, describing Carey’s Gully, the 

facilities present there, and the Sludge Treatment Facility in particular. He outlined the 

components of the processing of sludge, the geographical layout of the facilities within 

Carey’s Gully, and the key issues associated with the facility. Hard copies of the slides 

comprising this presentation were given out to the audience beforehand, and a copy is 

attached as Appendix 1. Specific matters which he drew to the meeting’s attention 

included: 

• T&T cleanfill, C&D cleanfill and Nova Gas (which collects gas from the landfill 

and flares it) are located near the application site. 

• The Carey’s Gully Southern Landfill and the Living Earth composting plant, as well 

as the sludge dewatering plant, are potential sources of odour. 

PAGE 3 OF 9

• The compost plant has failed twice since 2000 (including a failure in November 

2006); consequently ‘spadeable’ sludge went to landfill. 

• The sludge dewatering plant has roller doors. Sludge to be removed is contained in 

skips (as shown in Slide 6). Trucks come to remove sludge daily. 

• The biofilter is like a ‘giant compost bed’, and is used for treating odour. There are 

four cells in the dewatering plant’s biofilter. Air is passed through the filter, where 

microbes in the biofilter’s materials eat the odorous molecules. This makes the 

emissions non-odorous. Maintenance of the biofilter is the key to effective 

operation. Biofilters are used globally for this purpose. 

• The data collected by WCC shows no correlation between days that sludge was put 

to landfill and odour complaints. 

• The sludge skips sit within the enclosed bay, but the doors on the bay are opened to 

allow the skips to be removed from the bay for transportation to LEL (Living Earth 

Limited) 

• If the sludge is in an anaerobic state (lacking in oxygen), odour is generated. If the 

skip is not taken to the LEL plant quickly enough, the contents become anaerobic. 

• Centrifuges are used to separate sludge and water; the liquid is separated from the 

solids. Liquid is called ‘centrate’ and is rich in organic material. The organic 

content means that the centrate can become anaerobic. The centrate is treated in a 

small treatment plant known as the ‘black boxes’. 

• Various parameters, including moisture content, determine if the biofilter operates 

optimally in treating odour. 

• There are a maximum of eight (8) skips at the sludge plant. 

• The maximum length of time the skips is sitting in the building awaiting removal is 

24 hours. However, Mike also noted that this maximum time frame is not always 

adhered to, which can mean the sludge goes anaerobic and consequently generates 

odour before and while it is being disposed of. 

• Negative pressure is where air in the building and sludge bay is sucked out and 

passed through the biofilter to remove odour. 

• SKM (Sinclair Knight Merz) and GHD Limited have undertaken reviews of the 

odour issues associated with the site/area. 

• Trees have been planted in Carey’s Gully but have not taken well due to weather 

conditions and feral predators. 

PAGE 4 OF 9

• Modifying operational procedures, such as keeping the skip bay doors down as 

much as possible, have been in place. 

• WCC has undertaken some mapping and analysing of complaints, in an attempt to 

correlate wind direction and complaints data. 

Mike also stated that: 

• In a southerly wind, most complaints come from a ridge to the north of Carey’s Gully 

• Minimisation of the time de-watered sludge was kept at the plant was a “must do” 

mitigation measure. 

• Oxidising agent trials are being carried out. This entails adding an oxidising agent to 

the sludge itself to prevent it from going anaerobic; however this had issues with 

respect to final compost product as well. 

• The building ventilation was adequate. However, the air-tightness of the building 

will be investigated. 

• Preliminary analysis and costing is being carried out in respect to conveying sludge 

to the co-composting plant by either pumping or a closed conveyor belt system. 

2. Discussion of issues 

A number of issues were identified by attendees. They were: 

• There is unacceptable odour being transported off the Carey’s Gully site. 

This view was endorsed by a large number of the meeting attendees. Ron Pilgrim 

(SKM) acknowledged that as part of his investigations he did detect an odour over 

the site boundary that an average person may find offensive or objectionable. 

Note: Later in the meeting, an attendee asked that it be recorded that the applicant 

had acknowledged that the plant has generated offensive/objectionable odour 

beyond the site boundary. The scribe, Helen Dempster, confirmed that this had 

been noted. However, subsequent reference to her notes after the meeting, showed 

that this comment had been made by Ron Pilgim, not by the applicant. 

Ron Pilgrim was commissioned by Greater Wellington in August 2007 under 

section 92(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to undertake a technical 

review of the sludge plant resource consent application. He does not, therefore, 

represent the applicant. 

PAGE 5 OF 9

• The conditions of the current consent are not being met 

The view was expressed that, as offensive/objectionable odour has been experienced 

beyond the boundary of the site, then the conditions of the current resource consent 

are not being met. 

• Lack of cover on the skip bins transporting the sludge 

A submitter queried why the skip bins used for transportation were not sealed. 

Mike Mendonca (WCC) stated this was being considered, and that skip bins only 

emitted odour when the sludge was anaerobic. 

• The system for transporting sludge to the LEL complex 

It was noted by an attendee that the skip bin system seems antiquated. Mike 

Mendoca (WCC) commented that the piping or conveyance of sludge to the cocomposting 

plant directly was being investigated. Ron Pilgrim expressed the view 

that the focus needs to be on the prevention of odours, rather than the capture of 

them afterwards (as would be the case in a closed-conveyance system). 

• The (anaerobic) state of the sludge arriving at the sludge de-watering plant 

A submitter expressed the view that the sludge de-watering plant was the main 

source of odour in Carey’s Gully because he believed that the sludge arrived from 

Moa Point in an anaerobic state. He also stated that the sludge was a source of 

chemical contamination which had effects on human health 

• The accuracy of weather data used by WCC 

The view was expressed that weather data used by WCC is inaccurate and sourced 

from a meteorological station at Wellington Airport, which experiences very 

different conditions from Carey’s Gully. 

In response, Ron Pilgrim suggested that the topography of Carey’s Gully was so 

confused that no one station would give a fair representation of the meteorological 

conditions at any one time 

• Greater Wellington’s performance in enforcing the conditions of the current 

consent 

Dissatisfaction was expressed with Greater Wellington’s performance in enforcing 

the conditions of the current consent. It was submitted that GW had failed to 

effectively monitor the site. One submitter commented that many people in the area 

felt that there was little point in complaining to Greater Wellington (GW) as nothing 

seemed to happen as a result of complaints. Reference was also made to comments 

on GW’s records that “no action was taken” with respect to a number of complaints. 

PAGE 6 OF 9

Jeremy Rusbatch (GW) provided the meeting with an overview of GW’s protocols 

for dealing with odour complaints in this area. He advised that the trigger for GW 

to investigate was either 10 complaints or a spate of complaints in a short time span. 

He advised that GW does do a field investigation. Jeremy observed that comments 

on incident reports that ‘no action was taken’ reflect that less than 10 complaints 

were received, or that, because of the time lag between when a complaint was 

received and the time it took to investigate in the field or meteorological conditions, 

no odour was detected. He also described the Proactive Odour Monitoring (POM) 

programme GW uses. 

• Threshold for complaint investigation 

A view was expressed that there seems to be no point in complaining if a threshold of 

10 is required. Conversely, if a threshold of 10 complaints is required, then it would 

be relatively easy to set up a phone list to reflect this every time one resident smelled 

the odour. 

• Use of complaints as evidence of a breach of conditions 

A query was raised as to why complaints themselves were not used as empirical 

evidence that an offence/breach of consent has occurred. That is , why did GW need 

to rely on a confirmation of odour by one of its staff? 

Jeremy stated that the source of the odour needs to be identified, and that there are 

other potential odour sources in the vicinity of the landfill/sludge site. He also 

identified POM as the best response and that it works well. 

• The LEL composting plant operation should be considered at the same time as the 

sludge de-watering plant operation 

A submitter queried why the compost plant was not being considered at the same 

time as the sludge de-watering plant – particularly as the two operations were 

connected and, in his view, the composting plant appeared to be the main source of 

odour. 

Jeremy advised that the composting plant is governed by a different consent but that 

it may be possible for the composting consent to be re-opened. Heather Sinclair 

(GW) indicated that she would look at what would be required to review this consent 

and report back to the meeting attendees on this matter. 

• Health implications of chemical discharges 

It was suggested that there are health implications from the odour due to the noxious 

nature of the chemicals discharged. 

PAGE 7 OF 9

Ron Pilgrim stated that all odour consists of chemicals, and they do have implications 

for a person’s health. However, odorous compounds may be a nuisance at very low 

concentration (i.e. detectable by the human nose), but are still at acceptable levels 

with respect to health and other related guidelines. He further submitted that there 

are real effects, such as headaches or nausea, which may be associated with the smell 

itself, as opposed to the concentration of chemicals causing these. 

• Use of technology for monitoring purposes 

A submitter stated that there were clear issues with monitoring and that technology 

(rather than the human nose) was required for effective monitoring. 

• Wording of current consent 

It was suggested that the difficulties in enforcing the current consent had to do with 

the wording of the consent conditions – that some of this wording was vague and 

unenforceable. 

• The duration of the consent. 

The view was expressed that the duration of the consent sought by the applicant was 

too long and that even a ten year term would be too long given the odour issue 

• Timing of the Odour Management Plan 

It was suggested that the Odour Management Plan should be developed now, as 

opposed to being required as a condition of consent. 

• Composition of Hearings Panel 

Heather advised that the proposed Joint Hearing Panel would comprise Terry 

McDavitt, Glen Evans, and Jayne Metcalfe, an air quality specialist. A submitter 

raised their opposition to the appointment of Terry McDavitt to the panel on the 

grounds that he had previously attended a Brooklyn Residents Association meeting 

and advised the meeting that residents would have to put up with the odour issues 

affecting the area. 

• Revocation of consent required 

Mr Stan Andis tabled the following motion. 

The Resource Management Act 1991 states: 

To avoid, remedy or mitigate 

AND 

PAGE 8 OF 9

The loss of Amenity Values 

In view of the fact that the applicant has not addressed these issues in the current 

application, I would like to propose the following notice of motion: 

“That the current application by the applicant be totally revoked as being 

unacceptable due to the lack of remedies; as such, that the request for a 25 year term 

of consent be rescinded and replaced with an interim consent until such time as the 

applicant can demonstrate that odour is not discernable at or beyond the boundary of 

Careys Gully.” 

This motion was seconded by a member of the audience. 

Note that a motion is considered as a request by the participants for some form of 

action. A motion tabled at a pre-hearing meeting under the Resource Management 

Act 1991 carries no additional weight. 

3. Actions required 

No issues were resolved during the meeting. 

Greater Wellington is required to report back to the attendees on the following matters: 

• The procedure to be undertaken if GW were to review an existing resource consent – 

in particular, whether it is possible for GW to review the Living Earth composting 

plant consents as part of the current process. 

• Response to concerns raised regarding composition of the Hearing Panel. 

4. Conclusion 

Heather Sinclair explained that the parties would receive ten (10) days notice of the hearing 

and that Raymond Chang’s report to the Hearing Panel would be circulated to submitters 

prior to the hearing. She thanked everyone for their attendance and closed the meeting at 

9:50pm. 

PAGE 9 OF 9

27 May 2008 

File: WGN070230 [26013]-[26015] 

Report on a second pre-hearing meeting held on 19 May 2008 

at 7:30pm, St. Bernard’s School, Brooklyn 




Present 


• Miranda Robinson, Facilitator, Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Greater 

Wellington Regional Council 

• Al Cross, Manager, Environmental Regulation, Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Raymond Chang, Resource Advisor, Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Trudy Richards, Administrative Assistant, Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Steve van Kampen, Senior Resource Consents Planner, Wellington City Council 

• Bill Stevens, Planning Manager: North & West, Development Guidance, Wellington City 

Council 



• Stavros Michael, Director, Infrastructure, Wellington City Council 

• Prithi Gajanayaka, Manager, Programme Management, Capacity 


• Derek Falvey, Plant Manager, United Water International Limited 

• James Feary, Contract Manager, United Water International Limited 


• Sylvia Allan, National Planning Team Leader, MWH Limited (for the applicant) 

• Sally Dossor, Partner, DLA Phillips Fox (for the applicant) 

• Sarah Coxhead, Lawyer, DLA Phillips Fox (for the applicant) 

Submitters 

• A Graatland 

• C Savage for Brooklyn Resident’s Association 

• E Parker 

WGN_DOCS-#536498-V1

• F Ronchese 

• Martin Payne for Friends of Owhiro Stream 

• Steve Watson for FRST Developments Limited 

• G Holley 

• M Viatos 

• J Vickers 

• K Skudder 

• P Baylis 

• P Lane 

• P Boardman 

• F Boardman 

• S Andis 

• S Bagley 

• S Le Gros 

• S Parker 

• T Galuska 

• V Dravitzki 

• B Blades 

• B Harris on behalf of a number of submitters 


Miranda Robinson opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and directed the main focus 

of the meeting towards clarification and discussion of the two memoranda sent by Greater 

Wellington Regional Council (GW) on 15 February 2008 and further information sent to 

submitters on 14 May 2008 by Wellington City Council (WCC) (the applicant). She 

reiterated that the meeting was closed to allow submitters a forum to discuss their concerns. 

Al Cross then gave a brief presentation, describing the two memoranda circulated by GW. 

General questions at this stage of the meeting included: 

2. Discussion of GW memoranda 

2.1 Living Earth Limited memorandum 

It was noted that with WCC’s announcement in December 2007 to cease the co-composting 

of sludge at the Living Earth Limited co-composting facility (LEL), a significant change in 

the nature of operation of the facility would occur. 

The review period for the consent is within six months of specific anniversaries of the grant 

date. One of these periods is occurring now, while the next is in 2013. 

Al stated that: 

PAGE 2 OF 8

2.2 Questions 

• Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act), a resource consent cannot be 

cancelled through a review of the consent unless the application proved to be 

erroneous, and that there were ongoing significant adverse effects. 

• Given the removal of sludge from the LEL operation, the potential for the 

generation of odour is also likely to change. Some time will be required to assess 

this change with the ceasing of sludge processing at the LEL facility. 

• There is a high test under the Act regarding the cancelling of a resource consent. It 

is likely that cancelling the LEL consent through the review process would be very 

difficult. At this stage, it is considered that this would be impractical to review 

LEL’s consent given the changes that will occur in the process after December. 

• Later, a submitter asked why the review periods were five years apart. This was 

the committee’s decision at the time the consent was granted, and was considered 

appropriate. These days, it is more likely that recommendations towards resource 

consent conditions would be around the three year mark, allowing for greater 

control from the consenting authority. 

• A submitter stated that the community had been subjected to odour for the last 8-9 years. 

They suggested that GW was impotent in its ability to act upon the odour issue. 

Al Cross acknowledged that part of the process is the response to complaints. He stated 

that there were three facilities in the area, with similar odours. Given the nature of the 

activities and their similar odours, it is difficult to identify the exact source of these 

odours (e.g. LEL, the sludge dewatering plant, or the landfill), and, under the Act, it is 

difficult to proceed with enforcement. 

He compared this with a Taylor Preston Limited situation, with one single site, also 

located near residential development. Because the Taylor Preston site is by itself, it was 

much easier to work with, and carry through effective enforcement. The added 

complexity of three operators somewhat confounds this process. 

• A submitter asked whether there would be a consent condition (or similar) allowing for 

the reduction of these confounding factors, to allow for more effective enforcement 

options. 

Al stated that there is some reliance on working with the consent holders. He stated that 

GW is aware of the issues, and that they were difficult to resolve or to categorically 

provide answers towards the proposal at this stage, but that we will seek to reduce 

confounding factors where possible. 

• A submitter stated that the general procedure in asking complainants to identify the type 

of odour was ridiculous. 

PAGE 3 OF 8

Al stated that the information was important, and that GW needs to know the type of 

odour and its description to help assess the source. Different smells can be indicative of 

the source. 

• A submitter asked if there was any equipment or technology that was available to be used 

to identify the source/intensity of the odour. 

This technology is unavailable at this time. New Zealand’s best practice for the 

investigation of odour revolved around calibrated officers experiencing the odour first 

hand. It was reiterated that the enforcement powers of the RMA provide a particular 

process, which require the burden of proof to be beyond reasonable doubt. 

Given the different legal entities responsible for each of the 3 sites, GW must be sure of 

the source of the odour to take further enforcement action. 

Note: This means that GW’s evidence used as a basis for enforcement must be beyond 

any legal challenge 

• Another submitter stated that the proposal was modified, and was different from the 

advertised proposal. They asked if the application would be re-advertised. 

Al confirmed that there was a potential for this, once further information from the 

applicant had been received. This would be assessed by the processing officer. 

• A submitter stated that the odour, when it gets very bad, and when many other people 

will be complaining, seems to cease very quickly prior to officers being able to get on 

site to identify the source. This suggested to the submitter that the source was known 

and identifiable by the applicant/WCC. 

Mike Mendonca answered this question later in his submission, stating that, if it was 

known where the source of the odour was, it would have been eliminated. There would 

then be no need for this meeting. 

• A submitter asked if the 10 complaints before GW responded still applied. 

Al Cross stated that there are a number of ways that GW has sought to address the odour 

issue from Carey’s Gully. There is scheduled compliance, proactive monitoring, and 

reactive (complaints-driven) monitoring. He then gave some background to the 

implementation of the ‘ten calls’ policy. 

Prior to 2003, GW responded to each complaint, which was ineffective in terms of both 

GW time and resources in attempting to confirm the offensive/objectionable nature of an 

odour, and identifying the source. Odour would dissipate rapidly, and be generally 

undetectable by officers who responded. 

A threshold of ten calls in two hours was set, however, it is common practice that if a 

smaller number of complaints is received in quick succession, GW will respond. GW 

PAGE 4 OF 8

also undertakes proactive odour monitoring during the odour season (approximately 

between October to May of each year), with officers within the facility and out in the 

catchment. He reiterated the need for any odour that was detected in the catchment to be 

linked to that found in Carey’s Gully, and to be linked to the specific operator, to be able 

to undertake enforcement. 

Successful enforcement has been undertaken once, with a $1000 infringement notice 

served to Living Earth Limited last year. This was challenged by that company. 

Various statements from submitters included: 

• A statement that applicants should, as a part of their application, demonstrate a way to 

isolate odour and be able to recognise it as their own. 

• A statement that the last 18 months seems to have led to diminished smells, through 

calling GW instead of WCC. There have been simple issues such as the leaving open of 

doors that have been identified in this period. This makes it seem like the applicant does 

not really care about the issue. It was also stated that a five year review period was too 

long, and that eight years of odour prior to action was unnecessary. 

• A statement that a $1000 fine is nothing; and that, having lived in Brooklyn for 16 years, 

the odour problem only began when sludge began to be processed. The dumping of 

sludge to landfill is not going to solve the problem, and that there is a need to research a 

new method for disposal. 

3. Discussion of WCC information 

3.1 WCC information 

Mike Mendonca introduced the applicant team, and also circulated a gantt chart to submitters 

outlining the expected timeline for various aspects of the application process, and presenting 

alternative options for the use and disposal of sludge. A number of short question/answers 

were directed at Mike, including: 

• Confirming that all council meetings were open to the public 

• That 70% of the odour (albeit at a lower level of intensity) was produced by the 

Living Earth Limited facility 

• That hydrogen peroxide can react with organic compounds; however these are stored 

with safety assured methods and approximately 9,000L had been present at the 

dewatering facility for the past ten years. 

• Bins were used for containing sludge 

PAGE 5 OF 8

3.2 Questions 

• As of December 2008, no sewage sludge will be co-composted at the Living Earth 

Limited facility. The contract had been terminated by unanimous agreement by the 

council. Mike considered this the main odour source. 

• LEL is likely to still process green waste and food waste beyond December 2008. 

• The mixing of sludge to landfill was at a 1:4 mixing ratio (sewage:refuse). This 

would be spread and then a cover of 100mm of fill would be used to mitigate any 

potential odour effects. This cover could be doubled if necessary. 

• Mike stated that the burying of sludge is also likely to aid the generation of methane, 

which would increase the output of the landfill’s electricity generation facility. 

• Landfilling of sludge would be an interim measure while WCC commissioned the 

long-term alternative option for the use/disposal of sludge. 

• A submitter noted the seasonal variation of the complaints dataset, and suggested a 

seasonal approach to odour management. 

• A submitter asked if the increase in odour from the landfill upon the landfilling of 

sludge could be quantified. 

Mike said that sludge had previously been landfilled, and that, while the odour 

generated by the landfill would probably increase, he predicted that there would be less 

odour produced from the facilities at Carey’s Gully overall. He considered that sludge 

buried with a proper methodology, would be beneficial in reducing the odour output 

from the Carey’s Gully complex. 

Given the capital expenditure involved in this, it would then make sense to regionalise 

the activity and bring other local authorities on board, which also needed to be 

investigated. 

• A submitter raised that the proposed methodology of the landfilling of sewage sludge 

could hardly be considered ‘best practice’. There was concern raised that sludge from 

the skip bins, i.e. with a small surface area, would generate noxious compounds at a far 

greater rate if spread thinly across the landfill, across a much larger surface area. It was 

suggested that deep trenching would be a better method, and these quickly covered. 

This will be taken into consideration by WCC when developing a revised methodology 

for the landfilling of sludge. 

• A submitter asked what the life expectancy of the landfill was, and what effect the 

sludge disposal to landfill would have on this life expectancy. 

PAGE 6 OF 8

Mike said the expected lifespan was approximately 150 years, and that the placement of 

the sludge to landfill may reduce this by ten years. 

• A submitter stated that they had found the sludge dewatering facility’s biofilter to 

produce odour during a site visit he undertook. 

Mike stated that a correctly operating biofilter should not smell. Maintenance of the 

biofilter for the dewatering plant would be covered in its odour management plan; and 

there would be no consideration for the re-opening of the LEL facility (with its 

associated biofilter treating sludge type odours) at the moment. 

• Was there a potential to store sludge until strong wind conditions occurred to prevent 

the transport of odour? 

Paul and James stated that sludge stored for an increased duration also increased the 

odour generating potential of the sludge. This would then lead to more difficulties in 

controlling the odour while disposing of the sludge. 

Other statements from submitters/regulators included: 

• A submitter stated that there was a need to deal with sludge as the odour source and 

work towards a resolution. The disposal to landfill or the dumping of sludge to sea was 

not a long term solution, nor were these options environmentally acceptable. The 

council seems to be able to find money to beautify the waterfront, but not for essential 

services like sludge disposal. 

• Al Cross stated that the disposal to landfill will likely make enforcement by GW easier, 

with operational procedures generally known, and a reduction in the number of odorous 

sites. 

• Paul Heveldt described a landfilling of sludge situation similar to that proposed by 

WCC at Carey’s Gully, situated at Green Island in Dunedin. He described the process 

undertaken there as generally good practice, and that there was minimal odour nuisance 

to nearby neighbours (who are 200m away from the facility in some instances) resulting 

from the landfilling of sludge. 

• Graphs of complaints need to show the wind speed and direction 

• Mike Mendonca stated that approximately 25% of WCC sewage goes to Porirua, while 

the rest goes to Carey’s Gully 

• A submitter noted that the capture of air samples was costly and expensive and limited 

by the inherent degradability of the sample. The samples would need to go to 

Christchurch, and would not be worth it. A handheld device was currently in 

development by a company, however, this was probably currently not an economic 

choice. 

PAGE 7 OF 8

4. Outcomes 

Mike Mendonca asked submitters of their opinion on whether it would be useful to delay 

the hearing until the sludge disposal to landfill had been undertaken for a number of 

months, post December 2008. This would mean that the landfilling would be on ‘trial’ 

until April-May 2009, with a possible third pre-hearing, and then hearing to follow. 

This was met with a positive response from all parties. There would be a need for 

performance indicators and analysis of the landfilling of sludge presented at another 

meeting. 

Al Cross clarified that, given this process, the actual hearing may not then be held until as 

far in the future as November 2009. 

Miranda Robinson thanked everyone for their attendance and closed the meeting at 9:40pm. 

PAGE 8 OF 8

1 May 2009 

File: WGN070230 [26013]-[26015] & SR161775 

Report on a pre-hearing meeting held on 7 April 2009 

at 7:30pm at Vogelmorn Hall, Vogeltown 




Present 


• Miranda Robinson, Facilitator, Team Leader, Environmental Regulation, Greater 

Wellington Regional Council 

• Raymond Chang, Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation, Greater Wellington 

Regional Council 

• Malory Osmond, Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation, Greater Wellington Regional 


• Hannah McCashin, Resource Consents Planner, Development Guidance, Wellington City 


• Bill Stevens, Planning Manager: North & West, Development Guidance, Wellington City 



• Prithi Ganjanayaka, Manager, Programme Management, Capacity 



• Derek Falvey, Plant Manager, United Water International Limited 

• James Feary, Contract Manager, United Water International Limited 


• Sylvia Allan, Planner (for the applicant) 

• Kerry Anderson, Senior Associate, DLA Phillips Fox (for the applicant) 

Submitters and other attendees 

• G Holley 

• S Andis 

• P & F Boardman 

WGN_DOCS-#629712-V2

• M Bond 

• J Robinson 

• G Rutherford 

• M Payne (for Friends of Owhiro Stream) 

• B Harris (for a number of submitters) 


Miranda Robinson opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and explained that the 

purpose of the meeting was to address any questions that the submitters may have of the 

applicant and to explore the possibility of coming to an agreement on consent conditions. 

2. Applicant’s presentation 

The applicant then gave a brief presentation and an update on the process, describing the 

number of changes that had occurred since the application had been submitted. The main 

points of this update included: 

• A reminder that 95 submissions were made in light of the proposal to continue the 

sludge dewatering process when the applications were notified in mid 2007. 

• Trials that had been undertaken of various oxidising agents during the sludge 

dewatering (mainly process-oriented). 

• The change from the way the sludge was eventually disposed of. Prior to 

approximately October 2008, sludge was co-composted at the Living Earth Limited 

Co-Composting facility (also located in Carey’s Gully). This was discussed at the 

second pre-hearing meeting as well. 

• From October 2008, the sludge has all been disposed of to landfill, following a daily 

mix and cover routine. The ‘deep pitting’ methodology that is used at the Dunedin 

‘Green Island’ landfill was discounted due to the applicant’s previous experience 

with high levels of offensive odour when digging into the landfill to install gas 

capture pipes. 

• Another methodology, one of building a bund of refuse or overburden material and 

pouring of sludge into the area defined by the bund was trialled. This was 

discounted due to the logistical concerns that there would be areas of the landfill 

that will be particularly soft and un-compacted, resulting in a hazard for later filling. 

• The proposed methodology that has been employed for much of the disposal the 

mixing of sludge with general refuse at an approximate 4 parts refuse to 1 part 

sludge volume. This is tipped and mixed with the compactor as soon as possible to 

minimise the duration that the sludge is exposed to air. 

PAGE 2 OF 11

Additionally, the applicant highlighted a number of process changes that had been 

reviewed: 

• The air extraction and building tightness had been reviewed and found to be good. 

• The skip removal process (opening, closing of doors and residence time of the 

sludge) had been improved. 

• The door opening and closing activity was now remotely monitored and logged 

electronically. 

Finally, the applicant provided an analysis of Carey’s Gully odour complaints, compared 

with the volumes of sludge disposed of to landfill. This graph is attached as an appendix to 

this report. The applicant concluded that, since the sludge had been going to landfill from 

September/October 2008, the number of complaints had reduced substantially. 

3. Discussion of issues 

After the applicant’s presentation, a general question and answer session began. A number 

of issues were raised, the main points being: 

• A submitter asked for clarification around what the subject of this application was. 

It was clarified that the applicant was for all facilities that dealt with the sludge 

dewatering process – that is the facility building and associated biofilter, the ‘black 

box’ centrate treatment facility, and the disposal of dewatered sludge to the 

Southern Landfill. Specifically, the landfill transfer station, gas flaring, or the 

general dumping of municipal refuse at the Southern Landfill was not part of the 

application. 

• The black boxes were described as infrastructure that was used to treat the 

potentially odorous centrate (liquid spun out from the sewage during the sludge 

drying process) prior to discharging back into the sewer line that returns the liquid 

back to Moa Point Waste Water Treatment Plant. 

• A submitter asked for the procedures that are undertaken to ensure that odours are 

not transported offsite and into the sensitive residential areas. It was explained that 

the plant staff carry out walk-overs and check the equipment, undertake upgrades 

and maintenance on a regular basis. The focus of the maintenance is to concentrate 

on the source of the odour and to manage that aspect. 

• The applicant and the Wellington City Council (WCC)(as the regulator) were asked 

what kind of proactive odour monitoring methods were used to ensure that there 

was no odour discharged from the facility. WCC’s regulatory roles do not include 

odour discharges to air, and does not undertake any odour monitoring. 

PAGE 3 OF 11

• A submitter asked if there was a difference in the way sludge was treated/disposed 

of by the Dunedin City Council at Green Island landfill. The general process at 

Green Island is to: 

− Dig a trench as deep as possible into the old landfill; 

− Dumping the sludge into the hole; and 

− Covering the hold with coffee grinds and add a second layer of green waste. 

• This methodology has been avoided at the Southern Landfill as it has been found in 

the past that digging into the landfill has the potential to increase the odour 

generated from the site as putrescible materials such as meat works and rendering 

waste is dug into. Additionally, the applicant is required to collect and destroy as 

much methane from the landfill as possible and large pits of sewage make this 

difficult while also allowing landfill gas to escape instead of being captured by the 

pipe network. The other issues of health and safety as a long term management 

option with large, potentially boggy holes in the landfill also need to be considered. 

• A submitter and Mike Mendonca then discussed how sludge is managed and treated 

as it moves through the process. The submitter stated that an aeration process as it 

first comes into the landfill would be preferable, and that it was important to look at 

what happens at Green Island and in Nelson (where a similar process of disposal is 

carried out). There was an aeration process as the sludge first comes to the landfill 

at these places. Mike then stated that it was important to know about the sludge in 

Wellington, and that the critical matter was to get the sludge buried and covered as 

quickly as possible. 

• In addition to this, the nature of the sludge that is disposed of at Green Island is 

different to that disposed of at the Southern Landfill. Green Island sludge is a 

digestion process which gets the sludge into a form that can be landfilled and is 

generally wetter than the final dewatered sludge that is disposed of to the Southern 

Landfill. 

• A submitter then described a recent visit to the landfill to view the disposal process. 

He noted that the odour experienced recently was not of the same intensity as it was 

a couple of years ago. He asked if the oxidation trials conducted by the applicant 

were temporary. The applicant confirmed that hydrogen peroxide and ferric 

chloride dosing was trialled and that there were some benefits, however, the main 

change in the odour was due to the consistent, regular removal of skip bins from the 

dewatering plant. Quick, regular removal of the dewatered sludge meant that 

anaerobic conditions did not develop and thus less intense odour was released. 

• On evaluating this, the submitter stated that a condition of consent should require 

the rapid removal of the sludge from the facility and eventual disposal to landfill. 

PAGE 4 OF 11

• The same submitter acknowledged that there was a significant reduction in the 

problem since the sludge began being disposed of to landfill, and asked what 

contributed to this. The applicant replied that the co-composting plant 

decommissioning in September/October 2008, along with the monitoring of roller 

doors and the day-to-day skip removal with stricter standards for operation were 

likely to be the cause of this. A submitter noted at a later stage that the Regional 

Council should be undertaking random inspections to ensure that the process is 

followed every time, and that it should not wait for complaints. The quality of the 

process must be maintained and controlled to ensure long-term results. 

• A number of submitters agreed that there had been a decrease in the odour that was 

experienced at the residential areas, and stated that there should be conditions 

around the consent that ensure that the methodology discussed by the applicant be 

adhered to. The key components that caused the odour to migrate into the 

catchment should be addressed in these conditions. 

• A submitter stated that he had not received notification of the meeting with enough 

time, and was concerned that the low number of participants at the meeting was a 

result of this. The submitter was assured that all submitters were notified on the 

date of the letter (27 March). Other interested parties were notified at a slightly 

later date due to an administrative delay. 

• A submitter stated that they were disappointed in the use of trucks as the main way 

of transporting the sludge. There was a suggestion that a pipeline to the landfill to 

replace the trucks, or other modern technology such as incineration of the sludge be 

considered instead. 

• Mike Mendonca stated that on 7 May 2009, he would be presenting an Strategy and 

Policy Committee (SPC) paper on the options for long term sludge disposal. A 

number of technologies were emerging and not proven at this stage, and he noted 

that it was a big investment and it may not be the right time to make such an 

investment. Additionally, pumping sewage sludge in its dewatered state would be 

expensive as it is quite solid, and would probably require a conveyor belt type 

system. The submitter replied that sewage incineration is a growing industry in 

Europe. 

• Mike Mendonca was then asked to provide a copy of the SPC paper to submitters. 

He stated that he would be happy to send all submitters a link to a copy of the paper 

when it was finished. The SPC paper and information on how to make a 

submission to the SPC committee is attached to this report. 

• A submitter acknowledged that there were far fewer people at this pre-hearing 

meeting than at the second pre-hearing meeting. They stated that they felt that this 

was because the odour issue had in the most part disappeared, and as far as he was 

concerned, the odour was gone. 

PAGE 5 OF 11

• A submitter stated that there needs to be a guarantee that no odour will escape 

during the burying process. They stated that a number of communities had become 

tired of complaining, and need to have some confidence that the applicant will come 

to a solution. 

• The general ‘no offensive and objectionable discharges’ condition was questioned – 

a submitter stated that it was very difficult to enforce under the Resource 

Management Act 1991 as it was so subjective. The submitter proposed that any 

such condition should be worded in a manner that meant any odour that was 

discernable was a breach of conditions. 

• The applicant has sought a duration of 25 years for the consents. Previously, the 

applicant sought a duration of 35 years, but was granted 10 years. A submitter 

stated that the community wanted a shorter consent period, and that if the consents 

were to be granted for 25 years, regular review periods were requested. There was 

not a lot of trust that the applicant will give consideration to the community’s 

concerns, as it had taken 10 years to get to this point. The experience for the 

community had been a bad one, and thus, stringent review conditions should be 

imposed. 

• A number of submitters stated that they appreciated that the last year was a big 

improvement, and they wished continued surety that there was a commitment to 

maintaining that good performance. It was noted that the cost of the hearing and 

possible appeal process would cost the applicant a significant amount of money, so 

it would be more useful to attempt to address the community’s concerns now. 

• A submitter asked how the conflict of interest would be handled during the hearing, 

as Capacity and the applicant are essentially controlled by the Wellington City 

Council. It was stated that independent commissioners would be appointed by 

Wellington City Council regulators to ensure that there was no question of 

impartiality. 

• A submitter stated that in their experience, the biofilter released an odour when it 

was being maintained. They asked about the kind of measures that were proposed 

for no odour to be emitted during this maintenance. The applicant stated that 

maintenance is undertaken every 3 to 5 years, and as there are 4 sectors of the 

biofilter, 3 other sectors of the biofilter would still be operational while one was 

being maintained. The submitter asked for the biofilter to be enclosed, however, the 

applicant stated that this was not logistically possible, as the air would need to be 

discharged somewhere, and the purpose of the biofilter was to treat the odorous air 

to an extent that no further mitigation measures would be required. 

• Greater Wellington Regional Council (GW) then stated that conditions requiring 

adequate biofilter maintenance and other technical, process-specific conditions were 

likely to be imposed to ensure that the biofilter would be maintained in a 

satisfactory condition. 

PAGE 6 OF 11

4. Process from here 

5. Close 

Miranda Robinson (GW) then provided a summary of the process from here. The applicant 

is currently operating under the previous consents pursuant to section 124 of the Resource 

Management Act 1991. There were a number of possibilities after this pre-hearing 

meeting: 

• Draft conditions could be circulated to submitters, if this was acceptable, then 

submitters could withdraw their submissions or their right to be heard. If all 

submitters did this, then a hearing would not be required. This was probably unlikely 

in this circumstance. 

• Draft conditions would still be circulated to submitters prior to a hearing being 

scheduled, tentatively during August 2009, and then submitters would be heard at the 

hearing providing their support or opposition to the details of the conditions and the 

officer’s report. 

• Acknowledging an earlier request to ensure that the officer’s recommendation be 

submitted with as much time as possible for submitters to consider, Miranda stated 

that as much time as possible would be provided for the submitters to read the 

documents prior to the hearing, and not merely the minimum statutory timeframe of 5 

days prior to the hearing. 

• Miranda stated that GW cannot be involved as a regulator in the SPC meeting, and 

noted that a number of submitters raised some ideas that may be best to take to the 

meeting themselves. Mike stated that he would incorporate the spirit of the meeting 

in his report and take it to the SPC meeting. 

From your receipt of this report and SPC meeting details, GW will be in further 

communication closer to the time of the hearing to gauge submitter’s feelings and to 

provide the actual set dates of the hearing should one be required and draft conditions at a 

later stage. 

Miranda thanked everyone for their attendance and closed the meeting at 9.20pm. 

PAGE 7 OF 11

6. Attachment – Graph of complaints 

0 

0 

Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 

10 

200 

Number of Complaints (Total for Month) 

400 

20 

600 

30 

800 

40 

1000 

50 

Sludge-composting 

plant breakdown 

1200 

60 

1400 

Sludge Weights (tonnes/month) 

70 

1600 

80 

1800 

Before construction of the 

sludge-composting plant 

Sludge-composting 

plant closure 

90 

2000 

Sludge to landfill (tonnes/month) 

Carey's Gully Odour Complaints 

Number of Complaints 

PAGE 8 OF 11

Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 

0 

0 

1 2 2 2 1 

1 

3 

4 

200 

7 

Number of Complaints (Total for Month) 

10 

400 

15 

600 

20 

23 

800 

30 

1000 

1200 

40 

41 

1400 

Sludge Weights (tonnes/month) 

1600 

50 

50 

1800 

60 

2000 

Sludge to landfill (tonnes/month) 

Carey's Gully Odour Complaints (last 12 months) 

Number of Complaints 

PAGE 9 OF 11

7. Attachment – How to make a submission on the SPC report 

The following information has been provided by Mike Mendonca, Wellington City 

Council: 

Arranging a Time to Speak 

If you want to speak to the Councillors, contact the Democratic Services team by phoning 

(04) 803 8334 or emailing public.participation@wcc.govt.nz 

When you contact Democratic Services, please advise: 

• your name and contact details 

• the organisation you will represent, if any 

• the subject of your statement - at Council meetings you can only speak to items on 

the agenda. 

Some points about public participation: 

• You need to advise Democratic Services of your wish to speak at a meeting by 12 

noon the day before the meeting. 

• The number of public participants who can speak at each meeting is limited. When 

there are a large number of requests to speak, the Chair of the meeting will 

determine who will speak. 

• Each public participant will have between three and five minutes to speak, 

depending on the number of participants on the day. Democratic Services will tell 

you the day before the meeting exactly how long you should plan to speak. 

• You can bring along written material supporting your position. Please ensure that 

enough copies are available for all Councillors by asking Democratic Services how 

many copies to bring. 

• You can obtain copies of agendas and reports at least two days before the meeting 

from your local library, the Council or online. 

At the Meeting 

Council meetings are quite formal, so please understand and follow these basic rules: 

• When you arrive, you will be greeted by an Adviser from Democratic Services who 

will show you where to sit when it is your time to address the meeting. 

• If you have brought along written material, please give it to the Adviser to 

distribute. 

PAGE 10 OF 11

• At the start of the meeting the Chair will run through some housekeeping matters 

and will then move on to public participation. 

Speaking 

• When it is your turn to speak the Chair will introduce you formally to the 

Councillors and invite you to move to the place where you will speak. 

• The Chair will also advise you of how long you have to speak. You will be timed. 

Be careful to use your minutes wisely. 

• It is important not to interrupt Councillors when they are speaking and not to speak 

until requested by the Chair. 

• The Chair may terminate your statement if it is disrespectful or offensive. 

• When you have finished speaking, the Councillors may want to ask you a few 

questions so that they can better understand your position. 

PAGE 11 OF 11

Appendix 5: Further information requests and replies (s92)

File No: WGN070230 [26013]-[26015] 

25 July 2007 


C/- MWH New Zealand Limited 

PO Box 9624 

Wellington 6141 

For: David Cameron 

Dear David 

Further information request under section 92(1) of the Resource Management Act 

1991 

WGN_DOCS-#446302-V1 

Applicant: Wellington City Council 

Proposals: [26013]: To discharge sludge 

contaminants to land at the Southern 

Landfill 

[26014]: To discharge contaminants to 

air, namely odour, from the biofilter, 

centrate treatment plant and other 

structures and operations at Carey’s Gully 

Sanitary Landfill Sludge Treatment 

Facility 

[26015]: To discharge contaminants to 

air, namely odour, from the disposal of 

sludge contaminants to land at the 

Southern Landfill 

Location: Carey’s Gully Landfill Sludge Treatment 

Facility, Carey’s Gully 

Resource consents required: Discharge permits (x3) 

PO Box 11646 


142 Wakefield St 

New Zealand 

T 04 384 5708 

F 04 385 6960 

W www.gw.govt.nz 

Greater Wellington is the promotional 

name of the Wellington Regional Council 

I have reviewed your application and the supporting information. However, I need further 

information on your application so that I can better understand the effects of your proposal to 

continue operating a sludge dewatering plant, its effects on the environment and how any adverse 

effects on the environment might be mitigated.

Information requested 1 

1. Please provide the following reference detailed in the Assessment of effects on the environment, 

April 2007: 

a) Sewage Sludge Dewatering & Disposal Operational Management Plan, Wellington City 

Council, 1998 

2. You have stated that the processing time for sludge can be between 18 and 72 hours. Please 

provide details on how this processing time for sludge affect the amount or intensity of odour 

generated. 

3. The operating parameters of the Sludge Dewatering Plant, including: 

a) Total volumes and flow rates able to be handled by the facility (design capacity); 

b) Current operating rate and volume; 

c) Estimated increase in volume and flow rates that will be handled in 10, 15, 20 and 25 years 

time; and 

d) The average and range of the processing time of sludge between entering and leaving the 

facility. 

4. The mass balance flow rates (current and design capacities) of each individual section of the 

facility including: 

a) The Biofilter (including extraction volumes and residence time within the media), with 

respect to total air volumes; 

b) The ‘MBR’ bio-reactor ‘Black boxes’, with respect to air volumes discharged and centrate 

volumes handled; 

c) The centrate wet wells, with respect to centrate volumes handled; 

d) The centrifuging units, with respect to sludge volumes handled; and 

e) The landfill skip bin and filling process, with respect to de-watered sludge volumes and air 

discharge volumes. 

5. Details of the site’s current odour management procedures. Some facility infrastructure 

processes have been detailed (e.g. extraction to biofilter). Please detail further operational 

practices. 

1 Any person who has been asked to provide further information under section 92(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act), has the right to object to the 

consent authority in respect of that request for information under section 357A(1)(b) of the Act. 

WGN_DOCS-#446302-V1 PAGE 2 OF 4

6. Monitoring results of bioaerosol contaminants (referred to in section 6.3.4 of the AEE) that may 

have an effect on human health. 

7. Details of all circumstances that will necessitate the disposal of de-watered sludge 

contaminants directly to land at a landfill. 

8. A detailed assessment of the potential environmental effects of the disposal of sludge 

contaminants to land at the Southern Landfill. Some assessment has already been undertaken 

regarding the potential odour and health effects; however, further assessment is required of any 

other potential effects this disposal may have, including, but not limited to: 

a) Possible changes in the chemical composition of leachate generated by the landfill; and 

b) Possible effects of the combination of waste and sewage sludge within the landfill that may 

generate cumulative environmental effects that may be more than minor. 

9. An outline of the proposed odour management plan – and what mitigation measures (including, 

but not limited to factors such as minimising time within the plant, processing time, and 

management of fugitive odours) will be used to achieve a decrease in levels of discharged odour 

– as expressed in section 7.2 of the AEE. 

Note: This section states ‘… limit the length of time …’; ‘Ensure that …’ – Please detail how 

will these be achieved in practice. 

This information is required to adequately assess the effects of all aspects of the proposal, including 

any mitigation measures, on the environment. 

Date information required 

Please provide the above information to me by 15 August 2007. If you are not able to supply the 

information requested 2 by this date, you must let us know in writing within this timeframe, either 

that you require additional time (at which time we will set a reasonable timeframe for you to provide 

the information) or that you refuse to provide the requested information. 

We may decline your application if we consider we have insufficient information to enable us to 

determine your application, or if you do not respond to our request by 15 August 2007 or if you 

refuse to supply the information. If you consider you have a valid reason for refusing to provide the 

requested information, please contact me on the number below to discuss this further. 

Processing of your application 

Your application has been placed on hold, and the statutory ‘clock’ stopped 3 , until such a time that 

either I receive the above information, receive written notice that you refuse to provide it, or the 

2 Under section 92A of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

3 Under section 88C of the Resource Management Act 1991 


time period for providing the requested information has expired. As soon as one of these occurs, the 

statutory ‘clock’ will restart and I can continue processing your application. 

Please feel free to contact me on 04 381 7748 or raymond.chang@gw.govt.nz if you have any 

questions or concerns. 

Yours sincerely 

Raymond Chang 

Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation 


File No: WGN070230 [26013]-[26015] & SR161775 

10 July 2009 


C/- MWH New Zealand Limited 

PO Box 9624 

Marion Square 


For: David Cameron 

Dear David 

Further information request under section 92(1) of the Resource Management Act 

1991 

WGN_DOCS-#652485-V1 

Applicant: Wellington City Council 

Proposal: [26013]: To discharge sludge contaminants to 

land at the Southern Landfill 

[26014]: To discharge contaminants to air, 

namely odour, from the biofilter, centrate 

treatment plant and other structures and 

operations at Carey’s Gully Sanitary Landfill 

Sludge Treatment Facility 

[26015]: To discharge contaminants to air, 

namely odour, from the disposal of sludge 

contaminants to land at the Southern Landfill 

SR161775: To dispose of dewatered sludge 

onto the Southern Landfill 

Location: Carey’s Gully Landfill Sludge Treatment 

Facility, Carey’s Gully 

Resource consents required: Discharge permits x3 

Land use consent x1 


142 Wakefield St 

New Zealand 

T 04 384 5708 

F 04 385 6960 

W www.gw.govt.nz 

Greater Wellington is the promotional 

name of the Wellington Regional Council 

Further to the above consent application and the intervening changes to the proposal since the lodging of the 

application, I write to ask for further information clarifying a number of matters contained in the original 

Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) documents, and our subsequent discussions regarding the 

processing of sludge at the facility.

Information requested 1 

Update of proposal 

1. In the original application, while the disposal of all sludge to landfill was mooted as a possible longterm 

option, the focus at the time was on the co-composting of the sludge with green-waste. 

Please clarify the expected length of time that disposal of sludge to landfill will continue to occur for, 

and if any future co-composting of the sludge material is expected. 

2. Please provide an update on any process changes that have been put in place at the plant and the 

disposal site (landfill) since the provision of the ‘Carey’s Gully Sludge Dewatering Plant and Sludge 

Disposal at the Southern Landfill’ AEE and associated documents. 

3. In Ron Pilgrim’s peer review of AEE, a number of suggestions for the upgrading of site processes and 

infrastructure that should be evaluated for their value were proposed. 

A comparison of these measures are presented and compared in the document ‘Odour mitigation 

measures from SKM report’ (dated February 2008), provided to Greater Wellington Regional Council in 

a meeting on 3 July 2009. 

Please provide an updated status and assessment on the recommendations contained within this report 

for the altered disposal process. 

4. Please provide the optimal parameters for the operation of the biofilter to ensure the best practicable 

emissions treatment. 

This should include (but not be limited to): 

� The minimum bed depth of filter media; 

� The minimum/maximum inlet temperature; 

� The bed moisture content; and 

� The pH range. 

Management Plans 

5. Please provide an updated odour management plan to reflect the changes in the main disposal pathway 

for sludge. The plan should include, but not be limited to: 

� Describes the various areas/processes in the facility that have the potential to produce odour; 

� The operation and management of the emission control equipment; 

� Methods of mitigating and treating the odour produced in these areas; 

� Procedures for storing, transferring and disposing of the sludge; 

� Procedures for managing odour during the delivery of sludge to the landfill face; 

� Procedures for emergency response and contingency; 

� Any maintenance requirements of the plant, ducting and emissions control equipment; 

� Monitoring, testing and reporting requirements; and 

1 Any person who has been asked to provide further information under section 92(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act), has the right to object to the 

consent authority in respect of that request for information under section 357A(1)(b) of the Act. 

PAGE 2 OF 3

� Procedures for responding to complaints received relating to the discharge to air from the 

site/landfilling of sludge. 

6. Please provide an updated sludge disposal plan which details any changes in the plan submitted with 

the original AEE and the existing site practice. 

The above information is required to assess the effects of the medium to long term disposal of sludge to 

landfill, and the effects of any on-going odour discharges to the environment. 

Date information required 

Please provide the above information to me by 31 July 2009. If you are not able to supply the information 

requested 2 by this date, you must let us know in writing within this timeframe, either that you require 

additional time (at which time we will set a reasonable timeframe for you to provide the information) or that 

you refuse to provide the requested information. 

We may decline your application if we consider we have insufficient information to enable us to determine 

your application, or if you do not respond to our request by 31 July 2009 or if you refuse to supply the 

information. If you consider you have a valid reason for refusing to provide the requested information, please 

contact me on the number below to discuss this further. 

Processing of your application 

Your application has been placed on hold, and the statutory ‘clock’ stopped 3 , until such a time that either I 

receive the above information, receive written notice that you refuse to provide it, or the time period for 

providing the requested information has expired. As soon as one of these occurs, the statutory ‘clock’ will 

restart and I can continue processing your application. 

Please feel free to contact me on 04 381 7748 if you have any questions or concerns. 

Charging policy review 

The Resource Management Charging Policy is reviewed on an annual basis. As a result of this process the 

charges associated with processing your consent may alter – you will be informed if this is the case. 

Yours sincerely 

Raymond Chang 

Resource Advisor, Environmental Regulation 

Copies: Hannah McCashin (WCC Planner); Prithi Ganjanayaka (Capacity); Ron Pilgrim (Consultant) 

2 Under section 92A of the Resource Management Act 1991. 

3 Under section 88C of the Resource Management Act 1991 

PAGE 3 OF 3

Appendix 6: Technical Peer Review

Appendix 7: Statutory Documents

The Resource Management Act 1991 

Part II 

5. Purpose 

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural 

and physical resources. 

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, 

and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which 

enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and 

cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while— 

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding 

minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future 

generations; and 

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and 

ecosystems; and 

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities 

on the environment. 

6. Matters of national importance 

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under 

it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical 

resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: 

(a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including 

the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and 

the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: 

(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from 

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: 

(c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant 

habitats of indigenous fauna: 

(d) The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal 

marine area, lakes, and rivers: 

(e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral 

lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. 

[(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and 

development.] 

[(g) The protection of recognised customary activities.]

7. Other matters 



resources, shall have particular regard to— 

(a) Kaitiakitanga: 

[(aa) The ethic of stewardship:] 

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: 

[(ba) The efficiency of the end use of energy:] 

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: 

(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems: 

(e) Repealed. 

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: 

(g) Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources: 

(h) The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon: 

[(i) The effects of climate change:] 

[(j) The benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.] 

8. Treaty of Waitangi 



resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o 

Waitangi). 

104. Consideration of applications 

(1) When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions 

received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to– 

PAGE 2 OF 51 

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the 

activity; and 

(b) any relevant provisions of— 

(i) a national policy statement: 

(ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: 

(iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy 

statement:

(iv) a plan or proposed plan; and 

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and 

reasonably necessary to determine the application. 

(2) When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent 

authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if 

the plan permits an activity with that effect. 

[[(2A) When considering an application affected by section 124, the consent authority 

must have regard to the value of the investment of the existing consent 

holder.]] 

(3) A consent authority must not— 

(a) have regard to trade competition when considering an application: 

(b) when considering an application, have regard to any effect on a person 

who has given written approval to the application: 

[[(c) grant a resource consent contrary to— 

(i) section 107 or section 107A or section 217: 

(ii) an Order in Council in force under section 152: 

(iii) any regulations: 

(iv) a Gazette notice referred to in section 26(1), (2), and (5) of 

the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004:]] 

(d) grant a resource consent if the application should have been publicly 

notified and was not. 

(4) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if a person has given written approval in 

accordance with that paragraph but, before the date of the hearing (if a hearing 

is held) or otherwise before the determination of the application, that person 

gives notice in writing to the consent authority that the approval is withdrawn. 

(5) A consent authority may grant a resource consent on the basis that the activity 

is a controlled activity, a restricted discretionary activity, a discretionary 

activity, or a non-complying activity, regardless of what type of activity the 

application was expressed to be for.] 

104B. Determination of applications for discretionary or non-complying activities 

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or 

non-complying activity, a consent authority - 

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and 

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108. 

PAGE 3 OF 51

105. Matters relevant to certain applications 

(1) If an application is for a discharge permit or coastal permit to do something 

that would contravene section 15 or section 15B, the consent authority must, in 

addition to the matters in section 104(1), have regard to— 

PAGE 4 OF 51 

(a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving 

environment to adverse effects; and 

(b) the applicant's reasons for the proposed choice; and 

(c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge 

into any other receiving environment. 

(2) If an application is for a resource consent for a reclamation, the consent 

authority must, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), consider whether an 

esplanade reserve or esplanade strip is appropriate and, if so, impose a 

condition under section 108(2)(g) on the resource consent.] 

107. Restriction on grant of certain discharge permits 

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a consent authority shall not grant a 

discharge permit [or a coastal permit to do something that would otherwise 

contravene section 15] [or section 15A] allowing— 

(a) The discharge of a contaminant or water into water; or 

[(b) A discharge of a contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which 

may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as 

a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or] 

[(ba) The dumping in the coastal marine area from any ship, aircraft, or 

offshore installation of any waste or other matter that is a 

contaminant,—] 

if, after reasonable mixing, the contaminant or water discharged (either by 

itself or in combination with the same, similar, or other contaminants or water), 

is likely to give rise to all or any of the following effects in the receiving 

waters: 

(c) The production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or 

foams, or floatable or suspended materials: 

(d) Any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity: 

(e) Any emission of objectionable odour: 

(f) The rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm 

animals: 

(g) Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.

[(2) A consent authority may grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do 

something that would otherwise contravene section 15 [[or section 15A]] that 

may allow any of the effects described in subsection (1) if it is satisfied— 

(a) That exceptional circumstances justify the granting of the permit; or 

(b) That the discharge is of a temporary nature; or 

(c) That the discharge is associated with necessary maintenance work— 

and that it is consistent with the purpose of this Act to do so.] 

[(3) In addition to any other conditions imposed under this Act, a discharge permit 

or coastal permit may include conditions requiring the holder of the permit to 

undertake such works in such stages throughout the term of the permit as will 

ensure that upon the expiry of the permit the holder can meet the requirements 

of subsection (1) and of any relevant regional rules.] 

108. Conditions of resource consents 

[(1) Except as expressly provided in this section and subject to any regulations, a 

resource consent may be granted on any condition that the consent authority 

considers appropriate, including any condition of a kind referred to in 

subsection (2).] 

[(2) A resource consent may include any one or more of the following conditions: 

(a) Subject to subsection (10), a condition requiring that a financial 

contribution be made: 

[[(b) a condition requiring provision of a bond (and describing the terms of 

that bond) in accordance with section 108A:]] 

(c) A condition requiring that services or works, including (but without 

limitation) the protection, planting, or replanting of any tree or other 

vegetation or the protection, restoration, or enhancement of any 

natural or physical resource, be provided: 

(d) In respect of any resource consent (other than a subdivision consent), 

a condition requiring that a covenant be entered into, in favour of the 

consent authority, in respect of the performance of any condition of 

the resource consent (being a condition which relates to the use of 

land to which the consent relates): 

(e) Subject to subsection (8), in respect of a discharge permit or a coastal 

permit to do something that would otherwise contravene section 15 

(relating to the discharge of contaminants) or section 15B, a condition 

requiring the holder to adopt the best practicable option to prevent or 

minimise any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment of the 

discharge and other discharges (if any) made by the person from the 

same site or source: 

PAGE 5 OF 51

PAGE 6 OF 51 

(f) In respect of a subdivision consent, any condition described in section 

220 (notwithstanding any limitation on the imposition of conditions 

provided for by [[section 77B(2)(c) or (3)(c)]]): 

(g) In respect of any resource consent for reclamation granted by the 

relevant consent authority, a condition requiring an esplanade reserve 

or esplanade strip of any specified width to be set aside or created 

under Part 10: 

(h) In respect of any coastal permit to occupy any part of the coastal 

marine area (relating to land of the Crown in the coastal marine area 

or land in the coastal marine area vested in the regional council), a 

condition— 

(i) Detailing the extent of the exclusion of other persons: 

(ii) Specifying any coastal occupation charge.] 

[(3) A consent authority may include as a condition of a resource consent a 

requirement that the holder of a resource consent supply to the consent 

authority information relating to the exercise of the resource consent.] 

[(4) Without limiting subsection (3), a condition made under that subsection may 

require the holder of the resource consent to do one or more of the following: 

(a) To make and record measurements: 

(b) To take and supply samples: 

(c) To carry out analyses, surveys, investigations, inspections, or other 

specified tests: 

(d) To carry out measurements, samples, analyses, surveys, 

investigations, inspections, or other specified tests in a specified 

manner: 

(e) To provide information to the consent authority at a specified time or 

times: 

(f) To provide information to the consent authority in a specified manner: 

(g) To comply with the condition at the holder of the resource consent's 

expense.] 

[(5) Any conditions of a kind referred to in subsection (3) that were made before 

the commencement of this subsection, and any action taken or decision made 

as a result of such a condition, are hereby declared to be, and to have always 

been, as valid as they would have been if subsections (3) and (4) had been 

included in this Act when the conditions were made, or the action was taken, or 

the decision was made.] 

(6) Repealed.

(7) Any condition under subsection [(2)(d)] may, among other things, provide that 

the covenant may be varied or cancelled or renewed at any time by agreement 

between the consent holder and the consent authority. 

(8) Before deciding to grant a discharge permit or a coastal permit to do something 

that would otherwise contravene section 15 (relating to the discharge of 

contaminants) [or 15B] subject to a condition described in subsection [(2)(e)], 

the consent authority shall be satisfied that, in the particular circumstances and 

having regard to— 

(a) The nature of the discharge and the receiving environment; and 

(b) Other alternatives, including any condition requiring the observance 

of minimum standards of quality of the receiving environment—the 

inclusion of that condition is the most efficient and effective means of 

preventing or minimising any actual or likely adverse effect on the 

environment. 

[(9) In this section, financial contribution means a contribution of— 

(a) Money; or 

(b) Land, including an esplanade reserve or esplanade strip (other than in 

relation to a subdivision consent), but excluding Maori land within the 

meaning of the Maori Land Act 1993 unless that Act provides 

otherwise; or 

(c) A combination of money and land.] 

[(10) A consent authority must not include a condition in a resource consent 

requiring a financial contribution unless— 

108A. Bonds 

(a) The condition is imposed in accordance with the purposes specified in 

the plan [[or proposed plan]] (including the purpose of ensuring 

positive effects on the environment to offset any adverse effect); and 

(b) The level of contribution is determined in the manner described in the 

plan [[or proposed plan]].] 

(1) A bond required under section 108(2)(b) may be given for the performance of 

any 1 or more conditions the consent authority considers appropriate and may 

continue after the expiry of the resource consent to secure the ongoing 

performance of conditions relating to long-term effects, including— 

(a) a condition relating to the alteration or removal of structures: 

(b) a condition relating to remedial, restoration, or maintenance work: 

(c) a condition providing for ongoing monitoring of long-term effects. 

PAGE 7 OF 51

(2) A condition describing the terms of the bond to be entered into under section 

108(2)(b) may— 

PAGE 8 OF 51 

(a) require that the bond be given before the resource consent is exercised 

or at any other time: 

(b) require that section 109(1) apply to the bond: 

(c) provide that the liability of the holder of the resource consent be not 

limited to the amount of the bond: 

(d) require the bond to be given to secure performance of conditions of 

the consent including conditions relating to any adverse effects on the 

environment that become apparent during or after the expiry of the 

consent: 

(e) require the holder of the resource consent to provide such security as 

the consent authority thinks fit for the performance of any condition of 

the bond: 

(f) require the holder of the resource consent to provide a guarantor 

(acceptable to the consent authority) to bind itself to pay for the 

carrying out of a condition in the event of a default by the holder or 

the occurrence of an adverse environmental effect requiring remedy: 

(g) provide that the bond may be varied or cancelled or renewed at any 

time by agreement between the holder and the consent authority. 

(3) If a consent authority considers that an adverse effect may continue or arise at 

any time after the expiration of a resource consent granted by it, the consent 

authority may require that a bond continue for a specified period that the 

consent authority thinks fit.] 

The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 

Chapter 4: The iwi environmental management system 

Objective 2 The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are taken into account in resource 

management. 

Policy 2 To support the active participation of tangata whenua in the development and 

implementation of resource management policy and plans, and in the resource consent 

granting process. 

Policy 2 emphasises the participation of tangata whenua in the processes and 

implementation of the Act 

Policy 4 To recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and 

traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Chapter 8: Air 

Objective 1 High quality air in the region is maintained and protected, and there is no 

significant deterioration in air quality in any part of the Region. 

Objective 1 recognises that insofar as it is possible to identify areas of high quality air, 

there is a need to ensure that as a minimum, such areas of high quality are maintained 

and protected. 

Objective 1 also reflects a public desire for high air quality in all locations and at all 

times. However, the objective also acknowledges through the use of the word 

“significant” that there may be circumstances and occasions when a minor or short-term 

deterioration of quality is a necessary and acceptable cost for the achievement of other 

objectives. 

Objective 3 The adverse effects of the discharge of contaminants into air on human 

health, local or global environmental systems and public amenity are avoided, remedied 

or mitigated. 

Objective 3 concerns avoiding or reducing adverse effects arising from the discharge of 

contaminants into air. In assessing such effects, consideration needs to be given to three 

closely related areas: 

• Adverse effects on human health; 

• Adverse effects on environmental systems, including effects on soil, water, plants 

and animals; and 

• Adverse effects on personal and public amenity, including effects on personal 

comfort and aesthetic enjoyment, and general environmental well-being. 

Policy 6 To avoid or minimise, where appropriate and practicable, the discharge of 

contaminants to air at their source by the development and implementation of improved 

control technology and by good pollution control practice. 

Policy 8 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of local and global air 

pollution on human health. 

Policy 10 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of air pollution on surface 

and groundwater, soil, plants and animals. 

Policy 11 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of air pollution on public 

amenity values. 

Policy 12 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of odours on public amenity. 

Policy 10 deals with a range of environmental effects that arise from air pollution. It 

seeks to avoid, for example, unintended damage to plants and animals from spray drift, 

or the deposition of lead from vehicle exhausts in waterways. This policy is augmented 

by Policy 6, which seeks to reduce air pollution through good practice. Policy 10 is also 

supported by specific policies in the Fresh Water, Soil, Ecosystems and Coastal 

Environment chapters of the Regional Policy Statement. 

PAGE 9 OF 51

Policy 11 identifies the need to protect a range of amenity values from the adverse 

effects of air pollution. In the Act, amenity values are interpreted as: 

.... those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to 

people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and 

recreational attributes. 

Explanation. The policy therefore deals with concerns about the effects of air pollution 

on visual quality, on the damage that chemical erosion can have on the appearance and 

structural integrity of important buildings, and on tangata whenua perceptions of the 

value of air as taonga. 

Policy 12 specifically distinguishes odour as one important facet of amenity, and aims 

to tackle the problematic area of odour management. The variability of tolerance 

between individuals, and technical difficulties in measuring odours means that a range 

of perceptions and flexibility in interpretation will need to be accommodated in 

managing odours. 

Chapter 13: Waste Management and Hazardous Substances 

Objective 2 The quantity of residual wastes for disposal is minimised through reuse, 

recycling and resource recovery. 

Many materials which have reached the end of their useful life in one form may still 

have similar or other uses in a different form. Reusing materials for the same or similar 

purposes, recycling and recovering materials from the waste stream (e.g., compost or 

energy) are ways of making use of resources which would otherwise be disposed of as 

waste. This reduces the amount of residual waste material which needs to be disposed 

of (and therefore reduces the problems associated with waste disposal) and provides 

opportunities for sustainable production based on reused materials rather than on raw 

resources. 

Objective 3 Adverse effects on the environment and human health from the 

inappropriate disposal of residual liquid and solid wastes are avoided or, where this is 

not possible, remedied or mitigated. 

Explanation. Even if all possible steps are taken to minimise the amount of waste left for 

disposal, there will still be some materials which cannot be reused, recycled or 

recovered from the waste stream. The objective for residual waste is to dispose of it in a 

manner which avoids the adverse effects on human health and the environment which 

have characterised past waste management practices. Not all adverse effects from 

waste disposal can be avoided immediately, particularly effects that result from poor 

waste management practices in the past. They can, however, be remedied or mitigated 

and planning to avoid adverse environmental effects now will save future generations 

from the problems of dealing with our wastes and contaminants. 

Policy 2 To adopt and implement the waste management hierarchy of: 

(1) Reducing the amount of waste generated; 

(2) Reusing waste resources; 

PAGE 10 OF 51

(3) Recycling waste resources; 

(4) Recovering resources (including energy) from waste; and 

(5) Disposing of residual waste in an environmentally safe way. 

Policy 6 To provide opportunities for the reuse of waste materials, recycling, and the 

recovery of resources from waste (including composting and the recovery of landfill 

gas). 

Policy 8 To avoid, remedy or mitigate all adverse effects of waste disposal sites, 

including those sites that are no longer used for waste disposal, and as a matter of 

priority to avoid the adverse effects of landfill leachate. 

Explanation. In the Wellington Region, solid wastes are normally disposed of in 

landfills. Policies 8 and 9 deal with the adverse effects of landfills and other waste 

disposal sites and encompass mitigating the adverse effects of old waste disposal sites, 

managing existing sites well and planning for the future (including rehabilitating 

existing landfill sites once they are no longer used for waste disposal and siting new 

landfills if necessary). These policies have been adopted because although waste 

minimisation is the long-term priority in the Region, the environmental effects of 

landfills require urgent attention. Leachates are identified as a priority because at 

present leachates from most Wellington landfills are not effectively managed and often 

cause pollution through contamination of waterways. 

Landfill siting decisions can influence the effects of the disposal of wastes. Rational 

landfill siting occurs when Region-wide community benefit considerations are reflected 

in decisions on landfill siting and when siting takes full account of the constraints 

imposed by the environment. Community benefit considerations include matters such as 

the waste disposal needs of the entire community of interest (which may extend beyond 

jurisdictional boundaries) and making the best use of the limited number of cost 

effective landfill sites in the Region. 

Policies on high temperature incineration have not been included in the Regional Policy 

Statement, as incineration does not appear to be a practical option for disposal of solid 

wastes in the near future in the Region. It requires a large waste stream in order to 

remain economic and there are also environmental problems associated with the 

disposal of incinerator ash. However, the possibility of incineration becoming a waste 

disposal option in the future is not excluded. 

Policy 13 To minimise the risk of damage to the environment and human health from 

contaminated sites in the Region. 

PAGE 11 OF 51

The Regional Air Quality Management Plan for the Wellington Region 

4. Objectives and Policies 

4.1 Objectives 

4.1.1 High quality air in the Region is maintained and protected, degraded air is 

enhanced, and there is no significant deterioration in ambient air quality in any part of 

the Region. 

Objective 4.1.1 is implemented by all the policies in this Plan. 

4.1.2 Discharges to air in the Region are managed in a way, or at a rate which enables 

people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing 

and for their health and safety while ensuring that adverse effects, including any adverse 

effects on: 

• local ambient air quality; 

• human health; 

• amenity values; 

• resources or values of significance to tangata whenua; 

• the quality of ecosystems, water, and soil; and 

• the global atmosphere; 

are avoided, remedied or mitigated. 

4.2 Policies 

General ambient air quality management 

4.2.1 To have regard to the Regional Ambient Air Quality Guidelines in Appendix 2, in 

managing the Region's air resource. 

Explanation. Ambient air quality guidelines set out desired levels of specified 

contaminants in the air. Ambient air quality reflects the cumulative effects of all 

activities. The ambient air quality guidelines, as adopted from the National Ambient Air 

Quality Guidelines (MFE, 1994), are outlined in Appendix 2. In this Appendix: 

• the maximum acceptable levels are defined as the level adequate to protect the 

health of individuals. These levels would be applied in areas where existing activity 

has had a significant effect on air quality; and 

• the maximum desirable levels are defined as the level that will provide maximum 

protection to the environment, taking into account existing air quality, community 

expectations, economic implications, and the purpose and principles of the Act. 

Desirable levels are appropriate guidelines or targets in rural or residential areas, 

PAGE 12 OF 51

and in other areas with good air quality. These levels are based on Canadian 

standards and do not appear in the National Ambient Air Quality Guidelines. 

Averaging times are the times over which the average level of the indicator should not 

exceed the levels given in the guidelines. The methods (Australian Standards) to be used 

for measuring the indicators are indicated in Appendix 2. 

These guidelines are not generally intended to be used to set individual emission limits. 

They are likely to be used in this way only when the nature or scale of a proposed 

activity is likely to have effects on air quality which outweigh all other activities in the 

area, and/or when there is data available on the effects of all other discharges in an 

area. 

4.2.2 To adopt the indicators specified in Appendix 2 as the principal ambient air 

quality indicators for air quality in the Wellington Region. 

Explanation: Ambient air quality indicators are indicators representative of the overall 

quality of the air in an area. Appropriate indicators will vary across the urban and 

rural areas. In the first instance indicators will be prioritised and adopted from 

Appendix 2 according to the area of the Region being monitored. Other indicators, such 

as benzene, will also be included for monitoring should they become a cause for 

concern or more prevalent in discharges to air. The monitoring of other indicators need 

not necessarily be heralded by a change to the Plan. 

4.2.4 To avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect of the discharge of contaminants 

to air that is noxious, dangerous, offensive, or objectionable. 

Explanation: This policy reflects the general duty under section 5 of the Act to promote 

the sustainable management of natural and physical resources by avoiding, remedying 

or mitigating adverse effects. It also reflects the general duty placed on all persons 

under section 17 of the Act to "avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effect on the 

environment from an activity carried on, by or on behalf of that person". It applies to all 

individuals or groups carrying out an activity which involves the discharge of a 

contaminant to air. 

4.2.5 To avoid or minimise, where appropriate and practicable, the discharge of 

contaminants to air at their source. 

Explanation: Most discharges to air are "wastes", in that they are unwanted byproducts 

of a process. It is now commonly accepted (e.g., in central government waste 

management policy) that priority should be given to minimising wastes at source. The 

words "where appropriate and practicable" in this policy indicate that in some 

situations alternative ways of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of 

air pollution may be more appropriate than avoiding or minimising emissions at their 

source. 

4.2.6 To ensure that any measures adopted to avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of 

discharges of contaminants to air, take account of the sensitivity of alternative receiving 

environments (e.g., water or soil). 

Explanation: Measures taken to control the effects of discharges to air (and in 

particular, measures which minimise those discharges may increase adverse effects on 

PAGE 13 OF 51

other parts of the environment (e.g., water or soil). This policy requires that effects of 

this type be considered in an integrated manner when assessing options to avoid, 

remedy or mitigate the effects of discharges of contaminants to air. 

4.2.7 To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the discharge of contaminants 

to air on amenity values. 

Explanation: This policy recognises the need to protect amenity values most commonly 

affected by the emission of smoke, dust and odour. 

4.2.9 To give particular consideration, where relevant, to the following matters when 

assessing an application for a resource consent to discharge contaminants to air: 

(1) the volume, composition and characteristics of the discharge, including the 

maximum ground level concentration of significant contaminants in the 

discharge, especially hazardous contaminants identified in Appendix 1 and any 

contaminants listed in Appendix 2; 

(2) the frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness, location and time of the 

discharge; 

(3) the potential for the discharge to be reduced at source, and in particular, the 

desirability of minimising the emission of any of the "Hazardous Air 

Contaminants" identified in Appendix 1; 

(4) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on human health and safety; 

(5) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on amenity values, including 

any effects of odour or particulate matter arising from the discharge; 

(6) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on resources or values of 

significance to tangata whenua; 

(7) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on the health and functioning of 

ecosystems, plants and animals, including indigenous ecosystems and plants 

and animals of commercial significance; 

(8) any actual or potential effects of the discharge on other environmental media; 

(9) any actual or potential effects on the global atmosphere; 

(10) any cumulative effects which may arise over time or in combination with other 

effects; 

(11) any effects of low probability but high potential impact; 

(12) any positive effects arising from activities associated with the discharge; and 

(13) any other relevant matters. 

Explanation: This policy sets out the matters to which the Council will give particular 

consideration when assessing an application to discharge a contaminant to air. These 

PAGE 14 OF 51

matters will be considered to the extent relevant to the particular application (not all of 

the matters in this Policy will be relevant to all discharges). The Policy does not limit 

the matters that may be considered by the Council. 

Part (1) examines the nature of the discharge. Particular attention will be given to the 

presence of any hazardous contaminants identified in Appendix 1 and/or any of the 

provisional regional ambient air quality indicators identified in Appendix 2. Part (2) 

lists six factors which need to be considered 

when assessing the effects of a discharge. Part (3) looks at the potential for the effects 

of the discharge to be reduced through the use of cleaner production techniques and the 

use of emission control technology. In particular, the Council will consider the potential 

for any hazardous contaminants to be reduced. 

The remaining parts of the Policy relate to the actual and potential effects that a 

discharge may have on various aspects of the environment. In Part (4), "health" 

includes the physical, mental and social health of any individual or group of 

individuals. This is closely related to Part (5), which includes an examination of 

nuisance effects, effects on visibility, and effects on the appearance of structures (e.g., 

soiling of buildings). In relation to Part (6), effects such as loss of visibility or the 

presence of offensive odours may impair the cultural significance of waahi tapu or 

valued natural and physical resources (taonga). Part (7) of the Policy is particularly 

concerned with effects on indigenous ecosystems, other ecosystems of high national, 

regional or local value, and effects on plants and animals of commercial significance. 

Part (8) examines the cross-media effects of contaminants discharged to air (e.g., the 

effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems of any discharge to air which may 

precipitate into water). Part (9) of the Policy examines effects of potential global 

significance, including the discharge of contaminants that may contribute to global 

warming or ozone depletion or similar problems. Particular attention will be given to 

the need to be consistent with any central government commitments in these areas. 

Cumulative effects (Part (10)) may arise either from the interaction of two or more 

contaminants (e.g., nitrogen dioxide can contribute to the formation of acidic 

compounds that can harm plants and animals), from the accumulated effects of a single 

contaminant over time (e.g., fluoride can accumulate in stock from grazing on pasture 

and feed), or from the cumulative effects of a number of discharges in one area. Effects 

of low probability but high potential impact include effects that might occur in an 

emergency discharge situation. Positive effects are included within the meaning of 

"effect" in section 3 of the RMA. 

4.2.10 To adopt the following approach when placing conditions on air discharge 

permits: 

(1) to set emission limits on a discharge, where appropriate, in order to minimise 

its effects on ambient air quality and the surrounding environment; 

(2) to require, where appropriate, that the best practicable option (BPO) be adopted 

to prevent or minimise the adverse effects arising from discharges; 

(3) to minimise the emission of any of the hazardous air contaminants identified in 

Appendix 1; 

PAGE 15 OF 51

(4) to require, where appropriate, an operations manual and contingency plans 

relating to discharges; 

(5) to require, where relevant, adherence to particular guidelines or codes of 

practice; and 

(6) to require appropriate effects-based monitoring, where appropriate, which may 

consider a wider range of air contaminants and their effects than those listed in 

Appendix 2. 

Explanation: This Policy sets out the Council's approach to developing conditions on 

permits for the discharge of contaminants to air. The Policy indicates the Council's 

general approach but does not restrict its ability to adopt any other approach where 

necessary and appropriate. 

Part (1) promotes the adoption of emission limits where it is appropriate. "Where 

appropriate" includes, but is not limited to, considering how much information is 

available on the nature of a discharge to minimise its effects on ambient air quality and 

the surrounding environment. There is currently limited information on background 

levels. Only in situations where there is good nformation available on background 

levels of contaminants and the likely effects of other discharges in an area on ambient 

air quality, are the regional ambient air quality guidelines (Appendix 2) likely to be 

used in setting appropriate emission limits for individual activities,1 otherwise Part (2) 

of the policy will be more relevant than Part (1). 

Applicants should provide the Council with justification for any ambient guidelines used 

when assessing the effects of an activity. 

Parts (2) and (3) of the policy promote the adoption of the best practicable option 

(BPO), where there is insufficient information on the nature of the discharge and/or its 

effect on ambient air quality. The best practicable option is defined in section 2 of the 

Act. 

The BPO takes into account all discharges from a source (to land, water and air) to 

identify the best option for minimising any adverse effects. This may involve minimising 

discharges at their source. This approach is consistent with Policy 4.2.5 of this Plan 

which promotes the minimisation of discharges at their source. 

Before including a condition in a resource consent requiring that the BPO be adopted, 

the Council must be satisfied that this is the most efficient and effective means of 

preventing or minimising any actual or likely adverse effect on the environment. The 

Council will have regard to the nature of the 

discharge, the receiving environment, and other alternatives, including any condition 

requiring the observance of minimum standards (RMA section 108(8)). The BPO would 

therefore be an appropriate approach to be applied in the absence of emission 

standards or good information on the effects of a discharge on ambient air quality. It is 

likely to be a relatively common approach during the period when information on the 

effects of activities on ambient air quality is being collected. 

Part (4) of the policy acknowledges that even with the best control equipment, if 

maintenance or operating procedures are poor, adverse environmental effects can still 

PAGE 16 OF 51

arise from the discharge. Often good practice may be the best means of avoiding, 

remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of an activity. Part (5) recognises the 

importance of guidelines and codes of practice, as highlighted in Policy 8, in achieving 

the avoidance, remediation or mitigation of adverse effects. 

4.2.11 To recognise that there are circumstances where placing conditions on resource 

consents may not be sufficient to adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse 

effects of a proposal, and that in such circumstances a consent application will be 

declined. 

Explanation: This policy indicates that in some circumstances adverse effects will be of 

such significance that an application must be declined. 

The Regional Plan Discharges to Land for the Wellington Region 

4. Objectives and Policies 

4.1 Objectives 

Solid contaminants 

4.1.1 The quantity of wastes discharged to land in the Region is significantly reduced 

by: 

(1) minimising the amount of waste generated at its source; 

(2) re-using, recycling and recovering materials from the waste stream to the 

greatest extent practicable; and 

(3) ensuring that waste generators meet the true costs of managing the wastes they 

produce. 

4.1.2 The Region's landfills are sited rationally, with respect to community benefit and 

environmental considerations. 

4.1.3 Any adverse effects from discharging solid contaminants to land are avoided, 

remedied or mitigated. 

Site contamination management 

4.1.10 Any risk to human and environmental health presented by contaminated sites is 

lowered to an acceptable level or the site is otherwise managed in an appropriate and 

timely manner. 

4.2 Policies 

Reducing the amount of residual solid waste discharged to land 

4.2.1 To encourage all organisations and individuals who generate or manage waste to 

Implement the waste management hierarchy, to the greatest extent practicable, in 

relation to their own operations, by: 

PAGE 17 OF 51

(1) reducing the amount and/or toxicity of material entering the waste stream; 

(2) re-using materials; 

(3) recycling the material that cannot be reused; 

(4) recovering resources from materials in the waste stream; 

(5) taking responsibility for the safe and effective management of the residual 

wastes that remain after the waste stream has been reduced through the 

application of each of the previous steps; and 

(6) rehabilitating the environment after the disposal of residual wastes. 

Explanation: The waste management hierarchy is an internationally recognised and 

accepted framework for the integrated management of waste. Applying the hierarchy 

can help reduce both the quantity of residual wastes discharged to land, and the effects 

of any unavoidable discharges. 

The first priority in the hierarchy is to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of material 

that enters the waste stream at its source. The second priority is to reuse and recycle as 

much as possible. The third priority is to recover as much material from the waste 

stream as possible (e.g., recovery of compost from organic waste, or recovery of energy 

from landfill gas). The final priority in the international hierarchy is to manage any 

residual wastes effectively. However, a sixth step, environmental rehabilitation, has 

been added to this policy to reflect circumstances specific to New Zealand. This step is 

recognised by tangata whenua, and takes account of the need to restore mauri and the 

environment to an acceptable state. 

There are costs and benefits associated with the rigorous application of the hierarchy. 

Analysis is therefore required to identify the most appropriate level of the hierarchy at 

each opportunity for waste reduction. The lower steps of the hierarchy should only be 

favoured where these can be shown to be the best practicable option. 

Managing adverse effects of solid contaminant discharges 

4.2.8 To ensure that discharges of residual solid wastes to land in the Region occur only 

by way of: 

(1) disposal in municipal or private landfills which have the appropriate discharge 

consents required by the Act and this Plan; or 

(2) disposal in cleanfills, provided that the discharge is not subject to biological or 

chemical breakdown; or 

(3) disposal in any other situation where the discharge consists only of household 

or farm wastes generated on the property, or inert solids, provided that any 

adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. 

Explanation: This policy applies only to residual solid wastes - it does not apply to 

"wastes" which are being (or are to be) re-used, recycled, recovered (e.g., by 

composting), or transferred to an eventual disposal site. The Policy sets out the 

PAGE 18 OF 51

acceptable ways in which residual solid wastes may be discharged to land in the 

Region. 

The consent requirements referred to in clause (1) of the Policy are set out in section 

5.3.1 of this Plan. In addition to any requirements for discharge consents set out in this 

Plan, landfills and cleanfills may also require land use permits from territorial 

authorities. 

Clause (3) indicates two situations in which solid wastes may be discharged on private 

land. The first is where the discharge consists only of wastes generated on the property. 

This means that waste disposal sites on private land which accept wastes from other 

sources, and which do not have the required resource consents, are illegal. The second 

situation applies to inert solids such as quarry wastes (rock, etc.). The effects of 

particular concern in this clause are effects on water quality, health and amenity 

values. 

4.2.9 To give particular consideration to the following matters when assessing 

applications for permits to discharge contaminants to land, in relation to the 

operation of a landfill: 

(1) the nature of the residual wastes to be discharged; 

(2) the location of the landfill and the hydrogeological conditions at and around the 

site, and any actions which may be required in order to address any risks posed 

by the site; 

(3) any steps taken or planned to reduce the quantity of residual wastes disposed of 

at the landfill; 

(4) the potential for any long term contamination or other long term effects arising 

from the landfill operation, and any actions planned or required in order to 

avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of the landfill when it is no 

longer used for the disposal of residual wastes; 

(5) any effects of landfill leachate and stormwater on groundwater, surface water 

and coastal water; 

(6) the effects of any discharge of landfill gas, odour or other contaminant to air, 

and the desirability of recovering landfill gas where practicable; 

(7) any actual or potential effects of any discharges on human health or amenity, 

and on the health and functioning of plants, animals or ecosystems; 

(8) whether the discharge will attract pest populations, and the potential effects of 

the pests on sensitive land uses; 

(9) any other uses or values of the site and surrounding area, including any values 

placed on the site by tangata whenua; and 

(10) the need for, and adequacy of, discharge monitoring systems at the landfill, 

including: 

PAGE 19 OF 51

PAGE 20 OF 51 

(a) the Waste Analysis Protocol; 

(b) landfill leachate monitoring; and 

(c) landfill gas monitoring. 

Explanation: This Policy sets out the matters which the Council will consider when 

assessing applications for discharge permits for landfills. The Policy applies to any 

discharges to land, including any discharges which occur when the landfill is no longer 

used for waste disposal. Rules controlling discharges of contaminants to air and water 

in relation to the operation of landfills are be addressed in the Regional Air Quality 

Management Plan and Regional Fresh Water Plan. The Policy does not in any way 

limit other matters that may be considered by the Council. 

Clause (1) of the Policy is concerned with the types and characteristics of the wastes 

entering the landfill and the influence that these have on the processes occurring in the 

landfill, and the effects of contaminants (e.g., leachate) discharged from the landfill. 

Some aspects of landfill siting (clause (2)) are set out in Policy 4.2.6. Other landfill 

siting criteria of interest to the Council include topography, climatic conditions, and the 

likely end use of the site. 

Matters such as the provision of composting and recycling facilities are relevant to 

Clause (3). The effects of concern in clause (4) include the on-going production of 

leachate and landfill gas, and surface subsidence. 

The effects listed in s.107 of the Act and the provisions of the Regional Coastal Plan 

and Regional Freshwater Plan will guide the Council in applying clause (5). Landfill 

gas recovery (clause (6)) will be strongly encouraged in all new landfills, but it may not 

be practical at older landfills. In these cases management practices can help reduce the 

effects of landfill gas, (e.g., compaction of waste as it is deposited helps to create 

anaerobic conditions which reduce the likelihood of the spontaneous combustion of 

methane; provision of low permeability barriers within the perimeter of the landfill will 

help to prevent lateral migration of gases off-site). 

Clause (8) targets landfill management practices which may provide a food source for 

gulls or rats. Gulls can be a particular problem at airports, and both gulls and rats can 

endanger nearby conservation areas. Effects on tangata whenua values (clause (9)) may 

include effects on waahi tapu or other taonga, and effects on values of water (e.g., for 

mahinga kai or spiritual purposes). The scale of monitoring (clause (10)) should be 

consistent with the scale of potential effects. Many of the matters addressed in this 

Policy can be managed in an integrated manner through the preparation of a landfill 

management plan, as required in Policy 4.2.10 below. 

4.2.10 To require the effects of discharges to and from landfills to be managed in 

accordance with site-specific landfill management plans. 

Explanation: This Policy sets out the main mechanisms through which the adverse 

environmental effects of landfills are to be managed. 

Landfill management plans are a means of systematically managing the adverse effects 

of discharges to and from landfills. The contents of a typical landfill management plan 

are outlined in Appendix 2.

4.2.11 To allow the temporary discharge of solid contaminants onto land, provided that 

any adverse effects on water quality, soils and amenity values can be avoided, remedied 

or mitigated. 

Explanation: The adverse effects referred to in the Policy include any adverse effects on 

water quality that may arise from leachates produced by the stored materials, effects on 

soil quality and soil structure (e.g., some discharges can reduce oxygen availability in 

soils, affecting plant life), and effects on amenity values (e.g., odour, dust). 

The Policy has been included to clarify the broad interpretation of “contaminant" and 

"discharge" in the Act, and indicates that the Council does not intend to regulate 

activities which involve temporary discharges with no adverse effects. 

Managing contaminated sites 

4.2.46 To develop, in consultation with site owners, occupiers and territorial authorities, 

strategies for further action for contaminated sites. 

Explanation: Policy 4.2.46 provides direction for the Council to consult with affected 

parties when developing strategies for dealing with contaminated sites. 

There is a variety of options for further action once a site has been confirmed as 

contaminated, including: 

• removal of contaminated material; 

• chemical treatment; 

• bio-remediation; and 

• in-situ treatment. 

The Council prepared a Contaminated Site Management Strategy in 1996, based on a 

report prepared by Tonkin and Taylor. In accordance with this Policy, any new 

strategies will be developed in consultation with site owners or occupiers, and 

territorial authorities. 

The ANZECC Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Contaminated 

Sites provide useful information on appropriate remedial action and clean-up 

standards. The Regional Council's approach is to address clean-up requirements on a 

case-by-case basis within the general framework provided by the Guidelines. 

4.2.47 To encourage owners of contaminated sites causing adverse effects on the 

environment to: 

(a) take primary responsibility for characterising the degree of contamination of 

the site; 

(b) inform the Regional Council so that the site can be registered on the Regional 

database; 

(c) take responsibility for appropriate remedial action (if necessary) or 

management of the site; and 

PAGE 21 OF 51

(d) apply for resource consents for any discharges arising from the site that may 

have adverse effects, including any discharges resulting from remedial action. 

(2) To encourage owners of sites with a history of using, storing or manufacturing 

hazardous substances to inform the Regional Council so that the site can be 

investigated and assessed for the presence or absence of contaminants on the 

site. 

Explanation: This Policy should be read in conjunction with Policy 4.2.49, which sets 

out the Council's policy on sites for which liability is in question. 

Policy 4.2.47also encourages owners of sites to inform the Council if their site has a 

history of land use that could have caused site contamination. However, this is not the 

only means by which information may be included on the Regional database. The 

Council will be carrying out its own investigations as set out in Policy 4.2.43. 

Policy 4.2.47 also encourages site owners to take responsibility for characterising the 

nature of any contamination on their site. The Council may share this responsibility, 

particularly in situations where liability is in question. The owner is responsible for 

avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of discharges of contaminants 

from the site. In accordance with section 15 of the Act, the Council will require the 

owner to apply for resource consents for any site discharges (e.g., discharge of 

contaminated stormwater, disposal of contaminated soil), except discharges allowed by 

a rule in the Plan. This Policy applies to sites which remain contaminated and to sites 

for which remedial action is proposed. 

The Council will transfer sufficient information to the relevant territorial authority to 

enable them to carry out their functions for controlling the use of land. Method 6.5.5 

provides for the development of the necessary procedures. 

4.2.48 To give particular consideration to the following matters when assessing 

applications for permits for discharges associated with contaminated sites: 

(1) the nature, concentration and quantity of contaminants at the site; 

(2) the potential for contaminants from the site to contaminate surrounding: 

PAGE 22 OF 51 

• groundwater; 

• surface water; 

• soil; or 

• air; 

and any effects of that contamination; 

(3) the potential for direct or indirect contact of humans or animals with 

contaminants on the site; 

(4) any actual or potential adverse effects on: 

• human health; 

• the health and functioning of plants, animals or ecosystems; or

• existing or future uses of water or land on the site and in the surrounding 

area; 

(5) any potential long-term or cumulative effects of discharges from the site; 

(6) any remedial action planned or required in relation to the site, and the potential 

adverse effects of any remedial action on the matters listed in (1)-(5) above, 

whether at the site or at another location; and 

(7) The ANZECC Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of 

Contaminated Sites and the Draft Health and Environmental Guidelines for 

Selected Timber Treatment Chemicals,40 and any other relevant national or 

international guidelines of standards. 

Explanation: This Policy sets out the matters which the Council will consider when 

assessing discharge permits for contaminated sites. The Policy covers all discharges 

from contaminated sites (to land, water and air), and discharges which are part of the 

remediation of contaminated sites. The Policy does not limit other matters which may 

be considered by the Council. 

Clauses (2) and (3) examine potential exposure pathways for contaminants leaving the 

site. These include run-off or leaching into water, wind blown dust, migration of 

hazardous gas through soil, and exposure of humans or animals (both directly - e.g., 

ingestion of soil -and indirectly - e.g., ingestion of plants which have become 

contaminated). 

Clause (6) addresses any remedial action which may be required (as a condition on a 

resource consent) and any effects which may arise from remedial action. Remedial 

action covered by this Policy includes discharges from any in situ treatment or any 

collection and subsequent disposal of contaminated material. In the latter case, the 

Council wishes to ensure that disposal of contaminated material does not simply shift 

the contamination to a new site. The Council is also concerned that the level of 

remediation is appropriate for the level of risk and the costs of management. 

Clause (7) provides for the use of the most relevant clean-up standards or guidelines 

available. This recognises that these documents are constantly being updated as new 

technologies are developed. 

4.2.49 To adopt a case-by-case approach to the management of every contaminated site 

for which ownership or responsibility for contamination and remedial action 

cannot be clearly identified. 

Explanation: Responsibility for managing contaminated sites (including any remedial 

action) is unclear in situations where: 

• site owners or occupants are not able to be identified; 

• the occupier, rather than the owner, may be responsible for the contamination; 

• the current owner, acting responsibly but in ignorance, acquired a contaminated 

site that needs remedial action; or 

• the scale of contamination is such that it is beyond the resources of the owner or 

polluter to deal with it. 

PAGE 23 OF 51

This Policy directs the Council to adopt a flexible approach with respect to liability and 

the development of appropriate responses in cases where liability is complex. It is 

anticipated that this Policy will apply to only a small number of sites in the Region. 

Waste Minimisation Act 2008 

Part 2 

Product stewardship 

8 Purpose of Part 

The purpose of this Part is to encourage (and, in certain circumstances, require) the 

people and organisations involved in the life of a product to share responsibility for— 

10 

2008 No 89 Waste Minimisation Act 2008 Part 2 s 9 

(a) ensuring there is effective reduction, reuse, recycling, or recovery of the product; 

and 

(b) managing any environmental harm arising from the product when it becomes waste. 

Priority products 

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards Relating to 

Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) Regulations 2004 SR 

2004/309 

Index 

SR 2004/433 - Amendment 2004 is consolidated in this version. Text that has been 

amended by these Amendment Regulations is indicated in green. SR 2005/214 - 

Amendment 2005 is consolidated in this version. Text that has been amended by these 

Amendment Regulations is indicated in blue. 

Silvia Cartwright, Governor-General 

Order in Council 

At Wellington this 6th day of September 2004 

Present: 

Her Excellency the Governor-General in Council 

Pursuant to section 43 of the Resource Management Act 1991, Her Excellency the 

Governor-General, acting on the advice and with the consent of the Executive Council 

(given on the recommendation of the Minister for the Environment after consultation in 

accordance with section 44 of that Act), makes the following regulations. 

PAGE 24 OF 51

Contents 

1 Title 

2 Commencement 

3 Interpretation 

Prohibitions and restrictions on discharges from certain activities 

4 Prohibition on discharges from certain activities 

5 Prohibition on granting of resource consents for certain activities 

6 Lighting of fires and burning of waste at landfill 

7 Burning of tyres 

8 Burning of bitumen 

9 Burning of coated wire 

10 Burning of oil 

11 Incinerators at schools and healthcare institutions 

12 High-temperature hazardous waste incinerators 

Ambient air quality standards for contaminants 

13 Ambient air quality standards 

14 Application of standards 

15 Regional council must monitor air quality if standard breached 

16 Regional council must give public notice if standard breached 

Resource consents for discharges of PM10 

17 Application of Regulations 17A to 17C 

17A Application must be declined if discharges likely to cause concentration of 

PM10 in airshed to be above straight line path 

17B Application must be decided in accordance with regional plan if regional plan 

provides for curved line path 

17C Other applications must be declined unless discharges offset 

18 Resource consents for PM10 discharges before 1 September 2013 if 

concentration in airshed does not breach standard 

19 Resource consents for PM10 discharges after 31 August 2013 

PAGE 25 OF 51

Resource consents for discharges of other contaminants 

20 Resource consents for discharge of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and 

volatile organic compounds 

21 Resource consents for discharge of sulphur dioxide 

Wood burners 

22 Discharge from woodburners installed on certain properties after 1 September 

2005 prohibited 

23 Design standard 

24 Thermal efficiency standard 

Control of greenhouse gas emissions at landfills 

25 Application of regulations 26 and 27 

26 Control of gas 

27 Flaring of gas 

Schedule 1 


Schedule 2 

Monitoring methods for ambient air quality standards 

Regulations 

1 Title 

PAGE 26 OF 51 

These regulations are the Resource Management (National Environmental 

Standards Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) 

Regulations 2004. 


(1) Regulation 11 comes into force on 1 October 2006. 

(2) Regulations 13 to 24 come into force on 1 September 2005. 

(3) The rest of these regulations come into force on 8 October 2004. 


(1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, 

Act means the Resource Management Act 1991

airshed means 

(a) the region of a regional council excluding any area specified in a notice under 

paragraph (b): 

(b) a part of the region of a regional council specified by the Minister by notice in 

the Gazette to be a separate airshed 

ambient air quality standard means the standard prescribed by regulation 13(1) 

backup flare means a flare that is designed to burn only when the principal flare to 

which it relates is not operating 

Basel Convention means the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements 

of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, done at Basel on 22 March 1989 

cleanfill--- 

(a) means a landfill that accepts only material that, when buried or placed, will not 

have an adverse effect on the environment; but 

(b) does not include a landfill that contains 5% or more (by weight) putrescible 

matter 

film--- 

(a) means a cinematograph film, and any other material record of visual moving 

images that is capable of being used for the subsequent display of those 

images; but 

(b) excludes--- 

(i) anything that was not created primarily for showing at a cinema, 

broadcasting on television, or using for educational purposes; and 

(ii) home movies 

hazardous waste means waste that - 

(a) belongs to 1 or more of the categories in Annex I of the Basel Convention; and 

(b) has 1 or more of the characteristics in Annex III of that Convention 

health care institution has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Health and 

Disability Commissioner Act 1994 

high temperature hazardous waste incinerator means an incinerator that is designed 

and operated principally for burning hazardous waste at a temperature greater than 

850°C as measured--- 

(a) near the inner wall of the incinerator; or 

PAGE 27 OF 51

(b) at another point in the combustion chamber where the temperature is likely to 

represent the temperature in the incinerator 

landfill means a site where waste is disposed of by burying it, or placing it upon land or 

other waste 

multifuel heater means a domestic heating appliance designed to burn more than one 

type of solid fuel 

oil--- 

(a) means petroleum in any form other than gas; and 

(b) includes crude oil, fuel oil sludge, oil refuse, and refined oil products (for 

example, diesel fuel, kerosene, and motor gasoline) 

PM10 means particulate matter that is--- 

(a) less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter; and 

(b) measured in accordance with the United States Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 40--- Protection of Environment, Volume 2, Part 50, Appendix J --- 

Reference method for the determination of particulate matter as PM10 in the 

atmosphere 

solid fuel means a solid substance that releases useable energy when burnt (for 

example, wood and coal) 

waste means substances or objects that are disposed of or intended to be disposed of 

woodburner--- 

(a) means a domestic heating appliance that burns wood; but 

(b) does not include--- 

PAGE 28 OF 51 

(i) an open fire; or 

(ii) a multifuel heater, a pellet heater, or a coal burning heater; or 

(iii) a stove that is--- 

(A) designed and used for cooking; and 

(B) heated by burning wood. 

(2) A term or expression that is defined in the Act and used, but not defined, in 

these regulations has the same meaning as in the Act.

Prohibitions and restrictions on discharges from certain activities 

4 Prohibition on discharges from certain activities 

A discharge of a contaminant to air from an activity specified in any of regulations 6 to 

12 is prohibited, except to the extent that the regulation provides otherwise. 

5 Prohibition on granting of resource consents for certain activities 

(1) A resource consent may not be granted for a discharge of a contaminant to air 

from an activity specified in any of regulations 6 to 12, except to the extent that 

the regulation provides otherwise. 

(2) If a resource consent is granted for an activity, the activity is a discretionary 

activity for the purposes of the Act. 

6 Lighting of fires and burning of waste at landfill 

(1) The lighting of fires and the burning of waste at a landfill are prohibited. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if--- 

(a) the lighting of a fire is to control gas formed at the landfill; and 

(b) the landfill complies with the requirements of regulations 25 to 27. 

7 Burning of tyres 

(1) The burning of tyres is prohibited. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the tyres are burnt at industrial and trade 

premises that have--- 

(a) a resource consent for the discharge produced; and 

(b) emission control equipment that is designed and operated to minimise 

emissions of dioxins and other toxics from the process. 

8 Burning of bitumen 

The burning of bitumen on a road is prohibited. 

9 Burning of coated wire 

(1) The burning of wire coated with any material is prohibited. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the wire is burnt at industrial and trade 

premises that have--- 

(a) a resource consent for the discharge produced; and 

(b) emission control equipment that is designed and operated to minimise 

emissions of dioxins and other toxics from the process. 

PAGE 29 OF 51

10 Burning of oil 

(1) The burning of oil in the open air is prohibited. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if--- 

PAGE 30 OF 51 

(a) the burning is for creating special smoke and fire effects for the 

purposes of producing films; 

or 

(b) the burning is for the purpose of training people to put out fires; or 

(c) Revoked 

(d) the burning is 

(i) done by means of a flare; and 

(ii) for the purpose of undertaking health and safety procedures 

in the petroleum exploration and production industry or the 

petrochemical industry; and 

(iii) permitted by a resource consent. 

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, subclause (1) does not apply if a discharge from 

the burning of oil is directed to the open air by a stack, chimney, or exhaust 

pipe (for example, emissions from a motor vehicle). 

11 Incinerators at schools and healthcare institutions 

The operation of an incinerator at a school or a healthcare institution is 

prohibited unless a resource consent has been granted for the discharge 

produced. 

12 High-temperature hazardous waste incinerators 

(1) The operation of a high-temperature hazardous waste incinerator is prohibited. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the incinerator--- 

(a) is a crematorium; or 

(b) is operating at the following places: 

(i) 89 Paritutu Road, New Plymouth: 

(ii) 816 Wairakei Road, Christchurch: 

(iii) Hape Drive (perimeter road), Auckland International Airport, 

Auckland.


13 Ambient air quality standards 

(1) The ambient air quality standard for a contaminant listed in the first column of 

the table in Schedule 1 is that the concentration of the contaminant must not 

exceed its threshold concentration except to the extent and in the circumstances 

(if any) listed in the third column of that table. 

(2) For the purposes of these regulations, an ambient air quality standard is 

breached if the concentration of the contaminant concerned exceeds its 

threshold concentration otherwise than to the extent and in the circumstances 

(if any) listed in the third column of the table in Schedule 1. 

(3) For the purposes of this regulation and Schedule 1, threshold concentration 

means the concentration of the contaminant listed in the second column of the 

table in Schedule 1 calculated over the time interval specified in that column. 

14 Application of standards 

(1) The ambient air quality standard for a contaminant applies at any place--- 

(a) that is in an airshed; and 

(b) that is in the open air; and 

(c) where people are likely to be exposed to the contaminant. 

(2) However, if the discharge of a contaminant is permitted by a resource consent, 

the ambient air quality standard for the contaminant does not apply to the area 

that the resource consent applies to. 

15 Regional council must monitor air quality if standard breached 

If it is likely that the ambient air quality standard for a contaminant will be 

breached in an airshed, the regional council must--- 

(a) monitor the airshed in relation to that contaminant; and 

(b) conduct the monitoring--- 

(i) in that part of the airshed where--- 

(A) there are one or more people; and 

(B) the standard is breached by the greatest 

margin or the standard is breached the most 

frequently, whichever is the most likely; 

and 

(ii) in accordance with the relevant method listed in 

Schedule 2. 

PAGE 31 OF 51

16 Regional council must give public notice if standard breached 

(1) A regional council must give public notice if the ambient air quality standard 

for a contaminant is breached in an airshed in its region. 

(2) The notice must--- 

PAGE 32 OF 51 

(a) be given periodically, at least once a month, until the standard is no 

longer being breached; and 

(b) be given in accordance with the Act; and 

(c) include--- 

(i) the name of the contaminant to which the notice relates; and 

(ii) the time and place at which the standard was breached; and 

(iii) the extent to which the standard was breached. 

Resource consents for discharges of PM10 

17 Application of regulations 17A to 17C 

(1) Regulations 17A to 17C apply to an application for a resource consent to 

discharge PM10 into an airshed before 1 September 2013, if - 

(a) the concentration of PM10 in the airshed already breaches its ambient 

air quality standard; and 

(b) the discharge to be permitted by the resource consent is likely to 

increase significantly the concentration of PM10 in the airshed. 

(2) Regulation 17A applies to an application if - 

(a) there is no regional plan that applies to the airshed; or 

(b) there is a regional plan that applies to the airshed, but the plan does 

not comply with regulation 17B(2). 

(3) Regulation 17B applies to an application if there is a regional plan that applies 

to the airshed and the plan complies with regulation 17B(2). 

(4) Regulation 17C applies to an application if the application cannot be granted 

under regulation 17A or regulation 17B and either - 

(a) the concentration of PM10 in the airshed, at the time the application is 

decided, is on or below the straight line path or the curved line path; 

or 

(b) the application has been made in circumstances to which section 124 

applies and the concentration of PM10 in the airshed, at the time the

application is decided, is above the straight line path or the curved line 

path. 

(5) In this regulation and regulations 17A to 17C - 

curved line path means a curved line that 

(a) starts on the y axis of a graph at a point representing, as at 1 

September 2005 or the date that the plan is publicly notified ( 

whichever is the later), the concentration of PM10 in the airshed; and 

(b) ends on the x axis of the graph at a point representing as at 1 

September 2013, the ambient air quality standard for PM10 in the 

airshed 

regional plan includes a proposed regional plan 

relevant date means - 

(a) in the case of an airshed that is the region of a regional council, 1 September 

2005: 

(b) in the case of an airshed that is part of the region of a regional council, the date 

of the notice in the Gazette that specifies the part to be a separate airshed 

straight line path means a straight line that 

(a) starts on the y axis of a graph at a point representing, as at the relevant date, the 

extent to which the concentration of PM10 in the airshed breaches its ambient 

air quality standard; and 

(b) ends on the x axis of the graph at a point representing, as at 1 September 2013, 

the ambient air quality standard for PM10 in the airshed. 

17A Application must be declined if discharges likely to cause concentration of 

PM10 in airshed to be above straight line path 

(1) A consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to which 

regulation 17(2) applies if the discharge to be permitted by the resource 

consent is likely to cause, at any time, the concentration of PM10 in the airshed 

to be above the straight line path. 

(2) This regulation does not prevent an application declined under this regulation 

being decided under regulation 17C if that regulation applies to the application. 

17B Application must be decided in accordance with regional plan if regional 

plan provides for curved line path 

(1) An application to which regulation 17(3) applies must be granted or declined in 

accordance with the regional plan applying to the airshed if the regional plan 

complies with subclause (2). 

PAGE 33 OF 51

(2) The regional plan must contain - 

PAGE 34 OF 51 

(a) a curved line path that shows how the ambient air quality standard for 

PM10 will be achieved in the airshed on or before 1 September 2013; 

and 

(b) rules that ensure that an application for a resource consent is declined 

if the grant of the resource consent is likely to cause, at any time, the 

concentration of PM10 in the airshed to be above the curved line path. 

(3) This regulation does not prevent an application declined under this regulation 

being decided under regulation 17C if that regulation applies to the application. 

17C Other applications must be declined unless discharges offset 

(1) The consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to 

which regulation 

17(4) applies unless the applicant reduces the amount of PM10 discharged from 

another source into the same airshed. 

(2) If, at the time the application is decided, the concentration of PM10 in the 

airshed - 

(a) is on or below the straight line path or the curved line path, the 

reduction in discharges must be equal to or greater than the 

concentration of PM10 in the airshed above the straight line path or 

curved line path caused by the discharge permitted by the resource 

consent: 

(b) is above the straight line path or the curved line path, the reduction in 

discharges must be equal to or greater than the amount of the 

discharge permitted by the resource consent. 

(3) The reduction in discharges of PM10 must - 

(a) take effect within 1 year after the grant of the resource consent; and 

(b) be effective for the duration of the resource consent. 

18 Resource consents for PM10 discharges before 1 September 2013 if 

concentration in airshed does not breach standard 

(1) This regulation applies to an application for a resource consent to discharge 

PM10 into an airshed--- 

(a) where the concentration of PM10 in the airshed does not breach its 

ambient air quality standard; and 

(b) if the application is made before 1 September 2013.

(2) A consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to which 

subclause (1) applies if the discharge to be permitted by the resource consent is 

likely, at any time, to cause the airshed to exceed the ambient air quality 

standard for PM10. 

19 Resource consents for PM10 discharges after 31 August 2013 

-- 

After 31 August 2013, no resource consent to discharge PM10 into an airshed 

may be granted if- 

(a) the concentration of PM10 in the airshed breaches its ambient air 

quality standard; or 

(b) the granting of the resource consent is likely, at any time, to cause the 

concentration of PM10 in the airshed to breach its ambient air quality 

standard. 

Resource consents for discharges of other contaminants 

20 Resource consents for discharge of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, 

and volatile organic compounds 

(1) A consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to 

discharge carbon monoxide into air if the discharge to be permitted by the 

resource consent--- 

(a) is likely, at any time, to cause the concentration of that gas in the 

airshed to breach its ambient air quality standard; and 

(b) is likely to be a principal source of that gas in the airshed. 

(2) A consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to 

discharge oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds into air if the 

discharge to be permitted by the resource consent - 

(a) is likely, at any time, to cause the concentration of nitrogen dioxide or 

ozone in the airshed to breach its ambient air quality standard; and 

(b) is likely to be a principal source of oxides of nitrogen or volatile 

organic compounds in the airshed. 

(3) In this regulation, volatile organic compound - 

(a) means a hydrocarbon based compound with a vapour pressure greater 

than 2 millimetres of mercury (0.27 kilopascals) at a temperature of 

25°C; but 

(b) does not include methane. 

PAGE 35 OF 51

21 Resource consents for discharge of sulphur dioxide 

A consent authority must decline an application for a resource consent to discharge 

sulphur dioxide into air if the discharge to be permitted by the resource consent is likely, 

at any time, to cause the concentration of sulphur dioxide in the airshed to breach its 

ambient air quality standard. 

Wood burners 

22 Discharge from woodburners installed on certain properties after 1 

September 2005 prohibited 

(1) The discharge of particles to air from a woodburner installed after 1 September 

2005 in a building on a property with an allotment size of less than 2 hectares 

is prohibited. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the discharge from the woodburner complies 

with--- 

PAGE 36 OF 51 

(a) the design standard in regulation 23; and 

(b) the thermal efficiency standard in regulation 24. 

23 Design standard 

(1) The design standard for a woodburner is a discharge of less than 1.5 gram of 

particles for each kilogram of dry wood burnt. 

(2) The discharge must be measured in accordance with the method specified in 

Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4013:1999, Domestic solid fuel 

burning appliances---Method for determination of flue gas emissions. 

24 Thermal efficiency standard 

(1) The thermal efficiency standard for a woodburner--- 

(a) is the ratio of useable heat energy output to energy input (thermal 

efficiency); and 

(b) must be not less than 65%. 

(2) The thermal efficiency must be calculated in accordance with the method 

specified in Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4012:1999, Domestic 

solid fuel burning appliances--- Method for determination of power output and 

efficiency. 

Control of greenhouse gas emissions at landfills 

25 Application of regulations 26 and 27 

(1) Regulations 26 and 27 apply to a landfill if--- 

(a) the landfill---

(i) has a total capacity of not less than 1 million tonnes; and 

(ii) contains not less than 200 000 tonnes of waste; and 

(iii) is or is likely to be accepting waste; and 

(b) the waste in or to be included in the landfill is likely to consist of 5% 

or more (by weight) of matter that is putrescible or biodegradable. 

(2) However, regulations 26 and 27 do not apply to a landfill until 8 October 2007 

if the landfill--- 

(a) has a total capacity of not less than 1 million tonnes of waste; and 

(b) on 8 October 2004--- 

(i) contains not less than 200 000 tonnes of waste; and 

(ii) is accepting waste; and 

(c) does not operate a gas collection system. 

(3) Regulations 26 and 27 do not apply to a cleanfill. 

26 Control of gas 

(1) No person may allow the discharge of gas to air from a landfill. 

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the landfill has a system for the collection of 

gas from the landfill--- 

(a) that is designed and operated to ensure that any discharge of gas from 

the surface of the landfill does not exceed 5 000 parts of methane per 

million parts of air; and 

(b) in which the gas is--- 

27 Flaring of gas 

(i) flared in accordance with regulation 27; or 

(ii) used as a fuel or for generating electricity. 

(1) If gas collected at a landfill is destroyed by flaring,--- 

(a) the system for the principal flare or flares must--- 

(i) comply with the requirements in subclause (2); or 

(ii) achieve at least the same effect as the system in subclause 

(2); and 

(b) the system for the backup flare must--- 

PAGE 37 OF 51

PAGE 38 OF 51 

(i) comply with the requirements in subclause (3); or 

(ii) achieve at least the same effect as the system in subclause 

(3). 

(2) The system for a principal flare must--- 

(a) have a flame arrestor; and 

(b) have an automatic backflow prevention device, or an equivalent 

device, between the principal flare and the landfill; and 

(c) have an automatic isolation system that ensures that, if the flame is 

lost, no significant discharge of unburnt gas from the flare occurs; and 

(d) have a continuous automatic ignition system; and 

(e) have a design that achieves a minimum flue gas retention time of 0.5 

seconds; and 

(f) be designed and operated so that gas is burned at a temperature of at 

least 750 o C; and 

(g) have a permanent temperature indicator; and 

(h) have adequate sampling ports to enable emission testing to be 

undertaken; and 

(i) provide for safe access to sampling ports while any emission tests are 

being undertaken. 

(3) The system for a backup flare must have--- 

(a) a flame arrestor; and 

(b) an automatic backflow prevention device, or an equivalent device, 

between the backup flare and the landfill; and 

(c) an automatic isolation system that ensures that, if the flame is lost, no 

significant discharge of unburnt gas from the flare occurs; and 

(d) a continuous automatic ignition system. 

(4) A principal flare must be operated at all times unless it has malfunctioned or is 

shut down for maintenance. 

(5) A backup flare must be operated if, and only if, a principal flare is not 

operating.

Schedule 1 


In the following table,--- 

1-hour mean--- 

(a) means a mean calculated every hour on the hour for the preceding hour; and 

(b) in relation to a contaminant at a particular location for a particular hour, means 

the mean of not more than 10-minute means, collected not less than once every 

10 seconds, for the contaminant at that location during that hour 

24-hour mean--- 

(a) means a mean calculated every 24 hours at midnight for the preceding 24 

hours; and 

(b) in relation to a contaminant at a particular location for a particular 24-hour 

period, means--- 

(i) the mean level at which the contaminant is recorded in the air, by 

continuous sampling of the air at that location, throughout that 24hour 

period; or 

(ii) the mean of the 1-hour means for that contaminant at that location for 

the preceding 24 hours 

running 8-hour mean--- 

(a) means a mean calculated every hour on the hour for that hour and the 

preceding 7 hours to give 1 running 8-hour mean per hour; and 

(b) in relation to a contaminant at a particular location for a particular hour, means 

the mean of the 1-hour means for that contaminant at that location for that hour 

and the preceding 7 hours. 

Contaminant Threshold concentration Permissible excess 

Carbon monoxide 10 milligrams per cubic metre One 8-hour period in a 

expressed as a running 8-hour 12-month period 

mean 

Nitrogen dioxide 200 micrograms per cubic 9 hours in a 12-month 

metre expressed as a 1-hour period 

mean 

Ozone 150 micrograms per cubic Not to be exceeded at 

metre expressed as a 1-hour any time 

mean 

PM10 50 micrograms per cubic One 24-hour period in 

PAGE 39 OF 51

PAGE 40 OF 51 

metre expressed as a 24-hour a 12-month period 

mean 

Sulphur dioxide 350 micrograms per cubic 9 hours in a 12-month 

metre expressed as a 1-hour period 

mean 

570 micrograms per cubic Not to be exceeded at 

metre expressed as a 1-hour any time 

mean 

Schedule 2 

Monitoring methods for ambient air quality standards 

Contaminant Monitoring method 

Carbon monoxide Australian Standard AS 3580.7.1:1992, Methods for 

sampling and analysis of ambient air---Determination of 

carbon monoxide---Direct-reading instrumental method 

Nitrogen dioxide Australian Standard AS 3580.5.1:1993, Methods for 


oxides of nitrogen---Chemiluminescence method 

Ozone Australian Standard AS 3580.6.1:1990, Methods for 


ozone---Direct-reading instrumental method. 

PM10 

United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

40---Protection of Environment, Volume 2, Part 50, 

Appendix J---Reference method for the determination of 

particulate matter as PM10 in the atmosphere; or 

Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 3580.9.6:2003, 

Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient 

air---Determination of suspended particulate 

matter---PM10 high volume sampler with size-selective 

inlet---Gravimetric method 

Sulphur dioxide Australian Standard AS 3580.4.1:1990, Methods for 


sulphur dioxide---Direct-reading instrumental method 

SR 2004/309 

Explanatory Note 1 

Martin Bell, 

Acting for Clerk of the Executive Council. 

This note is not part of the regulations, but is intended to indicate their general effect.

These regulations are the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards 

Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) Regulations 2004. The 

purpose of the regulations is to provide a guaranteed level of protection to people in 

New Zealand from certain contaminants in the air. The regulations prescribe--- 

• standards and prohibitions for various activities that discharge dioxins and other 

toxics into the air; and 

• standards for air quality in relation to certain contaminants; and 

• standards and controls on emissions from domestic woodburners (including a 

minimum thermal efficiency requirement); and 

• controls on greenhouse gas emissions from landfills. 

1 NB: These explanatory notes should be read in conjunction with explanatory notes 

(detailed below) for subsequent amendments. 

Regulation 11, which relates to the use of incinerators at schools and healthcare 

institutions, comes into force on 1 October 2006. Regulations 13 to 24, which relate to 

the contaminants listed in the first column of the table in Schedule 1, and emissions 

from woodburners, come into force on 1 September 2005. 

The rest of the regulations come into force on 8 October 2004. 

Regulation 4 prohibits a discharge to air from any activity specified in regulations 6 to 

12 except to the extent that the regulation provides otherwise. Regulation 5 prohibits the 

granting of a resource consent for a discharge of a contaminant to air from any activity 

specified in regulations 6 to 12, except to the extent that the regulation provides 

otherwise. Under regulation 5(2), if a resource consent is granted for an activity, the 

activity is a discretionary activity for the purposes of the Resource Management Act 

1991. 

Regulations 13 to 21 deal with ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter that is less than 10 microns in aerodynamic 

diameter (PM10), and sulphur dioxide. The air quality standards are prescribed in 

regulation 13(1) by reference to the permissible concentrations of the contaminants in 

the second column of the table in Schedule 1, calculated over the time interval specified 

in that column, and the permissible excesses of the contaminants in the third column of 

that table. The standards apply in any airshed, being a place--- 

• that is in a region or part of a region specified by the Minister by notice in the 

Gazette; and 

• that is in the open air; and 

• where people are likely to be exposed to the contaminant. 

If the standard for a contaminant is likely to be breached in an airshed, the regional 

council must--- 

• monitor the airshed in relation to the contaminant; and 

• give public notice of the breach. 

Regulations 17 to 19 relate to discharges of PM 10. The regulations provide for a staged 

implementation until 1 September 2013. 

PAGE 41 OF 51

Regulations 22 to 24 relate to the discharge of particles to air from woodburners. After 1 

September 2005, for woodburners installed in buildings on properties with an allotment 

size of less than 2 hectares, such discharges are prohibited unless certain design and 

thermal efficiency standards are met. 

Regulations 25 to 27 relate to the control of greenhouse gas emissions at landfills, 

including the use of flaring systems to destroy the emissions. 

Date of notification in Gazette: 9 September 2004. 

These regulations are administered in the Ministry for the Environment. 

SR 2004/433 

This note is not part of the regulations, but is intended to indicate their general effect. 

These regulations, which come into force on the 28th day after the date of their 

notification in the Gazette, make 2 technical amendments to the Resource Management 

(National Environmental Standards Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and 

Other Toxics) Regulations 2004 (“the principal regulations”). 

Regulation 3 clarifies that the definition of oil in the principal regulations does not 

include gas. 

Regulation 4 – amended by SR 2005/214. 

Date of notification in Gazette: 16 December 2004. 


SR 2005/214 


These regulations, which come into force on the 28th day after the date of their 

notification in the Gazette, amend the Resource Management (National Environmental 

Standards Relating to Certain Air Pollutants, Dioxins, and Other Toxics) Regulations 

2004 (“the principal regulations”). 

Regulation 3 amends regulation 3(1) of the principal regulations by substituting new 

definitions of airshed and hazardous waste. The new definition of airshed clarifies 

that an airshed is the region of a regional council, and that where a Gazette notice 

specifies a part of a region as a separate airshed the remainder of the region is still an 

airshed. The new definition of hazardous waste is a technical amendment that aligns 

the definition with the definition of that term in the Basel Convention. 

Regulation 4 amends regulation 10(2) of the principal regulations which prohibits the 

burning of oil in the open air subject to certain exceptions. The amendments omit a 

redundant exception, and provide a new exception for oil burnt by means of a flare if 

done for certain purposes and permitted by a resource consent. 

Regulation 5 amends regulation 14 of the principal regulations, which specifies the 

circumstances in which the ambient air quality standard for a contaminant applies. The 

PAGE 42 OF 51

amendment provides an exception. If the discharge is permitted by a resource consent, 

the standard does not apply to the area that the resource consent applies to. 

Regulation 6 revokes regulation 17 of the principal regulations, which requires a 

consent authority to decline in certain circumstances an application for a resource 

consent to discharge PM10 before 1 September 2013, and substitutes new regulations 17 

to 17C. 

New regulation 17 specifies the circumstances in which new regulations 17A to 17C 

apply. The new regulations apply to applications for resource consents to discharge 

PM10 into an airshed before 1 September 2013 if the concentration in the airshed already 

breaches its ambient air quality standard and the discharges to be permitted by the 

resource consents are likely to increase significantly the concentration of PM10 in the 

airshed. 

New regulation 17A applies if there is no regional plan or proposed regional plan that 

applies to the airshed or there is a regional plan or proposed regional plan that applies to 

the airshed but the plan does not comply with new regulation 17B(2). An application to 

which new regulation 17A applies must be declined if the discharge to be permitted by 

the resource consent is likely to cause, at any time, the concentration of PM10 in the 

airshed to be above the straight line path (as defined). 

New regulation 17B applies if there is a regional plan or proposed regional plan that 

applies to the airshed and the plan provides for a curved line path (as defined). A 

consent authority may grant or decline the application in accordance with the plan or 

proposed plan. 

New regulation 17C applies if the application cannot be granted under new regulation 

17A or new regulation 17B, and either the concentration of PM10 in the airshed is on or 

below the straight line path or the curved line path, or the application is made in 

circumstances to which section 124 of the Act applies and the concentration of PM10 is 

above the straight line path or the curved line path. 

New regulation 17C requires a consent authority to decline the application unless the 

applicant reduces the amount of PM10 discharged from another source into the same 

airshed. The reduction must be equal to or greater than the increase in the concentration 

of PM10 above the straight line path or curved line path (if the concentration of PM10 is 

on or below the straight line path or curved line path) or equal to or greater than the 

amount permitted by the resource consent (if the concentration of PM10 is above the 

straight line path or curved line path). The reduction must take effect within 1 year after 

the grant of the resource consent and be effective for the duration of the consent. 

Regulation 7 amends regulation 20 of the principal regulations, which requires a 

consent authority to decline an application for a resource consent to discharge carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, or ozone if the discharge is likely to breach the ambient air 

quality standard and is likely to be the principal source of the gas in the airshed. The 

amendments— 

(a) omit references to nitrogen dioxide and ozone on the basis that nitrogen 

dioxide and ozone are formed in the atmosphere from other compounds; and 

PAGE 43 OF 51

(b) add a new subclause (2) requiring a consent authority to decline an application 

for a resource consent to discharge oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic 

compounds if the discharge is likely to cause the concentration of nitrogen 

dioxide or ozone in the airshed to breach its ambient air quality standard, and is 

likely to be a principal source of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic 

compounds in the airshed. 

Date of notification in Gazette: 28 July 2005. 


Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of 

Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007 

Regulations 

1 Title 

These regulations are the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for 

Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007. 


These regulations come into force 6 months after the date of their notification in the 

Gazette. 


(1) In these regulations, unless the context requires another meaning,— 

abstraction point means a place at which water in the environment is abstracted for use 

in a registered drinking-water supply (for example, the place at which water is 

abstracted from a river, stream, or lake or from a groundwater source) 

Act means the Resource Management Act 1991 

activity includes a proposed activity 

aesthetic determinand means an aesthetic determinand described in Table A2.1 in 

Appendix 2 of the Drinking-water Standard 

determinand means a determinand described in Table 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4 of the 

Drinking-water Standard 

distribution system means the trunk main and the storage and other components of a 

registered drinking-water supply that relate to its distribution 

does not meet the health quality criteria, in relation to drinking water, has the 

meaning set out in regulation 5 

PAGE 44 OF 51

drinking water— 

(a) means water intended to be used for human consumption; 

and 

(b) includes water intended to be used for food preparation, utensil washing, and oral or 

other personal hygiene 

Drinking-water Standard means Drinking-water Standards 

for New Zealand 2005, Wellington, Ministry of Health, August 2005 

existing treatment means the treatment process in respect of a registered drinkingwater 

supply at the time an application for resource consent is made or a proposal to 

include or amend a rule in a regional plan is notified, as the case may be 

guideline value, in relation to an aesthetic determinand, means the value for the 

determinand stated in the column headed GV in Table A2.1 in Appendix 2 of the 

Drinkingwater Standard (being the value for the aesthetic determinand that, if exceeded, 

may render the drinking water concerned unattractive to a consumer) 

maximum acceptable value, in relation to a determinand, means the concentration of 

the determinand stated in the column headed MAV in Table 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, or 2.4, as the 

case may be, of the Drinking-water Standard (being the concentration below which the 

presence of the determinand concerned does not result in any significant risk to a 

consumer over a lifetime of consumption) meets the health quality criteria, in relation 

to drinking water, has the meaning set out in regulation 4 

registered drinking-water supply means a drinking-water supply that is recorded in 

the drinking-water register maintained by the chief executive of the Ministry of Health 

(the Director-General) under section 69J of the Health Act 1956 

treatment process— 

(a) means a chemical, biological, or physical process carried out after water is 

abstracted from an abstraction point to enhance its quality before it enters the 

distribution system concerned; and 

(b) includes merely abstracting water from the abstraction point without further 

chemical, biological, or physical processing before it enters the distribution system, if 

the water does not contain or exhibit 1 or more determinands exceeding their maximum 

acceptable values for more than the allowable number of times as set out in Table A1.3 

in Appendix 1 of the Drinking-water Standard 

upstream, in relation to an abstraction point, means— 

(a) in the case of surface water (other than a lake), upstream of the abstraction point: 

(b) in the case of groundwater, up-gradient of the abstraction point: 

(c) in the case of a lake,— 

PAGE 45 OF 51

(i) anywhere within the lake that could affect the water quality at the abstraction point 

(in the lake): 

(ii) upstream of any river that could affect the water quality at the abstraction point (in 

the lake): 

(iii) up-gradient of any groundwater that could affect the water quality at the abstraction 

point (in the lake). 

(2) Unless the context requires another meaning, any term used but not defined in these 

regulations, but defined in the Act, has the same meaning as in the Act. 

4 Meaning of meets the health quality criteria 

(1) In these regulations, in relation to drinking water, meets the health quality criteria 

means drinking water that— 

(a) is tested for determinands— 

(i) at the point where the drinking water leaves the treatment process concerned but has 

not yet entered the distribution system concerned; or (ii) at some point in the 

distribution system, if any particular determinand is not tested at the point referred to in 

subparagraph (i); and 

(b) is tested in accordance with the compliance monitoring requirements in the 

Drinking-water Standard; and 

(c) when analysed, does not contain or exhibit 1 or more determinands exceeding their 

maximum acceptable values for more than the allowable number of times as set out in 

Table A1.3 in Appendix 1 of the Drinkingwater Standard. 

(2) For the purposes of subclause (1)(c), the most recent complete annual results for the 

drinking water contained in the Water Information New Zealand database maintained 

on behalf of the Ministry of Health must be used. 

5 Meaning of does not meet the health quality criteria 

(1) In these regulations, in relation to drinking water, does not meet the health quality 

criteria means drinking water that— 

(a) is tested for determinands— 

(i) at the point where the drinking water leaves the treatment process concerned but has 

not yet entered the distribution system concerned; or 

(ii) at some point in the distribution system, if any particular determinand is not tested at 

the point referred to in subparagraph (i); and (b) is tested in accordance with the 

compliance monitoring requirements in the Drinking-water Standard; and 

(c) when analysed, contains or exhibits 1 or more determinands exceeding their 

maximum acceptable values for more than the allowable number of times as set out in 

Table A1.3 in Appendix 1 of the Drinking-water Standard. 

PAGE 46 OF 51

(2) For the purposes of subclause (1)(c), the most recent complete annual results for the 

drinking water contained in the Water Information New Zealand database maintained 

on behalf of the Ministry of Health must be used. 

Water and discharge permits in respect of activities with potential to affect certain 

drinking-water supplies 

6 Type of activity to which regulations 7 and 8 apply 

Regulations 7 and 8 only apply to an activity that has the potential to affect a registered 

drinking-water supply that provides no fewer than 501 people with drinking water for 

not less than 60 days each calendar year. 

7 Granting of water permit or discharge permit upstream of abstraction point 

where drinking water meets health quality criteria 

A regional council must not grant a water permit or discharge permit for an activity that 

will occur upstream of an abstraction point where the drinking water concerned meets 

the health quality criteria if the activity is likely to— 

(a) introduce or increase the concentration of any determinands in the drinking water, so 

that, after existing treatment, it no longer meets the health quality criteria; or 

(b) introduce or increase the concentration of any aesthetic determinands in the drinking 

water so that, after existing treatment, it contains aesthetic determinands at values 

exceeding the guideline values. 

8 Granting of water permit or discharge permit upstream of abstraction point 

where drinking water not tested or does not meet health quality criteria 

(1) A regional council must not grant a water permit or discharge permit for an activity 

that will occur upstream of an abstraction point where the drinking water concerned is 

not tested in accordance with the compliance monitoring procedures in the Drinkingwater 

Standard if the activity is likely to— 

(a) increase the concentration of any determinands in the water at the abstraction point 

by more than a minor amount; or 




(2) A regional council must not grant a water permit or discharge permit for an activity 

that will occur upstream of an abstraction point where the drinking water concerned 

does not meet the health quality criteria if the activity is likely to— 

(a) increase, by more than a minor amount, the concentration of any determinands in the 

water at the abstraction point that in the drinking water already exceed the maximum 


in Appendix 1 of the Drinking-water Standard; or 

PAGE 47 OF 51

(b) increase the concentration of any determinands in the water at the abstraction point 

that in the drinking water do not exceed the maximum acceptable values for more than 

the allowable number of times as set out in Table A1.3 in Appendix 1 of the Drinkingwater 

Standard to the extent that the drinking water, after existing treatment, exceeds 

the maximum acceptable values for more than the allowable number of times as set out 

in the Table in relation to those determinands; or 

(c) introduce or increase the concentration of any aesthetic determinands in the drinking 



Permitted activity rules in respect of activities with potential to affect certain drinkingwater 

supplies 

9 Type of activity to which regulation 10 applies 

Regulation 10 only applies to an activity that has the potential to affect a registered 

drinking-water supply that provides no fewer than 501 people with drinking water for 

not less than 60 days each calendar year. 

10 Limitations on permitted activity rules for activities upstream of abstraction 

points 

(1) A regional council must not include a rule or amend a rule in its regional plan to 

allow a permitted activity, under section 9, 13, 14, or 15 of the Act, upstream of an 

abstraction point where the drinking water concerned meets the health quality criteria 

unless satisfied that the activity is not likely to— 

(a) introduce or increase the concentration of any determinands in the drinking water so 

that, after existing treatment, it no longer meets the health quality criteria; or 






abstraction point where the drinking water concerned is not tested in accordance with 

the compliance monitoring procedures in the Drinking-water Standard unless satisfied 

that the activity is not likely to— 

(a) increase the concentration of any determinands in the water at the abstraction point 

by more than a minor amount; or 


water, so that, after existing treatment, it contains aesthetic determinands at values 




abstraction point where the drinking water concerned does not meet the health quality 

criteria unless satisfied that the activity is not likely to— 

PAGE 48 OF 51

(a) increase, by more than a minor amount, the concentration of any determinands in the 

water at the abstraction point that in the drinking water already exceed the maximum 


in Appendix 1 of the Drinking-water Standard; or 

(b) increase the concentration of any determinands in the water at the abstraction point 

that in the drinking water do not exceed the maximum acceptable values for more than 

the allowable number of times as set out in Table A1.3 in Appendix 1 of the Drinkingwater 

Standard to the extent that the drinking water, after existing treatment, exceeds 

the maximum acceptable values for more than the allowable number of times as set out 

in the Table in relation to those determinands; or 

(c) introduce or increase the concentration of any aesthetic determinands in the drinking 



Resource consents in respect of activities with potential to affect certain drinking-water 

supplies 

11 Type of activity to which regulation 12 applies 

Regulation 12 only applies to an activity that has the potential to affect a registered 

drinking-water supply that provides no fewer than 25 people with drinking water for not 

less than 60 days each calendar year. 

12 Condition on resource consent if activity may significantly adversely affect 

registered drinking-water supply 

(1) When considering a resource consent application, a consent authority must consider 

whether the activity to which the application relates may— 

(a) itself lead to an event occurring (for example, the spillage of chemicals) that may 

have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at any abstraction point; or 

(b) as a consequence of an event (for example, an unusually heavy rainfall) have a 

significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at any abstraction point. 

(2) If the consent authority considers that the circumstances in subclause (1) apply, and 

it grants the application, it must impose a condition on the consent. 

(3) The condition must require the consent holder to notify, as soon as reasonably 

practicable, the registered drinking-water supply operators concerned and the consent 

authority, if an event of the type described in subclause (1) occurs that may have a 

significant adverse effect on the quality of the water at the abstraction point. 

Consent authority requirements may be more stringent than regulation requirements 

13 Consent authority may impose requirements more stringent than requirements 

in these regulations 

A consent authority may do either or both of the following: 

PAGE 49 OF 51

(a) make or amend rules in a regional plan that are more stringent than the requirements 

of these regulations: 

(b) impose conditions on resource consents that are more stringent than the 

requirements of these regulations. 

Transitional provisions 

14 Regional council not required to immediately amend rules in plan 

A regional council is not required to amend an existing rule in a plan that does not 

comply with regulation 10 until the earlier of the following: 

(a) a scheduled review of the plan; or 

(b) a plan change or variation that relates to the existing rule is introduced. 

15 Proposed plan not affected by these regulations if submissions already closed 

(1) A regional council is not required to amend a rule in a proposed plan that does not 

comply with regulation 10 if the closing date for submissions on the plan has passed 

before the commencement of these regulations. 

(2) This regulation applies whether the proposed plan is a new plan or an amendment to 

an existing plan. 

(3) In this regulation, closing date means the date referred to in clause 7(1) of Schedule 

1 of the Act. 

Rebecca Kitteridge, 

for Clerk of the Executive Council. 

Explanatory note 


These regulations are the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for 

Sources of Human Drinking Water) Regulations 2007. The regulations are made under 

the Resource Management Act 1991 and come into force 6 months after the date of their 

notification in the Gazette. 

The purpose of the regulations is to reduce the risk of contamination of drinking-water 

sources by requiring regional councils to consider the effects of certain activities on 

drinking-water sources when— 

• �granting water permits or discharge permits (regulations 7and 8); and 

• �including or amending rules in a regional plan in relation to permitted activities 

(regulation 10). 

The regulations also require regional councils and territorial authorities to impose a 

notification requirement on certain resource consents in the circumstances where an 

PAGE 50 OF 51

event occurs that may have a significant adverse effect on a drinking-water source 

(regulation 12). 

Under the regulations, different criteria apply for granting resource consents or writing 

permitted activity rules depending on whether the drinking water concerned currently 

meets the health quality criteria or does not meet the health quality criteria. These terms 

are defined in regulations 4 and 5 with reference to the Drinking-water Standards for 

New Zealand 2005, a Ministry of Health publication, and the Water Information New 

Zealand database maintained on behalf of the Ministry of Health (currently by ESR 

(Environmental Science and Research)). 

The circumstances in which the regulations apply also vary depending on— 

• �the number of people that are supplied with drinking water; and 

• �the number of days in each calender year that the people are supplied with the 

drinking water. 

Regulation 13 authorises a consent authority to impose requirements in relation to rules 

in a plan or resource consents that are more stringent than the requirements in the 

regulations. 

Regulations 14 and 15 are transitional provisions and set out when a regional council 

must comply with regulation 10 (which relates to rules for permitted activities). 

Issued under the authority of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989. 

Date of notification in Gazette: 20 December 2007. 

These regulations are administered by the Ministry for the Environment. 

Wellington, New Zealand: Published under the authority of the New Zealand 

Government—2007 

PAGE 51 OF 51

Appendices to Officer's Report - Greater Wellington Regional Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?