The River Cut

At the recent AGM questions were raised about a river cut to allow acces to the beach especially at high tide. This is a copy of the consent to make a cut which was issued 03 March 2010 but which has many conditions attached which is probably causing a delay.

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION UNDER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
CONSENT HOLDER : Horowhenua District Council
1. APPLICATION
Horowhenua District council has applied for the renewal of coastal permits to undertake stream diversion and control works at the confluence of the Waikawa stream and the Tasman sea when necessary to avoid coastal erosion as a result of stream migration. The southerly meander of the stream mouth frequently travels far enough to create a potential erosion hazard for residential properties on the true left bank of the stream just upstream of
the mouth and to properties that extend to the beach frontage.

This application was lodged on 1 January 2009 to replace coastal Permits 100182 (water permit), 100183(land use) and 100184 (land use) which expired on 29 June 2009.

The applicant has requested a term of 15 years for these consents.

Further information was requested on 17 March 2009 pursuant to section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 with respect to the provision of monitoring information from the physical and the environmental effects of the diversion and damming works of the stream as required by conditions of the previous consent. Clarification of the consultation undertaken with potentially affected parties was also sought.

Information was provided to the Regional council on 20 March 2009.

The application was limited notified on 15 May 2009, with the submission period closing on 16 June 2009. Four submissions were received in relation to this application, from the Waikawa Ratepayers Association and Lesley-Anne and Richard Walker, both in support of the application, the Wellington Conservancy of the Department of Conservation who had a neutral position and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Ltd – Horowhenua
Branch, who were opposed to the application.

The Applicant confirmed their wished to proceed to a pre-hearing meeting. This meeting was held on 20 October 2009.

2. THE SITE

The Waikawa Stream has a history of migration, generally in a southerly direction, which is driven by the wind and tidal influence. This is common to many streams on the Kapiti / Horowhenua coast. The stream has a very flat gradient as it approaches the coast, and usually has low volume flows. These two factors combine to make the flow energy in the stream usually too low to remove material deposited at the mouth of the stream by storm events and littoral deposition. This further reduces the ability of the stream to break the bar of deposited material at the stream mouth and causes the migration of the stream in a southerly direction.

A management plan (titled: ‘Horowhenua District Council Waikawa Stream Mouth Management Plan’, dated 30 Oct 1997, prepared by AC Consulting Group Ltd) was developed for the Waikawa Stream Mouth. The Management Plan considers the coastal and ecological environment, the history of the stream mouth movement and identified a range of management options from doing nothing to protection works, planting and stream mouth cutting. The management option for which previous consents were granted is known as
Management Option 5.3 – Foredune Planting and Mouth Cutting. The current application proposes this as the most appropriate option to continue with in terms of on going management of the Waikawa Stream.

Recent housing development in the area has encroached relatively closely to the coastal marine area. By allowing the Waikawa Stream to move in a natural way with no diversion works, may result in erosion of the residential properties and rural farm land adjacent to the stream. Additionally, allowing the Waikawa Stream to take its natural course would also, for extended periods of time, restrict access (particularly vehicle access) to the beach.
Therefore the Horowhenua District Council considers the implementation of Management
Option 5.3 of the Waikawa Stream Mouth Management Plan provides an appropriate
management option to mitigate against potential erosion caused by the stream.

3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The application has been assessed against the following statutory documents.

3.1 The Regional Coastal Plan (2002)
The proposed activities take place within the General Coastal Area of the Regional Coastal Plan. The damming and diversion of the mouth of the Waikawa Stream is considered to be a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rules 17 and 18 of the Regional Coastal Plan
(RCP).

As the volume of the disturbance of the seabed and foreshore exceeds 50 cubic metres but is less than 50,000 cubic metres occurring in an area that is less than 4 hectares, the proposed excavation is considered to be a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 25 of the RCP.
The occupation of space in the Coastal Marine Area by any existing structure specified in Schedule One (retaining boulder bank along the south bank of the Waikawa Stream) is a
Permitted Activity in accordance with RCP Rule 30.

The maintenance or repair of any existing structure within the coastal marine area is
considered to be a Permitted Activity in accordance with RCP Rule 31.

RCP Rule 40 requires that ‘Any activity involving the creation, reconstruction, placement,
alteration, extension…. or any associated occupation of the CMA of any….coastal hazard
protection structure (including seawalls and groynes)’ is assessed as a Discretionary Activity.

3.2 Proposed One PIan (2007)
The occupation of existing structures is considered to be permitted under Rule 17-1 of the
Proposed One Plan. The maintenance and repair of existing structures is permitted in
accordance with Rule 17-6 of the POP.

The deposition, disturbance and removal of material in the Coastal Marine Area, not specifically covered by a rule in the Plan is considered to be a Discretionary Activity under
Rule 17-39.

3.3 Overall Assessment Based on Regional Plans
The proposal is assessed as a Discretionary Activity under the Regional Coastal Plan and
the Proposed One Plan.

4. NOTIFICATION

With regard to notification, section 93(1) indicates that a consent authority must notify an
application for resource consent unless:

a. the application is for a Controlled Activity; or
b. the consent authority is satisfied that the adverse effects of the activity on the
environment will be minor.

In this case it was considered necessary to limited notify this application because:

Identified potentially adversely affected parties had not provided their written approval.

Four submissions were received in relation to the application, from the following parties;
– Waikawa Ratepayers Association – in support and wished to be heard.
– Lesley-Anne and Richard Walker – in support
– The Department of Conservation – Wellington Conservancy – neutral submission and
wished to be heard.
– The Royal Forest and Bird Protection of New Zealand Limited – Horowhenua Branch –
opposition and wished to be heard.

Concerns raised by submitters included:
– the temporary nature of the diversion.
– the works do not comply with the NZ Coastal Policy Statement.
– potential adverse effects on the ecology and stream life of the Waikawa Stream.
– insufficient information provided with the application to adequately assess the potential
adverse effects the stream diversion work may have on the environment.
– a lack of monitoring of the environmental effects that was required by previous consents.
– a lack of information on the type of native fish species present affected by the proposal.
– the only reason for the work is political. The affected area is a fairly recent subdivision
where the Horowhenua District Council have allowed residential sections to be
subdivided too close to the MHW line and have not left sufficient buffer zone for estuary
movement. The Waikawa River mouth has a long history of movement to the north and
south over a distance of several kilometres which may have been overlooked when
granting consent for this subdivision.

Support for the continued stream diversion works was also received for the following
reasons:
– When the stream encroaches into reserve land or gets too close to private land access to
the beach becomes impossible.
– A number of people at Waikawa need vehicular access to the beach and river mouth.
– Prior to the latest cut (on 5 June 2009), it was impossible to get to the beach for fishing or
recreation. The latest cut has been done just in time with the whitebait season coming
up.
– The latest cut is holding up very well and this time the operators have not stock piled the
sand up in front of the house at 55 Manga-Pirau Street.
– Beach access and the maintenance of the dune area is important to this community.

A pre-hearing meeting was held on Tuesday 20 October 2009. At this meeting the concerns
raised in submissions were discussed and how these concerns could best be addressed.
The term of the consents was also discussed as well as proposed consent conditions.
Additionally, the effectiveness of the existing rock groyne on the left bank of the Waikawa
Stream near the end of Manga-Pirau Street was discussed. It was determined that the
groyne’s angle needed to be reviewed in order to ensure it provided effective erosion control.

Following the pre-hearing meeting, a suite of proposed consent conditions and a Plan
(Plan C104817) specifying areas where proposed diversion works could occur was circulated
to all parties who attended the pre-hearing meeting. All submitters subsequently provided
written confirmation that they withdraw their wish to be heard at a Hearing for the Coastal
Permits 104817, 104818 and 104819.

5. SECTION 104

Section 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 outlines the matters that the Consent
Authority must have regard to when considering applications for resource consents, subject
to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.

I have assessed this application with respect to the relevant statutory planning matters under
section 104. Only the relevant sections of statutory documents relevant to this application
have been assessed in this report.

5.1 Environmental Effects
The application has been assessed by John Philpott, Consultant Engineer, with regard to the
actual and potential adverse environmental effects of the stream diversion works and the
appropriateness of implementation of Management Option 5.3. His conclusions have been
considered below:

. Option 5.3 includes not only the cutting of the stream channel to the sea from time to time
as a certain southerly migration point is reached, but also fencing and planting of the
foredune on the northern bank of the stream. The planting was intended to extend and
protect the dune and thus the river mouth, allowing the channel to move closer to the sea
before migrating south along the beach. However the planting which was implemented
under the existing consents is considered to have had little effect, as the predominant
wind does not come from a north-westerly direction. The predominant south-west and
true westerly wind causes the sand to be deposited on the beach and causes the stream
to migrate in a southerly direction. Previous fencing implemented under the existing
consents has not been successful and planting has failed to become established.
Therefore it is considered inappropriate to continue with the implementation of this aspect
of Management Option 5.3.

. The natural erosion of stream channel and dune along the eastern edge of the southward
migrating channel is considered unacceptable and there is no other viable option
available other than to continue to cut the stream to the sea when it reaches a
pre-determined southerly and easterly limit.

. The rock groyne near the end of Manga-Pirau Street is not considered to be very
effective in encouraging the stream to push out towards the coast. Therefore realignment
of this groyne to a right angle to the stream is considered necessary and would increase
the chances of the stream remaining on the cut alignment.

. Allowing the stream to take its natural course would significantly restrict access to the
beach for an extended period of time.

. The shortening of the stream channel through cutting the stream to the sea on a
semi-regular basis will not significantly alter the low natural character of the stream.

. The adoption of Management Option 5.3 of the Waikawa Stream Management Plan
(excluding the fencing and planting) is considered to be appropriate with regard to the
mitigating the natural erosion process past the previously consent southerly point.

Overall Conclusion
Based on these conclusions, I am of the opinion that the actual and potential adverse
environmental effects of the proposed stream diversion activity are no more than minor and
the implementation of Option 5.3 – Mouth Cutting (excluding the foredune planting and
fencing) is the most appropriate management method in terms of controlling the Waikawa
Stream mouth, preventing coastal erosion of nearby properties and maintain vehicular
access to the beach.

5.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement
Under the provisions of section 104(1Xb) the Consent Authority must have regard to the
provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. The purpose of the NZCPS is to
set out policies for New Zealand’s coastal environment assisting to achieve the purposes of
the Act.

The NZCPS includes Policies intended to promote sustainable management of natural and
physical resources in the coastal environment of New Zealand. Those Policies state matters
to be included in Regional Plans as well as priorities for the management of coastal
resources. Chapter 3 contains some Policies that are of particular relevance to the proposed
activity as outlined below.

In assessing the proposed activities associated with this resource consent application
consideration has been given to policies of the National Coastal Policy Statement. I consider
that the proposed activity will not contravene any of the Policies of the National Coastal
Policy Statement.

Policy 3.1.1 states that the use of the coast by the public should not be allowed to have
significant adverse effects on the coastal environment, amenity values, nor on the safety of
the public nor on the enjoyment of the coast by the public.

Policy 3.4.6 states that where existing subdivision, use or development is threatened by a
coastal hazard, coastal protection works should be permitted only where they are the best
practicable option for the future. Where coastal protection works are the best practicable
option, they should be located and designed so as to avoid adverse environmental effects to
the extent practicable.

The proposed management method, being stream diversion works and continued
maintenance of existing rock groyne coastal protection structures is considered to be the
best practicable option in the context of this particular site. There will be no more than minor
adverse effects on the environment as outlined in Section 5.1 of this report.

5.3 Objectives and Policies

5.3.1 Operative Regional Policy Statement
Objectives 16 and 22-of the Regional Policy Statement seek to avoid, remedy or mitigate the
adverse effects of structures or activities in the beds of rivers and in the coastal environment.
Furthermore, Objective 21 seeks to protect the ecological, physical, cultural and aesthetic
qualities that make up the natural character of the coastal environment’

It is considered that this proposal is consistent with these objectives and the relevant policies
associated with these objectives due to the fact that any adverse effects on the coastal
environment and river bed will be no more than minor.

5.3.2 Operative Regional Coastal Plan
Objective 6 of the Regional Coastal Plan seeks to ensure that the taking, use and damning
and diversion of water within the coastal marine area avoids, remedies or mitigates any
adverse environmental effects. This objective is supported by Policy 6.2(b) which allows the
damning and diversion of water within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) for social and/or
economic well being of the community.

Objective 7 seeks to avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of activities that disturb
the seabed and foreshore or seabed of the CMA, including the deposition of material.
Policy 7.1 seeks to ensure no significant adverse effects occur from such activities.

Objective 8 of the Regional Coastal Plan is to avoid, remedy and mitigate any adverse
effects of structures on the foreshore and seabed of the CMA. Policy 8.1 allows for existing
structures specified in Schedule 1 of this plan. Policy 8.2 which the areas that new structures
or modifications or maintenance of existing structures must not have significant adverse
effects on the natural character of the coastal environment, any indigenous flora and fauna
habitats, Maori cultural or spiritual values, amenity values or cultural heritage values. These
matters have been considered in the assessment of this application.

5.3.3 Proposed One Plan
Objective 9-2 provides for protection, use and development within the Coastal Marine Area.
The use of the Coastal Marine area is implemented by Policy 9-4 which states that any use
or development of the Coastal Marine Area shall have a functional need to be located in the
Coastal Marine Area.

Potentially significant effects can be avoided or mitigated by measures required by conditions
of consent. The provisions of the Objective and Policies will not be contravened by the
proposal.

Overall Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant Objectives and Policies of these Regional Plans and the
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, I consider that the proposed activity is consistent
with all the relevant Objectives and Policies.

6. CONSENT DURATION

Consent duration is determined in accordance with Policy 2-2 of the Proposed One Plan and
Policy 34.2 of the Operative Regional Policy Statement. The applicant has sought a term of
15 years for the proposed stream diversion works.

Following discussion with the applicant and submitters at the pre-hearing meeting, an
agreement was reached for consent to be granted for a ten year term. I therefore
recommend that consent be granted for a term of 10 years for the coastal permits.

7. RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the resource consent application by Horowhenua District Council for the
damming and diversion of the Waikawa Stream in the coastal marine area, the placement
and maintenance of structures within the bed of the Waikawa Stream and the Coastal Marine
Area and excavation within the bed of the Waikawa Stream and the Coastal Marine Area at approximate map reference NZMS S60 S25:910-550 (NZTopo50 BN33:810-933) be granted for a term expiring on 1 July 2020 pursuant to Sections 104, 1048 and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the following reasons:

• The activity has been assessed by John Philpott – Consulting Engineer, who is satisfied
the proposal will have minor actual or potential adverse effects on the environment;
• The activity is not contrary to any relevant Objectives and Policies;
• The activity is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management
Act 1991; and
• All parties who made submissions on the application have withdrawn their wish to be
heard subject to the consent conditions outlined below.

And subject to the following conditions:

General Review Condition

1. The Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, under Section 128 of the Act, may
initiate a review of the conditions of these Permits in the months of October 2012,
2015 and 2018. The review of conditions shall be for the purposes of:
i. dealing with any adverse effect on the environment which may arise from the
exercise of these Permits and which it is appropriate to deal with at a later
stage; and/or
ii. to require the adoption of the best practicable option to remove or reduce any
adverse environmental effect on the environment; or
iii. revising the monitoring or reporting required under conditions of these Permits.

The review of conditions shall allow for:

i. the deletion or amendment of any of the conditions of these Permits;
ii. the addition of new conditions as necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate any
adverse effects on the environment;

A. Coastal Permit (water permit) 104817 to dam and divert the mouth of the
Waikawa Stream, for a term expiring on 1 July 2020, subject to the following
conditions:

1. The area in which stream mouth diversion and damming is authorised is that area of
foreshore to the south (downstream side) of the southernmost boundary of Lot 2
DP 8850, Block lll Waitohu SD, not closer than 50 metres to that boundary; and an
area not further than 80 metres south of the southernmost boundary of Lot 52
DP 42669 Block lll Waitohu SD. For clarity, the area is shown as ‘Area over which
diversions are authorised’ on Plan C104817 attached to and forming part of this
consent.

2. Damming is only authorised in conjunction with the installation of a diversion cut and
the location of any dam shall be in the channel diverted not more than seventy metres
downstream of the location of the associated diversion cut.

3. This permit may be exercised when the stream edge moves to within 50 metres of the
line shown as the ‘Line of Consent’ on Plan C104817 attached to and forming part of
this consent. The 50 metres distance is shown as the’Buffer Line’ on Plan G104817.

4. No diversion or damming of the mouth of the Waikawa Stream shall take place
between 15 August and 30 November of any year (whitebaiting season).

5. Fish relocation, in accordance with best practice, is required if damming occurs in
more than one location at any one time.

Advice Note: Fish entrapped by the damming and diversion works must be
relocated into the flowing water of the diversion.

6. No diversion cut put in place under the authority of this resource consent shall exceed
ten (10) metres in width at the time of its installation. Material excavated from the
diversion cut may be used to create a dam or dams in the diverted channel
immediately below (south of) the cut location, or used to replenish any eroded dune
structure. This consent does not authorise the importation of any material that is not
naturally found at the site for dam construction.

Advice Note: The consent holder is encouraged to use excess sand to replenish
dune structures along dunes to the south east of Waikawa Beach Stream and
undertake dune planting / fencing to achieve dune stabilisation.

7. The Consent Holder shall ensure that no machinery that is leaking fuel, lubricant or
hydraulic fluid may be used for any diversion works, or for any ancillary works within
the bed of the stream or within the Coastal Marine Area, and that there is no
discharge of any contaminant into water or onto land within the Coastal Marine Area.

Advice Note: The Coastal Marine Area is defined as that area below the level of
Mean High Water Springs, and extending up the stream to the seaward (downstream)
side of the footbridge over the Waikawa Stream at Waikawa Beach Road immediately
to the west of the Waikawa Beach Road / Drake Street junction.

8. During the term of this consent, the Consent Holder shall monitor and record the
physical effects of the diversions.

Physical monitoring shall include noting the position of the stream mouth and channel
immediately prior to any diversion, the position of the stream mouth immediately after
the diversion, and the time elapsed since the last diversion was required in
accordance with Condition 2 of this consent. All stream mouth monitoring shall be
undertaken within the period two hours either side of a low tide, when the low tide
falls within daylight hours. Physical monitoring shall also include recording
information on wind direction and strength, and state of the sea and tides (ie rough,
calm, spring or neap tides, etc). Physical monitoring shall be continued for one week
following the diversion and at monthly intervals for the next two months. Results of
the physical monitoring shall be provided to Horizons Regional Council Environmental
Protection Manager within I month of monitoring being completed.

9. The Consent Holder shall advise in writing the property owner of Lot 2 DP 8850, the
Wellington Conservancy of the Department of Conservation and the Horowhenua
Branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Society of each diversion cut, seven days prior
to any such cut taking place, to allow those organisations to independently monitor
the effects of the diversions. lf seven days prior notice is not achievable due to
circumstances beyond the Consent Holders control a notice of less than seven days
will be accepted.

B. Coastal Permit (land use) 104818 to place and maintain structures within the
bed of the Waikawa Stream and in the Coastal Marine Area at Waikawa Beach,
for a term expiring on 1 July 2020, subject to the following conditions:

1. The structures authorised by this consent are limited to:

a. a rock rip rap wall along the true left bank of the Waikawa Stream
commencing at a point approximately 200 metres downstream of the
footbridge over the Waikawa Stream at Waikawa Beach Road, and extending
along the true left bank onto the foreshore to a point approximately 90 metres
to the west of the western extreme of Lot 51 DP 42669 Block lll Waitohu SD,
as shown on Plan C104817 as ‘Existing rock rip rap to be maintained’; and

b. a rock groyne located within the area shown on Plan C104817 as ‘Existing
groyne to be maintained’.

Within I year of commencement of this consent, the consent holder shall commission
an appropriately qualified river engineer to design a new groyne structure to be
located within the area over which diversions and excavation are authorised as
shown on Plan C1O48’17 to achieve more effective control of the path of the Waikawa
Stream. This new groyne shall be constructed prior to the next stream diversion. lf
the river engineer recommends that a new groyne be constructed in a different
location and not connected to the existing groyne, the existing groyne must be
removed.

2. The maintenance of the structures detailed in Condition 1 is authorised over the term
of this consent, providing that maintenance is limited to maintaining the structures.
Any work which may result in any change of location and scale is not authorised by
this consent other than the new groyne referred to in Condition 1b.

3. Any maintenance that involves any excavation of the bed of the Waikawa Stream or
of the Coastal Marine Area shall be carried out within a six hour period three hours
either side of a low tide.

4. The Consent Holder shall ensure that no machinery that is leaking fuel, lubricant or
hydraulic fluid is used for any maintenance works, or for any ancillary works within the
bed of the stream or within the Coastal Marine Area, and that there is no discharge of
any contaminant into water or onto land within the Coastal Marine Area resulting from
the exercise of this consent.

Advice Note: The Coastal Marine area is defined as that area below the level of
Mean High Water Springs, and extends up the stream to the seaward (downstream)
side of the footbridge over the Waikawa Stream at Waikawa Beach Road immediately
to the west of the Waikawa Beach Road / Drake Street junction.

C. Coastal Permit (land use) 104819 to excavate within the bed of the Waikawa
Stream and the Goastal Marine Area, for a term expiring on I July 2020, subject
to the following conditions:

1. Excavation is limited to within Lots 50, 51 and 52 DP 42669, Lots 50, 51 and 53
DP 40260 Block lll Waitohu SD, and the area of stream bed and foreshore bounded
by Lot 2 DP 8850, Lot 52 DP 42669 and Lot 53 DP 40260 Block lll Waitohu SD and
an area not further than 80 metres south of the southernmost boundary of Lot 52
DP 42669 Block lll Waitohu SD. For clarity, the area is shown hatched on
Plan G104817.

2. Excavation is limited to that necessary for the diversions authorised by Coastal
Permit 104817 and for maintenance of the structures authorised by Coastal Permit
104818.

3. The Consent Holder shall ensure that no machinery that is leaking fuel, lubricant or
hydraulic fluid is used for any excavation, or for any ancillary works within the bed of
the stream or within the Coastal Marine Area, and that there is no discharge of any
contaminant into water or onto land within the Coastal Marine Area resulting from the
exercise of this consent.

8. DECISION

For the reasons reported above, the Policy and Consents Manager of the Manawatu-
Wanganui Regional Council (pursuant to delegated authority), grants resource consent to
Horowhenua District Council, under section 12, 104, 1048 and 108 of the Resource
Management Act 1991 for Coastal Permits (water permit) to dam and divert water in the
Coastal Marine Area, (land use) to place and maintain structures within the bed of the
Waikawa Stream and the Coastal Marine Area and to excavate within the bed of the
Waikawa Stream and the Coastal Marine Area at the mouth of the Waikawa Stream at
approximate map reference NZMS260 S25:910-550 (NZTopo50 BN33:810-933) for a term of
10 years expiring on 1 July 2020.

Richard Munneke
POLICY AND CONSENTS MANAGER

3 March 2010Plan C104817

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *