extent of compliance by the consent holders,
this report also assigns a rating as to each Company’s environmental and administrative performance during
the period under review. The rating categories are high, good, improvement required and poor for both
environmental and administrative performance. The interpretations for these ratings are found in
Appendix II.
For reference, in the 2021-2022 year, consent holders were found to achieve a high level of environmental
performance and
achieved. A further 27 (3%) of consents monitored required improvement
in their performance, while the remaining one (<1%) achieved a rating of poor.
In terms of overall environmental and compliance performance by the consent holder over the last several
years, this report shows that the consent holder’s performance remains at a high level.
This report includes recommendations for the 2023-2024 year.
page
i
Table of contents
Page
1 Introduction 1
Compliance
contaminants to air and maintaining the high overall standard of air quality
• Managing the allocation of the region’s water resources.
page
22
Financial Trends
Actual
2020/21
Budget
2020/21
Actual
2019/20
Actual
2018/19
Actual
2017/18
Actual
2016/17
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2014/15
Actual
2013/14
Actual
2012/13
Actual
2011/12
General rates $7.95m $7.95m $7.95m $7.95m $7.61m $7.54m $7.46m $7.40m $7.29m $7.18m $7.18m
Percent change 0% 0%
Policy & Planning Committee agenda February 2022
the on-
site activities, and compliance with the conditions of the consents during the period under review. The
monitoring programme for this year included nine inspections, one water sampling survey, one soil
sampling survey, and two in-stream biomonitoring surveys.
During the monitoring period, the site generally demonstrated a level of administrative performance
that requires improvement in terms of annual reporting. The environmental performance is rated ‘good’
rather than high’ due to
inspections programmed for the 2020-2021 period, but
hydrological monitoring was undertaken by maintaining the McColl’s Bridge flow recorder.
The monitoring showed that overall the scheme operated within resource consent requirements for the vast
majority of the period being reported. During this period, the Company was fully compliant with lake levels
and the rise and recession rate restrictions for the lower Patea River. The Company provided adequate
residual flows within the Patea River at all
provision of funding from both district councils and the regional council can be
seen as a form of “double-dipping” of rates funding from the same ratepayers.
With funding comes involvement in governance and service delivery and the
addition of regional council involvement can make these roles more complex than
they already are.
The regional council can be seen as a substitute funder for some parties that are not
prepared to be contributing their “fair share”.
17. It is clear that
resource consents held by Fonterra for the Whareroa site 5
Table 3 Summary of abstraction rate data for 2021-2022 10
Table 4 Limits for stormwater composition for each parameter (consents 3902, 3907, 4133) 12
Table 5 Sample results for the stormwater discharge to an unnamed tributary of the Tawhiti Stream 13
Table 6 Sample results for the stormwater discharge to an unnamed tributary of the Tangahoe River 14
Table 7 Sample results for the stormwater discharge to an unnamed coastal
rates notice)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.5 Assessment/Valuation number of property (refer to land title or rates notice)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.6 Name of closest river or stream to the works?
page
07/23- #650412 Page 4 of 8
rates notice)
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
2.5 Assessment/Valuation number of property (refer to land title or rates notice)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
2.6 Name of closest river or stream to the works?
page
07/23- #650412 Page 4 of 8