Tag Archives: Site contamination

Port Chalmers community garden *sigh*

### ch9.co.nz November 24, 2010 – 7:51pm
Community Garden closes after toxic metals found in soil
Port Chalmers Community Garden The Patch is closed after toxic heavy metals were found in the soil, leaving organisers heartbroken. The Patch had been providing food for the community for nearly two years before a series of tests discovered lead and more in several areas.
Video

Post by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under People, Site

Stadium: CST to clean up contaminated land

### ODT Online Wed, 27 Jan 2010
Stadium site to be cleaned up
By David Loughrey
The Carisbrook Stadium Trust has been granted consent to clean up contaminated land at the Forsyth Barr Stadium site, despite evidence some land could have been used for asbestos manufacture and disposal.
Read more

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Finance, Health, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Urban design

On engineering risk at Stadium site

He’s not wrong! Further to Paul’s post ‘ODT remiss’ this is where “The Decision” goes on engineering risk for the stadium area.

****

Planning commissioners Roger Tasker, John Lumsden and John Matthews have made the decision to accept, subject to amendments, Plan Change 8 as notified.

This means the Dunedin City District Plan will contain a new Chapter 27, Stadium as it relates to the (new) Stadium Zone and (extended) Campus Zone.

The stadium site is approximately 5.5ha in size and is generally located between Anzac Avenue (SH 88 ) to the north, Ravensbourne Road, Logan Park and the Logan Point Quarry to the east, the Water of Leith to the west, and the Main South Railway line to the south.

The area is intended to provide for a purpose-built regional stadium with a capacity for up to 35,000 spectators, plus a number of associated activities.

****

During the plan change hearings, Dunedin City Council (the Applicant) called on the evidence of consulting engineers David John Hamilton and Roderick (Rod) Keith Macleod.

Mr Hamilton had prepared evidence in relation to stormwater issues and flooding threats, including the existing environment, the effect of development, appropriate mitigation measures and response to submissions.

He used the terminology ‘stormwater’ to refer to water that is generated by rainfall on the site itself, and ‘flooding’ to refer to an external threat from either freshwater or sea water.

In his Executive Summary, he said:
(3.1) The proposed site is subject to flooding threats from three sources: Otago Harbour, Water of Leith and Opoho Creek;
(3.2) In my assessment the proposed minimum floor level for buildings set at 3.7m above mean sea level provides an appropriate mitigation of the impacts of flooding from all three sources including allowances for climate and sea level change; and
(3.3) Stormwater generated from the site is expected to be slightly less than that permitted under the current zoning.

He noted the site is reclaimed land that predates 1909. The existing ground level at the site varies from 2m to 3.8m with much of the site above 3.2m.

Mr Macleod had prepared evidence in relation to natural hazards and sub-surface conditions at Logan Point.

The evidence included a review of ‘Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report and Contamination Investigations Report’ prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T & T), dated December 2007; the ‘additional information’ prepared by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd (Beca), dated 8 and 22 February 2008; and the Statement of Evidence of David John Hamilton regarding District Plan Change 8.

Mr Macleod found that, “Whilst the site is at risk from: foundation liquefaction; foundation lateral spreading; tsunami events; predicted climate change effects upon groundwater levels; storm surge events; and flooding this is no different that [sic] other land in the area and can be appropriately managed.”

Subject to his concerns regarding natural hazards and foundation conditions being addressed at subsequent stages of the development (building consent), he recommended “the zone change application should not be withheld”.

He could see no reason why Plan Change 8 should be declined on geotechnical or engineering risk matters.

Mr Macleod accepted that specific design of building foundations would be required but this was consistent with the site’s current industrial zoning and consistent with that which would be required on adjacent land. Such matters could be appropriately dealt with at the detailed design stage and could be adequately addressed through the building consent process.

****

The commissioners referred to Council policy planner Paul Freeland’s evidence in which he said, “Issues in respect of this matter [engineering risk] have been covered in the evidence of Messrs Hamilton and McLeod [sic]. From a planning perspective there remains little comment beyond noting that I am satisfied that the effects of these issues have been adequately considered and mitigated.”

The commissioners agreed with Mr Freeland that the expert evidence provided dealt suitably with these issues.

****

In regard to Stop the Stadium Inc’s submission (see 10.0 Specific Matters Raised in Submissions), the commissioners observed that while the submission clearly indicated a list of specific concerns [including engineering risk] with the provisions of the Plan Change, “the submitter did not call evidence that dealt specifically with these issues. Accordingly, and in the absence of any further consideration by the submitter, we prefer the evidence presented by Mr Freeland, on behalf of the Council.”

****

In section 8.9 (para 55) of the decision, the commissioners had this to say about site contamination: “We noted that the documentation that accompanies Plan Change 8 recognises the likelihood of contamination of the stadium site, and that this issue is controlled and managed by the provisions of the Regional Plan: Waste for Otago. We are satisfied, therefore, that any work occurring on a contaminated site would require a resource consent from the Otago Regional Council.”

Postscript: Appeals to Environment Court on the decision must be lodged by 23 February 2009.

6 Comments

Filed under Architecture, CST, Design, Economics, Geography, Media, Name, Other, Site, Stadiums, Town planning