Palmy kicks up a stink over resource consent application rejection

Palmerston North City Council says Horizons Regional Council took more than three months to point out it believed some info was lacking in Palmy's resource consent application for wastewater treatment .

Palmy is hopping mad, pointing out that Horizons Regional Council took more than three months to point out it believed some info was lacking at Palmy’s resource consent application for wastewater treatment.

Palmerston North City Council rejects that assumption. “We believe that we did supply sufficient information on the location, volume, and potential effects of the land discharge (including effects on soil/land, as well as surface and groundwater) for the application to be considered “complete”, council chief executive Waid Crockett said in a statement.

He said Horizons under the rules had 10 days to check whether everything required was included.

Palmerston North City Council CEO Waid Crockett says it has formally objected to Horizons’ decision to return the application as incomplete.

“We lodged our application in December, and the next step was for Horizons, which is the consenting authority, to undertake a ‘completeness check’, which is an administrative check required under section 88 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). This occurs before the application proceeds to the next stage of review and consideration.

“Section 88 of the RMA gives a consenting authority 10 working days to determine whether the application was complete. We agreed to an extension given the impact on resources during the weather events during this period, which provided Horizons with further time to undertake the review.

“On 31 March, we were notified by Horizons that our application had been rejected due to a shortage of information in some areas. We were surprised to get that outcome and have since sought advice and considered the risk to our council by the section 88 decision.”

Palmerston North City Council has now formally objected to Horizons’ decision to return the application as incomplete. “We believe it is important to formally object to this decision, as it means our current consent could be deemed ‘non-compliant’, as a requirement in our existing consent is to have a complete application lodged,” Crockett said.

“It is our intent to continue to work closely with Horizons and with other key stakeholders on the next steps to ensure we get our new consent, and our city continues to look after our environment and our awa (river).”