The Portlink Industrial Park in Woolston has been controversial since first being proposed in 2008.  Lately, there have been a number of issues for the river and for local residents arising from the development of this land.

Where is Portlink Industrial Park located?  If you drive along Tunnel Road to or from the Lyttleton Tunnel, you cannot help but notice the Portlink Industrial Park – it is the area of new industrial buildings beside Tunnel Road, dominated by the huge stacks of empty shipping containers that have been placed on a sealed area next to the river by Ferry Road. 

Should this area be zoned for industry?  It is a good question, but it is much too late to be asking it.  Back at the turn of the century, when most residents were still woefully unaware of the role and importance of wetlands, this area was largely undeveloped semi-rural, low-lying land that had been drained, was once used for grazing and had become a site for the dumping of unwanted dirt.  While there was some opposition to the rezoning in 2008, largely it was felt that the economic benefits of zoning it as industrial outweighed the negative ecological consequences. It is a lesson in being proactive.

What are the issues with Portlink? To be fair, once one accepts the reality of the industrial zone designation, most of the issues arise solely with the last stage of this development at the tip of the industrial park – the creation of hard-stand areas for the storage of shipping containers.  At the time that the land was rezoned in 2009, this use was not foreseen; it was expected that all the land would be covered with industrial buildings.  However, when the development was purchased by Braeburn Property Ltd after the earthquakes, container storage became an attractive idea when compared to the cost of transporting containers to and from the inland port at Rolleston.  The major issues with the shipping containers are:

• The visual eyesore and potential danger of bulk numbers of containers stored six high (16m)
• The blocking of residents’ views of the Port Hills
• The noise and vibration of container movement for local residents 7 days a week.

Isn’t there a height restriction in this area?  Indeed, there is a 11m building height restriction over the part of the Portlink Industrial Park where the containers are stored.  The landowner, Richard Peebles, expresses surprise that storage should be controlled by a building height restriction.  The City Council, on the other hand, maintains that the District Plan sets the standards for permitted activities in the Industrial General Zone (Portlink Industrial Park), and those standards, which apply to storage activities, must comply with the appropriate built form standards that include the 11m height restriction.  This appears to be a difference in rule interpretation that lawyers will enjoy arguing, for an appropriate fee.

How many containers can be stored if the height is limited to 11m – and is it safe? Shipping containers come in two heights: 2.59m and 2.9m.  So, you can get four 2.59m containers stacked under 11m or three if they are 2.9m high.  It is very easy to overstate the danger of stacked containers, especially when they are in a block.  Single stacks of containers did blow over in high winds in Lyttelton last year, but multi-stacks are less vulnerable to wind.  That is not to say, however, that the risk is zero and it certainly feels threatening when you walk the track beside the containers. There are currently no rules governing the stacking of shipping containers in storage.

What is the noise and vibration issue all about? At its northern end, just on the other side of the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River, the Portlink Industrial Park is neighbour to residents of Woolston.  From 7.00am until 11.00pm, seven days a week, enormous forklifts in the Portlink area work away, furiously loading, unloading trucks and stacking empty containers.  Putting a shipping container in place is not a quiet business – the boom sound of hollow, heavy, metal containers being manoeuvered, and the vibration through the water-laden ground that occurs when the containers are placed, is like the beginning of an earthquake.  So for the local residents, this is like 2010 all over again – a continuous assault on their nerves, except in this case it is man-made.  It is very wearing!

How will the height restriction issue be resolved?  The landowner, Braeburn Property Ltd, has applied for a resource consent.  Part of that application seeks consent for a 11.6m height restriction for a short part of the site and an 18m restriction for the rest of it.  11.6m would allow for four containers of any height to be stacked closest to the river, and the 18m would allow for stacks of 6 or 7 high further away from the river. The application argues that since it would possible under current planning rules to erect a 25m high building outside of the height restriction zone, this should provide a guide for a more permissive height restriction.  This is a red herring – the 11m height restriction already means that views of the Port Hills are blocked.  Any increase to the height restriction will just make the visual impact of the stacked containers all the greater.

What can be done about the noise? In apparent anticipation that shipping container movements would cause noise annoyance to neighbours, the developer placed a 2m high earth bund along the northern boundary facing residential areas.  Unfortunately, to minimise the impact on the area that can be used for storage, the bund was partially placed within the esplanade reserve.  In addition, the bund is not high enough to really shield much noise.  Consequently, the developer, as part of its recently lodged resource consent application, is seeking permission to place a 2.4m high “acoustic” wooden fence on top of the bund.  The application does not provide specifications for this fence. The applicant’s expectation is that the fence will be largely hidden by the growth of trees and shrubs within five years.  A cynic might want to consider the temptation to graffiti artists that such a blank, public canvas would present.  Such a cynic may also consider the subsequent trampling and/or removal of vegetation that such artists might engage in to ensure that their works of art remain visible to the public. The efficacy of a wooden fence in reducing noise to any degree might also be grist to a cynic.

What happens next ?  An independent commissioner will determine the outcome of the application, and also whether or not any other party should be heard before the matter is decided.  We have indicated that we expect this resource consent, given the wide public interest, will be notified; we await that first decision.

There are other issues with this development…read more about them here.