The Environment Court has made a decision that will see the Portlink Industrial Park become a permanent eyesore and noise headache for all who pass along Ferry Road or who live near it. It is a loss for the environment and for the people of Woolston and Ferrymead.

During 2024, independent Hearing Commissioners decided that a stack of containers, even if they are moved from time to time, constituted a “structure” and therefore came under the definition of “building” for the purposes of compliance with a building height restriction such as that applying to parts of the Portlink Industrial Park. That decision, which had had a significant impact on the operations of the container park next to the river, was appealed to the Environment Court by the developer, Braeburn Property Ltd whose sole director is Richard Peebles.

The Environment Court decision  In an interim decision released just prior to Christmas, the Environment Court has determined that containers are not buildings and that the storage of them in an Industrial General Zone, as pertains to all stored materials in such a zone, has no height restriction. This appears to bring to an end the long battle to reduce the impact of this development on the local environment and residents. We will read with interest the details in the final decision of the court when it is released sometime in February, 2025.

To what height will the containers now be stacked? The Environment Court decision means that there is now no height restriction on stacked containers other than the physical ability of the operators to raise the containers sufficiently to place them or any agreed height restriction that might form part of the resource consent that is finalised following this decision. Currently, the operator has restricted stacking to 4-high which has meant that the container park has had a pleasantly minimal visual impact as you pass along Ferry Road. However, expect to see containers stacked at least 6-high in the near future with attendant visual pollution and blocking of the vista of the Port Hills. The operator of the container park has previously indicated that 6-high will be the tallest stack, but there is no requirement to stick with this..

Is the Fast-Track Approvals Act involved?  The operator of the container yard in question, Specialised Container Services (Christchurch) Ltd (SCS) applied for fast-track approval of the resource consent subject to the decision of the Environment Court. Now that the Environment Court has determined that containers are not buildings, it is likely that SES will be looking for a quick Certificate of Compliance through the Fast-Track process.

But what about the noise issue for neighbours?  Sadly, the developer’s objection to the City Council imposing noise limitation conditions in the resource consent was accepted by an independent hearing commissioner. The commissioner agreed with the developer’s argument that the landowner was not responsible for the operation of the container park provided that the operator undertook to abide by noise restrictions imposed by the District Plan. Instead the operator of the container park will undertake a noise management plan, but we have yet to sight this.

But surely the noise and vibration caused by stacking containers exceeds acceptable levels?  Unfortunately, vibrations caused by the placement of containers within a general industrial zone is not restricted by the District Plan. Further, noise pollution at any receiving point is measured as an average of the noise levels encountered over a 15-minute period which does not account well for the sudden, loud booming noise of a container being manoeuvered at height – these sudden peaks of sound followed by relatively longer periods of lower noise from the hoist mean that the average impact of container stacking over 15 minutes is lower that the real impact on the listener. Consequently, monitoring appears to show that the yard is currently able to operate within the noise limitations set by the District Plan.

Are there any other consequences of this decision?  The resolution of the height restriction means that the resource consent for this site can be finalised and progress can be made in fulfilling the conditions of the consent such as they are. Of these conditions, most noticeable from Ferry Road will be the erection of a 2.4m high “acoustic” fence to reduce noise from the site, and the planting of the areas bounding the site. Residents walking alongside the river will see the forming of a gritted path beside the Woolston Loop and possibly the removal of some weedy tree species in addition to the planting of native trees and shrubs. If you are particularly observant, over time you may be able to witness a resurgence of Southern skink populations along the northern bund. More likely, however, will be the successful re-establishment of woody weed species along this bund.

What will the lasting impacts be?  The lasting impact of converting this area of Ōtautahi Christchurch to an Industrial Zone and then leasing a large part of the area to a container storage operation will be:

• An enduring eyesore of ugly stacked containers to people passing along Ferry Road
• An enduring noise nuisance for neighbours
• A long-term eyesore of a graffiti-covered high fence as a background to views of the river
• A minimal and ineffectual screening of the fence by planted foliage struggling to grow in the dry environment of the bund.
• A lost opportunity for the river to regain some of its ecological resources despite it being listed as a Site of Ecological Significance. For decades, this area of riverside Woolston was a degraded rural/industrial scene of ecological exploitation. It could have been returned to ecology-enhancing wetlands and riparian habitat if the request for industrial zoning had been turned down by public pressure in 2009. It is a lesson for us all to be active in the planning processes.

What can be done?  While this is yet another example of where the developer seems to win over the environment, there are things that can be done by the public to push back. The resource consent that will be issued will contain conditions that can be enforced. The compliance team at the Council is a busy one and it does not have the resources to monitor all consent conditions on an on-going basis. It relies on feedback from the public acting as its eyes and ears. You can and should:

• Report EVERY occurrence of the container yard operating out-of-hours. Your SnapSendSolve report (including visual evidence if possible) may not stop the action at the time, but the accumulating log of complaints will give the compliance team at the Council the ammunition it needs to take eventual abatement action against the container yard operator.
• Report EVERY example of grafitti on the fence that is not swiftly painted out. The resource consent will contain a requirement to maintain the fence grafitti-free until the foliage covers it up. The developer will have to follow through on removing graffiti, but will only be motivated to do so if the complaints keep coming through to the Council.
• If you notice newly-planted native trees that have died for whatever reason, report them on SnapSendSolve. The developer will have responsibility for the maintenance of these plantings and will need to replace plants if they die, but will only do so when the compliance team reacts to complaints from the public.
• If you notice weed species starting to proliferate on the bund within the “rank grass” that is the habitat for the Southern skink, send in a SnapSendSolve report to the council. The developer will have to maintain the bund free of these species for a number of years but will only do so when the complaints mount.