Is the TMP issue overdone by some? Recently I have read some...

Is the TMP issue overdone by some?

Recently I have read some comments to the effect that the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) may be a barrier to the bulk sampling project of 20,000 cubic meters per annum.

I disagree with this viewpoint.

The Resource Consent for the bulk sampling project says in regard to TMP:



So what can we say about this?

1) NTL must prepared the TMP for approval (this categorically falls short of a requirement that the TMP must be approved);

2) NTL must prepare in accordance with the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management;

3) NTL must include a list of specific matters within the Code of Practice but can also include other matters within the Code of Practice.

What's the upshot of this?

Well, for starters, the Council can't revoke the resource consent and the terms of the resource consent are such that NTL need only prepare for approval a TMP.

The fishhook as I see it is that the Council may purport to require some whacky requirements that fall outside of the scope of the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management as part of approving the TMP.

This is where things get interesting because if the Council was doing this it would be unlawful. The Council cannot impose Resource Management Act requirements as part of a TMP approval - they are bound by the requirements of the Code of Practice, as per the consent.

If NTL did submit a TMP for approval that adhered to the relevant laws/codes then it would be for the Council to apply to the Court to prove that NTL's TMP breached the terms. Meanwhile, NTL has been successfully using the public road with as much if not more traffic than bulk sampling will use. This interests me a lot, because it would be very difficult for the Council to say that any further additions are required when the road has been successfully used to date.

The other interesting thing is the changes to the Resource Management Act later this year. Councils will not longer be allowed to require developers/applicants to carry out works that are not directly related to the subject of the consent application. If the Council was seeking whacky terms (which in my view is unlawful anyway) then they won't even have the RMA to try to fall back on soon.

Follow up questions

Is the TMP actually an issue?

Would the board have allocated the $2.5m to bulk sampling/prospecting if there was material uncertainty about the legality or viability of the project?

Is the Council just having a go for political reasons without a legal basis?

Is NTL building its mine under the Permitted Activity of prospecting so it doesn't have to use its bulk sampling consent time for purposes of building and simply does not need to submit a TMP for approval until it wants to start bulk sampling?


Think about it