THE empty Bridge Street site will soon house a new Gull self-serve petrol station. File photo OB4647-01

IT’S all go for Gull in Opotiki.

The Opotiki District Council approved the consent this week for Gull to undertake earthworks and establish and operate a self-service 24-hour service station with associated signage at 58 Bridge Street.

The resource consent is not a consent to build – a building consent must be issued prior to any building work being undertaken.

The resource consent will lapse in five years, unless it is given effect to within that time.
Planning and regulatory group manager Gerard McCormack said agreements had been

reached with the two submitters who originally opposed the application.
“None of the submitters wished to be heard,” he said.

“As such, no hearing was required and there are no issues in contention.”

Furthermore, the site layout and operations were designed to ensure there was no contamination of the environment and the proposal had been designed to comply with the Ministry for the Environment’s “Environmental guidelines for water discharges from the petroleum industry sites in NZ (December 1998)”.

The design of the proposal and conditions would safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air and water and avoid any other actual or potential adverse effect on the environment.

“There will be positive effects from the improvement of the intersection and visually the development of the site is considered positive when compared to a vacant unkept site,” Mr McCormack said.

Prior to beginning construction, Gull is required to submit a construction-and-traffic-management plan to the council for approval.

Construction works can only be carried out Monday to Friday between the hours of 7am and 6pm.

Noise levels resulting from activities on the site must comply with noise regulations in the proposed Opotiki District Plan.

The resource consent states that no retail shop or car wash shall be installed or operated on the site.

Mr McCormack said the site was not identified as having heritage, cultural or archaeological value in the district plan and there were no identified archaeological sites on the property or in the vicinity.

“No submissions were received in relation to these matters,” he said.