Planta Lactea Fonterra

8/12/2019 Planta Lactea Fonterra

1/57

FONTERRA DARFIELD MILK POWDER PLANT PROPOSED STAGE 2

ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Mike Copeland

Brown, Copeland & Co Ltd

13 July 2011

1. INTRODUCTION

Report Objective and Format

1.1 In 2010, Fonterra received consents allowing it to develop a new milk powder

plant at Darfield. Construction of the proposed plant has commenced and is

expected to be completed and the plant operational by August 2012. This (Stage

1) development will have the capacity to process up to 2.2 million litres of milk per

day but there is capacity to accommodate future plant expansions on the 680

hectare site. Fonterra considered the plant necessary to allow for the current and

future expansion of milk processing in the Canterbury Region.

1.2 Fonterra now wishes to proceed with obtaining consents to enable the

construction of a second plant on the site with an additional capacity of 5 million

litres of milk per day (the Stage 2 Project) , giving a total processing capacity on

the site of 7.2 million litres of milk per day. To expand the processing capacity asproposed, Fonterra requires land use consent for construction and resource

consents for land use, stormwater, discharge to air and land and disposal of

wastewater. This report accordingly undertakes an assessment of the economic

impacts of the Stage 2 Project and forms part of Fonterra s assessment of

environmental effects (AEE) of the Stage 2 Project.


2/57

1.3 This report is divided into 6 parts (in addition to this introductory section). These

are:

(a) the background to Fonterra s develop ment at Darfield;

(b) a consideration of the relevance of economic effects under the ResourceManagement Act (RMA);

(c) a description of the key economic drivers of the Selwyn District economy;

(d) the local district economic impacts during the Stage 2 Project s

construction and operational phases;

(e) a discussion of the potential economic costs; and

(f) some overall conclusions.

2. BACKGROUND TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1

2.1 New Zealand is the world s largest exporter of milk products and Fonterra, which

processes 92% of New Zealan d s total milk production , is the largest dairy

exporter to the global open market. Fonterra is New Zealand s biggest company

and is responsible for 25% of New Zealand s total exports by value. Each year

Fonterra processes around 14 billion litres of milk at 24 processing sites in New

Zealand, employing 9,500 people and earning $16 billion in annual revenues. The

company is co-operatively owned by 10,500 shareholders, who are a mix of family

owned farms and corporate entities.

2.2 Whereas milk production in the North Island has ceased growing, milk production

in the South Island continues to grow, especially in the Canterbury region, which

now produces 10% of New Zealand s milk. Canterbury is the fastest growing

dairying region in New Zealand with milk production in Canterbury growing at 5%

per annum.

2.3 To cope with the growth in milk production in Canterbury (and the South Island),

Fonterra over the last 10 years has expanded its plant(s) at Clandeboye 2 near

Timaru (and Edendale 3 near Invercargill). However, to meet anticipated future

1 Material in this section provided by Fonterra.2 Clandeboye is now Fonterra s third largest milk processing site. 3 Edendale is now the world s largest milk processing site by milk volume.


3/57

growth in Canterbury s milk supply, Fonterra proposed the new plant situated near

Darfield in the Selwyn District.

2.4 Fonterra has analysed the location of existing and projected future milk production

from farms in the Canterbury region and has assessed the advantages of theproposed site near Darfield relative to other potential new sites and the expansion

of the existing plant at Clandeboye. Fonterra has concluded that the key

advantages of the proposed Darfield site are:

The surrounding area has dairy growth potential;

The site is large enough to allow for future expansions such as the

proposed Stage 2 Project to cope with predicted future increases in North

and Mid Canterbury milk supply;

The site is on a main road with good road network links;

The site is adjacent to the rail network for delivery of inputs and export of

milk products;

The site is close to Lyttelton Port;

The site is close to Darfield and Christchurch City for skilled staff and

support industries;

The site has a sufficient supply of good quality water, a reliable electricity

supply and is of sufficient size to enable on-site wastewater disposal; and

The site is some distance from neighbours and effects on them can be

mitigated.

3. ECONOMICS AND THE RMA

Community Economic Wellbeing

3.1 Economic considerations are intertwined with the concept of the sustainable

management of natural and physical resources, which is embodied in the RMA. Inparticular, Part II section 5(2) refers to enabling people and communities to

pro vide for their economic ... well being as a part of the meaning of

sustainable management , the promotion of which is the purpose of the RMA .


4/57

3.2 As well as indicating the relevance of economic effects in considerations under the

RMA, this section also refers to people and communities (emphasis added),

which highlights that in assessing the impacts of a proposal it is the impacts on the

community and not just the applicant or particular individuals or organisations, that

must be taken into account. This is underpinned by the definition of environment which also extends to include people and communities.

Economic Efficiency

3.3 Part II section 7(b) of the RMA notes that in achieving the purpose of the Act, all

persons shall have particular regard to ... the efficient use and development of

natural and physical resources which include the economic concept of efficiency 4.

Economic efficiency can be defined as:

the effectiveness of resource allocation in the economy as a whole such that outputs of

goods and services fully reflect consumer preferences for these goods and services as

well as individual goods and services being produced at minimum cost through

appropriate mixes of factor inputs 5 .

3.4 More generally economic efficiency can be considered in terms of:

Maximising the value of outputs divided by the cost of inputs;

Maximising the value of outputs for a given cost of inputs; Minimising the cost of inputs for a given value of outputs;

Improving the utilisation of existing assets; and

Minimising waste.

Viewpoint

3.5 An essential first step in carrying out an evaluation of the positive and negative

economic effects of a development project is to define the appropriate viewpointthat is to be adopted. This helps to define which economic effects are relevant to

4 See, for example, in Marlborough Ridge Ltd v Marlborough District Council [1998] NZRMA 73, theCourt noted that all aspects of efficiency are economic by definition because economics is aboutthe use of resources generally.

5 Pass, Christopher and Lowes, Bryan, 1993, Collins Dictionary of Economics (2nd edition), HarperCollins, page 148.


5/57

the analysis. Typically a district or wider regional viewpoint is adopted and

sometimes even a nationwide viewpoint might be considered appropriate 6.

3.6 For Fonterra s proposed expansion of the its new milk powder plant at Darfield it is

appropriate to consider Selwyn District economic impacts given the Stage 2P roject s likely impacts on local residents and businesses. At the Canterbury

regional level many of the project s economic impacts net out in that without the

new plant expansion, Canterbu ry s expanding milk production will need to be

processed somewhere in the region either at an expanded Clandeboye or at an

alternative site for a new plant. However in terms of economic efficiency effects

the project generates district, regional and national level economic benefits.

3.7 There are also private or financial costs and benefits associated with this

proposal. If consents are granted for the Stage 2 Project, and Fonterra gives

effect to those consents then it can be assumed that these private or financial

costs and benefits have been responsibly and properly analysed and that from the

viewpoint of those with money at risk, the expected financial benefits exceed the

expected costs. Accountability for accuracy of the financial analysis clearly rests

with Fonterra and ultimately the net financial benefits Fonterra might receive from

the proposal are not directly relevant to the assessment of effects under the RMA.

The focus of this report is therefore on the wider economic effects on parties other

than Fonterra and its customers. Economists refer to such effects asexternalities 7.

Economic Rationale for Land Use Controls

3.8 Over the past thirty years or so there has been a growing acceptance in New

Zealand and other countries that economic efficiency is maximised when

investment decisions are left to individual entrepreneurs or firms, without

intervention from Government. The reason for this is that a perfectly competitive

market achieves an efficient allocation of resources. Accordingly, the efficient use

of resources ( and therefore sustainable management ) occurs through the

6 For example, there was an inference that the consideration of Project Aqua and other WaitakiRiver water allocation cases by a central government appointed body was to broaden the viewpointfrom a local district or regional level to a wider national level.

7 Defined as the side effects of the production or use of a good or service, which affects third parties,other than just the buyer and seller.


6/57

creation of a climate where the market enables people to make investment

decisions to provide for their economic well -being .

3.9 Despite this, markets are not perfect, and the presence of externalities affects

the working of the market and the results that could be expected from a totallyunregulated system of resource allocation. Externalities arise because the actions

of individuals or firms sometimes create positive or negative impacts on others.

3.10 It is also unrealistic to assume that development of particular forms of economic

activity and/or the location of that economic activity will avoid the imposition of

costs on the community in general. Where the developer, and/or those engaged in

the various forms of economic activity at the site do not face the incidence of

these costs, externalities arise and intervention of some form may be justified. In

other words the development may create costs or benefits for parties other than

those commercially involved in the development.

3.11 Externalities may be in the form of environmental effects such as visual, noise,

water or air pollution effects. Externalities in an economic context may relate to the

provision of infrastructure where a strict user pays system is not in place; to traffic

congestion and road accident effects; and to the so called agglomeration

economies and public amenity benefits, which relate to the beneficial effects for

businesses, customers and residents in concentrating particular forms ofeconomic activity within confined areas.

3.12 It is the presence of externalities (economic and non economic), which justify land

use constraints since if externalities are not present the market can be left to itself

to optimise resource use efficiency. However the existence of externality costs per

se does not justify intervention for example by not granting resource consent for

the expansion of Fo nterra s new milk powder plant at Darfield and preventing a

more 8 market determined outcome with respect to the use of the land.

8 Granting resource consent for the proposed expansion of the milk powder plant at darfield wouldnot constitute a completely free market outcome. Expansion of the plant will still be subject to theconstraints which already exist in the District Plan and any additional constraints imposed whenconsents are granted. These consenting constraints may have the effect of addressing externalitieswhich would otherwise arise. Also Fonterra in developing and operating its expanded plant will besubject to various regulatory constraints other than those imposed under the RMA for example,occupational safety and health regulations.


7/57

3.13 Firstly intervention is not costless in that it prevents a market determined outcome,

maximising producer and consumer choice. Preventing Fonterra from best

meeting the needs of its customers and suppliers will have economic efficiency

costs for Fonterra, its customers, farmer suppliers and shareholders. Incurring

these costs is only justified if significant economic (or non-economic) externalitycosts are associated with the proposed development.

3.14 Secondly there may be externality benefits from the proposed Fonterra plant

expansion that outweigh any externality costs which may result from it. Therefore

a range of economic externalities (both positive and negative) arising from the

proposed Stage 2 Project expanding the new milk powder plant are discussed

later in this report.

4. THE SELWYN DISTRICT ECONOMY

Population 9

4.1 The 2006 census recorded a population in the Selwyn District of 33,669 persons,

which represented 6.5% of Canterbury s population. In 2001, Selwyn District s

population was 27,312 and the growth of 18.8% over the period 2001 to 2006 was

considerably higher than that for Canterbury (8.0%) and New Zealand (7.8%) over

the same period. Between 2006 and 2010 , Selwyn s population is estimated byStatistics New Zealand to have grown by a further 11.3%, as compared to growth

of 4.8% for the Canterbury region and 4.4% for New Zealand as whole.

4.2 Statistics New Zealand s medium population projections 10 have Selwyn s

population growing at an average rate of 2% per annum over the period 2006-31,

compared to an average rate of growth for the Canterbury region and New

Zealand of only 0.8% per annum.

Gross Domestic Product 11

9 Data in this section from Statistics New Zealand.10 Statistics New Zealand prepare three sets of projections high, medium and low according to

natural population change (i.e. the net effect of birth and death rate assumptions) and net migrationassumptions. These projections do not explicitly incorporate assumptions about different rates ofeconomic development.

11 Data in this section taken from work undertaken for the Selwyn District Council see Selwyn Economic Base for the District ; Caroline Saunders, Meike Guenther and Paul Dalziel, AERU,


8/57

4.3 An analysis of contributions to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the Selwyn

District highlights its reliance on the agricultural sector insofar as economic activity

within the District is concerned. 12 For 2007, the agriculture, forestry and fishing

industry group13

accounted for 29.0% of GDP for the Selwyn District, as comparedto only 6.1% for the whole of New Zealand. 14 The second most important industry

group is the government administration and defence group which accounted for

18.4% of Selwyn s GDP, as compared to only 4.4% for all of New Zealand. 15 This

reflects the presence of the Burnham military camp within the Selwyn District.

Manufacturing accounted for 8.5% of Selwyn s GDP but this is much lower than

the 14.0% for all of New Zealand.

4.4 The Selwyn District, given that it is not a metropolitan centre, is also

underrepresented in el ectricity, gas and water supply, wholesale trade, retail

trade, communication services, finance and insurance, property and business

services, health and community services and cultural and recreational services. It

is overrepresented in education reflec ting the presence of Lincoln University

within the District. In other industry groups including accommodation, cafes and

restaurants, the GDP contribution percentages are similar to those for the national

economy.

Employment16

4.5 Like the GDP data, employment data also highlight the dependence of the Selwyn

District economy on the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry group. In the

November 2010, 2,269 jobs (21.3%) of Selwyn Districts 12,540 jobs were in this

Lincoln University, 20 September, 2009 and Quarterly Economic Monitor Selwyn District; Infometrics; December 2009.

12 Some persons residing in the Selwyn District commute into Christchurch City for employment. Tothis extent the reliance of the District on the agricultural sector, measured only in terms of economicactivity generated within the District, is overstated.

13 Statistics New Zealand data on the number of firms shows that agriculture predominates over theother industries within this group. Agriculture accounts for 89.2% of all firms in this industry group.Of the remaining 10.8% of firms in this industry group 6.4% are agriculture, forestry and fishingsupport services firms and many of these will also be orientated towards the agriculture sector.

14 For 2009, Infometrics estimat e this industry group s contribution to Selwyn Districts GDP was27.8%. No 2009 comparative estimate is available for New Zealand.

15 For 2009, Infometrics estimate this industry group s contribution to Selwyn District s GDP was19.1%.

16 Data in this section from Statistics New Zealand.


9/57

industry group. The next most important sectors by employment were public

administration and safety (19.1%), education (13.5%), and manufacturing (10.1%).

5. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED DARFIELD MILK POWDER PLANT

Increased Economic Activity during Plant Construction 17

5.1 The Stage 2 Project s construction is likely to commence sometime in the five

years after the Stage 1 plant is constructed and operational (i.e. sometime in the

five years after August 2012) and last for eighteen months. The project has an

estimated construction cost of $240 million (excluding land costs). The majority of

the equipment, materials and services required for the plant s expansion will be

sourced from within New Zealand, with the remainder imported from overseas.

Local Selwyn District suppliers will be used wherever possible, but realistically

most suppliers from the Canterbury region will be predominantly located in

Christchurch City rather than the Selwyn District. Goods and services, which may

be supplied from the Selwyn District during the Stage 2 Project, include

excavation services, concrete, road construction materials, fencing, shelter belt

planting, re-grassing, catering services, construction labour, laundry services,

accommodation and security services.

5.2 During the Stage 2 Project construction an on-site workforce starting at 50employees and peaking at 700 employees will be required with an estimated

monthly average of around 300 employees. Wage and salary payments for these

employees are estimated to average $17 million per annum. 18 How much of these

wage and salary payments will be injected into the Selwyn District economy is

difficult to estimate. This depends on how many construction workers will reside

permanently in the District over the construction period, how many construction

workers will reside temporarily in the District over the construction period and how

much of non- resident construction workers incomes will be spent in the District .

17 Unless stated otherwise data in this section provided by Fonterra.18 Based on an average salary per employee of $55,000 per annum. This is the same as the average

salary assumed in 2010 for the Stage 1 development assessment of economic effects report. Wageand salary inflation is likely to have lifted this figure slightly but within the margins of error ofestimates in this report, which expresses all costs in 2011 price terms.


10/57

5.3 Statistics New Zealand forecasts indicate that in 2011, Selwyn s population will be

8.7% of the combined populations of Christchurch City (378,900), Waimakariri

District (49,100) and Selwyn District (40,900). On the basis of this a very

conservative estimate is that something in the vicinity of 10% of the workforce s

income will find its way into the Selwyn District economy i.e. there will be anequivalent of 30 extra fulltime on-site construction jobs created for Selwyn District

residents and an additional $1.7 million per annum in additional income for Selwyn

resident households. These are the direct economic impacts for the Selwyn

District economy during the Stage 2 P roject s construction.

5.4 However in addition to these direct economic impacts there are indirect impacts

arising from:

The effects on suppliers of goods and services provided to the site

from within the District (i.e. the forward and backward linkage

effects). As noted above these will be limited by the equipment,

materials and services required for Stage 2 of the milk powder

plant s construction being sourced mostly from outside the Selwyn

District; and

The supply of goods and services to employees at the site and to

those engaged in supplying goods and services to the site (i.e. the

induced effects). For example, there will be additional jobs and

incomes for employees of supermarkets, restaurants and bars as

a consequence of the additional expenditure by employees

directly involved in the plant s construction at the site and living

within the Selwyn District.

5.5 District multipliers can be estimated to gauge the size of these indirect effects.

The size of the multipliers is a function of the extent to which a district economy is

self-sufficient in the provision of a full range of goods and services and the

district s proximity to alternative sources of supply. District multipliers typically fall

in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 and taking the low point of 1.5, given the Selwyn

District s close proximity to Christchurch, implies total impacts (i.e. direct plus

indirect impacts) during the Stage 2 construction period of:

45 additional jobs for local Selwyn District residents; and


11/57

$2.6 million per annum in additional wages and salaries for local

Selwyn District residents.

Increased Economic Activity during Expanded Plant s Operation 19

5.6 After the Stage 2 Project expansion is completed, the plant will require additional

inputs of materials and services other than milk and employee labour. Again these

are likely to be largely drawn from Christchurch City. Fonterra estimates about

80% of operational input supplies other than milk and employee labour will come

from Christchurch City. However some local Selwyn District firms may provide

goods and services to the plant including, for example security services, laundry

services, gardening services, canteen outsourcing, electrical maintenance

services and mechanical maintenance services. Fonterra estimate a maximum of

10% of the value of operational input supplies (other than milk and employee

labour) might be supplied from within the Selwyn District.

5.7 Of the expected additional Stage 2 operational on-site workforce of 23 fulltime

equivalent (FTE) employees and up to an additional 39 milk tanker drivers, it is

estimated that at least 50% or 31 additional FTEs are likely to reside permanently

within the Selwyn District. 20 This estimate is based on travel times from Darfield of

around 5 minutes, from Sheffield of around 10 minutes, from Springfield of around

15 minutes, from Rolleston and West Melton of 20 to 25 minutes and fromChristchurch of up to 1 hour depending where in the City an employee resides and

peak versus off-peak travel times. This implies an ongoing increase in direct

employment within Selwyn District of 31 jobs and an increase in direct household

income of $2.3 million per annum (on the basis of an average salary for plant

employees and drivers of $75,000 per annum).

5.8 Again using a district multiplier of 1.5 implies an increase in direct plus indirect

employment of 46.5 FTE jobs for local Selwyn District residents and an increase indirect plus indirect household income of $3.5 million per annum within the Selwyn

District economy.

19 Unless stated otherwise data in this section provided by Fonterra.20 This may be conservative in that the additional drivers required as a result of the Stage 2 Project

are more likely to be within a 30 minute drive time to the plant where the tankers will be based,given the shift work involved. In the case of Stage 1, no new tanker driver positions were assumed.


12/57

Economic Benefits from Increased Economic Activity

5.9 As indicators of levels of economic activity, economic impacts in terms of

increased expenditure, incomes and employment within the Selwyn Districteconomy are not in themselves measures of improvements in economic welfare or

economic wellbeing. However, there are economic welfare enhancing benefits

associated with increased levels of economic activity. These relate to one or more

of:

Increased economies of scale: Businesses and public sector

agencies are able to provide increased amounts of outputs with

lower unit costs, hence increasing profitability or lowering prices;

Increased competition: Increases in the demand for goods andservices allow a greater number of providers of goods and

services to enter markets and there are efficiency benefits from

increased levels of competition;

Reduced unemployment and underemployment 21 of resources: To

the extent resources (including labour) would be otherwise

unemployed or underemployed, increases in economic activity

can bring efficiency benefits when there is a reduction in

unemployment and underemployment. The extent of such gainsis of course a function of the extent of underutilized resources

within the local economy at the time and the match of resource

requirements of a project and those resources unemployed or

underemployed within the local economy; and

Increased quality of central government provided services:

Sometimes the quality of services provided by central government

such as education and health care are a function of population

levels and the quality of such services in a community can beincreased if increased economic activity maintains or enhances

population levels.

21 Underemployment differs from unemployment in that resources are employed but not at theirmaximum worth; e.g. in the case of labour, it can be employed at a higher skill and/or productivitylevel, reflected in higher wage rates.


13/57

5.10 It is reasonable to presume that increases in economic activity (i.e. expenditures,

incomes and employment) within the Selwyn District economy as a consequence

of the Stage 2 expansion of Fonterra s new milk powder plant will give rise to one

or more of these four welfare enhancing economic benefits for the local

community. For example, increases in population in the District will help underpinexisting school rolls.

Economic Efficiency Benefits from Optimising Plant Location

5.11 Fonterra, in choosing the proposed site for its new milk powder plant has sought

to minimise milk collection costs having regard to the existing and likely future

pattern of milk production throughout the Canterbury region. A reduction of some

20,000 vehicle kilometres per day travelled by milk tankers has been estimated for

the Stage 1 development. 22 Other factors influencing the choice of the Darfield site

are its proximity to Port Lyttelton and its access to the rail network for receiving

inputs into the site and the export of finished products.

5.12 Fonterra has estimated that, from a milk collection point of view, there is an

additional saving of 10,000 vehicle kilometres per day travelled by milk tankers if

the plant at Darfield is expanded compared to a similar expansion of its

Clandeboye plant. In addition because the finished product will travel by rail from

Darfield to Port Lyttleton instead of by road from Clandeboye to Port Lytteltonthere will be a reduction of 52 truck movements per day between Clandeboye and

Lyttelton or 8,100 vehicle-kilometres per day.

5.13 Reducing road transport kilometres associated with the collection of milk and the

export of products from the site will reduce the externality costs associated with

road transport. It is therefore appropriate to expect a reduction in road accident

costs, road transport pollution costs and travel time costs for other road users. For

example Fonterra s initial estimates show that the Stage 2 Project expansion at

Darfield will result in a reduction in the carbon footprint of 23 tonnes per day in

CO 2 emissions as a consequence of reduced milk collection distances and rail

transport replacing road transport for the export of products from the site.

22 Assuming the alternative to the new plant is the expansion of the existing Clandeboye plant. SeeSection 9.1, Appendix J: Transportation Assessment Report (for the Stage 1 Development); TrafficDesign Group; June 2010.


14/57

Increased Diversity for the Selwyn District Economy

5.14 As noted in Section 3 of this report, the Selwyn District economy is primarily driven

by the agricultural, forestry and fishing industry group23

, which accounted for29.0% of the District s GDP in 2007. The comparative New Zealand -wide

percentage is only 6.1%. The next most significant industry group is government

administration and defence, which accounted for 18.4% against a national figure

of 4.4%, reflecting the presence of the Burnham military camp within the Selwyn

District. Manufacturing at 8.5% is the next most significant industry group in the

District but this is much less than the national figure of 14.0%.

5.15 Therefore Fonterra s Stage 2 expansion of its proposed new milk powder plant at

Darfield will help provide greater diversity and balance to the Selwyn District

economy. Although it will involve the processing of milk, additional manufacturing

activity in the District will provide employment opportunities and incomes less

dependent upon returns to the agricultural sector. This will make the Selwyn

District economy more resilient to agricultural commodity price cycles.

5.16 Also the p roposed expansion of Fonterra s milk powder plant at Darfield (and the

ongoing construction of the Stage 1 plant) will provide much needed confidence to

the manufacturing sector of greater Christchurch following the major earthquakesof September 2010, February 2011 and June 2011 and ongoing aftershocks.

Increased Rates Revenue for Selwyn District Council

5.17 Fonterra will pay increased rates as a consequence of the Stage 2 Project as the

general rate is applied to the capital value of properties. Because of economies of

scale it is likely that the increase in rates paid by Fonterra will be greater than the

increase in Council s costs. From the perspective of the Selwyn District Council

and other ratepayers in the District, this broadening of the rating base provides the

opportunity for a greater range of Council provided services or a reduction in the

rates burden for other ratepayers.

23 Predominantly agriculture.


15/57

Community Sponsorship Programme

5.18 In recognition of the important role the community plays in helping Fonterra realise

its potential, the company provides financial support to a number of initiatives at

the community and national level. At the community level 6 regions have beenidentified for local community support in the areas of environment, education,

emergency response and nutrition and well being. These regions are at the

various locations where Fonterra has significant milk processing plants. A new

region has been established at the plant at Darfield and a community site relations

champion appointed as a point of co ntact for the Selwyn District community.

Expanding the plant at Darfield as compared to expansion of one of Fonterra s

alternative plants or establishment of a plant at a new site will lead to a greater

contribution by Fonterra to the local Selwyn District community.

6. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE PROPOSED DARFIELD MILK POWDER

PLANT

Lost Agricultural Production

6.1 Lost agricultural production is not an external cost of Fonterra s proposed new

milk powder plant at Darfield. The productive value of the land in alternative uses

will be internalised into the cost structure of the development in other wordsFonterra in purchasing the land will pay a price reflective of future net returns from

alternative uses for the land. Such costs are not costs to be borne by the wider

community.

6.2 In any case the increase in the land s rateable value if land use consent is granted

will be indicative of the land being used more efficiently than if it continued only in

its current use.

6.3 In terms of reduced economic activity within the District from a reduction in

agricultural use, current employment on the site is estimated at 5 FTEs and

therefore even with District multiplier impacts taken into account the additional

economic activity generated within the Selwyn District by the new milk powder

plant and the subsequent Stage 2 Project expansion of the plant will significantly

outweigh any reductions in economic activity from any displaced farming.


16/57

Furthermore the plant and roads on the site after Stage 2 is completed are

estimated to require less than 2% of the site (12.5 hectares 24 out of 680 hectares),

and the remainder of the site will continue to be used for agricultural purposes with

an improved supply of irrigation water from the plant s treated wastewater system.

Therefore any reduction in agricultural activity on the site as a consequence of theStage 2 Project will be insignificant. Also Fonterra are in the processing of seeking

consent for a further 212 hectares of third party irrigation, increasing production

from these properties which are not currently irrigated.

Reductions in Tourism

6.4 The accommodation, cafes and restaurants industry group accounts for 1.5% of

the Selwyn District s GDP. This is same percentage as for New Zealand as a

whole. Whilst tourism is not as significant a driver of the District economy as other

industries (e.g. agriculture), the District is the home to several ski-fields (Broken

River, Craigieburn, Mt Olympus, Porter Heights, Mt Cheeseman and Temple

Basin) and the Arthurs Pass National Park and offers a wide range of outdoor

activities for visitors to the District to enjoy.

6.5 The new milk powder plant will be situated outside of any main centre in the

District, will not be adjacent or near to tourist attractions and will be almost

invisible from State Highway 73. The new milk powder plant and its proposedStage 2 expansion will not impact on outdoor pursuits in the District such as

skiing, tramping, mountain climbing or fishing. The evidence of Mr Greenaway

concluded in relation to the Stage 1 plant proposal concluded that it would not

cause adverse impacts on regional tourism activity. Therefore I believe that it is

unlikely that the plant or its proposed expansion would have any discernable

negative impact on tourist visitor numbers, their length of stay in the District and

tourist expenditure in the District.

6.6 In fact the expansion of a major manufacturing plant within the District is likely to

lead to some increase in visitor numbers to the District and benefits in terms of

additional visitor spending on locally provided accommodation and hospitality.

During the construction phase of the Stage 2 Project, there will be significant

24 The Stage 2 expansion only involves and additional 0.5 hectares of site coverage.


17/57


18/57

ratepayers of the District will be providing subsidised services to the expanded

plant.

Local Road Congestion Costs

6.11 An analysis of the traffic effects of the Stage 2 Project has concluded that the

access arrangements agreed in relation to the Stage 1 development are sufficient

to accommodate the additional volumes of vehicles envisaged and that the traffic

generated during both the construction and operation of the expanded plant will

be safely and efficiently accommodated within the adjacent road network. 26

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The proposed expansion of Fonterra s Darfield Milk Powder Plant will enhance the

economic well being of the Selwyn community by:

(i) Creating an additional 45 jobs for Selwyn District residents during the

Stage 2 P roject s eighteen month construction period;

(ii) Creating an additional 46.5 jobs for Selwyn District residents once the

plant is operational;

(iii) Increasing total household income in the District by $2.6 million per

annum during the p lant s eighteen month construction period;

(iv) Increasing total household income in the District by $3.5 million per

annum once the plant is operational;

(v) Increasing population in the District, thereby increasing or maintaining the

quality of some central government provided services;

(vi) Providing the local economy with greater diversity and resilience;

26 See See Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd, Darfield Milk Powder Plant Stage 2 Transportation Assessment Report; Traffic Design Group, 2011.


19/57

(vii) Increasing confidence in the Greater Christchurch manufacturing sector

following the major earthquakes of September 2010, February 2011 and

June 2011 and ongoing aftershocks;

(viii) Providing greater employment choice for local residents;

(ix) Broadening the rating base of the Selwyn District Council; and

(x) Fonterra making additional contributions to local community activities, in

its role as a responsible employer and good corporate citizen.

7.2 The new plant will improve resource use efficiency by:

(i) Increasing economic activity and population in the Selwyn District,

enabling increased economies of scale in the local provision of goods

and services;

(ii) Reducing transport costs for the collection of milk and the export of

finished products; and

(iii) Reducing externality costs associated with road transport including road

accident costs, road transport pollution costs and travel time costs forother road users.

7.3 The new plant will not give rise to economic externality costs.


20/57

I N IT IA L D AT E

DESIGNED AC 150711

DRAWN EG 150711

APPROVED AC 150711

CLIENT FONTERRA DARFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER: FILENAME: SCALE 1:7500 @ A4

FD2#-A4-P1-XR FD2.indd

ATTACHMENT 1 - FONTERRA DARFIELD STAGE 2LANDSCAPE PLAN

s e t b a c k 5 0 m f r o m r a i l

Oak trees (Quercus robur ) to be 4.0m high at time of planting with maximum 6.0m spacing between trees in each group


21/57

I N IT IA L D AT E

DESIGNED AC 150711

DRAWN EG 150711

APPROVED AC 150711


DRAWING NUMBER: FILENAME: SCALE 1:2000 @ A4


ATTACHMENT 1 - FONTERRA DARFIELD STAGE 2LANDSCAPE PLAN OAKS

s e t b a c k 5 0 m f r o m r a i l

Oak trees (Quercus robur ) to be 4.0mhigh at time of planting with maximum 6.0m spacing betweentrees in each group

0 50 100 m


22/57

I N IT IA L D AT E

DESIGNED AC 150711

DRAWN EG 150711

APPROVED AC 150711


DRAWING NUMBER: FILENAME: NOT TO SCALE


FONTERRA DARFIELD STAGE 2COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS - EAST AND NORTH

East Elevation

North Elevation

NOTE: Elements shaded blue are identied as part of stage 2 application. Unshaded areas represent stage 1.


23/57

I N IT IA L D AT E

DESIGNED AC 150711

DRAWN EG 150711

APPROVED AC 150711


DRAWING NUMBER: FILENAME: NOT TO SCALE


FONTERRA DARFIELD STAGE 2COMPARATIVE ELEVATIONS - WEST & SOUTH

West Elevation

South Elevation

NOTE: Elements shaded blue are identied as part of stage 2 application. Unshaded areas represent stage 1.


24/57

NOTE: This photograph shows the location of dwellings and degree of visual effects.The Stage 1 plant is shown only, not the stage 2 extension, which has no effect on the location of vantage points.

The degree of effects relative to Stage 1 and 2 remains the same.

DARFIELD MILK POWDER PLANT Stage 1 V


25/57

Proposed Darfield Milk Powder Plant Stage 2

Assessment of Environmental Effects -Landscape

Prepared by Andrew Craig for Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited (the Applicant)

Andrew Craig Landscape Architect Ltd Poynton House68 Oxford TerraceChristchurch

PO Box 109Christchurch 8140 Ph. 03 377 0157Mob. 021 146 1092 [email protected]

July 2011
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


26/57

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In this report the effects on the landscape of a proposal to develop Stage 2 of themilk powder processing plant north of Darfield is assessed. A full description of theproposal, including architectural drawings, accompanies the application. The extentand location of the proposal is also shown within that documentation.

Much of the landscape assessment prepared for Stage 1 remains relevant for theStage 2 proposal. This will principally concern the description of the application siteand receiving environment and statutory landscape matters arising from the SelwynDistrict Plan. Fundamentally the conditions for these remain the same as for Stage 1.The same applies to the recommended landscape conditions, as it is concluded thatStage 2 will not necessitate that these need to be altered or expanded. Consequentlythe following matters are addressed.

A description of the Stage 2 proposal and its potential effects within itslandscape setting.

Measures taken to avoid and / or mitigate any adverse effects arising.

Conclusions

In preparing this assessment it is understood that the overall activity status for theproposal is fully discretionary.

This assessment is based on plans prepared by Babbage Consultants Limited andelevations prepared by DLA Architects Limited attached to the application. Fromthese photo-simulations have been prepared 1 which give an accurate indication ofwhat the visual effects are going to be as viewed from key vantage points.

2.0 THE LANDSCAPE EFFECTS OF THE STAGE 2 PROPOSAL

The Stage 2 proposal will fundamentally involve expansion of the Stage 1 plant, andthis will include the following;

An additional 56.2m high drier, plus rooftop discharge stacks An extended 30,000m 2 drystore and loadout area A second boiler which does not include a second chimney Various minor accessory structures

Of these the dryer, drystore and boiler will potentially create the greatest visualeffects. The taller structures, namely the dryer and to a lesser extent the boiler, arethe ones most likely to be visible due to their height. This is because visibilityincreases with height, unless there are site specific circumstances that counteractthis effect. The Stage 2 drier will be 4m higher than the consented Stage 1 drier,thereby informing the visual effects baseline.

Even though the drystore is by far the largest structure in terms of site coverage, itsrelatively low 13m height means that it will be substantially less visible than the tallerstructures. Further its full site coverage extent cannot be readily appreciatedbecause all that can be potentially seen are no more than two of its four facades.

1By Virtual View Ltd


27/57

3

Consequently its visual effects are confined to the length and height of the facadesincluding the visible roof, which in principal also applies to the other structures suchas the drier.

Proportion is also another consideration regarding the drystore. Because thebuilding is to be considerably lengthened its height to length ratio is changedsubstantially in favour of the latter. Or to put it another way, the extended drystore willdisplay a strongly horizontal character rather than vertical. This will have the effect ofvisually flattening the building or making it seem lower than it really is.

The taller driers will further cement the impression that the drystore appears as a lowslung structure. This is because the vertically proportioned driers will contrast withthe horizontally proportioned drystore. That is, each defines the proportions of otherby way of the contrast between them. This will be especially apparent in this casebecause the two buildings sit side by side.

As intimated, because the drier is the taller building, it will be potentially the more

visible. At 56.2m high the Stage 2 drier will be 4m taller than the consented Stage 1drier, although this is now to be 41.25m high. The same principals of proportionapply to it as they do for the dry store. Because the two driers will be side by side,the overall proportion is changed in favour of the horizontal. Consequently the twodriers in combination will appear squatter or less vertical than the single consenteddrier. It will however, present greater visual bulk. Resulting from this will be acorresponding increase in reflectivity and therefore visibility. There are howeverfactors present that will help overcome the increased visibility effects arising fromboth the dry store, drier and boiler, which will be discussed later regarding avoidanceand mitigation.

Visual effects will also depend on vantage point location in relation to the orientation

of the proposed structures and their relationship to those consented. As noted for theStage 1 application, the key vantage point in terms of numbers potentially affected isState Highway 73 and the Midland Railway. It is acknowledged however that thesame dwellings identified in the Stage 1 application also stand to be potentiallyaffected. These are identified on the Attachment 2 Aerial Photograph. Accompanyingthe application are Photo-simulations which have been prepared showing the effectsof the Stage 2 expansion. The photo-points for these are the same as for Stage 1.The comparable differences are listed by photo-point reference as follows.

Photo- point

01 No discernable difference

The visual effects are therefore non-existent.

02 Apparent increase in building bulk visible until year 5 which will be fullyscreened by vegetation by year 10. Note that due to distance and the effectsof perspective that the Stage 2 drier does not exceed the 4m height of thepivot irrigator shown in the foreground of the photo-simulation. The visuallyaffected field of view is therefore not particularly significant.

The visual effects are therefore insignificant becoming increasingly so as thetrees mature.

03 No photo- simulation is provided from this vantage point as it was The Oakswhich has since been acquired by the Applicant.


28/57

4

The visual effects are therefore not relevant.

04 From this point at the vehicle entryway the dairy plant is substantiallyexposed to view. This is because some middle distance pines had to beremoved as they were recently assessed by an arborist as being unsafe toretain. To compensate a substantial group of broadleaf exotics (oaks) will beplanted as shown in the photo-simulation. These will be 4m high at time ofplanting which will immediately screen the visually complex lower half of thedairy plant. By year 10 it will more or less be fully screened as is shown in thephoto-simulation, although there may be a fleeting glimpse of it down theaccess way when travellers on SH73 pass by. The location and extent of theoak planting is shown on the Attachment 1 planting plan.

The visual effects are therefore insignificant becoming increasingly so as thetrees mature.

05 No discernable difference

The visual effects are therefore non-existent

06 From this vantage point the change in view is the most substantial of allpoints. The bulk of the Stage 2 drier is a dominant middle ground featurewhich also intrudes the distant mountain skyline. The dairy plant cannot bescreened from this point as the foreground land does not belong to theapplicant. However, there are some factors that contribute to the lessening ofvisual effects. One is the considerable distance from the vantage point to thedairy plant which means that the visual bulk of the building is not overlydominating. Or to put it another way, the surrounding rural land maintains its

prevalence. Further the key views of the background mountain peaks of theTorlesse range remain un-obscured. Finally, the vantage point is on a roadthat is little used other than by local landholders and their visitors. So the roadis not a significant vantage point when compared to SH73 and the MidlandRailway.

The visual effects are therefore significant, but at the lower end rather thanhigher.

07 Although the visible bulk of the dairy plant is apparent from this view point onKimberley Road the structure is at such a distance that its bulk is notdomineering. Nor does the building intrude the mountain skyline in thebackground.

The visual effects are therefore negligible.

08 From Landsborough Drive near Darfield the dairy plant is partially visible inthe distance. Because it is a considerable distance from this view point thestructure is not at all dominant. Further it does not intrude the mountainbackdrop skyline.

The visual effects are therefore negligible.

In relation to these vantage points the greatest extent of visual effects will occur inrespect of the east and west elevations see these in the Attachment 3 Elevations.


29/57

5

The latter shows the most affected view shafts will, as stated, project to the east andwest. The north and south axis are least affected as essentially only the top of theproposed drier will introduce a discernably visible difference in terms of increasedbuilding bulk. This is evident in the Attachment 1 Elevations also.

Looking east the view shaft extends from a point more or less just west of TheOaks (now owned by the Applicant) to a corresponding point on AuchenflowerRoad. The view shaft boundaries are perpendicular to these roads where a lineextending from them meets the westernmost corners of the consented and proposedstructures. Beyond that foreshortening takes effect thereby significantly reducingpotential visibility of the west facade. The same principal applies to the east faade.Here the view shaft meets at the corner of Auchenflower and Loes Road and in theopposite direction at the point where the vehicle entry to the plant meets SH73.

These view shafts take in all of the dwellings considered to be potentially affected bythe Stage 1 proposal, with the exception of The Oaks (which is now owned by theapplicant). And as stated, the least affected areas are going to be those views from

the north and south, the extent of which is also shown on the Attachment 2 AerialPhotograph.

As for Stage 1, avoidance and mitigation measures are advanced with a view toovercoming any adverse visual effects. These are discussed next.

3.0 AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

A number of measures have been taken to minimise adverse visual effects. Thesemainly arise from the location of the proposed extensions in combination with thelandscape mitigation measures applying to the Stage 1 consent.

Concerning location, all of the major structures the drier and dry store, except forthe boiler are positioned further from the highway than those in Stage 1. That is,they are extended northward 2 toward Auchenflower Road in a direction in whichthere are no potentially affected dwellings. Additionally, the Stage 2 structureseffectively move away from neighbouring dwellings, and in this regard are optimallysited so as to lessen effects as much as possible. It is acknowledged however thatlocation largely reflects operational requirements as was the intention regardingStage 1, but is nonetheless favourable to the reduction of adverse visual effects.

Clustering of the Stage 2 structures also occurs as a product of their location andfunction in relation to the Stage 1 complex. This means that visual effects areconcentrated toward the core of the plant rather than dispersed. This is particularlyimportant with regard to the taller structures namely the driers and boiler. Thereason is that, as mentioned, they are potentially the most visible due to their heightand because of this convey the impression that the plant is compact in its overallextent. Further, the clustering promotes visual coherence of the plant where likestructures are associated with like. It also denotes a visual hierarchy that culminatesin the driers, and so aesthetically is more visually coherent than dispersed andapparently less well organised features.

The operational dictates of the consented and proposed Stage 2 plant will, (as notedin the Stage 1 landscape assessment), lead to a series of buildings and accessorystructures resulting in a complex that is more or less broken down into its constituent

2 As referred to in the elevations and on site plan as Project North


30/57

6

parts. The visual effect is that the complex as whole is modulated, which substantiallyreduces potential building domination. The different shapes, heights and proportionsof the various buildings and allied structures will assist in this regard. These areapparent in the architectural drawings that accompany the application. This effectwill still apply to the Stage 2 proposal.

In order to mitigate visual effects most reliance will be placed on the provision oflandscaping, and in particular that provided for in Stage 1. Essentially this comprisestwo shelterbelt plantings to be established immediately surrounding the plant and onthe outer application site perimeter. The location and extent of this planting is shownon the consented Stage 1 landscape plan. Because the anticipated visual effectsarising from Stage 2 are concentrated around the Stage 1 structures, their mitigationremains the same. Consequently there is no need to provide landscaping additionalto that proposed for Stage 1 as it will adequately screen the Stage 2 extensions.

To illustrate visual effects arising from the Stage 2 proposal and their mitigation aseries of photo-simulations have been prepared. 3 The simulations are taken from the

same vantage points as that for Stage 1, and show the differences between it andthe Stage 2 proposal. Also shown are the effects of mitigation. It is evident from thephoto-simulations that over time the entire plant will be screened from the keyvantage points as indicated for Stage 1. The only views that cannot be readily orfully screened are those from the dwellings on Loes Road. There will also be someadditional interruption of the backdrop mountain skyline for these residents that willbe beyond mitigation or avoidance.

Finally regarding vegetative screening, the location of the entire plant, including theStage 2 proposal, also enables utilisation of existing mature pine shelter belts, whosepresence will facilitate immediate visual screening. Additionally these trees, beingquite large will help reduce potential building domination. The effect of these is also

shown in the photo-simulations. Importantly, and as for Stage 1, the existing maturetrees will provide immediate screening for those dwellings located at the junction ofSH73, Auchenflower and Bleak House Roads. And as for Stage 1, the efficacy ofvegetative screening will increase over time as trees mature. Implementation isbeing carried out at the present moment, and so will be established, althoughimmature, once Stage 2 gets under way.

Turning to colour, i t was noted by the Councils landscape architect 4 regarding theStage 1 proposal that lighter tones will better prevent the effects of silhouettingagainst a sky backdrop. As a result it was recommended by the Council to removethe proposed dark colour logo field at the top of the building. The Stage 2 extensionwill adopt the same colours as that for Stage 1, also minus the logo field.Consequently the taller building while increasing reflectivity will better align with thelighter colour and tones of its sky backdrop when viewed from the various vantagepoints.

Overall, the avoidance and mitigation measures that apply to Stage 1 are equallyeffective for Stage 2. There is no need therefore to implement additional measures,and so no further conditions of consent are offered. So while the Stage 2 extensionswill substantially add to the collective bulk of the dairy plant, the visual effects willnonetheless be ultimately negligible in the presence of the Stage 1 avoidance andmitigation measures. Resulting from these, all of the lower portions of both the Stage1 and 2 dairy plant will be fully screened from all potentially affected parties. The

3 Prepared by Virtual View Limited4 Mr Tony Milne


31/57

7

taller components, namely the drying tower and boiler stacks, will remain visible tosome parties, and invisible to others. However, the other avoidance measures suchas generous setbacks, clustering, appropriate colour scheme and modulation willhelp to reduce effects considerably.

4.0 DISTRICT PLAN LANDSCAPE MATTERS

The District Plan matters concerning landscape outcomes discussed in respect ofStage 1 are equally applicable to Stage 2. It is the intention therefore not to enter intoa detailed level of discussion regarding these except as a reminder of what theirgeneral direction is. This is summarised as follows:

That the rural area accommodates a variety of activities allowing for primaryproduction and other business activities, including those which are derivedfrom rural production such as dairying. [SDP Policy B.3.4.1]

That significant adverse amenity effects arising from activity is to be avoided,remedied or mitigated. [Policies B3.4.3 and B3.4.4]. The explanation andreasons recognise that large sites are often needed for certain activities suchas dairy plants, and that generous separation from neighbours is an effectiveavoidance method that large sites enable. The Stage 2 extensions willachieve this.

That building density will be maintained at a low level in the Rural Zonesalong with a predominance of vegetation cover [B3.4.5]. This policy outcomeis delivered by the site coverage rule which is is 5%. 5 The combined Stage 1and 2 activities will be less than 1% where the remaining land area will bedevoted to vegetative cover in the form or pasture and shelterbelt plantings.

That high rise buildings are to be avoided. Of all the objectives and policiesthis is the most difficult to achieve due to the height of the all driers exceedingthe permitted maximum 12m height limit. The Stage 2 drier will compound theeffects arising from height. As discussed though, the avoidance andmitigation measures, including generous setbacks, will overcome the adverseeffects arising from this. This is evident in the photo-simulations thataccompany the application.

That adverse effects from night lighting be avoided [Policy B3.4.9]. As forStage 1, this will be screened by shelterbelt planting around the dairy plantperimeter.

That buildings are sufficiently setback from property boundaries so as tomaintain privacy and outlook for neighbours in addition to a sense of openspace [Policy B3.4.16]. As for Stage 1 the Stage 2 extension will begenerously setback from neighbouring properties at the very least 650metres.

As for Stage 1 the objectives and policies clearly contemplate the kind of activityproposed, and therefore the effects this will have on the landscape. They arehowever, mindful that such activity has the potential to generate adverse effects, and

5 SDP Rural Rule 3.11.1.1(b)


32/57

8

where this occurs it is a requirement that they are either avoided or mitigated. Theprinciple landscape effect will arise from tall buildings namely the Stage 1 and 2driers; the height effects of which Policy B3.4.6 seeks to avoid. For the most partthese are addressed through avoidance measures namely via the generoussetbacks from road frontages and adjoining properties. Very low site coverage alsocounters any adverse effects arising from building height, as does the proposedcolour scheme. The existing and proposed shelter belt planting, which is beingplanted at present, is located as close as possible to affected vantage points. Withthe exception of Loes Road residents, this will fully screen the taller structures fromthese vantage points as is evident in the photo-simulations. As a consequence ofthese proposed avoidance and mitigation measures, it is concluded that any adverseeffects arising from building height will be successfully avoided and mitigated withrespect to most potentially affected parties when considered within the context of theDistrict Plan objectives and policies.

5.0 CONCLUSION

In summary the greatest cumulative visual effect is going to arise from the presenceof the combined Stage 1 and 2 driers. In combination they have the potential todominate the landscape and potentially interrupt views. While the dry store in sitecoverage terms is by far the larger building, because of its relatively low height it willbe easily screened within a very short time frame. Although taller than the drystore,the Stage 2 boiler will also be effectively screened reasonably quickly. This is onlyfrom the points where existing mature shelterbelts are not able to provide immediatescreening as is shown on the accompanying photo-simulations. In time all plantingwill mean that from most vantage points the dairy plant in its entirety will be screenedfrom key vantage points. This will be especially so from where planting is proximateto the vantage point which means that screening is effective within a very short time

frame.

The visual effects are otherwise avoided through the substantial setbacks andclustering of structures. The plant including the Stage 2 extensions will still appear asa coherent co-location of structures that are visually related to each other. Further,and most importantly they will not appear sporadic or erratic, leading to the dispersalof visual effects.

Finally, as for Stage 1 the Stage 2 proposal is favoured by the District Plan provisionsconcerning visual amenity and landscape change with the exception of buildingheight effects. Nonetheless the Plan contemplates such activity in the Outer PlainsRural Zone including specific identification of dairy plants, providing any adverseeffects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. In this regard the proposed plant hasbeen optimally located, with a view to minimising adverse visual and landscapeeffects. The mitigation currently being implemented in respect of Stage 1 will furtherand equally counter any visual effects arising from the Stage 2 proposal. Short ofthis there is nothing more that could possibly be offered without compromising orprecluding the proposal.

Andrew CraigLandscape ArchitectJune 2011


33/57


34/57


35/57


36/57


37/57


38/57


39/57


40/57


41/57


42/57


43/57


44/57


45/57


46/57


47/57


48/57


49/57


50/57


51/57


52/57


53/57


54/57


55/57


56/57


57/57

Planta Lactea Fonterra

Documents

Transcript of Planta Lactea Fonterra