-
Further Submission on the Proposed Plan Changes 40 - 45 to the
Wanganui District Plan (Closing date: Friday 31 July 2015 5pm)
To: Wanganui District Council PO Box 637 Wanganui 4540
Email: [email protected]
Full Name of Further Submitter: Horticulture NZ
Full Postal Address: P 0 Box 10 232 Wellington 6143
Attn: Chris Keenan
Telephone Number: 04 470 5669 Fax Number: 04 471 2861 Mobile:
027 668 0142
Email: chris,[email protected]
Horticulture NZ represents growers in the Wanganui District so
represents a relevant aspect of the public interest.
Horticulture NZ is not a trade competitor as per Clause 6 of the
First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.
I do wish to be heard in support of my submission
If others make a similar submission, I would not be prepared to
consider preparing a joint case with them at any hearing.
Signature of person making submission or person authorised to
sign on behalf of person making submission.
Date: 31 July 2015
1
PC41 FS 1
1 of 4
-
Submitter Sub No. Plan Provision Submitter Decision sought
Support/ Oppose
Reason
Kevin and Mary-Anne Redington
3.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted activity Oppose
The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than other councils
and meeting the standards should enable use as a permitted activity
in a rural production area.
G, M G and A Bonnet 4.1 pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a
permitted activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more
stringent than other councils and meeting the standards should
enable use as a permitted activity in a rural production area.
Donna Jackson 5.1 pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Chris Robson 6.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Abigail Calman 7.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Rodney Calman 8.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Connor Jackson 9.1 pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Matthew Morgan 10.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
2
PC41 FS 1
2 of 4
-
Heather and Ian Brown 11.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a
permitted activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more
stringent than other councils and meeting the standards should
enable use as a permitted activity in a rural production area.
Ilma Smith 12.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Graeme Kirk 13.1pc41 17.5.7b and c No gas guns as a permitted
activity Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Deborah Hickford 14.1pc41 17.5.7b and c Rejection of the Plan
Change in relation to gas guns
Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than other
councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a permitted
activity in a rural production area.
Keith Hindson, Gloria Rigg, Anthony and Ada Cameron
15.1pc41 17.5.7b and c Exclude gas guns and avian distress
alarms within 600m of high density residential properties. Require
IPM Plan for Council approval and monitoring before gas guns and
other bird scaring devices are approved.
Oppose The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than other
councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a permitted
activity in a rural production area.
Tony Boswell 16.1 pc 41 17.5.7b and c Allow bird scaring devices
commensurate with all other regions for all rural activities
Support The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
Mid Central Public Health Services
17.2pc41 Policy 17.3.4 Retain policy 17.3.4 Support Not unduly
restricting rural activities is supported.
Mid Central Public Health Services
17.5pc41 Rule 17.5.7 b-c) Retain provisions for bird scaring
devices Support The provisions for gas guns are more stringent than
other councils and meeting the standards should enable use as a
permitted activity in a rural production area.
NZTA 24.2pc41 Definition reverse sensitivity
Retain definition for reverse sensitivity Support The definition
is clear and will assist the plan.
3
PC41 FS 1
3 of 4
-
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
29.1pc41.1 Definition of noise Remove 'intermittent' from d) in
definition of noise
Support There would need to be clarity as to what is determined
as 'intermittent'.
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
29.1pc41.2 Ch 17 Introduction Exclude aircraft noise generated
after the craft has left the ground
Support The RMA does not control aircraft noise after takeoff
and before landing
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
29.1pc41.3 Definition noise Exclude aircraft noise generated
from the intermittent operation of farm airstrips and helicopter
landing areas
Support Intermittent use of aircraft and helicopters is
necessary for rural production activities and should be provided
for as part of the permitted farming activity.
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
29.2pc41.3 Daytime noise levels Amend daytime noise levels to
start at 6am Support Rural activities commence earlier than
7am.
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
29.2pc41.1 Bird management plan
Remove all reference to bird management plans from the Plan
Support A bird management plan should not be required.
- co Ltd 2.1pc44.4 Definition reverse sensitivity
Amend or delete definition of reverse sensitivity Oppose The
definition is clear and will assist the plan.
Transpower N • 3.1pc44.2 Definition National Grid Yard
Include a definition of National Grid yard that refers to the
NPSET
Support The change would give effect to the NPSET
Transpower NZ Ltd 3.1p - Definition Electricity • ission
yards
and co .
Delete definition Electricity Transmission yards and
corridors
Support The focus should be on the National Grid Yard to give
effect to the NPSET
Transpower NZ Ltd 3.3pc44.6 Policy 22.3.1 Amend Policy 22.3.1 to
give effect to the NPSET Support The Plan Change needs to give
effect to the NPSET Transpower NZ Ltd 3.3pc44.7 Policy 22.3.2 • • •
Policy 22.3.2 to identify the National Grid Support The Plan Change
needs to give effect to the NPSET Transpower NZ Ltd 3.3pc44.11
Policy 22.3.2 Amend • • . 3.6 to specifically reference the
National Grid Support The Plan Change needs to give effect to
the NPSET
Horizons 9.1pc44.3 Definition upgrade Add a definition of upgra•
- . • - District Plan Oppose in part
There needs to be clarity as to what the submitter considers
upgrades include.
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
11.1pc44.1 Issue 3.1.4 and Objective 3.2.2
Ensure that infrastructure does not compro rural activities
Support Infrastructure does not exist in isolation to the
adjacent land uses which also need to be considered - • • Irovided
for.
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
11.1pc44.5 New policy New policy to ensure that adverse effects
on adjacent land uses are avoided remedied or mitigated
Support Infra . e does not exist in isolation to the adjacent
Ian. • , hich also need to be considered and provided for.
Wanganui Federated Farmers of NZ
11.2pc44.1 Ch 22 Permitted activities
That all permitted activities in Ch 22 be reclassified as
discretionary activities
Support in part
There needs to be certainty th. . ' ' ies can be undertaken as
permitted activities with.' • -rsely affecting adjacent land
uses.
4
PC41 FS 1
4 of 4
-
\ TRANSPORT AGENCY
Pursuant to Clause 8 of the first Schedule of the Resource
Management Act 1991
Further Submission on Wanganui District Council's
Plan Change 40 - 45
To:
Wanganui District Council
PO Box 637,
101 Guyton Street,
Wanganui
From:
NZ Transport Agency
PO Box 1947
Palmerson North 4440
1 This is a further submission that is neutral to submissions on
Proposed
Plan Change 40 - 45 (Phase 6).
2. The NZ Transport Agency (Transport Agency) is neutral to
the
submissions as below and overleaf.
2.1 General relief sought
In relation to all points below the Transport Agency seeks the
relief indicated
or such further, other or consequential relief that addresses
the Transport
Agency's concerns.
PC41 FS 2
1 of 4
-
A TRANSPORT AGENCY
3. The Transport Agency does wish to be heard in support of this
further submission.
Dated at Palmerston North is the 0th day of July 201 5.
Cole Seni tV an ing Advisor, Palmerston North
Pursuant to a delegation from the Chief Executive of the NZ
Transport Agency.
Address for service:
Attention: Shaun Harvey
NZ Transport Agency
PO Box 1947
Palmerston North 4440
Telephone Number: (06) 953 6671
E-mail [email protected]
PC41 FS 2
2 of 4
-
\ TRANSPORT AGENCY WAKA KOTAHI
Name and number
of original submitter
Plan Change Reference The
Transport
Agency's
position
Reason for the Transport Agency's further
submission
Decision sought by the Transport
Agency
PC 41 Noise
- Kiwi Rail
Submission 25.1 PC 41 Support The Transport Agency is supportive
of adding
vibration to the noise definition,
Noise and vibration can both be produced by motor
vehicles and can result in reverse sensitivity effects.
Support the inclusion of vibration to the
noise definition.
PC 41 Noise
- Kiwi Rail
Submission 25.3 PC 41 Oppose
in part
Oppose in part insulation controls.
The Transport Agency is seeking the same outcome
as Kiwi Rail but consider it is best achieved by
specifying internal noise levels as it ensures an
adequate design is achieved.
Adopt the Transport Agency's reverse
sensitivity provisions as per our original
submission.
PC 41 Noise
- Kiwi Rail
Submission 25.4 PC 41 Support
in part
The Transport Agency supports in part, the
submission made by Kiwi Rail.
Support the inclusion requiring altered buildings to
comply with reserve sensitivity provisions.
Support in part the inclusion of altered
buildings to be subject to reverse
sensitivity provisions set out in the
Transport Agency's submission.
Expand Rule 17.5.3 to address reverse
sensitivity provisions as set out in the
Transport Agency's submission to
ensure reverse sensitivity effects are
addressed.
PC 41 Noise
- Stephen Palmer
Submission 26 PC 41 Oppose
in part
The Transport Agency opposes the submission by
Architectural Designers New Zealand Inc.
The noise section as currently drafted incorporates
the issue reserve sensitivity effects. This is
important to the Transport Agency because when
incompatible land uses are located near each other;
conflict between the activities often results,
typically through complaints from the more
sensitive activity. There is a risk that new sensitive
PC41 FS 2
3 of 4
-
%TRANSPORT AGENCY WAKA KOTAHI activities (such as dwellings)
that choose to locate
near established state highways may object to the
effects of the state highway.
PC 41 Noise Submission 27 PC 41 Oppose The Transport Agency
opposes the submission by Expand Rule 17.5.3 to address reverse
- Paul McKenna in part Paul McKenna. sensitivity provisions as
set out in the
The noise section as currently drafted incorporates
the issue reserve sensitivity effects. This is
important to the Transport Agency because when
incompatible land uses are located near each other;
conflict between the activities often results,
typically through complaints from the more
sensitive activity. There is a risk that new sensitive
activities (such as dwellings) that choose to locate
near established state highways may object to the
effects of the state highway.
Transport Agency's submission to
ensure reverse sensitivity effects are
addressed.
PC 41 Noise Submission 28.1 PC 41 Oppose The Transport Agency
opposes, the removal of the Retain noise definition with the
New Zealand noise definition, inclusion of vibration, (as
above).
Defence Force
Where incompatible land uses are located near each
other, conflict between the activities often results,
typically through complaints from the more
sensitive activity. There is a risk that new sensitive
activities (such as dwellings) that choose to locate
near established state highways may object to the
effects of the state highway.
PC41 FS 2
4 of 4
-
FURTHER SUBMISSION TELEPHONE 0800 327 646 WEBSITE
WWW.FEDFARM.ORG.NZ
FEDERAWEIDI FARMERS OF NEW ZEALAND
To: WANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL
Date: 30 July 2015
Submission on: SECTIONAL DISTRICAL PLAN REVIEW: FURTHER
SUBMISSION PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 40 - 45
Contacts:
Address for service:
Tim Matthews Provincial Meat and Fibre Chair Wanganui Federated
Farmers E: matthews.tixtra.co.nz
Brian Doughty Provincial President Wanganui Federated Farmers E:
r-bdouohtyxtra.co.nz
Harry Matthews Provincial Vice-President Wanganui Federated
Farmers E: harrymatthews1969hotmail.com
Coralee Matena Regional Senior Policy Advisor Federated Farmers
of New Zealand PO Box 945, Palmerston North P: 06 353 5104
E:cmatenafedfarm.oro.nz
Federated Farmers thanks the Wanganui District Council for
considering our further submission to the proposed Wanganui
District Council District Plan. Federated Farmers wishes to be
heard in support of this submission.
1
PC41 FS 3
1 of 2
-
2
FURTHER SUBMISSION TO PROPOSED WANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL
DISTRICT PLAN CHANGES
Plan Change 41 — Noise
Submission Number
Submitter Name
Provision Support/ Oppose Reasons for Further Submission
Decision Sought
16.1 pc 41 Tony Boswell Bird scaring devices
Support Federated Farmers supports the submission made by Tony
Boswell to allow bird scaring devices to assist farming activities.
Federated Farmers agrees with the comments made by the submitter,
in particular the references made to ensuring that the WDC District
Plan provisions align where appropriate with other Council's
District Plans.
Federated Farmers also agrees that not allowing bird scaring
devices puts Wanganui rural businesses at a competitive
disadvantage to other regions, where they are common place and
acknowledged as current best practice.
That the submission be accepted.
Plan Change 43 — District Wide
Su. ". Number
Submitter k ame Provision
Support/ Oppose Reasons for Further Submission Decision
Sought
2.1 pc 43 Oil Companies 'ins — Earthwo and/land modification
Support in part
Federated Farmers supports the submission made by the 'Oil
Companies' regarding the definitions of 'earthworks' and
'earthworks and/land modification'. Federated Farmers agrees that
having two definitions in the Plan is CO a. for Plan users.
Federated Farmers supports the relie • . - • • the definition of
earthworks to capture 'land modification'.
As with our previous submission, - . d Farmers reiterates that
the Introduction of Chapter , - I orks) and the associated rules
section, should be arnende• . exclude the Rural Zones and direct
Plan users to the Regional Council.
That the submission be accepted.
Federated Farmers Further Submission to the Wanganui District
Council Proposed District Plan Cha; ;i2s 40 - 45
PC41 FS 3
2 of 2
-
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991
CFURIZGHE TO THE SUBMISSION
ERwAN GANuONIAD PUBLICLY
ISTRICT PNLANOTI :D
al / Ii FR r ,.., , 2 3 JUL 2015 To: Wanganui District Council,
PO Box 637, Wanganui Submitters: r 17:- Stephen Palmer, Paul
Harrison, Jim Richards -
(Architectural Designers NZ), Paul McKenna.
-
w„0:1-1
SCL
This is a further submission on Plan Change No.41 to the
Wanganui District Plan.
1. We oppose the submissions of: NZ Transport Agency (24.1,
24.2) Kiwi Rail Holdings Ltd. (25.1, 25.2, 25.3)
2. The particular parts of the submission we oppose are:
Requirement for neighbours of railways and state highways to
mitigate noise from those activities.
3. The reasons for our support or opposition are: These
submissions support rules that would put the onus for mitigating
noise from their network activities, railways and state highways,
on to adjoining property owners.
It is a fundamental principle of the Resource Management Act,
Section 5 (2) (a), that activities that result in adverse effects
on the environment, such as noise, should be avoided, remedied or
mitigated by those who carry out the activities.
Proposed plan change 41 appears to contradict that by requiring
owners of properties close to road and rail networks to themselves
mitigate an adverse effect, noise, emitted from those networks.
Sections 16, 17 and 326 of the Act are also relevant:
"Every occupier of land, and every person carrying out an
activity shall adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the
emission of noise from that land does not exceed a reasonable
level".
"Every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any
adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried
on by or on behalf of the person".
PC41 FS 4
1 of 2
-
"In this Act, the term excessive noise means any noise that is
under human control and of such a nature as to unreasonably
interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person
but does not include any noise emitted by any vehicle being driven
on a road or a train".
It is accepted that operators of transport networks are a
special case and it may be unreasonable to expect them to entirely
eliminate the noise which is inherent in their activities but that
should not mean that adjoining owners should be faced with the
entire responsibility for mitigation.
Our original submission is that property owners should be free
to choose whether to insulate against noise from nearby roads or
railways. NZTA's and Kiwi Rail's submissions are that the District
Plan rules should allow them to operate without taking any measures
at all to avoid, remedy or mitigate the noise emanating from their
networks.
We believe that the District Plan rules should strike a balance
between the network operators and their neighbours as regards
action to mitigate noise from the network activities.
The networks will presumably have use rights for existing
installations so that mitigation would only be required for new
work or redevelopment and improvement so that a fair balance would
be achieved gradually, without an unreasonable imposition on
them.
4. We do wish to be heard in support of this submission .
5. If others make a similar submission We would be prepared to
consider presenting a joint case with them at any hearing
6. Address for service:
Stephen Palmer Design Studio, 18 Shakespeare Road, Bastia Hill,
Wanganui 4500
PC41 FS 4
2 of 2
-
Further Submissions MidCentral Public Health Service
FURTHER SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF, OR IN OPPOSITION TO,
SUBMISSIONS MADE
ON A PUBLICLY NOTIFIED PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE NUMBER 41 (NOISE)
UNDER
CLAUSE 8 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
1991
To the Wanganui District Council
This is a Submission by MidCentral Public Health Service
on Proposed Plan Change Number 41 (Noise) (the Proposal)
1. These Further Submissions are based on the Summary of
Submissions published by Council and copies of original
Submissions made by other Submitters using the submitter numbers
assigned by Council..
2. MidCentral Public Health Service is an entity "representing a
relevant aspect of the public interest" pursuant to
Schedule 1 s.8(1) (a) of the Act as it has statutory obligations
for public health within the Wanganui District under
Crown funding agreements with the Ministry of Health for the
MidCentral District Health Board.
3. The Ministry of Health requires Public Health Services of
District Health Boards to reduce any potential health
risks by means including Submissions and Further Submissions on
any Proposed Policy Statement or Plan,
Changes to Plans, or Variations to Proposed Plan Changes to
ensure matters of public health significance are
considered by the Council. The notified planning process
includes matters with the potential to impact on the
health of people and communities.
4. This Further Submission relates to the Submitter(s) named in
the attached schedule. The particular part of their
Submission supported or opposed is described. The parts of their
Submission we seek be accepted or rejected,
and our reasons for support or opposition are stated. The scope
of our Further Submissions is intended to cover
words to the like effect in the relevant section of the proposed
plan provisions in the same or any other plan
section which might be consequentially added or amended because
of a Submission made by the other
Submitter(s) on whom we have made these Further Submissions.
5. This submitter could not gain an advantage in trade
competition through this submission.
6. We will wish to be heard in support of these Further
Submissions at any hearing but are not prepared to consider
presenting a joint case with other submitters. If clarification
or facilitating resolution of any matter related to a
proposed policy statement of a plan is initiated pursuant to
Schedule 1, s. 8AA of the Act, we request to be
consulted or invited.
Dated at Palmerston North this 31st day of July 2015
{no signature required electronic submission}
Margaret Tunbridge
Health Protection Officer
For and on behalf of MidCentral Public Health Service
Address for service
Contact person: Margaret Tunbridge
MidCentral Public Health Service, Private Bag 3003, Wanganui
4500
Email: [email protected]
Ph:(06) 348 1775 Fax:(06) 348 1783
Further Submissions by Wanganui Public Health Service Page 1 of
6
PC41 FS 5
1 of 6
-
SCHEDULE OF FURTHER SUBMISSIONS
#1. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 1
Other Submitter's name : New Zealand Fire Service Commission
Other Submitter's address : %- Beca Ltd, PO Box 3942 WELLINGTON
6140
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
Not stated Rule 17.5.9 supported and should be
accepted
Reasons:
Submitter wishes to retain Rule 17.5.9 as it reads as the rule
allows for the NZFS Commission to carry out its
day to day activities on fire station properties. NZFS
Commission has assessed that fire station activities will
be capable of meeting the standards set out in NZS 6802:2008,
with the exclusion of noise created by
emergency sirens
#2. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 18 ,
Other Submitter's name : Wanganui District Council Staff
Submission
Other Submitter's address : Wanganui District Council PO Box 637
Wanganui 4500
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
Combining of the Noise
Sensitivity Definitions
Definitions consolidation for terms
Activities sensitive to aircraft noise
Noise Sensitive Activities:
Sensitive Noise Activities:
supported and should be
accepted
Reasons:
_Consistency of terminology and consolidation is common
sense
Further Submissions by Wanganui Public Health Service Page 2 of
6
PC41 FS 5
2 of 6
-
#3. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 24
Other Submitter's name : NZ Transport Agency
Other Submitter's address : NZ Transport Agency, PO Box 1947,
Palmerston North 4440
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
3.2 tabulated items un-
numbered
17.5.3 Performance Standards, Noise replacement
with an Appendix provided by submitter
supported and should be
accepted
Reasons:
Submitter has supplied a better provision than 17.5.3.bmore
consistent with RMA in that it is effects based
rather than prescriptive ie specifies how a building performs
rather than the resulting internal noise level
Consequentially a definition for 'PPF' is required..
#4. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 28
Other Submitter's name : New Zealand Defence Force
Other Submitter's address: New Zealand Defence Force, %Property
Group, Private Bag 902,Upper Hutt 5140
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
2 3.7.2 Definition of noise opposed and should be
rejected
Reasons:
Submission point has implications throughout the plan but
provides no wording to substitute for the "global"
editorial approach in drafting the plan which promotes
consistency and readability
#5. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 25
Other Submitter's name: KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail)
Other Submitter's address : Wellington Railway Station, PO Box
593, WELLINGTON 6140
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
18 tabulated 17.5.3 Noise Sensitive Activities (including
dwellings), having regard to the implications of the
submission by NZTA #3 above.
supported and should be
accepted
Reasons:
Submitter seeks that the provision be amended to include the
word "altered "which would be consistent
with the overall objectives for a reverse sensitivity based
provision. May need to be incorporated into NZTA
submissions effect on Plan Change if that submission adopted in
whole or part.
Further Submissions by Wanganui Public Health Service
Page 3 of 6
PC41 FS 5
3 of 6
-
#6. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 26
Other Submitter's name : Wanganui professional members of
Architectural Designers New Zealand Inc.
Other Submitter's address : Stephen Palmer Design Studio,18
Shakespeare Road, Bastia Hill, Wanganui 4500
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
2nd paragraph 17.5.3 Noise Sensitive Activities (including
dwellings),
supported in part and
should be accepted in part
Reasons:
Part acceptance in principle is supported but the comments are
not supported. Addressing reverse sensitivity
via rules is a sustainable measure to avoid and mitigate noise
effects on regionally important infrastructural
transportation corridors as physical assets of the district.
#7. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 28
Other Submitter's name: New Zealand Defence Force
Other Submitter's address : New Zealand Defence Force, %Property
Group, Private Bag 902,Upper Hutt 5140
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
19 tabulated Vibration performance standards permitted
activities throughout plan
supported and should be
accepted
Reasons:
Submission is supported as criteria are subjective and not
easily quantifiable and further "the word
"offensive" is particularly problematic given the High Courts
findings in Zdrahal v Wellington City Council
[1995] 1 NZLR 700 (HC). Note former standard is out of date and
s32 analysis does not contemplate an
updated reference to a more appropriate standard.
Further Submissions by Wanganui Public Health Service Page 4 of
6
PC41 FS 5
4 of 6
-
#8. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 29
Other Submitter's name : Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Other Submitter's address : Regional Senior Policy Advisor,
Federated Farmers of New Zealand, PO Box 945,
Palmerston North
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
2.1 17.5.7 RURAL ENVIRONMENT sub-clause c i. Bird
Management Plan inclusion
supported in part and
should be accepted in part
Reasons:
Submitter's point is supported in part noting the words
"prepared and accepted by Council" create
uncertainty who is to prepare the plan, and "acceptance by
Council" is an arbitrary process not authorised in
the RMA and undefined in the proposed plan. The process would
better lie in codes of practice developed
alongside the plan as has been the case in some other
districts.
#9. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 29
Other Submitter's name : Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Other Submitter's address : Regional Senior Policy Advisor,
Federated Farmers of New Zealand, PO Box 945,
Palmerston North
, Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
2.32 17 Noise 8th paragraph commencing "Airports, and
their associated flight operations..." proposed
added sentence
opposed and should be
rejected
Reasons:
Proposed addition is misleading and ultra vires the Act
Further Submissions by Wanganui Public Health Service Page 5 of
6
PC41 FS 5
5 of 6
-
#10. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 29
Other Submitter's name: Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Other Submitter's address: Regional Senior Policy Advisor,
Federated Farmers of New Zealand, PO Box 945,
Palmerston North
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
2.35 and 2.36 17.4 — Noise Rules supported in part and
should be accepted in part
Reasons:
Part accepted relates to use of farm airstrips but part opposed
is helicopter land areas as a permitted activity
because "ancillary activities" is undefined and experience
nationwide shows helicopter landing areas should
be discretionary activities or controlled activities subject to
compliance with NZS 6807:1994.
Also opposed is the addition of airstrips and helicopter landing
areas to the exemptions under the definition
of noise which would undermine the objectives for the rural
area.
No wording of the exemption clause has been supplied and the
that part of the submissions lacks the
specificity required to be a valid submission under the Leith
test.
#11. Further Submission
This Further Submission relates to Submitter # PC41 Sub 29
Other Submitter's name : Federated Farmers of New Zealand
Other Submitter's address : Regional Senior Policy Advisor,
Federated Farmers of New Zealand, PO Box 945,
Palmerston North
Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission
Support or opposition &
the decision you seek
2.37 17.5.3 supported in part and
should be accepted in part
Reasons:
Supported in part to extent seeks consideration of barriers in
the same manner submitted by Wanganui
Public Health Service, however NZTA submission, if adopted may
make the Fed. Farmers submission
unnecessary as barriers are a routine possible whole or part
noise mitigation measure contemplated in the
NZTA submission.
Further Submissions by Wanganui Public Health Service
Page 6 of 6
PC41 FS 5
6 of 6
PC41 FS 1 Horticulture NZPage 1Page 2Page 3Page 4
PC41 FS 2 NZTAPage 1Page 2Page 3Page 4
PC41 FS 3 Federated FarmersPage 1Page 2
PC41 FS 4 Stephen PalmerPage 1Page 2
PC41 FS 5 MidCentral Public Health ServicePage 1Page 2Page 3Page
4Page 5Page 6