pc41 fs 1 - whanganui.govt.nz › files › assets › public › ...pc41 fs 1 1 of 4. submitter sub...

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'.


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


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.


29.2pc41.3 Daytime noise levels Amend daytime noise levels to start at 6am Support Rural activities commence earlier than 7am.


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.


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.


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.


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,



activities (such as dwellings) that choose to locate



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,



activities (such as dwellings) that choose to locate



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


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



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


PC41 FS 5

2 of 6



Other Submitter's name : NZ Transport Agency

Other Submitter's address : NZ Transport Agency, PO Box 1947, Palmerston North 4440



3.2 tabulated items un-

numbered

17.5.3 Performance Standards, Noise replacement

with an Appendix provided by submitter


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..



Other Submitter's name : New Zealand Defence Force

Other Submitter's address: New Zealand Defence Force, %Property Group, Private Bag 902,Upper Hutt 5140



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



Other Submitter's name: KiwiRail Holdings Limited (KiwiRail)

Other Submitter's address : Wellington Railway Station, PO Box 593, WELLINGTON 6140



18 tabulated 17.5.3 Noise Sensitive Activities (including

dwellings), having regard to the implications of the

submission by NZTA #3 above.


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



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



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.



Other Submitter's name: New Zealand Defence Force

Other Submitter's address : New Zealand Defence Force, %Property Group, Private Bag 902,Upper Hutt 5140



19 tabulated Vibration performance standards permitted

activities throughout plan


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.


PC41 FS 5

4 of 6



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



2.1 17.5.7 RURAL ENVIRONMENT sub-clause c i. Bird

Management Plan inclusion

supported in part and


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.





Palmerston North

, Submitter's point Particular part of other party's Submission Support or opposition &


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


PC41 FS 5

5 of 6



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



2.35 and 2.36 17.4 — Noise Rules supported in part and


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.





Palmerston North



2.37 17.5.3 supported in part and


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

pc41 fs 1 - whanganui.govt.nz › files › assets › public › ...pc41 fs 1 1 of 4. submitter sub...

Documents