BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON NOTICE OF APPEAL CROWN LAW

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT HELD AT WELLINGTON ENV-2017-WLG IN THE MATTER OF Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN An appeal pursuant to clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 against the decision of Palmerston North City Council in respect of the Proposed Palmerston North District Plan Change 21 THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE Appellant AND PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Respondent NOTICE OF APPEAL 21July 2017 CROWN LAW TE TARI TURE 0 TE KARAUNA PO Box 2858 WELLINGTON 6140 Tel: Fax: Contact Person: Rosemary Dixon rosemary.dixon@crownlaw.govt.nz

2 1 To The Registrar Environment Court WELLINGTON 1. The Minister of Defence (Minister) appeals against parts of a decision of the Palmerston North City Council on the following plan change: Proposed Plan Change 21 to the Palmerston North District Plan (Proposed Plan Change). 2. The Minister through the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) made a submission on the Proposed Plan Change and appeared at the hearing. 3. The Minister is not a trade competitor for the pmposes of section 308D of the Resource Management Act The Minister received notice of the decision on the Proposed Plan Change on 9 June The decision was made by the Palmerston North City Council (Council). The Appeal 6. The parts of the decision that the Minister is appealing are: 6.1 The permitted activity rule and discretiona17 activity rule for Temporaq Militaq Training Activities across the zones subject to this Proposed Plan Change: Recreation Zone, Conservation and Amenity Zone, Water Recreation Zone, Racecourse Zone, Arena Zone and Race Training Zone. 6.2 The definitions of "minor" and "extended" Tempora17 Militaq Training Activities

3 2 7. The Minister seeks: 7.1 Permitted activity status for Tempora1y Milita1y Training Activities across the district including live firing subject to appropriate perfo1mance standards. 7.2 Restricted discretionaiy activity status for Temporaiy Milita1y Training Activities across the district where permitted activity perfo1mance standards cannot be met. 7.3 A single, inclusive definition of Tempora1y Militaiy Training Activities. Reasons for the Appeal 8. The reasons for the appeal are as follows: 8.1 NZDF undertakes tempora1y rnilita1y training activities. Being able to conduct training activities in varied, real-life locations is important as NZDF personnel may be deployed to a wide range of locations nationally or globally. Accordingly NZDF needs the ability to undertake these activities across the district and outside of Linton Militaiy Camp. Such activities, as field based exercises, may involve the firing of live or blank ammunition and explosive events. 8.2 Undertaking such training is implicit in the Governor General's power to raise and maintain armed forces under section 5 of the Defence Act Such training also provides personnel training in search and rescue, infrastructure support, civil defence response training and training for flood response, all of which directly benefit the region and New Zealand. The decisions of Council do not provide adequately for such exercises and require resource consent (unrestricted) where live firing and explosives are involved. 8.3 It is inefficient and unnecessa1y not to provide adequately for tempora1y milita1y training activities across the district and is:

4 A failure to provide for the needs of future generations; and A failure to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement which requires Council to recognise NZDF facilities. 1 Recognition of those facilities (identified by Council as Linton Military Camp) involves recognising Linton as a centre for military training whose activities are not always confined to its premises. 8.4 It is inefficient and unnecessa1y to require NZDF to obtain consents for an activity (live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events) that is: temporary; and whose effects are de minimis when appropriately controlled by permitted activity standards. 8.5 The provisions that the Minister seeks are consistent with those sought for tempora1y military training activities across other zones of the district plan inco1porated in other plan changes. 8.6 In terms of definitions, the decision maintains the distinction between "minor" and "extended" Temporary Milita1y Training Activities. There is no resource management reason for this, the use of the terms is inconsistent in the District Plan and the District Plan does not manage these activities differently. The Minister seeks a simplified, single definition. RPS Policy

5 4 Relief Sought 9. The Minister seeks amendments to the Decisions Version text so that the mles, the subject of this appeal, read as follows 2 (or drafting to same or similar effect): 10. In the Recreation Zone: R Temporary Military Training Activities Temporary Military Training Activities are a Permitted Activity, provided the following performance standards are complied with: Performance Standards (a) (i) (ii) (b) Buildings and Structures Any buildings and/or structures erected must be in compliance with performance standards (a) [height] and (c) [separation distances] of Rule ; and Any buildings erected in association-with the Temporary Military Training Activity must be removed at the conclusion of the activity unless they are in compliance with Rule Excavations and Alterations to Landform Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the ground must be reinstated as close as practicable to the condition it was in, prior to its disturbance. (c) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days with a period of 7 days allowed for set up prior to the activity and an additional 7 days for take down after the activity. (d) (i) (ii) Noise Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. Fixed (Stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits: 2 The numbering of the rules referred to follows the Decisions Version (with some cross references corrected)

6 5 7:00am - 7:00pm 7:00pm to 1 O:OOpm 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am Night-time Lmax 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am 55dB LAeq (15 mins) 50dB LAeq (15 mins) 45dB LAeq(15 mins) 75dBA Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. (iii) Live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events - Compliance with the following limits: a) The activity shall occur only between 7:00am - 7:00pm; and b) The activity shall occur only for a maximum period of three consecutive days within any rolling 90 day period at any one location in the District; and c) Sound emissions shall not exceed 70dBA Lmax measured at the notional boundary of a noise sensitive activity. (iv) Helicopter landing areas - Compliance with NZS6807: 1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas. (v) Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding the noise sources listed in (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv)) - Compliance with Rule Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defence purposes. Such temporary training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones throughout Palmerston North City. Noise from mobile sources includes sources such as personnel, light and heavy vehicles, self-propelled equipment and earth moving equipment. Fixed (stationary) noise sources includes noise sources such as power generation, heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems, or water or wastewater pumping/treatment systems. The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operational capability. The above performance standards have been designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are mitigated. R Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with Permitted Activities Performance Standards Temporary Military Training Activities that do not comply with the Performance Standards of R are a Restricted Discretionary Activity, with regard to: Duration; Time of Day; Noise levels at the notional boundary of any site containing a noise sensitive activity; Any noise management and mitigation measures proposed

7 6 Determination Clause In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions if any to impose, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Recreation Zone objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria: (a) (b) The extent to which the adverse effects of noise, hours of operation and other environmental disturbance on surrounding dwellings are avoided or mitigated. The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from impulsive noise, impact on noise sensitive activities. (c) Whether a community consultation programme is available, for communication with occupiers and owners of the affected site(s), prior to the military training activities commencing; with such communication including notification of the event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event, and the process of liaison with Council. Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out military training activities that do not meet the performance standards for permitted activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that any adverse effects of military training activities on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Restricted-Discretionary Activity status provides Council with the opportunity to assess the proposed activities and to either grant or decline consent. 11. In the Conservation and Amenity Zone: R Temporary Military Training Activities Temporary Military Training Activities are a Permitted Activity, provided the following performance standards are complied with: Performance Standards (a) (i) (ii) Buildings and Structures Any buildings and/or structures erected must be in compliance with performance standards (b) [height] and (c) [separation distances] of Rule ; and Any buildings erected in association-with the Temporary Military Training Activity must be removed at the conclusion of the activity unless they are in compliance with Rule (b) Excavations and Alterations to Landform Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the ground must be reinstated as close as practicable to the condition it was in, prior to its disturbance

8 7 (c) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days with a period of 7 days allowed for set up prior to the activity and an additional 7 days for take down after the activity. (d) (i) (ii) Noise Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. Fixed (Stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits: 7:00am - 7:00pm 7:00pm to 1 O:OOpm 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am Night-time Lmax 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am 55dB LAeq (15 mins) 50dB LAeq (15 mins) 45dB LAeq(15 mins) 75dBA Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. (iii) Live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events - Compliance with the following limits: a) The activity shall occur only between 7:00am - 7:00pm; and b) The activity shall occur only for a maximum period of three consecutive days within any rolling 90 day period at any one location in the District; and c) Sound emissions shall not exceed 70 dba Lmax measured at the notional boundary of a noise sensitive activity. (iv) Helicopter landing areas - Compliance with NZS6807: 1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas. (v) Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding the noise sources listed in (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) - Compliance with Rule Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defence purposes. Such temporary training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones throughout Palmerston North City. Noise from mobile sources includes sources such as personnel, light and heavy vehicles, self-propelled equipment and earth moving equipment. Fixed (stationary) noise sources includes noise sources such as power generation, heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems, or water or wastewater pumping/treatment systems. The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operational

9 8 capability. The above performance standards have been designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are mitigated. R Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with Permitted Activities Performance Standards Temporary Military Training Activities that do not comply with the Performance Standards of R are a Restricted Discretionary Activity, with regard to: Duration; Time of Day; Noise levels at the notional boundary of any site containing a noise sensitive activity; Any noise management and mitigation measures proposed. Determination Clause In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions if any to impose, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Conservation and Amenity Zone objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria: (a) (b) The extent to which adverse effects of noise, hours of operation and other environmental disturbance on surrounding dwellings are avoided or mitigated. The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from impulsive noise, impact on noise sensitive activities. (c) Whether a community consultation programme is available, for communication with occupiers and owners of the affected site(s), prior to the military training activities commencing; with such communication including notification of the event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event, and the process of liaison with Council. Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out military training activities that do not meet the performance standards for permitted activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that any adverse effects of military training activities on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Restricted-Discretionary Activity status provides Council with the opportunity to assess the proposed activities and to either grant or decline consent. 12. In the Water Recreation Zone: R Temporary Military Training Activities Temporary Military Training Activities are a Permitted Activity, provided the following performance standards are complied with:

10 9 Performance Standards (a) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days with a period of 7 days allowed for set up prior to the activity and an additional 7 days for take down after the activity. (b) (i) (ii) Noise Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. Fixed (Stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits: 7:00am - 7:00pm 7:00pm to 1 O:OOpm 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am Night-time Lmax 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am 55dB LAeq (15 mins) 50dB LAeq (15 mins) 45dB LAeq (15 mins) 75dBA Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. (iii) Live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events - Compliance with the following limits: a) The activity shall occur only between 7:00am - 7:00pm; and b) The activity shall occur only for a maximum period of three consecutive days within any rolling 90 day period at any one location in the District; and c) Sound emissions shall not exceed 70 dba Lmax measured at the notional boundary of a noise sensitive activity. (iv) Helicopter landing areas - Compliance with NZS6807: 1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas. (v) Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding the noise sources listed in (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) - Compliance with Rule Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defence purposes. Such temporary training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones throughout Palmerston North City. Noise from mobile sources includes sources such as personnel, light and heavy vehicles, self-propelled equipment and earth moving equipment. Fixed (stationary) noise sources includes noise sources such as power generation, heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems, or water or wastewater pumping/treatment systems

11 10 The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operational capability. The above performance standards have been designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are mitigated. R Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with Permitted Activities Performance Standards Temporary Military Training Activities that do not comply with the Performance Standards of R are a Restricted Discretionary Activity, with regard to: Duration; Time of Day; Noise levels at the notional boundary of any site containing a noise sensitive activity; Any noise management and mitigation measures proposed. Determination Clause In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions if any to impose, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Water Recreation Zone objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria: (a) The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from impulsive noise, impacts on noise sensitive activities. (b) Whether a community consultation programme is available, for communication with occupiers and owners of the affected site(s), prior to the military training activities commencing; with such communication including notification of the event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event, and the process of liaison with Council. Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out military training activities that do not meet the performance standards for permitted activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that any adverse effects of military training activities on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Restricted-Discretionary Activity status provides Council with the opportunity to assess the proposed activities and to either grant or decline consent. 13. In the Racecourse Zone: R Temporary Military Training Activities Temporary Military Training Activities are a Permitted Activity, provided the following performance standards are complied with:

12 11 Performance Standards (a) (i) (ii) (b) Buildings and Structures Any buildings and/or structures erected must be in compliance with performance standards (a) [height] and (b) [separation distances] of Rule ; and Any buildings erected in association-with the Temporary Military Training Activity must be removed at the conclusion of the activity unless they are in compliance with Rule Excavations and Alterations to Landform Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the ground must be reinstated as close as practicable to the condition it was in, prior to its disturbance. (c) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days with a period of 7 days allowed for set up prior to the activity and an additional 7 days for take down after the activity. (d) (i) (ii) Noise Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS 6803: 1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. Fixed (Stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits: 7:00am - 7:00pm 7:00pm to 1 O:OOpm 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am Night-time Lmax 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am 55dB LAeq (15 mins) 50dB LAeq (15 mins) 45dB LAeq (15 mins) 75dBA Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. (iii) Live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events - Compliance with the following limits: a) The activity shall occur only between 7:00am - 7:00pm; and b) The activity shall occur only for a maximum period of three consecutive days within any rolling 90 day period at any one location in the District; and c) Sound emissions shall not exceed 70 dba Lmax measured at the notional boundary of a noise sensitive activity

13 12 (iv) Helicopter landing areas - Compliance with NZS6807: 1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas. (v) Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding the noise sources listed in (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) - Compliance with Rule Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defence purposes. Such temporary training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones throughout Palmerston Notth City. Noise from mobile sources includes sources such as personnel, light and heavy vehicles, self-propelled equipment and eatth moving equipment. Fixed (stationary) noise sources includes noise sources such as power generation, heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems, or water or wastewater pumping/treatment systems. The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operational capability. The above performance standards have been designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are mitigated. R Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with Permitted Activities Performance Standards Temporary Military Training Activities that do not comply with the Performance Standards of R are a Restricted Discretionary Activity, with regard to: Duration; Time of Day; Noise levels at the notional boundary of any site containing a noise sensitive activity; Any noise management and mitigation measures proposed. Determination Clause In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions if any to impose, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Racecourse Zone objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria: (a) (b) The extent to which any adverse effects of noise, hours of operation, and other environmental disturbance on the users of the racecourse and surrounding residential properties are avoided or mitigated. The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from impulsive noise impact on noise sensitive activities. (c) Whether a community consultation programme is available, for communication with occupiers and owners of the affected site(s), prior to the military training activities commencing; with such communication including notification of the event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event, and the process of liaison with Council

14 13 Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out military training activities that do not meet the performance standards for permitted activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that any adverse effects of military training activities on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Restricted-Discretionary Activity status provides Council with the opportunity to assess the proposed activities and to either grant or decline consent. 14. In the Arena Zone: R Temporary Military Training Activities Temporary Military Training Activities are a Permitted Activity, provided the following performance standards are complied with : Performance Standards (a) (i) (ii) (b) Buildings and Structures Any buildings and/or structures erected must be in compliance with performance standards (b) [height] and (c) [separation distances] of Rule ; and Any buildings erected in association-with the Temporary Military Training Activity must be removed at the conclusion of the activity unless they are in compliance with Rule Excavations and Alterations to Landform Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the ground must be reinstated as close as practicable to the condition it was in, prior to its disturbance. (c) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days with a period of 7 days allowed for set up prior to the activity and an additional 7 days for take down after the activity. (d) (i) (ii) Noise Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. Fixed (Stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits:

15 14 7:00am - 7:00pm 7:00pm to 1 O:OOpm 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am Night-time Lmax 1 O:OOpm - 7:00am 55dB LAeq (15 mins) 50dB LAeq (15 mins) 45dB LAeq (15 mins) 75dBA Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. (iii) Live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events - Compliance with the following limits: a) The activity shall occur only between 7:00am - 7:00pm; and b) The activity shall occur only for a maximum period of three consecutive days within any rolling 90 day period at any one location in the District; and c) Sound emissions shall not exceed 70 dba Lmax measured at the notional boundary of a noise sensitive activity. (iv) Helicopter landing areas - Compliance with NZS6807: 1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas. (v) Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding the noise sources listed in (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) - Compliance with Rule Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defence purposes. Such temporary training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones throughout Palmerston North City. Noise from mobile sources includes sources such as personnel, light and heavy vehicles, self-propelled equipment and earth moving equipment. Fixed (stationary) noise sources includes noise sources such as power generation, heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems, or water or wastewater pumping/treatment systems. The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operational capability. The above performance standards have been designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are mitigated. R Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with Permitted Activities Performance Standards Temporary Military Training Activities that do not comply with the Performance Standards of R are a Restricted Discretionary Activity, with regard to: Duration; Time of Day; Noise levels at the notional boundary of any site containing a noise sensitive activity; Any noise management and mitigation measures proposed

16 15 Determination Clause In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions if any to impose, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Racecourse Zone objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria: (a) The extent to which any adverse effects of noise, hours of operation, and other environmental disturbance on the users of the racecourse and surrounding residential properties are avoided or mitigated. (b) The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from impulsive noise impact on noise sensitive activities. (c) Whether a community consultation programme is available, for communication with occupiers and owners of the affected site(s), prior to the military training activities commencing; with such communication including notification of the event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event, and the process of liaison with Council. Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out military training activities that do not meet the performance standards for permitted activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that any adverse effects of military training activities on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Restricted-Discretionary Activity status provides Council with the opportunity to assess the proposed activities and to either grant or decline consent. 15. In the Race Training Zone: 15.1 Include satne or similar provisions as sought in the Racecourse Zone above providing for permitted activity and restricted discretionaiy activity status for Tempora1y Milita1y Training Activities in the Race Training Zone (and any other Zone applicable to this Proposed Plan Change). 16. Definitions Delete the definitions of Minor Tempora1y Milita1y Training Activities and Extended Tempora1y Militaiy Training Activities and replace with a single definition to read as follows:

17 16 Temporary Military Training Activiry means all temporary military training activities u11de1take11 for defence pu1poses. Defence purposes are demi bed in section 5 of the Defence Act Any further or consequential amendments to the District Plan that are required to give effect to the relief sought in this appeal. 18. The following documents are attached to this notice: 18.1 A copy of the Minister/NZDF's submission on the Proposed Plan Change (Annexure A) A copy of the Council's decision and relevant Decisions Version text (Annexure B) A list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice (Annexure C). 21July2017 Rosemary Dixon Counsel for the appellant

18 17 This notice of appeal is filed by Rosemai-y Helen Dixon, Senior Crown Counsel, solicitor for the appellant, of Crown Law. The address for service of the appellant is Crown Law, Level 3, Justice Centre, 19 Aitken Street, Wellington Documents for service on the appelant may be left at this address for service or may be: (a) (b) (c) (d) posted to the solicitor at PO Box 2858, Wellington 6140; or left for the solicitor at a document exchange for direction to DX SP20208, Wellington Central; or transmitted to the solicitor by facsimile to ; or ed to the solicitor at rosemary.dixon@crownlaw.govt.nz

19 18 Advice to recipients of copy of notice of appeal How to become party to proceedings You may be a party to the appeal if you made a submission on the matter of this appeal. To become a party to the appeal, you must,- (a) (b) within 15 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, lodge a notice of your wish to be a party to the proceedings (in form 33) with the Environment Court and se1ve copies of your notice on the relevant local authority and the appellant; and within 20 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, se1ve copies of your notice on all other parties. If you are a trade competitor of a party to the proceedings, your right to be a party to the proceedings in the court may be limited (see section 27 4(1) and Part 11A of the Resource Management Act 1991). You may apply to the Environment Court under section 281 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for a waiver of the above timing requirements (see form 38). The copy of this notice se1ved on you does not attach a copy of the appellant's submission and the part of the decision appealed. These documents may be obtained, on request, from the appellant. If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court ill Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch

20 19 ANNEXUREA Submission

21 ~~ t<u. New ZCaland ~ ~ ~ DEFENCE ~f,9,.bg (l) NAVY NZ~ 0A.IR!'ORC! _,, Property Group National Service Centre Alexander Road Private Bag 902 Trentham Upper Hutt 5140, New Zealand Submission on Proposed Plan Change 21: Recreation Zones Palmerston North City District Plan Clause 6 of First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991 To: Address: Team Leader - Governance and Support City Corporate Palmerston North City Council Private Bag Palmerston North submission@pncc.govt.nz Submitter: Contact Person: Address for Service: Phone: New Zealand Defence Force Rebecca Davies, Senior Environmental Officer New Zealand Defence Force Cl- Tonkin + Taylor Ltd PO Box 2083 Wellington rebecca.davies@nzdf.mil. nz Preliminary Matters A detailed submission is attached. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) has military interests throughout New Zealand. This includes the Linton Military Camp located near Palmerston North, which is the largest New Zealand Army base in the country. NZDF may also undertake temporary military training activities in the Palmerston North City Council area outside of the Linton Military Camp. This submission is the latest in a series of submissions lodged by NZDF in relation to the sectional Plan review process. NZDF has also submitted on, and appeared at the hearings for Plan Change 15A (Rural review) and Plan Change 20 (Residential review). NZDF also submitted on Plan Change 11 (Institutional review). NZDF has recently signed a 'Statement of Intent' with both Palmerston North City Council and the Manawatu District Council, which records the intention of these parties to work together in mutual areas of interest. With this in mind, NZDF would like to meet with Palmerston North City Council representatives and its technical advisors to discuss, and as far as practicable resolve, the issues set out in the attached submission prior to the hearing.

22 NZDF could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. NZDF wishes to be heard in support of this submission. 2 If others make a similar submission, we will consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing. Person authorised to sign on behalf of New Zealand Defence Force Date 27 /5/16

23 Point Pro:vision Reasons Decision Sought Definitions of "Minor" and "Extended" Temporary Military Training Activities Oppose The definitions chapter differentiates the types of Temporary Military Training Activities (TMTA), into "Minor" and "Extended". Providing separate definitions is not considered necessary or useful. As currently written, any activity that is not identified as a "minor" TMT A, regardless of whether or not it has the potential to generate 'excessive noise', or any noise for that matter, requires resource consent as a discretionary activity. NZDF is not aware of any other Council that has deemed it necessary to separate TMTA in this manner. The noise standards proposed by NZDF would adequately address the potential noise effects of all TMT A. A single, simple definition and set of rules for TMT A would simplify the management of these activities. That the two separate definitions, Minor Temporary Military Training Activities and Extended Temporary Military Training Activities be deleted and replaced with a single definition. NZDF suggests the following wording: "Temporary Military Training Activity- a temporary military activity undertaken for defence purposes. Defence purposes are described in s5 of the Defence Act 1990." 2 Provisions for Temporary Military Training Activities within the Recreation Zones Oppose TMT A could occur in any zone across the District, and therefore it is appropriate that they are provided for within the General Rules Chapter. This is considered to improve the usability of the Plan for the public, Council and for NZDF. Cross referencing could be used to direct users to this Chapter from the other chapters. Move all provisions for Temporary Military Training Activities into Chapter 6 - General Provisions. This is also considered far more efficient than duplicating the TMT A provisions across each zone and sub-zone, which are either identical or very similar across the zones. Rec rreation?one ' 3 Policy 1.3 Support in part NZDF supports specific provision for TMTA in the policy framework for the Recreation Zone but considers this should be supported by specific recognition of the benefits of TMT A in the explanation section under the relevant policy. Add a paragraph to the 'Explanation' section, in relation to the social and economic benefits of TMTA and to the health, safety and wellbeing of people and communities. 4 Rule Recreation Zone Oppose in part NZDF supports provision for TMTA in the Plan as permitted activities. However, NZDF requests provision for weapons firing and the use of ex losives within the Recreation Zone. From Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Recreation Zone and relocate the rules to the

24 4 Point "" Rrovision Suggert/ Op, pose Reasons.. time to time, NZDF may wish to undertake these activities and it is appropriate they are provided for in the Plan. As an example, a civil event known as a 'gun run' was performed in the Square on 26 May This involved the firing of blank ammunition as part of a nationwide celebration of the Royal Artillery. This type of event is entirely appropriate for the Recreation Zone. Decision Sought General Rules Chapter. Otherwise, amend rule to permit.live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events in the Recreation Zone subject to suitable performance standards as proposed by NZDF. -""' 5 Rule Performance Standard (a)(i) Oppose Buildings and structures associated with TMTA are generally erected temporarily, and removed at the completion of the activity. Therefore NZDF does not consider it appropriate that temporary structures be required to comply with the same standards as permanent structures. Delete this performance standard; OR amend (a)(i) to relate to permanent buildings and structures only. 6 Rule Performance Standard (a)(ii) Oppose Notwithstanding submission point 5 above, NZDF may, from time to time, construct permanent buildings as part of training. This activity would be undertaken in conjunction with the landowner and in accordance with the Zone rules for buildings. Therefore, a performance standard requiring the removal of buildings at the completion of the activity, even where such buildings may otherwise be a permitted activity in accordance with other rules in the plan, is not considered appropriate. Delete standard (a)(ii). Rather than requiring the removal of these structures, the plan rules that otherwise apply to permanent structures should simply apply. 7 Rule Performance Standard (b) Oppose NZDF may undertake earthworks on land as part of the training activity. Where this is the case the relevant earthworks rules will either be complied with, or consent sought for earthworks activities. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to require remediation of the surfaces to close to its prior state. Other (nonmilitary) activities are not required to meet this requirement. Instead it is more appropriate that TMTA comply with the Zone's earthworks standards. Delete standard (b). Council may wish to add a note to the rule to alert the reader to the earthworks provisions.

25 - ''" - ' I" -,, Point Provision ~,-, 11 Sugport/ Reasons Decision Sought ~ Oppose :~~ I ~t;.; I l '~ Rule Oppose NZDF accepts that TMT A need to comply with the relevant Delete standard (c). Performance requirements for hazardous substances. However, it is not If considered necessary, add a note to the rule Standard (c) considered appropriate to impose this as a performance to alert the reader to the hazardous standard, and instead this is more appropriate as a note under substances provisions. the rule. 9 Rule Oppose in part TMTA can be undertaken over a period of days or weeks, on Amend standard ( d). NZDF suggests wording Performance and intermittent or continuous basis. While NZDF would prefer as follows (additions underlined): Standard (d) that duration restrictions were not imposed in Plans, a period of "The activity is limited to a period not 31 days is generally sufficient for the majority of TMT A, where exceeding 31 days, excluding set-up and an allowance is made for set-up and pack-down activities in pack-down activities." addition to this 31 day period. 10 Rule Support It is appropriate and efficient that this performance standard for Retain this provision as notified. Performance noise from mobile noise sources refers to the relevant NZ Standard (e)(i) Standard for construction noise. 11 Rule Support The noise limits for fixed noise sources listed in this Retain this provision as notified. Performance performance standard are consistent with those requested by Standard (e)(ii) NZDF and are therefore considered appropriate. 12 Rule Oppose As part of its project of national consistency in District Plans for Adopt the noise standards developed by Performance TMT A provisions, NZDF has commissioned professional NZDF for the control of noise from weapons Standard (e)(iii) acoustic advice from an acoustic consultant experienced with firing and explosives. The standards, and an the measurement and assessment of noise associated with explanation behind them is provided in military training, including weapons firing and explosives. Based Attachment 1. on this advice, NZDF has developed a set of conservative noise control permitted activity standards that it is seeking to have included in proposed district plans nation-wide. NZDF considers the standards drafted as a result of the professional advice are more appropriate, effective, and easier to understand and assess compliance with. NZDF's project of national consistency is in line with the Government's proposed second phase RMA reforms, which will focus on nationwide templates and the

26 6 Point RroYision E>ecision Sought 13 Explanation under Support Rule Rule : Oppose Discretionary Activity strengthening of national planning tools. The acoustic advice provided to PNCC by Nigel Lloyd reiterates Mr Lloyd's positon on TMTA noise from weapons firing and explosives on other zones in the Plan also subject to the Plan Change process. In consideration of the matters discussed at recent hearings on other Plan Change sections, there does not appear to have been any attempt to revisit or reconsider the merits of these provisions. The text under the Rule provides useful background of the requirement for NZDF to undertake temporary military training activities. A discretionary activity status is overly onerous, and would adversely impact on NZDF's ability to plan its training exercises and potentially to meet its obligations under the Defence Act This rule sets out eight assessment criteria, which are considered overly broad, and duplicates other sections of the Plan. Controlled activity status is considered appropriate for TMT A, and recognises the temporary nature of the activity and its potential effects (which can be clearly identified and managed). NZDF request that the matters of control are those directly related to noise and timing/duration of the activity. Retain text as notified or text to similar effect. Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Recreation Zone and relocate the rules to the General Rules Chapter. Ensure the default activity status for TMT A that do not meet the permitted activity performance standards is controlled, with the matters of control those directly related to noise and timing/duration of the activity. 15 Objectives and Oppose Policies 16 Rule and Oppose associated Performance Standards (a) - (e) TMT A, along with other temporary activities, are appropriate in this zone. The policy framework for this zone should enable TMT A and temporary activities here. Refer to submission points above relating to Recreation Zone TMTA including comment on the performance standards (a) - (e). The rovisions for TMTA in this zone are identical to those in Add objective and or policy to recognise temporary activities and TMT A in this zone. Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Conservation and Amenity Zone and relocate the rules to the General Rules Chapter. Otherwise, amend the revisions to be

27 7 Point Pro:vision - ~... *Sugporrtl ppose Reasons " Recreation Zone. As requested in regard to the Recreation Zone, the performance standards should be amended to better provide for TMTA in this zone, including noise provisions for weapons firing and explosives. Decision Sought consistent with the requested amendments to the provisions of the Recreation Zone. 17 Rule Performance Standard (f) Support in part The performance standards appear to be incorrectly referenced, with two standards labelled (e). This standard should instead be labelled (f). NZDF considers this standard is reasonable in the context of the specific environments covered by this conservation and amenity zoning. Amend the numbering of this performance standard. 18 Explanation under Rule Support The text under the Rule provides useful background of the requirement for NZDF to undertake temporary military training activities. Retain explanation text as notified. 19 Rule Discretionary Activity Oppose A discretionary activity status is overly onerous, and would adversely impact on NZDF's ability to plan its training exercises and potentially to meet its obligations under the Defence Act This rule sets out eight assessment criteria, which are considered overly broad, and duplicates other sections of the Plan. Controlled activity status is considered appropriate for TMT A, and recognises the temporary nature of the activity and its potential effects (which can be clearly identified and managed). NZDF request that the matters of control are restricted to those directly related to noise and timing/duration of the activity. Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Conservation and Amenity Zone and relocate the rules to the General Rules Chapter. Ensure the default activity status for TMT A that do not meet the permitted activity performance standards is controlled, with the matters of control restricted to those directly related to noise and timing/duration of the activity. 20 Rule Oppose This rule captures all other activities not specifically provided for in the Conservation and Amenity Zone, including Extended Temporary Military Training Activities. This is considered overly onerous, particularly for a temporary activity. Instead, it is considered more appropriate to provide for TMT A within Rule as noted above. As above. Delete all rules related to TMTA in the Conservation and Amenity Zone and relocate the rules to the General Rules Chapter. Adopt the noise standards developed by NZDF for the control of noise from weapons firing and explosives. The standards, and an

28 _, 8 - ~.,...,. II -- ""'...;ii ltl ~ -~"' ' - - -~ P-oint Pro\lisien Supportt Reasons Decision Sougtit O)>pose ~- Wate rr Rec~eat i erri Zene,. - r - - & "fl - - ~ a '". explanation behind them is provided in Attachment 1. ~L ~ -~ "'" Policy 1.1 Support in part NZDF supports specific provision for TMT A in the policy Add a paragraph to the 'Explanation' section, framework for this Zone but considers this should be supported in relation to the social and economic benefits by specific recognition of the benefits of TMTA in the of TMTA and to the health, safety and wellexplanation section under the relevant policy. being of people and communities. ~ 22 Rule Support in part NZDF supports provision for TMTA in the Plan, however NZDF Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Water requests provision for weapons firing and the use of explosives Recreation Zone and relocate the rules to the within this Zone. From time to time, NZDF may wish to General Rules Chapter. undertake these activities and it is appropriate they are provided Otherwise, amend rule to permit live firing of for in the Plan. weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events in the Water Recreation Zone subject to suitable performance standards as proposed by NZDF. 23 Rule Oppose NZDF accepts that TMTA need to comply with the relevant Delete standard (a). Performance requirements for hazardous substances. However, it is not Standard (a) If considered necessary, add a note to the rule considered appropriate to impose this as a performance to alert the reader to the hazardous standard. It is more appropriate as a note under the rule. substances provisions. 24 Rule Oppose TMT A can be undertaken over a period of days or weeks, on Amend standard (b). NZDF suggests wording Performance and intermittent or continuous basis. While NZDF would prefer as follows (additions underlined): Standard (b) that duration restrictions were not imposed in Plans, a period of "The activity is limited to a period not 31 days is generally sufficient for the majority of TMT A, where exceeding 31 days, excluding set-up and an allowance is made for set-up and pack-down activities, in pack-down activities." addition to this 31 day period. 25 Rule Support It is appropriate and efficient that this performance standard for Retain this provision as notified. Performance noise from mobile noise sources refers to the relevant NZ

29 9 Po hilt Standard ( c)(i) Standard for construction noise. 26 Rule Performance Standard (c)(ii) Support The noise limits for fixed noise sources listed in this performance standard are consistent with those requested by NZDF and are therefore considered appropriate. Retain this provision as notified. 27 Rule Performance Standard (c)(iii) Oppose As part of its project of national consistency in District Plans for TMTA provisions, NZDF has commissioned professional acoustic advice from an acoustic consultant experienced with the measurement and assessment of noise associated with military training, including from weapons firing and explosives. Based on this advice, NZDF has developed a set of conservative noise control permitted activity standards that it is seeking to have included in proposed district plans nation-wide. NZDF considers the standards drafted as a result of the professional advice are more appropriate, effective, and easier to understand and assess compliance with. NZDF's project of national consistency is in line with the Government's proposed second phase RMA reforms, which will focus on nationwide templates and the strengthening of national planning tools. Adopt the noise standards developed by NZDF for the control of noise from weapons firi ng and explosives and insert into the General Rules chapter of the Plan. The standards, and an explanation behind them, is provided in Attachment 1. The acoustic advice provided to PNCC by Nigel Lloyd reiterates Mr Lloyd's positon on TMT A noise in other zones in the Plan also subject to the Plan Change process. There does not appear to have been any attempt to reconsider the merits of these provisions, which is disappointing. 28 Explanation under Rule Support The text under the Rule provides useful background of the requirement for NZDF to undertake temporary military training activities. Retain text as notified or text to similar effect. 29 Rule Oppose A discretionary activity status is overly onerous, and would adversely impact on NZDF's ability to plan its training exercises and potentially to meet its obligations under the Defence Act This rule sets out eight assessment criteria, which are considered over! broad, and duplicates other sections of the Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Water Recreation Zone and relocate the rules to the General Rules Chapter. Ensure the default activity status for TMT A

30 Ill a -... T, ~ Poinf' Provision Supgort1 Reas ans Decision Sought,I ' OpROSe ' II - - Plan. Controlled activity status is considered appropriate for that do not meet the permitted activity TMTA, and recognises the temporary nature of the activity and performance standards is controlled, with the its potential effects (which can be clearly identified and matters of control those directly related to managed). NZDF request that the matters of control those noise and timing/duration of the activity. directly related to noise and timing/duration of the activity. ~ - ~ ~ - ~ There appears to a cross-referencing error in the rule - the reference to Rule should in fact be to Rule Raeecel!.lrse Zeme.. w ~ - ~ Objectives and Oppose TMTA, along with other temporary activities, are appropriate in Add objective and or policy to recognise Policies this zone. The policy framework for this zone should enable temporary activities and TMT A in this zone. TMT A and temporary activities here. 31 Rule Oppose in part Please refer to submission points earlier in this submission Delete all rules related to TMT A in the relating to Recreational Zone TMT A including comment on the Racecourse Zone and relocate the rules to the performance standards (a) - (e). General Rules Chapter. The provisions for TMT A are identical to those in Recreation Zone and are considered to be inappropriate for this zone. As requested in regard to the Recreation Zone, the performance standards should be amended to better provide for TMT A in the Plan as a whole, including noise provisions. Otherwise, amend these provisions to be consistent with the requested amendments to the provisions of the Recreation Zone. 32 Explanation under Support The text under the Rule provides useful background of the Retain explanation text as notified. Rule requirement for NZDF to undertake temporary military training activities. 33 Rule Oppose A discretionary activity status is overly onerous, and would Delete all rules related to TMT A in the adversely impact on NZDF's ability to plan its training exercises Racecourse Zone and relocate the rules to the and potentially to meet its obligations under the Defence Act General Rules Chapter This rule sets out eight assessment criteria, which are Ensure the default activity status for TMT A considered overly broad, and duplicates other sections of the that do not meet the permitted activity Plan. Controlled activity status is considered appropriate for performance standards is controlled, with the TMT A, and recognises the temporary nature of the activity and matters of control restricted to those directly

31 -- ~ -- -~ ~ ~- "' " r ~~ - Point l?rovision Suppalitl Reasons Decision Sought I Oppose A rrena Zone ~ ~ - ~ -~ ~ its potential effects (which can be clearly identified and managed). NZDF request that the matters of control are restricted to those directly related to noise and timing/duration of the activity ;;r, u - - IJ"... c.- - ~- related to noise and timing/duration of the activity 'f 1:1 34 Objectives and Oppose TMT A, along with other temporary activities, are appropriate in Add objective and /or policy to recognise and Policies this zone. The policy framework for this zone should enable provide for temporary activities and TMT A in TMT A and temporary activities here. this zone. 35 Rule and Oppose Refer to submission points above relating to Recreational Zone Delete all rules related to TMTA in the Arena associated TMTA including comment on the performance standards (a) - Zone and relocate the rules to the General Performance (e). Note that standard (d) Noise should be renumbered to (e). Rules Chapter. Standards (a) - (e) These provisions for TMTA are identical to those in Recreation Otherwise, amend these provisions to be Zone and are considered to be inappropriate for this zone. As consistent with the requested amendments to requested in regard to the Recreation Zone, the performance the provisions of the Recreation Zone. standards should be amended to better provide for TMTA in this zone, including noise provisions. 36 Explanation under Support The text under the Rule provides useful background of the Retain explanation text as notified. Rule requirement for NZDF to undertake temporary military training activities. 37 Rule Oppose Discretionary activity status is overly onerous, and would Delete all rules related to TMT A in the Arena adversely impact on NZDF's ability to plan its training exercises Zone and relocate the rules to the General and potentially to meet its obligations under the Defence Act Rules Chapter This rule sets out six assessment criteria, which are Ensure the default activity status for TMT A considered overly broad, and duplicates other sections of the that do not meet the permitted activity Plan. Controlled activity status is considered appropriate for performance standards is controlled, with the TMT A, and recognises the temporary nature of the activity and matters of control those directly related to its potential effects. NZDF request that the matters of control noise and timing/duration of the activity. are noise and timing/duration of the activity. -

32 12 Point Rre,visien 38 Race Training Zone Oppose It is appropriate to also provide for TMTA within the race Training Zone. TMTA can include various activities and it is appropriate to provide for TMT A across all areas of the district. Include provision for TMTA in all zones including the Race Training Zone, through providing for TMTA within the General rules Chapter.

33 Attachment 1: Replacement standards for controlling noise effects from weapons firing and/or use of explosives associated with Temporary Military Training Activities Note: TMTA cover a broad range of activities along with weapons firing and/or the use of explosives. Noise from these other activities are appropriately managed through the proposed provisions in the Palmerston North City Plan i.e. the performance standards for noise from mobile noise sources (other than weapons firing and explosives), from fixed noise sources and from helicopter landing areas, The table below therefore focuses on noise from weapons firing and/or use of explosives associated with TMT A. Rule x.x: Weapons firing and/or use of explosives associated with Temporary Military Training Activities are permitted activities, provided they comply with the noise standards specified in the table below. Type of military noise source Standards 1. Weapons a. Notice is provided to the Council at least 48 hours prior to the firing and/or commencement of the activity, specifying whether the activity the use of involves live firing and/or the use of explosives, or firing of explosives blank ammunition; whether the activity will comply with the separation distances or the noise levels; the location of the activity and the boundaries within which the activity will take place, and distances to buildings housing noise sensitive activities; and the timing and duration of the activity. b. Compliance with the noise standards below: Time (Monday to Sunday) Separation distance required between the boundary of the activity and the notional boundary to any building housing a noise sensitive activity i. Live firing 0700 to At least Less than 1500m of weapons 1900 hours 1500m if conditions (a) and single and (c) below are or multiple complied with explosive events 1900 to At least Less than 4500m 0700 hours 4500m if conditions (b) and (c) below are complied with ii. Firing of 0700 to At least 750m Less than 750m if blank 1900 hours conditions (a) and ammunition (c) below are complied with

34 14 Type of inilifary noise source Standards 1900 to At least Less than 2250m 0700 hours 2250m if conditions (b) and (c) below are complied with Conditions to be complied with if minimum separation distances for sources 1 (b )(i) and 1 (b )(ii) cannot be met: Condition Time (Monday to Sunday) Noise level within the notional boundary to any building housing a noise sensitive activity (a) Peak sound pressure level of hrs dbc (b) Peak sound pressure level of hrs dbc (c) A Noise Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified expert is provided to Council at least 15 working days prior to the activity taking place. The Noise Management Plan shall, as a minimum, contain: A description of the site and activity including times, dates, and nature and location of the proposed training activities. Methods to minimise the noise disturbance at noise sensitive receiver sites such as selection of location, orientation, timing of noisy activities to limit noise received at sensitive receiver sites. A map showing potentially affected noise sensitive sites and predicted peak sound pressure levels for each of these locations. A programme for notification and communication with the occupiers of affected noise sensitive sites prior to the activities commencing, including updates during the event. A method for following up any complaints received during or after the event, and any proposed de-briefing meetings with Council. * Noise levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS6801 :2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Sound

35 15 Attachment 2: Background Information and Explanation NZDF wishes to make sure that the noise standards included in District Plans are up-to-date, appropriate for the type of noise generated and relatively simple to understand and assess compliance with. To this end, NZDF has commissioned professional acoustic advice on appropriate standards to control noise effects from Temporary Military Training Activities. This report can be provided on request. Based on this advice, NZDF has developed revised noise control standards that it will seek to have included in proposed district plans nationwide. The replacement noise standards proposed by NZDF focus on compliance at dwellings, residentially zoned sites, and buildings used for residential, educational or healthcare purposes. In summary, the NZDF's proposed standards divide noise sources from Temporary Military Training Activities into four categories: weapons firing and explosions; other mobile sources such as vehicles and earthmoving equipment; fixed noise sources such as power generators and water pumping, and helicopter landing areas. Each of these noise sources has different noise characteristics, and therefore a different set of standards for controlling noise. NZDF considers that this division allows a more comprehensive and appropriate method for controlling noise from Temporary Military Training Activities. For weapons firing and explosives, the noise control standard used is separation distances between the activity and any sensitive receiver (dwelling, residentially zoned site, or building used for residential, educational or healthcare purposes). Four separation distances are specified - a night time and daytime distance for firing of live ammunition and explosives, and a night time and daytime distance for firing of blank ammunition, which is less noisy than live firing. The distances have been arrived at after review and analysis of data measured from real military activities, to ensure that the sound levels received at the specified distances will be reasonable (generally less than 55 dba for daytime and less than 45 dba for night time). Using separation distance as a standard has the advantage of being an easy to comply with and easy to monitor standard. For mobile noise sources (other than weapons firing and explosives), compliance with the construction noise standards is recommended, as this standard most appropriately addresses this type of noise. NZDF notes that this is reflected in the Proposed Palmerston North District Plan Recreation Zone provisions. For fixed noise sources, which can be located to ensure compliance with standards, db LAeq levels are specified, in line with NZS6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental Noise. This is considered the most appropriate way to control noise levels from these sources. NZDF notes that this is largely reflected in the Proposed Palmerston North District Plan Recreation Zone provisions. NZDF has also considered noise from helicopters associated with temporary military training activities. NZDF proposes the use of NZS6807: 1994 Noise Management and Land Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas to control this type of noise. NZDF notes that this is reflected in Chapter 6 of the Palmerston North District Plan.

36 20 ANNEXUREB A copy of the Council's decision and relevant Decisions Version text

37 W pncc.govt.nz I E info@pncc.govt.nz I P I Private Bag 11034, The Square, Palmer5ton North, New Zealand PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Submission No.: S0-20 New Zealand Defence Force Rebecca Davies, Senior Environmental Officer C/-,Tonkin & Taylor Ltd PO Box 2083 L4/2 Hunter Street WELLINGTON 6140 Dear Ms Davies lp EC~Ev - T f,~~~5 _ q JUi. 1 'Llr\7 BY: 6 June 2017 SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW - PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 21 - 'RECREATION ZONES AND RACE TRAINING ZONE I write to advise that the Commissioners, namely Chris Mitchell, Stuart Kinnear and Councillors Susan Baty and Rachel Bowen heard the above application at hearings held on 14 to 16 December The decision on Proposed Plan Change 21 is available for viewing at the following locations: On the Council's website:- The Customer Service Centre, Palmerston North City Council, Civic Administration Building, The Square, Palmerston North; The Palmerston North Public Library, The Square, Palmerston North; (NZ Pacific Zone, 2"d Floor) Branch Libraries: the Roslyn Library, Vogel Street; Awapuni Library, College Street; Highbury Library, Highbury Avenue, Palmerston North The Ashhurst Library, corner Cambridge Avenue and Bamfield Street, Ashhurst; and Linton Army Camp Library, Puttick Road, Linton Any enquires regarding Proposed Plan Change 21 should be directed to Keegan Aplin-Thane, Policy Planner on (06) or keegan.aplin-thane@pncc.govt.nz Please also find attached information on your right to appeal this decision to the Environment Court and a copy of the public notice on the decision. Yours faithfully Carly Chang COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATOR v i brant car i ng I inn o va tive I susta inable I prospe r ous

38 INFORMATION AS TO RIGHT OF APPEAL ON A CHANGE TO THE PALMERSTON NORTH CITY DISTRICT PLAN 1. You may appeal against the whole or part of the decision of the Council by lodging a Notice of Appeal in the prescribed form with the Registrar of the Environment Court, P 0 Box 5027, Wellington and with the Council within 30 working days of the receipt by you (or the person who filed the application or submission on your behalf), of the decision or notice of the decision. 2. Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 sets out important information as to what the appeal should state, on whom the appeal should be served, and the time when service must take place. The appeal must also follow the form prescribed by Form 7 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations The Resource Management Act 1991, and the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003 may be inspected at the City Library, or purchased from Whitcoulls Bookshop Ltd, Broadway Avenue, or can be viewed at 4. The appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of $ (GST inc) 5. If you are in any doubt as to the procedures to be followed it is strongly recommended that you consult a lawyer. * * * * *

39 PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Oasis# PUBLIC NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE 10 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW PLAN CHANGE 21 - RECREATION ZONES AND RACE TRAINING ZONE DECISION ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 21 On 24 May 2017, the Palmerston North City Council made a decision on Proposed Plan Change 21 to the Palmerston North City District Plan. Proposed Plan Change 21 was a full review of the District Plan provisions for the Recreation Zones which are in Section 15 Recreation, and the provisions for the Race Training Zone which are in Section 21. Viewing of Decision on Proposed Plan Change 21 The decision on Proposed Plan Change 21 is available for viewing at the following offices when these offices are open to the public: The Customer Service Centre, Palmerston North City Council, Civic Administration Building, The Square, Palmerston North; The Palmerston North Public Library, The Square, Palmerston North (NZ Pacific Zone, 2"d floor); Branch Libraries: the Roslyn Library, Vogel Street; Awapuni Library, College Street; Highbury Library, Highbury Avenue, Palmerston North; The Ashhurst Library, corner Cambridge Avenue and Bamfield Street, Ashhurst; Linton Army Camp Library, Puttick Road, Linton Information on Proposed Plan Change 21 is available on the Council website: Any enquires regarding Proposed Plan Change 21 should be directed to Keegan Aplin Thane on (06) or keegan.aplin-thane@pncc.govt.nz. ~(L~- ~ David Wright ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE 7 June 2017

40 PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 21 UNDER PART 1 SCHEDULE 1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 DECISION OF THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS Commissioners: Chris Mitchell (chair), Stuart Kinnear, Rachel Bowen and Susan Baty Date of Hearing: December 2016 Date of decision: 26 April 2017

41 Contents 1. Introduction Formal Decision Plan Change 21: general approach to decision making Legal and Planning Framework Submissions Hearing Assessment Further evaluation under section 32AA Conclusion

42 1. Introduction 1) Plan Change 21 (PC21) is a full review of the District Plan provisions for the Recreation Zones which are in Section 15 Recreation, and the provisions for the Race Training Zone which are in Section 21. For the purposes of the hearing, and for this decision, PC21 has two parts. In essence, these are: a) Plan Change 21 Part A (PC21A): is a review of the Section 15 and 21 zoning provisions applying to land which is not owned by the Council - these are the Racecourse Zone and the Race Training Zone. PC21A includes a proposed Awapuni Racecourse Structure Plan, a proposed rezoning of three areas on Totara Rd and Grand Oaks Drive, adjoining the Racecourse, from Racecourse Zone to Residential Zone, and a proposed rezoning of land on Shirriffs Road from Rural Zone to Race Training Zone. b) Plan Change 21 Part B (PC21 B): is a review of the Section 15 zoning provisions applying to land which is owned by the Council. These zones are the Recreation Zone, the Water Recreation Zone, the Conservation and Amenity Zone and the Showgrounds Zone. 2) PC21A and B also involve other proposed changes, including rezoning of specific land, and an amendment to Section 7 Subdivision in relation to the proposed Grand Oaks Drive Residential Area. 3) PC21 was notified on 28 April There were 48 submissions and 6 further submissions. Most submissions were on PC21A, a number were on both PC21A and B, and 4 were only on PC21 B. 4) The hearing of PC21 and the submissions and further submissions on it was held on December The Commissioners made site visits on 9 and 16 December which included sites and areas that had been specifically referred to by submitters. 5) The purpose of PC21 is stated in the detailed reports (referred to collectively as 'the section 32 report') accompanying the public notice: The Purpose of PPC The primary purpose of PPC21 is to review the existing provisions and the current zoning extent for the five zones that collectively make the Recreation Section in Chapter 15 of the District Plan, and the Race Training Zone. Of particular focus for the Recreation Zones has been whether the provisions are still relevant and appropriate to address issues related to recreational land use in the City for the next 10 years and beyond. 1.6 The Recreation Zone includes new provisions for assessing the appropriate size of buildings within the Zone, as well as including a definition for retail activities to provide greater certainty for Plan users. Other changes, which apply to all zones, have been made to ensure consistency with other recent Sectional District Plan Review plan changes and decisions, such as to update the noise provisions to the 2008 New Zealand Standards, provisions relating to air noise contours and temporary military training activities. 3

43 1.7 Both the Conservation and Amenity Zone and Water Recreation Zone include changes for temporary military training activities and noise to ensure consistency with other Sectional District Plan Review plan changes and decisions. 1.8 The Racecourse Zone includes a new rule to require development within an area of the Awapuni Racecourse to require consent. This is the result of a recently agreed Structure Plan (developed in partnership between Council and RACE Incorporated) for the Racecourse which will form part of the District Plan. A consequential change is required in the Subdivision Chapter relating to the new Racecourse Structure Plan. 1.9 The Showgrounds Zone has been renamed the Arena Zone in recognition of the name of the site. The review of the Zone has specifically focused on the issues of noise and enabling the Arena Master Plan which was recently endorsed by Council. PPC21 seeks to embed the Master Plan into the District Plan through new rules and methods, including adding the Master Plan as an appendix to the Arena Zone. Other considerations have been the lighting provisions and urban design matters for future development In terms of the Race Training Zone, an investigation was undertaken into the use and demand of race training activities now compared to when the Zone was originally introduced into the District Plan. The addition of farming and horticultural activities reflects the current use of some of the sites in this Zone As part of PPC21 there are proposed zoning changes to correctly zone some recreation areas from rural or residential to Recreation Zone, Conservation and Amenity Zone or Race Training Zone, or from Conservation and Amenity Zone, Recreation Zone or Industrial Zone to Conservation and Amenity Zone or Rural Zone. There are also proposed zoning changes to the Racecourse Zone to provide for minor subdivision in the near future. 6) Prior to the hearing a report (referred to as the 'section 42A report') from Council officers and consultants was prepared and publicly issued to all participants in the hearing. This report contains the professional assessments and recommendations of those officers and consultants on specific aspects of PC21 and on submissions and further submissions. 7) All of this information (and indeed all the documentary information received and considered by the hearing panels) has been, and remains, available on the Council website for the PC21 hearing. 8) All the Commissioners appointed to the PC21A hearing panel were collectively delegated by the Council to make decisions on the requests made in the various submissions. Because PC21 B applies to land owned by the Council, the Councillor Commissioners did not participate in the hearing of these submissions (except for the few submitters who covered both topics), or the decisions on them. Messrs Mitchell and Kinnear were delegated by the Council to conduct this part of the hearing and to make the relevant decisions. Finally, a number of discrete topics raised by submissions (listed in para.65(h)-u)) are common to both PC21A and PC21 B and these have been considered by all Commissioners. 4

44 9) Although this is a single decision on PC21, there is a different sections dealing with the PC21A and PC21 B topics, and those which are common to both, outlined above. However the decision begins and concludes with aspects which are common to both topics: the background, the legal and planning framework, and the common topics (referred to above) and the further evaluation required by section 32AA of the Act. The Commissioners have approved the decision in terms of the delegations referred to in the preceding paragraph. 2. Formal Decision 10) Plan Change 21 part A is accepted subject to the amendments made by this decision shown in Appendix 1. The reasons for this decision are those set out in paragraphs below. The requests made in submissions and further submissions on PC21 part A are accepted, accepted in part or rejected to the extent shown by those amendments in Appendix 1. 11) Plan Change 21 part B is accepted subject to the amendments made by this decision shown in Appendix 2. The reasons for this decision are those set out in paragraphs below. The requests made in submissions and further submissions on PC21 part B are accepted, or rejected to the extent shown by those amendments in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also contains the table of rezoning proposals (from pages 4 and 5 of the Section 32 report) as amended by this decision. 12) Decisions on the topics which are common to both PC21A and PC21 B are contained in paras below. 13) Where, in relation to any request made in a submission, a specific reason for the decision is not given, that reason will be either in the submission itself (in the case of acceptance) or in the relevant section 42A report (in the case of acceptance in part or rejection). Though we have tried to be flexible in considering the intent of a submission, it has not always been possible to identify a specific and relevant request on which a decision is required. 3. Plan Change 21: general approach to decision making 14) District plans are, of necessity, broad scale documents in which key provisions apply across large areas of the City, and to areas which may have significant physical differences. The range of different zones reviewed by PC21 reflects the variety of activities, physical environment and community relationships and views of the land involved. 15) The starting point is that any plan change reflects the Council's view of how, or whether, the relevant District Plan provisions should be amended to respond to changes in circumstances, issues of future demands and challenges, and lessons learned from experience. 16) As we have noted in earlier Plan review decisions, the plan change hearing process is, applying a common analogy, very much the tip of an iceberg where 5

45 the great bulk of preparatory and consultative work which led to specific proposals often lies largely unnoticed in the context of much narrower disagreements on detail. The process of planning for the future ideally brings together community expectations (grounded in the present) and aspirations (for the future), together with a range of expert or technical assessments as to specific measures which can work efficiently and effectively on a broad scale and achieve the statutory direction of sustainable management of the available resources. 17) As noted above, it must also be emphasised that, at this level, planning is concerned with management provisions which will have broad application across the entire City, or large parts of it. While the Plan does recognise some specific areas with quite distinct requirements, it is not practically possible for planning on this scale to reflect differing individual needs and circumstances. Those more local or individual considerations can, and should be, included in the assessment of resource consent applications. As we will emphasise below, there is another layer of planning in relation to reserves - this is the management plan process under the Reserves Act 1977, and individual management plans often do reflect site specific factors. 18) PC21 is therefore the outcome of a long and expensive process whose foundations are various social and (local government) management and funding strategies, expert assessments on current issues and best practice, and a framework of other legal and planning requirements. 19) It is important to make these points because it is a significant context in which many of the submissions will be assessed. In any evidence based assessment of proposals.and submissions, any proposal - whether from the Council or a submitter - which is not supported by good evidence. on the issues raised by this wider context cannot usually be accepted without diminishing the integrity and quality of the whole. 20) On this approach, submissions which requested (for example) different zoning, or changes to, or exemptions from particular provisions have generally not been accepted where they are not supported by evidence which adequately addresses all the issues which must be considered on such requests. 4. Legal and Planning Framework 21) This section is an outline of the framework of laws and policies which governs the process of hearing and decision-making on PC21. This framework is fundamentally the same for all the plan changes proposed as part of the sectional review and the following outline will be similar to that used in decisions on those earlier plan changes. 22) This framework has two major components: statutory and planning. The statutory framework is set out in the RMA and applies to all plan review and change proposals. The planning framework is a mix of policies, plans and other documents - some of which must always be considered in this context, and some which may be relevant only in particular topics or circumstances. 6

46 Statutory framework 23) In the following outline, all references to statutory provisions are those in the Resource Management Act 1991 unless another statute is expressly identified. 24) Under section 75 every district must have a district plan. Palmerston North City is a 'district', and has an operative district plan ('the Plan'). 25) Under section 79 every district plan must be reviewed. To be more specific, a review is required of every district plan provision which has not been reviewed in the past 10 years. There are different ways of complying with this requirement but, whichever way is chosen, the Council needs to be mindful of its functional responsibility to achieve the 'integrated management' required by section 31(1). The Council decided in 2011 to undertake the review on a sectional basis - ie a topic based approach - which would enable the review of the whole Plan over a 5 year period. PC21 affects most, if not all, of the recreational and public reserve areas of the City. 26) The statutory framework consists of a number of inter-related provisions, the key elements being the following : a) Part 2: Section 5 sets and defines the purpose of the RMA, and sections 6-8 contain a hierarchy of matters which must be specifically considered by decision makers in this context; b) Section 31 sets out the functions of the Council under RMA; c) Section 32 directs the Council to evaluate whether each of its objectives is the most appropriate way of achieving the purpose of the RMA, and then whether the policies and rules are the most appropriate way of achieving those objectives; d) Section 32AA specifies the circumstances where a further evaluation under s.32 is required; e) Sections contain the provisions on the purpose of the Plan, Plan preparation and change, the matters to be considered by the Council, and the contents of the Plan; f) Schedule 1 Part 1 contains the detailed process under which new Plans and plan changes are prepared, notified for submissions and further submissions, heard and decided, and then formally adopted. g) Schedule 1 Part 3 contains provisions which apply where external documents are to be referred to and have legal effect in the Plan. 27) All planning decisions under the RMA must collectively achieve the statutory purpose of sustainable management of the City's natural and physical resources (as defined in section 5) and, in doing so, give effect to the requirements of sections 6 to 8. These provisions are collectively referred to as 'Part 2 RMA'. 28) Section 6 sets out matters of national importance which the Council must recognise and provide for in exercising its powers and functions. Section 7 sets out matters which the Council must have regard to in exercising its powers and functions. Section 8 requires the Council, when exercising functions and powers of the RMA, to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi {Te Tiriti o Waitangi). 7

47 29) In the context of the review of the topics in PC21A-B, a number of provisions in Part 2 are specifically relevant. The following list serves simply as an identification of some of the areas where these provisions have been considered. 30) Section 5(2): the definition of sustainable management of natural and physical resources is a complex one which cannot be usefully abbreviated, yet is the cornerstone of many of the decisions which have to be made: (2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while- ( a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. 31) Section 6 has several provisions which are potentially relevant to the management of reserves in the City: a) Section 6(a) which relates to the preservation of the natural character of rivers and their margins and their protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. b) Section 6(c) which relates to the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. c) Section 6(d) which relates to the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along rivers. d) In section 6(f) which relates to the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. 32) In relation to section 7, the obligation is 'to have particular regard' to the matters below where that are relevant to specific topics a) Section 7(b): the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources b) Section 7(c): the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values c) Section 7(d): the intrinsic value of ecosystems d) Section 7(f): the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment e) Section 7(g): any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources f) Section 7(i) the effects of climate change 33) A number of aspects within the provisions listed above are defined in section 2 RMA (specifically, 'natural and physical resources', 'amenity values' and 'environment' and 'river') and these definitions are also part of the statutory context. The word 'use' in section 9 is also defined. 34) We have considered Part 2 RMA as part of our overall evaluation of the component parts of PC21, and will return to it in the conclusion. 8

48 35) The Council has the functions set out in section 31. In terms of the functions created by section 31, we look specifically in this context at s.31 (1 )(a), (b) and (d): (a) (b) (d) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district: the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of- (i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and (ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and (iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land: (iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity: the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise: 36) We note that section 32 was amended in 2013 and that those amendments came into force in December 2013 (after the Sectional District Plan Review had commenced), and are therefore applicable to PC21. Section 32M requires a further evaluation of any changes to PC21 made since the initial evaluation under s.32. This further evaluation is contained in the final section of this decision. 37) The further evaluation under s.32m must consider in relation to any such changes: a) The extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act; b) Whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the relevant objectives (which include both any proposed objectives and any relevant existing objectives); c) The assessment under (b) above must identify anticipated benefits and costs including opportunities for economic growth and employment that may be provided or reduced and, if practicable, quantify those benefits and costs; d) The risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods. 38) Sections 72 to 77D contain the provisions dealing with the purpose of District Plans, their preparation and change, the matters to be considered by the Council, the contents of the District Plan and the powers to make rules. 39) The District Plan exists (and must be created) within a context of other statutory plans and policies which may be relevant to the same resource management issues. Under section 7 4, these include any proposed Regional Policy Statement or Regional Plan, management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts, and any relevant entry on the New Zealand Heritage 9

49 List/Rarangi K6rero required by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act ) Section 75 sets out the requirements for the contents of District Plan: at the minimum, the District Plan must include the objectives for the district, the policies to implement the objectives, and the rules (if any) to implement the policies. The District Plan must give effect to the policies listed in section 75(2) and these will be considered further in the next section on the policy framework. 41) Section 79 requires District Plans to be reviewed on a periodic basis. Council may either review its plan as a whole, or in sections - a 'sectional' review. The approach taken by the Council to the Palmerston North District Plan is outlined as follows in the section 32 report accompanying PC21: The Sectional District Plan Review breaks down the review of the District Plan into sections that will be reviewed over a five year period. The current District Plan was prepared in the early 1990s and became fully operative in March The Council is required to commence a review of those provisions in the District Plan that have not been reviewed in the last 10 years, pursuant to section 79 of the RMA. PPC21 is part of the Palmerston North City Sectional District Plan Review. 42) As noted above in para.27, with all decision-making in this context we are ultimately required to consider whether the proposed provisions which are subject to requests for change in submissions represent the best option for achieving the purpose of the RMA. The statutory purpose of sustainably managing the City's natural and physical resources (defined in s.5(2)) has to be applied in the PC21 context with due regard to the relevant provisions of Part 2. 43) Where a submission requests that we take a different approach to that proposed in PC21, then we must look at that request in the context of the other parts of PC21 and the Operative Plan, other relevant plans and policies, and also the overarching provisions of Part 2 referred to above. 44) Schedule 1 Clause 10 states that we must give reasons for accepting or rejecting any submission, but also states that we are not required to address each submission individually and may instead group submissions according to the topic(s) or provision(s) to which they relate. We have generally followed the latter approach except where the particular submission raises a unique issue. The grouping of submissions by topic also means that a number of requests are not, and need not be, considered specifically (for example, a request to amend a provision which is to be deleted). Plan and Policy Framework 45) With that background, we turn now to outline the policy context for the content of PC21 and the submissions and further submissions on it. 46) As we noted above, sections 74 and 75 state the matters which must be considered by the Council in preparing or changing a Plan, and the contents of the Plan. Section 75 includes the requirement to either 'give effect to' or 'not be inconsistent with' certain other policies, plans and rules made under the RMA. 10

50 Sections 438 and 44A in relation national environmental standards (which are rules applying nationwide) are also relevant. 47) The relevant policies which must be 'given effect to' are: a) The National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission ('NPSET') b) The National Policy Statement on Renewable Electricity Generation ('NPSREG') c) The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 d) The Regional Policy Statement ('RPS' but also referred to as 'One Plan') 48) Of the policies listed above only the RPS is immediately relevant to the decisions on submissions. 49) The relevant documents which PC21 must not be 'inconsistent with' are: a) The Regional Plan in relation to any Regional Council function under section 30(1) ('One Plan') b) Any provision of the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities ('NESTF') c) Any provision of the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities ('NESETA') d) Any provision of the National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health ('NES Contaminated Soil) 50) The relevant documents which PC21 must 'have regard to' are: a) Management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts. b) Any relevant entry on the New Zealand Heritage List/ Rarangi Korero. c) The district plan of any adjoining territorial authority (to the extent that consistency of approach is relevant). 51) The requirement to have regard to management plans under other Acts is potentially significant for the provisions relating to Council owned reserves. These reserves are subject to the requirement under section 41 Reserves Act 1977 to prepare a management plan for each reserve. The process of management plan preparation includes elements of consultation and public review. 52) There is no dispute as to the content and application of the documents referred to in the preceding 4 paragraphs, and their respective significance and relevance has been well identified and canvassed in the preparatory documents (including the Section 32 report), the section 42A reports and many submissions. None of these matters are contentious in this context, and we have therefore not repeated the summary and analysis referred to above. 53) Section 2 of the Plan contains the City View Issues and Objectives. A number of the Objectives are specifically relevant and must shape the approach taken in PC21. These are Objectives and ) Much of the review of the Plan rests on a variety of 'building block' strategies adopted by the Council in recent years, often through a public consultative 11

51 process. Many of these strategies concern the Council's spending and resourcing priorities. Their significance in this context varies, but can be considerable. Those strategies which are particularly relevant to PC21 are referred to in some detail in section 2 of the section 32 report. The Arena Master Plan is an example of significant foundation work. Again, none of these matters has been contentious, and for the purposes of this decision we refer to and adopt that summary in the section 32 as the policy context for PC21. 55) In a policy context, PC21 thus represents a proposed implementation of a wide range of existing policies - national, regional and local - affecting the management of the City's natural and physical resources. 5. Submissions 56) As noted in para.2 above, there were 48 submissions and 6 further submissions. These submissions and further submissions are accurately summarised in Appendix A of the section 42A report. The submitters who were able to attend the hearing are listed in the next section of this decision. 57) While we have considered all submissions in making this decision, any submission which simply indicated support for the proposed plan change and any submission which did not make any specific request in relation to the proposed plan change do not require assessment. Any submission which requested that specific parts of the proposed plan change be approved as notified has not been assessed unless there was some other submission which requested a change to those parts. Any further submission is restricted to support of or opposition to a submission, and consequently further submissions generally do not require specific assessment though their contents and any supporting evidence are, of course, matters we must consider. 6. Hearing 58) The hearing was on 14 and 15 December 2016 in the Council Chambers. The Commissioners were assisted by Committee Administrator Ms Rachel Corser. 59) The Council was represented by Keegan Aplin-Thane, David Murphy, Harriett Fraser, John Hudson and Nigel Lloyd who all gave evidence based on their parts of the section 42A report, except for Mr Murphy who provided overview evidence and was able to answer questions on background matters, Their presentations were assisted by PowerPoint slides which are on the Council website for the hearing. As usual, we will not summarise the detailed evidence which is fully recorded in the agenda for the hearing. 60) We have also considered the detailed technical reports attached to the public notice and section 32 report 61) Following the presentations and evidence by submitters, the Council reply was given by Mr Aplin-Thane, Mr Murphy, Mrs Fraser, and Mr Lloyd. their respective comments were helpfully put in writing and are also available on the Council website for the hearings. 12

52 62) The submitters and further submitters who attended the hearing and presented or gave evidence in support of their submissions are listed below. As noted above, some of the submissions covered aspects of PC21A and B, but rather than splitting their presentations, we heard all relevant matters at the same time. In the great majority of cases, as with Council witnesses, we were provided with written and/or visual material which we do not need to summarise: a) RACE Incorporated: represented by Alasdair Robertson, Chief Executive. RACE supports the proposed changes to the Racecourse Zone, and in particular the rezoning and associated structure plan for its land on Grand Oaks Drive. Mr Robertson's evidence was particularly helpful in providing context on history, current challenges, event and traffic management, and future plans for the Awapuni race course. In RACE's view, the redevelopment of the Racecourse and the surrounding RACE land provides for both economic growth and visual enhancement of the area. Mr Robertson referred to the Master Plan which had been developed in collaboration with the Council, and RACE sees PC21 as one means of implementing that Master Plan. Mr Robertson would like to see the Master Plan completed within the next 5 years. b) Jeff Brown and Linda Samuelson: presented by Dr Brown - he and his family live in Doncaster Court. Their primary concern is the potential for parking and road safety effects to become a significant problem, as a result of the creation of a new entrance from Grand Oaks Drive and an increase in the number of traffic generating events at the Racecourse. His evidence contained photos showing the traffic constraints created by parking on both sides of Grand Oaks Drive - clearly two way traffic would be difficult, at least. His preference is that the proposed 'Grand Entrance' to the Racecourse be developed from Racecourse Rd where it was proposed some years ago. c) Bruce and Marilyn Bulloch: generally support the proposed Structure Plan but oppose the rezoning of Racecourse land on Grand Oaks Drive. They generally support the Arena Master Plan. They oppose the rezoning of 10 Bowen St Linton; and they request an 'absolute' maximum building coverage on Recreation Zone land. d) Catrina Tymkin and Kevin Godfrey: presented by Ms Tymkin. They are residents of Doncaster Court. Before moving there, they carried out detailed due diligence and concluded, on that basis, that further development was unlikely. The proposed development under PC21 will detract from the qualities which led them to choose to live in this area. Ms Tymkin is critical of the absence of coordinated long terms planning which includes costs and benefits for both residents and the Racecourse. In her view the level of consultation by Council has led to a proposal based on incomplete information. e) Horizons: represented by Lisa Thomas. A number of the requests and concerns in the submission would be resolved by accepting the section 42A recommendations. Ms Thomas emphasised that, in 13

53 relation to the rezoning proposals, Horizons did not have data on stormwater risks. Remaining issues include references to flood protection works and provisions including flora and fauna. f) Pioneer City West and Heritage Estates: represented by Paul Thomas. The submitter supports the proposed rezonings in the Racecourse and Training areas. Mr Thomas illustrated the apparent inconsistency of approach by the Council in relation to natural hazard risks (and liquefaction in particular) between the Totara Rd and Grand Oaks Drive rezoning proposals and the City West proposal advanced by the submitter. g) Grand Oaks Drive Residents: represented by Lisa Poynton. Ms Poynton gave planning evidence in support of the submission. In substantive terms the primary requests are the deletion of the proposed entrance from Grand Oaks Drive, a requirement for traffic management plans for events, deletion of the link to Te Wanaka Rd, and the identification and protection (by listing) of healthy oak trees. Ms Poynton is critical of the adequacy of the Council's evaluation of PC21 under section 32 - specifically an apparent failure to consider any impacts on residents, and absence of publicly available technical reports in some areas. h) John and Julie Salmon: presented by Mr Salmon. They are Grand Oaks Drive residents. Mr Salmon is supportive of RACE's plans to have more events using the Racecourse, but the use of Grand Oaks Drive for access and parking for these events is not acceptable. RACE sould retain what land it has left for parking. In his view parts of the Racecourse land are restricted by 'bogging' for parking during winter and spring (particularly adjoining the Mangaone Stream. The rezoning of land on Grand Oaks Drive is opposed for this reason. i) Nga Uri o Rangitane: represented by Peter TeRangi and Trieste Te Awe Awe. (Mrs Te Awe Awe also made a joint further submission in support of Nga Uri o Rangitane's submission). They made, and spoke to, a slide presentation on Rangitane history in this area and the issues raised by the proposed further development, particularly to the west of the Racecourse. The request is that the Kikiwhenua site be protected by making it a reserve. They favour a collaborative approach to protection involving Rangitane, the land owners and the Council. j) Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu: support Nga Uri o Rangitane and was represented by Paul Horton. Mr Horton made a slide presentation covering the historical links between Rangitane o Manawatu and the Awapuni area. k) NZIA Western Branch - represented by Darren Shadbolt: Generally supportive of the proposals, specifically on Arena Master Plan and assessment of design from residential environment. Members are available to assist with specific assessments, and consider that this would bring advantages in expertise, cost and time. Key background reports should have been available at an earlier stage. 14

54 I) Robert Gibb - lives in Doncaster Court. His evidence makes the point that the proposed Structure Plan does not differentiate between the various road shown and is thus rather misleading. He thinks that it should be amended to indicate the significance of the roads to the Racecourse activities and development. He supports the requirement for traffic management plans for large events. m) Jim and Shirley Taylor - made separate submissions but spoke together. They live in Grand Oaks Drive. They said that when they first moved into the area, traffic for events at the Racecourse was not allowed to enter Grand Oaks Drive (residents were issued with passes), but this no longer occurs. They oppose the creation of a 'Grand Entrance' to the Racecourse from Grand Oaks Drive and believe that the existing entrance can be redeveloped. They are concerned about the safety effects (particularly on children) of both the proposed Grand Entrance and the creation of a road connection to Te Wanaka Rd. n) New Zealand Defence Force - represented by Sarah Bevin, Rob Owen and Malcolm Hunt who all gave evidence on the submission requesting provisions for temporary military training activities. further information was submitted after the hearing in answer to queries on which current or proposed activities were not permitted by the provisions in PC21. o) Harvey Jones: requests relate to the proposed increase in building coverage (with particular effect on the Ashhurst Domain), and on the proposed rezoning of unformed road adjacent to the Domain. Mr Jones asked that the zoning boundaries of the Ashhurst Domain be accurately identified, p) Jeffrey Twigge: primary concerns and requests relate to the provisions for the Linklater Reserve which adjoins the rear of his property. He opposes the rezoning of Linklater Reserve from Rural to Recreation. Mr Twigge also produced a report from Mr Jepsen and acoustic consultant. He also produced an affidavit from his wife Susan Twigge. We have considered both of these documents as evidence in support of the submission. Mr Twigge explained the effects of the limitations of Airways restrictions (in connection with the Airport) on the use and building potential of the Linklater Reserve. Mr Twigge noted that he had asked for a longer speaking time and believed that the limitation had constrained him from presenting further relevant evidence. 63) We also received written material from Powerco (represented by Mark Laurenson of Burton Planning Consultants). 64) Many submitters did not attend the hearing, but we confirm that we have read and considered all submissions in making our decision. A number of submissions, and one further submission, were received after the closing date, and Appendix 10 of the section 42A reports that in each case a waiver was granted to allow the submission to be considered. Ms Poynton noted that the submission and further submission from the Grand Oak Drive Residents were 15

55 both lodged within time, but that an amendment to an appendix to the latter (containing the names of members) was lodged at a later date. 7. Assessment 65) We have addressed the submissions by topic, as several submissions raise more than one topic, and many raise the same topic. In this assessment we have recorded the reasons for our decisions on the requests under the various topics, but we have not attempted to record all relevant statements made by the Council or specific submitters. Nevertheless, it is important to confirm that all material given to us at the hearing, and all material contained in the submissions and in the supporting Council reports has been considered. 66) The assessment is divided into the following topics: a) The Racecourse Zone b) The Race Training Zone c) The Recreation Zone d) The Water Recreation Zone e) The Conservation and Amenity Zone f) The Showgrounds Zone g) Other Rezoning proposals h) Temporary Military Training Activities ('TMTAs') i) Flood Protection Works j) NZ Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances Part A: Assessment: Racecourse Zone, Race Training Zone, and related rezoning proposals The Racecourse Zone 67) The decision on the Racecourse Zone is divided into the sub-topics listed in the following paragraph. 68) Our analysis of the Racecourse Zone considers the following issues: a) The Racecourse Zone's Objectives and Policies b) Introduction to the proposed Awapuni Racecourse Structure Plan c) History d) Physical environment e) The Structure Plan (including Grand Oaks Drive rezoning) f) Special events g) Totara Rd rezoning h) Noise i) Overall assessment 69) The objectives of the Racecourse Zone are to enable the 'efficient use and continued viability of existing physical resources' within the Zone, and to protect the amenity values of adjacent residential areas. PC21 has not proposed any change to these objectives (and there is no request to change 16

56 them), but it does propose a new policy to manage future growth and development guided by a structure plan. This new Structure Plan is introduced by PC21. 70) Map 15.1 is the Awapuni Racecourse Structure Plan ('the Structure Plan'). This Structure Plan contains a number of elements which are significant, and the subject of a number of submissions. These elements will be considered in more detail below but, for the moment, the most significant can be summarised as follows: a) A Racecourse Precinct is created: this is shown on Map 15.1 and is, generally, the part of the racecourse between the existing main entrance and the main buildings and between Grand Oaks Drive and the race track b) Two areas of racecourse land fronting Grand Oaks Drive (which are proposed to be rezoned from Racecourse Zone to Residential Zone) are shown as subdivided into 8 new residential lots (the 'Grand Oaks Drive Residential Area') c) A new principal entrance to the racecourse is shown from Grand Oaks Drive between the two proposed parts of the new residential development. d) Primary racecourse vehicle circulation is shown entering and leaving this proposed new entrance e) A public road connection is shown between Grand Oaks Drive and (presumably) Te Wanaka Drive 71) The proposals included in the Structure Plan give rise to all the significant issues raised by submissions on this aspect of PC21. Before proceeding to an evaluation of these issues, it is necessary to set out our understanding of the physical, historic and social context in which the issues arise. 72) The area covered by the Zone has a long history, and we are grateful for the background given by Mr TeRangi and Mrs Te Awe Awe (for Nga Uri o Rangitane) and Mr Horton (for Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu). Prior to European settlement in the mid-19 1 h century the Rangitane people had lived in the area for centuries and, despite physical changes, the land and the landscape retains historic and cultural importance to Rangitane. The people have remained in the area, of course, and the Te Hotu Manawa 0 Rangitaane 0 Manawatu Marae at Maxwells Line is the most visible sign of this enduring connection. 73) The racecourse was opened by the Manawatu Racing Club on Boxing Day 1903, and has been in use ever since. It is one of New Zealand's famous racecourses. The Manawatu Racing Club is now within the collective of racing clubs known as RACE Incorporated which owns the land. 74) Over the years, Awapuni has gradually merged physically into the City. Land to the north, north west, and north east of the Racecourse is now largely Residential. To the west and south of the Racecourse (and across the Mangaone Stream) the land is generally still rural. Much (if not all) of the residential development to the immediate north of the Racecourse has resulted from the sale of Racecourse land for development. In that sense, the proposed 17

57 rezoning of Racecourse land at Grand Oaks Drive and Totara Rd is a continuation of a long standing trend of releasing surplus land to enable the continuation of Racecourse development and maintenance and racing activities. 75) The Racecourse land has frontage to Racecourse Rd, Grand Oaks Drive, Te Wanaka Rd, and Totara Rd. We note that vehicular access is possible between Te Wanaka Rd and Grand Oaks Drive or Racecourse Rd, but only for RACE staff or members. Should a public connection be proposed in future, there are no obvious physical impediments - save for the necessary crossing of the Mangaone Stream. 76) The main access to the Racecourse is currently through the gates on Racecourse Road. There are 2 driveways. One runs directly to the complex of buildings and is located closer to the track. The other runs parallel to Grand Oaks Drive and is a more direct access to the utility buildings on the west side of the racecourse and the memorial fountain. Members (and, we assume others involved in the racing industry) can access the racecourse from Te Wanaka Rd. This access leads to the main buildings but also to the stables and the training areas within the racecourse. 77) Because of its age the racecourse has a range of buildings in different levels of utility and soundness. Over time some old buildings will be removed and others may be built. It is important that the Zone provisions enable this to occur. 78) In the short term, old sheds and a toilet block, which occupy land proposed to be rezoned Residential, would be demolished to enable residential development. 79) Car parking within the Racecourse is more than adequate for day to day activities. However, for larger events (typically more than 1,000 people) the position is different. The Racecourse is estimated to have up to 475 carparks on site (Fraser Table 3 - though the RACE estimate is a little higher). These 475 carparks are divided fairly evenly between those available on sealed and marked areas, and those on the grassed areas. We think it likely that the capacity of the latter category may be affected by weather such as surface flooding which would remove potential carparks. While it is estimated (by Mrs Fraser) that this internal parking can accommodate the parking requirements of a 1,500 visitor event, larger events will inevitably 'overspill' and likely cause at least localised traffic congestion - both of these effects were shown visually and discussed by a number of submitters. 80) RACE has worked with the Council to prepare a Master Plan for the future development of Awapuni Racecourse. Mr Robertson referred to it in his evidence and one of his slides shows future development areas within the land owned by RACE. The Master Plan is not referred to in PC21 and, of course, exists independently of the statutory planning process. Nevertheless, it was useful to understand from Mr Robertson just how, for example, the rezoning and proposed structure plan in PC21 fit with RACE's longer term plans to renew and replace racecourse facilities and sell further surplus land. However because the Master Plan was only introduced at the hearing, and we are uncertain as to whether interested submitters had any substantive awareness of it, it will remain peripheral to this decision. 18

58 81) The residential areas (particularly The Oaks, Grand Oaks Drive and Doncaster Court) in close proximity to the Racecourse are quiet and pleasant. Development is relatively new, and appears to be of high quality. Though we had no empirical evidence on the point, the adjacent racecourse, with its large open space, distant views to the east and mature trees, would undoubtedly be a significant contributor to the quality and value of the general area. Indeed, a number of submitters noted that this ambience was used in the marketing of new residential areas. 82) The trees on Grand Oaks Drive have been the subject of individual assessments by professional arborists (in particular Mr Wakeling), and broader landscape assessment by an experienced landscape architect (Mr Hudson). The expert consensus is that whilst the trees contribute significantly to the qualities of the area, it is apparent that those trees on the Racecourse land have not been well maintained and are largely in poor health (in some cases dead or dying). The trees on the northern side of Grand Oaks Drive are very much better in both form and health. This is consistent with our own observations. None of the submitters who appeared at the hearing argued for the retention of the racecourse trees. However the Council has recommended that the trees on Grand Oaks Drive be added to Appendix C in Section 17, as requested by the Grand Oaks Residents Group. 83) Because all of these relatively new residential areas are effectively a cul de sac beginning at Maxwells Line (acknowledging that some traffic may occasionally go straight through the Racecourse land to or from Te Wanaka Rd), there is usually little traffic other than from the residents and the Racecourse users. There is a small number of large race meetings a year, and RACE occasionally makes the Racecourse complex available for non-racing functions. In all, the current number of large events is not high. However, as noted above, the issue raised by large events is that the Racecourse itself has insufficient parking for all attendees, and there is necessarily parking overspill into the residential streets (referred to at para 79 above). 84) While the Club's ability to use its surplus land as a funding 'bank' has enabled the historic Racecourse to continue, other resource management consequences are now appearing. Specifically, the development of high quality residential areas in proximity to the Racecourse has led to potential conflict between the respective expectations of these quite different activities. 85) Zoning is a well established planning tool under which potentially conflicting activities can be separately provided for - ideally in a way which enables each activity to continue without diminishing the quality of the environment for the other. Having brought residential development to its current boundary, the Racecourse must now work with the consequence that its future development will be influenced, and possibly constrained, by the potential effects of that future development on residents. The Racecourse Zone's two objectives require us to balance the potentially competing interests. 86) With that background we now consider the issues raised by submissions in relation to the elements of the proposed Structure Plan described in para. 70 above. 87) Although the Structure Plan has a number of distinct elements, we begin our assessment by recognising that these elements are highly interrelated. We did not hear any detailed evidence on the point, but we will assume that the 19

59 physical layout within this part of the Racecourse (including the new entrance), the proposed subdivision, the connection to Te Wanaka Rd, and the plans for new building work may have a degree of interdependency. We also acknowledge that some of the elements could be established by RACE without any structure plan. And, finally, we also emphasise that it is not our function to substitute different proposals, but rather to assess whether the proposals in PC21 should be accepted 88) The Racecourse Precinct: the identification of a precinct within which most of the future development of the racecourse will occur is, in our view, a good way of achieving the two Objectives of the Zone. First that the future development of the racecourse is provided, and the Plan enables (insofar as it can do so) the ongoing viability of a longstanding and valued City institution. Second, that the effects of that future development can be recognised and managed to minimise any conflict between the needs of the racecourse and the nearby residents. No-one opposed the idea of a precinct, nor the associated rules under which development within it would be managed. 89) Grand Oaks Drive rezoning and subdivision: these are two separate issues, but they are sufficiently closely related that the assessments should be made together. In general, we have concluded that the land proposed for rezoning could provide an attractive residential environment which would maintain and enhance the amenity values of the existing residential area. Moreover, the land is not required for the Racecourse, and its sale will help to maintain the existing Racecourse facilities. The submissions on the proposed rezoning were concerned primarily with loss of existing trees, loss of parking, flooding and the unsustainability of further subdivision. The non-notification rule for subdivision consent (proposed Rule ) was opposed by a number of submitters. 90) The primary concern with the rezoning and the development it would enable, is the loss of the existing trees within the land to be rezoned. We have already referred to the evidence that these trees, overall, are in poor condition. That much would be reasonably apparent to nearby residents. We also note (although RACE never referred to this) that the trees could be removed without any consent or consultation - they are privately owned trees on private land. The proposal is to plant new trees on the (unformed) road as part of the subdivision. RACE has offered to vest a 5 metre wide strip of land to vest in the Council as 'Road' along the frontage of the Grand Oaks Drive Residential zone to facilitate this. In time these new trees would complement those on the other side of Grand Oaks Drive. Even with this proposal, some care would be required to ensure that new trees would not significantly shade the new houses. 91) We accept Mrs Fraser's conclusion that there would be no traffic or parking effects of any concern. 92) Some of the submitters' photos showed that surface flooding currently occurs in this area. We have no information as to its frequency, severity, or potential management. However the land is not flood prone within the Horizons definition (subject to inundation in a 0.5%AEP event). Stormwater management would have to be considered and managed in the subdivision process (as recommended by Mr Aplin-Thane in his proposed addition of subparagraph (f)(ii) to proposed Rule ). We accept Mr Aplin-Thane's recommendation in this regard, as it removes any uncertainty over the need to identify and manage any stormwater hazard. 20

60 93) We conclude that the proposed rezoning would allow a scale of development which will be a good 'fit' with Grand Oaks Drive, and enable the Racecourse to continue. Although land is inherently a finite resource, the simple fact is that the Racecourse has more land than it needs for its activities now and in the foreseeable future, and this particular land would augment a pleasant residential area. We do not agree that the proposal is unsustainable. 94) The other concern is that the area to be rezoned is 'split' to allow access to the racecourse from Grand Oaks Drive. We now turn to address this issue on its own. 95) New Grand Entrance and traffic circulation: the Structure Plan includes RACE's desire to create a new 'grand entrance' from Grand Oaks Drive into the Racecourse. The entrance is to be modelled on the Flemington racecourse in Melbourne. It will enable views to the racecourse and to the Tararua Ranges in the distance. The new entrance will largely replace the existing one from Racecourse Road - and of course, one of the existing entrance options (referred to at para 76) would be removed by the proposed subdivision. The Structure Plan indicates that traffic will primarily enter and leave the Racecourse through this new entrance and internal circulation will be designed accordingly. The 'Members' entrance at Te Wanaka Rd will continue in use. The existing entrance at Racecourse Rd will remain but become secondary. We did not receive any specific information about heavy vehicles, but assume that those involving racing would use Te Wanaka Rd and those involving other events, construction, visitors (buses) etc would approach from Racecourse Rd. 96) The proposed new entrance is the major issue raised by submissions. The primary concerns relate to traffic and related safety, noise and congestion issues. 97) As noted above, there is only one formed access to the racecourse from Grand Oaks Drive, and this leads to the lower level land near the Mangaone Stream and to the Members' entrance from Te Wanaka Rd. We were not given any information about that access, but it appears to be a minor entrance which may be only infrequently used. It does not appear suitable, in its present form, for large vehicles. Of course, under common law, RACE has frontage rights to Grand Oaks Drive from all points along its boundary with that road. However this right is constrained to a degree by District Plan Rules (section 20) and Council Bylaws. These matters were not referred to in any detail at the hearing, and are not central to our decision. 98) We accept the validity of a number of the concerns raised by the submitters who are nearby residents. Relocating the entrance as proposed does have the potential to create adverse effects on this residential environment. Our view of these effects, based on the evidence we heard, can be summarised as follows: a) The level of traffic along Grand Oaks Drive would, of course, increase because all Racecourse traffic would now use it. However on the great majority of days we do not think that this increase in traffic would create adverse amenity or safety effects. b) The difficulty is created by large events - ie occasions which are not within the day to day profile. Understandably, RACE plans to increase the number of these events because they enable a better use of its facilities. In our view the use of Grand Oaks Drive as a 21

61 primary entrance on any busy occasion will create the same effects (congestion, delays, inconvenience) which currently occur with large events. These do constitute adverse effects, and we do not think that it would be acceptable for this situation to continue or to become worse. There may well be some combination of solutions (or mitigation methods), but in our view it was incumbent on Council (and RACE) to identify these, rather than to simply allude to them, particularly when the solutions involve Council powers under other legislation. c) We were not persuaded that either the Council or RACE understood the potential traffic problems involved in creating the new entrance. It does not appear to be a matter on which any consultation with residents occurred. We do acknowledge that, in his reply, Mr Aplin-Thane recommended that the new entrance be shown as a future option. d) Fundamentally, the residents currently enjoy a high quality of amenity. The residential area was undoubtedly marketed on that basis, and RACE would have received the benefits of that perceived quality. The Structure Plan involves two proposals which, in our view, would almost certainly lessen that amenity or quality. This does not mean that the Grand Oaks Drive/Doncaster Court residents can insist that the area remain a residential cul de sac just because it was that way when they moved in to it. In our view, however, what it does mean is that any proposal which does not maintain or enhance their amenities needs to be supported by a rigorous assessment of environmental costs, benefits and alternatives. 99) We did not see any particular recognition of these concerns by either RACE or (until its right of reply) by the Council. We fully understand the advantages and benefits of the new entrance perceived by RACE, and acknowledge Mr Hudson's view that the new entrance could provide an appropriate sense of arrival for visitors, particularly on race days. 100) However it did not appear that the perceived effects on neighbours had been given sufficient, if any, consideration in developing the proposal. Given our conclusion that there is some substance to the neighbours' concerns, we then wondered what was wrong with the existing entrance (a question also asked by a number of submitters). That is not a suggestion that the existing entrance should remain as it is but, rather, that there is no obvious physical reason that precludes its redevelopment to achieve the same qualities that RACE wishes establish with the proposed new entrance. 101) What this means, in resource management terms, is that the potential adverse effects of bringing significantly greater volumes of traffic along Grand Oaks Drive could apparently be avoide~ by redeveloping the entrance more or less where it is now. A reconstruction of the gates and a realignment of the driveway(s) appears to be physically possible. We were not given any evidence suggesting that this option was either unfeasible, or so unsuitable for achieving RACE's objectives, that we should disregard it. That being so, we cannot conclude that providing for a new grand entrance from Grand Oaks Drive would be a good outcome from a resource management perspective. 22

62 102) In the Council right of reply Mr Aplin-Thane, having heard the concerns expressed by a number of submitters, suggested that the Structure Plan show the 'grand entrance' as an 'area retained for future entry'. 103) Connection between Grand Oaks Drive and Te Wanaka Rd: This connection is shown as 'public road network' on Map In context, that is unfortunate, as there is no public road connection between the two, and nor any current proposal for one. As Council acknowledged during the hearing such a connection would require a formal proposal, perhaps by way of future plan change. As we noted above, a physical connection already exists as part of the Racecourse's internal roading network. No doubt there are strong reasons for keeping a public connection as a future option - and, equally no doubt, there will have to be a consideration of environmental effects before such an option is formally advanced. These are matters for future consideration, and we cannot, and do not need to, address them in this decision. In the context of the Structure Plan we have concluded that it is best to either simply remove this notation from the Structure Plan or to change the notation to 'potential future road connection'. On balance we prefer the latter as, unless the option is ultimately abandoned, further development should not compromise the viability of a future connection. 104) We will return to these issues below under 'overall assessment'. 105) Special events: The Racecourse hosts a number of events in addition to those on the racing calendar. The more successful and the more numerous these are, the more that traffic congestion and parking become issues for the nearby residents. Most submitters made it clear that they had no problem with the current number of events. 106) The use of the Racecourse for non-racing events is provided for in Rule (v). This rule does not have any restriction on the numbers of such events. The performance standards do not address the traffic management or parking overspill effects of larger events. 107) Mrs Fraser stated in her evidence (at para.57) that 'there is a need for some temporary traffic management of the largest events at the Racecourse'. By 'largest events' she meant events which would attract more than 1,500 people to the Racecourse. Specific traffic management recommendations are set out in para. 64 of her evidence. Mr Aplin-Thane endorsed that recommendation, and also recommended (at para.6.229) a new performance standard to achieve this. 108) We do not think that any numerical restriction is required for large events at the racecourse. It is a very good facility for some kinds of non-racing events and, if traffic effects can be managed, we think that the Plan should enable RACE to make the best use of it possible. However we agree that traffic management is required for large events. 109) The objective of the traffic management plan should include the efficient use of available parking within the Racecourse, the minimisation of congestion between Maxwells Line and the Racecourse entrance, and the avoidance of any congestion within the Grand Oaks Drive and Doncaster Court roads. Whether or not an entrance to the Racecourse is ever built from Grand Oaks Drive, we do not think that it is either necessary or acceptable to cause congestion on this road when large events occur. 23

63 110) We have a concern that the large event threshold of 1,500 people is too high because it is based on the projected availability of carparks within the racecourse which may not be available or attractive in some circumstances. Once set, the 1,500 people threshold becomes difficult to change. In his reply, Mr Aplin-Thane recommended changing the threshold to 1,OOO people. That is our preference. We anticipate that traffic management would be simpler if the existing entrance from Racecourse Rd is used (other than for any traffic which is able to use entrances from Totara Rd or Te Wanaka Rd). 111) Totara Rd rezoning: None of the submissions were opposed to the rezoning of the two areas identified. Horizons' submission identified a potential stormwater risk, but its request is limited to this matter being considered. In our view, the stormwater issue is best considered at the time a detailed subdivision proposal is submitted for consent. We agree with Mr Aplin-Thane that Rule (as amended by PC20) enables this risk to be assessed and managed if the subdivision is a restricted discretionary activity. The information provided in support of the rezoning was sparse, but a visual inspection supports it, and as noted above we consider that any stormwater or liquefaction risk can be assessed when an application for subdivision consent is made. 112) Noise issues: the request by the NZ Defence Force to amend the provisions in relation to Temporary Military Training Activities is common to all the zoning provisions reviewed by PC21 and is considered later in this decision. The proposed amendments to noise standards proposed by PC21 have, in other respects, not been the subject of any specific requests in submissions. A number of submissions raised concerns about the noise effects of traffic in particular and we have addressed these above as an amenity issue. We endorse Mr Lloyd's analysis and recommendations. Overall assessment and conclusions on Racecourse Zone 113) It will be apparent from our evaluation above that the only significant component of the PC21 proposals in relation to the Racecourse Zone which we do not accept is the creation of a new principal entrance to the Racecourse from Grand Oaks Drive. The reasons which led us to this conclusion are summarised at paras ) This conclusion does create a potential imbalance within the Structure Plan and the proposed rezoning of land on Grand Oaks Drive. As noted above, it was suggested (though not by RACE) that there is currently a legal right to create a vehicle access to the Racecourse from Grand Oaks Drive. 115) We think that best way of implementing our decision on this point is to: a) amend the Structure Plan (Map 15.1) by deleting the 'Grand Entrance' notation and the dashed red arrowlines on either side of it, and substituting the notation 'No Vehicle Access to Racecourse from Grand Oaks Drive' b) amend the Structure Plan (Map 15.1) by indicating with dashed red arrowlines a route from the existing gates at the end of Racecourse Road through the 'Informal Grass Overflow Parking' area as 'Primary Racecourse Vehicle Circulation'. 24

64 c) amend Rule to make the restricted discretionary classification of subdivision subject to a performance standard that there be no vehicle access from Grand Oaks Drive to the Racecourse and a note that there will be a consent notice to this effect to registered on the balance title of the land being subdivided. d) Amend the Structure Plan by showing a 5 metre wide strip of land to vest in the Council as 'Road' along the frontage to the Grand Oaks Drive Residential zone. This has been offered by RACE and we think that it goes some way to addressing streetscape issues in general and, more specifically, creates an opportunity for planting replacement trees. 116) For the benefit of submitters, including RACE, we observe that this restriction could be varied or removed by a future plan change, particularly when a decision is made of the option of a road link between Grand Oaks Drive and Te Wanaka Rd. 117) In other respects we summarise our decisions as follows: a) The Structure Plan is approved with the amendments in relation to the 'Grand Entrance' (including consequential amendment to vehicle circulation), amending the link to Te Wanaka Rd to 'potential future road connection, and identifying a 5m road reserve extension. b) Rule is amended by adding a new performance standard (h) as follows: (h) Temporary Traffic Management Any activity which is likely to have more than 1,000 attendees must first have a traffic management plan submitted to the Council for its approval. Without limiting other matters, the traffic management plan must provide that traffic is to be controlled at the intersection of Racecourse Rd and Grand Oaks drive; that event parking may only occur on the south side of Grand Oaks Drive and not at all in Doncaster Court; and that, otherwise, vehicular entry to Grand Oaks Drive is restricted to residents of that road and of Doncaster Court or their visitors. c) Rule (b) is amended as recommended in para of the section 42A report d) Rule is amended by inserting a performance standard requiring a minimum lot size of 750m 2. In our view, noting that Ms Poynton (at para.16) agreed, this substantially meets the concern of the Grand Oaks Area Residents Group underlying the submission request for non-complying classification of an subdivision beyond the eights sites shown in the Structure Plan. We accept the analysis and recommendations in this regard at paras of the section 42A report 25

65 e) Rule (c) is amended as recommended in para of the section 42A report. This expands the assessment of trees into consideration of replacements, particularly within the widened road reserve. f) Rule (f) is amended by the addition of sub-paragraph (ii) as follows: '(ii) The extent to which stormwater effects and the potential requirement for minimum floor levels are assessed.' g) We accept the non-notification provision in Rule With the changes made to the Structure Plan and to Rule itself, a number of significant submitter concerns have been addressed. In our view, leaving an expectation that the same matters could be raised, particularly under (a), in submissions on a subdivision application is neither good practice nor, more importantly, consistent with the enabling purpose of the Act. In this regard we generally agree with Mr Aplin-Thane's recommendation at para of the section 42A report. We would recommend, however, that more consideration be given to the wording of provisions such as (a), where the breadth of the effect (on 'the surrounding residential environment') which is to be considered may not necessarily be limited by the more restricted language of the relevant assessment criterion. h) The recommended addition to Schedule 17C of the oak trees on the north side of Grand Oaks Drive is approved. i) In other respects the proposed provisions of PC21 are approved. j) The proposed rezoning of the two areas on Grand Oaks Drive from Racecourse to Residential is approved. k) The proposed rezoning of the two areas on Totara Rd from Racecourse to Residential and from Racecourse and Conservation and Amenity to Residential is approved The Race Training Zone 118) The Race Training Zone provisions are contained In Section 21 of the Plan unlike the other zoning provisions in PC21 which are contained in Section 15. The review of the Section 21 does not propose many changes of significance. there are no proposed changes to the objective or to the policies. Farming and horticulture are proposed to be added as permitted activities. Other proposed changes are largely to bring the provisions into consistency with the rest of the Plan. 119) PC21 also proposes rezoning land at Shirriffs Road from Rural ro Race Training. 120) Submissions on the PC21 proposals were generally in support. However we will consider the submissions from Horizons and Jenny Olsson below. 26

66 121) Horizons notes that the land to be rezoned from Rural to Race Training contains an old oxbow, and though it is not identified as flood prone, the land may be affected by stormwater flows. The information on this risk is sparse. However, a performance standard for building is requested, We do not think that the requested performance standard is compatible with a permitted building. In our view, the better solution (as identified by Mr Aplin-Thane at para.6.342) is for Council to use its powers under the Building Act to ensure that any building will not be subject to 'natural hazards' including flooding. 122) The submission from Jenny Olsson refers to the Race Training Zone, but does not contain any request on which we need to make a decision. 123) Two submissions raise issues of further rezoning. 124) The submission from Raymond and Julie Salmon asks that the Council encourage RACE to use its land in Te Wanal<a Rd for residential development, rather than carry out further development in Grand Oaks Drive. The submission notes that this land has already been considered by Council as future residential (City West) and it would simply be a matter of bringing this forward. We are not sure whether this is a specific request for rezoning at this stage, or simply a pointer to a well known future proposal. In our view, any consideration of 'City West' as a new residential area must follow a specific plan change which addresses the broad range of factors which are relevant to the transition of any large greenfield area from rural to urban. For present purposes, it is sufficient that we are aware that residential development in Te Wanaka Rd and Pioneer Highway area may be formally proposed in the future, and (as we noted above) that a road connection between Te Wanaka Rd and Grand Oaks Drive appears to be physically possible. 125) The submission from Nga Uri o Rangitane (supported by Tanenuiarangi o Manawatu) requests that consideration be given to excluding the Kikiwhenua area and the nearby urupa from the Race Training Zone and making it a Council reserve. 126) There is no doubt, accepting Mr TeRangi's evidence on the history, that the Kikiwhenua area is ancestral land which has high cultural and historic significance for Rangitane, and requires consideration by us of the obligation under section 6(e) RMA to recognise and provide for that relationship. As we noted in para 72 above, the Awapuni area has been occupied by Rangitane for centuries. 127) However, again referring to Mr TeRangi's evidence, the Kikiwhenua land is largely in private ownership (the Manawatu Racing Club) with slivers of land also in public (Council or Crown) or unknown ownership. We do not have either the legal authority to make the land 'reserve' (which must be done by the Minister under the Reserves Act), or to zone private land as a reserve when it is lawfully used for other purposes. We note that the land is currently included within the 'Awapuni' listing in Appendix 178 which has the effect of limiting any physical disturbance of the land. 128) Ultimately, we think that the answer is that suggested by Mr TeRangi in presenting the submission: before any further redevelopment of the land can be undertaken there should be a full assessment of the locality, ideally in partnership between the owner, Rangitane and relevant local and central government organisations. 27

67 129) In summary, we approve the Race Training Zone provisions as proposed by PC21. We also approve the proposed rezoning of land at Shirriffs Rd from Rural to Race Training Zone The Recreation Zone 130) The Recreation Zone is, in spatial terms, the largest of the Zones under Section 15, and it includes a range of Council owned land used or available for both active and passive recreation. In this type of Zone appropriate provision must also be made for public facilities such as paths, signs, shelters, carparking, toilets and clubrooms. As we noted earlier in this decision, much of the land within this Zone has reserve status under the Reserves Act 1977, and will generally be managed in accordance with the requirements of that legislation. 131) PC21 proposed changes to both Objectives and Policies. Objectives 1 and 2 are unchanged, but 3 new active use or development policies are proposed under Objective 1. Objectives 3 and 4 are effectively merged. Save for TMTAs (which are considered later in this decision as they apply to all Zones), the only substantial proposed rule changes relate to building performance standards in Rule ) Leaving aside the submission from NZDF on TMTAs (which will be considered later in this decision) there are 3 submissions on the Recreation Zone. Harvey Jones, and Bruce and Marilyn Bulloch made requests on building controls. Jeff Twigge made a number of requests encompassing issues such as whether provisions should apply the same 'protection' to rural as well to residential zoned properties, the effects of the air noise contours, and he opposed the rezoning of the Linklater Reserve from Rural to Recreation Zone. 133) Mr Jones' submissions raises two particular concerns. The first is the proposed Recreation zoning of 3 lengths of unformed road adjoining existing reserves. The second is the proposed increase in building coverage, particularly for the Ashhurst Domain, to a maximum of 2% of the site area - which in the case of the Ashhurst Domain would permit large buildings. 134) The first request is, we think, based on a misconception that PC21 is trying to 'change the status of the unformed road'. In a legal sense, it cannot do that. A legal road is vested in the Council as road under the Local Government Act 197 4, and its 'road' status can only be revoked by following a process under that legislation, or a separate process under the Public Works Act While the status of road remains, the land may only be used for the road purposes which exist at common law or under statute, and zoning controls are largely irrelevant. Nevertheless, many district plans make provision for an 'underlying' zoning of unformed road. 135) In the case of the current and reviewed District Plan all roads whether constructed or not adopt the underlying zone of the adjoining land. Where the land on either side of the road is zoned differently the centre line of the road is the zone boundary. All 3 portions of unformed road proposed to be rezoned 'Recreation' adjoin an existing Recreation zone on the western side and a Rural zone on the eastern side. The existing zoning is therefore split between Recreation and Rural in accordance with Rule of the District Plan. Plan Change 21 intends that the whole of the unformed road portions be zoned Recreation. This could be achieved through PC21 but would require a 28

68 consequential amendment to Rule by adding the words 'except as shown otherwise on the planning maps'. While this could be an outcome that achieves the intention of PC21 we are not sure that it is good practice to introduce exceptions to a universal rule when the reason for doing so is not apparent. We prefer that the zoning of the portions of unformed road between Mulgrave and Worcester Streets, Ashhurst remain unaltered. 136) For this somewhat technical, but important, reason, we do not approve the proposed rezoning of unformed road to Recreation. 137) The second request is based on a comparison of the extent of current buildings with the building area which could be established if it was limited only by the 2% of area control by PC21. We do not regard the 2% limit, which is to apply to all parts of the Recreation Zone, as signalling any change to the Ashhurst Domain. As Mr Jones notes, the Domain is currently managed under a Management Plan made under the Reserves Act. This is the document under which the Domain is to be managed, and any change to it must follow the same consultative process under which it first adopted. 138) We see the function of the District Plan, in terms of reserves, as primarily concerned with the management of the potential external effects of the use and development of those reserves. The more 'active' the use of the reserve, the more District Plan controls will be important. 139) In relation to Mr Jones' submission two recommendations were made in the section 42A report which we do not accept. First at para it is recommended that animal grazing be added as a permitted activity in both the Recreation and Conservation and Amenity Zones. However, the point made by Mr Jones was merely an observation, not a request. The proposal may have some merit, and if so can be advanced through a further plan change bearing in mind that it will apply to some areas where such grazing neither occurs nor would be appropriate. Second, at paras 7.52 and 7.71 it is recommended that more of the lower terrace of the Ashhurst Domain be zoned (or rezoned) Conservation and Amenity. Again, whatever the merits of this, we do not see anything in Mr Jones' submission which could be regarded as a request for such a rezoning 140) In our view, the choice of activities, use and development of the Ashhurst Domain is primarily a matter for the Council, as public custodian of the land, in consultation with the Ashhurst community and users of the Domain. We do not see it as the function of the District Plan to entrench the status qua where that might constrain the ability of the Council to respond to future requirements for the Domain. As noted above, the 2% site coverage proposal applies to a number of reserves, all of which have a different context. While it appears unlikely that building of this magnitude would be contemplated on the Domain, we do note that the definition of 'building' includes a range of structures including boardwalks, steps, bridges. shelters and signage. We have no information on the extent of these, or of the likely future requirement for them, and for these reasons cannot see any basis on which to amend the proposed 2% limit. 141) Mr and Mrs Bulloch requested an upper limit for buildings on reserves, instead of the proposed 1 % and 2% coverage limits proposed by PC21. A number of the points made above in the assessment of Mr Jones' submission apply here as well. What is being requested is an arbitrary figure (or a set of tailored 29

69 arbitrary figures) to replace the relatively arbitrary figures proposed. We do not see any advantage in exploring other limits, nor indeed, is it our function to do so. There is a wide range of individual recreation reserves, some of which will be suitable for, and enhanced by, buildings to house or support recreational activities, and others not. As we noted above, the appropriate management method for specific reserves is the management plan required under the Reserves Act. 142) For these reasons, we reject the requests to amend proposed Rule (b). 143) Mr Twigge has made a number of requests to amend various proposed provisions in the Recreation Zone. These requests are detailed quite specifically in his submission. In assessing these requests it is evident that the primary driver for them is the proposal to rezone the Linklater Reserve which adjoins Mr Twigge's rear boundary. He was concerned that the draft management plan (under the Reserves Act) included a number of aspects of concern to him, including a dog park and other public activities which would occur on his boundary. 144) We understand Mr Twigge's concerns, but think nevertheless think that some of these, at least, are based on misconceptions about how the District Plan works. We therefore begin our assessment by summarising our approach to a number of the key components of Mr Twigge's submission: a) Linklater Reserve is a reserve under the Reserves Act. It is public land. Unless there are any specific restrictions imposed by the Council, the public has a general right of access over the land at any time. b) The intent of the Plan is that reserves should be zoned accordingly. On that basis, there are only 2 potentially suitable zones: Recreation or Conservation and Amenity. However, there is no evidence that this land has the features necessary for the latter. It is, rather, generally open space that is suitable for passive recreation activities such as picnics, walking, running and dog exercising. c) If the land was to remain zoned Rural, it would still be a reserve and still be used by the public as it is now. But there would be significantly fewer controls on these activities, and indeed on the Council's ability to make tracks, buildings etc. d) The amendments sought by Mr Twigge would apply to all the Recreation Zone, and we could not make them unless we were satisfied that they were generally suitable provisions throughout the Zone. There is simply no evidence on which we could be satisfied that this is so. This is a common problem with extrapolating from site specific concerns to City wide 'solutions'. 145) In relation to the proposed rezoning of the Linklater reserve (perhaps the key element of the submission), we cannot identify any detriment to Mr Twigge in terms of activities which would realistically occur under a Recreational Zone that could not occur to a similar or even greater extent under the current zoning. Putting the matter another way, we cannot identify any respect in which Mr Twigge might be worse off if the land is zoned Recreation instead of 30

70 remaining Rural. Mr Twigge's submission has assumed (understandably) that the formerly vacant and largely unused land which adjoined him might be kept that way through District Plan controls. As we noted above, that is simply a misconception: even with the Airport related controls referred to by Mr Twigge, a brief review of the Rural zone provisions makes it clear that they allow far greater potential for the kinds of activities which concern him. 146) The requests in relation to extending the same level of recognition for rural amenities as for residential amenities underlines a fundamental difference between the two zones. The Rural Zone is, of course, an area in which people live, but it is also an area in which people work and carry out primary production activities which can involve a range of effects that people in a Residential zone would not expect or tolerate. Rural zoned 'lifestyle blocks' are, by choice, more residential than productive, but they remain within a rural environment. So we do not accept any of the requests to put Rural and Residential dwellings on the same footing in terms in terms of amenity protection from the Recreation Zone: they are different environments, and we again have no evidence that such provisions would be more broadly appropriate or workable. 147) We note, in conclusion, that Mr Twigge had requested 3 hours speaking time before the hearing. He was advised that this time would not be available unless we were first satisfied that it was necessary for him to present the case in support of his submission. He was also advised that this approach had been taken with all submissions during the 5 years of the Plan review hearings. As no details of his proposed evidence were given prior to the hearing, a provisional time allowance of 30 minutes was given. In the event, Mr Twigge's presentation, including his answers to questions, took 45 minutes. The Water Recreation Zone 148) The Water Recreation Zone manages recreation activities on the surface of a number of freshwater resources in the City. These are the Manawatu River, the Pohangina River, the Hokowhitu Lagoon, and the Turitea, Kahuterawa and Mangaone Streams. 149) PC21 proposes some changes which are generally to update provisions and/or bring them into consistency with the rest of the Plan. The Mangaone Stream (which is now zoned Flood Protection) has been removed. Objectives and policies remain substantially the same. The noise rule (Rule ) is changed to use a db LAeq( 1 5mins) measure rather than dba L 10. There are proposed new rules for TMT As - as these are the same in all zones reviewed by PC21 they are addressed separately in this decision. 150) One submission was received on the Water Recreation Zone, from Jenny Olsson. The submission questions whether the requirement in Rule (b) for notification in a 'newspaper' is becoming outdated and should (at least) be augmented by some form of social media notification. It is by no means clear that this comment is actually a request which requires a decision. However, the point is discussed in paras of Mr Aplin-Thane's evidence (Ms Olsson did not speak at the hearing). We agree with Mr Aplin-Thane's assessment and recommendation, and would add that the definition of 'public notice' in section 2 RMA includes a notice given on 'an internet site' only where 31

71 that notice is given by the Council. To the extent that Ms Olsson's submission is a request on this Rule, it must be rejected. The Conservation and Amenity Zone 151) As its name suggests, this Zone covers public land with high conservation or amenity values. The Objective of the Zone is simply 'to recognise and protect the City's conservation and amenity reserves.' Activities are thus more restricted than in other recreation Zones. 152) PC21 does not propose any substantive change to the Zone Objective or Policies. The permitted rules are largely unchanged, though as in other zones the noise standards have been updated. The Parking (restricted discretionary) rule has been amended by changes to the assessment criteria. The provisions for TMTAs (whether as permitted or discretionary) are the same as for the other zones and are considered separately in this decision. 153) The only submission specifically on the Conservation and Amenity Zone was from Horizons. The submission raises two separate points. First, the relationship between Sections 15 and 17 of the Plan. Second, the reference to effects on flora and fauna in the context of TMTAs. 154) In relation to potential duplication between Sections 15 and 17, we agree with Mr Aplin-Thane's analysis. The potential overlap arises where land is zoned Conservation and Amenity and also listed within Schedule 178. The note preceding the rules in Section 17 indicates that these will supersede other Plan rules. In our view this is sufficient, and Horizons has not requested anything else. 155) In relation to effects on flora and fauna, the issue arises from the discretionary rules on TMTAs in both the Conservation and Amenity and Recreation Zones. As proposed, the relevant assessment criterion in both rules ( (c) and (c)) is 'the extent to which disturbance on flora and fauna within the zone is avoided or mitigated'. The Horizons submission sought an amendment to this criterion limiting it to the 'adverse effects on visual amenity' of such disturbance. 156) Mr Aplin-Thane's recommendation was to delete the assessment criteria (paras ). Ms Thomas thought (para.15) that they should be retained but amended as requested. 157) In our view, there is no real risk of duplication in this context (which is rules covering TMTAs which do not meet permitted standards). Moreover, Policy 6-1 (b)(i) quoted by Ms Thomas is clearly not limited to visual amenity. The Horizons submission did not request deletion of the assessment criteria, but requested an amendment which we do not think is appropriate. 158) Our decision is that Rules (c) and (c) are to be retained as notified. 159) There are a number of rezoning proposals involving the Conservation and Amenity Zone. These are listed in Appendix 3 of the Section 32 report. The proposals relating to the Hoffman Kiln and the land on Totara Rd are 32

72 considered in other parts of this decision. No submissions were received on the other proposals. The Showgrounds/Arena Zone 160) The Showgrounds Zone is described in the section 32 report as follows 2.14 The Showgrounds Zone covers a unique and centrally located recreation and leisure facility in Palmerston North The facility has over 20 venues and are used for local, regional, national and international events. The Arena represents a significant recreation and leisure asset for the City and wider region. 161) The Showgrounds Zone is to be renamed the Arena Zone. There is no opposition to this, and this decision will therefore refer to the Arena Zone. 162) PC21 proposes a number of significant changes to the Arena Zone provisions. These are as follows: a) New Objective 3 'To develop Arena into a Central Sports Hub providing for local, regional, and national events and organisations' and subordinate policies. b) New permitted activity rule and standards for buildings and structures c) New restricted discretionary activity rule and assessment criteria for buildings and structures. d) Map15.2 Arena Master Plan. 163) None of the proposed changes in a) to c) above were opposed in submissions. The requests made in submissions for changes to the Arena Zone provisions all related to the Master Plan and can be summarised as follows: a) Retain Cuba St frontage on Map 15.2 as open space (the Bulloch submission) b) Amend Map 15.2 to identify area outside Arena 2 as a drop off zone (the Olsson submission) c) Further consultation on specific aspects (the Joblin submission) 164) We have regarded the submission from the New Zealand Institute of Architects Western Branch as generally neutral on this point and no specific request was made. NZIAWB is supportive of master planning for this kind of site, but the submission pointed to a lack of detailed background information on this particular Master Plan. It is not clear from the submission whether the material in Appendix 7 of the Section 32 had been identified. 165) The Cuba St frontage is shown on the Master Plan as 'open' in the sense that it does not include any buildings. This does not preclude any proposal to build one in this location, although the 300m 2 permitted size would mean that any significant proposal would require a resource consent. We agree with Mr Aplin Thane that it would be preferable to assess a specific proposal in the consent context rather than to try and define or limit it now when there is evidently no intention to build anything. We cannot see any resource management reason why an appropriately designed building in this area should be precluded by the Plan. 33

73 166) In relation to the request for drop off zone on Pascal St, Mr Aplin-Thane correctly notes (at para ) that this a power which can be only exercised by Council as road controlling authority. It is not a request we can accept. 167) Mr Joblin's submission on the Arena Zone states that he owns flats on Pascal St which are close to Field 5 and the parking area for Arena 2. He lists a number of important matters on which he says that specific details are not available to enable comment. He wishes to be consulted and able to comment when those details are available. Mr Joblin did not attend the hearing. 168) We have no doubt that Mr Joblin is correct in saying that his properties are affected by what happens in the nearby Arena Zone - though that is not a new position. However the request for detail overstates the role of the Master Plan which is, self-evidently, to illustrate existing and longer term layout of the Arena facilities and entrances. Any future development is controlled by performance standards (where it is permitted) or assessment criteria (where it is discretionary). PC21 is of course an opportunity for anyone to make requests on the management of future development. Mr Joblin's request is that he be given information and opportunity to comment when detailed future developments are proposed. But this is beyond our power - we can only make decisions on requests to change the proposals which are advanced in PC ) As with the other zones, the provisions on TMTAs will be considered separately in this decision. Other Rezoning proposals 170) A number of other rezoning proposals have been made in PC21 in addition to those considered in more detail in this decision. All of the proposals listed below have only submissions in support: Balmoral Reserve from Residential to Recreation Part of the Victoria Esplanade from Recreation to Conservation and Amenity Lower Titoki Reserve from Residential to Conservation and Amenity Parts of the Turitea Stream Esplanade Reserve Rural to Conservation and Amenity Ngahere Park from Rural to Conservation and Amenity Ruamahanga Wilderness Reserve from Conservation and Amenity to Recreation Part of the Kelvin Grove Cemetery from Rural to Recreation 171) On that basis, each of the proposed rezonings is accepted for the reasons given in the Section 32 report. 172) The proposed rezoning of 10 Bowen St Linton from Recreation to Rural is opposed by Mr and Mrs Bulloch. Horizons' submission states that the land may be flood prone, though the data is insufficient to determine this. 34

74 173) If the Council does not require the land as a reserve then Recreation is the wrong zoning. In this location, Rural is the correct zoning. The submission from Mr and Mrs Bulloch is misconceived in this respect: the holding of land for a public purpose must be a decision for the Council which will bear the cost of. that holding on behalf of the community. If the Council concludes, as it is entitled to do, that there is no benefit in public ownership of the land, then the land should have the most appropriate zoning for private land. 17 4) Likewise, we think that the request from Horizons that the flood prone status of the land be determined as a condition of rezoning is misconceived. The extent, if any, to which the land is flood prone will constrain future building, and that can be assessed when there is a proposal to build 175) For these reasons, we accept the rezoning of 10 Bowen St Linton and reject the submissions from Mr and Mrs Bulloch and Horizons. Temporary Military Training Activities 176) The NZ Defence Force has submitted in opposition to the TMTA rules in all zones covered by PC21. In brief, the rules (which are substantially identical in each zone) permit TMTAs which do not involve the firing of live or blank ammunition or explosions. For its part, NZDF requests rules in every zone which permit TMTAs subject to noise rules. In doing so, it states that it is has no intention of carrying live or blank firing or explosions in these zones, and accepts that such activities could not meet the permitted activity standards for noise even if it did wish to do so. 177) NZDF has made similar requests in relation to other zones which have been reviewed during the course of the District Plan Review. In each case the request has been rejected. We understand that NZDF has lodged an appeal against the decision(s) in relation to PC15 which covered a number of zones. 178) NZDF gave evidence in support of its submission. The evidence from Rob Owen (Environmental Manager) was generally consistent with evidence he has given in other hearings, and includes a list (paras and Appendix A of his evidence) of TMTAs carried out by NZDF in the City which it wishes to ensure can continue. None of these activities involves firing or explosions. Most of these activities are so benign and unremarkable that it seems unnecessary for the Plan to consider management of them. Because Mr Owen was critical of the approach by Council officers and consultants, we invited NZDF to provide a list of activities which it currently undertakes or wishes to undertake which are, or might be, constrained by the proposed rules. Para.34 of his evidence suggests that a variety of activities would be discretionary under the proposed rules. We received a letter from NZDF on 21 December We have considered its contents, but it did not answer the question. 179) Sarah Bevin gave planning evidence for NZDF. She said that the NZDF approach had been accepted by a number of local authorities. We accept that this so, but do not regard the point as either helpful (let alone determinative) without any context or reasoning. The RMA requires Plans to be prepared District by District. The contents of a Plan are subject to the statutory framework and to 'superior' or relevant plans and policies, but otherwise reflect the resource management issues and objectives within the City or District. As we have said in other decisions, the NZDF desire for nationally consistent 35

75 provisions is understandable but, in the absence of any relevant national policy or regulation, it is no more than an argument that its interest should prevail over local considerations. Ms Bevin also argued that a fully discretionary classification was too onerous where permitted standards were not met, and that controlled or restricted discretionary is more appropriate in these cases. We do not agree. There may be situations where a restricted discretionary classification is appropriate, and others where a non-complying classification is more appropriate, but the NZDF insistence on a single approach which disregards context has not been conducive to a more nuanced approach. 180) Mr Hunt gave evidence on noise management for NZDF. And Mr Lloyd gave evidence on the same issue for the Council. Their respective positions are markedly different. Leaving aside for the moment, the technical differences in their respective approaches (which are significant), our understanding is that there is a more simple difference. Mr Hunt is concerned primarily with the appropriateness and robustness of the requested noise management standards which he has been instrumental in defining. Mr Lloyd's view is that the noise from live firing and explosions is simply inappropriate in this environment (ie the land within these zones), and permitted activity status is thus also inappropriate.. 181) We find, as a matter of fact and law, that fill_ the activities which NZDF says it wishes to continue to undertake in the City are permitted activities under the proposed rules. We think it is unhelpful for NZDF to assert otherwise and then decline to give specific examples. The reason, in our view, that the advice given by Council officers and consultants is consistent and unfavourable to the NZDF request (as Mr Owen noted), is the adamant position by NZDF that the Plan must enable activities which it has no intention of undertaking, and which would be environmentally unacceptable in just about any conceivable urban situation. 182) The issue of need is important in a context where training for national security and responsiveness to civil emergencies are used as a basis for requesting provisions which might permit significant adverse effects in many of the receiving environments. That is particularly so where the City hosts a major military facility (Linton Camp), and NZDF has other major facilities in the Region (Ohakea and Waiouru). We do not think that there is any reasonable need for the provisions sought by NZDF. Its evidence on need is unconvincing, contradictory, and, regrettably, bordering on evasive. 183) The reasons we have given in this decision are substantially the same as those given in the decisions on PC15 and PC ) We therefore reject the NZDF requests. Further, the request for TMTAs to be managed under the General Section 6 Rules is beyond the scope of PC21. Flood Protection works 185) Horizons' submission made a range of requests on provisions which have a potential relationship with One Plan Provisions or Horizons' functions. These are listed in summary form in Appendix A of Mr Aplin-Thane's evidence. 186) It is apparent from Ms Thomas' evidence that there is only one minor remaining area of difference - which we will address below. For the other issues raised in the Horizons' submission, Ms Thomas endorses Mr Aplin-Thane's 36

76 recommendations. On that basis we accept Mr Aplin-Thane's recommendations on the Horizons requests except where we have expressly decided on specific issues (at paragraphs 92, 111, 117(f), 121, 157, and 17 4 above). 187) In relation to the wording of the second to last paragraph of the explanation under 15.3 Resource Management Issues, we agree with Ms Thomas' recommended amended wording at para.19 of her evidence. To this extent we do not accept the contrary recommendation by Mr Aplin -Thane at para of his evidence. NZ Code of Electrical Practice 188) The Powerco submission was supported by a letter of 12 December from consultant planner Mark Laurenson. Mr Laurenson maintains support for the requested Notes to Plan Users. 189) We have noted in other plan changes where the issue has arisen that it is not the function of a District Plan to be an advisory document for other regulatory requirements. There may be dozens of such requirements in land development and subdivision, all of them important. Yet if the Council attempted to provide guidance on them in the Plan, the document would quickly become extremely cluttered and out of date (as the regulations can and will be amended independently of the Plan). For this reason, we do not accept the Powerco request. People working near power lines, for example, need to be aware of relevant regulations - but it is not the function of the Plan to precis these requirements. 190) The other component of the Powerco submission was contingent on the rejection of its request under PC15G - but that request was accepted in a decision issued after the submission on PC21 was made. 8. Further evaluation under section 32AA 191) As we noted at para.37 above, we are required to undertake a further evaluation of PC21 under section 32AA. That further evaluation is required only for changes to the proposal since the original section 32 evaluation, and 'must be undertaken in accordance with s.32(1)-(4)', and must be 'at a level of detail that corresponds with the scale and significance of the changes'. (Section 32AA(1)(a)-(c)). 192) We have made a small number of changes to the provisions of Section and the new subdivision rule in Section 7 proposed by PC21. These changes are to achieve greater effectiveness in implementing the relevant Objectives, and, in the case of the amendments to the Structure Plan for the Racecourse, will allow further assessment in the future. In the scheme of s.32 we do not regard these changes as significant - in our view they make PC21 more workable without altering anything of fundamental importance. In the language of section 32(1 )(b) we have made the relevant provisions more efficient and effective without changing any of the factors under section 32(2). 193) The decision does not require any change to Objectives or Policies under Sections 15 or

77 194) We made changes to the Racecourse Zone prov1s1ons in relation to the proposed new entrance and to the traffic management of large events. These modifications were a response to submissions and also, in several cases, revised Council recommendations. In all cases we think that the changes represent a better implementation of the relevant City View and Section Objectives. 195) For the purposes of section 32(2) we do not think that the changes would have any significant or quantifiable impact on economic growth or employment opportunities. These matters are most likely to arise in the context of the Racecourse, Race Training and Arena Zones, and no material changes have been made to any of the relevant provisions. 196) We think that the appropriate level of information was available for all decisions. In relation to the amendment to the Racecourse Zone's Structure Plan, we have acknowledged that the position may be reviewed (as is always the case in planning) in the light of further consultation and development proposals in the Race Training Zone. 197) Section 32(4) does not apply as there has been no proposal to introduce a 'greater prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies.' 9. Conclusion 198) Plan Change 21 has been approved with relatively few significant amendments to the well established framework created by Sections 15: Recreation and 21: Race Training Zone. Most of the submissions, and the consequent changes made by this decision, were concerned with the structure plan and rezoning proposed in relation to the Racecourse Zone. 199) Whilst we acknowledge the need for provisions in the Racecourse Zone which will enable the successful continuation of one of New Zealand's great clubs and racecourses, we think that the provisions proposed in PC21 may have underestimated the effect of continuing to reply on selling surplus racecourse land for residential development as a means of sustaining this historic racecourse. As residential development intensifies near the racecourse, there will be increasing pressure to consider and protect the qualities that made the land desirable for that development. 200) In our view, any future use of Grand Oaks Drive as a major entrance to the racecourse is best considered once all options have been assessed, and once there is some clarity on the likelihood and timing of a connection to Te Wanaka Rd. 201) In relation to a number of 'Reserve' Zones, it needs to be acknowledged that the primary management of most reserves is through the management plan process under the Reserves Act. This is a public consultative process, and indeed it has recently been undertaken for the Linklater Reserve which was the subject of one of the submissions on the Recreation Zone. Both day to day activities and longer terms development plans are covered by these management plans. In many cases the District Plan framework will have little impact on these reserve management decisions - but of course in other 38

78 contexts, such as the Arena or rezoning proposals, Plan provisions have central importance. 202) In setting out the statutory framework within which the Plan is prepared and reviewed, we emphasised the central importance of ensuring that decisions achive the purpose and principles of the Act. The provision and management of spaces for conservation and recreation has been an important element in the development of the City over generations. As the City grows and development becomes more intensive, changing social needs have to be reflected in planning these spaces. We are satisfied that the range of Plan provisions to assist in the management these critical resources will enable them to be sustained into the future. 203) The proposed plan changes represent the outcome of many years of work from the Council, the community and interest groups, and we acknowledge the evident quality of the technical work and the commitment to discussion and resolution of issues outside the hearings process. Finally we record our thanks to all those people, particularly submitters, who attended and contributed information to the hearings. Chris Mitchell Chair Stuart Kinnear Commissioner Susan Baty Commissioner Rachel Bowen Commissioner 39

79 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 (d) Parking, Access and Loading Compliance with Rules: Parking Spaces for People with Disabilities; Parking Provision for All Zones Except Inner Business Zone; Car Park Landscape Design; Formation of Parking Spaces; Loading Space Standards; Access Standards. (e) Landscape Amenity Where a building or structure adjoins land zoned planted amenity strip shall be provided which: (i) (ii) (iii) Has a minimum width of 2 m. ".": Extends the full length of the new building or additioq/ ij,!., I Includes planting of specimen trees able to planted at a minimum frequency of 1 every 5 <llij1111:1 li:li]i! or more which are f the amenity strip. Explanation 1fil!/il1 1i1i!ili/'1 Landscaping is an important contributor to the l 1 on and ih''aintenance of amenity within the Racecourse Zones and at the boundary w i hf5.o urin~!!rresid~htial areas. In addition to its amenity i rr Jllll' contribution, landscaping provides a useful te., 1,ue'Jo mitigate adverse effects through, for example visually screening or blending buildin~~~~tructures \llit,ti if~e surrounding environment and softening the impact of service and equestrian.ff/0.ted ~ eational buildings. This rule will ensure that amenity values are maintained and protected...,,:::: ' ::1 fj ~I \) R Mino erll.pora '1 ;.:!~ :;,:i!. ~11..!.j!.,.. Minor Tempor~ry Milita" 1.,,, blank amni'1:miti(!).fil !Si r multi le ex losive events are Permitted provid~. ~Mlil.~ ' 'f'q~l,!?wing ~Pf, 1 1 I ' ' ' Ii ~ 1 1 rt<> rmance conditions standards are complied with.. "",1 Pe.tTfor~ance c J 1 ~:diii 1 ~ 1 ~sstandards ~1 1 1J I " 1 1llfl'.. ij~/~:1111, )1!1111 i,. 1,, ~,1111dmg~~ 1 ~11d Structures, ;. I ~!,. 1:. AHy.b b,~j ldings and/or structures erected must be in compliance with performance 1 1!:'bori 'Hffl~ ns standards (a) and (b) of Rule 'r'iji: 'l'f'l1 d;t;;ny buildings erected in association with the Temporary Military Training Activity must be removed at the conclusion of the activity unless they are in compliance with Rule (b) Excavations and Alterations to Landform Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the ground shall be reinstated to a condition as close as practicable to its state prior to the disturbance. (c) Hazardous Substances Compliance with the requirements provisions of Section 14 - Hazardous Substances of this District Plan.

80 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 (d) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days. (e) Noise (i) Mobile Noise Sources- Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS: 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. (ii) Fixed (stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions form fixed (stationary) noise sources. excluding live firihg of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point.within!1:any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any nols:ej!:rsensltime activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall r;t0t. 1:exc ~~_d "ffl~ i1 if &lt(gwing I "t,1ml''" "" 11q I """ :11 1m1 s. I ' 111 ~!lib I;: ', ~1 ~7~.0~0=am~to~7~. 0~0~p~m~------~~----"-'=w== ~ pm to 1 O.OOpm '' 10.00pm to 7.00am Nighttime Lma m to 7.00am (iii) Explanation The New Zealand De[ fj,nc. rce ( ;:.,:f) rries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defe..nc~\i!'pyrpqses. SiJ~h temporary training involves military activities by regular and te~ri~orial force ~'l/f.s"tn zdn~~' fn~~ 1 ~q.?9.o/:t,.:palm_~rston N_o:th Citr_..!he Defence ~et _1990 pr?vides for the ra1smg and mmnff(.'!.ance of a~'({j e '(J ~rdkes. Mt/Jtary trammg act1vtt1es are essential m enablmg the NZDF to maintain op~1~?fidrtr,"[l)rg]m,fj,f,flft~nl'i The above Gondi#ons performance standards have been designed to enable t/]f,j, l'nzdf, to carry 1 1.d.~ t temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects of.lfraining aa... s onl lthe environment are mitigated.. 111:~ w ~ i!l'l 11. I ~.~~ 'e to P! 'lso refer to Rule ill - Radiofrequency Field Exposure i ~ , mµ111''"" '<.: : /' Minor Temporary Military Training Activities '.vhich do not comply with the Performance Conditions of Rule , and Extended Temporary Military Training Activities shall be Controlled Activities in respect of: External appearance and amenity andlor character of the surrounding area The safe and efficient operation of the reading network.

81 Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose, if any, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Objectives and Policies for the Racecourse Zone, assess any application in terms of the following further policies: (a) (b) To avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the amenity of surrounding properties zoned Residential or Race Training. To avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of additional traffic generated on safe and efficient operation of the reading networl<. Explanation 1!ff f11... l1:fff;,, ::: R Buildings and Structures not Complyiilg'' with Ped, o.. ". " lllllllllll'lll'ldl 1 1 ' ConditionsStandards 1 l1:/1i.., ' ',f 1l1il!iil1;:1111! Buildings and Structures not Complying wi Relation to: tandards in (a) (b) (c) (d) Separation Distances Building Size Parking Height is a Restricted Discretionary 'Ac, 1:ir,,11:ilf:W ll~llfil 1i:111.. ; The Safe and EfficienL ;~ Design and ~P.P~ 1 ;,rance ii:~ IJ ~11,i.. Effect on A.. ~j ~fo1in.~f; ~eside~t1al The provis 'i~n of'. car " g:.l. l:'.:.,,; 1, e Reading Network In d~.terrryjn i,~~:!..lf{.~~~~ 1 ~'.~Jli~. : 1,,,, ~, t?ons~nt and ~hat conditions, if any, to impose, C~un?il will, in add1t10~.! ~0 11 fhe G1t~ View :qp1ect1ves in. section 2 and the Racecourse Zone objectives and policesp licies, a~ 1 ~~ss q11~~ 1 ~ application in terms of the following further policiesassessment Iii '''Ill '""" criteria: \'fr 1 '' ili 1,..:11:1 1 ',1 11.ssmen.. '!,"f,!r ~fia!fi !f[Jii,p ~ 'p;~, ~imon Distances, Building Size and Height \!iii., \ 1"1 11 ' 1.,,, ~~he. ~xten~ t~ which To ensure th~ design and appearance of any st:ucture contribut~s ~~lll t' pos1t1vely IB-ffito the -character with and complementary to the ambience and amenity values of the surrounding acjioining residential neighbourhood environment. (ii) (b) (i) The extent to which To avoid, remedy or mitigate any environmental disturbance to adjoining residential neighbourhoods is avoided or mitigated. Parking The extent to which To avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of parking not accommodated on the site effects,--br the safe and efficient operation of the roading network.

82 , I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 (d) (e) The extent to which Whether To ensure the design and appearance of any structure contributes positively -is--ffi--to the character with and complementary to the ambience and amenity values of the surrounding adjoining residential neighbourhoodenvironment. The extent to which To avoid any compromising of the recreational potential or open space character of the site is maintained. Explanation This category of activity is intended to deal with activities and facilities which do not fall within the other categories provided in this Zone. As such they are essentially "one off' developments which need careful assessment to ensure their effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated, that they fit into the existing environment and that they do not undermine the essential character of the Zone. Note to Plan Users: Also refer to Rule ill - Radiofrequency Field Exp~ J 't::i te u R Minor and Extended Temporary Military Trainifi'Q1i1. Jjl:it:i' ' ". t Minor and extended temporary military training activities whi~:h', do not..j l~ly with the Permitted Activity performance standards of Rule ~~. ir.i"gludinglmrnve firing or weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or nhiltlple "' ~xp'io'sime n tmlevents, are a Discretionary Activity. ' 11 1!:1. co"'""" Assessment Criteria (a) b The extent to which adverse effec s,.. 8f. noise, hours of operation, and other environmental disturbance on ' 1 1 i ~tlil.e users of'the Racecourse and surrounding residential ro erties are avoided d'fmi.. 111~11rn111 ; The extent to wh'1ci:h et of an activities reserve the character and c (d) heritage value, or c)~ l!sig rice to tangata whenua are avoided or mitigated. 11 ' :1 1 1i:i:1,,,.,: w111mm11mijm;,, " ' ~ 1 ~ ' W ~11i. : [111 ~ Tltl'e;extehtAo which. 1the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from im'", ulsive ndfse irm,. j~cts on noise sensitive activities. Jii,,''iffli/iilli' The tent t~ ll which a Noise Mana ement Plan re ared b an acoustical consultant "' 111 1::::. and su8 1 ~TftEid at the time of application for a resource consent. identifies the likely noise. impacts1111for the area and describes the noise management measures to avoid, remedy!l!ij/or'':t'mifigate adverse effects of noise, including best practicable options adopted to 11fuiinimise sound emissions from live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition and /slngle or multiple explosive events. ~!,! ' (f) The extent to which a community consultation programme, submitted at the time of application for a resource consent has been developed for communication with occupiers and owners surrounding the Racecourse and council will be implemented prior to the military training activities commencing, and includes notification of event. updates during the event. methods for following up complaints received during or after the event and the process of liaison with Council Rules : Non-Compl in Activities u R Crematoria

83 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 As the operational noise emitted by aircraft at the Palmerston North Airport can be intrusive, any new building, or addition to an existing building, which is located in the vicinity of the airport and intended for communal activities will be required to provide an appropriate level of noise insulation. In order to ensure that responsibility for mitigation of this operational noise does not rest solely with property owners, specific noise mitigation requirements have also imposed on operations within the Airport Zone (See Rule ). One Plan Rule requires resource consent for activities on stopbanks and on land between artificial waterways or the bed of a river and 8 metres inland of the landward toe of the stopbank where such activities may affect the integrity and function of the City's flood protection. It is recommended that anyone proposing to carrv out any activity on a property that contains or is adjacent to a flood protection asset first contact the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council for advice regarding any consent requirements. R Maintenance of the Flood Protection Works of the:.,. Wanganui Regional Council 111:11111:';11... "'" Maintenance of the Flood Protection Works of Council is a Permitted Activity Explanation Small parts of the Recreation Zone, particularly in. :'~~lf:ivi accommodate stopbanks and works associate he,, t,{po 1 Scheme. It is important that these works a,,, :,f.'4i-ri'ed, maintenance, they can be treated as Permitted Ac 1 ~/tfes : ~ ,, l!l,111 1 /11. 'brigf(f k and the Esplanade, also. ontrdt:'works of the Lower Manawatu afl~ ~ff:fjiven the lack of effects of their u 1 11[[[[1[111. :-.'.:\ R Minor Tempor.~r.Y Nii "tary TrairiH1g Activities :;1!(,. Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the ground shall be reinstated to a condition as close as practicable to its state prior to the disturbance. (c) Hazardous Substances Compliance with the requirements provisions of Section 14 - Hazardous Substances of this Distriot Plan. (d) Duration and Frequency of Activities

84 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days. (e) Noise (i) Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS: 6803: 1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. (ii) Fixed (stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road shall not exceed' the followin limits: 7.00am to 7.00pm 7.00pm to 10.00pm 10.00pm to 7.00am Nighttime L 10.00pm to 7.00am iii of blank ammunition, single or multiple 11.el)losiv.e. ev 1 ~hts and the noise sources listed in Rule (e) (i) and (ii) above)-c'em p'h~m 1 ~'e with''':rule ' i::1~11 ' llil;l:h 1'i'li ;1. ~.1:~' 1 1 fjllilli l I t. l,!!i:i;,1 1:1! Explanation /,.,-. :.,.' 1 The New Zealand Defence Force.. (N_ rries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for defence purpp ' : porary training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones"t ~~~ton North City. The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance o4iiprme lit';ry training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operationa.ji;p ap 1 ~pility. T,!i;l performance standards corditiors have been designed to 1 enable the NZDF.to c~'rry ~ 1 hi/. tempo. ry military training activities while ensuring that any adverse ettects of training ab't/vities ao 1 the;1~~ 1,. i'.' ' 1:1 ' llljllll~~ i )',,;,.,.. "'.._...,... %111o. nvtrb~ment are mitigated. \) Gontro'lled Activity in respect of: ~~1 i :: : '.I., Height: Location: Effects of such work on residential amenity. In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose if any. Council will, in addition to the City View Objectives in section 2 and the Recreation Zone objectives and policies assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria- Assessment Criteria (a) The extent to which the visual effects of flood protection works on adjoining residential neighbourhoods are avoided or mitigated.

85 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 careful assessment to ensure their effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated, that they fit into the existing environment and that they do not undermine the essential character of the Zone. Note to Plan Users: Also refer to Rule ffi - Radiofrequency Field Exposure U R &.2 Minor Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards Minor Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards of Rule , including live firing or weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events, are Discretionary Activities. In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose. i.f.any; tj.ouncil will, in addition to the Cit View ob ectives in Section 2 and the Recreation 'z ~'R'e. ff'~ctives and lication in terms of the followin assessment,gpiterii::l'!. 1l<lll'l'' '"'''"l Assessment Criteria ' i1 JJl~: 1 < ""' (a) ' ~. The extent to which adverse effects on the visual 'amenity surrounding area are avoided. b safe and c (d) (e) The extent to which mitigated. the zone is avoided or ated. other (f),;:;1:;!:~..... Th.e. e~.fent to which a communit consultation ro ramme submitted at the time of " 1!(!appTl~ 1 mion for a resource consent, has been developed for communication with ccupiers, owners and users of the affected site and Council will be implemented prior,,~:f6 the militaiy training activities commencing, and includes notification of event. updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event and the process of liaison with Council. Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) mav need to carrv out temporary military training activities which do not meet the performance standards for Permitted Activities. In this case. it is important to ensure that anv adverse effects of training activities on the environment are avoided. remedied or mitigated Rules: Noise

86 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 Any building shall be located a minimum of 6 m from any boundary with a Residential Zone and a minimum of 3 m from any road boundary. Explanation The separation distance control is designed to avoid, remedy or mitigate any perceived adverse effects of building/structure on any adjoining residential land. Such effects may include visual intrusion of a building or structure etc. u R Minor Temporary Military Training Activities Minor Temporary Military Training Activities {excluding live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events) are Perni'Itt~ d Activities provided the following performance conditions standards are compl"''" Performance ConditionsStandards (a) (i) (ii) Buildings and Structures Any buildings and/or structures erected must b~ 11, : ;" ln co~;pl.,i,~. ~c conditions standards (b) and (c) of Rule Any buildings erected in association with be removed at the conclusion of the a ;~ il,;1iillli!fill:ii 1!! '11111, performance (b) Excavations and Alterations to'n'ialjldfo, 1. " ' :!11.: :.:. Where the activity involves any e~qpvations or.alt~rations to landform, the ground shall be reinstated to a condition as clos~. lllh:, ticable to its.state prior to the disturbance. liance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS: 6803:1999. ;: I, 1 11jil~ i X~!id,~tationa Noise Sources - Com liance with the followin noise limits:,, 'I'.. 1 1i!i 1 11.'S'ound emissions form fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons,: and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits: 7.00am to 7.00pm 55d8 LAeq(15minsl 7.00pm to 1 O.OOpm 50dB LAeq(15minsl 1 O.OOpm to 7.00am 45dB LAeq(15minsl Nighttime Lmax 1 O.OOpm to 7.00am 75 dba Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20m from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling.

87 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October (iii) Sound em issions from any other activity sources (excluding live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events and the noise sources listed in Rule (e) (i) and (ii) above) - Compliance with Rule (e) (gf) That there are no significant adverse effects on flora and fauna 'Nithin the Zone Vehicle Access The use of any vehicles in the Conservation and Amenity Zone shall be restricted to any formed and sealed car parking areas. Note to Plan Users: Also refer to Rule ill - Radiofrequency Field Exposure u Explanation i: h.. 11ftlifl 11 g',,1 1 1:1:1Wf111,11... ~ The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training ' 'a ctivities ~ 1 1 des~gn~ted for de_te~ce purposes. Such temporary training_ involves mi~{,f.g,f!yi\.~ :; 1 Milar and temtonal force umts m zones throughout Palmerston North City. The DeffJ,gce A 90. i'rrovi e~ 1 tor the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military training activities are J~.?, ential im, ~fr!. ab1{~g the NZDF to maintain operational capability. The above Gondi#ons pertormand Jlistariaards ha 11 1 ' eeh 11 'designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary military training acti~i,ties VJhif~ ' en~ 1,1 rin at any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are mitigated. "' '«1,~i'" R Walking Tracks Walking Tracks are Permitted Activities ~~,' standards are complied with. 'II'/ 1 l):b ''l'l'i 1 '!') ' 1 e 1 d 1 lfoe fo o,. wing performance conditions., ' (i).. constructed in such a manner that they do not i G '~ i!ii~ :p nservation~ Gr-amenity, or flood and erosion (ii) (iii) ' ''11!~1 1( ' ' Structural Maintenance of Flood Protection 'Norks or structures by the Manawatu '.'Vanganui Regional Council are Controlled Activities with regard to: Effects on Adjoining Residential Areas; Effects on Conservation, Heritage, Scientific, and/or Amenity Values; Effects of Disturbance on Land Form; Disturbance of Flora and Fauna. In determining what conditions to impose, if any, Council will, in addition to the City View Objectives in Section 2 and the Conservation and Amenity Zone objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following policies:

88 Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 (d) The further policies within Rule Explanation A number of conservation and amenity reserves may attract more vehicles than can be accommodated on or close to a reserve. The overflow of vehicles into surrounding areas detracts from the amenities of these areas and may affect public safety. The Council aims to ensure that parking is provided only where it is essential to meet a demonstrated demand and will not compromise any of the special qualities of these reserves Rules: Discretionar Activities u R Minor Temporary Military Training Activities whic with the Performance ConditionsStandards Minor Temporary Military Training Activities which do not conf y w1 Conditions Standards of Rule includin live firin, or 1 l~ea on ammunition, single or multiple explosive events, are.~h. a'l'i1 1!~!Je O,iscre.111:.. 1 1,1,, ;. (Unrestricted). \ " " " I In determining whether to grant consent and what 'i'tt~, 1 ~il1if any, Council will, in ad~itio.n to the City. 'J_iew Objectives in ~ectio~ 111,f ~ :,,, t,~~. Conse ~ 1 ~tion and Ame~ity. Zo~e Objectives and Policies for theconservat1on ~,;p! Am 1 ~~ 1 1 g1 " Z:~m~ ~11rna 1 ssess any application in terms of the following further policiesassessrnenti.crite~ia: ijf~ " Assessment Criteria 'IJlll)j I I 1,'I" ": '. ~Ii:'., ii 1,, (a) The extent to which To av&,j (b) (c) (d) i,;:; ;. The e~ 1 ten ft& i!~r : l~h..., effects of the proposal on any area of f\afbraf"and/or ct.i'ltbral heritage value, or of particular significance to Tangata Whenua are avoided l l 1 ~ iti ' ~fed. '1 '... ~. :i':1 1!1i, Th~.: ~l!lextent.1::;to which adverse effects of noise hours of o eration and other :' e~viro ~,~~E!riifa i disturbance on surrounding dwellings are avoided or mitigated. :'. r,:;: 1111.:th'~,,.e~f~nt to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from " 1 ::llmplhs.ive noise impacts on noise sensitive activities.,1:1:rn,::vrhe extent to which a Noise Mana ement Plan re ared b an acoustical consultant and submitted at the time of application for a resource consent, identifies the likely noise impacts for the area and describes the noise management measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of noise, including best practicable options adopted to minimise sound emissions from live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition and single or multiple explosive events. (h) The extent to which a community consultation oroqramme, submitted at the time of application for a resource consent, has been developed for communication with occupiers, owners and users of the affected site and Council will be implemented prior to the military training activities commencing, and includes notification of event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event and the process of liaison with Council.

89 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out temporary military training activities which do not meet the performance conditions standards for Permitted Activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that any adverse effects of training activities on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated. R Construction, Development or Redevelopment of Flood Protection '."Jorks by the Mana 1 11atu \ 11.'anganui Regional Council The construction, development or redevelopment of Flood Protec,tjon Works or Structures by the Manawatu 1 Jl!anganui Regional Council shall be a ::piscretionary Activity (Unrestricted). (c) To avoid, remedy heritage, and Rules: Non-Compl in Activities u ! "f.. 'lfl!'li1ll"'' iii l,; ~i:1. rjl111 ~11 I w )';. 1~"'.~.~ ~-1 11~ 1 ~ 1 1 :;:;:: ~li,com plying Act1v1t1es /" A ~ 1 Yi 1 r 1 acti~ityi ~ l) ' building or structure that does not comply with the Performance ii'~... '' i "' lli 11 1 ' standards for Permitted Activities, or is not a Permitted, Controlled, J!iestri~ted Discretionary Activity (Restricted) or Discretionary Activity (Unrestricted) s'w~p, he a Non-Complying Activity. Explanation The Conservation and Amenity Zone's purpose is to identify and protect areas of scenic, scientific, heritage, and conservation and amenity significance to the City. The restriction on the size, type and effects generated by activities aims to ensure that appropriate activities are able to operate within the Zone while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects.on the integrity of the zone as an area of scenic, scientific, heritage, and conservation and amenity significance. Note to Plan Users: Also refer to Rule fil - Radiofrequency Field Exposure

90 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 The limited objective and policies for this Zone mean that the most effective and cost efficient means of achievement is through the provision of rules Environmental Results Anticipated It is anticipated that the objectives, policies and methods of this section will achieve the follo 1.ving results: That adverse noise effects generated by activities on the surface of the water be either avoided, remedied or mitigated. \) (a) Signs Compliance with Rule U R Minor Temporary MJl,i ''' 1 ilill> (i) Mobile Noise Sources- Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS: 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. (ii) Fixed (stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits: Sound emissions form fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shall not exceed the following limits: 7.00am to 7.00pm 55dB LAeq(1 5minsl

91 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October pm to 10.00pm 10.00pm to 7.00am Nighttime Lmax 10.00pm to 7.00am 50dB LAeq(1 5minsl 45dB LAeq(15minsl 75 dba Lmax Notional boundary is defined as a line 20m from any side of a dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. (iii) Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events and the noise sources listed in Rule (e) (i) and (ii) above) - Compliance with Rule Explanation The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary military training1 ;l~. r; tivlti " des~gn~ted for de_fe~ce purposes. Such temporary training_ involves military ao 1 t/,y(tift_1~ : ' " ' " f!gular and te~n'.onal force ~ntfs m zones throughout Palm_~rston N_o_rth Git~..!he Oef~~gir. 11~f Q,~e p 1 1! ::.,, 11 1iij 11 ~~. for the ra1smg and mamtenance of armed forces. MJ//tary tram mg act1v1f/es are 1ssenfla ablmg 1 m.b NZDF to maintain operational capability. The above conditions performance sta~ :~ards h, ~~r. designed to enable the 0f ~DF to. ~~rry out temp?rary military t:~ining activities llii'(f;,hile''.rtnsurin at 11 ~'ny adverse effects of trammg act1v1t1es on the environment are mitigated. ~ ' u R Noise (a)... i ljl~1..,1111j: 11:11.,.,. With the exception of Specially Or.ga Cl Event on the Hokowh1tu Lagoon, 1 which sh~ll occur on no more. :1t~ 1 ~.~ ~ 1,,,p ~~ tlf.calendar yea~, sound emissions da.,,, 1!1 11 from-public address systems ana 1 11 Q;J,ij Cli~p1call 11l 1 powered machines or crafti when operated on the surface 0~ 1ijthe wateri. ~.r~!i not exceed the following limits JJhen d t "th" th ~ ' d f I,'I measure a or w1 m :.:;:eo.ti t. "th' I d d &-~ r:i ary o any a any pomt w1 m any an zone tttt-,b.residential.,., ' 1 ".Q!_any rural land in the Rural Zone. 70 dba Lmax 1. The notice shall inform the general public of: (i) (ii) (iii) The nature of the event The proposed dates and start and finish times of the event That the prescribed noise limits may be exceeded. The event will be deemed to have taken place upon the act of notification even if the event is cancelled.

92 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October Mechanical sounds from any event shall be designed, tested and operated to not exceed 75 db LAegt 2 minsia-bw when measured over any two minute period at any point along the boundary of the water and the land edge of the Hokowhitu Lagoon. 3. Events that have been publicly notified shall not take place outside the hours of 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. 4. Without limiting this rule the term "mechanically powered machines and vehicles' may include: (a) (b) Mechanical services equipment; Vehicles and any devices used for racing, performance and fqr exhibition. ' i: \ 1 I:: Explanation 1.'dll11'11.1f/,ll'1i1:'.'.1l1,1!;1J l1' Noise emissions from recre ation water related activities can imp a c~fjn fl:i@ amen land uses. Accordingly, these activities need to be managed to,:ivoi~ l~pr iiijtifjate Council will impose noise limits to ensure that the emission?f,nbise ' 'fr;prn' i:ic, surface does not exceed levels determined as appropriate to ;11k,reserve th~, a residential areas. "' l 1 1 1~;n~tw l,: 1 :! i Jl[f'!' UI ],., 111,af adjacent dverse effects. sing the water of neighbouring Rules : Discretionar Activities u u R Discretioo:a jiiii/i.'/ ~:, (ijrirestricted) Any activity failing 1~ 9, rw~ ~t the ment of Rule GF or shall be a DiscretionarY,, ;(~tivi i 1 ' -\:lf1h'e1sef!effie&j i:~:!:~1!:. ' '11.. : 1 ) :: In determiniq~ wh,ejj1 ~~ 1 fil~ 11~p,,,rt consent and what conditions, if any, to impose, Council will, in 1 addition J t,hg 1 : ~ c;;ity " "Vleiii '1 1 /;0bJ~ctives in section 2 and the Water Recreation Zone objectives and policies, as s ~ ny a ~plication in terms of the following further polioyassessment criteria: t ', ~111~ 11 1 : ~11 '1 11. '. i As 1 ~ ~ss rnt!i nt Criter.i '' 1!11111',, l ~j 'I :.. j::,,. r.:l'l!!lli I...,:: ~if lie 'to which To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of noise, hours of, Oberatim:r;i, or other environmental disturbance on the adjoining residential 1 1 1~;!1 1 p. e1 9'ti:~ 1 C5 urhood are avoided or mitigated. l,!!1![:11! l li!h R Minor Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards Minor Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards of Rule , including live firing or weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events, are Discretionary Activities. In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose, if any, Council will, in addition to the City View Objectives in Section 2 and the Water Recreation Zone Objectives and Policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment criteria:

93 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 Assessment Criteria (a) (b) (c) The extent to which adverse effects on the visual amenity and/or character of the surrounding area are avoided. The extent to which adverse effects of noise, hours of operation and other environmental disturbance on surrounding dwellings are avoided or mitigated. The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels resulting from impulsive noise impacts on noise sensitive activities. (d) (e) Explanation Objectives and Policies Within the broad framework of the City View objectives the following specific objectives and policies have been identified for the ArenaShowgrounds Zone: Objective 1 To promote the efficient use of physical resources within the ArenaShowgrounds Zone.

94 Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 Compliance with the requirements provisions of Section 14 - Hazardous Substances of this District Plan. (d) Duration and Frequency of Activities The activity is limited to a period not exceeding 31 days. (d) Noise (i) Mobile Noise. Sources- Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of NZS: 6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise. ii Fixed stationa Noise Sources - Com liance with the followin 1.,1il,i~~Jilj'1-. Sound emissions form fixed stationa noise sources excludin li V~ ;; 1 i ra.ea ons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at anmillp imt w l~lilin''"i3 fii ~l :i l1and zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary ofia'ny nol ~'.e.. s e 1 hsitive '' ~'Ctivity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a road), shal f:i~ ot exce ~'GI. th'gijifollowing I. "t ,... ' 1m1s. :...1:. m to 7.00am li/!1111~ iii Explanation The New Zealand Def,enc, rries out temporary military training activities in areas not designated for def~.qpea 1 P. 11.r.,l~.s. sj~p temporary training involves military activities by regular and te~ri~orial force ~"its in zone~ 111 t.hf@~fl&18y'palm.~rston ~o.rth Git~.. :he Defence ~et _1990 pr?vides for the ra1sm~ an_d m.:mi l.~ te~~,~ 1 Q 1 ~~flll~ica~ 1?i.d rdrces. MJ/Jtary ~~ammg act1vlf1es are essential m enabling th~ NZDF to mamta11j qpe ~~f10na /.~eapa, 1 p,111 'l9,~1 1, The above ooad:floas performance standards have been designed to enable t~e ll'f'llzof.. t,o carry ~ ' t temporary military training activities while ensuring that any adverse effects oftraining adt ~r ~ ": "., he environment are mitigated. Minor Temporal)' Milital)' Training Activities.vhich do not comply with the Performance Conditions of Rule , and Extended Temporary Military Training Activities shall be Controlled Activities in respect of: External appearance and amenity and/or character of the surrounding area The safe and efficient operation of the reading network. In determining what conditions to impose, if any, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Objectives and Policies for the Showgrounds Zone, assess any application in terms of the following further policies:

95 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 (a) To avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the visual amenity and/or character of the surrounding area. (b) To avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of additional traffic generated on safe and efficient operation of the roading networl<. Exp!anatlon The New Zealand Defence Force (tvzdf) may need to carry out temporary mi.wary training activities which do not meet the performance conditions for PeFfFlitted Activities. In this case, it is important to ensure that an}' adverse effects of training activities on the en l-ironment are a'loided, remedied or mitigated Rules : Discretionary Activities u.1ri :i 1 11::n 1''i'I" l,,j1lfj1: ol!! J!~ 1 1 ; R Buildings and Structures which do not com1i i~ 1 : '~ i 1t ~,i~~h ~ Performance ConditionsStandards or specific develop~ ent cl'~li~h e!i!~ rena " ~,,.,,., ''Ill'' The following are Restricted Discretionary activities : ;: '. (i) Buildings and Structures which do not co Standards in relation to: ff~rmance Conditions (a) (b) (c) (d) Parking Separation Distances Building Size Landscape Amenity ii... iii ate booths to the Arena. 1::}''l1h " 1 "::::.,... The Safe and Effie ration of the Roading Network; ~ 'lli::1-. ;"Y: 'lil~llllljhlilll lf""ll!i:'.. k" Th e P rov1s ~ :~ c;ir mg; Eff~i~ 1 ~s dh : Adjoini ~~ R~sidential Areas. _ ':,!i:. ' ""' ' ;Effects on neighbouring residential dwellings; ~ lijl!i '' Fro.nta es an resentation to surroundin streets ~ iii/ill;.,, Ove r~n. Desi'gn Quality including signage and branding; "' 1 1!,: :.d 'U'alit '" 1 1~f.l 1 g "' ''ace connections and landsca e :/? " oe,~el()p.ment being in general accordance with the Arena Master Plan (Map 15.2) l;t11r1,,,1, :1i1:11i~1 111:!" ,lp, det~ :timining whether to grant consent and what conditions, if any, to impose, Council will, in ~~.~ 1 i ~i ph to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Showgrounds Arena Zone objectives an ~ 1 l : ' policies, assess any application in terms of the following further policiesassessment criteria: Assessment Criteria (a) (i) (ii) Parking The extent to which To avoid, remedy, or mitigate the effects of parking not accommodated on the site effects the, on the safe_, effeotive and efficient operation of the roading network and on residential amenity values. The extent to which To ensure other appropriate off-site parking is available to meet the need generated for parking.

96 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 I I (iii) (iv) (b) (i) (ii) Whether To recognise the possible low frequency of the need for the total parking requirement is recognised. The further policies within Rule Separation Distances The extent to which To avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects on noise and other environmental disturbance to surrounding residential areas are avoided or mitigated. The extent to which To ensure the location of the building contributes positively to the -is ffi-character with and complementary to the existing ambience and amenity values of the surrounding environmentai:ea. ' Explanation 1''l'l''ijl',l1 1"" 4,v""'"'.11:111 rr In certain circumstances it will not be possible for either the parking rt;f~uirem k 1. distances to be achieved. The additional policies are intended to assjst in ' 1 ~ ssessin the matters covered by Section 104 of the Act, the appropriatene~~ _ot ' 1 ~ (ia(lfihfj.. con conditions. congregation. (c) (i) Entrance Hierarchy ~1~ 1111 ij'i;., " t'l'' I~ l.wj1t , illii1''1 rl'il1li 1 '' A primary main entrance point frdfun.,, the. corri'er of Waldegrave Street and Cuba ii (iii) :l:j111~ I. I The extenuo VJnic l:ile spa ial planning and overall aesthetic of entrances and their associated s ace 's!t111,co 1 ~i ni ~ ID:utes toward a clear understandin of where users are with i n~w~~~na ~! 'llllwmj1111.~ 1 ". lltti111.. :. ' I Th'e extent ltg>. whicb'!il 1 major and minor entrance spaces are differentiated to create a 111 unique chara 1 ~.ter"for individual entrance points whilst retaining overall coherency as part'ii' JArena1, 'illl' '' " 1 ' ill/ ll~il!ii lll l l ij ' : li iliiw!'' I". :. 1. ~ lll lj1 il111., Bmlt 1lironta es "l/;i'1'1 "' 1 0~1.1' ' 'idl 1 i 11...iiliihe extent to which build in entrances and internal activities are located to ' llij(.' encourage activity at the street edge and onto internal concourse spaces. (ii) Whether blank walls at the street edge are avoided. (e) (i) (ii) High Quality Civic Space The extent to which a high quality pedestrian-orientated civic space is created at the Waldegrave Street/Cuba Street entrance. The extent to which welcoming entrance spaces are created through spatial definition and landscaping treatments.

97 I Palmerston North City Council District Plan October 2005 fet--the extent to which To ensure the design and appearance of any structure contributes positively to the is--ir-character witj::l-and complementary to the ambience and amenity values of the surrounding adjoining residential neighbourhoods environment. (e) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with the Arena Master Plan (Map 15.2). Explanation This category of activity is intended to deal with activities and facilities which do not fall within the other categories provided for in this Zone. As such they are essentially "one-off" developments which need careful assessment to ensure that effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated, that they fit into the existing environment and do not undermine the essential character of the Zone. Note to Plan Users: Also refer to Rule ill - Radiofrequency Field ~~P,q.~u ~ilifr '.''.! ' 1,, \) olicies... ;;,;1i 1111 Assessment Criteria c The extent to which. adv and other environmental disturbance residential ro erties are avoidem: 11 :; (d) \iii/ii: The extent to 111i.whieh the v1sua of any activities preserve the character and amenity of the f\lrenali'.tzone. ''.1!11:1 :r '. :,' "" " ;'"~'!. I ::~, (e) The eme~l tom1wlilic cts, of the proposal on any areas of natural and/or cultural heritage'rl:1al1.i'ee"orcgf:1sid' 1 fi 1 ificance to tangata whenua are avoided or mitigated. 11\ ;!1 ;.I ~I~, ~ 1 llll l l!li 1 I: : '" Th.e. extent to' ~l\.v.h1cn' the effects of noise includin the eak sound levels resultin from im '!\!J'lsive noise''wn acts on noise sensitive activities. ' "lil'lil,,'' f li t!~ Iµ i /llllll1ll:l~ :g~. iifhe exten to which a Noise Management Plan. prepared by an acoustical consultant " ////1 ; 111.a 'n'd,::;~~.~hiitted at the time of application for a resource consent. identifies the likely noise ' 'a~ impa cts for the area and describes the noise management measures to avoid, remedy ~r mitigate adverse effects of noise, including best practicable options adopted to ;'.'minimise sound emissions from live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition and single or multiple explosive events. (h) The extent to which a community consultation orooramme, submitted at the time of application for a resource consent, has been developed for communication with occupiers and owners surrounding the site and council will be implemented prior to the military training activities commencing, and includes notification of event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received during or after the event and the process of liaison with Council Rules : Non-Compl in Activities

98 21 ANNEXUREC A list of names and addresses to be served with a copy of this notice Palmerston North City Council Private Bag Palmerston North Attn: The Chief Executive New Zealand Institute of Architects Western Branch c/- Proarch Consultants Limited 306 Church Street West Palmerston North 4440 amanda@proarch.co.nz darren@shadboltarchitects.co.nz felicity@inspire.net.nz