proposed plan change number 6: richard pearse airport

TIMARU DISTRICT PLAN

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE NUMBER 6:

RICHARD PEARSE AIRPORT

APPEARANCES: For the Council: Mr. M. J. Foster, a resource management consultant, together with Mr M. Elworthy, Timaru Airport property manager. Submitters: Mrs N. A. O Hyslop (also speaking on behalf of J. A. Hyslop; R & E. Hart; T. Howey and L. Gaffaney); Mr J. R. Hart; Counsel Mr J Gardner-Hopkins (for Air New Zealand Limited); Mr B. Everett; Mr R. B. Willis (for Environment Canterbury); Mrs J. R. Lobb; Mr P. Constantine a resource management consultant (for Te Nahi Enterprises Ltd.); Mr P. Bennett (for Timaru Golf Club). Section 42A reporter: Mr G. Osborne, a planning consultant, assisted by Ms F. Eunson, Council’s Senior Policy Planner.

1.0 Background and Introduction 1.1 Pursuant to instructions from the Council, I attended at the Council’s offices

in Timaru on Thursday 27th September 2007 and conducted a hearing of submissions on proposed Plan Change Number 6 (‘PPC6’) concerning proposed changes to land use controls in the vicinity of Richard Pearse Airport (‘the Airport’). No procedural issues were raised at the outset or during the course of the hearing.

1.2 On Friday 28th September I carried out an inspection of the general areas of

land surrounding the Airport that had been referred to in various submissions. Pending receipt of some further details of the specific co-ordinates required to locate the proposed 500m ‘clearway’ at the end of the glider/cross runway, I concluded the formal hearing following that site visit.

1.3 As this hearing is concerned with a proposed change to the District Plan,

only the Council as Local Authority may finally determine whether or not to accept the recommendations contained in this report and as a consequence whether this Change is to be confirmed, amended or withdrawn.

1.4 Proposed Plan Change 6 has the following features:

Revision of the position of the Airport Noise Boundary; Additional rules controlling subdivision and noise sensitive activities

within the Airport Noise Boundary; A proposed 1000 metre buffer area beyond the Airport Noise Boundary;

requiring assessment of the effects of airport noise on noise sensitive activities which might result from subdivision and residential development of land within that buffer;

The establishment of noise standards for aircraft engine testing;

Doc# 493775

2

Amendment of flight paths, horizontal and conical obstacle limitation surfaces;

Changes to the definition of aircraft operations; Definition of the activities authorised by the Airport Designation; The alteration of controls on buildings within 500m of the ends of the

runways in rule 6.11.5(2); The introduction of new obstacle limitation surfaces for the future

extended main runway and the grass cross wind and glider runways.

1.5 PPC6 was notified in February 2007 and a total of 20 ‘original’ submissions and 3 ‘further submissions’ were lodged. Of those original submissions, broadly 18 were in opposition to the Change, or some particular aspect of it, while 2 were wholly in support. A number of submissions were expressed in virtually identical terms. Many of the submissions in opposition/support identified ‘multiple’ points of concern.

1.6 Prior to the hearing a report pursuant to s42A of the Act was prepared by Mr Osborne as consultant commissioned by the Council to address the planning and noise issues raised by the above submissions. That report had been circulated to all parties. It concluded with a recommendation that PPC6 proceed, subject to a range of recommended amendments.

2.0 The Hearing Proposed Change 6 - the Council’s case

2.1 Mr Foster outlined the background studies leading to the preparation of PPC6. In February 2006, Mr Foster’s planning consultancy ‘Astral / Zomac’ in association with Marshall Day Acoustics, was commissioned by the Council to carry out a review of the existing air-noise boundary provisions applying to the Airport together with the need for a future runway extension. They were also required to determine whether the District Plan’s provisions for subdivision and development in the vicinity of the Airport and the maintenance and protection of the Airport’s on-going operations were adequate or otherwise. The Astral / Zomac report concluded that a number of changes to the provisions of the District Plan were necessary and PPC6 resulted.

2.2 Mr Foster observed that the Airport is a significant element of Timaru

district’s transport infrastructure. In his view, and with one important exception, he accepted that the detailed amendments proposed by PPC6 are based upon current ‘best aviation planning practice’. Given the potential for ‘reverse sensitivity’ effects to impact upon the continuing operation of the Airport, he concluded that the development of any further noise sensitive activity around the perimeter of the Airport should be strongly resisted and strictly controlled.

2.3 Revised projections of aircraft noise for the period 2026 were produced by

Marshall Day Associates (‘MDA’) utilising the ‘Integrated Noise Model’, which incorporated updated information on the types of aircraft, flight paths and frequency of operations anticipated at the Airport. Those projections indicated that the ‘existing’ air-noise contours provide inadequate protection at the northern end of the main runway, while the extent of the projected contour is somewhat reduced at the southern end of that runway. The projection indicates that noise contours from the more limited use of cross-

Doc# 493775

3

wind runways fall largely within the Airport perimeter. No air-noise contours are currently shown in the district Plan for that cross-runway.

2.4 The 2026 INM projections were made on the following assumptions:

A compounding aircraft movement annual growth rate of 4%; A 20 year growth horizon; The split of air traffic movements between the main and cross-wind

runways being the same as currently exists; The adoption of the ATR 72 as the primary design aircraft; and Continued use of the cross-wind runway by fixed-pitch glider- tow

aircraft. 2.5 Given those projections, Mr Foster’s primary ‘exception’ to the proposals of

PPC6 (referred to in paragraph 2.2 above) was that in his opinion the proposed “1,000m buffer zone” beyond the projected air-noise boundary could not be justified. He qualified that conclusion on the basis that the proposed classification of subdivision as a ‘non-complying activity’ within the projected 55 dBA Ldn boundary would otherwise be retained in PPC6. In most other respects he largely endorsed the recommendations proposed in Mr Osborne’s s42A report.

2.6 In summary Mr Foster observed that the current zoning of land around the

Airport is largely Rural 1 together with some Rural 2. The planning emphasis in these zones is on primary production activities and soil quality rather than the establishment of residential or rural-residential development. In his experience, the latter forms of development have been observed throughout New Zealand to be those most likely to generate increasing complaints about aircraft noise and / or pressures to curtail airport operations. In that context he referred to the provisions of the New Zealand Standard NZS6805:1992 “Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning” as being generally appropriate to land use planning in the vicinity of this Airport.

2.7 That Standard involves the identification of an ‘Outer Control Boundary’

(‘OCB’) at 55 dBA Ldn, and an inner ‘Air-noise boundary’ (‘ANB’) of 65 dBA Ldn. The OCB boundary also represents a limitation of the level of noise within which the Airport is to operate its activities. The Standard further recommends that within the ANB, new noise sensitive activities (including residential activity) should be prohibited and within the ANB they should also be prohibited unless they can be provided with sound insulation to ensure a satisfactory internal noise environment – the World Health Organisation standard for which is 40 dBA.

2.8 While accepting that PPC6 proposes simply the addition of a further

assessment criterion to be applied to the consideration of applications for subdivision as ‘discretionary activities’ within the ANB, it was Mr Foster’s view that any proposal for subdivision in the Rural 1 inside the projected ANB should become a non-complying activity, rather than as currently proposed.

2.9 Turning to other aspects of the proposed Change, Mr Foster explained that

these dealt with the inclusion of ‘obstacle limitation surfaces’ (‘OLS’) for the cross-wind runway, as well as the application of noise contours to that runway. Neither of these provisions are contained in the existing District Plan. Further proposed changes include clarification of the definition of

Doc# 493775

4

‘aircraft operations’ and the types of activities exempt from the air-noise boundary constraints.

2.10 PPC6 proposes controls on buildings within 500m of the thresholds of each

of the runways for both environmental and safety reasons. The net ‘intrusions’ of these controls into the surrounding ‘Rural 1’ zoned area is 350.0m beyond the thresholds at either end of the main runway. For the cross-runway the respective distances are 270m beyond the western threshold and 113m beyond the eastern threshold.

2.11 Referring to the s42A report, Mr Foster noted the concerns expressed about

the lack of cross-reference to the effects upon the existing Airport ‘designation’ proposed by the detailed amendments in PPC6. In his view those were matters that could be addressed by the Council as ‘Requiring Authority’ for the Airport, pursuant to s181 of the Act (Alteration of a Designation) once a decision on PPC6 has been made. The issue here is that the current designated purpose for the Airport set out in the District Plan is simply as an “Aerodrome” - with no further qualification of what activities that might include. If that activity is to be elaborated upon (i.e. a more detailed specification in the District Plan of the range of activities to be provided for by the designation), then only the ‘Requiring Authority’ - in this case the Council in its capacity as Airport Authority, can vary such details pursuant to s181 of the Act.

2.12 The s42A report also raised the issue of the desirability of monitoring of

compliance by Airport operations at the 65 dBA Ldn contour operational noise ‘limit’ reflected by the proposed ANB. Mr Foster pointed out that such monitoring was not a simple matter given that the ANB was a ‘composite’ noise boundary incorporating both ‘night-weighting’ (‘Ldn’) as well as ‘sound exposure level’ (‘SEL’) elements, all of which would need to be incorporated in any monitoring records. He therefore opposed the ‘additional’ level of monitoring recommended by Mr Osborne beyond that originally notified in PPC6, considering such a level to be inappropriate given the current scale of aircraft movements at the Airport and the expense this would involve for little likely benefit in the early part of the Airport’s next 20 years of operations.

Submitter’s Concerns 2.13 Mrs N. A. O. Hyslop spoke on behalf of the submissions by herself, J. A.

Hyslop, R & E. Hart, T. Howey, and L. Gaffaney. While generally supportive of the need to protect the future operations of the Airport, these submitters were concerned with the likely impact on their property right values, particularly of the proposed 1,000m buffer area and also the control of future subdivision and rural residential development within the current and / or proposed ANB.

2.14 As an example of the potential financial impact of PPC6, Mr J. R. Hart tabled

a draft valuation report prepared for their 47ha property at 403 Pleasant Point Highway which would be totally affected by the proposed buffer area and the revision to the ANB. The property is only partly overlain by the existing (operative) ANB. That report concluded that a potential difference (loss) in property value could be of the order of $112,000. Mr Hart confirmed that they had lived in this location for the past 36 years and have not considered the Airport’s activities to pose any nuisance or restriction to the property’s future subdivision potential. While he was prepared to accept

Doc# 493775

5

the desirability of building insulation he considered that the Council should bear some cost of increased constraints on his property.

2.15 Speaking to Air New Zealand Limited’s (ANZL) submission and further

submissions, Mr Gardner-Hopkins presented legal submissions on a range of matters. As owner of Eagle Airways, the company responsible for all commercial transport operations at the Airport, ANZL broadly supports PPC6. It broadly endorsed the intentions to provide for the future extension of the main runway and the associated changes to the air-noise contours and flight-path protection surfaces. In particular the ANZL submission was concerned to manage subdivision close to or within the ANB so as to avoid the potential for ‘reverse sensitivity conflicts’.

2.16 Mr Gardner-Hopkins noted the ‘consent order’ recently agreed between

parties to the proposal by Te Nahi Enterprise Limited (‘Te Nahi’) to establish 7 new residential lots and expressed concern that this now appeared to be a pre-cursor to a further potential 60 lot subdivision in association with the Timaru Golf Club on land adjoining the perimeter of the Airport. For these reasons ANZL supports the proposition in PPC6 to introduce a further 1,000m buffer area beyond the ANB. However, it questioned the proposal that within this area Council’s assessment of any application for further subdivision as a ‘controlled activity’ would only be subject to the exercise of a discretion to consider the environmental effects of Airport operations on noise sensitive activities. In ANZL’s view, any noise sensitive development both within the ANB and the proposed buffer area should be considered as a non-complying activity.

2.17 Lastly ANZL’s submission expressed concern about possible restrictions on

aircraft engine testing which might inhibit its ability to maintain its aircraft and scheduled flight services. In this regard it is prepared to accept the proposal that up to 20 ‘exceptions’ to the general engine testing rule be permitted and that the point of measurement for compliance with that rule be at the notional boundary of any household unit.

2.18 Submitter Mr B. Everett made a brief statement to the effect that if the

proposed 1,000m buffer area did not proceed further, his concerns would be satisfied.

2.19 Mr B. Willis presented the submission by the Canterbury Regional Council

(‘ECan’) which is to support the generality of PPC6, particularly as it is intended to give effect to specific provisions of the Regional Policy Statement and policies in the District Plan to protect the efficient use, operation and development of local, regional and nationally significant transport infrastructure such as the Timaru Airport. In particular he referred to the RPS provisions in Chapter 12 ‘Settlement and the Built Environment’; Chapter 14 ‘Energy’; and Chapter 15 ‘Transport’. In his view it was important to ensure that urban-type development was located so as to avoid potential adverse effects on the environment including: Loss of or constraints on the use of, productive rural land; Encroachment of noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of airports; Increased exposure to crash risks of intensified residential development

under flight paths.

2.20 ECan’s submission seeks to strengthen PPC6. He was concerned that no reference had been made in Mr Osborne’s report to the potential for

Doc# 493775

6

precedents and cumulative effects to be established by resource consents in proximity to the Airport. For those reasons, ECan’s submission seeks non-complying activity status for subdivision proposals within the 1,000m buffer area. In the alternative, he suggested that ‘non-complying’ status apply to subdivision within the ANB and ‘discretionary activity’ status within that part of the 1,000m area that may otherwise be contained within an ‘alternative’ 50 dBA Ldn ANB contour.

2.21 Turning to safety concerns, Mr Willis referred to the potential danger of trees

planted within the approach and take-off protection areas. While the s42A report recommends that such issues be dealt with by monitoring, Mr Willis’ view is that such ‘obstacles’ could add unnecessary hazard in the event of aircraft in crash / over or under-shooting situations.

2.22 Mrs Lobb endorsed the recommendations contained in Mr Osborne’s s42A

report, in particular the abandonment of the proposed 1,000m buffer area and its related controls. She questioned the timing and justification for PPC6 suggesting that it was an attempt to pre-empt proposals for further subdivision, in particular the Te Nahi and Timaru Golf Club development concepts. She stressed the need for clarity and consistency in the application of District Plan rules, so that reliance could be placed on the results of the District Plan making process.

2.23 Mr Bennett spoke to the submission on behalf of the Timaru Golf Club (‘the

Club’). He confirmed that the Club had been established in the mid-1950s and had co-existed alongside the Airport’s operations without any difficulties over that period. In order to maintain its facilities in an increasingly competitive environment, the Club was now contemplating ways in which it could increase course revenue, including the provision of on-course residential accommodation.

2.24 The Club opposed the proposed 1,000m buffer area as being unnecessary.

It considers the Ldn 65 and Ldn 55 noise standards in NZS6805:1992 to be appropriate but opposes the potential imposition of a Ldn 50 air-noise contour. Mr Bennett expressed concern that the building restrictions envisaged within the 500 flight path area for the ‘cross-runway’ would be likely to interfere with the operation of the golf course in terms of ‘buildings’ such as pump sheds and safety fence structures, and the Club seeks exemptions to allow for such structures within this area.

2.25 Mr Constantine was commissioned by Te Nahi Enterprises Limited (‘Te

Nahi’) and Mr B. Lobb to consider and present planning evidence on PPC6. He had been engaged for approximately 2 years prior to this in advising Te Nahi in respect of development options for its land on Lynch Road to the east of the Airport, opposite the Golf Club. In brief these submitters are concerned that: There is no justification for the 1,000m buffer area; The proposed provisions for engine testing could produce significant

adverse environmental effects; The location of the proposed building prohibition extending 500m from

the runway ends is not adequately specified; The proposed provision for “outdoor recreation activities deemed to be

compatible with aerodrome activities” is not adequately defined and is inappropriate in terms of the financial responsibilities of the Airport as ‘Requiring Authority’ in relation to its existing designation.

Doc# 493775

7

2.26 Mr Constantine endorsed the conclusions of the s42A report which

recommended the abandonment of the 1,000m buffer area. However he did not accept that an alternative to that approach should be the regulation of subdivision within a 50 dBA Ldn contour, nor did he consider that possibility to be within the scope of PPC6 as currently proposed. While accepting the desirability of monitoring noise from Airport operations, he requested that the provision recommended by the s42A report should be further amended to include specific reporting requirements.

S42A Report / Response 2.27 Mr Osborne’s s42A report was taken as read. He responded to four issues

that had been raised by submitters during the course of the hearing: Monitoring The 500m ‘clearway’ The status of outdoor recreation activity at the Airport Engine testing. He noted that in paragraph 85 of his report, rule 5.23.2 (c) he had recommended an initial monitoring report after the first 6 months of this rule becoming operative. Thereafter he considered that because such reporting was essentially ‘derived’ from aircraft landing records, it would be reasonable for longer intervals (as recommended in rule 5.23.2 (d)) between the compilation and reporting of such information (other than perhaps in response to specific complaints), given that it would be likely to be many years before the predicted 2026 composite 65 dBA Ldn noise level was approached. He accepted that more accurate co-ordinates were required to be provided by the Council to accurately map the ‘500m’ clearway. He also agreed with Mr Constantine’s view that the proposed ‘definition’ of recreation activity was too imprecise, and that it should be deleted from PPC6. Finally on the matter of engine testing, he also accepted that the proposed rule 5.23.1 required some further re-wording to remove potential ambiguities. Right of Reply

2.28 Mr Foster was accorded a ‘right of reply’ on behalf of the Council as proponents of PPC6. Accepting that there appeared to be no justification for the proposed ‘1,000m buffer’ concept, he considered that with its abandonment and various minor amendments to detailed provisions in the proposed Change, the majority of submitters concerns would be satisfied.

3.0 Assessment and Recommendations 3.1 There are two separate though interrelated issues that have a bearing upon

the intentions behind PPC6. Neither of these can be settled by this proposed Change. The first matter concerns general provisions in the District Plan that enable rural / residential subdivision within Rural zones. Those provisions will continue to apply to land that surrounds the Airport beyond that immediately concerned in PPC6.

3.2 The second matter concerns a procedural relationship between the

proposals in PPC6 and the separate ‘designation’ of the Airport land as an ‘Aerodrome’. Some of the provisions in PPC6 seek to impose land use or other controls on the operations of the Airport within its designated area. Unless those provisions are confirmed in identical terms by a subsequent change to the current designation/requirement via alteration to the ‘Notice of Requirement’ (by the Council as the ‘Requiring Authority’ for the Airport,

Doc# 493775

8

pursuant to s181 of the Act) they are likely to conflict with s176 (2) of the Act. I note that Mr Osborne’s report recognised this difficulty. Ideally PPC6 and a Notice by the Airport Requiring Authority pursuant to section 181 of the Act and dealing with common issues should have been prepared and considered together.

3.3 It is clearly beyond my commission in relation to PPC6 to make

recommendations to the Council that if acted upon would be ‘binding’ upon its separate function as ‘Requiring Authority’ for the Airport. However, I was assured by Mr Foster that any recommendations on PPC6 that are accepted by the Council as Territorial Local Authority, would then be reflected in a subsequent s181 application by the Airport ‘Requiring Authority’ to alter the current terms of its designation so as to coincide with related (PPC6) provisions in the District Plan.

3.4 The purpose of PPC6 is to impose planning controls on the subdivision and

use of land for noise sensitive activities within that area likely to be affected by the projected 2026 55 dBA Ldn ANB, together with operational noise such as aircraft engine testing, or other noise generating activities within the boundaries of the Airport. As notified PPC6 goes further, to suggest additional land use and subdivision controls within an area extending 1,000m beyond the proposed ANB in directions. In addition, further and ‘up-dated’ controls are proposed on the location and height of potential obstructions under the flight paths of aircraft approaching / departing the Airport.

3.5 In some respects, the proposed 1,000m ‘buffer area’ could be seen to be

consistent with an overall desire not to continue to enable noise sensitive activities to become established in close proximity to an obvious noise source that is also a major transport facility, the continuing un-fettered operation of which is of national and regional significance to the economy of the District.

3.6 However, having considered the professional planning opinions expressed

by both Mr Osborne and by Mr Foster, I accept that the specification of the “1,000m buffer area” is arbitrary and cannot be supported in those terms. The primary problem with such a rule is that it appears to be a reaction to the relatively permissive nature of the current subdivision rules of the District Plan for the Rural 1 and 2 Zones in this area. These enable the potential for ‘reverse sensitivity’ conflicts to occur between what are essentially ‘rural residential’ activities and other activities appropriately located in such zones. If that is the matter of concern to the Council in relation to existing and future Airport operations, or indeed any other noise generated by recreational or industrial activities in the Levels area, then it would be more appropriate to deal with it by a further Plan change to review those Rural land use and subdivision provisions as a whole.

3.7 Returning to the matter of Airport operation, NZS6805:1992 (‘the Standard’)

provides specific guidelines on the issue of Airport Noise Management and Land use Planning. A night-time weighted ’noise level’ of 55 dBA Ldn is recommended by that Standard as an appropriate level within which noise sensitive activities should be restricted (the Standard refers to “prohibiting” such activities). The Standard also states that a higher level of noise protection may be adopted where a local authority chooses to do so (such as the 50 dBA Ldn level requested by some submitters). In determining an

Doc# 493775

9

appropriate noise threshold, it is also sensible in my view to have regard to the level of airport activity from which such ‘protection’ is being afforded.

3.8 For smaller airports, such as Timaru, rather than producing separate ‘air-

noise’ and ‘outer-control’ boundaries referred to in the Standard, a single ‘composite’ ANB is proposed, as in this instance. This combines a projected single event ‘sound exposure level’ noise (‘SEL’) of 95 dBA with the 55dBA Ldn. In this instance I am satisfied that this ‘composite’ 55 dBA Ldn / SEL 95dBA contour is appropriate to manage the level and extent of aircraft noise anticipated to be generated by Airport related activity to 2026.

3.9 The difference in area now affected by the revision of the ANB in PPC6 from

that shown in the operative District Plan is dictated by the data input to and output from the ‘up-dated’ version of the INM referred to in the Marshall Day report. Although there was some question as to the aircraft type(s) input to the model for cross-runway use, it was clarified that this was primarily to reflect fixed-pitch glider-tow aircraft, not the passenger service aircraft types used for the main runway assessment. At present there is no ANB covering the use of the cross-runway.

3.10 Reference to the Marshall Day report (appended to the Astral / Zomac report

on which PPC6 was founded), indicates that in addition to utilising the ‘up-dated’ version of the INM software (compared to that which produced the ANB contour in the operative District Plan), more accurate flight track information for aircraft using the main runway was provided by Astral Aviation Consultants for the 2026 projected ANB. I am therefore satisfied that the both the location and extent of the updated composite 55 dBA Ldn / SEL 95dBA contour as the ANB in PPC6 has been established in accordance with the methodology set out in NZS 6805:1992. Outside the Airport property, further subdivision for rural - residential lifestyle purposes in this general area is still potential. I therefore conclude that consistent with the provisions of the Regional Policy Statement concerning the strategic importance of protecting the on-going operation of the Airport in transportation terms, and in accordance with the land use planning guidelines provided in NZS 6805:1992, future subdivision within the proposed composite ANB should be assessed as a non-complying activity.

3.11 Noise from aircraft engine testing or other activities conducted on the Airport

is not a factor that is included in the INM projection. In my opinion it is appropriate that PPC6 addresses this matter separately and I generally endorse the recommendations made by Mr Osborne subject to the amendments now referred to in Annexure A to this report. However as noted earlier, there remains a procedural issue of potential conflict between the rules envisaged by PPC6 and the existing designation authorising ‘Aerodrome’ activity. There are currently no restrictions either in that designation ‘Requirement’, or in the District Plan relating to the control of aircraft engine testing noise from Airport-related activities.

3.12 I therefore accept that such provisions are desirable to protect amenity

values in the surrounding rural area. However such provisions must also recognise the necessary maintenance of aircraft engines and or occasional emergency maintenance requirements of aircraft operators using the Airport. The ‘controls’ recommended for this purpose in PPC6 are still subject to the reservations expressed in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 above about the need for their inclusion in the terms of the designation Requirement for the Airport.

Doc# 493775

10

3.13 Although not exclusively related to the issue of noise, PPC6 also proposes

amending the description of activities that may occur within the terms of the Airport designation. Again this illustrates the need for a proper relationship between the ‘Requirement’ and ‘Plan change’ processes in this instance. While clarification of the range of activities to be authorised by the Airport designation is desirable, it is again properly a matter for the Requiring Authority to confirm. A particular detail challenged by submitters in this respect relates to the range of potential outdoor recreation activities that might be enabled within the airport property. I accept that as proposed in PPC6, the wording in relation to outdoor recreation activity is extremely vague, would be ambiguous to administer and should not proceed in that form.

3.14 PPC6 proposes detailed changes to the flight protection areas extending out

from the main and cross-wind runways, including height limitations on buildings and other structures within the horizontal and vertical planes created by these protection areas. As notified these details were not well defined in location terms and I conclude that further detail / clarification of the location and extent of these proposals is justified.

3.15 Finally, the adoption of a composite 55 dBA Ldn / SEL 95dBA air-noise

boundary places a ‘ceiling’ on the growth of airport noise (the so-called ‘noise-bucket’), as well as defining an area within which noise sensitive activities should be discouraged. No monitoring of compliance with that predicted level of noise by the Airport operator appears to be intended by PPC6 as originally notified. Mr Osborne recommended that such monitoring should be undertaken, measured so as not to be exceeded beyond 55 dBA Ldn contour. However, as Mr Foster pointed out that contour line is a ‘composite’ projection and if monitoring measurements are to be made, that would seem to be more appropriately measured beyond the 65 dBA Ldn contour - not currently proposed to be shown on Planning Map 22. The 65 dBA Ldn contour should therefore be added to Planning Map 22.

3.16 The use of predicted air-noise contours as a means to control subdivision

and land use beyond the boundary of the Airport is effectively a two-way ‘covenant’ that while the land within such contours is anticipated to be affected to a specified noise level, the Airport operator is also subject to ‘control’ not to exceed the air-noise level set by those contours. As with any other activity, compliance with such control requires an ability to monitor its effectiveness periodically.

3.17 I am satisfied that the concerns raised by submissions on PPC6 justify a

requirement for such monitoring. Mr Osborne’s s42A report recommended the production of an initial ‘baseline’ monitoring report within 6 months of PPC becoming operative and thereafter a two yearly period for similar reporting. Mr Foster expressed concern about the cost and practicability involved in gathering such data, and questioned the necessity for such a ‘short’ repeat process, at least over the next few years when the scale of aircraft movement will still be well below that forecast for 2026. There is justification for that view and I conclude that a repeat monitoring period of five years (the normal mid-term of a district plan) would be more reasonable for that purpose.

Doc# 493775

11

3.18 On the basis of the above assessment and for the reasons stated. I therefore recommend to the Timaru District Council that:- (a) subject to the recommended amendments set out in Annexure A to

this report the Council confirm the adoption of Proposed Plan Change 6 to the Timaru District Plan; and further,

(b) consistent with the above reasons and decision that the Council accept, accept in part or reject those submissions on Proposed Plan Change 6, as recommended in Annexure B to this report.

Many of the submissions and further submissions summarised in Annexure B were of a pro-forma nature and generalised in their ambit. While many ostensibly sought the general deletion of any provisions related to air-noise effects, it was evident from those submitters who attended the hearing that a primary area of concern was the proposed 1,000m buffer area. In recommending acceptance / acceptance in part / or rejection of submissions, I have therefore sought to reflect my response to what I perceived to be their primary focus.

3.19 I further recommend the Council in its capacity as Requiring authority for the Timaru Airport, to give consideration to the reconciliation of the provisions of Proposed Plan Change 6 (amended as recommended in 3.18 (a) and Annexure A) with the terms of the current ‘Designation’ of the Airport contained within the operative Timaru District Plan.

3.20 Should the Council in its capacity as Requiring Authority for the Airport

determine to issue a notice of alteration to its designation pursuant to s181 of the Act for the purposes referred to in 3.19 above, and if it accepts the recommendation in 3.18 (a) above, then I further recommend that the Council delay confirmation of the date on which the provisions of PPC6 shall become operative, until all of the procedures (including any appeal procedures) attendant upon s181 of the Act have been concluded.

R. W. Batty Hearing commissioner, Proposed Plan Change 6 November 30th 2007

Doc# 493775

12

ANNEXURE A

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 TIMARU DISTRICT PLAN PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE NO 6

The purpose of this Proposed Plan Change is to make amendments to the Timaru District Plan in respect of provisions relating to the Richard Pearse Airport with the aim of further protecting the airport from encroachment by incompatible land use activities and to facilitate the ongoing development of Richard Pearse Airport. For ease of understanding the proposed alterations to the rules, all proposed additions are identified in bold type and all deletions are identified with a strikethrough the text. 1 PART D RURAL ZONE POLICIES (a) Amend Policy 1.4.3 (2) by inserting the following new paragraph after the

second paragraph in this policy:

“Subdivision for Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise within the Airport Noise Boundary shall be avoided.”

(b) Amend the Explanation and Principle Reason for Policy 1.4.3 by inserting the

following paragraph at the beginning of the text:

“The establishment of Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise within the Airport Noise Boundary, particularly household units, can be incompatible with the efficient use and development of the airport and may adversely affect the operation of the airport by creating the potential for conflict, particularly in respect of noise emissions from airport activities.”

Explanation: The revised Airport Noise Boundary will address potential subdivision and land use conflicts arising within the Boundary. Subdivision within the Boundary will be a non-complying activity.

2 PART D RURAL RULES (a) Amend Rule 1.10.1 (5.23) by replacing it with the following:

5.23.2 Noise from Aircraft Operations (a) The Timaru Airport shall be operated so that noise from

aircraft operations (aircraft landing and taking off, aircraft taxiing and aircraft flying along any flight path within the Airport Noise Boundary) shall not exceed a Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn) of 65dBA outside the Ldn 65dBA contour shown on the Planning Maps. For the purpose of this control aircraft noise shall be calculated as a 3 month

Doc# 493775

13

rolling logarithmic average in accordance with NZS 6805:1992 using the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM) and records of actual aircraft operations.

(b) Noise from the following aircraft operations shall be

excluded from the compliance calculations set out above: (i) aircraft landing or taking off in an emergency; (ii) aircraft using the Airport as a planned or essential

alternative to landing at another scheduled airport; (iii) emergency flights required to rescue persons from

life threatening situations or to transport patients, human organs or medical personnel in medical emergency situations;

(iv) flights required to meet the needs of a national or civil defence emergency declared under the Civil Defence Act 1983;

(v) flights certified by the Minister of Defence as necessary for reasons of National Security in accordance with Section 4 of the Act;

(vi) aircraft undertaking fire fighting duties; (vii) military aircraft movements; and (viii) aircraft using the Airport in preparation for and

participation in air shows;

(c) A report detailing the calculated noise levels at the 2026 Ldn 65 dBA contour shown on the planning maps shall be prepared by the airport operator and forwarded to the Council every five years or more frequently if the Council requests. The first such report shall be forwarded to the Council within six months of this Rule becoming operative.

(d) Noise level measurements shall be carried out for a

minimum of three months every five years to audit compliance with this rule and a report on the results of such monitoring shall be forwarded to the Council within one month of that monitoring being completed. Noise level measurements shall be undertaken in accordance with NZS6805:1992 Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning.

Explanation: The existing rule includes a brief definition of “aircraft operation” but does not contain any enforceable monitoring requirements in terms of controlling noise emissions from those operations. The proposed definition expands the existing definition and exempts emergency, military flights and air shows from being included in 3-month average calculation. Other district plans typically include a similar list of exceptions eg the Queenstown-Lakes District Plan (see pA1 - 35). It is standard practice in the calculation of airport noise at airports around New Zealand to list aircraft noise exemptions in the District Plan controls. It is also standard practise to include enforceable monitoring requirements at a readily measurable noise boundary (Ldn 65 dBA).

Doc# 493775

14

(b) Amend Rule 1.10.1 (5.23) by adding a new rule dealing with engine testing at the Airport as follows: 5.23.1 Aircraft Engine Testing Noise levels from Aircraft Engine Testing shall comply with the following:

(a) Between the hours of 7am and 11pm, noise generated by aircraft

engine testing and measured at the notional boundary of any household unit in the Rural zone outside the Airport Designation shall not exceed 55dBA Leq (16 hours); and

(b) All aircraft engine testing shall be scheduled to take place

between 7am and 11pm and only essential unscheduled aircraft engine maintenance and testing shall take place outside those hours.

(c) In some situations it may be necessary to conduct essential unscheduled aircraft maintenance and engine testing between 11pm and 7 am. Such essential unscheduled aircraft maintenance and engine testing shall take place on no more than 20 occasions per year and noise from such engine maintenance and testing shall not exceed the following noise levels at the notional boundary of any household unit in the Rural zone outside the Airport Designation:

Time Period Noise Level

All days 11.00 pm to 7.00 am 55dBA Leq (8 hours)

All days 11.00 pm to 7.00 am 80dBA Lmax

(d) Where practical all essential unscheduled aircraft engine

maintenance and testing shall take place between the hours of 7am and midnight and the total duration of engine testing shall not exceed 1 hour in any 11.00pm to 7am period. On each of these occasions the date, time, together with the duration and reason for the tests shall be recorded and made available to the Timaru District Council within 10 days upon request.

(e) The Airport operator shall maintain a register of any complaints

received relating to noise from any activities within the Airport, such register to record the date, time, duration and cause of the complaint, together with the name and address of the complainant. A copy of this Register shall be made available to the Timaru District Council within 10 days upon request.

(f) For the purpose of this control aircraft engine testing shall be

measured in accordance with NZS 6801:1999 Acoustics: Measurement of Environmental Sound.

Doc# 493775

15

Explanation: Currently there is no provision for “aircraft engine testing” in the Timaru District Plan. The proposed wording is similar to district plan rules applying to similar provincial airports in New Zealand The proposed amendment to Policy 1.4.3(1) provides assessment criteria against which activities requiring resource consent can be assessed.

(c) Amend Rule 1.10.2 (1.4) to read:

“A single household unit on a site of not less than 1000 square metres, except within the Airport Noise Boundary around Richard Pearse Airport, as identified on Planning Map No.22.”

(d) Amend Rule 1.10.2(1.6) to read:

“Accommodation for a dependent relative, provided that no subdivision is involved except within the Airport Noise Boundary around the Richard Pearse Airport as identified on Planning Map No 22.”

Explanation: These amendments mean that rules in respect of household units in the Rural 2 Zone will have similar wording to comparable rules in the Rural 1 Zone. Proposals to locate dwellings within the Airport Noise Boundary will need to obtain resource consent approval. It is assumed that this inconsistency results from an oversight during the final drafting of the Proposed District Plan prior to Decisions on submissions being notified in 1998.

3 PART D GENERAL RULES (a) Amend Rule 6.3.6 Non-Complying Activities In All Zones by adding the

following:

“(ii) Any subdivision within the Airport Noise Boundary.” (b) Delete General Rule 6.3.12(2)(3)(d) which reads:

“No rural living site allotments shall be located within the Airport Noise Boundary as shown in Planning Map No 22.”

Explanation: Provisions in Part B(12) Noise and in the Rural Zone issues, objectives and policies section of Part D acknowledge the issues associated with sensitive residential activities locating close to noisy activities such as the airport. More restrictive controls on subdivision are proposed for land within the amended airport noise boundary to provide greater protection to the airport’s operations. Currently General Rule 6.3.12(2)(3)(d) limits the establishment of rural living sites within the Airport Noise Boundary but non compliance means the activity is assessed as a Discretionary Activity. The new rule will ensure

Doc# 493775

16

that all subdivision within the Airport Noise Boundary becomes a Non Complying Activity. This proposal increases the level of protection currently provided to the airport and aircraft activities and will restrict land use that could be adversely affected by the airport operations. In particular this approach is aimed at avoiding reverse sensitivity effects ie where sensitive activities such as residential activities locate in close proximity to any existing activity such as the airport and complain about the effects of the existing activity.

(c) Amend Rule 6.11.5(1) by adding the following description at the beginning of

the rule:

The following types of activities are authorised within the boundary of the Airport: Existing and future main and runway extensions, the existing parallel

grass, cross wind and glider grass runways; Aircraft operations (jet and turbo prop aircraft over 5700kg, rotary

wing aircraft and general aviation fixed wing aircraft under 5700kg) subject to compliance with rule 1.10.1.5.23.2;

Ex-military jet and turbo prop aircraft operations subject to compliance with rule 1.10.1.5.23.2;

Aircraft servicing and engine testing subject to compliance with rule 1.10.1.5.23.1;

Fuel storage together with associated activities including passenger terminals, hangars, internal roading, car and bus parking, navigational aids and lighting; and

Ancillary aviation related facilities and uses of buildings likely to include flight training, gliding, caretaker accommodation, and recreational aviation.

Explanation: The District Plan description of Designation 143 does not currently contain a description of the anticipated landside and airside activities in addition to the flight path description. For completeness and certainty as to the nature of the activities anticipated on the Airport it should do so in line with current requirements of the RMA, which require greater specificity in identifying the purpose for which land is designated.

(d) Amend the second paragraph of Rule 6.11.5(2) to read:

Within 500 metres of the ends of the future extended main runway and existing cross wind runways and within the area shown on Figure 7(b) no buildings (including glasshouses) shall be erected, and no post and wire structures, other than stock-fences, shall be erected (eg for supporting horticulture or viticulture crops). Refer to the table below for the coordinates of points A - P on Figure 7(b) Table showing coordinates of points A-T on Figure 7(b)

Doc# 493775

17

A 2368849.29 5655663.91

B 2369017.23 5655521.81

C 2369114.42 5656094.54

D 2369398.03 5655854.57

E 2369028.27 5654207.10

F 2369126.37 5654320.56

G 2369551.60 5654047.89

H 2369356.93 5653822.76

I 2367755.49 5654371.24

J 2367923.43 5654229.14

K 2367374.69 5654038.48

L 2367658.30 5653798.51

M 2368413.14 5654937.26

N 2368315.04 5654823.80

O 2368084.48 5655321.60

P 2367887.26 5655093.52

Q 2369173.10 5654243.26

R 2369616.67 5654011.45

S 2369562.73 5653918.51

T 2369142.98 5654191.36

Explanation: At other airports around New Zealand restrictions on the erection of buildings within 500 metres of runway ends is considered to be good practice for safety and amenity reasons. This amendment makes it clear that all buildings are controlled in the runway end safety areas. Any application to establish buildings within this area will be a Non Complying Activity.

(e) Amend Rule 6.11.5(5)(1) runway 02-20 take off and approach description to

read: (1) Runway 02-20 Takeoff (a) The takeoff surfaces at each end of the runway commences at

ground level 60 metres off the ends of the runway and continues out for a distance of 18,750 metres the locations and levels shown in table 6.1 and continue out on the runway extended centreline for 15,000m.

(b) The base width at ground level the origin is 150 metres (75m either

side of the runway centreline) and the surface rises upwards at a gradient of 1 in 50 62.5 and each side expands at a rate of 1 in 8 to a maximum width of 1200 metres and then continues parallel out to the 18,750 metre mark a distance of 15,000m from the origin.

Approach (a) The approach surfaces commences at ground level 60 metres off the

ends of the runway and continues out for a distance of 15,000 metres.

Doc# 493775

18

The base width at ground level is 300 metres and the surface rises upwards at a gradient of 1 in 50 and each side expands at a rate of 1 in 6.6 at each end of the runway commence at the locations and levels shown in table 6.1 and continue out on the runway extended centreline for a distance of 15,000m from the origin.

The base width at the origin is 220 metres (110m either side of

the runway centreline) and the surface rises upwards at a gradient of 1 in 50 and each side expands at a rate of 1 in 6.6 out to a distance of 15,000m from the origin.

Explanation: The existing controls protect a 300m wide runway strip, a level of protection not necessary for a provincial airport. A revised strip width of 220m has been adopted. At the same time amendments are being made to protect a future main runway extension to the north and south of the existing runway. Table 6.1 includes coordinate references for the amended takeoff and approach surfaces. Other amendments are relatively minor and specifications are similar to current provisions.

(f) Amend Rule 6.11.5(5)(2) runway 11-29 takeoff and approach description to

read:

(2) Runway 11-29 Takeoff and Approach Path: (a) At the west end of runway 11-29 the take off and approach

surfaces commence at ground level at the Levels Plain Road boundary and at the east end they commence 130 metres in from the boundary of Brosnan Road measured on runway centreline.

The takeoff and approach surfaces at each end of the runway commence at the locations and levels shown in table 6.1 and continue out on the runway extended centreline for 2,500m from the origin.

(b) The base width at the origin is 150 metres (75m either side of

runway centreline) and the surfaces rises upwards at a grade gradient of 1 in 30 and each side expands at a rate of 1 in 6.6 out to a distance of 2,500 metres from the origin.

Explanation: The existing controls are being amended to reflect likely use by current aircraft types and updated in accordance with current Civil Aviation Authority requirements.

(g) Add a new Rule 6.11.5(5)(3) glider grass 10 takeoff and approach description

to read:

Doc# 493775

19

(3) Glider grass 10 Takeoff path: (a) The takeoff surface at the east end of the runway commences at

the location and level shown in table 6.1 and continues out on the runway extended centreline for 1,200m from the origin. The west end of the runway is located as shown in table 6.1.

(b) The base width at the origin is 60 metres (30m either side of

runway centreline) and the surface rises upwards at a gradient of 1 in 20 and each side expands at a rate of 1 in 20 out to a distance of 1,200 metres from the origin.

Explanation: Currently there are no flight path controls protecting the existing glider grass strip. The new rule will correct this situation. Only the takeoff towards the east is protected as there are no takeoffs towards the west or landings made in either direction on this runway.

(h) Amend Rule 6.11.5(3) Side Clearances by renumbering it as Rule 6.11.5(4)

and replacing the existing rule so that it reads: (a) Side clearances rise upwards and outwards from the sides of the

approach flight paths and from the sides of the runway strips. These side clearances rise at a gradient of 1 in 7 for runway 02-20 and 1 in 5 for runway 11-29 up to the height of the horizontal surface. The side clearance surface for runway 02-20 rises at a gradient of 1 in 7 and the side clearance surface for runway 11-29 at a gradient of 1 in 5, both up to the horizontal surface. The side clearance surfaces originate at the edge of the respective runway strips.

Explanation: The redrafted rule is as a consequence of changes proposed to General Rule 6.11.5(5)(1) and (2). There is no side clearance surface requirement for the glider grass as this is used for takeoff only.

(i) Amend Rule 6.11.5 (4) Horizontal Surfaces by renumbering it as Rule 6.11.5

(5) and replacing sub-clause (b) so that it reads: (b) The outer limits of the horizontal surface is a locus of 4000 metres

measured from the periphery of the strip of runway 02-20 and a locus of 3,500 metres from the periphery of runway 11-29.

Explanation: The redrafted rule is as a consequence of changes proposed to General Rule 6.11.5(5)(1) and (2).

(j) Amend Rule 6.11.5 (5) Conical Surface by renumbering it as Rule 6.11.5(6).

Doc# 493775

20

Explanation: The amendment is a consequence of previous renumbering of rules 6.11.5 (3) to 6.11.5 (4) because of the inclusion of a new rule 6.11.5 (3).

(k) Amend Rule 6.11.5 (6)(a) and 6.11.5 (6)(b) Future Runway Extension by

renumbering it Rule 6.11.5 (7)(a) and (b), and rewording it as follows:

(7) (6)Future Runway Extension (a) Any future development of the aerodrome will consist of lengthening of

runway 02-20 420 metres to the north and south by up to 657 metres in total plus 60m grassed strip and 90m grassed runway end safety area beyond the end of the sealed runway at each end.

(b) In order to protect the aerodrome for future runway extensions flight

path surfaces will be observed from a position 480 metres to the north of the runway and no permanent structures shall be built under the flight path within 860 the area shown on Figure 7(b) .

Note: for the purposes of this rule the possible runway

extension to the north is 262 m and to the south is 395m.

(c) See Figure 7(c) for details of proposed runway extension.

(l) As a consequential amendment amend General Rule 6.11.5(4) as follows: “For details of flight paths, side clearances and horizontal and conical surfaces refer to maps 7(a), 7(b), and 7(c) Figures 7(a) and 7(b) included with General Rule 6.11.”

(m) Amend the Figures in 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) to incorporate amended

specifications detailed in amended General Rule 6.11.5(5) including 500 metre clearway on glider grass runway.

Explanation: These amendments recognise that any future runway extensions need to occur both north and south of the existing runway, rather than just to the north as is currently provided for in General Rule 6.11.5(5)(6) and incorporate the coordinates detailed in Table 6.1.

(n) Amend Rule 6.11.5 by adding a new Rule 6.11.5 (8) as follows: (8) Table 6.1: Location of takeoff and approach surface bases

Doc# 493775

21

Surface mN (metres North)

mE (metres East)

Height (Above Mean Sea Level)

Runway 02-20 North Surfaces origin South Surfaces origin

711855.50 710588.56

313966.34 312842.67

25.9m 26.7m

Runway 11-29 East Surfaces origin West Surfaces origin

710523.40 711156.57

314079.43 313380.70

22.0m 26.2m

Glider grass 10 East Surfaces origin West Surfaces origin

710475.01 710992.14

314159.05 313313.80

21.4m 26.3m

All co-ordinates are Timaru circuit coordinates Mt Horrible origin

(700,000mN; 300,000mE). Mean Sea Level datum is Lyttelton (1937).

Explanation: This table forms a key part of the amendments described in items (d), (e) and (f) above and provides accurate co-ordinate interpretation points. The table reflects the adjusted runway strip lengths and is very close to the existing situation for grass runway 11-29 and glider grass runway 10 but is much longer for sealed runway 02-20 for a main runway extension in the future.

4 PART D - DEFINITIONS

Insert a new definition in Part D - Definitions as follows: Activity Sensitive to Aircraft Noise Means Boarding or Lodging House or Hostel, Camping Grounds / Caravan Parks, Community Care Facility, Community Facilities, Day Care Centres, Educational Establishments, Home Stay, Hospital, Household Unit, Kohanga Reo, Marae, Papakainga, and Place of Assembly as defined in this District Plan.

Explanation: This definition is important to provide certainty as to what activities are considered to be Activities Sensitive To Aircraft Noise and to relate that activity to other activities defined in the District Plan.

5 PLANNING MAPS

(a) Amend Planning Maps 19, 21-24, 26-28 and 45-50.as follows:

Doc# 493775

22

To show the extent of the amended Airport Noise Boundary, the Ldn 65dBA

compliance contour, the 500 metre clearway, and the flight paths and horizontal and conical surfaces.

Explanation: This amendment gives effect to the proposed changes set out above and introduces an amended airport noise boundary, and flight paths based on updated air traffic projections. This amended air noise boundary also covers the cross wind runway and glider grass strip. The current air noise boundary does not cover these facilities. The new boundary also accurately reflects airport noise effects arising from proposed future main runway extensions at both ends of the runway. The amendment to the proposed runway extension will also result in minor amendments to the location of flight paths, horizontal and conical surfaces.

Doc# 493775

23

ANNEXURE B Summary of Recommendations on Decisions requested in Original Submissions and Further Submissions to Proposed Plan Change 6:

Timaru District Plan

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2

Specific provisions of the proposed plan

change that my submission relates to

My submission ie whether I support or oppose the

specific provisions and the reasons for these views

The following decision is

sought

Recommend

1 Air New Zealand Limited (ANZL)

1

Part D Rural Zones, Policy 1.4.3 and Explanation and Principle Reason, Rural 1 & 2 Zone rules, Rural 1 Zone Performance Standard 5.23, General Rules 6.3.4, 6.3.6, 6.3.12 and 6.11.5 and Figures 7(a)-(c), Planning maps 19,21-24, 26-28 and 45-50.

Generally supports provisions that protect Richard Pearse Airport from encroachment; from incompatible activities, facilitate ongoing development of airport, including amendments to planning maps providing for the extension to main runway and amendments to airport noise boundary, and buffer area, flight paths and horizontal and conical surfaces. Provisions are supported because they promote sustainable management of resources, achieve purpose of RMA and the District Plan; recognises regional importance and capital investment in airport, seeks continued safe and efficient operation; acknowledges reverse sensitivity effects from noise sensitive activities; seeks to limit subdivision with airport noise contours to avoid intensification of land use and potential conflict; and achieves safety aspects of limitations on buildings and structures in vicinity of main runway, cross wind runway and fan between flight paths at ground zero.

Retain all provisions except for Performance Standard 5.23.1.

Accept in part

1 Air New Zealand Limited

2

Part D Rural 1 Zone rules; New Performance Standard 5.23.1

Oppose provision in new rule that lowers the Lmax limit for engine testing between the hours of 11pm and 7am from 70dBA to 60dBA because of the potential impact on the efficient operation of the Airport.

Delete of amendment to new rule 5.23.1 that lowers Lmax to 60dBA.

Accept

1 “Subr No/Name” represents “Submitter Number and Name”.

2 “Subn No” represents “Submission Number”.

Doc# 493775

24

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

FS

3 2 Te

Nahi Enterprises Ltd

1

Oppose submission; Lmax level of 60 dBA is appropriate as there are a significant number of residential properties.

Seek this part of the submission be disallowed.

Reject

2 E & D Anscombe

1

Part D Rural Zones; Policy 1.4.3

Oppose policy and request wording be amended so that it does not freeze subdivision particularly within the buffer area but ensures that mitigating steps are taken for any new residence in respect of airport noise.

Amend Policy 1.4.3 so that it does not freeze subdivision particularly within the buffer area.

Accept in part

FS 1 Air New Zealand Ltd

22

Oppose. ANZL supports restricting subdivision to restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities and reduce the likelihood of reverse sensitivity which may affect airport operations.

Accept in part

FS 2 Te Nahi Enterprises Ltd

2

Support. The concept of the Buffer is opposed. Should the Council decide to continue with the proposal then requested amendments to Policy 1.4.3 by the submitter is justified. Policy does not adequately address other methods of achieving an appropriate and acceptable Resource Management outcome. In some instances mitigation will be achievable and appropriate in respect of airport noise.

Seek the whole of the submission be allowed.

Accept in part

3 C Baird

1




Accept in part


23

Oppose. ANZL supports restricting subdivision to restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities and reduce the likelihood of reverse sensitivity which may

Accept in part

3 “FS” represents “Further Submitter”.

Doc# 493775

25

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

affect airport operations.

4 C & P Breen

1




Accept in part


24


Accept in part

5 R M Brown

1




Accept in part


25


Accept in part

6 J R Bruce

1




Accept in part


26


Accept in part

Doc# 493775

26

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

7.Canterbury Regional Council (CRC)

1

Part D - all provisions and planning maps except those submissions made by CRC below

Support those provisions designed to protect the Timaru Airport (regionally significant transport infrastructure) from the adverse effects of the use, development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources.

Retain those provisions not amended by the Proposed Plan Change which are designed to protect the Airport.

Accept in part

FS 1 Air New Zealand Limited

1

ANZL supports restricting subdivision to restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities and reduce the likelihood of reverse sensitivity which may affect airport operations.

Accept in part

7 CRC

2

Part D Rural Zones Policy 1.4.3 (2)

Oppose. Amended Policy 1.4.3(2) as it does not include reference to the potential to decline subdivision proposals within the 1000 metre Airport Buffer. This will provide a clearer, more comprehensive basis for assessing the reverse sensitivity potential of proposals in the vicinity of the airport.

Amend Policy 1.4.3 (2)

to include reference to the potential to decline subdivision proposals within the 1000 metre buffer of the Airport Noise Boundary and make reference to the risks posed from development under flight paths.

Reject


2


Accept in part


4

Oppose. Classification of all subdivision as a non-complying activity is not supported by documents at the foundation of the Plan Change and is not justified in resource management terms.

Accept in part

FS 3 Timaru Golf Club

1

Oppose. Lack of detail in summary of submissions suggests possibility of

Accept in part

Doc# 493775

27

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

significant impact on future operations and development of golf course and club.

7 CRC

3

Part D General Rule 6.3.6 (ii)

Oppose. All subdivision within 1000 metres of the Airport Noise Boundary should be a Non-complying Activity. This approach is consistent with the Vision and Principles of the NZ Transport Strategy (2002), the Regional Policy (sic) seeking to discourage noise sensitive development and the “Long Term Development and District Plan Provisions for Richard Pearse Airport - Timaru” (Astral/Zomac, 2006) which forms the basis for the Plan Change.

Amend General Rule 6.3.6 to make all subdivision within 1000 metres of the Airport Noise Boundary a Non-complying Activity.

Reject


3


Accept in part


5

Oppose at the concept of the Buffer is opposed. Classification of all subdivision as a non-complying activity is not supported by documents at the foundation of the plan change and is not justified in resource management terms.

Accept


2

Oppose. Lack of detail in summary of submissions suggests possibility of significant impact on future operations and development of golf course and club.

Accept in part

7 CRC

4

General Rule 6.11.5 (2)

Oppose. There is no reference to trees in General Rule 6.11.5 (2) which extends controls on buildings and fences within 500 metres of the runways to include the future extended runway and existing cross wind runways. Trees may interfere with flight paths and increase hazard.

Amend General Rule 6.11.5 (2) to control the planting of trees below the approach and take-off flight fans within 500 metres of existing and

Reject

Doc# 493775

28

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

future runways.


4

ANZL supports intention to protect the Airport surrounds from any land use that may affect the Airports further development as this is accordance with sound planning practice to avoid creation of incompatible land use.

Reject


6

Oppose as submissions lacks specificity as to the type of control sought and how it is implemented. No need to control the planting of trees below the approach and take off fans because adequate control already exists under the designation and no valid resource management reason for this control.

Accept


3

Oppose. Lack of detail in summary of submissions suggests possibility of significant impact on future operations and development of golf course and club.

Accept

7 CRC

5

General Rule 6.11.5 (7)

Oppose. General Rule 6.11.5 (7) is amended to control permanent structures within 500 metres of the extended main runway but there is no exemption to allow for structures for aircraft and airport safety and security within this flight path area.

Amend General Rule 6.11.5 (7) to exempt from this rule those permanent structures required for aircraft and airport security and safety.

Reject


5

ANZL supports intention to protect the Airport surrounds from any land use that may affect the Airports further development as this is

Reject

Doc# 493775

29

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

accordance with sound planning practice to avoid creation of incompatible land use.

7 CRC

6

General Rule 6.11.5 (8), Table 6.1

Oppose. Table 6.1 includes technical abbreviations and the meanings of which are not immediately apparent together with typographical errors.

Amend Table 6.1 to include the full technical terms referred to e.g. Above Mean Sea Level, to correct typographical errors and to include the datum origin.

Accept


6

ANZL supports the use of full technical terms within the Proposed Plan Change to ensure the greatest clarity and efficiency.

Accept

8 B Everett

1




Accept in part


27


Accept

9 J R Hart

1




Accept in part


28

Oppose. ANZL supports restricting subdivision to restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities and reduce the likelihood of reverse sensitivity which may

Accept

Doc# 493775

30

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

affect airport operations.


3

Support. The concept of the Buffer is opposed. Should the Council decide to continue with the proposal then requested amendments to Policy 1.4.3 by the submitter is justified. Policy does not adequately address other methods of achieving an appropriate and acceptable Resource Management outcome. In some instances mitigation will be achievable and appropriate in respect of airport noise.

Accept

10 J Henderson

1




Accept in part


29


Accept

11 J A & N A O Hyslop and others

1




Accept in part


7


Accept

Doc# 493775

31

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

11 J A & N A O Hyslop and others

2

General Rule 6.3.6(ii)

Oppose the provision of subdivision for residential purposes as a Non-complying Activity within the Airport Noise Boundary as this would affect a significant area of our property. Would “support changes that continued to allow subdivision within this buffer zone as a Discretionary Activity…”.

Amend General Rule 6.3.6(ii) to be a Discretionary Activity and allow subdivision where incoming property owners waive their right to object to increased noise levels as a result of airport growth.

Reject


8


Accept

12 B Lobb

1

Part D, Rural Zones; Policy 1.4.3 (2); General Rule 6.3.4, Planning Map 22.

Oppose amendments proposed as there is no technical evidence supporting the need for mitigation.

Delete Airport Noise Boundary Buffer and all associated District Plan provisions.

Accept in part


9


Accept in part

12 B Lobb

2

Part D Rural 1 Zone Rule 1.10.1.5.23.1

Oppose new rule as poorly draft, has unlimited time frame, no mitigation procedure and imposes restrictions on others; require the airport to operate within current specified noise limits for all activities.

Delete rule 5.23.1 that proposes amendments that make provision for aircraft engine testing and establish noise limits for this activity.

Reject

Doc# 493775

32

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend


10

Oppose. ANZL supports Councils intention to provide for the reasonable operation of the Airport and associated activities and to provide for the efficient use of regionally significant infrastructure.

Accept

12 B Lobb

3

Part D General Rule for Subdivision 6.3.4 (ii)

Oppose as no restriction on existing titles who may wish to build, no justification in terms of NZS 6805:1992, expected duration of noise outside the airport is less than that from some roads and is incompatible with balance of District Plan.

Require people who create the effect to be responsible for mitigation beyond their boundaries.

Reject


11

Oppose. It is not always possible to fully internalise effects. ANZL supports the Council’s position that encroachment of noise sensitive activities may create reverse sensitivity effects for existing or future expanded airport activities which provide for a regionally significant transport facility.

Accept

12 B Lobb

4

Part D General Rule for Designations 6.11 5

No comment made.

Treat issue of noise uniformly and fairly; not differently for speedways, subdivisions, airports, highways and rural activities.

Reject

Doc# 493775

33

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

13 J R Lobb

1

Part D Rural Zones Policy 1.4.3(2) and Explanation and Principle Reason; General Rule 6.3.4

Oppose 1000m buffer because it is poorly thought out and loosely drafted with no clear direction of what is being prevented/protected; provisions are not the standard of other Plans in NZ; creates inconsistencies with measurement and treatment of other noise sources in Plan; exceeds reasonable noise protection trends nationally, in particular NZS 6805:1992; is not a recommendation of the Astral/Zoma report that is the basis for the Plan Change; has not basis in research; relies on noise complaints from unrelated noise source; targets subdivision but appears to be concerned with avoiding complaints arising from airport noise in the area; does not acknowledge that new residences could be built on existing titles; buffer zone impacts on properties over 8km from airport.

Withdraw proposed policy and rule changes relating to 1000m buffer.

Accept


12

Oppose. ANZL supports the Council’s intention to restrict subdivision within the buffer as this will restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities which may create reverse sensitivity effects for existing or future expanded airport activities which provide for a regionally significant transport facility.

Reject

13 J R Lobb

2

General comments on justification of plan change

Concerned about timing and justification of plan change, lack of research and consultation; refers to those provisions in the LTCCP 2006-2016 that make provision for a schedule of possible changes to the District Plan (2006/07); states that airport section of LTCCP does not identify concerns over level of settlement near airport; backgrounds the preparation of the plan change and comments that elected members have supported this plan change without identifying the purpose behind it.

Undertake a more rigorous approach to define what concerns exist for future of Airport and its operations and decide on the appropriate action after public consultation. Approach TDP reviews and changes as set out in the

Accept in part

Doc# 493775

34

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

LTCCP and RMA.

14 MacHoldings 2001 Ltd

1

Part D Rural Zones Policy 1.4.3(2); General Rule for Subdivision 6.3.4 and 6.3.6(ii) Planning Map 22

Oppose specific provisions and they will adversely affect the potential use and development of our property and our existing use rights will be prejudiced; proposed plan change is excessive when considering present and future use of airport.

Make no changes to the noise boundary and subdivision rules.

Reject


13


Accept in part

15 T Peake

1




Accept in part


30


Accept

16 A & L Roy

1




Accept in part


31

Oppose. ANZL supports restricting subdivision to restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities and

Accept

Doc# 493775

35

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

reduce the likelihood of reverse sensitivity which may affect airport operations.

17 C L Shortus

1




Accept in part


32


Accept

18 E & C Smolinski

1




Accept in part


33


Accept

19 Te Nahi Enterprises Ltd

1

Part D Rural Zone; Policy 1.4.3 (2); Airport Noise Boundary Buffer

Oppose provision of buffer; no valid resource management reason identified in the District Plan in support; no justification in terms of NZ Standard 6805:1992; no environmental effects identified to justify buffer; only applies at time of subdivision whereas approx. 120 lots without dwellings within the buffer.

Delete the Airport Noise Boundary buffer and all proposed district plan provisions that establish and implement this concept.

Accept


14

Oppose. ANZL supports the Council’s intention to restrict subdivision within the buffer as this will restrict the encroachment of noise sensitive activities which may

Reject

Doc# 493775

36

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend

create reverse sensitivity effects for existing or future expanded airport activities which provide for a regionally significant transport facility.


4

Support. No valid resource management reason identified in District Plan. Limits opportunity for development within and around golf course in the future.

Accept


2

Part D Rural Zone; Explanation and Principle Reason for Policy 1.4.3

Oppose provision of buffer; no valid resource management reason identified in the District Plan in support; no justification in terms of NZ standard 6805:1992; no environmental effects identified that justify; only applies at time of subdivision whereas approx. 120 lots without dwellings within the buffer.


Accept


15


Reject


5


Accept


3

Part D Rural Zones Policy 1.4.3 (2); new third paragraph

Oppose provision of buffer; no valid resource management reason identified in the District Plan in support; no justification in terms of NZ Standard 6805:1992; no environmental effects identified that justify; only applies at time of subdivision whereas approx. 120 lots without dwellings within the buffer.


Accept

Doc# 493775

37

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend


16


Reject


6


Accept


4

Part D Rural 1 Zone Rule 1.10.1.5.23 - Aircraft Engine Testing;

Oppose new aircraft engine testing provision as should be part of a suite of airport activities that are subject to the noise limits on those activities imposed by Airport Noise Boundary. A number of specific concerns have been identified including no mechanism that trigger resource consent, not attempt to mitigate noise effects, use of notional boundaries at dwellings is unjustified, resource consents are to be retrospective, no need to provide for essential maintenance and engine testing.

Delete the proposed amendment that makes provision for aircraft engine testing and establishes noise limits for this activity.

Reject


17


Accept in part

Doc# 493775

38

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend


5

General Rule 6.3.4 (ii)



Accept


18


Reject


7


Accept


6

General Rule 6.11.5 (1) (in part; points 3, 4 and 6)

Opposed in part because provision for “outdoor recreation” lacks specificity and could result in significant adverse effects on adjacent properties; not specified who determines where activity falls within ambit of description; requiring authority is not financially responsible for such activities and are not closely enough aligned to the “project or work” therefore they cannot form part of designation.

Delete “outdoor recreation activities” from the schedule of activities authorised by General Rule 6.11.5 (1).

Accept


21


Reject

Doc# 493775

39

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend


7

General 6.11.5 (2); point 7

Oppose as lacks specificity and unable to be implemented and appears to cover wider area of land than is justified; term “ground zero” not defined therefore commencement for measuring the 500m cannot be established with certainty; and rule does not specify which “fan created by the flights paths” will apply.

Rewrite the proposed amendment to General Rule’s 6.11.5 (2) to specify the commencement point of the 500m strip and also define the area affected by this prohibition as being an extension of the runway strip at the same width as that strip.

Accept in part


19


Reject


8

Planning Map 22



Accept


20


Reject

Doc# 493775

40

Subr

No/Name1

Subn

No2






sought

Recommend


8


Accept

20 D & D Whitelock

1




Accept in part


34


Accept

proposed plan change number 6: richard pearse airport

Documents