rps feedback form - orc.govt.nz · rps feedback form submission date name ... particulary those...

RPS Feedback Form

Submission Date

Name of submitter:

Postal Address:

Phone Number:

E−mail:

I wish do not wish to beheard in support of mysubmission:

If others make a similarsubmission, I will will notconsider presenting jointlywith them at the hearing:

1. State what yoursubmission relates to and if

r t r

2. State what decision youwant the Otago RegionalCouncil to make:

07:17:13

Annabeth Cohen

Street: 25 A Ross StreetSuburb: RoslynCity: DunedinPostal Code: 9010

02102875863

[email protected]

I wish

I will consider presenting jointly

TO

My submission is in regard to air quality in Dunedin (North, South and especiallycentral).

#1) I would like to see the ORC mandate that city and regional busses have theirexhaust pipes on the top of the bus rather than the bottom.

#2) I would also like to see regulations put on exhaust that Greg's factory puts out inDunedin, I am particularly referring to the coffee smelling exhaust.

#3) I would like to see the ORC eliminate Coal Fired Power in Otago.

3. Give reasons for thedecision you want made:

#1)The reason I would like to see the busses have the exhaust at the top of the bus ratherthan the bottom of the bus is for pedestrians and cyclists.

As a cyclist, there is nothing worse than being stuck behind a bus at a traffic light. Youare literally stuck sucking up the fumes from the bus that is at your knee level pumpingright into your face for the duration of the signal change. I've waited many minutesespecially at Dunedin's lovely 5 way intersections. As cyclists do not have a climatecontrol option like in closed motor vehicles and the cyclists' lungs are vital for fuelingour vehicle this is a concern, not to mention a dangerous health risk.

The second issue is for pedestrians, particulary those that are waiting for their bus.Dunedin is great in that despite the inhospitable and ever changing weather, there areoutdoor shelters over the sidewalks on George and Princes Streets that provideprotection from the rain, hail, sleet, and sometimes snow. The downfall is that the busexhaust gets trapped under these awnings and those waiting for the bus are forced toinhale this exhaust. What's more is that it is common practice for busses to leave theengine idle for many minutes while they wait until it is time to leave again. I'veexperienced a bus idling for minutes while waiting for the driver change over, orbecause it has arrived to its stop too early. Also, many busses pass through the stopson George Street and Princes Street adding an intensity to the amount of exhausttrapped under the shelter on a rainy day.

In conclusion, it is a health hazard to have busses with the exhaust pipe on the bottomof the bus rather than on the top. I have lived in many major cities around the world andseen that nearly all of them have the bus' exhaust at the top of the vehicle near theroof.

#2)Regarding Greg's factory exhaust putting out a terrible coffee smell: I would like to seethis assessed for levels of toxicity and also assessed for what is known as odourpollution. It should be monitored and reported on to the public.

I work at the stadium building in the Foundation Year on the 3rd floor of a newlyconstructed, modern building. It is that I can smell the burnt coffee saturated airfrom Greg's factory through the windows. Other timeswhen walking up Albany Street I have to cover my face with my shirt or my scarfbecause the fumes are so strong it makes me want to cough.

not certain of the health implications of this exhaust as am not sure what processexactly is causing the odour. I hope it is not chemical. Regardless, it is at the very leastodour pollution. It should be taken seriously. I believe that the factory may need a tallerchimney, or different fans because the wind seems to blow the odour exhaust backdown to street level and saturate the air enough that it can seep into the 3rd floor of anairtight building.

I would like to see the exhaust monitored so as to identify the substances present inthe exhaust, what the concentration of the elements are in the exhaust, and dependingon weather conditions how these fumes are distributed around town. It is a question ofchemical compostition fluid dynamics that could be modelled by NIWA and paid forby Gregs.

#3)I hope it is not news to the ORC that burning coal is dangerous to the health of it'speople as well as dangerous for the future of the planet. Coal is the dirtiest and mostunhealthy of all the fossil fuels. Instead of transitioning to gas, as the commonargument would offer. I ask that the ORC makes a plan to transition off of coal andonto renewables.

S U B M I S S I O N F O R M (Print clearly on both sides)

Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago

Name of submitter:

Organisation (if applicable):

Postal address:

Postcode:

Telephone:

Note that all submissions are made available for public inspection

SUBMISSIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5.00 PM,FRIDAY 24 JULY 2015

wishof my

d o not wish

Office use only

circle preference) to be heard in support

If others make a similar submission, I will / will not considerpresenting jointly with them at a hearing (circle preference)

Date:(of submitter, or person ed to sign on their behalf)

Trade competitors declaration (if applicable)

could gain trade competition a submission, but mysubmission is environmental directly

Signature:

Free

Send to:to:Freepost ORC 497Otago Regional CouncilPrivate Bag 1954Dunedin 9054

Please turn over

State what your submissionrelates to and if you support,oppose or want it amended

State what decision you want theOtago Regional Council to make

Give reasons for the decision you want made

e.g. amend provision e.g. provision 'y' should say...

e

f

e.g. I want provision 'y'changed because...

OtagoRegionalCouncil

Name of submitter:




Postal address:

Postcode:

Telephone:

Email:



Office use only

I w i sh n o t (circle preference) to be heard in supportof my

If others make a similar submission, I will / will not considerpresenting jointly with them at a hearing (circle preference)

Signature:(of submitter, erson authorised to sign on their behalf)


could gain through trade competition a submission, but mysubmission is limited to addressing environmental effects directlyimpacting my business

Signature:

Send to:Freepost ORC 497Otago Regional CouncilPrivate Bag 1954Dunedin 9054

Please turn over




e.g. amend provision e.g. provision 'y' should say...

.

1

e.g. I want provision 'y'changed because...

L

Please add pages as required

Council

Name of submitter:




Postal address:

Postcode:

Telephone:

Email:


SUBMISSIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY 5.00 PM,

FRIDAY 24 JULY 2015

OTAGO

5

FILEOffice use only

I w i s h preference) to be heard in supportof my submission

If others make a similar submission, I will considerpresenting jointly with them at a hearing (circle preference)

Signature: Date:(of submitter, or person authorised to sign on their beha


could gain through trade competition ubmission, but mysubmission is limited to addre nvironmental effects directly

impacting my

Signature:

Free

to:Freepost ORC 497Otago Regional CouncilPrivate Bag 1954Dunedin 9054

Please turn over

State what yourrelates to and if you support,oppose or want it amended

State what decision you wantOtago Regional Council to make


e.g. amend provision e.g. provision 'y' should e.g. I want provision 'y'changed because...

I

,

0

Please add as

RPS Feedback Form

Submission Date

Name of submitter:


Postal Address:

Phone Number:

E−mail:


If others make a similarsubmission, I will notconsider presenting jointlywith them at the hearing:

Trade competitorsdeclaration:

1. State what yoursubmission relates to and ifyou support, oppose or wantit amended:


Glen Callanan

All of the community plans

Street: Clyde Holiday and Sporting ComplexSuburb: 7 Whitney StreetCity: ClydePostal Code: 9003

0279745532

obalgrowingsolutions.co.nz

I do not wish


OTAGO REGIONALRECEIVED

29 JUN

I could gain through trade competition from a submission, but my submission is limitedto addressing environmental effects directly impacting my business.

Climb to the top and you can peer down on its ancient nemesis − the fortress for thecorrect change a major border crossing point, The Clyde Hill?FateMeaning: Evitable, predestined turn of events.Greek Myth: The Fates were three sisters: Lachesis (lot), Clotho (the spinner), andAtropos (not to be turned). Based on the Greek notion of the "thread of life", the Fatesare representated as spinners. Lachesis allots each man a length of the thread of life,Clotho spins it, and Atropos severs it. No one — not even Zeus, ruler of the gods —could alter their decisions.

Regional Policy StatementIt provides the foundation for development of regional plans and district plans.

Purpose of the policy statementEstablishes the framework for Otago's regional and district plans.

3. Give reasons for the 1. Health boards, Invercargill, Dunedin hospitals to stay, the rest scrapped ordecision you want made: downsized to meet the governments policy statement.

Dunstan could be used as a boarding center for fruit pickers?

2. Central Otago rowing club to be at Dairy creek, for all intended clubs. Dunstan armto sell there club room or give it back to the old Clyde Town community.

3. The phasing out of community boards, 1991. Central Otago District Council shouldof been with a single board then, it would serve its community better, and be betterpositioned to fund health board with its rate take.

Attachment sent.Expansion Group 1

2. The Clyde Plan.3.Summary of Facts.

Attach a document (if I would like the Central Otago District council to consider a starting point for the Clydeapplicable): Community plan since 1989 local government reforms.docx

I would like the Central Otago District council to consider a starting point for the Clyde Communityplan since 1989 local government reforms. What will benefit the overall community outcomes that

would build partnerships with others within the greater area of Central Otago there after theenlarged area of the Southern District?

RPS Feedback Form

Submission Date

Name of Glen Callanan

Organisation (if applicable): Community Plans

Postal Address: Street: Clyde Holiday and Sporting ComplexSuburb: 7 Whitney StreetCity: ClydePostal Code: 9003

Phone Number: 0279745532

E−mail: [email protected]

I wish do not wish to be I wishheard in support of mysubmission:

If others make a similarsubmission, I will notconsider presenting jointlywith them at the hearing:


1. State what yoursubmiss ion relates to a n d ify o u support, oppose or wantit amended:

Long Term Plan 2015/25 Short submissionI want the Central Otago District Council to consider a starting point since 1989 localgovernment reforms, for a community workshop to elect members to gauge expressionof interest from the Clyde Township, thereafter the greater area of Central Otago.

Canterbury,The community plans are the start point for economic development with a neutralboard that is given the resources to facilitate community outcomes that will benefit theoverall plan, building partnerships with interested groups.What will I have to say for the correct change...Central Otago District Council and the Vincent Community Board(Putting People First)Summary:If the Dunedin City Council supported the Clyde Hill Overall plan as submitted to thecity council many years ago, the former countries, catchments board and boroughcouncils, should have supported them.The next step for central Otago council, including the DCC, ORC, will be to employee acommissioner to oversee the CODC, overall plan, (Putting it all Together).Being a single board that support the residents and ratepayers, a grass root initiativedriven by the plans, not other interested groups, that give no benefits toeach fragmented communities.Note: The skeggs group could have employed me to skipper the fishing boat of thesouthern coast Preservation Inlet, while catching crabs, the Dunedin club.1. If the council planner CODC, misled me, to get me off the Clyde Hill, with a quote of$3000, final cost $12,500 (Earnscleugh Station Side) with no outcome, they will need toconsider, two commissioners to solve there problems why there hasn't been anyeconomic development since 1989 local government reform.2. Sack the Central Otago gang and get two commissioners, Whitney and Johnson,and put in place there plan before the Vincent herring Vincent a visitorinformation centre, amusement booking office and shop, upstream from theClyde Dam as a conditional use.If the commissioners put in place ten years ago, a single platform for Central Otagothere wouldn't have been.Suicides as in 1980, no family violence, no Chinese driving on the wrong side of thehighways, on the west coast, killing the wrong people.cant see cant see.The residents and ratepayers have all been misled by the former councils so the newboard will need to accept change, while the old disappears into history as history.New Board1. Start with the plan for the Clyde Township, the rest will follow?2. Hold a week long workshop so all ages can have a say for the social benefits of anoverall plan.3. Fund most projects by ratepayer's rate4. OthersRegardsGlen CallananNOTE:When the commissioners ask the council what they have done they will say, nothing.As usual a lost generation, since 1989, for a Clyde Hill.Tourism will increase by 50% over the next 5 years so where will the SouthernRegional Centre be, Dairy Creek branding.



Attach a documentapplicable):

Defence White Paper 5Ministry of Defence

Box 12703WELLINGTON [email protected] Whom it May Concern...

Summary of FactsSince the local government reforms 1989, all of the councils have fail to look at OtagoSouthland, Canterbury as one, for the centralization of government resource as the lastpart is completed for cost saving and reduction in funding.The New Zealand Defence Force should make submissions for the long term plan

Otago District Council" to build private public partnerships, to rebuild thebridges as most if not all councils have closed their doors on the residents andratepayers in supporting a neutral board that would facilitate economic development,for all.As the Defence force moves its resources northward, the Integrated Expansion Groupshould be considered, based on the end of the school term, for all ages. People shouldhave the change to put forward there interest as a cor−ord centre works through theapplication's.Combined service should get to build a network of former professional'sservice personal, all ages and build a 1000 man camp at Tekapo military camp as abase for a main five year exercise.A pager should be used to muster the key staff as an exercise 10 week trainingexercise programme in developed to teach, train, and evaluate the end of exerciseIn this process could the working group consider the older generation of the ClydeTownship as they have never had a say for the direction of the Clyde Township. Thistown needs a plan to empower, and allow the people to Have A Say, as we welcomeall service groups to support the community rebuild that benefits all.RegardsGlen CallananClyde Planner

Single service Group based on the end of the school term for all ages...

Old NZED building to be used a it beside underpass State high way...

Integrated Expansion Group

All ages; how can we support the Front Line....

Catering, Command and Singles, Medical, Transport, Others....

What's

Required atthe front Line

Expansion Group

Field CommanderTasking Board

Logistic

Work Group's

Line

First

Responders

First

Responder

Police

St John

Fire

Government

Agencies

Outer Regions

RPS Feedback Form

Submission Date

Name of submitter: Alison Devlin

Organisation applicable): Developments Limited

Postal Address: Street: Box 170City: DunedinPostal Code: 9054

Phone Number: 03 474 9911

E−mail: [email protected]

I wish / do not wish to be I wishheard in support of mysubmission:

If others make a similarsubmission, I will / will notconsider presenting jointlywith them at the hearing:




1) Objective 3.7 − oppose in part.

2) Policy 3.7.3 b) − oppose.

3) Policy 4.3.4 − oppose

4) Schedule 6 − oppose

OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCILRECEIVED DUNEDIN

JUL 2015FILE 3DIR TO

1) Delete the words and reflect local from objective 3.7. In the alternativereplace the word with 'considerate of' or words with like effect.

2) Policy 3.7.3(b) should be deleted or generalised i.e. 'insulating to a high standard'.

3) Delete policy 4.3.4.

4) Delete schedule 6.

3. Give reasons for the 1) The use of the word in objective 3.7 does not provide for new and innovativedecision you want made: layouts and styles of development.

2) Policy 3.7.3 b) encourages insulation greater than required under building legislation.Directing away from building legislation may create additional cost and causeconfusion.

3) Policy 4.3.4 seeks to manage the distribution of commercial activities in larger urbanareas. This focuses on central business districts but does not provide for othercommercial areas in large urban areas, such as Andersons Bay Road in Dunedin andthe Three Parks commercial area in Wanaka. This policy could be contradictory toDistrict Plans and could stifle commercial development in urban areas.

4) Schedule 6, urban form and design, seems too detailed and beyond the remit of aRegional Council. The detail contained in this schedule is more appropriately dealt withat District Council level and is likely to be a duplication of District Plan content. Someof the points contained in the schedule are somewhat ambiguous, such as toconsider the impact of design on people's health and 3a) to provide opportunities forall, especially the disadvantaged.


Council Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago

Name of submitter:


Postal address:

Postcode:

Email:




JUL 2015FILE No.

TOOffice use only

d o n o t wish (circle preference) to be heard in support

o submission

If others make a similar submission, I willpresenting jointly with them at a

nsider

g (circ e preference)

Signature: Date:(of submitter, or person authorised to sign on their behalf)


could gain through trade competition a submission, but mysubmission is limited to addressing environmental effects directly

impacting my business

Signature:

Send to:Freepost ORC 497Otago Regional CouncilPrivate Bag 1954Dunedin 9054

Please turn over



ive reasons for the decision you want made

e.g. amend provision e.g. provision 'y' should say... e.g. I want provision because...

Please add pages as required

Ralph Henderson

From: David Campbell <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 8:50To: Warren HanleyCc: Ralph HendersonSubject: Clutha DC submissionAttachments: PRPS Submission.docx

Hi Warren,

Please find attached our submission to the PRPS.

We do wish to be heard at this stage.

Thanks,David Campbell

Planning and Regulatory

Clutha District CouncilDDI: 03 419 0272Main office: 03 419 0200Cell: 027 201 2159Email:

Main Office Location: 1 Rosebank Terrace, Balclutha 9230Postal Address: Box 25, Balclutha 9240www.cluthadc.govt.nz

COUNCILRECEIVED DUNEDIN

3 JUL 2015

The information contained in this message (and any accompanying is CONFIDENTIAL andmay also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, intended only for the recipient(s) named above.

If the reader o f this message is not the recipient, you are that any use, disclosure,retention or distribution by any o f the is strictly

If you have this message error, please the writer immediately and destroy the original(s).

This message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

Submission of Clutha District Council

The review of the Proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) has raised important issuesfacing the Otago Region. The Clutha District Council (Council) has a particularly strong interest in thedevelopment of the RPS due to the role it will have in shaping the future of our local community andenvironment as well as the rolling District Plan review currently underway. We have a vestedinterest in the resources of Otago through our ownership of land, infrastructure and communityservices. The Council also has a role to represent the communities within its area.

The Council agrees with the aim of the PRPS and the framework that has been developed aroundfour key outcomes. This PRPS provides a framework in which we are able to formulate rules and

methods which give effect to the regional aspirations for the sustainablemanagement of both the natural and physical resources. Objectives and policies set out within thePRPS need to be realistically achievable and justifiable for us to be able to give effect to and meetthe desired outcomes. This Council cannot it alone' and will require assistance from the regionalcouncil to help achieve the outcomes sought, such as the collaborative process used to produce theMilton 2060 Strategy and subsequent plan change.

Specific submissions on PRPS provisions

PRPS provision Decision requested Reasons for requestObjectives 1.1, 1.2 and Policies1.1.2 −1.1.2, 1.2.1 — 1.2.5 (KaiTahu values, rights andinterests are recognised andkaitiakitaka (exercise of

stewardship) isexpressed.)

No change The objectives and policies forthis key outcome currentlyreflect CDC practices.

Objective 2.1 The values ofOtago's natural and physicalresources and recognised,maintained and enhanced

The objective isand scene setting which relieson the following policies toidentify the values referred to.The wording beneath theobjective needs amending tobetter reflect the intent of theobjective, rather than outliningsome examples of valueconflicts.

The wording beneath theobjective does not add anyclarification; rather it justprovides example statements,which are given. There needs tobe clear reasons why valuesneed to be recognised,maintained and enhanced(where possible).

Policy 2.1.5 Managing for soilvalues

There are no correspondingmethods for this policy, otherthan Method 3.1.4, which doesnot address the

The methods need tocorrespond to the policy as it isnot clear who is responsible forimplementing this policy.Method 4.1 is generic to allpolicies, so it is not clear if thisis a regional or district councilfunction (or both).

Policy 2.1.6 Managing forecosystem and indigenousbiodiversity values

Include a Biodiversity Strategyunder Method 7. This is alsoconsistent with Council'ssubmission to the ORC Long

The Council the policyintent, but seeks that the ORCdevelop a biodiversity strategyfor the region and takes a lead

1

Term Plan. role in this area. This Council(and others in Otago) have putsome resource into localbiodiversity protection andenhancement, however localresources are limited and amore regional approach mightsee better integration towardsimproving the management ofthe region's biodiversity.

Policy 2.1.7 Recognising thevalues of natural features,landscapes and seascapes

Remove items a), b) and c) asthese are repeated in Schedule4 (with some minor additions).

Repetition of material notrequired. Also see Policy 2.2.3as an example of how this couldbe worded.

Policy 2.1.8 Recognising thevalues of natural character inthe coastal environment

No change, other than Method4 should also refer to this andthe previous

Council is working with the ORCand other coastal Otagocouncils to recognise thesevalues.

Objective 2.2 Otago'ssignificant andnatural resources areidentified, and protected orenhanced

No change Reflects current approach ofCouncil.

Policy 2.2.2 Managingindigenous

vegetation and significanthabitats of indigenous fauna

Amend policy by replacing"Managing" with "Protecting".

This better reflects the intent ofthe policy, the purpose of theRMA and Council's approach tothis issue.

Policy 2.2.4 Managingoutstanding natural features,landscapes, and seascapes

Amend policy by replacing"Managing" with "Protecting".

This better reflects the intent ofthe policy, the purpose of theRMA and Council's approach tothis issue.

Policy 2.2.5 Identifying specialamenity landscapes and highlyvalued natural featuresPolicy 2.2.6 Managing specialamenity landscapes and highlyvalued natural features

Remove policies and thereference to Policy 2.2.5 inMethod 4.2.2.Alternatively, if the policies areto remain, then make theimplementation of themoptional through "may" ratherthan "will".

This policy is going above andbeyond the requirements ofthe RMA for the provisions toidentify and protectoutstanding landscapes by alsoincluding special amenitylandscapes and highly valuednatural features. The CDC hasalready undertaken a landscapestudy, for which consultationwill occur with property ownersthat have an identifiedoutstanding landscape.The PRPS uses schedule 4 as amethod to bothoutstanding and specialamenity landscapes. Theschedule categorises naturalfeatures that can be used tocategorise a natural landscape

2

but does not include featuresthat are necessarily associatedwith special amenitylandscapes. The Councilrecommends that differentschedules for categorising thedifferent landscapes are usedto achieve clarity of thedifferent characteristicsassociated with each.

Policy 2.2.7 Identifying thelandward extent of the coastalenvironmentPolicy 2.2.8 Identifying areas ofhigh and outstanding naturalcharacter in the coastalenvironmentPolicy 2.2.9 Managing thenatural character of the coastalenvironment

No change, other than toinclude reference to all of thesepolicies in Method 4.2.2

Council is working with the ORCand other coastal Otagocouncils to identify this.The policies also reflect theNew Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement.

Policy 2.2.14 highlyvalued soil resourcesPolicy 2.2.15 Managing highlyvalued soil resources

There are no correspondingmethods for thisPolicy 2.2.15 is reliant on theORC doing research to informPolicy 2.2.14. It is not clear howdistrict councils will implementPolicy 2.2.15 in the absence ofthis research.Support Policy 2.2.15 d)

The methods need to set outhow Policy 2.2.15 will beimplemented. It is suggestedthat sequencing be used to helpguide the implementation ofthese measures.

This recognises the existingsituation of some urban areasand the constraints to theirfurther expansion.

Objective 2.3 Natural resourcesystems and theirinterdependencies arerecognisedAnd Policies 2.3.1−2.3.5

Reduce and condense down tokey issues, if at all needed.

These policies are repetitiveand while well intended, do notgreatly assist in resourcemanagement.many of the matters areaddressed through otherpolicies, so are not required.

Objective 3.1 Protection, useand development of naturaland physical resourcesrecognises environmentalconstraintsAnd Policy 3.1.1

Remove objective and policy.Alternatively, they need to besubstantially reworded to focuson the key resilience issues,such as greater self−sufficiency.

While the matters these areseeking to address arecommendable, they are toobroad and open tointerpretation and challenge.For example, the availability ofnatural resources — does thisinclude fossil fuel? Likewise,technological hazard risks areoften unknown.

Objective 3.2 Risk that naturalhazards pose to Otago's

Consider changing the word"minimised" to "managed" or

The word minimised does notalign that well with other

3

communities are minimised something wording used in the supportingpolicies.

Policy 3.2.2 Assessing naturalhazard likelihood

Is the timeframe of 100 yearsappropriate for all hazards?

May not be appropriate forseismic related hazards.

Objective 3.3 Otago'scommunities are prepared forand able to adapt to the effectsof climate change

No change, however somepolicy gap.

The supporting policies do notaddress the preparednesselement of this objective.

Policy 3.3.2 Adapting to, ormitigating the effects of,climate change

Part c) of the policy may needto be reworded to address anypotential adverse effects ofcarbon sequestration from pestspecies, such as wilding pines.

Need to address potentialconflict with other policies (e.g.

Objective 3.4 Good qualityinfrastructure and servicesmeet community needs

No change Note that Long Term Plans alsoplay a significant role inachieving this.

Policy 3.4.2 Managinginfrastructure activities

— no change Council provides much of theinfrastructure relied on bycommunities.

Objective 3.6 Energy supplies toOtago's communities aresecure and sustainable

— no change The objective is critical for thefunctioning of the region.

Policy 3.6.1 Using existingrenewable electricitygeneration structures andfacilities

in principle but theintent may beQuestion the need for thepolicy

Given the currentdisaggregated electricity supplymarket, this policy is notachievable and whilecommendable, most existingfacilities will be operating at ornear

Policy 3.6.2 Promoting smallscale renewable electricitygeneration

Support — no change This policy helps contribute toachieving other policies aroundresilience and reducing demandon fossil fuels.

Policy 3.6.6 Reducing long termdemand for fossil fuels

Amend b) ii to include"where available" after "publictransport".

Not all urban areas areby public transport. This is alsoconsistent with part b) i of thepolicy.

Objective 3.7 Urban areas arewell designed, sustainable andreflect local character

Support — no change Council supports this objectiveas it helps to achieve otheroutcomes.

Policy 3.7.1 Using the principlesof good urban design

Remove items a) − f) as theseare repeated in Schedule 6(with some minor additions).


Policy 3.7.2 Encouraging use oflow impact design techniques

b) of the policy does notalign with part c) of Policy 3.7.1and offers a lower threshold ofhazard treatment.

If the decision requested aboveis addressed, then Council

the current wording ofPolicy 3.7.2.

Policy 3.7.3 Designing for Amend policy as follows: Council supports this objective

4

warmer buildings "Designing for warmer and and Policy 3.7.3 and notes thatthe policy could bestrengthened to also encouragethe use of active solar energy,such as solar panels or solar hotwater heating. Council'sBuilding Department hasnoticed an increase in the useof solar systems, particularly inmore remote areas wherereticulated electricity costs arehigh. Encouraging moredomestic solar energy use alsohelps to make households moreresilient in times of poweroutages and reduces thedemand for power nationally. Itcan also contribute to reducingthe reliance on combustionbased heating that contributeto lower air quality.

more energybuildings"

Objective 3.8 Urban growth iswell designed and integrateseffectively with adjoining urbanand rural environments

Generally but mayneed to relook at wordingaround "integrates effectively"as this can be argued severalways.

Urban growth occurs in avariety of ways and it can beargued that rural/residentialacts as a good buffer betweenurban and rural, whereas it canalso be argued that a cleanedge of urban bordering ruralland is also appropriate.

Policy 3.8.1 Managing for urbangrowth

Amend b) ii as follows —"Avoid, where possible,

It is not always possible toavoid such costs, especially as aresult of a private plan change.

e) is immeasurable anddoes not assist the policy.

it cuts intoprivate rights andreduces choice.

additional costs that arise fromunplanned infrastructureexpansion"Remove "e) Ensuring efficientuse of land"

Policy 3.8.2 Controlling growthwhere there are identifiedurban growth boundaries orfuture urban developmentareas

Remove reference to Schedule8 and Schedule 8 itself.

No given by having anunpopulated Schedule 8, so noneed to include it. The Councilpresumes Schedule 8 can onlybe populated by way of a planchange, which is cumbersomeand can create duplication ofprocesses for both councilsinvolved, as well as tothe processes.

Policy 3.8.3 Managingfragmentation of rural land

Reword policy as follows:b) iii reverse sensitivity effects

The Council is unsure howb) iii can be achieved as reverse

5

on rural productive activitiescan be avoided, where possible;

sensitivity is difficult to managein all cases.

Part d) is ambitious as demandfor resources is oftencompetitive and cannot alwaysbe avoided.

andRemove part "d) Avoid creatingcompeting demand for water orother resources."

Objective 3.9 Hazardoussubstances and waste materialsdo not harm human health orthe quality of the environmentin Otago

Support — no change Council supports this objectiveas it has importantconsequences for the district.

Policies 3.9.7 as theyrelate to Method 7

Include reference to therelevant policies in Method 7and include Regional WastePlan as one such method.

Method 7 is silent on howthese policies will beimplemented, for examplethrough a regional waste plan.

Policy 3.9.4 Managing the useof contaminated land

Remove reference to "theenvironment" from the

Council considers that thepolicy goes above and beyondthe National EnvironmentalStandard for Assessing andManaging Contaminants in Soilto Protect Human Health inthat it also seeks to protect theenvironment. The Council isunclear as to the implications ofthis for both its own activities,let alone those of its

Policy 3.9.5 Avoid the creationof new contaminated land

Remove policy The Council consider this policyis contrary to other policies,such as those that aresupporting industrial activitythat has the ability tocontaminate. It is also notincluded in the methods anddoes not correlate well toMethod 4.1.7.

Objective 4.1 Public access tothe

community is maintained orenhancedPolicy 4.1.1 Maintaining andenhancing public access

— no change The Council is supportive of thisobjective and policy. This isalready provided for in thecurrent District Plan.

Objective 4.2 Historic heritageresources contribute to theregion's character and sense ofidentity

Support — no change

Policy 4.2.1 Recognisingheritage themes

Amend policy to include otherheritage elements

The Council notes that the list isonly a snapshot of someheritage elements that wasprovided by Heritage New

6

Zealand. The Council feels thatmany other importantelements are excluded andhave suggested these to theORC previously.

Policy 4.2.2 Identifying historicheritage

Remove items a) − c) as theseare repeated in Schedule 7(with additions).


Objective 4.3 land ismanaged and protected foreconomic production

Amend objective to betterreflect its intent, such as "Landreliant on natural resources ismanaged to provide for thesustainable use of theseresources."

The Council struggles with thewording of this objective as itscurrent wording is overlyrestrictive.

Policy 4.3.1 Managing for ruralactivities

Remove policy The matters addressed in thepolicy are largely coveredelsewhere. The policy is notneeded in a RPS as it is a districtplan matter.

Policy 4.3.2 Managing land usechange in dry catchments

— no change This policy correctly deals witha natural resource issue andland use change that may affectit.

Policy 4.3.3 Recognising thevalues of Otago's centralbusiness districts

Remove policy The policy states the obviousand does not add any value tothe RPS or for city and districtcouncils that can manage thisissue. It is not needed in a RPSas it is a city/district planmatter.

Policy 4.3.4 Managing thedistribution of commercialactivities in larger urban areas

Remove policy The policy is not needed in aRPS as it is a city/district planmatter.

d) does not fit within thescope of the policy.

Policy 4.3.5 Managing forindustrial land uses

Remove policy The policy is not needed in aRPS as it is a city/district planmatter.

Policy 4.3.6 Managinglocational needs for mineraland gas exploration, extractionand processing

— no change This policy correctly deals witha natural resource issue, thesensitivities around it and landuse change that may affect it.

Objective 4.4 Otago'scommunities can make themost of the natural and builtresources available for use

Amend policy as it does notalign with thepolicies, such as "Otago'scommunities recognise thelimited nature of the resourcesand seek to improve theefficiency of use"

The Council generallythe intent of the objective,however the wording of itneeds to better reflect theintent as detailed in thepolicies.

Policy 4.4.1 Ensuring efficient Amend "b) Requiring the Council is concerned that the

7

water allocation and use development or upgrade ofinfrastructure that increasesuse efficiency where the use

end use of water from itssupplies is largely outside of itscontrol. While it can advocatefor greater water use efficiency,it is limited under currentlegislation in how it can controlthis.

can be managed"

Policy 4.4.2 Encouraging wasteminimisation

Support and potentiallystrengthen policy to includegreater requirements on higherwaste generators.

The Council supports thehierarchy approach adopted bythe policy, however it maybetter achieve wasteminimisation if largergenerators of waste arerequired to follow these steps.

Policy 4.4.3 Encouragingenvironmental enhancement

Support and potentiallystrengthen to offer incentiveswhere enhancement isundertaken, such as ratesremission (a current tool

The Council has a contestablebiodiversity fund in place thatpartially achieves this policy.Environmental enhancement isrequired across many naturalsystems and should be elevatedby including incentives to carryout enhancement.

Objective 4.5 Adverse effects ofusing and enjoying Otago'snatural and built environmentare minimised

Support — no change The objective captures animportant issue that Councilsupports.

Policy 4.5.4 Minimising soilerosion

and potentiallystrengthen to include soildegradation and loss fromintensive stocking

Council is aware of intensivegrazing practices that lead tosoil degradation and ultimatelysoils loss from runoff. Thepolicy could include provisionfor buffers or othermechanisms to reduce theimpact of this.

Policy 4.5.5 Controlling theintroduction and spread of pestplants and animals

— no change The Council the intentof this policy and is aware ofthe threats pest species presentto the district.

Policy 4.5.6 Managing adverseeffects from mineral and gasexploration, extraction andprocessing

Remove a) from the policyas it is repeated in Policy 4.3.6a). A subsequent change topart b) is also required or it canbe removed.

The policy repeats an earlierpolicy in part.

Policy 4.5.7 Enabling offsettingof indigenous biodiversity

Amend policy, such as:"a) The activities causing thoseeffects have a functionalnecessity to locate areas of

The Council theconcept of but thepolicy should be reworked topick up the key aspects of whyoffsetting may not beappropriate. The suggestedwording may not be quite right,but attempts to reflect this.

significant indigenousvegetation and significanthabitats of indigenous fauna;and

8

b) Those effects cannot beavoided; andc) Those effects do notcompromise the rarity ordistinctiveness of theindigenous biodiversity as setout in Schedule 5."

Policy 4.5.8 Offsetting forindigenous biodiversity

Amend policy, such as:"b) The offset is undertakenwithin the same ecological

The Council supports theconcept of offsetting, but thepolicy should be reworked tobetter capture the value ofoffsetting so that it achievesthe desired outcome. Councilwould prefer to see offsettingoccur in the same ecologicaldistrict if possible and withgreater permanence forindigenous flora.

district as the location of theloss, or within the nextecological district.""d) The ecological offset ismade permanent, or for fauna,lasts as long as the impact ofthe loss."

C Implementation Remove "Roles andResponsibilities"

This merely repeats the RMAand is not needed. If the RMAchanges, then this may becomeout of date.

Methods — these need to berelooked at once the objectivesand policies are redone asthere are many gaps.

As noted in of oursubmission, there are somereferences in Methods 4 and 7in that are missing.

Anticipated EnvironmentalResults and MonitoringProgrammeAER Regular monitoring ofthe state (extent and quality) ofoutstanding and highlysignificant resourcesAER 2.3 — Regular monitoring ofnatural character indicatorvalues for Otago's coastalenvironment.AER 2.4 — Regular monitoring ofsoil health indicators anderosion measures.AER 2.5 — All three indicators.

Method 6 needs to be updatedto reflect comments below:

It is not apparent how this willbe done and by whom. Forexample, what will be themeasure of quality?Need to clarify what theindicator values are and whowill be monitoring these.

Need to clarify what theindicators are and who will bemonitoring these.Need to what theindicators are and who will bemonitoring these.

9

1

Tom De Pelsemaeker

From: David Campbell <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, 10 July 2015 3:28 p.m.To: RPS ORCSubject: Re: Clutha DC submission

Only sought changes to a) and c) as shown. The rest of b) is an omission, but no change sought to it. David Sent from my iPhone On 10/07/2015, at 12:19 pm, RPS ORC <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi David Just working on the summary of submissions and need clarification of a point from your submission. Policy 4.5.7 b) states:

Those effects cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated; … Your submission (below) only included part of it

Policy 4.5.7 Enabling offsetting of indigenous biodiversity

Amend policy, such as: “a) The activities causing those effects have a functional necessity to locate in areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna; and b) Those effects cannot be avoided; and c) Those effects do not compromise the rarity or distinctiveness of the indigenous biodiversity as set out in Schedule 5.”

The Council supports the concept of offsetting, but the policy should be reworked to pick up the key aspects of why offsetting may not be appropriate. The suggested wording may not be quite right, but attempts to reflect this.

Could you please clarify whether you intend it to be deleted or it was just an omission. Cheers

Ralph Henderson Senior Policy Analyst Otago Regional Council [email protected] DDI: 03 470 7431

From: David Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 3 July 2015 8:50 a.m. To: Warren Hanley

2

Cc: Ralph Henderson Subject: Clutha DC submission Hi Warren, Please find attached our submission to the PRPS. We do wish to be heard at this stage. Thanks, David Campbell Planning and Regulatory Manager

Clutha District Council DDI: 03 419 0272 Main office: 03 419 0200 Cell: 027 201 2159 Email: [email protected] Main Office Location: 1 Rosebank Terrace, Balclutha 9230 Postal Address: PO Box 25, Balclutha 9240 www.cluthadc.govt.nz

The information contained in this message (and any accompanying documents) is CONFIDENTIAL and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, intended only for the recipient(s) named above.

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, copying, disclosure, retention or distribution by any means of the information is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the writer immediately and destroy the original(s).

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. **********************************************************************

The information contained in this message (and any accompanying documents) is CONFIDENTIAL and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED, intended only for the recipient(s) named above.

If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, copying, disclosure, retention or distribution by any means of the information is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the writer immediately and destroy the original(s).

3

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal

Ralph Henderson

From: Reina KumarSent: Tuesday, 7 July 2015 9:52 a.m.To: ORCSubject: Submission on Proposed Otago Regional PolicyAttachments:

Hi


− 7 JUL 2015

Please see attached our submission on Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago. on behalf of ourclient, Egg Producers Federation of New Zealand.

Can you please confirm acceptance by email once you have received the submission.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards,

REINA MAR

Level 1, House71 Great South Road

Auckland 1051Box 5760, Wellesley Street

Auckland 1141

917 5000

GRIERSON.COM

All our emails and attachments are subject to conditions.

rON A PUBLICLY NOTIFIED PROPOSEDPOLICY STATEMENT OR PLANUnder Clause 6 of First Schedule to Resource Management Act 1991

TO

SUBMISSION ON

NAME OF SUBMITTER

ADDRESS

Otago Regional Council


Egg Producers Federation of New Zealand

Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited

Box 5760Wellesley StreetAuckland 1141

Attention: Reina Kumar

This is a submission on the Proposed Policy Statement for Otago.

Producers Federation of New Zealand no t gain an advantage in trade throughthis submission.

SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING

1.0 The specific provisions o f proposal that our submission relates to are:

• 2

Part B − Chapter 3

Part B − Chapter 4

Part C − Implementation

• Part D − Appendix Glossary

2.0 Egg Producers of N e w submission is:

2.1 Harrison Grierson acts for EPFNZ and their members who have interests in the Otago Region.submitter') is national organisation tha t represents interests of commercial egg producers.

The is a large sector of New Zealand's primary production industry and it includesproduction of m e a t and eggs. There are currently operations in the Otagowhich includes the following:

• 14 layer farms;

1 rearer farm; and

3 feedrnills.

2.3 Given submitter 's interests in Otago region they have asked us to submit on several topics inProposed Statement These submission points aim to highlight and providepractical feedback tha t may help to resolve several key resource management issues tha t affect thepoultry industry, as well as a range of other based activities. The submitter requests Counciltakes into account these points when preparing the final RPS.

3.0 Areas Supported by Submitter

3.1 The is supportive of the approach taken by the Otago Regional Council ('Council') o n certainissues RPS which include:

HARRISONGRIERSON.COM 6

The appropriate management of natural resources such as freshwater as Otago's food productionis dependent on resource.The recognition are different amenity values in relation to air quality.The recognition that land use patterns need to be managed to minimise 'reverse sensitivity.'

• The inclusion of climate change and sea level rise as a issue.Main Issues Raised by the SubmitterNotwithstanding the above, the submitter has about several sections of RPS. In particular:

• Appropriate and provision of stock drinking water as permitted by Section ofthe RMA.Appropriate recognition that rural production activities have to generate airdischarge effects which are typical in rural environments.The references to protection of valued soils' and 'versatile soil' is too narrow andshould be replaced with 'versatile land' or 'highly valued land.'Acknowledging that reverse and incompatible land uses are different resourcemanagement issues and ensure that policies which manage the effects of land usesare provided in the RPS.Appropriate that the effects of climate change and sea level rise are not uniform anddifferent have different resilience levels. Therefore, including policies that enable theestablishment and expansion of buildings/activities.

• Issues with arid anticipated environmental results and monitoring programme.Without limiting the general nature of above, the following points are made as follows:

4.0 Fresh Water1.1 The submitter supports the recognition in RPS that economy depends on its natural resources,

such as, water for food submitter agrees with intention of Policy 2.1.1 whichthat there are different values associated with freshwater which will manage it as a

resource. I lowever, the submitter notes only reference to thinking water throughout thisplan is contained in Policy which relates to retaining the quality and ieliability of existing drinkingwater supplies. While it is important to retain and reliability of drinking water, the policy does

specify who drinking water is supplied for. The submitter notes that stock drinking is riotprovided for under policy. The availability of water is a fundamental issue for rural

production including poultry farming operations. Stock drinking water is explicitly provided forunder s14(3)(b) of RMA and this fact should be in version the plan. Thesubmitter requests a new be added as Policy as follows:

Policy — Ensure the reasonable needs of existing water users for drinking watercan be met.

5.0 Air Quality5.1 The submitter supports the recognitions in the RPS that are a range of air quality values which need

to be managed. However, submitter considers Policy 2.1.4c is too broad as it just lists 'amenityvalues' without recognising that a range of amenity values There are distinctive characteristics andamenity associated with the rural environment. It is therefore important to recognise that rural

such as intensive farming, have to generate air dischargeeffects such as odour and dust but these are generally acceptable in a rural environment. Air dischargeaffecting is typical of and a different level of amenity is therefore anticipated and

in environments. The submitter requests that a new be added to Policy 2.1.4as follows:

Policy 2.1.4d) − Enable rural production activities in appropriate locations by allowing for minor andlocalised degradation amenity.

6.0 Soils6.1 The acknowledges that throughout Policy 2.1.5 there is an on maintaining

and retaining soils. The submitter also notes that there is a focus on identifying and managing highlyvalued soil resources in Policies 2.2.14 and 2.2.15. The submitter agrees with the intention of these policiesas soil is a finite resource. considers the focus is too limited as

HARRISONGRIERSON.COM 2 6

capacity of rural land is not solely based soil fertility, but includes other characteristics such as soilstructure, water topography climate as defined in Land Use Capability SurveyHandbook prepared by Landcare New Zealand (2009). Any affecting the availability of productiveland, which is a will need to be managed in a manner.

6.2 Rural includes both soil and based Rural production such asintensive poultry farming and horticulture may use sheds and/or greenhouses to carry out theirproduction These buildings need well drained, flat rural land in order to operate, but do notsolely rely on of soil.

6.3 it is to protect soils that are fertile. it is more important to include provisions infinal plan to protect the overall land resource and land parcel containing the soil and landcharacteristics make it suitable for a range of rural This concept is termed

On this basis, the submitter requests that amendments be made to Policies, 2.2.14. 2.2.15and Policy 3.8.3b. Consequential amendments will also need to occur in the methods, in theglossary and anticipated environmental results and monitoring

Policy 2.1.5Managing forRecognise values, and manage land to:a) Maintain their life supporting capacity; andb) biodiversity; and c) biological activity in andd) in storage and cycling of water, nutrients, and other elementsthrough ande) Maintain function as a buffer or filter for pollutants from humanincluding aquifers at risk of leachate contamination; and

Retain soil land resources for primary production; andg) Protect Tahu values; andh) Provide for cultural andi) Maintain mantle where it as a of andj) Maintain highly valued soil resources; andk) Avoid of and1) Avoid adverse effects of pest species, prevent their and reduce their spread.Policy 2.2.14Identifying highly landIdentify areas and values of highly resources, using the following criteria:a) of versatility for primary production;b) Significance for providing pollutant buffering filteringc) Significance for providing water storage or services;d) Degree of rarity.

?rotect values of areas of highly land by:a) Avoiding significant adverse effects on those values contribute to the being

valued; andb) remedying or other adverse effects on values of those andc) Assessing the significance of adverse on values, as detailed in Schedule 3; andd) urban expansion may be due to and proximity to existing

urban development and infrastructure.Policy 3.8.3b

particular regard to whether the proposal will result in a loss of ofhighly versatile land, unless:

HARRISONGRIERSON.COM Page

and adjoins an existing urban area and there is no other land suitab:e for urbanexpansion; andThere highly versatile coils needed for urban expansion. any change of land usefrom rural activities achieves an appropriate and highly form of urbandevelopment; and

reverse sensitivity effects on rural productive activities can be avoided.PolicyMinimising loss of ccils highly valued for for primary production.MethodIdentify highly valued soil resources.GlossaryHighly valued coils land −

valued including:Versatility for primary production, such as highly versatile soilsPollutant buffering or filtering services;Providing water storage or flow retention services;

d. Rarity.Highly coils

classified as Land Use Capability I or in the New Zealand Land ResourceAnticipated Environmental Results and Monitoring ProgrammeIndicators How indicators can be measured

There is a shared public understanding of theextent and values of Otago's valued

is a public inventory of Otago's highlyvalued soils land at a scale that can

land. consent

The health and quantity of Otago's highlyland

Regular land healthof coilindicators and erosion measures.valued valued arc maintained or

enhanced.

number and location of contaminatedsites in Otago are known and sites are

An integrated contaminated sites register existsand is updated

being managed.

7.0 Reverse Sensitivity7.1 The submitter agrees aim of Objective 4.3 which is ensure land is managed and protected

for economic production. The supports Policy 4.3.1 which restricts the establishment ofthat may lead to reverse is primarily because lawfully established rural

such as poultry farms, are by the encroachment of moresuch as dwellings and places of which have the to hamper or its

operation.8.0 Incompatible Land Uses8.1 Objective 4.3 seeks to manage land uses, however is not explicitly translated into Policy

4.3.1. The submitter would also to point out that this is a separate resource management issue toreverse sensitivity. The considers land uses is a key resourcemanagement issue will prevent conflicting effects being located near to each It isrequested that a new be added to Policy 4.3.1 to manage adverse effects fromPolicy 4.3.14) Restricting new development to appropriate locations to minimise conflict between incompatibleland uses.

HARRISONGRIERSON.COM Page 4 6

9.0 Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

9.1 Given Otago's location and topography there are many settlements and rural activities which are locatedalong the or close proximity to the coast. The submitter notes that Council

acknowledges the effects of climate change and sea rise are not uniform and will result indifferent social, environmental and social for which are affected. The submitterconsiders that this intention is not in the policies and to strengthen these intentions arenecessary.

9.2 buildings/activities (i.e. greenhouses and poultry farms) have different incomparison to more vulnerable activities such as habitable buildings residential dwellings) and cantherefore adapt to changes. For fresh produce and stock can be removed and relocated.The of change and sea level rise on humans living in habitable dwellings is much higher.The submitter considers that policies which and enable future establishment and expansionof non−residential should be acknowledged as it will to to the region'seconomy with low social and environmental effects. Therefore, the submitter requests that a new

be added to Policy 3.3.2 as follows:3.3.2d) Acknowledging that some activities are more and able to adapt to the climate

change.

10.0 The submitter seeks following relief Otago Regional Council

An additional be added to Policy 2.1.1 to provide for stock drinking water as permitted by theRMA as per Section 4.1 of this submission.

10.2 An be added to Policy 2.1.4 to enable rural production in appropriate locations bymanaging air discharge from these as per 5.1 of this submission.

10.3 That all references to 'highly valued soils' and soil' be changed to 'highly valued land' or'highly versatile land' as per 6.1 of this submission.

10.4 submitter Policy 4.3.1 as per Section 7.1 of this submission.

10.5 An additional be added to Policy 4.3.1 to minimise between incompatible land uses asper 8.1 of this submission.

10.6 Add an additional to Policy 3.3.2 to acknowledge some are more resilient andable to adapt to the effects of climate change as per Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of this submission.

11.0 The submitter wishes to be heard in support of their submission.

12.0 If make a similar submission submitter consider presenting a joint case them at a

Signature:

Date: 7 July 2015

Address for Service of Submitter:

Egg Producers Federation of New ZealandHarrison Limited

P 0 Box 5760Wellesley StreetAuckland 1121

HARRISONGRIERSON.COM

Attention: Reina Kumar

Telephone:

Facsimile/email:09 917 5000

docx

HARRISONGRIERSON.COM Page 6 6

ORC Proposed Regional Policy Sta tement f o r Otago 20


JUL 2015FILE A

TO

Submiss ion Brian Turner , 3 3 6 3 Ida Road, Otu rehua , CentralOtago 9339

I'm impressed by, grateful for, a n d endorse w h a t you t h u s far propose in yourforthcoming Proposed Regional Policy S ta temen t for Otago 2015.

The tes t is going to be exten t to which you a re willing a n d able to resis t attemptsto o r reject major p a r t s of it. I t h i n k it likely m o s t will comefrom those whose bus ines s in teres ts concerns are s u c h t h a t they're inclined −o r feel − to give insufficient regard to long−term environmental

Worldwide palaeobiologists believe life o n ea r th is in trouble a n d t h a t we're o n theof a sixth m a s s extinction. New Zealanders a p p e a r to accept that . It's

p a s t time t h a t we woke u p . Hearteningly, y o u r indicate you have.

Recently the Guardian Weekly (26.06.15) publ ished a piece by JanZalasiewicz, professor of palaeobiology a t Leicester University, in which h e saidcolleagues of h is have pointed o u t tha t , unl ike p a s t extinctions which have been

by massive o u t b u r s t s ' t h a t choked 'the a tmosphere ' a n d poisonedseas ' , today's extinctions being by the effects of j u s t one species,

Homo sapiens. ' He says we, a species 'have to become thetop preda tor in the oceans too, caus ing populat ions ' there 'to collapse'.

He goes o n to say 'our single species now somewhere between25% a n d 40% of o n a n d notes of is

by the of millions of tons of nitrogen the air, bydigging a m o u n t s of phospha te ground.'

The of this, h e says, is playing a p a r t in ongoing m a s s extinctionof o t h e r

W h e n I w a s a boy in Otago in t h e 1940s a n d 50s, the adu l t s I grew u p alongsideo f the need to leave a legacy o u r would be grateful for

a n d p roud of. They spoke of a n d word for t h e m issaid s u c h were I accepted under s tood tha t , could see the

t r u t h s inheren t in it. And then, in my late twenties, I t h a t o u r dutiesextended to Nature − th ings − a s well a s h u m a n beings. Aldo Leopold − agreat forester a n d conservator, (see h i s A S a n d County Almanac) −t h a t we o u g h t to see Nature 'as a to which we belonged, n o t t rea t ita s a sui te of commodit ies to be exploited impunity. Nowadays we of Naturea s a ' resource ' a n d m a s k s allows u s to hide o u r excesses. isused , deliberately, to ra the r clarify. Forw h a t is 'development' h a s resul ted in degradat iondepletion. S u c h is still

ago I a grea t reading Henry Thoreau ' s Walden, ana c c o u n t of h i s t ime i n woods in Concord, Massachuse t t s , a b o u t 160 yearsago. Recent comprehensive s tudies w h a t those woods p o n d s soo n are like today w h a t Thoreau found detailed in 1850s, are

a n d saddening. Bill McKibben (New York Review o f Books, J u n e 19,2014), wrote,

It's not that he thought people would protect the natural world − he just thoughtthat that world was so big that humans couldn't systematically damage it. Thoreau wrote that'Most men, it seems to me, do not care for Nature, and would sell their share in all herbeauty, a s long as they may live, for a stated sum − many for a glass of rum. Thank God, men

cannot a s yet and lay waste the sky as well as the Now that every cubic meter ofthe atmosphere carries the unmistakable brand of civilization − 400 parts per million ofcarbon dioxide, and rising − the sky is no longer a refuge.

McKibben a n d others worldwide cont inue to point out , 'exhaustive research',t h a t na tu r e isn ' t 'so a b u n d a n t ' that we c a n unconcernedly keep o n t rash ing thee a r t h a n d sacrificing 'myriads ' of species.

One hesitates to say t h a t we're ' t rashing ' our place b u t it's undeniable t h a t in manya r e a s so−called 'progress' h a s resul ted , a n d cont inues to result , in losses of habitat,species, a n d na tu ra l values generally. There are limits, a n d in some respects w h a t ist e rmed 'growth' is unsus ta inab le . Too few people seem to realise or accept thereare limits, exponential growth is a n impossibility, a n d c a n only have one end.

Worldwide, given the way h u m a n k i n d is living a n d behaving, already we are seeingt h a t o u r planet is unable to adequate ly provide for a growing n u m b e r of thepopulat ion. Here, in New Zealand a s a whole, a n d in o u r s o u t h e r n l a n d s inpart icular , there are encouraging signs t h a t more of u s realise t h a t o u r bes t andm o s t responsible course is to a i m to live in ways are sus ta inable a n d bolsterresilience.

All r o u n d t h e globe informed a n d empathet ic people are drawing our attention to ourpart in w h a t ' s happening. Recently I noted t h a t Dr Trevor Hancock, for the pastthree yea r s leader of a project for the Canad ian Public Association (CPHA),not long ago released a d i scuss ion p a p e r a n d repor t 'on global change and public

The report identifies t h e 'ecological de te rminan t s of which are listedas: 'clean air and water, food, materials, fuel, t h e great cycles o f water, nitrogen andphosphorus; of wastes , climate stability, and others.'

All o f these 'determinants of the report states, 'come from the Earth'secosystems, and they are threatened by massive and growing

c h a n g e s now underway. These thusr ep re sen t the greatest to the of the public in t h e 21st century.'

Here's a link to a n o t very long piece wrote in which h e discusses therepor t a n d the reasoning beh ind it.

/ .org /dr−trevor−hancock

We continue to be told t h a t progress depends o n economic growth, hence theregula r references to GDP (Gross Domestic Product). S u c h a m e a s u r e is indeedgross; we'd be bet ter off adopt ing like a GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator).An increasing n u m b e r of economis t s a n d scientists challenge ways we measuregrowth a n d progress a n d have been for some time. One is Tom Wessels who, in hisbook The Myth o f Progress: Toward a Sustainable Future (University ofPress, 2006) 'demonstrates how o u r c u r r e n t p a t h toward progress, b a s e d on

economic a n d inefficient u s e of resources , runs absolutelyc o u n t e r to three foundational scientific laws t h a t govern all complexsys tems . ' He goes on to d i s c u s s these , w h a t he three Laws ofSustainabili ty: (1) law of l imits to growth; (2) second law of thermodynamics,w h i c h exposes the of inc reased energy consumption; (3) the law of

which resul ts in marvellous diversity of s u c h highly evolvedsys t ems a s the h u m a n body a n d complex ecosystems.'

Wessels a rgues t h a t ' these laws, proven to life i n its myriadforms, increasingly have been c a s t aside, first by Western economists ,pragmat is t s , governments a t t rac ted by the idea of unl imi ted growth, a n d morerecently by a economy domina t ed by large corporations, i n which

consolidation a n d oversimplification create large−scale in t h e u s e ofmater ia ls a n d

Sadly, th i s seems to s u m u p the act ions a n d thinking of a lot of those in control ofNew Zealand's future. Humanity, in the West especially, is still batt l ing to find waysof altering the consc iousness of the majority of the populace, a populace bewitched −o r is i t cap tured − by 'things' galore, techno trinketry, a n d disposables galore.

obsolescence reigns! Until o u r consc iousness conscience kick in.

One o f the th ings t h a t m a k e s Otago un ique so captivating −gives it 'world of the the Otago

Council (CODC) u s e to proudly advertise a n d promote the − i s thatm o s t of i ts hills block m o u n t a i n ranges polluted. It gives t h e m anextraordinary a n d memorable a u r a , one tha t ' s grand. Well,

have pas sed since I wrote two sentences preceding one sincethe vaun ted 'world of difference' h a s cont inued to become less different.

Which reminds me of thoughts expressed by Bill McKibben in h is book WanderingHome, a n insightful, informed accoun t of a three−week th rough AdirondackMounta ins in the US. McKibben wrote:

we need to set aside land from our use simply to prove to ourselves that we can do it, thatwe don't need to be in control of everything around us. The battle for the future is preciselybetween those who are willing to engineer every organism for our convenience,' would rathernot 'risk any damage' to our 'Economy, and those who are willing to say there is somethingother than us that counts'.

I n a n o t h e r section of Home, McKibben a s k s u s to acknowledge the' surpass ing in o u r right of a place', something t h a t is, these days,'drowned by of commerce, ease.'

I was reminded, w h e n reading McKibben, of the Kentucky Wendell Berry, anovelist, poet, agrar ian, who t h a t n o t only haveproblems, 'we problems'. Tha t m a d e me think, too, o f Edward Abbey whoreckoned t h a t 'growth for growth's sake w a s ideology of the cell.' Whenyou t h i n k of it, t h a t is a accura te summat ion of behaviour so far,condemning to annihilat ion by slow degrees.

Another White, in a n issue of (April 2006), p u t itironically, when he wrote, 'the more we p u r s u e o u r individually,

isolated right to "life, the pu r su i t of happiness ," the deader thesocial a n d worlds become.'

We a s a society m u s t listen to a n d heed w h a t scientists telling u s . Butmore t h a t you, councillors, on of u s have to lead way bypointing o u t t h a t we collectively, m u s t acknowledge t h a tconsiderat ions have a a n d to play in the decisions we make inrespect to how we live here.

May I e n d by my suppor t for you r wide−ranging, insightful ProposedPolicy Sta tement for Otago 2015. Please defend it p u t it in place.

T h a n k you for the opportunity to some of my, a n d others ' , thoughts.

Turner

Center for the Advancement o f the Steady State Economy Good Health Requires Di... Page 1 of 2

− Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy − −

Good H e a l t h R e q u i r e s D i f f e r e n t EconomicsPosted By Trevor Hancock On July 2, 2015 4:00 pm In Economic Growth 1 Comment

by Dr. Trevor Hancock

Editor's note: A version o f this post ran originally in the Times Colonist

the past three years, I have been leading an important project for theCanadian Public Health Association (CPHA), which led to the release on May

of our Discussion Paper and a technical report onglobal change and public health.

In these documents, we identify what we call the "ecological determinantsof health": clean air and water, food, materials, fuel, the great cycles of

water, nitrogen and phosphorus, detoxification of wastes, climate stability, and others.

These determinants o f health come from the Earth's natural ecosystems, and they arethreatened by the massive and still growing global ecological changes nowunderway. These changes thus represent the greatest threat to the health of the public inthe 21st century. They include the following:

• Global warming and resultant climate instability;• The contamination of all ecosystems and food all

persistent organic pollutants and other novel entities such as• The depletion of key resources and damage to ecosystems that provide

"goods and services"; and• The loss of species and biodiversity, a "sixth great extinction" that

threatens the overall web of life.

[5]

Here I explore some of the many issuesand approaches we discuss in our report,beginning with the underlying values andbeliefs that drive the ecological changeswe are witness to, and the changes inthose values and beliefs we need tocreate.

The drivers o f the ecological changesnoted above, now collectively beingreferred to as "The Anthropocene," are acombination of population growth andaffluence, with technology sometimesamplifying and sometimes reducing theirimpact. But underlying these drivers is anincreasingly globally shared set of valuesand beliefs that together comprise"modernism." The central value is a beliefin "progress," and that progress equateswith growth, especially growth in materialwellbeing.

global ecological changes are This leads to the pursuit of economicthreatening public health. Photo Credit: growth to meet the growing demands ofStockshoppe I Dreamstime.com a growing population. But this is the

fundamental problem because, in ourcurrent economic system, growth means

more demands on the Earth's natural resources and more damage to its ecosystems.

Such damage is resulting in the decline, and may result in the collapse, of key ecosystemfunctions that are the basis for the life and survival o f humans and other life forms; whenecosystems decline or collapse, so too do the societies that are dependent upon them.

10/07/2015

Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy Good Health Requires Di... Page 2 o f 2

This damage in turn undermines the economy and threatens the continued wellbeing andeven the very survival of communities, societies, and our increasingly interconnectedglobal civilisation.

Moreover, as resources become scarce and ecosystems fragile, those with wealth andpower will ensure their access to them, even if it means other humansand other less. This will both heighten global and local inequity and pushmore ecosystems toward collapse and more species toward extinction. I t will alsoheighten the potential for both local and global strife.

Faced with these immense challenges of potential ecological and social decline andcollapse, the only answer from conventional economics is more growth. But continuedconventional growth in a finite clearly impossible when it involvesmore growth in demand for resources and more strain upon our increasingly fragile

ecosystems. There are indeed limits to to be more precise, there isa l imit to growth, and that l imit is the Earth itself.

Our current economic system is broken and must be discarded and replaced with aneconomic system that is compatible with the Earth and all its ecosystems and resources.This will require a massive global change in the underlying cultural and political valuesthat drive our current economic system.

That change has to begin with the wealthy countries because we cannot say, in effect,that we will keep what we have but the rest of the world cannot have what we havebecause there isn't enough to go We in the wealthy countries need to shift ourfocus from the pursuit of economic development to the pursuit of a higher goal: humandevelopment that is equitable and sustainable.

After all, what business are we should we be societies and governments? Arewe here to grow the economy? Is that really the ultimate human purpose? Or are we hereto "grow" people? And are we here only to "grow" some like us, perhaps?—or are we here to pursue a more noble purpose: ensuring the achievement by everyoneof the highest human potential o f which they are capable, in a manner that is ecologicallysustainable and socially just?

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a public health physician and a professor a t the School o f PublicHealth and Social Policy a t the University o f Victoria. He has played a key role in foundingseveral organizations, including the Canadian Association ofPhysicians for the Environment and the Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care. In the1980's, Dr. Hancock was one o f the founders and the first leader o f the Green Party inCanada.

[email protected]

Article printed from Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] Times Colonist:

[2] Image:[3] Discussion Paper: http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/policy/edh−discussion_e.pdf[4] technical report: http://www.cpha.ca/uploads/policy/edh−brief.pdf[5] Image:

Copyright © 2011 Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. All rights reserved.

10/07/2015


Name of submitter:




Postal address:

Postcode:

Telephone:

Email:




JUL 2015FILEDIR TO V

31Office use only

I w i s d o n o t w ish circle preference) to be heard in supportof my ission

If others make a similar submission, I will not considerpresenting jointly with them at a hearing

Date:(of submitter, or person authorised to sign on their


I could gain through trade competition submission, but myto effects directly

business

Signature:

Free

Send to:Freepost 497Otago RegionalPrivate Bag 1954Dunedin 9054

Please turn over

State what your submissionrelates to if you support,oppose or want it amended



e.g. amend provision 'y' e.g. provision 'y' should say... e.g. I want provision 'y'changed because...

er

r


Name of submitter:

SUBMISSION FORM (Print clearly on both sides)



T

Postal address:A If; 0 1‘

1 \J

Postcode:C. C

Telephone:2.

Email:


1 0 JUL 2015FILE No. 11.5.64−C2DIR TO 5. trz.i

32

Office use only

I %visit Asido not w i s h (circle preference) to be heard in supportof my subr−nission

If others make a similar submission, I w i l l w i I l not considerpresenting jointly with them at a hearing (circlifireforefice

Signature: / Date: (o/7

(of submitter, or person authorisedlo sign on their behalf)

Trade competitors declaration (if applicable) " − r A rek..._1c−A

I could gain through trade competition from a submission, but mysubmission is limited to addressing environmental effects directlyimpacting my business

• −,‘• . ? Signature:



FreeSend to:Freepost ORC 497Otago Regional CouncilPrivate Bag 1954Dunedin 9054

Telephone number:

Email:

Hearing:

Submission on the Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Otago

Name o f submitter: Environment Southland

Postal Address: Private Bag 90116

Invercargill 9840

03 2115115 or 0800 76 88 45 (Tulare within Southland

serviceOes.govt.nz

Environment Southland does not wish to be heard in support of its submission.

General CommentsEnvironment Southland (ES) supports the Proposed Regional PolicyStatement for Otago (pRPS) which is well presented and easy tocomprehend. The documents' format, with the addition of needs,combined methods and environmental results and indicators works welland avoids duplication. The main comment ES would like to make is toensure enhanced connectivity between the Policies and the Methods.Specific comments are outlined below.

59 Policy 3.5.1(d) Request strengthening Method 7.3 as it relates to this policy.This method does not include comment or reference to Nationally orRegionally significant infrastructure but focuses on road safety, travelneeds, freight efficiency and public transport within the Regional LandTransport Plan.The method requires strengthening to ensure the Regional Land TransportPlan is used to identify the Regions nationally and regionally importanttrai 'sport infrastructure.The reason for this request is that Southland's freight, tourist and domestictransport needs are entirely dependent on the transport infrastructure ofOtago. Otago Regional Council and Environment Southland combinedresources to be more effective and efficient in the development of acombined Otago/Southland Regional Land Transport Plan during the2014/15 year. Environment Southland in conjunction with the NZTA,develo ied a GIS based model to identify the strategically important

Request a new method point as follows:Method 7.3.5 − the reeion's National and Regiomihinipiniant ininiport intim/7I*11r within the Regional I _and ThmsportPlan

transport infrastructure for freight, tourists, lifeline routes and domestictravel within Southland. The model could easily be extended to include theOtago area to give a combined strategic network across the two regionsCombining resources to identify national and regionally importanttransport infrastructure using a model already in existence will assist inpreparing a more cohesive and effective Regional Land Transport Plan inthe future.

RPS Feedback Form

Submission Date

Name of submitter:

Postal Address:

Phone Number:

E−mail:


If others make a similarsubmission, I will will notconsider presenting jointlywith them at the hearing:




2015−07−12 22:32:45

Angus Mackay

Street: 95 Middleton Road, KewCity: DunedinPostal Code: 2012

02102393445

I do not wish

I will not consider presently jointly


JUL 2015FILEDIR TO

Submission 1 relates to Public right of Way to Countryside issuesSubmission 2 relates to Riparian zones of our

1. There should me more access to the countryside in NZ across farmland, more akinto the UK model where there is between farmer and public. Farmersshould receive incentives: financially or otherwise from the to open up their farms,allow the development of bridleways, paths and trees (which willencourage greater biodiversity) more akin to the UK model... i.e. greater access aroundthe edges of fields, rivers and peaks (viewing points) on farmers land. public shouldshow respect to the land and have control over dogs (i.e. obey the law of commonsense).

2. There should be faster (ORC measured & recorded) growth of riparianplanting zones on water outlets from ALL farms in Otago than currently is the case.Farmers should be given incentives financial (or other) incentives to buy into the project& follow such schemes as being used in Taranaki to engage more farmers in theprocess. Where possible nurseries who specialize in native plants should berecommended for the planting process.

1. Makes NZ more interesting & accessible to public − too much treeshave been stripped away for the sake of commercial gain. Rejuvenation (even just viahedgerows is better than naught. Aids biodiversity. Incentives required to bring lessinterested farmers into the movement. Makes public appreciate more &what farmers contribute.

2. To improve the of our rivers significantly in line with other moreadvanced regions e.g. Taranaki (?). Improve the scenery of our landscape andincrease local & habitats for our and other Financialincentives for farmers will bring more of the less environmentally interested farmers(hopefully) into the process. Specialist native planting nurseries will provide theexpertise & advice required to provide the right mix of native plants to promote a NZlocal ecosystem in a riparian environment.

Regional

Name of


JUL 2015FILE No.DIR TO




Postal address:

0

Postcode:

Telephone:

Email:

−

that all submissions are made available for inspection

SUBMISSIONS M U S T B E RECEIVED B Y 5.00 PM,FRIDAY 24 JULY 2015

use

(circle prefereice) to be heard in supportof y submission

If others make a similar submission, I will will not considerpresenting jointly with at a (circle

Date:(of person authorised on their behalf)

Trade competitors declaration

I could gain trade compe a submission, but mysubmission is limited to add effects directlyimpacting my business

Signa

Free

Send to:Freepost ORC 497Otago Regional CouncilPrivate Sag 1954

9054

turn over

State what your submissionto and if you support.

oppose or want it amended

2 State what decision you want theOtago Regional Council to make

3 Give reasons for the decision you

e.g. amend provision y

e

e.g. should say... e.g. I want provision because...

as required

SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED PROPOSED REGIONAL POLICYSTATEMENT FOR OTAGO

TO: Otago Regional Council

1 Name of Submitters: Shayne and Tracy Kirk

(the Submitters)

2 Address for service of submitters:

Jan Caunter

Gallaway Cook Allan

Box 450

Wanaka 9343

Telephone: 03 443 0252

Email:

3 This is a submission on the proposed Regional Policy Statement for OtagoRPS"), publicly notified on 21 May 2015.

The Submitters can not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission.

5 The specific provisions of the proposed RPS that the submission relates to are:Objective 2.3

Policy 2.3.5

Objective 3.9

Policies 3.9.2, 3.9.6

Objective 4.5

Policy

6 Our submission is:

a We own and operate the Top 10 Holiday Park at Chelmer St, Oamaru. Thisbusiness is very highly regarded and important to Oamaru's commercial andeconomic business.

property is close to a resource recovery centre operated by the WaitakiResource Recovery Trust. We and our customers suffer adverse effects from theactivities occurring on that site. Further, Waitaki District Council is currentlyconsidering the location of a new waste transfer station for Oamaru. We do notwant that facility located in our residential area.

We oppose the location of waste activities and facilities in or near residential

areas. We would like to see the waste provisions improved to make it very clearthat industry and residential land use are in conflict with each other and do notmix.

Objective 2.3 and associated policies

We support Objective 2.3 and Policy 2.3.5 in so far as they seek the reduction ofthe potential for adverse health and nuisance effects.


We support Objective 3.9 and Policy 3.9.2 so far as they seek avoidance ofhazardous substances and materials on the health and safety of people but werequest that the objective and Policies 3.9.2, 3.9.6 and 3.9.7 be strengthened toinclude reference to amenity values, and to make it clear that the development ofwaste facilities should occur in industrial areas and avoid residential areas inurban environments.


We support Policy 4.5.

The Submitters wish to be heard in support of their submission.

If others make a similar submission, the Submitters will consider presenting a joint casewith them at a

Jan Caunterand authorised agent for the Submitters

Date:

RPS Feedback Form

Date

Name of submitter:

Postal Address:

Phone Number:

E−mail:


others a similarsubmission, I will will notconsider presenting jointlywith them at the hearing:




2015−07−16 01:20:58

Alec Saunders

Street: Box 28 OutramPostal Code: 9062

1225

[email protected]

I do not wish



JUL 2015

DIR TO

In general I support the provisions outlined in in Chapter 2 of the proposed RegionalPolicy Statement for Otago and would like to see aspects of Objectives 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3enhanced.

I would like the statement to include in Policy an additional paragraph (q)and mitigate the adverse effects of construction, effluent, farming, forestry, mining andother practices that may introduce contaminants and damage conservation

Likewise, add a new paragraph to Policy as follows: Avoid and mitigate theadverse effects of construction, effluent, farming, forestry, mining and other practicesthat may introduce contaminants and damage conservation

Also: Policy and mitigate the adverse effects of construction, effluent,farming, mining and other practices that may introduce contaminants anddamage conservation values".

While the policy quite rightly specifies pests, for example, it does not includedegradation caused by human activities, some of which can reduce or destroy those

values that the policy is attempting to enhance and preserve.

It is vital that our water resources are of high quality and pose no risks for maintainingaquatic species, fishing, drinking, swimming and other aquatic activities.

rps feedback form - orc.govt.nz · rps feedback form submission date name ... particulary those...

Documents