Michael Duindam - Palmerston North City Council

Transcription

BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL
In the Matter of:
The Resource Management Act 1991
And
Proposed Plan Change 15H:
Airport Zone Review
Application By:
wwwwwsss
Palmerston North City Council
_________________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY
Michael Duindam
_________________________________________________________________________
Dated: 14 October 2015
1
Introduction
Preamble
1)
My name is Michael Eruera Duindam. I am a Policy Planner with the Palmerston North City
Council. I hold the qualification of Bachelor of Resource and Environmental Planning (Massey
University) and am a graduate plus member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have five
and a half years of planning experience in local government. This includes two years working
for the Gisborne District Council as a District Policy Planner and three and a half years for the
Palmerston North City Council as a Policy Planner.
2)
Over the last five and a half years my experience has included the writing and preparation of
plan changes, working with applicants in processing private plan changes and processing
designations. I am therefore familiar with the issues associated with preparing and applying
District Plan provisions.
3)
In my role at Gisborne District Council I was responsible for the planning and resource
management inputs for the following plan change processes:
4)
(i)
Plan Change 44: Taruheru Block Infrastructure Plan (2011);
(ii)
Plan Change 45: Omnibus rezoning (2011);
(iii)
Plan Change 46: Industrial Traffic (2011);
(iv)
Proposed Plan Change 51: Reticulated Services Boundary (2012);
(v)
Proposed Plan Change 52: Flood Hazard Overlays (2012);
(vi)
Plan Change 53: Port B rezoning (2012);
(vii)
Variation 17: Port Management Area (2012); and
(viii)
Private Plan Change 6: Mangapapa School.
In my role at Palmerston North City Council I have been responsible for the planning and
resource management inputs for the following plan change processes:
(i)
Plan Change 11: Institutional Zone Review (2013);
(ii)
Variation 11A: Transportation Review (2013); and
(iii)
Plan Change 17: Hazardous Substances (2014).
I have also processes a designation for a Council water storage facility and project managed
Plan Change 15G: Utilities.
5)
The purpose of this report is to assess the proposed plan change in terms of the relevant
statutory considerations and obligations, taking into account those issues raised by
submissions.
2
2
6)
I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (Section 7 of the Environment Court
Consolidated Practice Note 2014) and I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. This
evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state I am relying on what I have been
told by another person. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might
alter or detract from the opinions I express.
7)
The Council has commissioned the following team of experts to draft evidence in response to
issues raised by submissions:
1. Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Engineer (Acousafe)
2. Ian Munro – General Manager NZ/Pacific for Airbiz Aviation Strategies Ltd (Airbiz)
3. Mark Tansley – Retail and Office Expert (Marketplace New Zealand Ltd.)
8)
The following is a list of abbreviations referred to throughout my report:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9)
PPC15: Proposed Plan Change 15H Airport Zone Review
PNCC or the Council: Palmerston North City Council
RMA or the Act: Resource Management Act 1991
PNAL: Palmerston North Airport Limited
Horizons: Manawatū – Wanganui Regional Council
REPA: Runway End Protection Areas
RPS: Regional Policy Statement
This report is structured according to the following format:
1. Overview
2. Submissions
3. Framework for Analysis
4. Analysis of Submissions
5. Statutory Considerations
6. Purpose and Principles of the RMA
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
10)
This report includes the following appendices
1. Summary Table of Recommendations on Submissions
2. Amended District Plan Provisions PPC15H
3. Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant
4. Technical Evidence of Iain Munro – Aviation Consultant
5. Technical Evidence of Mark Tansley – Retail and Office Consultant
6. Memo from John McCartin – Stormwater Engineer
3
3
Contents
1.
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5
The Plan Change Process ............................................................................................................ 5
Summary of Proposed Plan Change ........................................................................................... 5
Plan Change Preparation Chronology ........................................................................................ 6
2.
Submissions ............................................................................................................................. 7
3.
Framework for Analysis ........................................................................................................ 13
4.
Analysis of Submissions ....................................................................................................... 13
5.
Statutory Considerations ...................................................................................................... 45
Section 31 – Consistency with RMA Functions......................................................................... 45
Section 32 – Evaluation of Appropriateness ............................................................................ 45
Section 74 – Matters to be considered by a Territorial Authority ........................................... 50
Section 75 – Consistency with Regional Planning Policies ....................................................... 50
Other Matters ........................................................................................................................... 50
6.
Purpose and Principles of the RMA .................................................................................... 50
Section 5 – Purpose .................................................................................................................. 50
Section 6 – Matters of National Importance ............................................................................ 51
Section 7 – Other Matters ........................................................................................................ 51
Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi ................................................................................................. 51
7.
Conclusion & Recommendation .......................................................................................... 52
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 52
Recommendation ..................................................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX 1: Summary Table of Recommendations on Submissions
APPENDIX 2: Amended District Plan Provisions PPC15H
APPENDIX 3: Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant
APPENDIX 4: Technical Evidence of Iain Munro – Aviation Consultant
APPENDIX 5: Technical Evidence of Mark Tansley – Retail and Office Consultant
APPENDIX 6: Memo John McCartin – Stormwater Engineer
4
4
Statement of Evidence by Michael Duindam
1. Overview
The Plan Change Process
1.1
PPC15H has been prepared and notified in accordance with section 74 of the RMA, and the
first part of Schedule 1 which outlines the requirements for changing a District Plan. PPC15 is
TH
the 15
1.2
plan change in the Palmerston North City Sectional District Plan Review.
The Plan Change process allows the District Plan to be updated and changed as required to
address new issues or as new information becomes available on methods to manage the
City’s natural and physical resources and the effects of activities on the environment.
Summary of Proposed Plan Change
1.3
I do not intend to provide a detailed description of PPC15H, as this has already been provided
for by the section 32 report. However, the following is a high level description of the Plan
Change.
1.4
PPC15H proposes a series of amended and new issues, objectives, policies and methods for
the Airport Zone. The changes can be summarised as follows:

New stand-alone Airport Zone Section of the District Plan (Section 13).

New Resource Management Issues, Objectives, Policies and Rules for the Airport
Zone.

Comprehensive Development Plan requirement for the streetscape design of roads in
the Airport Zone.

Review of the Air Noise Contours and associated provisions.

New Prohibited Activity for proposed Runway End Protection Areas.

New Sound emission controls for activities within the Airport Zone.

Changes to Objectives and Policies related to aircraft noise within the Rural and
Residential Zones.

Within the Residential Zone amendments to the permitted activity performance
standards related to Air Noise Control, deletion of Schedules P, Q and R, which relate
to insulation requirements associated to air noise, and an update to Noise Map
10.7.6.3 to recognize the boundary change area.

New Prohibited Activity related to the proposed Runway End Protection Areas in the
Rural Zone.

1.5
Amendments to related definitions and a series of new definitions.
From a land use perspective PPC15H sees a significant departure from the Operative Plan.
The Policy framework of the Operative Plan focuses exclusively on the Airport and its
5
5
operations, whereas PPCH15 recognises the zone as a more multi-use zone that can cater for
a range of complimentary activities. A precinct approach has been promoted to differentiate
between aviation related activities and land which doesn’t have a direct airport interface and
provide a framework to enable the establishment and ongoing operation of compatible
activities. This approach is considered more enabling and responsive to the needs of a
modern airport.
1.6
Other more minor amendments are proposed to Section 4 (Definitions), Section 9 (Rural
Zone), Section 10 (Residential Zone) and Section 23 (Utilities) of the District Plan.
Plan Change Preparation Chronology
1.7
The following table is a chronology of the key decisions and record of consultation on PPC15H.
Consultation on Draft Plan Change A-H
April 2014

Clause 3 Consultation – copies of Draft Plan Change sent to Clause 3 parties
April 2014

Meetings with Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Inc
(December 2013 and April 2014)

Meeting with Te Rangimarie
(December 2013 & March 2014)

Council’s Planning and Policy Committee: authorise public consultation on Proposed Plan
Change 15A-H (1 December 2014, Resolutions 76.1, 76.2 and 76.3)

Clause 5 Notification
Proposed Plan Change notified for submissions in accordance with Cl 5
(Late February to Early March 2015)

Clause 7 Public Notice of Submissions
Public notice of the availability of a summary of decisions requested by persons making
submissions to PPC15A-H
(April 2015)
6
6
2. Submissions
2.1
PPC15H was notified on Thursday 29 January 2015. Submissions to the Plan Change were
received from 12 original submitters, and 2 further submitters.
2.2
It is difficult to classify all of the submissions received according to whether they support or
oppose the Plan Change, as a number did not directly state their overall position, while others
clearly had concerns with particular aspects of the proposed Plan Change rather than the
change in its entirety. A summary of the submissions received follows:
Submitter
Oppose/Support
Further
Submitter
6. David C
Parham
Did Not Indicate
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
8. Clive Harding
 The submitter states that air surface contours similar to
those used in Figure 20.7 of the operative plan are
necessary for illustrating the take-off and approach and
conical surfaces. The submitter states that areas where the
conical surface is below the take-off surface and ground to
airspace clearances should be mapped.
Did Not Indicate
 The submitter is concerned about the lack of control over
helicopter noise and safety effects on the Milson residential
area. The submitter notes that there is no provision to
prevent helicopters flying over Milson, allowing helicopters to
use this noise-sensitive residential area for training
exercises.
15. Robert H
Fraser
Opposed
 The submitter is opposed to the current drafting of PPC15H.
 The submitter is concerned about safety and noise impacts
that single engine helicopters have on residential areas that
they train above.
 The submitter is concerned about Milson Airport mapping
and that single engine helicopters operating over Milson are
in a "Red Zone".
28. Brian Green
Properties (PN)
Ltd.
Oppose
 The submitter opposes in part the Airport Zone. The
submitter notes that the review of the air noise contours does
not adopt the contour identified by the updated modelling.
The submitter considers that the modelling assumptions are
inaccurate and inappropriate. It is also noted that the
contours are used to justify making dwellings within the
contours a Prohibited Activity, which is considered unjustified
given the submitter considers that the most accurate
contours have not been adopted.
7
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Oppose/
Support
Original
Submission
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
Opposes
7
Submitter
Oppose/Support
Further
Submitter
Oppose/
Support
Original
Submission
 The submitter opposes in part the Airport Zone. The
submitter notes that the review of the air noise contours does
not adopt the contour identified by the updated modelling.
The submitter considers that the modelling assumptions are
inaccurate and inappropriate. It is also noted that the
contours are used to justify making dwellings within the
contours a Prohibited Activity, which is considered unjustified
given the submitter considers that the most accurate
contours have not been adopted.
Support
 The submitter supports Rule 13.4.6.2. The submitter notes
that the existing rule in the plan has not been complied with
by the Airport Company.
34. Palmerston
North Airport
Limited
 That if the relief sought is not available for some technical
reason the submitter requests that amendments be made to
like effect.
Oppose
 Policy 2.3 is opposed because the submitter considers they
are the only authority in a position to judge whether or not
activities require airport access.
 Policy 2.5 is opposed because while some activities may not
be ancillary to airport operations in a direct way, they may
provide important support to those businesses which are
directly ancillary. The submitter considers that a balanced
business community is an essential element for the Airport
Zone if the Airport is to be successful in a business sense.
 That R13.4.2.6 is opposed.
 The submitter opposes the Comprehensive Development
Plan, as it may reduce flexibility to react rapidly with changes
to development plans when required to meet commercial
market needs and any Civil Aviation Authority mandated
requirements.
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.3 Activities which do not
comply with the Performance Standards for Permitted
Activities, Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria
(with the exception of (f) Ancillary Retail and Ancillary Office
Activities).
 That R13.4.3.1 is opposed.
 The submitter opposes Retail Activity, Takeaway Bars and
Commercial Service Activity with a gross floor Area over
100m2 being a Discretionary Activity.
 The submitter opposes R13.4.3.3 Accommodation Motels
and Residential Centres (excluding those prohibited by
R13.4.5.1) as a Discretionary Activity.
 The submitter opposes R13.4.3.3 Non-Ancillary Office
Activities as a Discretionary Activity. The Assessment
Criteria are also opposed.
8
8
Submitter
Oppose/Support
Further
Submitter
Oppose/
Support
Original
Submission
Oppose in-part
 The submitter opposes in part Resource Management Issue
2, on the basis that they do not consider that the adverse
effects of activities within the Airport Zone on the City's
established business zones is a significant resource
management issue.
 Objective 2 is opposed in part because the submitter does
not consider that commercial distribution effects on the
established Business Zones is a significant matter of
concern.
 Policy 2.1 is not opposed, but the submitter states that they
must be able to respond to changing aviation and airport
security requirements without the need to change the District
plan or to apply for consent. The submitter considers that
how the business functions within its zone needs also to
respond efficiently and rapidly to changing business
demands and it should not be prevented from doing so by
the District Plan.
 That Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises,
Commercial Service Activities, Accommodation and Service
Stations be listed as Permitted Activities in the Core Airport
Precinct and not be confined to the Terminal Building.
 The submitter opposes Office and retail activities needing to
be ancillary.
Support
 The submitter supports R13.4.1.5 Roads.
 The submitter supports R13.4.1.4 Construction, External
Alteration of and Addition to Buildings and Structures and
related Performance Standards.
 The submitter supports R13.4.1.3 Temporary Training
Activities and related Performance Standards.
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.1 Streetscape Design, its
related Performance Standards, Determination Clause and
Assessment Criteria.
 The submitter supports R13.4.1.5 Roads.
 The submitter supports R13.4.5.2 Runway End Protection
Areas.
 Unreservedly support R13.4.6.2.
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.1 Streetscape Design, its
related Performance Standards, Determination Clause and
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.2 Non-Notification
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.2 Sound Emissions.
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.3 Activities which do not
comply with the Performance Standards for Permitted
Activities, Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria
(with the exception of (f) Ancillary retail and Ancillary Office
Activities).
 The submitter supports R13.4.2.4 The Construction, External
9
9
Submitter
Oppose/Support
Further
Submitter
Oppose/
Support
Original
Submission
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Supports
Alteration to a building or structure which does not comply
with the Performance Standards for Permitted Activities,
Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria.
 The submitter supports R13.4.3.4 Temporary Military
Training Activities which do not comply with the Permitted
Activity Performance Standards, Determination Clause and
 The submitter supports R13.4.4.1 Airnoise Control,
Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria.
 The submitter supports R13.4.4.2 Sound Emissions.
 The submitter supports R13.4.51 Airnoise Contour.
 The submitter supports R13.4.5.2 Runway End Protection
Areas.
 The submitter supports R13.4.6.1 Sound Emissions in the
Airport Zone.
 The submitter supports R13.4.6.2 Airport Noise Management
Plan.
 The submitter supports R13.4.7.1 Airport Protection Surface.
Support in part
 The submitter supports Objective 1 and supporting Policies
1.1-1.6.
3.1-3.5 (with reservations that amenity standards must be
balanced with Civil Aviation security requirements in terms of
the airside of the Airport Drive).
4.1 and 4.2.
44. Federated
Farmers
ManawatūRangitikei
Province
Did not indicate
46. Transpower
New Zealand Ltd.
Oppose
 The provisions regarding Palmerston North Airport and
supporting infrastructure are of economic benefit to the
primary industries and the wider PNCC economy.
 Transpower conditionally opposes the new prohibited activity
rules introduced by Plan Change 15H to the extent that it is
unclear from the proposed diagrams and descriptions
whether or not this would have an impact on the National
Grid. [See also submission point SO46/35]
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
Opposes
 Transpower conditionally opposes the new prohibited activity
rules introduced by Plan Change 15H to the extent that it is
unclear from the proposed diagrams and descriptions
whether or not this would have an impact on the National
Grid. [See also submission point SO46/36]
56. Horizons
Oppose in part
 Submitter notes that R13.4.1.1(h) requires sewer, storm
10
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
Opposes
10
Submitter
Oppose/Support
Further
Submitter
water and water supply services to connect to a public
service corridor. This could compromise Horizons' flood
protection measures upstream of Flygers Line which would
not be supported by Horizons. R13.4.3.3(z) for motels and
residential centres takes a different approach, requiring the
site and building design to mitigate any increase in storm
water runoff, but providing no performance standards
communicating what must be mitigated. The submitter
considers that there may be additional hardstand areas (e.g.
runway extension) where storm water is proposed to be
managed on site instead of using reticulated storm water
services. If this is the case, additional rules and standards
should be included in section 13 to control storm water
discharges.
Oppose/
Support
Original
Submission
(FS5)
Did Not Indicate
 Horizons are upgrading its Mangaone Stream flood
protection assets to the 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) design
standard in the following locations: 1. Settlers line north of
the airport, 2. Flygers Line stop banks, and 3. Benmore
Avenue. The submitter considers it is important to ensure
that additional storm water from the Airport Zone does not
compromise the flood protection standards in these areas on
Maps 6, 12, 18 and 19.
 The western runway end protection area appears to overlap
with the Flygers Line Floodway. Rule 13.4.5.2 prohibits any
new building, structure or utility in the runway end protection
areas. Horizons Designation 85 provides for flood protection
activities, however the submitter seeks greater certainty that
these and other flood protection activities will still be
provided for in that part of the runway end protection area
that overlaps with the Floodway.
Support
 Submitter supports Section 13 provisions because they
recognise the Palmerston North Airport as a regionally
important physical resource, they address the avoidance of
adverse effects on the airport and its activities, and they give
effect to One Plan Policies 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3.
68. William M
Kelly & Diane H
Simpson
Oppose
 The submitter is opposed to their property at 134 Midhurst
Street being included within the Runway End Protection
Zone, on the basis that it would:
1. restrict the use and development of their
property
2. lessen the property value
3. hinder future resale prospects
4. mean they could not rebuild the existing
house or buildings in the event that they were
lost,
thereby further reducing the land's value
11
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Opposes
Opposes
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
11
Submitter
Oppose/Support
5. take away their rights as property owners
rate payers to use their land as they wish.
83. Bruce Wilson
Further
Submitter
Oppose/
Support
Original
Submission
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Accept-in
part
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Opposes
and
Did Not Indicate
 The submitter recommends the inclusion of the S4 definition
of 'Core Airport Precinct' under S13.1 bullet point 1, or a
reference thereto, in order to avoid confusion around the
meaning of Core Airport Precinct.
 The submitter notes that the spelling of "hangers" under the
definition of Core Airport Precinct is incorrect.
 The submitter recommends the amendment of the definition
of Mass Assembly of People under S4 to indicate that this
definition only applies to the Runway End Protection Area,
and not to the City at large.
85. Peter & Kathy
Learmonth
87. New Zealand
Transport Agency
Oppose
 The submitter opposes the inclusion of the runway end
protection area over their site at 142 Midhurst Street, on the
basis that it would seriously devalue their land and hinder
any future resale. The submitter states that their land is
already subdivided into two titles and that they have the
option of building a lifestyle home on one title (they state that
this was previously discussed with the Council and request
confirmation from Council that this is the case). They are
concerned that under the proposed Plan provisions, in the
event of a fire or earthquake, losing the existing house,
cattery and kennels buildings, that they would not be able to
rebuild. See also SO85/1
Support
 The submitter supports R13.4.5.2(i) in relation to the
exclusion of roads from the list of new structures that are
prohibited in the Runway End Protection Area.
12
Airways
Corporation of
New Zealand
(FS28)
Palmerston North
Airport Limited
(FS5)
Opposes
Supports
12
3. Framework for Analysis
3.1
Before a plan change request can be incorporated into a District Plan it must fulfil a number of
statutory requirements set down in the Resource Management Act, including:

Part II, comprising Section 5, Purpose and Principles of the Act; Section 6, Matters of
National Importance; Section 7, Other Matters; and Section 8, Treaty of Waitangi;
3.2

Section 31, Functions of Territorial Authorities;

Section 32, Duty to consider options, assess efficiency, effectiveness, benefits and costs;

Section 74, Matters to be considered by territorial authorities; and

Section 75, Contents of district plans.
The process of preparing the Plan Change has been a rigorous one, based on a foundation of
in-depth technical research and analysis, supported by public consultation. It is my view that
the process that has been undertaken to date has fully met the Council’s statutory obligations
and requirements. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the provisions of
PPC15H should be confirmed, amended or deleted, after consideration of the decisions
sought by submitters.
3.3
Part of the assessment of the Plan Change must also include an evaluation of the provisions
of PPC15H itself to determine their adequacy in terms of:
(a) Addressing any potential adverse effects on the environment;
(b) Their relationship and workability with other District Plan provisions; and
(c) The appropriateness of such provisions (for example, their reasonableness and
consistency).
4. Analysis of Submissions
4.1
A summary table of the submissions and the officer recommendations associated with these
can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. Amendments to the District Plan, in response to
submissions can be found in Appendix 2 of this report.
Submission 06 - David C Parham
4.2
David Parham (S6) has submitted (S06/1) that air surface contours similar to those used in
Figure 20.7 of the operative plan are necessary for illustrating the take-off and approach and
conical surfaces. S06/1 states that areas where the conical surface is below the take-off
surface, and ground to airspace clearances should be mapped.
4.3
S06/1 requests that maps in PPC15H illustrate ground to airspace clearance for any
applicable property, and any other restrictions to development as a result of take-off and
approach surfaces.
13
13
4.4
Palmerston North Airport Limited (FS5/5) made a further submission opposing S06/1.
FS5/5 is opposed because extensive technical input would be required to determine airspace
clearance for the whole of the applicable area, and that this is likely to be a high-cost-exercise
and is unlikely to be a more efficient approach than the method as notified. FS5/5 also
considers that the approach proposed by S6/1 risks the planning maps being uncertain as
they would not reflect subsequent changes to ground level through earthworks.
4.5
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited (FS28/1) also made a further submission
opposing S06/1. FS28/1 considers that Figures 13.1 and 13.2 (which relate to the Airport
Protection Surfaces) are sufficient for their purpose and should be retained as they were
notified.
Assessment
4.6
I consider that there is some benefit in conveying the restrictions that relate to the Airport
Protection Surfaces; however, I concur with the views of FS5/5 that it would be a difficult and
potentially high-cost exercise. I also concur with FS28/1 that the approach taken in the notified
plan change related to the Airport Protection Surfaces is sufficient for its intended purpose.
4.7
I do not consider identifying the height restriction effects of the Airport Protection Surfaces in
the planning maps is necessary. The Airport Protection Surfaces apply to a large part of the
district; however, in most parts of the district where the Airport Protection Surfaces apply the
associated height limitations generally have little impact on development opportunities. Most of
the land affected is rurally zoned. All but one of the Rural Zone properties (Lot 1 DP 447219)
is capable of constructing a dwelling or accessory building under the permitted activity
standards. Other types of buildings in the Rural Zone have no height restrictions (other than
the ones imposed by the Airport Protection Surfaces). At the western end of the runway, the
closest non-airport owned property that is rurally zoned could construct up to an estimated 50
metres high. At the eastern end of the runway, beyond Railway Road, the Rurally Zoned
properties can build up to approximately 25 metres high. Beyond Roberts Line, buildings can
be constructed up to between an estimated 60 or 70 metres tall.
4.8
These height restrictions are not considered excessive and because the restrictions generally
only affect a small number of properties in any meaningful way it is not considered necessary
to identify the full effect of Airport Protection Surfaces within the planning maps. The current
practice of requiring applicants to illustrate compliance with the height controls as part of a
resource consent process is considered more appropriate.
4.9
A resource consent process enables a surveyor to take into account undulating terrain and
other topographical land features that may influence the height restrictions. Council does not
14
14
currently have up-to-date Lidar information at its disposal to accurately map the impact of the
Airport Protection Surfaces in a specific location. Even if it did, landform is subject to change
and any mapping included in the planning maps would simply capture a moment in time, and
therefore would not be appropriate to use as an authoritative measure for illustrating
compliance with the Airport Protection Surface restrictions.
4.10
Recommendation
That S06/1 by David Parham related to Airport Protection Surfaces is rejected.
4.11
That the further submissions by Palmerston North Airport Limited (FS5/5) and Airways
Corporation of New Zealand Limited (FS28/1) be accepted.
4.12
That the notified Airport Protection Surface provisions be accepted.
Submission 08 – Clive Harding
4.13
Clive Harding (S8/1) is concerned about the lack of control over helicopter noise and safety
effects on the Milson residential area. The submitter notes that there is no provision to prevent
helicopters flying over Milson, allowing helicopters to use this noise-sensitive residential area
for training exercises.
4.14
S8/1 requests that all helicopters (other than ambulance helicopters) using Palmerston North
Airport comply with the same procedures as fixed wing aircraft and that their take-off and
approach circuits are the same as for fixed wing training aircraft or standard commercial
aircraft.
4.15
Palmerston North Airport Limited (FS5/6) made a further submission opposing S08/1.
FS5/6 acknowledges the concerns raised in S08/1 but rejects the contention of noncompliance by helicopters operating within the Airport Zone. The further submitter invites Mr.
Clive Harding to meet with PNAL and Airways for a briefing on permitted flight tracks and
operating altitudes.
FS5/6 seeks that S08/1 be rejected, except where agreement on a
resolution to the submission point can be agreed between the submitter, the Council and
Palmerston North Airport Limited.
4.16
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited (FS28/2) also made a further submission
opposing S08/1. FS28/2 is opposed because Chapter 13 includes requirements for the
preparation of and adherence to a noise management plan, and rules relating to noise within
the airport zone and adjacent residential zones. These measures are considered sufficient.
Restriction of helicopter flight areas is not supported.
15
15
Assessment
4.17
From a District Plan perspective, I do not consider that noise or safety are significant concerns
with regards to helicopters. As FS28/2 points out, Section 13 of the District Plan includes
requirements for the preparation of and adherence to a noise management plan, and rules
relating to noise within the airport zone and adjacent residential zones. I concur that these
measures are sufficient and additional controls on helicopter noise are not be supported.
4.18
I note the further submission FS5/6 by Palmerston North Airport Limited on S08/1.
According to Council records there does not appear to be a significant noise issue related to
helicopter operations in close proximity to the Airport. Only five complaints have been
recorded in that time and no instances of non-compliance with noise standards have been
identified.
4.19
Recommendation
That S08/1 by Clive Harding related to helicopter noise be rejected.
4.20
That the further submissions by Palmerston North Airport Limited (FS5/6) and Airways
Corporation of New Zealand Limited (FS28/2) be accepted.
Submission 15 – Robert H Fraser
4.21
Robert H Fraser (S15) has made three submission points on PPC15H.
Submission point 15/1
4.22
S15/1 is concerned about safety and noise impacts that single engine helicopters have on
residential areas that they train above. S15/1 requests that clarification around provisions for
single engine helicopters operating over residential areas be made.
4.23
Two further submissions oppose S15/1. The Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd
(FS28/4) oppose S15/1 on the grounds that Chapter 13 includes requirements for the
preparation of and adherence to a noise management plan, and rules relating to noise within
the airport zone and adjacent residential zones. These measures are considered sufficient and
the restriction of helicopter flight areas is not supported.
4.24
Further submitter Palmerston North Airport Limited (FS5/7) opposes S15/1. FS5/7 states
that they acknowledge the concerns raised by S15/1, but reject the contention of noncompliance by helicopters operating within the Airport Zone. Palmerston North Airport
Limited invites the submitter to meet with them and Airways for a briefing on permitted flight
tracks and operating altitudes. Palmerston North Airport Limited seeks that the submission
be rejected except where agreement on a resolution to the submission point can be agreed
between Robert H Fraser, the Council and Palmerston North Airport Limited.
16
16
4.25
S15/2 relates to single engine helicopters operating over Milson. S15/2 requests that PPC15H
include provisions to include single engine helicopters operating over Milson in a "Red Zone".
This is also to take into consideration noise when used in training over residential areas.
4.26
Further submitter Palmerston North Airport Limited (FS5/8) opposes S15/2 on the same
grounds as they opposed S15/1.
4.27
S15/3 concerns opposition to the current drafting of PPC15H, but no specific request related
to amending provisions has been made.
Assessment
4.28
As already noted in response to S08/1, from a District Plan perspective I do not consider that
noise or safety are significant concerns with regards to single-engine helicopters. As FS28/4
points out, Section 13 of the District Plan includes requirements for the preparation of and
adherence to a noise management plan, and rules relating to noise within the airport zone and
adjacent residential zones. I concur that these measures are sufficient and the restriction of
helicopter flight areas should not be supported.
4.29
I support the further submission FS5/7 by Palmerston North Airport Limited on S15/1.
Helicopter noise associated with take-off or landing at the Airport is excluded from the District
Plan’s noise control rules under R6.2.6.2 – Exclusions from Noise Control Rules. S15/1
requests greater clarification provisions for single engine helicopters operating over residential
areas. A Note to Plan Users could be added to the Airport Zone that cross references to
R6.2.6.2.1(a) to provide greater clarification around the noise exemption that applies to
aircraft.
4.30
It appears that the reference to “Red Zone” relates to the Air Noise Contour, which is
displayed in Map 10.7.6.3 Air Noise Contours. This is uncertain however. If it does relate to
the Air Noise Contour map then the submission is opposed. The Air Noise Contours have
been informed by the Airbiz Report (Appendix 8 of the Section 32 Report), which took into
consideration helicopter noise. The technical report did not indicate a need to extend the Air
Noise Contour. On this basis, I see no technical need to provide a planning response to satisfy
the submitter’s request.
17
17
4.31
Opposition to the current drafting of PPC15H is noted.
Recommendation
4.32
That S15/1 by Robert H Fraser is accepted in part.
4.33
That S15/2 by Robert H Fraser is rejected.
4.34
That S15/3 by Robert H Fraser is rejected.
4.35
That FS5/7 by Palmerston North Airport Limited is accepted.
4.36
4.37
That FS28/4 by Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd is accepted.
Submission 28 – Brian Green Properties (PN) Limited
4.38
Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited (S28) opposes-in part the Airport Zone review.
S28 notes that the review of the air noise contours does not adopt the contour identified by the
updated modelling. S28 considers that the modelling assumptions are inaccurate and
inappropriate. It is also noted that the contours are used to justify making dwellings within the
contours a Prohibited Activity, which is considered unjustified given the submitter considers
that the most accurate contours have not been adopted.
4.39
S28/7 requests that ‘Rule 13.4.5.1 Air Noise Contour’ be deleted and replaced with a
discretionary activity rule that enables specific noise effects to be considered in each case.
4.40
S28/8 supports ‘Rule 13.4.6.2 Airport Noise Management Plan’, but notes that the existing rule
in the plan has not been complied with by the Airport Company. S28/8 requests that R13.4.6.2
be retained.
4.41
S28/9 requests that the noise contour data, assumptions and modelling from Airbiz be
independently peer reviewed, that the most accurate noise contours be adopted in the District
Plan, and as a minimum are amended to those shown on page 47 of the Airbiz report. In the
event that this is not accepted, then a wholly different approach to the objectives and policies
and rules relating to airport noise is considered necessary to enable development within the
contours on land that is not at risk from long term noise effects.
4.42
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd (FS28/5 and FS28/6) and Palmerston North
Airport Limited (FS5/11, FS5/12 and FS5/13) made further submissions on S28.
18
18
4.43
In response to S28/7, FS28/6 considers that the proposed rule is appropriate and should be
retained. It restricts sensitive activities from developing in an area that is subject to noise
effects form the airport.
4.44
In response to S28/7, FS5/13 opposes the submission. This is on the basis that the Prohibited
Activity rule referred to in the submission applies only to activities within the Air Noise Contour
where significant adverse noise effects are likely and there is high risk of reverse effects on
airport operations. Most of the Air Noise Zone affects (outside of the Airport Zone) only Rural
and Industrial Zone land and a small area of already developed Residential Zone land where
further subdivision and additional noise-sensitive development is unlikely to occur.
4.45
In response to S28/7, FS5/13 states that it appears Brian Green Properties Limited (PN)
Limited may have interpreted ‘Rule 13.4.5.1 Air Noise Contour’ as applying to the Inner &
Outer Control Contour areas as well, which it does not. Dwellings are a permitted activity
(Rule 10.7.1.1) in the Inner and Outer Control Contour areas subject to meeting internal noise
(and other) standards. Palmerston North Airport Limited seeks that the S28/7 be rejected.
4.46
In response to S28/8, FS5/12 does not oppose the requirements for an Air Noise Management
Plan as notified. PNAL supports the submission.
4.47
In response to S28/9, FS28/5 considers the air noise contours proposed in the plan change
should be retained.
4.48
FS5/11 opposes S28/9 on the basis that the modelling and air noise contour
recommendations have been undertaken by independent experts, Airbiz. The Airbiz report
has in turn been reviewed by independent noise experts Acousafe Consulting and
Engineering Limited. While further peer review is not opposed, it is considered unnecessary
because while the modelling outputs are informative, they are not the sole basis for
determining appropriate air noise control areas in the District Plan for land use planning
purposes. As set out in the S.32 report and associated technical reports, the Inner Control
Contour and Outer Control Contour have been established taking into account among others,
the following factors:

There is uncertainty around future activities and flight patterns, including the potential
introduction of Precision Based Navigation.

While best assumptions around future airport activities and growth areas are made at a
time of modelling, allowance needs to be made for other eventualities.
19
19

Palmerston North Airport is identified in the RPS as infrastructure of regional or national
importance and its establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading must be
recognised and provided for (Objective 3-1).

The RPS (Policy 3.2) requires that the Council must ensure that adverse effects on
Palmerston North Airport from other activities are avoided as far as reasonably
practicable.

Changes in a wide range of economic and social factors can result in significant changes
in demand for and characteristics of airport use. Palmerston North Airport needs to have
the ability to respond so that it can maintain its ability to serve the regional and national
community.

Single event sound exposure levels should be taken into account in terms of considering
the effects of, and on, the operation of the Airport.

The request for a 'wholly different approach' is opposed as no supporting detail of what an
alternative approach might be, its appropriateness, and evidential basis has been
provided by Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited. To support natural justice
and participatory plan-making processes, it would be more appropriate for Brian Green
Properties Limited (PN) Limited to make a private plan change application with
supporting evidence for its preferred approach rather than attempting to introduce
unspecific changes through submissions. PNAL seeks that the submission be rejected.
Assessment
Submission point 28/7 – Prohibited Activity Airnoise Rule
4.49
The request from the submitter to replace prohibited activity ‘Rule 13.4.5.1 Air Noise Contour’
with a discretionary activity classification is opposed. As identified in the statement of evidence
1
by Nigel Lloyd , NZS6805: 1992 recommends prohibiting noise sensitive activities within the
Air Noise Contour. This is because the Air Noise Contour is the area most exposed to air
noise. Development in this location is likely to create reverse sensitivity effects that could
2
adversely affect the ongoing operations of the airport. Nigel Lloyd’s evidence notes that there
is provision at other airports (such as Wellington International Airport) for new noise sensitive
developments to occur inside the Air Noise Boundary, with appropriate noise insulation, but
this is in circumstances where hundreds of (non-insulated) dwellings already exist in this area.
4.50
Nigel Lloyd also states that in Palmerston North there are few noise sensitive activities within
the Air Noise Contour and the introduction of new developments will significantly increase the
1
2
Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant (Appendix 3)
See paragraph 12 of Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant (Appendix 3)
20
20
relative numbers of people exposed to high levels of aircraft noise. It is further noted that there
has been significant investment in providing for a noise buffer around the Palmerston North
Airport to protect the airport from reverse sensitivity noise issues. The airport can also
currently operate on a 24 hour basis. Maintaining 24 hour operation of the Airport is critical for
the City, given its positioning as major logistical and distribution hub for the Lower North
Island. Nigel Lloyd recommends that sensitive activities continue to be prohibited inside the 65
dB Ldn Air Noise Contour, in accordance with the recommendations of NZS 6805:1992 and
that S28/7 be rejected. FS28/6 and FS5/13 also recommend the rejection of S28/7 due to
potential reverse-sensitivity effects.
4.51
I concur with the recommendations from Nigel Lloyd, FS28/6 and FS5/13 and consider that
the Prohibited Activity status is appropriate. Reclassifying the status to Discretionary would
signal that noise sensitive activities are anticipated within the Air Noise Contour. This could
lead to unnecessary noise exposure to those activities and potentially result in reversesensitivity effects to the airport. This would be contrary to Policy 3-2 of the One Plan, which
includes strong directives to ensure protection of regionally significant infrastructure from
reverse sensitivity effects.
Submission point 28/8 Airport Noise Management Plan
4.52
I note the point made that the Airport has failed to comply with the Airport Noise Management
Plan requirement in the District Plan. The submission did not detail where non-compliance
relates however. In my opinion, the only area where non-compliance may be apparent is the
requirement to review the Noise Management Plan at three yearly intervals. Council records
only show one Noise Management Plan having been developed since the Plan was made
operative. As detailed in R13.4.6.2 - Airport Noise Management Plan, a new Noise
Management Plan will need to be developed within 12 months of Plan Change 15H becoming
operative. It is recommended that S28/8 be accepted.
Submission point 28/9 Air Noise Contour Peer Review
4.53
S28/9 requests an independent peer-review of the Airbiz report. This is on the basis that the
submitter considers that the review does not adopt the contour identified by the updated
modelling. The submitter also considers that the modelling assumptions are inaccurate and
inappropriate, but provides no specific detail about the supposed inaccuracies and
inappropriateness of the review. The submission then requests a peer review and that at a
minimum the contours displayed on page 47 of the Airbiz report be adopted.
4.54
Given the extensive international experience in the field of airport planning that Airbiz have, I
have confidence in the modelling they have undertaken and the subsequent recommendations
that they have made. Given the lack of detail in the submission related to the assumptions of
21
21
the modelling, I do not consider that there are sufficient grounds to warrant an independent
peer-review of the modelling and the subsequent recommendations.
4.55
In regards to the extent of contours on page 47 of the Airbiz report, and these not being
recommended to be adopted as the new extent in the District Plan, Airbiz identified their
reasoning for not doing this clearly in the conclusion section of their technical report:
The current District Plan noise zone contours and land use controls should be
maintained. This is on the basis that “they have provided consistent guidelines for
land use planning controls for a long period since instituted, serving their intended
purpose in an optimal manner as intended, protecting the amenity of residents from
adverse effects of aircraft noise, while allowing airport operations the flexibility to grow
over time and to adapt as required (e.g. PBN flight track changes), controlling and
avoiding reverse sensitivity effects from encroachment of new noise sensitive
3
activities” .
4.56
4
This position is reinforced in Iain Munro’s statement of evidence and supported in the
5
statement of evidence on S28 from Nigel Lloyd .
4.57
Whilst not technically a peer review, Nigel Lloyd has reviewed the Airbiz recommendations as
part of the wider noise considerations for the Airport Zone; albeit in an acoustic engineering
capacity. Evidence from Nigel Lloyd supports the proposal to maintain the extent of the
6
contours at their current extent .
4.58
It is suggested that if Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited considers a formal peer
review is necessary, that it commission one and present the findings at the hearing. Council
would be open to considering the results of any peer review.
4.59
Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited have noted that in the event that the
submission is not accepted, then a wholly different approach to the objectives, policies and
rules relating to airport noise would be necessary to enable development within the contours
on land that is not at risk from long term noise effects.
4.60
The planning framework proposed by PPC15H related to airnoise is not considered to unduly
restrict development of land that is not at risk from long-term noise effects. Therefore, a wholly
different objective, policy and rule package is considered unnecessary. The Regional Policy
Statement (RPS) directs a future focus towards protecting regionally and nationally important
3
See page 49 of the Airbiz Report (Appendix 8 of the Section 32 Report)
See pages 7-17 of Technical Evidence of Iain Munro – Aviation Consultant (Appendix 4)
5
See Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant (Appendix 3)
6
See paragraph 19 of Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant (Appendix 3)
4
22
22
infrastructure, which the Palmerston North Airport is classified as. Taking into account the
reports and evidence from Airbiz and Acousafe, the retention of the airnoise contours at their
current extent is considered the best method for reducing the potential of reverse-sensitivity on
the Airport, and therefore giving effect to the RPS (in particular, Policy 3-2). Therefore, the
request to consider a wholly different approach to the objectives, policies and rules relating to
airport noise is opposed, and S28/9 is recommended to be rejected in its entirety. This
recommendation is supported by FS5/11 an FS28/5.
Recommendation
4.61
That S28/7 from Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited is rejected.
4.62
That S28/8 from Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited is accepted.
4.63
That S28/9 from Brian Green Properties Limited (PN) Limited is rejected.
4.64
That FS28/5 from Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd is accepted.
4.65
4.66
That FS5/12 from Palmerston North Airport Limited is accepted.
4.67
Submission 34 – Palmerston North Airport Limited
4.68
Palmerston North Airport Limited (PNAL) (S34) has submitted on a range of matters in
PPC15H.
Submission points in support
The following are the matters that PNAL support:
4.69
S34/1 supports Objective 1 and supporting Policies 1.1-1.6 and requests that they be retained
as notified. This support is noted.
4.70
S34/3 supports Objective 4 and supporting Policies 4.1 and 4.2, and requests that they be
retained. This support is noted.
4.71
S34/6 does not oppose Policy 2.1, but states that the Airport must be able to respond to
changing aviation and airport security requirements without the need to change the District
plan or apply for a resource consent. The submitter considers that how the business functions
23
23
within its zone needs also to respond efficiently and rapidly to changing business demands
and it should not be prevented from doing so by the District Plan. S34/6 requests that Policy
2.1 be retained. This request is acknowledged and supported.
4.72
S34/9 supports R13.4.1.3 Temporary Training Activities and related Performance Standards.
This support is noted.
4.73
S34/10 supports R.13.4.1.4 Construction, External Alteration of and Addition to Buildings and
Structures and related Performance Standards. This support is noted.
4.74
S34/11 supports R13.4.1.5 Roads. This support is noted.
4.75
S34/12 supports R13.4.2.1 Streetscape Design, its related Performance Standards,
Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria. This support is noted.
4.76
S34/13 supports R13.4.2.2 Sound Emissions. This support is noted.
4.77
S34/14 supports R13.4.2.3 Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards for
Permitted Activities, Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria (with the exception of (f)
Ancillary retail and Ancillary Office Activities). This support is noted.
4.78
S34/15 supports R13.4.2.4 The Construction, External Alteration to a building or structure
which does not comply with the Performance Standards for Permitted Activities, Determination
Clause and Assessment Criteria. This support is noted.
4.79
S34/16 supports R13.4.3.4 – Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply with
the Permitted Activity Performance Standards of Rule 13.4.1.4. This support is noted.
4.80
S34/17 supports R13.4.4.1 – Airnoise Control. This support is noted.
4.81
S34/18 supports R13.4.4.2 – Sound Emissions. This support is noted.
4.82
S34/19 supports R13.4.5.1 – Air Noise Contour. This support is noted.
4.83
S34/20 supports 13.4.5.2 – Runway End Protection Areas. This support is noted.
4.84
S34/21 supports R13.4.6.1 – Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone. This support is noted.
4.85
S34/22 supports R13.4.6 Rules: Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone. This support is noted.
24
24
4.86
S34/23 supports R13.4.7.1 Airport Protection Surface. This support is noted.
4.87
S34/35 supports R13.4.2.2 Non-Notification. This support is noted.
4.88
S34/37 supports R13.4.1.5 – Roads. This support is noted.
4.89
Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria. This support is noted.
4.90
S34/39 supports R13.4.5.2 – Runway End Protection Areas. This support is noted.
4.91
S34/40 supports R13.4.6.2 – Airport Noise Management Plan. This support is noted.
Opposition
The following are the matters that PNAL oppose:
Retail and Office Activities
4.92
S34/4 opposes in-part Resource Management Issue 2 on the basis that PNAL do not consider
that the adverse effects of activities within the Airport Zone on the City's established business
zones is a significant resource management issue. S34/4 requests that Resource
Management Issue 2 not identify the adverse effects of activities within the Airport Zone on the
City's established business zones as a Resource Management Issue.
4.93
During pre-consultation Palmerston North Airport Limited identified that they had a desire to
potentially increase the level of commercial retail and office activity in the Airport Zone. At the
time, Council noted that Council’s Retail Strategy directs these types of activities to occur
within the established Business Zones, and that the Sectional District Plan Review had been
giving effect to this strategy by limiting retail and office activities outside of the business zones.
4.94
As part of draft consultation on PC15 Council officers worked with PNAL to attempt to develop
a package that gave effect to the Retail Strategy, but also enabled reasonable land-use
opportunities to PNAL which didn’t overly restrict the ability of the Airport to operate as a
successful business. In order to give effect to the Retail Strategy a specific Resource
Management Issue addressing the potential effects on the established business zones was
considered necessary. This enabled the development of a specific Objective, related Policies
and rules to manage retail and office activities within the Airport Zone. The presence of a
dedicated Resource Management Issue provides a clear justification for the development of
the associated Objectives, Policies and Methods. In my opinion, the inclusion of the specific
Resource Management Issue is the most effective means to direct a response to the intent of
the Retail Strategy within the Airport Zone. Therefore, I recommend that S34/4 be rejected.
25
25
4.95
S34/5 opposes Objective 2 in-part because PNAL do not consider that commercial distribution
effects on the established Business Zones is a significant matter of concern. Objective 2
directly relates to Resource Management Issue 2. Resource Management Issue 2 has been
included in the Airport Zone to align with the approach taken towards commercial distribution
in the Industrial Zone (Plan Change 9) and Institutional Zone (Plan Change 11) reviews. This
approach was centred on giving effect to the Retail Strategy. Inclusion of Objective 2 in the
Airport Zone Section is consistent with the approach taken in the reviews of the Industrial and
Institutional Zones. On this basis, Objective 2 is considered a significant matter of concern and
should be retained in the Airport Zone. Therefore, it is recommended that S34/5 be rejected.
4.96
S34/7 opposes Policy 2.3 because the submitter considers they are the only authority in a
position to judge whether or not activities require airport access. S34/7 requests that Policy 2.3
be deleted. It is accepted that the Airport is in the best positon to identify whether an activity
requires airport access; however, it is also noted that ongoing ownership of Airport Zone land
by PNAL is not guaranteed. In the past PNAL has had a strategy of only leasing land. This is
no longer the case. If ownership changes, it is important that the valuable finite physical
resources of airside land is prioritised for activities that require airside access.
4.97
Policy 2.3 directly relates to Resource Management Issues 1 and 3 and is a key part of the
overall Airport Zone policy package. Policy 2.3 reinforces Policies 2.1 and 2.2 and helps
differentiate the methods associated with the two airport precincts. The list of permitted
activities in the Core Airport Precinct, under R13.4.1.1, was considered as part of the wider
policy framework for Section 13. Deleting Policy 2.3 would weaken or even compromise the
rational for including some of those specific activities. Given the general support for R13.4.1.1
by PNAL (see S34/24) it is difficult to identify what outcome is being sought at the method
level by deleting Policy 2.3. Without understanding the full implications, I am reluctant to
accept S34/7.
4.98
S34/2 and S34/8 oppose Policy 2.5 because while some activities may not be ancillary to
airport operations in a direct way, they may provide important support to those businesses
which are directly ancillary. The submitter considers that a balanced business community is
an essential element for the Airport Zone if the Airport is to be successful in a business sense.
S34/2 and S34/8 request that Policy 2.5 be deleted.
4.99
Policy 2.5 is to discourage development of retail activities and non-ancillary office activities,
which are already provided for in the City’s established Business Zones. I do not consider that
Policy 2.5 prevents the Airport from operating as a successful business. The notified plan
change allows for unlimited retail development within the Airport’s Terminal Building and
varying levels of non-ancillary retail activities in both the Core Airport and Airport Environs
26
26
Precinct. Non-ancillary office activities were also provided for, albeit at a Discretionary level.
Ancillary retail and office activities were also provided for non-airport operation related
activities (for example warehousing) in various capacities. This is consistent with the approach
taken in the Industrial Zone. Council’s approach throughout the Sectional District Plan Review
has been to concentrate commercial activities within the Business Zones. This has been
informed by Council’s Retail Strategy. The approach taken in the Airport Zone has been
consistent with that strategy.
4.100
Policy 2.5 directly aligns with Objective 2 and Resource Management Issue 2 and sets the
foundation for the rules managing retail and office activities in the Airport Zone. Policy 2.5
does in no way restrict retail and office activities to an ancillary function. It simply sets to
discourage a proliferation of retail and office activities that may compete with the established
Business Zones. This approach is considered both responsive to the Airports requirements
and the centres based strategy the Council promotes. On this basis, it is recommended that
S34/2 and S34/8 be rejected.
4.101
S34/24 notes general support for R13.4.1.1, but requests that Retail, Takeaway Bars,
Licensed Premises, Commercial Service Activities, Accommodation and Service Stations be
listed as Permitted Activities in the Core Airport Precinct and not be confined to the Terminal
Building.
4.102
The intention of restricting Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises, Commercial Service
Activities to the Terminal Building and Service Stations in the wider Core Airport Precinct was
to give effect to Policy 2.3. Policy 2.3 seeks to discourage the development of activities in the
Core Airport Precinct that do not require airport access. Palmerston North City Council
Officers and PNAL have participated in pre-hearing meetings and PNAL were able to explain
the reasoning behind their request in S34/24 in more detail.
4.103
PNAL advised that they have no intention of utilising the Core Airport Precinct for extensive
development of Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises, Commercial Service Activities and
Accommodation. They also identified that they would strongly consider the establishment of a
Service Station and that a Core Airport Precinct site would be a practical location for this. They
recognised the strategic importance of the Core Airport Precinct for aviation related activities
and advised that they would seek to maximise the use of that precinct for aviation related
activities.
4.104
PNAL noted that S34/24 simply sought additional flexibility to enable the establishment of
Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises, Commercial Service Activities, Accommodation
and Service Stations, where it made commercial sense to do so. PNAL considered that ruling
27
27
out a significant aspect of the Airport Zone for these types of activities would be unproductive,
and possibly affect the overall commercial success of the Airport.
4.105
In light of this, performance standard (d) of R13.4.1.1 is proposed to be amended to enable
Retail,
Takeaway
Bars,
Licensed
Premises,
Commercial
Service
Activities
and
Accommodation up to 100m² in gross floor area (GFA). Vehicle hire services have been
excluded from the gross floor area restrictions that apply to Commercial Service Activities in
the Core Airport Precinct. This is in recognition that car hire services provide a core function in
an airport setting and that the relative size of such activities are generally larger than the likes
of travel agencies, hair dressers and other types of Commercial Service Activities that would
otherwise be anticipated in an airport location. Service Stations are also proposed to be
permitted. These changes, including the GFA restrictions, have been informed by technical
7
evidence from Mark Tansley .
4.106
During pre-hearing discussions PNAL also suggested that a new Terminal Building may be
developed within the lifetime of the plan. PNAL have requested that the rules that apply to the
existing terminal should apply to any additional terminal buildings. I am not opposed to this
request, as the anticipated effects that would be associated with any new terminal building
would be identical to the existing terminal. In response to this feedback it is recommended that
references to the Terminal Building be pluralised so that they might apply to any potential new
terminal buildings that are established. It is considered that this overall approach still gives
effect to Policies 2.2 and 2.3, but is more responsive to potential commercial opportunities
available to the airport. PNAL have agreed to this new approach. For the reasons stated it is
recommended that S34/24 be accepted.
4.107
S34/25 opposes office and retail activities needing to be ancillary under R13.4.1.1 Permitted
Activities – Core Airport Precinct. Similarly, S34/26 opposes office and retail activities needing
to be ancillary under R13.4.1.2 Permitted Activities –Airport Environs Precinct.
4.108
As discussed in relation to S34/24, stand-alone retail activities are now proposed to be
provided for in a limited capacity as a permitted activity. Under performance standard (d) of
R13.4.1.1, Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises, Commercial Service Activities and
Accommodation up to 100m² in gross floor area are proposed to be permitted. Under
performance standard (j) of R13.4.2, Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises, Commercial
Service Activities, Accommodation and Service Stations are proposed to be permitted
provided the gross floor area of each activity is no more than 300m² and the total gross floor
area for the aggregate of these activities are no more than 1,500m² within the Airport Environs
Precinct. Vehicle hire services have also been excluded from the gross floor area restrictions
that apply to Commercial Service Activities in the Airport Environs precinct.
7
See Technical Evidence of Mark Tansley – Retail and Office Consultant (Appendix 5)
28
28
4.109
As mentioned previously, the thresholds and caps related to these activities have been
informed by technical evidence from Mark Tansley. The 1500m² cap is recommended on the
basis that it is responsive to the requirements of the Airport and anticipated growth in the
Airport Zone. In pre-hearing discussions PNAL have requested a higher GFA cap. However,
Mr. Tansley does not expect that commercial shop-style premises are likely to exceed the
1500m² cap in the lifetime of the District Plan. Mr. Tansley also considers the request for an
increased GFA cap at a permitted level would be excessive. I concur with Mr. Tansley and
would like to note that a Restricted Discretionary pathway is available in the event that
anticipated demand is exceeded. The Restricted Discretionary pathway also provides Council
with the opportunity to identify whether the additional commercial activities have the potential
to adversely affect the established Business Zones, and potentially avoid the potential
negative cumulative distributional effects of these activities establishing within the Airport
Zone.
4.110
In regards to stand-alone office activities, the Palmerston North District Plan only provides for
these in a permitted activity capacity within the Business Zones. This is consistent with the
Retail Strategy and the approach taken throughout the Sectional District Plan Review. The
Institutional Zone is the only non-Business Zone setting within the City that enables nonancillary office activities. This is in a Restricted Discretionary Activity capacity, is restricted to
5,000m² and is only provided for at the Hokowhitu Campus. The Hokowhitu Campus nonancillary office activity rule also contains specific assessment criteria which seek to avoid
potential adverse distributional effects on the Business Zones.
4.111
To retain consistency with the Sectional District Plan Review process and the Retail Strategy,
non-ancillary office activities are not proposed to be provided for as a Permitted Activity in the
Airport Zone. The notified version of PPC15H provides a Discretionary Activity opportunity for
non-ancillary offices to establish within the Airport Zone. As discussed in the assessment of
S34/32, the activity classification is proposed to be relaxed from a Discretionary to RestrictedDiscretionary Activity. This is discussed in more detail below under S34/32.
4.112
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that S34/25 and S34/26 be rejected.
4.113
S34/28 opposes R13.4.2.3(f) Ancillary Retail and Office Activities. The purpose of R13.4.2.3(f)
is to provide a gateway to enable a larger floorplate of ancillary retail and office activities than
the permitted activity provisions would otherwise provide. This enables greater flexibility for
development in the Airport Zone and is consistent with the approach taken in the Industrial
Zone. This is considered a pragmatic approach to promote commercial viability within the
Airport Zone and maps a clear pathway for businesses should they wish to expand the
ancillary retail and/or office components of their operations. The alternative is a Discretionary
29
29
Activity pathway under Section 87B of the Act. The Section 87B approach could create
uncertainty for businesses, which in my opinion would be a less efficient and effective option.
For these reasons it is recommended that R13.4.2.3(f) be retained, and therefore S34/28 be
rejected.
4.114
S34/29 opposes R13.4.2.6 Retail, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service Activities which
have a Gross Floor Area less than 100m² in the Airport Environs Precinct. In response to
providing a more permissive regime for Retail, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service
Activities (in response to S34/24 and S34/25) it is proposed that the Restricted Activity rule be
deleted. Therefore, S34/29 is recommended to be accepted. A similar rule to R13.4.2.6 is
proposed to be added as R13.4.2.7. The intent of this rule is to enable a Restricted
Discretionary pathway to exceed the permitted gross floor area thresholds. This approach has
been supported by PNAL as part of pre-hearing consultation.
4.115
S34/30 opposes R13.4.3.1 – Ancillary Retail and Office Activities. Similar to Rule 13.4.2.3(f),
Rule 13.4.3.1 provides a gateway to go beyond the restrictions on gross floor area contained
within the lower level activity category. For the reasons outlined in response to S34/28 I
recommend that S34/30 be rejected.
4.116
S34/31 opposes ‘R13.4.3.2 – Retail Activities, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service
Activities’ which have a gross floor area over 100m² in the Airport Zone. This request is
supported on the basis that a more permissive regime for the provision of Retail Activities,
Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service Activities is now proposed at the Permitted and
Restricted Discretionary Activity levels. If the more permissive approach to the provision of
Retail Activities, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service Activities is accepted, notified rule
R13.4.3.2 would be incompatible with the new rule package. For these reasons it is proposed
that S34/31 be accepted.
Non-ancillary Office Activities
4.117
S34/32 opposes ‘R13.4.3.3 – Non Ancillary Office Activities’ in the Airport Zone provided they
comply with performance standard. Following pre-hearing discussions with PNAL, proposed
R13.4.3.3 is proposed to be replaced by a new Restricted Discretionary Activity ‘R13.4.2.6 –
Non-Ancillary Office Activities with particular Airport Association’. As set out in the Section 32
Report for PPC15H, the establishment of non-ancillary office activities in the Airport Zone was
considered a potential risk to the vitality of the established business zones. Through prehearing discussions with PNAL it was established that the types of non-ancillary office
activities that were being sought in the Airport Zone were those which had a particular
association with the airport, but might not qualify for ancillary status. PNAL noted that these
types of activities were unlikely to establish in a Business Zone, and therefore the potential
risk to the Business Zones from them establishing in the Airport Zone was questionable.
30
30
4.118
In response to this, the notified non-ancillary office is proposed to be amended so that its
focus became airport associated office activities, rather than a more generic provision of
stand-alone office activities. This change in focus enables a more permissive approach to the
provision of non-ancillary office activities by shifting the consent status to Restricted
Discretionary, from its previous full Discretionary Activity position. An even more permissive
approach (to either Controlled or Permitted Activity status) was not considered appropriate, as
it is considered necessary for Council to be able to make a determination about whether or not
a particular non-ancillary office activity has an airport association.
4.119
During pre-hearing discussions PNAL considered that the notified assessment criteria
associated with the non-ancillary office provisions made it difficult to determine the likelihood
of an application being successful. PNAL suggested some additional assessment criteria be
added to provide greater clarity for plan users. Feedback from PNAL has been reviewed by
8
Mark Tansley and the following set of amended assessment criteria are proposed:
4.120

Whether the proposed office activity would result in an economic benefit to the City by
locating in the Airport Zone rather than in a Business Zone.

Whether there are particular reasons, for example relating to the strategic benefits to
the City, why the office activity is better located in the Airport Zone rather than in a
Business Zone.

The extent to which the proposed office activity will contribute to the effective and
efficient operation and use of the physical resources of the Airport Zone, for example,
through direct business connections with its other activities.

The extent to which the proposed office activity has business connections with the
wider regional or national area, rather than with the City.

The extent to which the proposed office activity requires airfreight access or air travel
for its staff and visitors.

Whether the establishment of the proposed office activity will undermine the viability
and vitality of the City Centre.

Whether the granting of consent for the proposed office activity could establish a
broad precedent.
The new non-ancillary office activity package is considered more responsive to the
requirements of the Airport, while also ensuring that Council’s strategic focus on office
provision at a City-wide scale and the intent of Objective 2 and Policy 2.5 are not undermined.
For these reasons it is recommended that S34/32 be accepted.
8
See section 2 of Technical Evidence of Mark Tansley – Retail and Office Consultant (Appendix 5)
31
31
Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres
4.121
S34/33 opposes R13.4.3.3 Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres being a
Discretionary Activity, and requests that these be provided for as Permitted Activities. The
operative Airport Zone also provides for Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres as a
Discretionary Activity. Proposed R13.4.3.3 maintains consistency with the operative approach.
4.122
Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres are not provided for as a permitted activity in
any Zone of the Palmerston North District Plan. Where they are provided for they are
classified as Discretionary Activities. As noted in the Section 32 Report for PPC15H, the
Discretionary Activity classification and the associated assessment criteria are considered
appropriate to minimise the potential for reverse sensitivity which could arise from noise
sensitive activities establishing near quasi-industrial and aviation-related activities. For plan
consistency sake and to minimise the potential reverse-sensitivity effects of Accommodation
Motels and residential Centres establishing in the Airport Zone it is recommended that S34/33
be rejected.
Comprehensive Development Plan
4.123
S34/27 opposes the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) under R13.4.2.1, as it may
reduce flexibility to react rapidly with changes to development plans when required to meet
commercial market needs and any Civil Aviation Authority mandated requirements. As an
outcome of pre-hearing discussions, PNAL have agreed to develop the CDP. An initial CDP
development workshop with PNAL and Council representatives was held on 7 October 2015.
PNAL is committed to progressing the CDP collaboratively with the Council and to have it
completed as soon as practicable. It is therefore recommended that S34/27 be rejected.
Other matters
4.124
S34/34 has requested that if the relief PNAL seek is not available for some technical reason
that amendments be made to like effect. This has been noted and effort has been taken to
give effect to this, in particular for the Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises, and
Commercial Service Activities. It is recommended that S34/34 be accepted.
4.125
S34/36 requests that all references to “Airnoise” be expressed as one word rather than two in
the District Plan. This request is supported and subsequent changes have been made to give
effect to this.
Recommendations
4.126
That S34/1, S34/3, S34/6, S34/9, S34/10, S34/11, S34//12, S34//13, S34/14, S34/15, S34/16,
S34/17, S34/18, S34/19, S34/20, S34/21, S34/22, S34/23, S34/29 S34/31, S34/32, S34/34,
S34/35, S34/36, S34/37, S34/38, S34/39, S34/40 from Palmerston North Airport Limited be
accepted.
32
32
4.127
That S34/25 and S34/26 from Palmerston North Airport Limited be accepted-in part.
4.128
That S34/2, S34/4, S34/5, S34/7, S34/8, S34/24, S34/27, S34/28, S34/30 and S34/33 from
Palmerston North Airport Limited be rejected.
Submission 44 – Federated Farmers Manawatū – Rangitikei Province
4.129
Federated Farmers Manawatū – Rangitikei Province (S44/39) noted in their submission
that the provisions regarding Palmerston North Airport and supporting infrastructure are of
economic benefit to the primary industries and the wider PNCC economy. No decision
requested was stated in S44/39.
4.130
Palmerston North Airport Limited made a further submission (FS5/25) in support of S44/39
stating that they support the statement and that the submission should be accepted.
Analysis
4.131
No specific decision was sought in the original submission. S44/39 is therefore noted. The
further submission (FS5/25) is also noted.
Recommendations
4.132
That S44/39 from Federated Farmers Manawatū – Rangitikei Province is accepted.
4.133
Submission 46 – Transpower New Zealand Limited
4.134
Transpower (S46) opposes proposed rule R13.4.5.2 – Runway End Protection Areas and
R23.12.1 – Prohibited Activities as they are not clear whether the proposed rules will have an
impact on the National Grid. S46/35 and S46/36 seeks clarification to ensure that the
prohibited activity rules do not undermine the safe and efficient operation, maintenance,
upgrading and development of the National Grid. If the National Grid is included in the spatial
area affected by the rules, S46/36 seeks that the proposed prohibited activities for utility
structures include an omission for National Grid structures and that proposed R13.12.1(ii) be
amended as follows:
“(ii) Any utility structure that impinges within the take-off climb surfaces…”
4.135
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd made a further submission (FS28/8) on S46/36.
FS28/8 does not support the addition of “that impinges” into Rule 23.12.1. Airways
33
33
Corporation of New Zealand Ltd considers that the existing wording is appropriate to ensure
that activities do not interfere with flightpaths, take-offs and approaches.
Assessment
4.136
Proposed R23.12.1 (i) and R 13.4.5.2 will not affect Transpower, as the proposed Runway
End Protection Areas (REPA) are not located within the vicinity of the National Grid. Given the
purpose of the REPA, any future proposal to locate high voltage power lines, such as National
Grid, within the area defined as the REPA would be opposed. REPA are where aviation
accidents are most likely to occur, and therefore avoiding new structures in such a sensitive
location is a necessary to prevent potential loss of life or damage to property.
4.137
The effect of proposed R23.12.1 (ii) and (iii) already exist in the operative plan under
R20.4.11.1 - Airport Protection Surface. Proposed R23.12.1 (ii) and (iii) makes this more
explicit. The purpose of the Airport Protection Surfaces is to prevent structures, buildings,
trees or other objects from impinging within the take-off climb surfaces or the approach
surfaces, so that these do not create hazards for aircraft taking off or landing. The extent of
the Airport Protection Surfaces is proposed to be amended slightly to give effect to the
proposed western runway extension. In regards to Transpower’s assets, the only location that
could potentially be adversely affected by the Airport Protection Surface changes is a section
along Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Road. To be more specific, a roughly 700m section near to the
Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Road and Rangitikei Line intersection. On the north-eastern side of the
intersection an approximately 460m section is within the take-off and approach surfaces. On
the south-western intersection an approximately 310m section is within the take-off and
approach surfaces. The height restrictions lessen the further south-west the transmission lines
are located. For example, under the operative plan, at the north-eastern extent of the affected
area the Airport Protection Surfaces restricts height to approximately 70m for the take-off
surface and approximately 80m for the approach surface. At the Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Road
and Rangitikei Line Intersection the take-off surface is restricted to approximately 75m and the
approach surface approximately 86m. At the south-western extent of the affected area, height
is restricted to approximately 87m for the take-off surface and approximately 102m for the
approach surface.
4.138
For the notified PPC15H Airport Protection Surfaces, on the north-eastern side of the
intersection height is restricted to approximately 58m for the take-off surface and
approximately 67m for the approach surface. At the Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Road and
Rangitikei Line Intersection the take-off surface is restricted to approximately 62m and the
approach surface approximately 72m. At the south-western extent of the affected area, height
is restricted to approximately 71m for the take-off surface and approximately 87m for the
approach surface.
34
34
4.139
The existing power pole structures along Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Road are well within the
height limits, and should pose no risk to Transpower’s existing assets along KairangaBunnythorpe Road. For this reason, it is not considered necessary to provide an exemption for
Transpower’s structures where they are affected by the Airport Protection Surfaces.
Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to exempt the national grid, as the structures could
pose potential safety threats if they extend into the take-off or approach surfaces; especially if
Transpower were to replace the existing structures with taller ones.
4.140
I agree with FS28/8 from Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and consider that
proposed R23.12.1 should be retained as notified.
Recommendation
4.141
That S46/35 and S46/36 from Transpower be rejected.
4.142
Submission 56 – Horizons Regional Council
4.143
Horizons Regional Council (S56) notes general support for Section 13 under S56/75.
4.144
S56/76 notes that the western runway end protection area appears to overlap with the Flygers
Line Floodway. Rule 13.4.5.2 prohibits any new building, structure or utility in the runway end
protection areas. Horizon’s Designation 85 provides for flood protection activities, however
Horizons Regional Council seeks greater certainty that these and other flood protection
activities will still be provided for in that part of the runway end protection area that overlaps
with the Floodway. S56/76 therefore seeks that Rule 13.4.5.2(i) be amended to read as
follows:
"… defined in this plan (excluding roads, rail, additions or extensions to existing dwellings,
accessory buildings, navigational aids for aircraft and activities undertaken by or on behalf of
the Regional Council for the purposes of flood control within the Taonui Basin Floodway as
defined in Schedule J of the One Plan);"
4.145
S56/77 notes that Horizons Regional Council is upgrading its Mangaone Stream flood
protection assets to the 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) design standard in the following locations:
1. Settlers line north of the airport,
2. Flygers Line stop banks, and
3. Benmore Avenue.
35
35
Horizons Regional Council considers it is important to ensure that additional storm water
from the Airport Zone does not compromise the flood protection standards in these areas on
Maps 6, 12, 18 and 19.
4.146
S56/77 seeks that PNCC ensures that additionally generated storm water from the Airport
Zone does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in
Settlers line (north of the airport), Flygers Line stop banks, and Benmore Avenue.
4.147
Palmerston North Airport Limited made further submissions on S56/76 (FS5/27) and
S56/77 (FS5/28) stating that activities and works that create areas of standing water, either
permanent or temporary, can attract birds. Birds particularly, large waterfowl, pose a high risk
to the safe operation of aircraft as a result of the potential for bird strike. Areas of standing
water that attracts birds to fly across the airspace above and around the airport should be
avoided, particularly in critical take-off and landing areas as defined by the REPA. FS5/27 and
FS5/28 state that PNAL may consider supporting an amendment to the rule to exclude flood
control activities that will create new areas of standing or ponding water, however, an
amendment to the Plan provisions would need to be clear what activity status those activities
become. FS5/27 and FS5/28 also note that PNAL supports continued engagement with
Manawatū-Wanganui Regional Council in relation to flood hazard mitigation and the safe
operation of the airport.
Assessment
4.148
It is recognised that it is important that Horizons Regional Council be able to manage flood
control within the Taonui Basin Floodway, therefore S56/76 is supported. The floodway only
applies to 6.7% of the western REPA (2.1 hectares of the 31 hectares), so the effect of the
amendment on the functioning of the REPA is likely to be minimal. An ideal REPA is
characterised by bare and flat ground. This minimises the risk to people and property on the
ground and to aircraft and their passengers in the event of an accident. While there is a risk
that flood mitigation works may create a potential obstacle (for instance if stop banks were
constructed in part of the REPA), the area the stop banks might apply to is only a small portion
of the proposed REPA and therefore the risk is not considered significant enough to reject
S56/76. Palmerston North Airport Limited’s further submission (FS5/27) is noted; however
my interpretation of what is being requested in S56/76 is not intended to create free standing
areas of water within the REPA. The purpose of a floodway is to identify where floodwaters
are likely to flow in a flood event. A flood is a temporary event. In my opinion the intention of
the floodway is complimentary to that of the REPA – essentially, to keep the affected area
largely clear of structures or activities that may potentially be in harm’s way in a hazard event
or aviation accident. I do not consider it possible to give full effect to Palmerston North
Airport Limited’s entire request in FS5/27, as the area in question is identified as flood prone.
This clearly signifies that standing water is likely at some time, even if just for a temporary
36
36
period. Therefore, I recommend that S56/76 be accepted and that FS5/27 be accepted-in
part. To give effect in-part to FS5/27 one further amendment to 13.4.5.2(i) is proposed (shown
in shaded grey):
"… defined in this plan (excluding roads, rail, additions or extensions to existing dwellings,
accessory buildings, navigational aids for aircraft and activities undertaken by or on behalf of
the Regional Council for the purposes of flood control within the Taonui Basin Floodway as
defined in Schedule J of the One Plan, provided this does not result in permanent areas of
standing water)”
4.149
S56/78 notes that R13.4.1.1(h) requires sewer, storm water and water supply services to
connect to a public service corridor. S56/78 also notes that this could compromise Horizons'
flood protection measures upstream of Flygers Line which would not be supported by
Horizons. S56/78 also states that R13.4.3.3(z) for motels and residential centres takes a
different approach, requiring the site and building design to mitigate any increase in storm
water runoff, but providing no performance standards communicating what must be mitigated.
Horizons Regional Council considers that there may be additional hardstand areas (e.g.
runway extension) where storm water is proposed to be managed on site instead of using
reticulated storm water services. If this is the case, Horizons Regional Council considers
that additional rules and performance standards be included in Section 13 to control storm
water discharges from activities, new buildings and new hardstand areas to achieve hydraulic
neutrality in the 0.5% AEP design storm.
4.150
Palmerston North Airport Limited made a further submission (FS5/29) opposing S56/78.
FS5/29 notes that S56/78 is significantly more strenuous than stormwater management
requirements in adjoining zones, including the North East Industrial Zone Extension area (e.g.,
R 12A.6.2 (f)). Palmerston North Airport Limited agrees with the sentiment in S56/78, that
the stormwater from development within the Airport Zone should be managed, however it does
not agree with the proposed standard of management (being hydraulic neutrality in the
0.5%AEP design storm) on the basis that it is unlikely to be efficient or effective. Palmerston
North Airport Limited is however open to discussing with the submitter and the Council what
an appropriate standard of stormwater management may be.
4.151
The request by S56/78 to require hydraulic neutrality in the 0.5% AEP design storm is
generally not considered appropriate in the Airport Zone. Development within the Airport Zone
will primarily take place along Airport Drive, where reticulated stormwater services are
connected. It is anticipated that development in the Airport Zone will discharge stormwater into
the reticulated network. This infrastructure is already in place and is awaiting developments to
connect into it.
37
37
4.152
Requiring stormwater neutrality in the Airport Zone would not be an effective or efficient
method. The developable area of the Airport Zone is relatively limited in size. Storing water onsite would utilise valuable limited finite land resources, which could otherwise be used for
development purposes. Furthermore, if water was required to be stored onsite, it would not be
able to be stored in an open setting (for example in a stormwater detention area), as this
would potentially attract birds, which is a potential hazard for aviation activities.
4.153
The majority of floodwater in the Mangaone catchment is generated upstream of the Flygers
Line spillway. Reticulated stormwater from the Airport Zone is discharged downstream of the
Flygers Line Floodway. From a wider catchment perspective, stormwater generated from land
located on either side of Airport Drive in the Airport Zone would be insignificant, and is not
considered to be a threat to the functionality of the Mangaone Stream in a flood event. This is
supported by Council’s Stormwater Asset Engineer John McCartin, who states in a memo
responding to Horizon’s submission that:
Any development within this zone will transfer stormwater into the reticulated
stormwater network, which discharges into the Mangaone Stream downstream of the
Flygers Line floodway. I do not consider that the level of stormwater that is likely to be
generated in a fully developed Airport Zone scenario would be at a level that would
materially compromise flood protection in Setters Line north of the airport, Flygers
Line stopbanks or Benmore Avenue. The volumes of stormwater generated by any
changes in this area will always be insignificant compared to the volumes heading
down the floodway from the Mangaone’s main catchment.
4.154
9
In regards to the creation of additional impervious surfaces as a result of the proposed runway
extension, the District Plan is not considered the most appropriate mechanism to address the
potential stormwater impact this could have on the Mangaone Stream. Significant works will
be required to enable the runway extension, including the possible realignment of the
Mangaone Stream. This process will trigger a Regional Resource Consent. The concerns
related to the runway extension in S56/78 could be packaged up with this consent process
and adequately address the concerns the Regional Council have.
4.155
As previously stated, hydraulic neutrality is not considered necessary in the Airport Zone. The
purpose of assessment criteria (z) of R13.4.3.3 was to recognise that Motels and Residential
Centre’s typically contain large areas of impervious surfaces, and to introduce some guidance
to try to mitigate the potential adverse effects that are associated with this. The intention was
not to achieve hydraulic neutrality. On the basis that achieving hydraulic neutrality is not
considered appropriate, the request to introduce performance standards to R13.4.3.3 to give
greater effect to assessment criteria (z) is recommended to be rejected.
9
See Memo from John McCartin – Stormwater Engineer (Appendix 6)
38
38
4.156
R13.4.3.3 contains no performance standards. A prescriptive approach, utilising performance
standards, is not considered necessary for R13.4.3.3 because it has a Discretionary Activity
classification. The assessment criteria are intended to provide a consent planner with
guidance in their assessment of an application. There is sufficient guidance in the assessment
criteria to provide a consent planner with the ability to process an application and apply
suitable conditions, if necessary.
4.157
For the reasons outlined above it is recommended that S56/78 be rejected and FS5/29 be
accepted.
Recommendations
4.158
That S56/76 by Horizons Regional Council is accepted.
4.159
That S56/77 by Horizons Regional Council is accepted.
4.160
That S56/78 by Horizons Regional Council is rejected.
4.161
That FS5/27 by Palmerston North Airport Limited is accepted in-part.
4.162
That FS5/28 by Palmerston North Airport Limited is accepted in-part.
4.163
Submission 68 – William M Kelly & Diane H Simpson
4.164
William M Kelly & Diane H Simpson are opposed to their property at 134 Midhurst Street
being included within the Runway End Protection Zone. This is on the basis that the REPA
would:
1. restrict the use and development of their property
2. lessen the property value
3. hinder future resale prospects
4. mean they could not rebuild the existing house or buildings in the event that they
were lost, thereby further reducing the land's value
5. take away their rights as property owners and rate payers to use their land as they
wish.
4.165
S68/1 requests that the land at 134 Midhurst Street not be included within the Runway End
Protection Area. Alternatively, that compensation (in the form of payment or purchase of the
property) is made for the loss of the right to use land.
39
39
4.166
Airways Corporation of New Zealand made a further submission (FS28/9) opposing S68/1.
Opposition was on the basis that retaining the runway end protection area is essential for
safety reasons.
4.167
Palmerston North Airport Limited also made a further submission (FS5/32) opposing S68/1.
Opposition was on the basis that the proposed REPA is designed primarily to:
(a) provide for the safety of people on the ground beneath higher-risk areas associated with
Airport activities, and
(b) minimise effects on aircraft passengers and crew in the event of accidents.
These are considered legitimate environmental effects that the District Plan can manage.
Palmerston North Airport Limited also notes that they relate to enabling people and
communities to provide for their health and safety. FS5/32 notes that the proposed REPA
provisions do not prevent 134 Midhurst Street from reasonable use consistent with its zoning
and additional dwellings on the site are already a prohibited activity on the majority of the site
as much of the site is within the Air Noise Zone.
Assessment
4.168
Iain Munro, of Airbiz, has provided technical evidence for PPC15H
10
that supports the
introduction of REPA land-use controls in the District Plan.
4.169
According to Iain Munro, in the United States REPA tend to be located completely within
airport boundaries. This is generally consistent with the approach taken at other airports in
New Zealand (for example Auckland Airport). The exception is at Christchurch International
Airport where one of four REPA at that Airport is only partially represented. The REPA at the
City end of Runway 11/29 ceases at State Highway 1, near the Avonhead Road intersection.
The REPA was not fully implemented because of opposition from affected landowners during
Proposed Plan Change 16 to the Christchurch District Plan. The Commissioner on Plan
Change 16 considered that the affected land should instead be designated, and then once
that designation was in place the REPA extension could take place. The key reason for
disallowing the full extent of the REPA was on the basis that insufficient information was
included in the Plan Change to determine whether Section 85 of the Act was being satisfied.
Christchurch Airport decided against appealing the decision and instead opted to designate
the affected land. Christchurch Airport has recently designated the affected land.
4.170
In my opinion, the ownership status of land that the REPA is proposed to be applied to is not a
critical matter. The critical matter is whether the restrictions that are proposed to be applied to
10
Technical Evidence of Iain Munro – Aviation Consultant (Appendix 4)
40
40
a particular site are excessive or prevent a property owner from carrying out activities on that
site which would generally be anticipated. In my opinion, the affected sites are not excessively
prevented from being able to function as the underlying zoning allows. The underlying zoning
of William M Kelly & Diane H Simpson’s property is Rural Zone. The REPA does not
prevent any of the Permitted Activities in the Rural Zone, provided they do not attract birds.
Furthermore, the REPA allows for roads, rail, additions or alterations to existing dwellings,
accessory buildings and navigational aids. Therefore, although the REPA does introduce
prohibited activity status to affect areas, it does not make the use of the land it affects
unusable. Moreover, as the further submitters have identified, the REPA is an important and
necessary mechanism to reduce the potential loss of life or damage to property in the event of
an aircraft take-off or landing accident. The risk that the REPA is seeking to address is already
present. The REPA provisions are simply seeking to minimise the potential increase of risk to
life or property in the affected areas.
4.171
In my opinion, the question of whether the REPA should be granted as notified or amended to
exclude the opposing submitter’s property is a finely balanced matter. However, unlike the
Christchurch example I consider that the proposal satisfies Section 85 of the Act and on
balance should be retained as notified.
4.172
A potential alternative is to follow the Christchurch example and exclude the opposing
submitter’s property. The Palmerston North Airport could then investigate designating the
affected land, and if necessary purchase it. The potential benefit of the designation option is
that it provides a pathway to address the matter of compensation that the submitter raised. It
also provides greater control to the Airport about the types of activities that could occur onsite.
A potential cost associated with this option includes time delay in preparing and processing a
designation. It has taken approximately 4 years for the Christchurch Airport to designate the
affect land. Risks associated with this option include the potential for new structures to be
constructed in the time it takes for the designation to take effect or for events which result in
the Mass Assembly of People to occur, which would increase risk in an aviation accident.
Recommendation
4.173
That S68/1 by William M Kelly & Diane H Simpson is rejected.
4.174
4.175
That FS28/9 by Airways Corporation of New Zealand is accepted.
41
41
Submission 83 – Bruce Wilson
4.176
S83/4 from Bruce Wilson requests that the amendment of the definition of Mass Assembly of
People to indicate that this definition only applies to the Runway End Protection Area, and not
to the City at large. This request is supported, as it will provide greater clarity to the intent of
the definition. It is recommended that S83/4 be accepted.
4.177
S83/5 from Bruce Wilson recommends the inclusion of the Section 4 definition of 'Core
Airport Precinct' under S13.1 bullet point 1, or a reference thereto, in order to avoid confusion
around the meaning of Core Airport Precinct.
4.178
FS5/40 from Palmerston North Airport Limited opposes S83/5 on the basis that the
introduction section of the plan includes descriptive text and it is not necessary to refer to
definitions.
Palmerston North Airport Limited would not be opposed to the proposed
amendment if it would improve clarity, but requests that S83/5 re rejected.
4.179
In my opinion the request in S83/5 would provide greater clarity to the District Plan. Therefore,
it is recommended that S83/5 be accepted and FS5/40 be rejected.
4.180
S83/6 from Bruce Wilson notes that the spelling of "hangers" under the definition of Core
Airport Precinct is incorrect. S83/6 requests that the S4 definition of Core Airport Precinct is
amended to correct the spelling of 'hangers' to 'hangars'. This request is supported. It is
recommended that S83/6 be accepted.
Recommendations
4.181
That S83/4 by Bruce Wilson is accepted.
4.182
4.183
4.184
That FS5/40 by Palmerston North Airport Limited is rejected.
Submission 85 – Peter & Kathy Learmonth
4.185
S85/1 and S85/2 from Peter & Kathy Learmonth opposes the inclusion of the Runway End
Protection Area over their property at 142 Midhurst Street on the basis that it could devalue
their land and hinder any future resale. S85/1 and S85/2 requests that 142 Midhurst Street not
be included in the Runway Protection Area, or that if it is, that compensation is granted for the
loss of use of land, in the form of monetary payment, or that the land be purchased by Council
and leased back to the submitter.
42
42
4.186
Airways Corporation of New Zealand made a further submission (FS28/11) opposing S85/1
and S85/2. Opposition was on the basis that retaining the runway end protection area is
essential for safety reasons.
4.187
Palmerston North Airport Limited also made a further submission (FS5/42) opposing S85/1
and S85/2. The further submission stated that the majority of the rear title referred to in S85/1
and S85/2 is outside of the REPA area so would not be captured by the prohibited activity rule
applying to the REPA areas. Most of the rear of the property is, however, within the Air Noise
Zone so development of a dwelling would already be a prohibited activity. The further
submission also notes that PNCC agrees, in principle, that rebuilding of existing buildings with
like for like may be acceptable to cover situations such as destruction through fire, however,
such activity should be subject to resource consent to enable appropriate scrutiny by the
Council and the Airport. Palmerston North Airport Limited opposes payment of
compensation for provisions that allow existing uses to continue uninhibited and for the land to
be used for reasonable uses consistent with the Rural Zoning. FS5/42 seeks that S85/1 and
S85/2 be rejected.
Assessment
4.188
For the reasons outlined in response to S68/1 from William M Kelly & Diane H Simpson,
submissions S85/1 and S85/2 from Peter & Kathy Learmonth are not supported.
Recommendation
4.189
It is recommended that S85/1 and S85/2 by William M Kelly & Diane H Simpson be
rejected.
4.190
It is recommended that FS28/11 from Airways Corporation of New Zealand be accepted.
4.191
It is recommended that FS5/42 from Palmerston North Airport Limited be accepted.
Submission 87 –New Zealand Transport Agency
4.192
S87/67 from the New Zealand Transport Agency supports R13.4.5.2(i) in relation to the
exclusion of roads from the list of new structures that are prohibited in the Runway End
Protection Area.
4.193
Palmerston North Airport Limited made a further submission (FS5/43) supporting S87/67,
asking that it be accepted.
43
43
Assessment
4.194
Support for R13.4.5.2(i) from the New Zealand Transport Agency and Palmerston North
Airport Limited is noted.
Recommendation
4.195
It is recommended that S87/67 from the New Zealand Transport Agency be accepted.
4.196
It is recommended that FS5/43 from Palmerston North Airport Limited be accepted.
44
44
5. Statutory Considerations
Section 31 – Consistency with RMA Functions
5.1
One of the functions of the Council under section 31 is to establish, implement and review
objectives, polices and methods –
To achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of the
land and associated natural and physical resources of the district.
5.2
PPC15H is a review of the Issues, Objectives, Policies and Methods of the Airport Zone and
airport related aspects of the District Plan.
5.3
The critical methods are the proposed minimum lot size of 20ha outside of the rural-residential
overlay, the 1 ha minimum lot size and supporting restricted discretionary assessment criteria
within the rural-residential overlay, and the overall reduction in the spatial extent of the ruralresidential overlay.
Section 32 – Evaluation of Appropriateness
5.4
Section 32 of the RMA sets out a duty to examine whether the objectives of a plan change are
appropriate to achieve the purpose of the Act and whether provisions are the most appropriate
way to achieve the objectives of the plan change. The evaluation must identify options and
examine the efficiency and effectiveness of provisions in achieving the objectives of the plan
change. Importantly, the level of detail contained in the evaluation must correspond to the scale
and significance of effects anticipated from the implementation of the plan change.
5.5
The following provides a useful overview of section 32 post the 2013 amendments under the
following sub-headings:






Requirements to improve quality of information analysis
Evaluation of objectives
Identification of alternatives
Benefits and costs
Decisions and further evaluations
Scope to make changes
The following evaluation is organised under these headings.
Requirements to improve quality of information analysis
5.6
PPC15H is supported by a suite of technical reports which have already been detailed within
this report. Further technical evidence has been commissioned to respond to submissions, in
particular the challenges to the airnoise contours and the provision of commercial activities in
the Airport Zone.
Evaluation of Objectives
5.7
Under the operative District Plan there were only two Objectives associated with the Airport
Zone. Objective 1 was focussed on airport operations and future development, and the other
was on mitigating potential adverse effects of Airport operations. There are 4 objectives within
the Airport Zone section of the District Plan, as amended by PPC15H.
45
45
5.8
Objective 1, as notified, reads as follows:
To promote and enable the continued operation, maintenance and upgrading of the
Palmerston North Airport and provide for its future development as an important
infrastructure asset for Palmerston North City and the wider Manawatū-Wanganui Region.
5.9
Objective 1 is supported by six separate policies, as follows:
1.1
To provide a zone to encompass the Palmerston North Airport’s activities and other
activities which are compatible with the airport’s operations.
1.2
To enable the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the Palmerston North Airport to
meet future freight, passenger and other commercial needs of Palmerston North City
and the Manawatū-Wanganui Region.
1.3
To manage the emission of noise from the operation of the Airport to avoid or mitigate
significant adverse environmental effects on existing residential activities within
existing residential zones but which are outside of the Airnoise Contour.
1.4
To avoid the establishment or intensification of activities sensitive to airport-related
noise within the Airport Zone.
1.5
To avoid or mitigate the potential adverse effects of reverse sensitivity to the
Palmerston North Airport resulting from the establishment or intensification of noisesensitive land use and developments within the Air Noise, Inner and Outer Control
Contours where noise generated from the use of the airport is potentially significant
by:
 Avoiding the establishment of new noise sensitive activities within the Air
Noise Contour.
 Avoiding rezoning of land in a way that enables an increase in the scale
or intensity of noise-sensitive activities (such as residential activities)
within the Inner and Outer Control Contours; and
 Controlling development and intensification of noise sensitive activities
within the Inner and Outer Control Contours to ensure that measures to
avoid or mitigate airport noise are in place.
1.6
To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the safe operation of aircraft using the
Airport by:
 Defining airport protection surfaces and not allowing buildings, structures,
trees or other objects to encroach into those surfaces.
 Controlling the development and management of artificial water bodies,
stormwater attenuation facilities, food sources, and other activities that
attract birds such that birds may fly across the airport or aircraft flight
paths.
 Controlling activities within the runway approaches that could adversely
affect the electronic or visual navigation of aircraft, or otherwise interfere
with the operation of aircraft.
5.10 The package of planning provisions associated with Objective 1 provides an efficient and
effective means of enabling the ongoing operation and growth of the Airport, while avoiding or
mitigating the potential adverse effects associated with those operations; including reversesensitivity effects. Objective 1 and its supporting policies also gives effect to the Regional Policy
Statement, in particular Policy 3-2.
5.11 Objective 2, as notified, reads as follows:
To enable a range of activities in the Airport Zone that efficiently and effectively use the
46
46
physical resources of the Airport Zone, and that derive a functional or operational benefit
from being close to the Airport, while avoiding potentially adverse effects on the amenity
values of the adjoining Rural, Residential and Recreation Zones and commercial
distribution effects on the established Business Zones.
5.12 Objective 2 is supported by five separate policies, as follows:
2.1
To identify precincts within the Airport Zone which recognise the Palmerston North
Airport and land on the northern side of Airport Drive (Core Airport Precinct) and land
on the southern side of Airport Drive (Airport Environs Precinct) (see Map 13.1).
2.2
To enable, through permitted activity rules and resource consents, a range of activities
in the Core Airport Precinct, which have a functional, operational or commercial
connection with the Airport.
2.3
To discourage the development of activities in the Core Airport Precinct that do not
require airport access.
2.4
To enable, through permitted activity rules and resource consents, a range of activities
in the Airport Environs Precinct that have a relationship with or are compatible with the
activities and operation of the Airport and which do not adversely affect the amenity of
the adjoining Residential Zone and the Mahanga Kakariki Reserve.
2.5
To discourage the development of retail activities and non-ancillary office activities,
which are readily provided for in the City’s established Business Zones.
effective means of enabling a wide range of complimentary activities within the Airport, provided
the potential adverse effects associated with those activities on neighbouring areas and the
established Business Zones are avoided.
To enhance and protect the amenity of the Airport Zone as an important gateway to the
City.
5.15 Objective 3 is supported by five separate policies, as follows:
3.1
To ensure that amenity standards on Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway
Road are commensurate with their gateway function.
3.2
To require high quality frontage landscaping that contributes to the amenity and
streetscape on sites fronting Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway Road.
3.3
To avoid blank building facades, solid fences and location of service areas at the
street edge, except where this is necessary to provide for the security needs of
Palmerston North Airport and associated activities.
3.4
To require a comprehensively planned and coordinated streetscape along the length
of Airport Drive and the Airport Zone interface along McGregor Street and Railway
Road.
3.5
To protect the amenity of the Mahanga Kakariki Reserve from the potential adverse
effects of development on adjoining sites in the Airport Zone.
47
47
effective means of protecting and enhancing the amenity of the Airport Zone, in recognition that
it is an important gateway to the City.
To reduce the risk to people and property from aircraft undershooting or overshooting the
runway at the Palmerston North Airport.
5.18 Objective 4 is supported by two separate policies, as follows:
4.1
To prohibit new buildings or structures within the Runway End Protection Areas –
except where they are accessory buildings, navigational aids for aircraft or additions or
extensions to existing dwellings,
4.2
To prohibit any activities in the Runway End Protection Area which result in the mass
assembly of people.
effective means of reducing risk to people and property from aircraft accidents associated with
take-off’s or landing’s.
5.20 The overall package of planning provisions associated with the Airport Zone’s Objectives and
Policies provide an efficient and effective means of enabling the airport to operate and expand,
complimentary activities to establish and grow, for amenity to be enhanced to recognise the
gateway function of the Airport Zone, and to reduce risk to people and property from the
potential of aviation accidents associated with aircraft taking-off or landing. The Objective and
Policy framework also gives effect to the One Plan, which requires Council to have regard to the
benefits of infrastructure of regional or national importance, and ensure that adverse effects on
infrastructure from other activities are avoided as far as reasonably practicable.
Identification of alternatives
5.21 The PPC15H notification material includes an evaluation of reasonably practicable options for
achieving the objectives. Some submissions challenge the objectives of PPC15H. The
challenges have been assessed and included in the overall planning evaluation. No substantive
changes are proposed to the notified Objectives and Policies.
Benefits and costs
5.22 The direction at section 32(2)(b) to “if practicable, quantify the benefits and costs” infers some
quantification if quantification can be achieved. The “if practicable” qualification is recognition of
the reality that quantification is not always possible because there are limitations to the
assignment of metrics to effects that can otherwise properly be described as “costs” or
“benefits”.
5.23 The benefits and costs of PPC15H have not been explicitly quantified, however, the Section 32
report does describe the potential benefits and costs of the proposed changes at a high level.
Also, where possible, commentary on the potential costs and benefits of changes in relation to
submissions has been addressed in the analysis of submissions.
48
48
Decisions and further evaluations
5.24 Further evaluations reports are required for changes or proposed changes since the evaluation
report was completed. The most significant changes recommended to PPC15H as a result of
submissions are:


More permissive provision of Retail, Restaurants, Takeaway Bars, Licenced Premises and
Commercial Service Activities.
Reclassification of activity status from Discretionary to Restricted Discretionary for NonAncillary Office Activities.
5.25 Each of these changes has been assessed within the overall planning evaluation and identified
as supporting the overall objective of PPC15H.
5.26 It is important to note that if decision makers cannot be satisfied on the information in support of
a change proposed by a submitter that it is supported by information of an equivalent standard
to that in the Council’s s32 evaluation, then an appropriate finding on the submission is that
there is insufficient information to enable an evaluation of the further change.
5.27 I am satisfied that the issues raised in submissions have been thoroughly addressed by
technical evidence and appropriately evaluated in the overall planning report. Where
submission points have been unable to be supported the hearing provides the opportunity for
submitters to provide alternative evidence and their own further evaluation.
Level of Detail Corresponds to Scale and Significance of Anticipated Effects
5.28 The approach to the section 32 evaluation and subsequent recommendations on submissions
represents a rigorous process of consultation and policy development. The technical reports
and evidence underpinning PPC15H provide a comprehensive response to address the
resource management issues in the Airport Zone.
5.29 Sitting behind the extensive technical assessment informing the development of PPC15H is a
suite of strategic policy documents that have informed the broader approach taken. The critical
documents are the One Plan, the Urban Design Strategy and the Retail Strategy.
5.30 It is acknowledged that the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social and
cultural effects anticipated from the implementation of PPC15H is significant. I am comfortable
the planning evaluation, technical reports and evidence and wider strategic considerations have
ensured the level of detail informing PPC15H is sufficient to meet the requirements of section
32 of the Act.
The Risk of Acting or Not Acting
5.31 It is not considered that there is insufficient information relating to the subject matter to make a
decision. PPC15H has been informed by a comprehensive suite of technical reports and
supporting technical evidence. It is also supported by various high-order planning documents.
5.32 There are risks associated with the decision to approve the extent of the REPA as notified or
reduce it so that it excludes affected properties. Reducing the proposed extent would enable
activities to occur and structures to established in an at risk environment. Reducing the extent of
the air noise contours could also expose the airport to potential reverse-sensitivity effects from
noise sensitive activities establishing within the vicinity of the airport.
49
49
Alignment with the Plan Objectives
5.33 In conclusion the integrated package of policies and methods, including the recommended
amendments, are the most appropriate option to achieve the objectives of PPC15H.
Section 74 – Matters to be considered by a Territorial Authority
5.34
When preparing or changing a district plan, section 74(2) of the RMA requires the Council to
have regard to any management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts. The Retail
Strategy informed the preparation of PPC15H and the assessment of submissions, as detailed
in this planning report. The Urban Design Strategy is also relevant to the Airport Zone
provisions; in particular, those that relate to the enhancing the gateway function of the zone.
Section 75 – Consistency with Regional Planning Policies
5.35
Section 75(3) of the RMA requires that a District Plan must give effect to any regional policy
statement. In this regard, the Act requires the District Plan to give effect to the One Plan.
Relevant provisions of the One Plan informed the preparation of PPC15H and the assessment
of submissions, as detailed in this planning report.
Other Matters
5.36
PPC15H was developed in conjunction with the RMA consultation process, allowing
opportunities for stakeholders, iwi and the general community to have input into the
development of the Plan Change.
5.37
The extent and nature of consultation is fully consistent with the consultation requirements of
the Resource Management Act 1991.
6. Purpose and Principles of the RMA
6.1
As a final matter to consider, regard should be given as to whether the proposed Plan Change
is consistent with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991, as set
out in Part II of the Act.
Section 5 – Purpose
6.2
As set out in section 5 of the Act:
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and
physical resources
(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and
protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people
and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their
health and safety while –
(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to
meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and
(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment.
50
50
6.3
The scope of the statutory obligations contained within part 2 of the Act extends beyond the
sole consideration of the management and control of the effects of activities. The purpose of
PPC15H is to ensure the sustainable management of natural and physical resources within
the Airport Zone. This purpose and the associated objectives and policies are founded on a
statutory obligation to manage the use and development of physical resources in a way that
sustains the potential of resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future
generations while managing environmental effects. On this basis, PPC15H is considered
consistent with promoting the purpose of the Act.
Section 6 – Matters of National Importance
6.4
PPC15H is not considered to be inconsistent with any of the matters of national importance
set out in the RMA.
Section 7 – Other Matters
6.5
The following section 7 matters are relevant:




6.6
the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources.
the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.
maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.
any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources
The proposed regulatory framework of PPC15H allows the Council to assess proposals
against these matters through methods such as: a) the use of precincts to define land-use
activities b) the gross floor area restrictions for retail, restaurants, takeaway bars, licenced
premises and commercial service activities, c) the Comprehensive Development Plan for
streetscape design, d) Runway End Protection Areas, e) Airport Protection Surfaces and f)
Airnoise contours. PPC15H is therefore considered to have particular regard to these matters,
as required by Section 7 of the Act.
Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi
6.7
Section 8 requires that the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi shall be taken into account in
relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources.
6.8
The Council consulted with Tangata Whenua, who were able to respond and provide input at
an early stage in the process.
51
51
7. Conclusion & Recommendation
Conclusion
7.1
PPC15H represents the culmination of an extensive analytical and consultative policy
development process. The experts engaged by the Council to review the matters raised by the
submitters have identified no fundamental difficulties with proceeding with the Plan Change,
subject to a small number of relatively minor recommended changes based on submissions.
7.2
In my assessment of PPC15H, having regard to the submissions received, and drawing on the
technical analysis of experts in retail, urban design, transportation, stormwater, aviation and
noise, I am satisfied that, subject to a number of amendments being made, the Plan Change is
the most appropriate means of sustainably managing the physical resources of the Airport
Zone. The Plan Change is consistent with wider resource management approach of the
Operative District Plan and the Sectional District Plan review process, and with the purpose
and principles of the Act.
7.3
The principle reasons for my conclusion are:
(a) There is need to ensure the District Plan remains responsive to the changing needs of
the Airport Zone activities and operations while ensuring the adverse effects of such
activities, particularly at interfaces with other zones and on sites fronting arterial roads are
managed in a manner consistent with achieving sustainable management of physical
resources; and
(b) The proposed Plan Change has been developed after a rigorous analytical study and an
iterative process of consultation and policy development; and
(c) The form of control for development and use of physical resources within the Airport Zone
provides an effective and efficient management framework for managing potential
adverse effects.
Recommendation
7.4
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I recommend that PPC15H be approved subject to
the recommended amendments and that the relief sought by the submitters be accepted or
rejected in accordance with these amendments. The recommended amendments to the
District Plan are shown in Appendix 2.
Michael Duindam
Policy Planner
Palmerston North City Council
14 October 2015
52
52
APPENDIX 1: Summary Table of Recommendations on Submissions
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
Officer recommendation on
submissions
6. David C
Parham
S06/1
The submitter states that air surface contours similar to those used in Figure 20.7 of the
operative plan are necessary for illustrating the take-off and approach and conical
surfaces. The submitter states that areas where the conical surface is below the take-off
surface and ground to airspace clearances should be mapped.
Airways Corporation of New
Zealand (FS28/1)
Oppose
S06/1
reject
S08/1
The submitter is concerned about the lack of control over helicopter noise and safety
effects on the Milson residential area. The submitter notes that there is no provision to
prevent helicopters flying over Milson, allowing helicopters to use this noise-sensitive
residential area for training exercises.
Palmerston North Airport
Limited (FS5/6)
Oppose
S15/1
The submitter is concerned about safety and noise impacts that single engine helicopters
have on residential areas that they train above.
Zealand (FS28/4)
Oppose
S15/2
The submitter is concerned about Milson Airport mapping and that single engine
helicopters operating over Milson are in a "Red Zone".
Limited (FS5/7, FS5/8)
Oppose
8. Clive
Harding
53
15. Robert H
Fraser
S15/3
The submitter is opposed to the current drafting of PPC15H.
FS28/1 and FS5/5 accept
Limited (FS5/5)
Oppose
Zealand (FS28/2)
Oppose
S08/1
reject
FS28/2 and FS5/6 accept
S15/1
Accepted in-part
S15/2
Reject
FS28/4, FS5/7 and FS5/8
Accept
53
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
28. Brian
Green
Properties
(PN) Ltd.
S28/7
Requests that Rule13.4.5.1 be deleted and replaced with a discretionary activity rule that
enables specific noise effects to be considered in each case.
Zealand (FS28/5, FS28/6)
Oppose
S28
Accept
S28,7 S28/8 and S28/9
Reject
S28/8
Requests that Rule 13.4.6.2 Airport Noise Management Plan be retained.
Limited (FS5/11, FS5/12
and FS5/13)
Oppose
S28/9
Requests that the noise contour data, assumptions and modelling from Airbiz be
independently peer reviewed. That the most accurate noise contours be adopted in the
District Plan, and as a minimum are amended to those shown on page 47 of the Airbiz
report. In the event that this is not accepted, then a wholly different approach to the
objectives and policies and rules relating to airport noise would be necessary to enable
development within the contours on land that is not at risk from long term noise effects.
FS28/5, FS28/6
Accept
FS5/11, FS5/12 and FS5/13
Accept
54
S28
The submitter supports Rule 13.4.6.2, but notes that the existing rule in the plan has not
been complied with by the Airport company.
34.
Palmerston
North Airport
Limited
S34/1 supports Objective 1 and supporting Policies 1.1-1.6 and requests that they be
retained as notified. Support is noted.
S34/3 supports Objective 4 and supporting Policies 4.1 and 4.2, and requests that they be
retained. Support is noted.
S34/1, S34/3, S34/6, S34/9,
S34/10, S34/11, S34//12, S34//13,
S34/14, S34/15, S34/16, S34/17,
S34/18, S34/19, S34/20, S34/21,
S34/22, S34/23, S34/29 S34/31,
S34/32, S34/34, S34/35, S34/36,
S34/37, S34/38, S34/39, S34/40
Accept
S34/6 does not oppose Policy 2.1, but states that the Airport must be able to respond to
changing aviation and airport security requirements without the need to change the District
plan or apply for a resource consent. The submitter considers that how the business
functions within its zone needs also to respond efficiently and rapidly to changing business
S34/25 and S34/26
Accept in-part
S34/2, S34/4, S34/5, S34/7, S34/8,
54
Submitter
Submission
demands and it should not be prevented from doing so by the District Plan. S34/6 requests
that Policy 2.1 be retained. This request is acknowledged and supported.
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
S34/24, S34/27, S34/28, S34/30
and S34/33
Reject
S34/9 supports R13.4.1.3 Temporary Training Activities and related Performance
Standards. Support is noted.
S34/10 supports R.13.4.1.4 Construction, External Alteration of and Addition to Buildings
and Structures and related Performance Standards. Support is noted.
S34/11 supports R13.4.1.5 Roads. Support is noted.
55
Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria. Support is noted.
S34/13 supports R13.4.2.2 Sound Emissions. Support is noted.
S34/14 supports R13.4.2.3 Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards
for Permitted Activities, Determination Clause and Assessment Criteria (with the exception
of (f) Ancillary retail and Ancillary Office Activities). Support is noted.
S34/15 supports R13.4.2.4 The Construction, External Alteration to a building or structure
which does not comply with the Performance Standards for Permitted Activities,
55
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
S34/16 supports R13.4.3.4 – Temporary Military Training Activities which do not comply
with the Permitted Activity Performance Standards of Rule 13.4.1.4. Support is noted.
S34/17 supports R13.4.4.1 – Airnoise Control. Support is noted.
S34/18 supports R13.4.4.2 – Sound Emissions. Support is noted.
S34/19 supports R13.4.5.1 – Air Noise Contour. Support is noted.
S34/20 supports 13.4.5.2 – Runway End Protection Areas. Support is noted.
56
S34/21 supports R13.4.6.1 – Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone. Support is noted.
S34/22 supports R13.4.6 Rules: Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone. Support is noted.
S34/23 supports R13.4.7.1 Airport Protection Surface. Support is noted.
S34/35 supports R13.4.2.2 Non-Notification. Support is noted.
S34/37 supports R13.4.1.5 – Roads. Support is noted.
56
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
S34/39 supports R13.4.5.2 – Runway End Protection Areas. Support is noted.
S34/40 supports R13.4.6.2 – Airport Noise Management Plan. Support is noted.
S34/4 requests that Resource Management Issue 2 not identify the adverse effects of
activities within the Airport Zone on the City's established business zones as a significant
Resource Management Issue.
S34/5 opposes Objective 2 in-part because they do not consider that commercial
distribution effects on the established Business Zones is a significant matter of concern.
S34/7 opposes Policy 2.3 and requests that it be deleted.
57
S34/2 and S34/8 oppose Policy 2.5 and requests that it be deleted.
S34/24 notes general support for R13.4.1.1, but requests that Retail, Takeaway Bars,
Licensed Premises, Commercial Service Activities, Accommodation and Service Stations
be listed as Permitted Activities in the Core Airport Precinct and not be confined to the
Terminal Building.
S34/25 opposes office and retail activities needing to be ancillary under R13.4.1.1
Permitted Activities – Core Airport Precinct.
S34/26 opposes office and retail activities needing to be ancillary under R13.4.1.2
Permitted Activities –Airport Environs Precinct.
S34/28 opposes R13.4.2.3(f) Ancillary Retail and Office Activities.
S34/29 opposes R13.4.2.6 Retail, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service Activities which
have a Gross Floor Area less than 100m² in the Airport Environs Precinct.
57
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
S34/30 opposes R13.4.3.1 – Ancillary Retail and Office Activities.
S34/31 opposes ‘R13.4.3.2 – Retail Activities, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service
Activities’ which have a gross floor area over 100m² in the Airport Zone.
S34/32 opposes ‘R13.4.3.3 – Non Ancillary Office Activities’ in the Airport Zone provided
they comply with performance standard.
S34/33 opposes R13.4.3.3 Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres being a
Discretionary Activity, and requests that these be provided for as Permitted Activities.
S34/27 opposes the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) under R13.4.2.1
58
S34/34 has also requested that if the relief they seek is not available for some technical
reason they request that amendments be made to like effect.
S34/36 requests that all references to “Airnoise” be expressed as one word rather than two
in the District Plan.
44. Federated
Farmers
ManawatūRangitikei
Province
S44/39
The provisions regarding Palmerston North Airport and supporting infrastructure are of
economic benefit to the primary industries and the wider PNCC economy.
Limited (FS5/25)
Support
S44/39
Accept
46.
Transpower
New Zealand
Ltd.
S46/35 and S46/36
Transpower conditionally opposes the new prohibited activity rules introduced by Plan
Change 15H to the extent that it is unclear from the proposed diagrams and descriptions
whether or not this would have an impact on the National Grid.
Zealand (FS28/8)
Oppose
S46/35 and S46/36
Reject
FS28/8
Accept
58
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
56. Horizons
S56/76 seeks that Rule 13.4.5.2(i) be amended to read as follows:
Limited (FS5/27, FS5/28
and FS5/29)
Oppose
S56/76, S56/77
Accept
"… defined in this plan (excluding roads, rail, additions or extensions to existing
dwellings, accessory buildings, navigational aids for aircraft and activities
undertaken by or on behalf of the Regional Council for the purposes of flood
control within the Taonui Basin Floodway as defined in Schedule J of the One
Plan);"
S56/78
Reject
FS5/27 and FS5/28
Accept in-part
S56/77 seeks that PNCC ensures that additionally generated storm water from the Airport
Zone does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in
Settlers line (north of the airport), Flygers Line stop banks, and Benmore Avenue.
FS5/29
Accept
59
S56/78 notes that R13.4.1.1(h) requires sewer, storm water and water supply services to
connect to a public service corridor and that this could compromise Horizons' flood
protection measures upstream of Flygers Line, which would not be supported by Horizons.
68. William M
Kelly & Diane
H Simpson
S68/1 requests that the land at 134 Midhurst Street not be included within the Runway End
Protection Area. Alternatively, that compensation (in the form of payment or purchase of
the property) is made for the loss of the right to use land.
Limited (FS5/32)
Oppose
Zealand (FS28/9)
Oppose
83. Bruce
Wilson
S83/4 requests that the amendment of the definition of Mass Assembly of People under S4
to indicate that this definition only applies to the Runway End Protection Area, and not to
the City at large.
S83/5 recommends the inclusion of the S4 definition of 'Core Airport Precinct' under S13.1
bullet point 1, or a reference thereto, in order to avoid confusion around the meaning of
Core Airport Precinct.
Limited (FS5/40)
Accepts in-part
S68/1
Reject
FS5/32 and FS28/9
Accept
S83/4, S83/5 and S83/6
Accept
FS5/40
Reject
59
Submitter
Submission
Further Submitter
Position
submissions
Limited (FS5/42)
Oppose
S85/1 and S85/2
Reject
S83/6 requests that the S4 definition of Core Airport Precinct is amended to correct the
spelling of 'hangers' to 'hangars'.
85. Peter &
Kathy
Learmonth
S85/1 and S85/2 requests that 142 Midhurst Street not be included in the Runway
Protection Area, or that if it is, that compensation is granted for the loss of use of land, in
the form of monetary payment, or that the land be purchased by Council and leased back
to the submitter.
Zealand (FS28/11)
Oppose
60
87. New
Zealand
Transport
Agency
S87/67 from the New Zealand Transport Agency supports R13.4.5.2(i) in relation to the
exclusion of roads from the list of new structures that are prohibited in the Runway End
Protection Area.
Limited (FS5/43)
Support
FS5/42 and FS28/11
Accept
S87/67
Accept
FS5/43
Accept
60
APPENDIX 2: Amended District Plan Provisions PPC15H
61
61
Proposed Amendments to District Plan from PPC15H
Note: notified changes to the District Plan are shown as underlined (added text) and
strikethrough (deleted text). New text to be added or deleted as a response to submissions
are shown in underlined grey (added text) and strikethrough grey (deleted).
Section 4: Definitions
Note: A glossary of Maori words and terms is contained in Section 3 of this Plan.
In this District Plan, unless the context otherwise requires it:
Airport Environs
Precinct
Means land within the Airport Zone on the southern side of Airport
Drive. See Map 13.1: Airport Zone Precincts.
Core Airport Precinct
Means land within the Airport Zone encompassing the Palmerston
North Airport’s airfield, hangears, apron, terminal, public parking and
other core airside activities. See Map 13.1: Airport Zone Precincts.
Mass Assembly of
People
A group of people gathered together in one place for a common
purpose. Mass Assembly of People includes, but is not limited to
gatherings associated with recreation activities, public entertainment
events, or fairs. Golf course recreation and domestic gatherings do not
amount to Mass Assembly of People.
Note: This definition only applies to the Runway End Protection Areas
Runway End
Protection Area
Means the area identified in Map 13.2: Runway End Protection Areas.
Schedule P
a schedule of materials and description of general construction
techniques for building elements that, for the purposes of this Plan, are
deemed to reduce the exterior ‘A’ weighted aircraft noise levels
(defined separately) by 20 decibels with respect to the interior ‘A’
weighted sound levels
Schedule Q
weighted sound levels.
Schedule R
weighted sound levels.
62
(NOT PART OF PLAN – FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY)
TABLE G1 – AUSTRALIAN STANDARD AS2021
1994 ACOUSTICS – AIRCRAFT NOISE INTRUSION –
BUILDING SITING AND CONSTRUCTION
AVERAGE SHAPE OF SPECTRUM FOR DOMESTIC
OR INTERNATIONAL JETS LANDING OR TAKING OFF
Centre frequency of onethird octave base ƒ
Hz
100
125
160
200
250
315
400
500
630
800
1000
1250
1600
2000
2500
3150
4000
5000
Unweighted relative band
level L1
DB
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
-10.0
-11.3
-12.5
-13.8
-15.0
-16.3
-17.5
-18.8
-20.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
63
A-weighted relative band
level
(L1 + C1)
-24.0
-21.0
-18.3
-15.8
-13.5
-11.5
-9.7
-9.4
-9.3
-9.5
-9.9
-10.6
-11.4
-12.5
-13.6
-18.7
-23.9
-29.4
Section 9: Rural Zone
9.2
Resource Management Issues
The following resource management issues were identified within the Rural Zone.
12.
9.3
The potential for aircraft to undershoot or overshoot the Palmerston North Airport
runway and the associated risk to the health and safety of people, property and the
environment.
Objectives and Policies
Within the broad framework of the City View objectives in section 2, the following
specific objectives and policies have been identified for the Rural Zone:
Objective 5
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of aircraft noise on noise
sensitive activities in the vicinity of the Palmerston North Airport To avoid,
remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of aircraft noise on noise sensitive
activities in the vicinity of the Palmerston North Airport, while protecting the
Palmerston North Airport from the potential adverse effects of noise sensitive
activities on efficient airport operations.
Objective 6
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of noise sensitive
activities in the vicinity of Palmerston North Airport on efficient aircraft
operations.
Policies
5.1
To prohibit any new dwelling, school, hospital or other building to be used for
regular living accommodation in the Air Noise Contour.
5.2
To mitigate the adverse effects of aircraft noise on any new dwelling, school,
hospital or other building to be used for regular living accommodation, or regular
assembly of people, in the Inner and Outer Control Contours.
5.3
To require every application for a resource consent lodged within the Inner and
Outer Control Zones to be accompanied by details of the method of construction
for the purpose of noise attenuation, and sufficient information to satisfy Council
that this method will achieve the requisite insulation rating.To avoid the rezoning of
land within the Inner and Outer Control Contours that enables an increase in the
scale or intensity of noise-sensitive activities.
Explanation
The operations of a modern airport give rise to a range of sound emissions relating mainly to
aircraft operations. These sound emissions may have an adverse effect on surrounding noise
sensitive activities such as the inhabitants of dwellings.
In order to protect potential occupiers of land situated within the vicinity of the Airport from levels
of noise that may be incompatible with normal standards of rural amenity, Council has
introduced controls to mitigate the adverse effects of operational aircraft noise on noise
sensitive activities in the Rural Zone. These controls also have the effect of protecting the
operation of the airport from noise sensitive activities to allow it to function efficiently, effectively,
64
and safely.
To ensure that responsibility for mitigation of operational aircraft noise is not borne solely by
affected rural property owners, Council has also introduced specific noise mitigation measures
to control operational activities within the Airport Zone. Please refer to Rule 13.4.7.1 20.4.9.1
Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone.
In recognising the adverse effects of air noise on properties beneath the Air Noise Contours,
Policy 5.4 seeks to avoid the rezoning of Rural Zone land in a way that enables an increase in
the scale or intensity of noise-sensitive activities within the Inner and Outer Control Contours.
This includes rezoning of land from Rural Zone to Residential Zone and the application of the
Rural-Residential overlay beneath the Inner and Outer Control Contours.
Objective 6
To minimise the risk to people and property from aircraft undershooting or
overshooting the runway at the Palmerston North Airport.
Policies
6.1
To prohibit new buildings or structures within the Runway End Protection
Areas – except where they are accessory buildings, navigational aids for
aircraft and additions or extensions to existing dwellings.
6.2
To prohibit any activities in the Runway End Protection Area which result
in the mass assembly of people.
Explanation
The Runway End Protection Areas are where aviation accidents are most likely to occur.
Prohibiting new buildings and activities involving the mass assembly of people reduces the
risk of damage to aircraft, property and loss of life.
9.101 Rules : Prohibited Activities

R 9.101.1 Prohibited Activities in the Air Noise ZoneContour identified
on Map 10.7.6.3
The following activities are Prohibited Activities in the Air Noise ZoneContour
identified on Map 10.7.6.3:
All new dwellings, new dependent dwelling units, new relocated houses, new
education and early childhood facilities, new community homes, new
accommodation motels, new motel conference centres, new training facilities,
new hospitals, new retirement villages, new residential centres, new tourist
facilities and any other new buildings used for regular accommodation and
communal activities.
These activities are expressly prohibited and no resource consent shall be
granted.
Explanation
The above-mentioned activities have been identified as being highly sensitive to the effects of
excessive noise exposure associated with aircraft operations.
The impact of aircraft noise has been assessed by New Zealand Standard 6805:1992 - Airport
Noise Management and Land Use Planning, which recommends as one of the criteria for land
use planning within any defined air noise boundary that noise sensitive activities, such as
dwellings and schools, be prohibited. The purpose of this rule is to give effect to this
recommended standard”.
65

R 9.10.2 Prohibited Activities in the Runway End Protection Areas
The activities listed in Rule 13.4.5.2 are Prohibited Activities in the Runway End
Protection Areas.
Explanation
New buildings and activities that result in the mass congregation of people within the Runway
End Protection Areas are prohibited to reduce the risk to aircraft, property and loss of life in the
event of an aircraft undershooting or overshooting the runway at the Palmerston North Airport.
66
10. RESIDENTIAL ZONE
10.3 Objectives and Policies
Within the broad framework of the City View objectives in section 2, the following
specific objectives and policies were identified for the residential area:
Objective 6
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of aircraft noise on noise
sensitive activities in the vicinity of the Palmerston North Airport.
Objective 7
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of noise sensitive
activities in the vicinity of Palmerston North Airport on efficient airport
operations To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of aircraft noise on
noise sensitive activities in the vicinity of the Palmerston North Airport, while
protecting the Palmerston North Airport from the potential adverse effects of
noise sensitive activities on efficient airport operations.
Policies
76.1 To prohibit any new dwelling, school, or other building to be used for regular
living accommodation in the Air Noise ZoneContour.
76.2 To mitigate the adverse effects of aircraft noise on any new dwelling, school,
hospital or other building to be used for regular living accommodation or the
regular assembly of people in the Inner and Outer Control ZonesContours by
specifying appropriate insulation standards.the types of sound insulation to meet
insulation ratings.
7.3
To enable Council consideration of alternative types of sound insulation for
habitable buildings in the Inner and Outer Control Zones through resource
consent procedures.
7.4
To require every application for a resource consent for a habitable building within
the Inner and Outer Control Zones to be accompanied by details of the method
of construction for the purpose of noise attenuation, and sufficient information to
satisfy Council that this method will achieve the requisite insulation rating.
Explanation
The operations of a modern airport give rise to a range of sound emissions relating mainly to
aircraft operations. These sound emissions may adversely affect surrounding noise sensitive
activities such the inhabitants of dwellings.
In order to protect potential occupiers of land situated within the vicinity of the airport from levels
of noise that may be incompatible with normal standards of residential amenity, Council has
introduced controls to avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of operational aircraft noise on noise
sensitive residential activities. These controls also have the effect of protecting the operation of
the Airport from noise sensitive activities to allow it to function efficiently, effectively and safely.
To ensure that responsibility for mitigation of operational aircraft noise is not borne solely by
affected residential property owners, Council has also introduced specific noise mitigation
measures to control operational activities within the Airport Zone. Please refer to Rule
20.4.913.4.6 Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone.
67
10.4 Methods



District Plan Rules (Palmerston North City Council)
Public Education
Designation
The community’s desire for a high level of amenity within the Residential Zone means
that a regulatory approach through the rules in this and other sections will be the most
cost efficient and effective means of achieving the objectives and policies.
However, public education in the form of landscape and building design guides may also
assist in achieving some of the amenity and design concerns of the objectives and
policies, thereby achieving effective compliance at little cost to the community.
In respect of any land severely affected by airport noise, one of the options available is
for the Requiring Authority to designate land for airport purposes (and subsequently
purchase it) or to simply purchase land without designation. Palmerston North Airport
Limited was granted requiring authority status in July 1995 however, to date the
Company has not exercised its designating powers for this purpose.
10.7.1 Rules: Permitted Activities

R 10.7.1.1 Dwellings and Accessory Buildings (excluding those
prohibited by Rule 10.7.6.3).
Any dwelling will meet the Performance Policies below and will be a Permitted
Activity where they comply with the Performance Standards, detailed in Clauses (a)
to (j)
Performance ConditionsStandards
(a)
Height - including Maximum Height and Height Recession Planes.
Maximum Height
(i)
No building shallmay exceed a maximum height of 9 m; and
(ii)
Any buildings or structures shallmust comply, in terms of maximum height, with
R 20.4.10.1 13.4.7.1.
(h)
Air Noise Control
(i)
In the Outer Control ZoneContour identified on Map 10.7.6.3, all buildings must
be constructed in compliance withso that:
•
Any bedroom in a building used by a noise sensitive activity must achieve the
following minimum standard of external sound insulation:
DnT,w + Ctr > 25 dB.
•
Any habitable room, other than a bedroom, in a building used by a noise
sensitive activity must achieve the following minimum standard of external sound
insulation:
DnT,w + Ctr > 20 dB
•
Any used for communal activities must achieve the following minimum standard
of external sound insulation:
DnT,w + Ctr > 20 dB
68


Schedule P in respect of all direct sound transmission paths from the outside of
the building to the inside of any classroom, lecture room, or any other such room
used for communal activities;
Schedule Q in respect of all direct sound transmission paths from the outside of
the building to the inside of any bedroom.
Where a proposed dwelling is not to be insulated as prescribed by the relevant
applicable Schedule for the zone in which it is located, it shall be permitted if it:


Is to be insulated to the standard required by the relevant applicable Schedule
including a 5dBA safety margin; and
Is certified by an acoustical consultant as meeting that standard.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS
Refer to the definitions for Schedules P, Q and R.
(ii)
In the Inner Control ZoneContour identified on Map 10.7.6.3, all buildings must
be constructed in compliance withso that:
•
Any bedroom in a building used by a noise sensitive activity must achieve the
following minimum standard of external sound insulation:
DnT,w + Ctr > 30 dB
•
Any habitable room, except for a bedroom, in a building used by a noise sensitive
activity must achieve the following minimum standard of external sound insulation:
DnT,w + Ctr > 25 dB
•
Any room used for communal activities must achieve the following minimum
standard of external sound insulation:
DnT,w + Ctr > 25 dB
1.
2.
3.
Schedule P in respect of all direct sound transmission paths from the outside of
the building to the inside of any habitable room (other than a bedroom).
Schedule Q in respect of all direct sound transmission paths from the outside of
the building to the inside of any classroom or lecture room, and any other such
room used for communal activities.
Schedule R in respect of all direct sound transmission paths from the outside of
the building to the inside of any bedroom.
Where a proposed dwelling is not to be insulated as prescribed by the relevant
applicable Schedule for the zone in which it is located, it shall be permitted if it:


Is to be insulated to the standard required by the relevant applicable Schedule
including a 5dBA safety margin; and
Is certified by an acoustical consultant as meeting that standard.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS
Refer to the definitions for Schedules P, Q and R.
(iii)
Where a proposed dwelling/building straddles two air noise zones on map
10.7.6.3 the following provisions shall apply:
1. Astride the Inner and Outer Control boundaries (60 Ldn noise contour) then
the Outer Control Zone provisions shall apply.
2. Located on the Outer Control boundary (55 Ldn noise contour) then it is
deemed to be outside the Outer Control Zone.
3. Astride the Inner Control Zone and the Air Noise Zone (65 Ldn noise
contour) then the provisions of the Air Noise Zone shall apply.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS
Proposals that do not:
69
1. Provide the required degree of noise reduction stated in the definitions of
Schedules P, Q and R; or
2. Obtain certification from an acoustical consultant to provide alternative means
of construction to achieve the degree of noise reduction set out in the definitions
of Schedules P, Q and R;
are provided for as a Non-Complying Activity under R 10.8.5.2.
All habitable rooms must be designed, constructed and maintained in
accordance with a design report prepared by a suitably qualified and
experienced member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand stating that the
proposed design will achieve compliance with the the requirements of
performance standards (h)(i) – (ii), including a 5dBA safety margin.
(iv)
Ventilation - Where bedrooms with openable windows are proposed, a positive
supplementary source of fresh air ducted from outside is required at the time of
fit-out. For the purposes of this requirement, a bedroom is any room intended to
be used for sleeping. The supplementary source of air is to achieve a minimum
of 7.5 litres per second per person.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS
Proposed activities that do not meet the performance standards in (h) are NonComplying Activities under R 10.8.5.2.
The following deeming provisions apply in circumstances where a proposed dwelling/
building straddles the boundary of noise contours shown on Map 10.7.6.3:
1. Where a dwelling/building is proposed on the 55 Ldn noise contour line, the
dwelling/ building is deemed to be outside of the Outer Control Contour.
2. Where a dwelling/building is proposed on the 60 Ldn Noise Contour line shown
on Map 10.6.3, the dwelling/building is deemed to be within the Outer Control
Contour.
3. Where a dwelling/ building is proposed on the 65 Ldn noise contour line, the
dwelling/ building is deemed to be within the Air Noise Contour.
Explanation
As a consequence of air noise projection work and other investigative work undertaken by
Palmerston North Airport Limited, and the Palmerston North City Council respectively, a large
area of land surrounding the Palmerston North Airport has been identified as being subject to
varying levels of noise exposure associated with aircraft operations.
The noise emission levels resulting from these operations have been predicted using methods
recommended by New Zealand Standard 6805:1992 - Airport Noise Management and Land Use
Planning. Noise emission levels are identified as equal loudness contours around the airport.
Map 10.7.6.3 - Air Noise Control included in this Plan defines these contours and identifies those
areas around the airport, expressed as discrete noise zonescontours, within which specific noise
attenuation measures apply.
Materials and methods of construction are described in Schedules P, Q and R. If properly built
and maintained buildings constructed of the materials will be deemed to reduce the exterior ‘A’
weighted aircraft noise levels by the following decibels with respect to the interior ‘A’ weighted
sound levels:
Schedule
20 decibels
Schedule
25 decibels
Schedule
30 decibels
P
Q
R
70
For the purposes of this Plan, three distinct noise zonescontours have been developed as
follows:
(a)
Air Noise ZoneContour - the Air Noise boundary is generally the 65 Ldn noise contour.
Due to the high level of aircraft operational noise predicted within this zonecontour the
establishment of any new noise sensitive activities, such as dwellings, are prohibited.
(b)
Inner Control ZoneContour - the Inner Control ZoneContour incorporates the land
between the 60 Ldn and 65 Ldn predicted noise contours. The objective of this
ZoneContour is to provide for a level of sound insulation in the design of dwellings and
other buildings used for regular accommodation which adequately reduces the level of
noise exposure experienced. The level of sound insulation identified in the schedules P,
Q and R are based on both the maximum Ldn noise prediction and the maximum single
noise event generated by an aircraft at night.
(c)
Outer Control ZoneContour - the Outer Control ZoneContour incorporates the land
between the 55 Ldn and 60 Ldn predicted noise contours. The objective of this
ZoneContour is to provide for a level of sound insulation in the design of dwellings and
other buildings used for regular accommodation which reflects the reduced level of
aircraft noise exposure experienced within this area. As the maximum aircraft noise level
in this ZoneContour is five decibels less than in the Inner Control ZoneContour, sound
insulation requirements are also correspondingly reduced by five decibels.
The materials provided in the Schedules include a safety factor of 5dBA to ensure that when built
the insulation does not fail to provide the requisite degree of aircraft noise reduction. Accordingly,
to be permitted, any proposal utilising alternative means of insulation to that prescribed in the
Schedules, shall also include a 5dBA safety margin.
In preparing a certificate stating that the relevant insulation standard will be met an acoustical
consultant will need to calculate that the noise reduction of the proposed alternative construction
will at least be equivalent to that provided by the relevant applicable Schedule. This includes the
prescribed 5dB safety margin. The noise reduction provided by Schedules P, Q and R is set out
in the Definitions Section. The calculation relates specifically to aircraft noise. To ensure that
calculations are undertaken on a consistent basis the “‘A’ weighted aircraft noise level” is also
defined by reference to Table G1 of Australian Standard AS2021 – 1994. This defines the
spectral frequency content of aircraft noise. (See Definitions: Acoustical Consultant; Schedule P;
Schedule Q; Schedule R; and Exterior ‘A’ Weighted Aircraft Noise Levels).
NOTE TO PLAN USERS
1
Provide the required degree of noise reduction stated in the definitions of
2.
Obtain certification from an acoustical consultant to provide alternative means of
construction to achieve the degree of noise reduction set out in the definitions of
Schedules P, Q and R;
are provided for as a Non-Complying Activity.
10.8.1 Rules: Permitted Activities

R 10.8.1.1
10.8.6.1).
Community Houses (excluding those prohibited by R
Community Houses are Permitted Activities provided they comply with the
specified Performance Conditions below.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS
Also refer to the following rules:
R 10.7.1.3
Amberley Avenue, Escort Grove, Rangitane Park and Awapuni
71
R 10.7.1.1
R 10.7.6.1
R 10.7.6.2
R 10.8.1.7
R 20.3.5.2
R 17.6.1-17.9.1
Racecourse Minimum Floor Level Areas;
Air Noise Control ;
Awatea Stream and Jensen Street Ponding Areas;
River Terrace and Cliff Protection Lines;
Undevelopable land in Aokautere;
Roading Designations;
Cultural and Natural Heritage Rules.
Performance Conditions
(f)
Air Noise Control
Compliance with Rule 10.7.1.1(h).
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
1.
Provide the required degree of noise reduction statedin the definitions of
2.
construction to achieve the degree of noise reductionset out in the definitions of
Proposed activities that do not meet the performance standards in Rule 10.7.1.1(h) are
Non-Complying Activities under R 10.8.5.2.
The following deeming provisions apply in circumstances where a proposed dwelling/
building straddles the boundary of air noise contours shown on Map 10.7.6.3:
on Map 10.6.3, the dwelling/ building is deemed to be within the Outer Control
Contour.

R 10.8.1.2
10.8.6.1).
Accommodation Motels (excluding those prohibited by R
Accommodation Motels are Permitted Activities provided they comply with the
specified Performance Conditions below.
(h)
Air Noise Control
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
1.
72
2.
Proposed activities that do not meet the performance standards in Rule
10.7.1.1(h) are Non-Complying Activities under R 10.8.5.2.
The following deeming provisions apply in circumstances where a proposed
dwelling/ building straddles the boundary of air noise contours shown on Map
10.7.6.3:
Contour.

R 10.8.1.3 Education Facilities and Early Childhood Facilities
(excluding those prohibited by R 10.8.6.1).
Education Facilities and Early Childhood Facilities are Permitted Activities
provided they comply with the specified Performance Conditions below.
(d)
Air Noise Control
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
1.
2.
10.7.6.3:
Contour.
73

R 10.8.1.4
Health Facilities (excluding those prohibited by R10.8.6.1).
Health Facilities are Permitted Activities provided they comply with the specified
Performance Conditions below.
(i) Air Noise Control
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
1.
2.
10.7.6.3:
Contour.
74
SCHEDULE P
Roof/Upper Floor Ceiling
Options
Description of Construction
1
ROOF
Pitched roof clad with tiles, or not less than 0.5 mm roofing
iron, or 6 mm corrugated cellulose-cement.
CEILING
12.5 mm plasterboard fixed to underside of horizontal ceiling
joist or ceiling battens.
INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less
than 94 mm and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as
Ceiling Pink Batts R2.2 or equivalent), laid between ceiling
joists.
2
ROOF
Steel trough roofing or other roofing iron, not less than 0.5
mm thick.
CEILING
One layer of 12.5 mm thick plasterboard fixed to the same
timber framework as the roof but with a separation of not less
than 150 mm between the roofing and the plasterboard.
INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less
than 94 mm and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as
Ceiling Pink Batts R2.2 or equivalent), laid between ceiling
joists or compressed over purlins (can be combined with
integral waterproof membrane).
Notes:
The required degree of insulation will only be provided if the specified level of integrity is
maintained throughout the envelope of the building in respect to areas in which sound insulation
requirements apply. If a sound transmission path is provided from outside the building to inside
the insulated room in question via a path that is not fully and appropriately insulated against,
then the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity performance standard.
In determining the insulating performance of roof/ceiling arrangements, roof spaces are
assumed to have no more than the casual ventilation typical of the jointing capping and guttering
details used in normal construction. Mechanical ventilation of spaces with non opening windows
or sound insulated windows should be provided in accordance with provisions of the New
Zealand Building Code G4 in a manner which does not compromise sound insulation.
75
SCHEDULE P
Outer Walls
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional timber stud-framed walls.
EXTERNAL CLADDING
Not less than 18 mm thick timber weather board; or
Not less than 9 mm thick compressed fibre cement sheets; or
Not less than 18 mm thick solid plaster.
INTERNAL LINING
Not less than 9.5 mm thick plasterboard.
CAVITY INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less than
94 mm and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as Wall Pink
Batts R2.2 or equivalent).
2
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional brick veneer installed in accordance with clearly
presented and adequate technical information on installation
supplied by the manufacturer.
INTERNAL LINING
Notes:
maintained throughout the envelope of the building in respect to areas in which sound
insulation requirements apply. If a sound transmission path is provided from outside the
building to inside the insulated room in question via a path that is not fully and appropriately
insulated against then the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity
performance standard.
Mechanical ventilation of spaces with non opening windows or sound insulated windows should
be provided in accordance with provisions of the New Zealand Building Code G4 in a manner
which does not compromise sound insulation.
76
SCHEDULE P
Outer Windows
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Single glass windows in an aluminium, steel, timber or PVC
frame with a positive sealing arrangement.
AREA
Up to 50% of the total exterior wall area.
GLAZING
Not less than 6 mm thick monolithic or laminated glass.
2
CONSTRUCTION
Double glazed or double windows in an aluminium, timber or
PVC frame with a positive sealing arrangement.
AREA
GLAZING
Two panes of a minimum thickness of 4 mm with an airspace of not less
than 6 mm.
Notes:
the insulated room in question via a path that is not fully and appropriately insulated against then
the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity performance standard.
In all cases opening windows are permissible. Where non-opening windows are used, an
early warning smoke detection system should be installed and maintained within the premises
(particularly in sleeping rooms and exitways) in accordance with an approved New Zealand
Code or Standard or AS3786:1993). Where mechanical ventilation is provided devices should
be installed to shut down or close off the system to prevent the travel of fire and smoke
products.
Explanation: If non-opening windows are used in any space then an early warning smoke
detection system will provide early warning and time for occupants to action a plan of escape
by using alternative means.
Outer Doors
Option
1
Solid core door of a thickness not less than 35 mm and a
superficial density of not less than 20 kg/m2 complete with soft
gasket around sides and top and drop seal at base.
77
SCHEDULE Q
Options
1
ROOF
Pitched roof clad with tiles, or greater than 0.5 mm roofing iron, or
6 mm corrugated cellulose-cement.
CEILING
12.5 mm plasterboard fixed to underside of horizontal ceiling joist
or ceiling battens.
INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less than 94
mm and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as Ceiling Pink
Batts R2.2 or equivalent), laid between ceiling joists.
2
ROOF
Steel trough roofing or other roofing iron, not less than 0.5 mm
thick.
CEILING
Two layers of 9.5 mm thick plasterboard fixed to the same timber
framework as the roof but with a separation of not less than 150
mm between the roofing and the plasterboard.
INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less than 94
mm and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as Ceiling Pink
Batts R2.2 or equivalent), laid between ceiling joists or
compressed over purlins (can be combined with integral
waterproof membrane).
Notes:
the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity performance standard. In
determining the insulating performance of roof/ceiling arrangements, roof spaces are assumed
to have no more than the casual ventilation typical of the jointing capping and guttering details
used in normal construction.
78
SCHEDULE Q
Outer Walls
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional timber stud-framed walls
EXTERNAL CLADDING
INTERNAL LINING
Not less than two 12.5 mm thick plasterboard sheets as internal
lining to external walls.
CAVITY INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less than
94 mm and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as Wall Pink
Batts R2.2 or equivalent).
2
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional brick veneer installed in accordance with clearly
presented and adequate technical information on installation
supplied by the manufacturer.
INTERNAL LINING
Notes:
79
SCHEDULE Q
Outer Windows
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Single glass windows in an aluminium, steel, timber or PVC frame
with a positive sealing arrangement. No through-frame ventilation.
AREA
GLAZING
Not less than 7 mm thick Hush Glass.
2
CONSTRUCTION
Double glazed windows in an aluminium, steel, timber or PVC frame
with not less than a 13 mm air space between panes, and a positive
sealing arrangement. No through frame ventilation.
AREA
3
GLAZING
One pane not less than 7.5 mm and the other not less than 6 mm thick with
the panes being of dissimilar thickness.
CONSTRUCTION
Double glass windows in separate timber frames with not less than a
70 mm air space between panes and a positive sealing
arrangement. No through-frame ventilation.
AREA
GLAZING
One pane not less than 6 mm and the other not less than 5 mm thick with the
panes being of dissimilar thickness.
4
CONSTRUCTION
Completely sealed double glass windows in separate timber frames
with not less than a 50 mm air space between panes and a positive
sealing arrangement. No through-frame ventilation.
AREA
GLAZING
Each pane of dissimilar thickness but neither being less than 5 mm thick.
Notes:
80
In all cases opening windows are permissible. Where non-opening windows are used, an early
warning smoke detection system should be installed and maintained within the premises
Code or Standard or AS3786:1993). Where mechanical ventilation is provided devices should
products.
Explanation
If non-opening windows are used in any space then an early warning smoke detection system will
provide early warning and time for occupants to action a plan of escape by using alternative means.
81
SCHEDULE Q
Outer Doors
Option
1
Solid core door of a thickness not less than 42 mm and a superficial
density of not less than 24 kg/m2 complete with soft gasket around
sides and top and drop seal at base.
Flooring (exposed to outside noise via under-floor)
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional timber joist floor and thermal insultation.
UPPER BOARDS (floor base inside room)
Not less than two sheets of 18 mm Particle Board.
2
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional timber joist floor and thermal insulation.
Not less than one sheet of 18 mm Particle Board.
UNDER JOISTS (sub floor)
Not less than one sheet of 6 mm thick compressed fibre cement
sheets.
82
SCHEDULE R
Options
1
ROOF
Pitched roof clad with tiles, or greater than 0.5 mm roofing iron, or 6 mm
corrugated cellulose-cement.
CEILING
Two layers of 12.5 mm plasterboard fixed to underside of horizontal
ceiling joist or ceiling battens.
INSULATION
Fibre insulation batt or blanket with a thickness of not less than 94 mm
and density of not less than 12 kg/m3 (such as Ceiling Pink Batts R2.2 or
equivalent), laid between ceiling joists.
2
ROOF
Steel trough roofing not less than 0.6 mm thick.
CEILING
Two layers of 12.5 mm thick plasterboard fixed to the same timber
framework as the roof but with a separation of not less than 150 mm
between the roofing and the plasterboard.
INSULATION
equivalent), laid between ceiling joists or compressed over purlins (can be
combined with integral waterproof membrane).
Notes:
the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity performance standard. In
determining the insulating performance of roof/ceiling arrangements, roof spaces are assumed
to have no more than the casual ventilation typical of the jointing capping and guttering details
used in normal construction.
83
SCHEDULE R
Outer Walls
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional timber stud-framed walls
EXTERNAL CLADDING
INTERNAL LINING
Not less than two 12.5 mm thick plasterboard sheets as internal lining to
external walls.
CAVITY INSULATION
equivalent).
2
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional brick veneer in which the wall space is ventilated by
connection with subfloor vents; upper part of the internal wall sheeting is
exposed to, and penetrated by, upper wall vents leading to the eaves
space.
INTERNAL LINING
Notes:
maintained throughout the envelope of the building in respect to areas in which sound
insulation requirements apply. If a sound transmission path is provided from outside the
building to inside the insulated room in question via a path that is not fully and appropriately
insulated against then the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity
performance standard.
Mechanical ventilation of spaces with non opening windows or sound insulated windows
should be provided in accordance with provisions of the New Zealand Building Code G4 in a
manner which does not compromise sound insulation.
84
SCHEDULE R
Outer Windows
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Completely sealed double glass windows in separate timber
frames with not less than a 100 mm air space between panes,
with a positive sealing arrangement.
No through-frame
ventilation.
AREA
GLAZING
Each sheet of dissimilar thickness but neither being less than 5
mm thick.
2
CONSTRUCTION
Completely sealed double glass windows in separate timber
frames with not less than a 50 mm air space between panes, with
a positive sealing arrangement. No through-frame ventilation.
AREA
GLAZING
One sheet 7 mm Hush Glass and one sheet 6 mm thick.
Notes:
the insulated room in question via a path that is not fully and appropriately insulated against
then the design of the building shall not comply with the permitted activity performance
standard.
In all cases opening windows are permissible. Where non-opening windows are used, an early
warning smoke detection system should be installed and maintained within the premises
Code or Standard or AS3786: 1993). Where mechanical ventilation is provided devices should
products.
Explanation
If non-opening windows are used in any space then an early warning smoke detection system will provide
early warning and time for occupants to action a plan of escape by using alternative means.
85
SCHEDULE R
Outer Doors
No single door or ranch-slider located directly between the Schedule R sound insulated room and
outside area is deemed to provide 30 decibels sound reduction of outside aircraft noise.
Flooring (exposed to outside noise via under-floor)
Options
1
CONSTRUCTION
Conventional timber joist floor.
Not less than two sheets of 18 mm Particle Board.
UNDER JOISTS (sub floor)
Not less than one sheet of 6 mm thick compressed fibre cement sheet.
FLOOR CAVITY INSULATION
equivalent).
86
87
88
Section 13: Airport Zone
13.1 Introduction
This part of the Plan is concerned with the functioning of the Airport Zone. The Airport Zone is
comprised of two distinct precincts:


Core Airport Precinct – land within the Airport Zone encompassing the Palmerston
North Airport’s airfield, hangars, apron, terminal, public parking and other core
airside activities on the northern half of Airport Drive, which includes the
Palmerston North Airport; and
Airport Environs Precinct – land on the southern half of Airport Drive and
McGregor Street, which has no airside access.
The Palmerston North Airport represents a significant regional resource and enabler of regional
economic activity, being the major gateway airport (with the exception of Wellington) in the lower
North Island. The Airport has been gradually developed and will continue to develop to provide a
range of air services to the Region. While the most obvious service is the movement of air passengers, a
substantial element of the Airport’s operation involves the movement of freight and the teaching
activities of the Massey University Aviation School. The air transport and teaching activities based at
the Airport also attract a range of associated servicing activities such as freight forwarding agents who
provide services based on air transport activities. The airport is a significant maintenance airport with a
number of active maintenance companies maintaining helicopters and heavy freight aircraft on a 24hr
basis when required.
Palmerston North Airport’s Masterplan was ratified by the Palmerston North Airport Limited Board in
April 2014. The Masterplan is a key strategic planning document. It outlines planned development
within the Core Airport Precinct, including the expansion of terminal, runway, aprons, car park, and
freight. The Masterplan also recognises the critical role that PNAL’s developing commercial precinct
(refered to above as the Airport Environs Precinct) will perform in the development of Palmerston
North Airport. Specifically the Airport Environs Precinct has been identified as an area with convenient
airport access and which, as has been witnessed in other New Zealand Airport locations, can be
expected to become the home of many businesses seeking the comparative advantage of being located
within close proximity to passenger and airfreight service providers. In turn the presence of these
businesses will further reinforce the sustainability of activities within the Core Airport Precinct.
Recognition of the role all precincts have in the development of Palmerston North Airport is therefore
critical.
The District Plan has an important role in ensuring that the Airport’s Masterplan, development
objectives, and resources can be effectively and efficiently utilised while ensuring that any adverse
effects of the Airport’s operations & development can be measured and where necessary mitigated. The
requirement for sound insulation for noise sensitive activities beneath the air noiseairnoise contours is
one example.
The particular safety concerns associated with the operation of aircraft mean that there are a number of
issues which are unique to the airport. For example, the prohibiting of activities that result in the
congregation of people within the Runway End Protection Areas, so as to avoid risk of harm or to loss
of life in the event of an aviation accident.
While the Airport Zone is unique and can attract businesses that might not otherwise look to or be able
to establish in the City, it is important that development within the Airport Zone does not undermine
the existing Business Zones. Therefore, there are restrictions on commercial developments within the
Airport Zone. For example stand-alone office activities and retail activities over 100m² are classified as
Discretionary Activities.
13.2 Resource Management Issues
The following resource management issues have been identified in the Airport Zone:
89
1.
The efficient use of physical resources within the Airport Zone;
2.
The adverse effects of activities within the Airport Zone on other activities within the
Airport Zone, adjoining Residential, Rural and Recreation Zones and the City’s
established Business Zones;
3.
The protection of the Palmerston North Airport’s potential capacity to meet the
reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, as a physical resource of regional
importance;
4.
The effects of activities on the amenity levels of the roads approaching the Airport
Terminal, given the Airport’s gateway function; and
5.
The potential for aircraft to undershoot or overshoot the Palmerston North Airport
runway.
Explanation
The Resource Management Issues reflect the needs of the Palmerston North Airport, in terms
of its continued use and development, the effects of the Airport and its operations on
adjoining activities, particularly with regard to noise, and effects on other business in the City.
The Airport Zone is an important gateway to Palmerston North and the wider ManawatuWanganui Region. Therefore, the quality of the streetscape and frontages are important.
Development within the Airport Zone has the potential to impact on amenity levels, which has
the potential to undermine its importance as a gateway to the City.
90
13.3 Objectives and Policies
Within the broad framework of the City View Objectives in Section 2, the following
specific objectives and policies were identified with regard to the Airport Zone:
Objective 1
To promote and enable the continued operation, maintenance and upgrading
of the Palmerston North Airport and provide for its future development as an
important infrastructure asset for Palmerston North City and the wider
Manawatu-Wanganui Region.
Policies
1.1
To provide a zone to encompass the Palmerston North Airport’s activities and
other activities which are compatible with the airport’s operations.
1.2
To enable the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the Palmerston North
Airport to meet future freight, passenger and other commercial needs of
Palmerston North City and the Manawatu-Wanganui Region.
1.3
To manage the emission of noise from the operation of the Airport to avoid or
mitigate significant adverse environmental effects on existing residential activities
within existing residential zones but which are outside of the AirNnoise Contour.
1.4
To avoid the establishment or intensification of activities sensitive to airport-related
noise within the Airport Zone.
1.5
To avoid or mitigate the potential adverse effects of reverse sensitivity to the
Palmerston North Airport resulting from the establishment or intensification of
noise-sensitive land use and developments within the AirNnoise, Inner and Outer
Control Contours where noise generated from the use of the airport is potentially
significant by:
 Avoiding the establishment of new noise sensitive activities within the
AirNnoise Contour.
 Avoiding rezoning of land in a way that enables an increase in the
scale or intensity of noise-sensitive activities (such as residential
activities) within the Inner and Outer Control Contours; and
 Controlling development and intensification of noise sensitive
activities within the Inner and Outer Control Contours to ensure that
measures to avoid or mitigate airport noise are in place.
1.6
To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the safe operation of aircraft using
the Airport by:
 Defining airport protection surfaces and not allowing buildings,
structures, trees or other objects to encroach into those surfaces.
 Controlling the development and management of artificial water
bodies, stormwater attenuation facilities, food sources, and other
activities that attract birds such that birds may fly across the airport or
aircraft flight paths.
 Controlling activities within the runway approaches that could
adversely affect the electronic or visual navigation of aircraft, or
otherwise interfere with the operation of aircraft.
Explanation
As an important infrastructure asset, it is essential that the Palmerston North Airport is able to
continue to operate, carry out maintenance and upgrade to contribute to the economic, social
and cultural wellbeing of the City and the wider Manawatu-Wanganui Region.
91
Objective 2
To enable a range of activities in the Airport Zone that efficiently and
effectively use the physical resources of the Airport Zone, and that derive a
functional or operational benefit from being close to the Airport, while
avoiding potentially adverse effects on the amenity values of the adjoining
Rural, Residential and Recreation Zones and commercial distribution effects
on the established Business Zones.
Policies
2.1
To identify precincts within the Airport Zone which recognise the Palmerston North
Airport and land on the northern side of Airport Drive (Core Airport Precinct) and
land on the southern side of Airport Drive (Airport Environs Precinct) (see Map
13.1).
2.2
To enable, through permitted activity rules and resource consents, a range of
activities in the Core Airport Precinct, which have a functional, operational or
commercial connection with the Airport.
2.3
To discourage the development of activities in the Core Airport Precinct that do not
require airport access.
2.4
To enable, through permitted activity rules and resource consents, a range of
activities in the Airport Environs Precinct that have a relationship with or are
compatible with the activities and operation of the Airport and which do not
adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining Residential Zone and the Mahanga
Kakariki Reserve.
2.5
To discourage the development of retail activities and non-ancillary office
activities, which are readily provided for in the City’s established Business Zones.
Explanation
The Airport is an essential element of the City’s transport infrastructure and is essential to the
continued operation of the City as a distribution centre. It also represents an increasingly
important mode of transport for the community. As such, a range of businesses will choose to
locate at or close to the Airport to maximise the benefits it provides as a commercial and
transport hub.
However, the Airport and its associated activities have the opportunity to create significant
effects on adjacent residents, particularly those in residential areas built in the knowledge of
the airport operations. In some cases these effects, particularly noise, are sufficient to make
it inappropriate to allow the land to be used for residential purposes.
Objective 3
To enhance and protect the amenity of the Airport Zone as an important
gateway to the City.
Policies
3.1
To ensure that amenity standards on Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway
Road are commensurate with their gateway function.
3.2
To require high quality frontage landscaping that contributes to the amenity and
streetscape on sites fronting Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway Road.
3.3
To avoid blank building facades, solid fences and location of service areas at the
street edge, except where this is necessary to provide for the security needs of
Palmerston North Airport and associated activities.
92
3.4
To require a comprehensively planned and coordinated streetscape along the
length of Airport Drive and the Airport Zone interface along McGregor Street and
Railway Road.
3.5
To protect the amenity of the Mahanga Kakariki Reserve from the potential
adverse effects of development on adjoining sites in the Airport Zone.
Objective 4
To reduce the risk to people and property from aircraft undershooting or
overshooting the runway at the Palmerston North Airport.
Policies
4.1
To prohibit new buildings or structures within the Runway End Protection
Areas – except where they are accessory buildings, navigational aids for
aircraft or additions or extensions to existing dwellings,
4.2
To prohibit any activities in the Runway End Protection Area which result in
the mass assembly of people.
Explanation
The Runway End Protection Areas (REPA) are where aviation accidents are most likely to
occur. The purpose of the REPA is to provide areas as far as practicable free of hazards to
aircraft undershooting or overshooting. This minimises potential risk to people and property in
the event of an aviation accident in the affected area.
93
13.4 Methods







Zoning
Rules
Noise Management Plans
Operational Requirements of Other Organisations
Designations
Map identifying the Airport Precincts
Comprehensive Development Plans
The District Plan through zoning, precinct definition, rules and designation can contribute
to establishing the Airport and associated activities and to put in place standards to
control adverse environmental effects.
In respect of any land severely affected by airport noise, one of the options available is
for the Requiring Authority to designate land for airport purposes (and subsequently
purchase it) or to simply purchase land without designation. Palmerston North Airport
Limited was granted requiring authority status in July 1995. The Palmerston North Airport
Company has a designation for the purpose of airport operations (excluding engine
testing), airport navigational control and safety equipment and the future extension of the
runway.
However because of the safety issues involved, the activities of agencies such as the
Ministry of Civil Aviation also have a bearing on the operations of the Airport while Noise
Management Plans developed and instituted by the Airport Company or airport operators
may also serve to achieve the objective of mitigating the effects of noise.
In addition to noise-related considerations, the Zone straddles Airport Drive. This raises
an issue as to the extent to which land on its northern side should be used for activities
that do not inherently require airside access. The location of the Airport Terminal, in
conjunction with airside land noise constraints and opportunities, has led to precinct
differentiation within the Zone.
The Council supports the development of Comprehensive Development Plans and
actively encourages their adoption as non-regulatory methods. Policy 3.4 requires a
comprehensively planned and coordinated streetscape along the lengths of Airport Drive
and the Airport Zone interfaces of McGregor Street and Railway Road. The development
of a Comprehensive Development Plan for streetscape design, as a non-regulatory
method, is one method of achieving this, provided it is approved by the Council. A
Comprehensive Development Plan for streetscape design in the Airport Zone is also
provided for as a method under Restricted Discretionary Activity under Rule 13.4.2.1.
These various methods have been adopted as the most appropriate Methods as they
represent the most effective and efficient means of achieving the Objectives and Policies
for the Airport Zone.
13.4.1 Rules : Permitted Activities

R 13.4.1.1 Permitted Activities – Core Airport Precinct
Unless otherwise specified, as a Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary, NonComplying or Prohibited Activity, the following are Permitted Activities in the
Core Airport Precinct, provided they comply with the specified Performance
Standards:
(a)
Airport operations, including freight and passenger facilities;
(b)
Airport navigational, control and safety equipment;
(c)
Aviation, educational and training and recreational facilities and
activities;
94
(d)
Maintenance and servicing of aircraft;
(e)
Retailing;
(f)
Warehousing, storage and distribution of goods;
(g)
Fuel installations and fuel servicing facilities (excluding Service
Stations);
(h)
Restaurants, takeaway bars and licensed premises;
(i)
Catering and preparation of food;
(j)
Car parking and storage;
(k)
Farming;
(l)
Commercial Service Activities; and
(m)
Air Ambulance Services.
Performance Standards
(a)
Hazardous Substances
Compliance with the provisions of Section 14 - Hazardous Substances of this
District Plan.
(b)
AirNnoise Control
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
Proposals that do not comply are provided for as a Non-Complying Activity
under R 13.4.5.1(ii).
(c)
Outdoor Storage
(i)
Any outdoor storage area, excluding outdoor motor vehicle rental yards and
the activities listed in (a) to (d) and (n) in Rule 13.4.1.1 above, situated on a
site which adjoins or directly faces a road, right-of-way, access strip or service
lane, shall be screened from view by either a fence or wall of not less than 1.8
metres in height or dense planting of vegetation capable of growing to 1.8
metres in height.
(ii)
Nothing in (i) shall limit the provision of a gate or entry point to the site.
(iii)
The outdoor storage of free-standing products, goods or materials, excluding
motor vehicles within motor vehicle rental and sales yards, shall comply with
Rule 13.4.7.1.
(iv)
There shall be no outdoor storage of organic products or organic waste on any
site. For the purpose of this rule, “organic product or waste” means any
uncovered perishable material likely to attract birdlife.
(d)
Retail, Restaurants, Takeaway Bars, Licenced Premises and Commercial
Service Activities
(i)
Stand-alone Retail, Takeaway Bars, Licenced Premises and Commercial
Service Activities can be established as Permitted Activities in the Core Airport
Precinct, provided they are located within the Palmerston North Airport’s
Terminal Buildings.
95
(ii)
In the rest of the Core Airport Precinct stand-alone Retail, Takeaway Bars,
Licenced Premises and Commercial Service Activities must be no more than
100m² in gross floor area.
(iii)
In relation to (d)(ii) above, vehicle hire services are excluded from the gross
floor area restrictions.
Explanation
Providing for stand-alone Retail Activities, Restaurants, Takeaway Bars, Licenced
Premises and Commercial Service Activities within the Palmerston North Airport’s
terminal building recognises the importance of these activities to the function of the
Airport as a commercial passenger service. Restricting these activities to the terminal
building reduces potential adverse effects of commercial distribution on the established
Business Zones.
(e)
Ancillary Office and Retail Activities
(i)
Compliance with Rule 12.6.1(g)(i), (ii) & (iii).
(ii)
Performance Standard 13.4.1.1(e)(i) does not apply to Stand-alone Retail,
Takeaway Bars, Licenced Premises and Commercial Service Activities within
the Palmerston North Airport’s Terminal Buildings.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS: For non-ancillary retail outside of the Palmerston
North Airport’s Terminal Building refer to R13.4.1.1(d). and For non-ancillary
office activities refer to Restricted Discretionary R13.4.2.46, Discretionary
Rules 13.4.3.2 and 13.4.3.3 and Rule Non-Complying Rule 13.4.4.1(ii).
Explanation
The above provision recognises the role of retail and office activities as integral
ancillary activities in the operation of some businesses and those retail activities which
have a legitimate place within the Airport Zone. It also remains consistent with the
Plan’s objectives of containing retail and office activity within identified business areas;
and, efficiently using and developing existing business resources, by restricting the
size of retail and office activity which can establish within the Airport Zone as ancillary
activities.
(f)
Signs
Compliance with Rule 6.1.5.1
(g)
Parking, Loading and Access
(i)
Compliance with Rules:
20.3.7.1 Parking Spaces for People with Disabilities;
20.3.7.7 Formation of Parking Spaces;
20.3.8.1 Loading Space Standards;
20.3.9.1 Access Standards
(ii)
Compliance with the Parking Standards in Rule 20.3.7.3 notwithstanding Rule
20.3.7.2, which shall not apply to the Airport Zone.
(iii)
Compliance with Rule 20.3.7.5 Car Park Landscape Design, provided that for
sites that do not front Airport Drive, the minimum width of the planting area
may be reduced to 1 metre and the total area per tree may be reduced to 1m².
96

(h)
Fencing
(i)
Except where required by the Civil Aviation Authority for Airport security
purposes, if landscaping is required or exists, any fence facing the frontage of
Airport Drive must be located behind any landscaping.
(ii)
purposes, solid fences at the frontage of Airport Drive must not exceed a
height of 1.2 metres.
(iii)
Fences higher than 1.2 metres at the frontage of Airport Drive must be at least
75% transparent.
(iv)
purposes, any front fence on a site fronting Airport Drive must not contain
barbed wire, razor wire or fabric netting.
(v)
All fences must be well maintained at all times.
R 13.4.1.2 Permitted Activities – Airport Environs Precinct
Any Activity Except For:

Those Specified As Restricted Discretionary Activities, Discretionary
Activities, Non-Complying or Prohibited Activities
Is a Permitted Activity, provided that the following performance standards are
complied with:
(a)
Compliance with the provisions of Section 14: Hazardous Substances.
(b)
AirNnoise Control
(i)
Compliance with Rule 10.7.1.1(h)
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
Proposals that do not comply are provided for as a Non-Complying Activity
under R 13.4.5.1(ii).
(c)
Outdoor Storage
(i)
Any outdoor storage area, excluding outdoor motor vehicle rental and sale
yards, situated on a site which adjoins or directly faces a road, right-of-way,
access strip or service lane, shall be screened from view by either a fence or
wall of not less than 1.8 metres in height or dense planting of vegetation
capable of growing to 1.8 metres in height.
(ii)
Nothing in (i) shall limit the provision of a gate or entry point to the site.
(iii)
The outdoor storage of free-standing products, goods or materials, excluding
motor vehicles within motor vehicle rental and sales yards, shall comply with
Rule 13.4.7.1 – Airport Protection Surfaces.
97
(iv)
There shall be no outdoor storage of organic products or organic waste on any
site. For the purpose of this rule, “organic product or waste” means any
uncovered perishable material likely to attract birdlife.
(d)
Ancillary Office and Retail Activities
Compliance with Rule 12.6.1(g)(i), (ii) & (iii).
NOTE TO PLAN USERS: For non-ancillary retail outside of the Palmerston
North Airport’s Terminal Building within the Airport Environs Precinct refer to
R13.4.1.2(j). andFor non-ancillary office activities refer to Restricted
Discretionary R13.4.2.46, Discretionary Rules 13.4.3.21and 13.4.3.3 and Rule
Non-Complying Rule 13.4.4.1(ii).
(e)
Servicing and Loading Hours
Compliance with Rule 11.9.1.1(g).
(f)
Lighting
Compliance with Rule 11.6.1.1(a)(vi).
(g)
Signs
Compliance with Rule 6.1.5.1.
(h)
Parking, Loading and Access
Compliance with 13.4.1.1(g).
(i)
Fencing
(i)
If landscaping is required or exists, any fence facing the frontage of Airport
Drive or the Airport Zone interfaces of McGregor Street must be located
behind the landscaping;
(ii)
Solid fences at the street frontage of Airport Drive and the Airport Zone
interfaces of McGregor Street and the Mahanga Kakariki Reserve must not
exceed a height of 1.2 metres;
(iii)
Fences higher than 1.2 metres at the frontage of Airport Drive, McGregor
Street must be at least 75% transparent;
(iv)
Front fences and fences interfacing with the Mahanga Kakariki Reserve must
not contain barbed wire, razor wire or fabric netting; and
(v)
All fences must be well maintained at all times.
(j)
Retail Activities, Restaurants, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises and
Commercial Service Activities
(i)
Gross Floor Area dedicated to each activity must be no more than 300m².
(ii)
Total Gross Floor Area for the aggregate of these activities must be no more
than 1,500m² within the Airport Environs Precinct.
(iii)
Vehicle hire services are excluded from the gross floor area restrictions in (j)(i)
and (ii) above.
98

R 13.4.1.3 Temporary Military Training Activities (excluding live firing
of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive
events)
Minor and Extended Temporary Military Training Activities (excluding the live
firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive
events) are a Permitted Activity in the Airport Zone, provided the following
Performance Standards are complied with.
(a)
Buildings and Structures
(i)
Any buildings erected in association with the Temporary Military Training
Activity must be removed at the conclusion of the activity unless they are in
compliance with Rule 13.4.1.5 – Construction, Alteration of, and Addition to
Buildings and Structures.
(b)
Excavations and Alterations to Landform
Where the activity involves any excavations or alterations to landform, the
ground must be reinstated as close as practicable to the condition it was in
prior to its disturbance.
(c)
Compliance with the requirements of Section 14 - Hazardous Substances of
this District Plan.
(d)
Noise
(i)
Mobile Noise Sources - Compliance with Table 2 and Table 3 of
NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise,
(ii)
Fixed (Stationary) Noise Sources - Compliance with the following noise limits:
Sound emissions from fixed (stationary) noise sources, excluding live firing of
weapons and single or multiple explosive events, when measured at any point
within any land zoned for residential purposes or at the notional boundary of
any noise sensitive activity (other than a site from which noise is emitted or a
road) shall not exceed the following limits:
7:00am – 7:00pm
7:00pm to 10:00pm
10:00pm – 7:00am
Night-time Lmax 10:00pm – 7:00am
55dB LAeq(15 mins)
50dB LAeq(15 mins)
45dB LAeq(15 mins)
75dBA Lmax
Notional boundary is defined as a line 20 metres from any side of a dwelling or
the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling.
(iii)
Sound emissions from any other activity sources (excluding the live firing of
weapons, firing of blank ammunition, single or multiple explosive events and
the noise sources listed in Rule 13.4.1.4 (d)(i) and (ii) above) – Compliance
with Rule 13.4.5.
Note to Plan Users: Also refer to Rule 23.7.1 – Radiofrequency Field Exposure
Explanation
The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) carries out temporary and extended military training
99
activities in areas not designated for defence purposes. Such temporary and extended
training involves military activities by regular and territorial force units in zones throughout
Palmerston North City.
The Defence Act 1990 provides for the raising and maintenance of armed forces. Military
training activities are essential in enabling the NZDF to maintain operational capability. The
above conditions have been designed to enable the NZDF to carry out temporary and
extended military training activities in the Rural Zone while ensuring that any adverse effects
of training activities on the environment are mitigated.
Temporary and Extended Military Training Activities can generate high levels of noise.
Training activities involving mobile and fixed noise sources may be permitted where they
comply with the performance standards of Rule 13.4.1.4 (d).
Noise from mobile sources includes personnel, light and heavy vehicles, self-propelled
equipment, and earth moving equipment.
Fixed (stationary) noise sources (other than firing of weapons and explosives) include noise
sources such as power generation, heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems, or water
or wastewater pumping/treatment systems.

R 13.4.1.4 Construction, External Alteration of, and Addition to
Buildings and Structures
Unless otherwise specified as a Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary, NonComplying or Prohibited Activity, the construction, external alteration of, and
addition to buildings and structures is a Permitted Activity provided that the
following Performance Standards are complied with:
(a)
Compliance with Comprehensive Development Plan under Method 13.4
or Rule 13.4.2.1
For new buildings or structures fronting Airport Drive and the Airport Zone
interfaces of McGregor Street or Railway Road, compliance with the approved
Comprehensive Development Plan for Streetscape Design is required.
(b)
Maximum Building Height
Any buildings or structures shall comply, in terms of maximum height with
Rule 13.4.7.1 – Airport Protection Surfaces.
(c)
Height of any building on a site which adjoins a site in a Residential
Zone or Recreation Zone
Any building or structure on a site adjoining a site in a Residential Zone or
Recreation Zone must comply with Rule 10.7.1.1(a) and (b) except that the 9m
maximum height limit does not apply beyond 20 metres from all boundaries.
(d)
Building Frontages and Setbacks
(i)
No building will create a featureless façade or blank wall at the ground level
street frontage wider than 6 metres. A featureless façade or blank wall is a flat
or curved wall surface without any openings or glazing.
(ii)
On sites fronting onto Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway Road, any
building or structure, excluding signs, shall be set back no less than 8 metres
from the road frontage.
100
Explanation
It is critical that the external appearance of buildings promote a high quality public
environment and that featureless facades or blank walls that are visible from the public realm
are avoided. Where a proposal fails to articulate or eliminate wall surfaces that are
featureless or blank a restricted discretionary consent will be required.
The road setback standard ensures that more uniform site presentation occurs along
roadways and provides an area for visual amenity planting, where this is required. This is
particularly important along Airport Drive, which is a key entrance to the City.
(e)
Landscape Amenity
(i)
Where the frontage provides for carparking, any site fronting onto Airport
Drive, McGregor Street or Railway Road shall provide a 1 metre wide low level
landscaping strip at the frontage of not more than 900mm in height.
(ii)
Where there is no carparking at the frontage to any site fronting onto Airport
Drive, McGregor Street or Railway Road an open frontage, such as a grassed
area, is required up to the building.
(iii)
Where a site interfaces with a Residential Zone site or the Mahanga Kakariki
Reserve, a landscaping strip shall be provided in accordance with
R11.9.1.2(i)(ii).
(f)
Separation Distances
(i)
No building or activity shall come within 6 metres of any boundary with a
Residential Zone or Recreation Zone site.
(g)
Glare
The roofs of buildings must have a matt finish and not have roof glazing.
(h)
Essential Services
(i)
All essential services must be available for connection within 30 metres of the
nearest point of the land being developed.
(ii)
All new sewer, stormwater and water supply services must be connected to
essential services and located through a public service corridor.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
This performance standard applies to land, which is the subject of “Development”
as defined in Section 4. For the purposes of this rule, land being developed
means the immediate area of land upon which the development work is being
carried out.
(i)
Loading
(i)
Compliance with Rule 20.3.8.1, Loading Space Standards.
(j)
Access
(i)
Compliance with Rule 20.3.9.1, Access Standards.
(k)
Parking
(i)
Compliance with Rules:
101
20.3.7.1 Parking Spaces for People with Disabilities;
20.3.7.7 Formation of Parking Spaces;
(ii)

Compliance with Rule 12.6.1(b) (ii) and (iii).
R 13.4.1.5 Roads
Roads are a Permitted Activity in the Airport Zone, except for the
streetscape treatments for Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway
Road under R13.4.2.1.
13.4.2 Rules: Restricted Discretionary Activities

R 13.4.2.1 Streetscape Design of Airport Drive, McGregor Street and
Railway Road - The Construction, External Alteration or Addition to a
Building or Structures fronting Airport Drive, McGregor Street and
Railway Road
The construction, external alteration or addition to buildings and structures
fronting Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway Road before a
Comprehensive Development Plan has been approved by the Council
pursuant to Method 13.4 are Restricted Discretionary Activities with regard to:



Design and appearance
Landscape amenity
Safe and efficient operation of the Roading Network
Performance Standards:
(a)
All development under Rule 13.4.2.1 must provide (as part of the resource
consent application) a Comprehensive Development Plan for the Airport Zone
that details streetscape design for the length of Airport Drive and the lengths
of McGregor Street and Railway Road which interface with the Airport Zone.
(b)
The Comprehensive Development Plan in Performance Standard 13.4.2.1(a)
must provide for a 10 metre wide verge on either side of Airport Drive and the
lengths of McGregor Street and Railway Road which interface with the Airport
Zone, to locate footpaths and landscaping.
(c)
If a Comprehensive Development Plan, which gives effect to R13.4.2.1, is
developed and approved by the Council, as a non-regulatory method under
13.4 Methods, a Comprehensive Development Plan under Rule 13.4.2.1 is not
required.
(d)
A Comprehensive Development Plan approved by the Council as part of a
resource consent application under Rule 13.4.2.1 or as a non-regulatory
method under 13.4 Methods removes the need for subsequent applications for
a Comprehensive Development Plan under Rule 13.4.2.1.
(e)
Once a Comprehensive Development Plan under either (a) or (c) has been
approved by the Council, the Permitted Performance Standards under Rule
13.4.1.4 for the Construction, External Alteration or Addition to Buildings and
Structures will apply.
102
Determination Clause
In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose, if any,
Council will, in addition to the City View Objectives in Section 2 and the Airport Zone
objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment
criteria:
Assessment Criteria
The acceptability of the Airport Drive and Railway Road streetscape design will be
determined by the extent to which:
(a)
Street landscaping provides a distinctive effect of memorably high quality.
(b)
Trees are spaced and generously scaled to give a strong sense of definition to
the street.
(c)
Coordination and continuity of the quality of aesthetic treatment is achieved
along the entire length of the street and all aesthetic variation is provided for in
a way that is part of an overall, ‘whole of street’ design concept.
(d)
Timing of planting is coordinated to ensure consistency of growth and visual
effect along the length of the road.
(e)
Streetscape elements and treatments are coordinated with placement of
accessways into planned lots in the Airport Environs Precinct, and to
entranceways to the Core Airport Precinct.
(f)
Landscape elements are strategically placed to provide for views into key
activities and destinations on both sides of the street, including in particular
entrance to the terminal access road and views of the passenger terminal
(g)
A transition to existing street landscaping within the residential zone is
achieved at the western end of Airport Drive.
(h)
Tree species are selected with consideration of winter sun and summer
shade, seasonal change, and relation to the scale and type of street tree
treatments along other main entrance routes to the city.
(i)
The extent to which growing conditions are provided for, that will ensure the
successful establishment, growth and ongoing viability of planting.
(j)
The landscape treatment of the verge is designed to be readily maintained
along its length.
(k)
A continuous, high quality environment for pedestrians is created along both
sides of the street.
(l)
Any staging of implementation will achieve a coherent streetscape along the
length of Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway Road.
NOTE TO PLAN USER
It is expected that only one Comprehensive Development Plan should need to be
developed for the streetscape Design of Airport Drive, McGregor Street and Railway
Road. While subsequent development is required to give effect to the
Comprehensive Development Plan, assessment criteria provide for deviations from it
that will result in an alternative coordinated, coherent and high quality outcome that
will satisfy its objectives to an equal or greater extent.
103
Once a Comprehensive Development Plan has been approved by the Council, the
Permitted Performance Standards under Rule 13.4.1.4 for the construction, external
alteration or addition to buildings and structures will apply.
Explanation
As a major entrance route to the city, the street should provide a sense of spatial generosity,
and a strong avenue effect with high quality, well scaled planting. Performance Standard
13.4.2.1(b) recognises that Airport Drive is not a public road. Because they are not public
roads, there is no defined road reserve corridor. Performance Standard 13.4.2.1(b) provides
space where footpaths and landscaping can be provided for in a co-ordinated manner. This
approach will enable the Airport Zone to develop in a way which is commensurate with its
function as a key entrance to the City and wider Manawatu-Wanganui Region.
Attractive streets are typically based on continuity and a consistency with a concept. However
a successful concept may also include variation and diversity which give visual richness, and
a distinctive local sense of place. These qualities contribute to memorability and legibility.
All development of those areas identified as requiring a Comprehensive Development Plan
should proceed in a co-ordinated and integrated manner. Coordinated timing of planting is
desirable to provide visual consistency along the street.
The street design must provide for the activities along both sides. This includes physical and
visual access. Glimpse views and views under high level vegetation can contribute to
wayfinding, a positive sense of place and quality of space and experience. Such views are
also important to signal the presence of commercial activities.


R 13.4.2.2 Non-Notification - Streetscape Design of Airport Drive,
McGregor Street and Railway Road - The Construction, External
Alteration or Addition to a Building or Structures fronting Airport
Drive, McGregor Street and Railway Road
(a)
Any activity in Rule 13.4.2.1 must not be publicly notified.
(b)
Any activity in Rule 13.4.2.1 will be served on Palmerston North Airport
Limited, but will otherwise not be limited notified.
R 13.4.2.3 Activities which do not Comply with the Performance
Standards for Permitted Activities
Activities which do not comply with the Performance Standards for Permitted
Activities (in Rule 13.4.1.1 and 13.4.1.2) in relation to:
(a)
Lighting;
(b)
Vehicle Parking, Loading and Access;
(c)
Car Park Landscape Design;
(d)
Outdoor Storage;
(e)
Fencing;
(f)
Ancillary Retail (i) and Office Activities (ii);
(i)
Ancillary Retail Activity - where ancillary retail activity does not
exceed 17.25% or 230m², whichever is the lesser, of the gross floor
area of the premises104
for merchandising area; and
(ii)
(g)
Ancillary Office Activity – where ancillary office activity does not
exceed 23% of the total gross floor area of the premises.
Servicing and Loading Hours.
are Restricted Discretionary Activities with regard to:





The safe and efficient operation of the roading network
The effects, including cumulative effects, of ancillary retail and office
development on the Airport Zone and Business Zones
Effects on adjoining residential areas
The provision of car parking
criteria:
Assessment Criteria
(a)
Lighting
The assessment criteria contained in Rule 11.6.2.1(a)(i), (iii) and (iv).
(b)
Vehicle Parking, Loading and Access
(i)
The extent to which failure to provide the required number of on-site carparks
will result in adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the road
network.
(ii)
The extent to which the standards for loading can be varied without
endangering public safety, particularly pedestrian safety, and effects on the
safe and efficient operation of the road network are avoided, remedied or
mitigated.
(iii)
The extent to which other uses on the site or on adjoining sites provide
opportunities for shared carparking, providing that a legal agreement binds the
alternative parking site to the development.
(iv)
The extent to which appropriate off-site carparking is available in the locality
and is readily accessible to meet the predicted parking requirements.
(v)
The extent to which it can be demonstrated that the total parking demand
generated by the proposed development is less than the number of spaces
required.
(vi)
The extent to which failure to provide the required number of on-site carparks
will result in adverse effects on the ambience and amenity values of affected
areas, in particular residential areas.
(vii)
The degree to which the carparking layout is functional, safe, convenient and
accessible from building entrances.
(viii) The extent to which the standards for loading and access can be varied
without endangering public safety and affecting the safe and efficient
operation of the roading network.
105
(ix)
Whether suitable alternative provision for loading and access can be made.
(x)
The extent to which failure to meet the required loading and access
requirements will cause adverse effects on the ambience and amenity values
of affected areas, in particular residential areas.
(xi)
Whether the proposed activities will generate a demand for loading facilities.
(xii)
The extent to which the topography, size or shape of the site, the location of
any natural or built structures on the site or other requirements, such as
easements, rights-of-way or restrictive covenants, impose constraints which
make compliance impracticable.
(xiii) The extent to which loading areas are located away from the street edge and
accessed from the rear of sites.
(c)
Car Park Landscape Design
The assessment criteria contained in Rule 11.9.3.1(e)
(d)
Outdoor Storage
(i)
The extent to which the existence of any topographic or other physical feature
makes compliance impracticable.
(ii)
The extent to which outdoor storage areas are sited and designed so that
visual amenity and the quality of streetscape in public or residential areas are
maintained.
(iii)
The extent to which outdoor storage areas are sited and designed so that the
visual amenity of Airport Drive and any adjoining sites in the Residential Zone
or Recreation Zone are maintained.
(iv)
The extent to which outdoor storage areas are sited and designed to allow for
the efficient operation of access, parking, loading and manoeuvring areas for
vehicles.
(e)
Fencing
(i)
The extent to which fencing is integrated with hard and soft landscaping
elements, and screened by planting.
(ii)
The quality of the fencing and the choice of materials used.
(iii)
The extent to which the fence is designed so that visual amenity and the
quality of the streetscape in public and residential areas are maintained or
enhanced.
Explanation
Given the gateway function of Airport Drive and to a lesser degree McGregor Street, the use
of close high boarded fences on the frontages of sites adjoining roads in the Airport Zone are
to be avoided.
Security fencing is problematic when facing sites in the Residential or Recreation Zones.
While security fencing may be appropriate and necessary in some instances, it must be
carefully designed.
106
(f)
Ancillary Retail and Ancillary Office Activities
(i)
The extent to which any proposed ancillary retail and office activities will affect
the efficient and effective operation of the Airport Zone and the amenity values
of any residentially zoned land.
(ii)
The extent to which the additional ancillary retail or office area is essential to
the operation of the predominant activity on the site.
(iii)
Whether the establishment of the additional office or retail activity will
undermine the integrity of the Business Zones or lead to a dispersal of retail
and office activity.
(iv)
The extent to which the activity undermines the overarching Business Zone
Objective and Policies.
(v)
The extent to which the breach of permitted thresholds is reflective of:
i.
Any physical constraints such as roof heights, structural pillars and shape
of the existing building;
ii. The nature and spatial requirements of the products that are to be
displayed in the retail merchandising area; and
iii. The space that is required for staff amenities due to staff numbers.
Explanation
The District Plan primarily provides for the development and growth of aviation and industrial
type activities in the Airport Zone, but recognises that retail and office activity has an
important ancillary function in the operation of some of these activities. Council is prepared to
consider ancillary retail and office activity requirements which exceed the stated standards
where it is satisfied that it is necessary and will not adversely affect the integrity and effective
operation of the city’s industrial and business areas, neighbours, nearby residential areas and
the roading network.
(g)
Servicing and Loading Hours
(i)
The extent to which the adverse effects of noise and general disturbance
created by the activity on any adjoining or adjacent Residential Zone land can
be effectively mitigated.
(ii)
The extent to which the disturbance to residentially zoned properties from the
movement of vehicles to and from the site and within the site itself can be
effectively mitigated.
(iii)
The extent to which the limit on operating hours ensures that any disturbance
to residentially zoned properties can be effectively mitigated.
(iv)
The extent to which extended operating hours are necessary to allow the
efficient and effective operation of airport activities and other activities that rely
on the 24 hour operation of the airport.
Explanation
Movements on Airport Zone land which occur outside the specified hours have the potential
to cause considerable disturbance to adjoining residential areas. Where the operational
requirements of an activity require late night or early morning services, a careful assessment
must be made to ensure any adverse effects can be mitigated.
107

R 13.4.2.4 The Construction, External Alteration or Addition to a
Building or Structure which does not Comply with the Performance
Standards for Permitted Activities
The construction, external alteration or addition to a building which does not
comply with the Performance Standards for Permitted Activities in Rule 13.4.1.4
in relation to:
(a)
Height of any building which fronts to or adjoins a site in the Residential
Zone and road setback
(b)
Landscape amenity
(c)
(d)
Essential Services
(e)
Building Frontages
(f)
Deviation from Comprehensive Development Plan under R13.4.2.1
are Restricted Discretionary Activities with regard to:

Scale relation to existing smaller neighbours

Landscape amenity




Visual amenity

Effects on existing dwellings located in close proximity to the Zone and
Airport Drive as a key entrance into the City

The provision of infrastructure

Vehicle Parking, Loading, Site Access and Car Park Landscape Design
Council will, in addition to the City View Objectives in section 2 and the Airport Zone
Objectives and Policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment
criteria:
Assessment Criteria
(a)
Building Height and Road Set back
(i)
Whether the design and appearance of any building or structure is in character
with and complementary to the character of the area and the ambience and
amenity values of any adjoining residential zone land.
(ii)
To ensure a coherent architectural treatment of the frontages of large
buildings that front arterial roads.
108
(iii)
The extent to which the modulation of building form helps to achieve a scale
transition to immediately adjacent residential buildings.
(iv)
The extent to which any topographic, or other physical feature of the site
makes compliance impracticable or inappropriate.
(v)
The extent to which sunlight and daylight is maintained over neighbourhood
dwellings and important outdoor areas related to these.
(vi)
Whether effects associated with overlooking lead to an actual or perceived
loss of privacy for outdoor areas or dwellings on adjoining sites.
Explanation
Building height and siting standards reasonably provide for the intensive use. However, Council
recognises that there are instances where these standards may not adequately provide for
some activities and is therefore prepared to consider such circumstances where it is satisfied
that neighbours and nearby Residential Zone and Recreation Zone areas and roadside amenity
will not be adversely affected. These considerations are limited to activities in the Airport
Environs Precinct, which has interfaces with both residential areas and recreation reserves.
Coherent architectural treatment of frontages means that the frontage is designed as a whole.
This is particularly relevant to buildings within the Airport Environs Precinct. Coherence will
depend on the underlying composition, theme and/or visual order of the facade and relate to
attributes including:




The alignment of building forms and facade elements;
Placement and proportions of windows and other openings;
Selection and combinations of materials and colours; and
The form and materials used to give appropriate visual interest and/or depth to the
facade.
In the Core Airport Precinct, the functional role and placement of buildings limits the ability for
coherent architectural treatment of building frontages, and the Council accepts the more
utilitarian arrangement and design of service buildings in this area is consistent with the visual
amenity associated with a functioning airport. However, as an important public facility and main
entry point to the City the passenger terminal should be designed to a high standard.
(b)
Landscape Amenity
(i)
The extent to which any existing topographic or other physical feature of the
site makes compliance impracticable.
(ii)
The extent to which landscaping within the boundary setback is necessary to
maintain residential amenity or to reduce the visual impact of the building.
(iii)
The extent to which alternative provision of on-site amenity and landscaping
maintains and enhances the amenity of the wider streetscape and residential
areas.
(iv)
The extent to which growing conditions are provided that will ensure the
successful establishment, growth and on-going viability of landscaping.
Explanation
Landscaping provisions within the Plan are intended to protect the adjoining Residential Zone
and Recreation Zone amenity and enhance roadside amenity within the area. Council
recognises that there may be other means of achieving similar amenity results and situations
where the prescribed standards may be inappropriate. Alternatives will be considered where it
can be demonstrated that the neighbours are not adversely affected and where roadside
amenity is maintained or enhanced.
109
(c)
The assessment criteria contained in Rule 12.8.1(b) and (c).
(d)
Essential Services
(i)
The extent to which Council has the ability to maintain and access
infrastructure and services in the future.
(ii)
Whether additional connections to main trunk services creates an adverse
cumulative effect on the efficient and effective operation of essential services.
(iii)
The extent to which the integration of essential services into the existing City
network provides for efficient and orderly development within urban areas.
(iv)
Those matters described in Sections 108 of the Resource Management Act
1991.
Explanation
The intent of the Essential Services performance standard is to ensure that in extending new
sewer, stormwater and water supply services to a new development they must connect to
essential services and must be located through a public service corridor, which will be vested in
Council. Please refer to Diagram 7.3A and 7.3B in the Subdivision Section for examples of
how this will be applied.
Where a new essential service is not located in a public service corridor, Council is concerned
about its ability in the future to maintain that service. At some stage the service will need to be
fixed or replaced. If the service, which is covered by an easement, runs through a number of
private properties, access to the easement may be difficult and quite often a private landowner
will have sealed large areas of land over the easement thus impeding replacement of the
service. In assessing applications of this nature, Council will determine each case on its
merits.
Additionally, where services are to be connected into the City Council reticulated systems it is
necessary to ensure these connections are efficient and sustainable. This is influenced by how
services are connected. The location of services is vital to the long term efficiency of the City
infrastructure networks. The provision and location of essential services through a public
corridor will ensure a well-managed network and will ensure logical and orderly development
outcomes in urban areas avoiding premature development before the necessary infrastructure
is in place to service it.
(e)
Building Frontages
(i)
The extent to which the potential adverse effects of blank walls at the street
edge and/or conspicuously large high-level blank walls that are prominent
from view from public roads are avoided or screened.
(ii)
Relation to the pattern of adjacent buildings and activities and the continuity of
the street frontage.
(iii)
The extent to which any building enhances the appearance of the site from the
road and as required defines the street boundary with high quality landscaping
elements.
(iv)
The extent to which buildings provide active edges fronting public roads.
110

(f)
Deviation from Comprehensive Development Plan under R13.4.2.1
(i)
Deviations from the Comprehensive Development Plan will result in an
alternative coordinated, coherent and high quality outcome to an equal or
greater extent as the approved Comprehensive Development Plan.
R 13.4.2.5 Crematoria
Crematoria are a Restricted Discretionary Activity with regard to:




Effects on the cultural and social wellbeing of the proximate community.
Effects of noise, hours of operation and other environmental disturbance on
amenity for the surrounding community.
Design and appearance of any buildings or structures in relation to the
amenity for the surrounding community.
The effects of traffic on the safe and efficient operation of the roading
network and the provision of efficient and effective parking and access.
Explanation
Crematoria have the potential to adversely affect the amenity values of both adjoining and
adjacent properties. Council recognises that there are appropriate locations for the siting of
crematoria but these need to be in such a location that does not adversely affect the amenity
values of the surrounding community.

R 13.4.2.6 Retail, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service Activities
which have a Gross Floor Area less than 100m² in the Airport
Environs Precinct
Retail and Commercial Service Activities which have a Gross Floor Area less
than 100m² are Restricted Discretionary Activities in the Airport Environs
Precinct, with regard to:






Distributional effects on the established Business Zones
Landscape Amenity
Relationship to the street frontage
Visual amenity
provided they comply with the following performance standards:
Compliance with the permitted performance standards of Rule 13.4.1.4.
criteria:
111
Assessment Criteria
(i)
Whether the consent, if granted, would result in cumulative effects on the
Business Zones and the creation of a “retail destination” within the Airport
Zone, by virtue of other existing or approved retail activities in the vicinity.
(ii)
The extent to which the consent, if granted, would contradict or undermine the
potential achievement of the Objectives and Policies for the Airport Zone,
having regard to cumulative and precedent effects.
(iii)
The extent to which the proposed activity could have reverse sensitivity
implications for the Airport Zone.
(iv)
The extent to which the shop fronts of retail facilities face and are accessible
from the street edge.
(v)
The extent to which the potential adverse effects of blank walls adjoining
residential sites, at the street edge and/or conspicuously large high-level blank
walls that are in prominent view from streets and other public spaces are
avoided or screened.
(vi)
The extent to which on-site landscaping complements public landscaping at or
near the street edge and establishes conditions of safety, visual interest and
amenity within the development.
(vii)
The extent to which growing conditions are provided for that will ensure the
successful establishment, growth and on-going viability of planting.
(viii)
The extent to which the development maintains and enhances the quality of
the environment and safety for pedestrians within the site and at the street
edge.
(ix)
Whether the adverse effects of development on the safe and efficient
operation of the road network can be effectively managed.
Explanation
The Airport Zone is an important and finite physical resource for the City and wider ManawatuWanganui Region. Therefore, it is important that land use within the Airport Zone caters for
aviation or aviation related activities that may not otherwise be able to be established in the
City’s existing Business Zones. In recognition of the greater importance of the physical
resources of land with direct access to the Airport, retail activities under 100m² GFA are not
provided for in the Core Airport Precinct. A restricted discretionary status applies to commercial
service activities and retail activities under 100m² GFA to ensure that a proliferation of these
activities, which may result in adverse distributional effects on the Business Zones, is avoided.

R 13.4.2.6 Non-Ancillary Office Activities with particular Airport
association
Non-Ancillary Office Activities with particular Airport association are Restricted
Discretionary Activities, with regard to:





The nature and degree of association with the Airport and its operations
Reverse sensitivity effects
112


The effects, including cumulative effects, of Non-Ancillary Office
development on the Airport and Business Zones; and
Consistency with the Objectives and Policies of the Airport Zone.
Performance Standard
In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose, if any, the
Objectives and Policies, assess any application in terms of the following Assessment
Criteria:
Assessment Criteria:


Whether the proposed office activity would result in an economic benefit to the
City by locating in the Airport Zone rather than in a Business Zone.

Whether there are particular reasons, for example relating to the strategic benefits
to the City, why the office activity is better located in the Airport Zone rather than
in a Business Zone.

efficient operation and use of the physical resources of the Airport Zone, for
example, through direct business connections with its other activities.

The extent to which the proposed office activity has business connections with the
wider regional or national area, rather than with the City.

The extent to which the proposed office activity requires airfreight access or air
travel for its staff and visitors.

Whether the establishment of the proposed office activity will undermine the
viability and vitality of the City Centre.

Whether the granting of consent for the proposed office activity could establish a
broad precedent.
R 13.4.2.7 Retail Activities, Restaurants, Takeaway Bars, Licensed
Premises and Commercial Service Activities which have a Gross
Floor Area over 100m² in the Core Airport Precinct (excluding within
the Airport Terminal Building) and 300m² in the Airport Environs
Precinct
Retail Activities, Restaurants, Takeaway Bars, Licensed Premises and
Commercial Service Activities which have a Gross Floor Area over 100m² in
the Core Airport Precinct and 300m² in the Airport Environs Precinct and
which, together with Permitted Retail, Restaurant, Takeaway Bar, Licensed
Premises and Commercial Service Activities will not exceed Performance
Standard (j)(ii) of Rule 13.4.1.2 are Restricted Discretionary Activities, with
regard to:


Distributional effects on the established Business Zones
Landscape Amenity
113




Visual amenity
provided they comply with the following performance standards:
Criteria:
Assessment Criteria
(i)
Whether there are particular reasons why the retail activity cannot locate
within a Business Zone.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
The extent to which the proposed activity does not undermine the overarching
Objective and Policies of the Business Zones.
(vi)
the environment for pedestrians within the site and at the street edge, and
whether entry and exit points to the site will have an adverse effect on
pedestrian safety.
(vii)
(viii) Whether the adverse effects of development on the safe and efficient
13.4.3 Rules: Discretionary Activities

R 13.4.3.1 Ancillary Retail and Office Activities
The following are Discretionary Activities:
(a)
Ancillary Retail Activity - where the ancillary retail activity uses between
17.25% and 22.5% or between 230m² and 300m², whichever is the lesser, of
the gross floor area of the premises for merchandising area.
114
(b)
Ancillary Office Activity – where the ancillary office activity uses between 23%
and 30% of the gross floor area of the premises.
criteria:
Assessment Criteria
In relation to ancillary retailing:
(i)
(ii)
Business Zones.
(iii)
The extent to which the proposed ancillary retail activity could have reverse
sensitivity implications for the Airport Zone.
In relation to ancillary offices:
(iv)
The extent to which the nature of the predominant Airport Zone activity
requires a greater level of administrative support.
In relation to both ancillary retailing and offices:

(v)
(vi)
R 13.4.3.2 Retail Activities, Takeaway Bars and Commercial Service
Activities which have a Gross Floor Area over 100m² in the Airport
Zone (excluding within the Airport Terminal Building) are
Discretionary Activities provided they comply with the following
performance standard:
Criteria:
Assessment Criteria
(i)
115
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
the environment for pedestrians within the site and at the street edge, and
whether entry and exit points to the site will have an adverse effect on
pedestrian safety.
(vii)
(viii) Whether the adverse effects of development on the safe and efficient

R 13.4.3.3 Non-Ancillary Office Activities in the Airport Zone are a
Discretionary Activity provided they comply with the following
performance standard:
Criteria:
Assessment Criteria:

efficient operation and use of the physical resources of the Airport Zone.

Whether there are particular reasons, for example relating to the strategic benefits
to the City, why the office activity is better located in the Airport Zone rather than
in a Business Zone.

Whether the establishment of the proposed office activity will undermine the
viability and vitality of the City Centre.

Whether the proposed office activity would result in an economic benefit to the
City by locating in the Airport Zone rather than in a Business Zone.
116

R 13.4.3.43 Temporary Military Training Activities which do not
comply with the Permitted Activity Performance Standards of Rule
13.4.1.4, including live firing of weapons, firing of blank ammunition,
single or multiple explosive events, are Discretionary Activities.
(i)
The following information must be submitted to the Council on lodgement of
an application under this rule:
(a)
A Noise Management Plan prepared by an acoustic technician.
(b)
A Community Consultation Programme.
In determining what conditions to impose, if any, the Council will in addition to the City
View objectives in Section 2 and the Airport Zone Objectives and Policies, assess any
application in terms of the following assessment criteria:
Assessment Criteria
(a)
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of noise, hours of operation and other
environmental disturbance on surrounding rural and urban environments,
particularly residentially used properties.
(b)
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the visual impact of any activities, and to
preserve the character and amenity of the rural environment.
(c)
To avoid, remedy or mitigate the effects of the proposal on any area of natural
and/or cultural heritage value, or of particular significance to Tangata Whenua.
(d)
The extent to which the effects of noise, including the peak sound levels
resulting from impulsive noise, impacts on noise sensitive activities, stock and
wildlife.
(e)
The extent to which the noise management measures will avoid, remedy or
mitigate the likely noise impacts for the area.
(f)
Whether a community consultation programme is available, for communication
with occupiers and owners of affected sites, prior to the military training
activities commencing; with such communication including notification of the
event, updates during the event, methods for following up complaints received
during or after the event, and the process of liaison with Council.
Explanation
The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) may need to carry out military training activities that
do not meet the performance standards for permitted activities. In this case, it is important to
ensure that any adverse effects of military training activities on the environment are avoided,
remedied or mitigated. The Discretionary Activity status provides Council with the opportunity
to take full account of effects in its assessment of the proposed activities.
117

R 13.4.3.34 Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres
(excluding those prohibited by R 13.4.5.1) are a Discretionary Activity.
Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres (excluding those prohibited by R
13.4.5.1) are a Discretionary Activity.
Council will in addition to the City View Objectives in Section 2 and the Airport Zone
Objectives and Policies, assess any application in terms of the following assessment
criteria:
Assessment Criteria
Site Planning
The extent to which:
(a)
buildings and related open spaces and landscaping are planned and designed
together to deliver high levels of amenity within dwellings and well-located,
good quality open spaces.
(b)
private and public areas are differentiated and defined.
(c)
habitable rooms are orientated towards the east, north or west for good sun,
and south only facing rooms are avoided.
(d)
new buildings retain reasonable visual privacy and daylighting for all adjacent
residential units and properties.
(e)
garages and parking are located and designed to avoid monotony and
domination of any street frontage or spaces within the development.
driveways and entrance courts are designed and landscaped to give visual
interest and create an attractive entrance to the development.
(f)
(g)
the planning of the development allows views of the street and common
spaces within the development to be maintained, including views of open
carparking spaces from the dwelling served.
Building Design
(h)
dwelling fronts including entrances and windows to habitable rooms are
orientated to the street edge, and views are maintained to and from the street.
(i)
modelling of building form, and secondary forms and detail gives visual
interest and a sense of human scale at the occupied and/or publicly visible
edges of buildings.
(j)
windows are provided to optimise both daylighting and views while providing
for privacy, and large blank walls are avoided.
(k)
the living areas of dwellings are located and oriented to optimise sun
exposure, natural lighting and views, including to the street or adjacent public
open spaces.
(l)
circulation within the dwellings is sufficiently planned, and spaces including
storage are provided and sized to be fit for purpose.
118
(m)
new buildings retain reasonable visual privacy and daylighting for adjacent
residential properties.
(n)
individual units are expressed and entrances are signalled and readily visible
from the street or entranceways.
(o)
the design of the development incorporates energy efficient and water
conservation principles.
Open Space Design
(p)
main outdoor spaces are associated with a living area within the dwelling, are
reasonably private and of a useable size and are orientated to the sun.
(q)
usable, well-orientated balconies are provided to above ground units and
where quality at-grade private open space is not reasonably achievable.
(r)
good quality shared private open space is provided as a complement to
smaller private open spaces or balconies allocated to individual units.
(s)
boundary treatments such as walls or planting between units balance
openness and closure, and are varied to both privacy and views out, and
avoid monotony and complete fragmentation of the open space within the
development.
(t)
planting is integrated to provide an attractive setting for and outlook from the
dwelling, and provide for privacy, summer shade and winter sun.
(u)
carports and garages are visually compatible with and of a similar standard to
the development as a whole.
(v)
large, highly visible retaining walls are avoided or screened with appropriate
planting.
(w)
front yard boundary treatments are sufficiently low to provide for visual
connection between the dwelling and the street, and allow safe vehicle access
across the footpath.
(x)
suitably screened and located provision is made for rubbish storage and
collection.
(y)
suitable, reasonably private and sunny space is provided for open air laundry
drying.
Infrastructure and Servicing
(z)
site and building design mitigates any increase in peak stormwater run-off and
peak stormwater flow due to the reduction in permeable surfaces.
(za)
the development is consistent with the engineering standards.
119
Industrial and Airport Noise
(zb)
The degree to which sound insulation measures are successful in achieving
an acceptable level of aural amenity and ventilation for all habitable rooms,
and bedrooms in particular.
(zc)
Whether alterations and additions to existing buildings accommodating noise
sensitive activities are fitted with appropriate acoustic insulation to achieve a
satisfactory internal noise environment.
Explanation
The Airport supports activities such as education and training associated with aircraft and
airport systems, as well as other activities that require accommodation for temporary periods.
Enabling the development of accommodation facilities for activities that are associated with
the Airport is considered to be appropriate provided that suitable noise mitigation measures
are integrated into building design.

R 13.4.3.45 Activities not provided for as Permitted, Restricted
Discretionary, Non-Complying or Prohibited Activities in the Airport
Zone.
Any activity not provided for as a Permitted, Restricted Discretionary, NonComplying or Prohibited Activity within the Airport Zone shall be a Discretionary
Activity.
13.4.4 Rules: Non-Complying Activities

R 13.4.4.1 AirNnoise Control
All activities in the Inner and Outer Control Contours that do not comply with Rule
10.7.1.1(h) – AirNnoise Control are non-complying activities.
In considering whether to grant the application and what conditions, if any, to
impose, Council shall take into account the Objectives and Policies of the Airport
Zone and the following Assessment Criteria:
Assessment Criteria
(a)
Whether there are any circumstances that would make compliance with the
noise reduction standards in Rule 10.7.1.1(h) inappropriate or unreasonable;
and
(b)
Whether the level of noise reduction by the proposed development can be less
than the level required by Rule 10.7.1.1(h) without compromising the overall
health and amenity of the occupants within the respective building.
NOTE TO PLAN USERS:
refer to section 5.4 (j) – Special Requirements Relating to Applications for Building
Construction Where Noise Attenuation Standards Apply for additional information to be
provided when lodging an application for a resource consent in respect of noise
attenuation.
120

R 13.4.4.2 Sound emissions
All activities in the Airport Zone that do not comply with the sound emission
requirements of Rule 13.4.6.1 and Rule 13.4.6.2 are non-complying activities.
13.4.5 Rules: Prohibited Activities

R 13.4.5.1 AirNnoise Contour.
New accommodation motels, dwellings and residential centres are Prohibited
Activities in the AirNnoise Contour identified on Map 10.7.6.3.
granted.
Explanation
The above mentioned activities have been identified as being highly sensitive to the effects of
excessive noise exposure associated with aircraft operations.
The impact of aircraft noise has been assessed by New Zealand Standard 6805:1992 –
Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning, which recommends as one of the criteria
for land use planning within any defined airnoise contour that noise sensitive activities, such
as dwellings and motels, be prohibited. The purpose of this rule is to give effect to this
recommended standard.

R 13.4.5.2
Runway End Protection Areas
The following activities are prohibited activities in the Runway End Protection
Areas (REPA) in the Airport Zone identified on Map 13.2:
(i)
any new building or other structure, or any utility, as defined in this plan
(excluding roads, rail, additions or extensions to existing dwellings, accessory
buildings and navigational aids for aircraft and activities undertaken by or on
behalf of the Regional Council for the purposes of flood control within the
Taonui Basin Floodway as defined in Schedule J of the One Plan, provided
this does not result in permanent areas of standing water);
(ii)
any tree that penetrates the protection surfaces described in R 13.4.7.1;
(iii)
the manufacture, use or storage of fuel, flammable materials and hazardous
substances;
(iv)
the mass assembly of people;
(v)
the release of any substance which would impair visibility or otherwise
interfere with the operation of aircraft, including the creation of smoke, dust
and steam;
(vi)
the production of direct light beams, or reflective glare which could would
interfere with the vision of a pilot, provided that for the purposes of this rule the
following are excluded:
(vii)
(i)
Reflections from glass and mirrors used in motor vehicles and trains;
and
(ii)
Light emissions from motor vehicle and train lights.
the production of radio or electrical interference which could affect aircraft
121
communication or navigational equipment; and
(viii) activities that attract birds, including but not limited to crops, orchards, and
waterbodies (including swales or retention basins for the management of
stormwater.
granted.
Explanation
REPAs are provided at the end of each runway strip. These areas are required to be free
of obstructions or activities which could interfere with aeronautical navigational aids.
They are also areas in which statistically there are greater chances of aircraft related
accidents. It is therefore desirable that the public's exposure to such risks be reduced by
limiting the range of activities permitted in the REPAs.
The REPAs comprise fan shaped areas commencing at the ends of the runway strips as
shown in Appendix 4 (defined in the Section Airport Protection Surfaces) consistent with
the dimensions shown in the diagram Runway End Protection Areas.
While the likelihood of concentrations of people occurring on land within the REPA’s is
low, the consequences of any aircraft accident related effect are potentially of major
impact (refer section 3(f) of the Act). Activities which result in a substantial number of
people gathering on land within the REPA’s have the potential to exacerbate loss of life
in the event of an aircraft accident. A number of these activities are addressed indirectly
through controls on buildings. Others, which occur outside or independently of buildings,
include sports or entertainment events. Golf courses do not normally involve intensive
gatherings of people and / or spectators, and are therefore excluded from the application
of the rule.
Other activities may attract birds and increase the risk of bird strike accidents, particularly
in take-off / landing operations; light sources or smoke, dust, or steam could impair pilot
visibility, while the presence of significant quantities of hazardous substances could
exacerbate the effects of aircraft accident. A balance has to be struck between the
reasonable use of land within the REPA’s and the degree of risk associated with
potentially incompatible activities. Some potentially incompatible activities already exist
and have been recognised. Exclusions have been provided for reasons of practical
necessity, for example effects of vehicles on traffic routes passing across parts of the
REPA’s.
13.4.6 Rules : Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone

R 13.4.6.1 Sound Emissions in the Airport Zone
(i)
The Palmerston North Airport Company shall ensure that noise
emissions from aircraft operations shall not exceed 65LDN at the
airnoise boundary as shown on Map 10.7.6.3 when measured and
assessed using the methods described in NZS6805:1992 Airport Noise
Management and Land Use Planning.
The following is an exception to the rule:
(a)
The operation of unscheduled flights required to meet the needs of a
national or civil defence emergency declared under the Civil Defence Act
1983.
(b)
Closure of major airports due to weather and the use of Palmerston
North Airport by diverted aircraft.
(c)
The use of Palmerston North Airport by diverted aircraft due to
operational emergencies at other airports.
122
Refer to Section 4 – ‘Definitions’ for a definition of aircraft operations.
Explanation
Council considers that it is important to ensure that the effects associated with aircraft
operational noise are managed, as far as practicable, at the source of these emissions. This
rule places a requirement on aircraft operations associated with the Palmerston North Airport
to comply with the limit specified at the airnoise boundary. In addition to this requirement,
mitigation measures relating to aircraft operational noise are also contained in the
Residential, Rural, Industrial, and Recreation Sections of this Plan.
(ii)
Sound emissions from sources other than aircraft operations and aircraft
engine testing shall not exceed the following limits when measured at or
within the boundary of any land used for residential purposes in a rural
or residentially zoned area, other than within the AirNnoise Contour
boundary:
7:00 am to 10:00 pm 55 dBA L10
10:00 pm to 7:00 am 45 dBA L10 and 75 dBA Lmax
Explanation
Given the level of activity within the Airport Zone associated, for example, with the servicing
of aircraft, there is significant potential for adverse noise effects to be created. The above
rule is based on the guidelines contained in New Zealand Standard 6802:1991 - Assessment
of Environmental Noise, and has been included here to protect those residential properties
located in close proximity to the airport from noise which is generated by other activities aside
from aircraft operations.
(iii)
Movements of military jet training aircraft shall be limited to the hours of
8:00 am to 9:00 pm (New Zealand Standard Time) or 10:00 pm (New
Zealand Daylight Time), whichever is later.
Explanation
This rule has been included in the District Plan with the co-operation of the New Zealand
Defence Force. The rule complements other methods to mitigate the adverse effects of noise
from jet training aircraft, which may use the Airport. Those other measures include
operational controls by the Royal New Zealand Air Force over their own activities in the form
of standing orders to pilots, and arrangements with the Airport Company for use of the
Airport.
(iv)
Engine Testing
(a)
All aircraft engine testing within the Airport Zone shall comply with the following:
1)
Daytime:
(i)
Between the hours of 7.00am and 10.00pm, noise emissions from aircraft
engine testing shall not exceed 55dBA Leq 15 hours, provided, however,
that noise emissions from essential unscheduled engine testing of jet
aircraft shall not be included in the calculation of Leq 15 hours.
(ii)
If there is an adequate and available noise mitigation facility testing shall
take place within that facility.
2)
Night-time:
123
(i)
Between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am the following day, the total noise
exposure from all aircraft engine testing shall not exceed the following limits :
Table (a)
1.
2.
All nights (except on three nights within
any three successive calendar months)
On each of the three nights within any
three successive calendar months that
the above exception applies
Total Leq 1 hour
55 dBA
L max
70 dBA
60 dBA
70 dBA
(ii)
The total duration of aircraft engine testing taking place between the hours
of 10.00pm and 7.00am in any one night shall not exceed one hour.
(iii)
The total exposure of aircraft engine testing taking place between the hours
of 10.00pm and 7.00am, in any one night, shall not exceed the Total Leq 1
hour limits specified in the table above.
(iv)
All night-time aircraft engine testing shall take place within a certified noise
mitigation facility. A certified noise mitigation facility shall be one that is
designed, located, constructed, operated and maintained so as to meet the
limits in the table in (a) above, and is certified as such in respect of each
type of aircraft engine proposed to be tested. All certification shall be
undertaken by an acoustical consultant (see definition section) who shall
provide a certification report to the Palmerston North City Council prior to
the construction of the noise mitigation facility, which shall state that the
proposed facility will provide for engines to be tested in compliance with
limits in the table in (a) above. Within three months of the commencement
of testing of any type of aircraft engine and every two years thereafter a
compliance report prepared by an acoustical consultant shall be provided to
the Palmerston North City Council that demonstrates compliance with the
noise limits in the table in (a) above. After the first three month period, if
and so long as a compliance report is not in force for the facility for any
engine type, the facility shall not be certified in respect of that engine type
for the purposes of this rule.
(Note not forming part of this rule: the duty to adopt the best practicable
option to control noise under section 16 of the Resource Management Act
1991 will apply).
(v)
All engine tests at 60% power setting or more shall be notified to
Palmerston North Airport Limited within twenty-four hours of the event, who
shall keep a register of such events.
(vi)
Notwithstanding the above conditions for the night-time testing of aircraft
engines–
(a)
The total noise exposure from all essential unscheduled engine
testing occurring between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am (refer to
definitions) need not comply with the limits and requirements in (i) to
(v) above, but shall not exceed the following limits:
Table (b)
1. All nights (except on one
night in any successive
period of three calendar
months)
2. On the night that the
above exception applies.
(b)
Total Leq 1 hour
65 dBA
Lmax
80 dBA
70 dBA
80 dBA
The total duration of essential unscheduled testing taking place
between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am in any one night shall not
exceed one hour.
124
(vii)
(c)
The total exposure of essential unscheduled engine testing taking
place between the hours of 10.00pm and 7.00am, in any one night,
shall not exceed the Total Leq 1 hour limits specified in Table (b)
above.
(d)
Essential unscheduled engine testing at 40% or more power setting
not undertaken within a certified noise mitigation facility, and not
complying with the limits and requirements in (i) to (v) above, shall
take place on no more than five nights (10pm to 7am the following
day) in any successive period of three calendar months.
(e)
All essential unscheduled engine testing at 40% or more power level
shall be notified to Palmerston North Airport Limited and to the
Palmerston North City Council prior to the testing taking place. The
notification shall include the fault to be rectified, likely time duration
and power level of the engine test and likely location or choice of
location of the test.
(f)
If there is an adequate and available noise mitigation facility that can
accommodate the aircraft engine testing being undertaken, the
testing shall take place within that facility.
(g)
Where there is no adequate or available noise mitigation facility and
the essential unscheduled engine testing exceeds 40% power level,
such testing shall not occur within 400 metres of any part of a
residential zone outside the AirNnoise Contour and any rural zoned
dwelling existing at 31 March 1998 outside the AirNnoise Contour.
Notwithstanding clauses (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(vi)(b) of Rule 13.4.7.1(iv) Engine
Testing, the total duration of all aircraft engine testing taking place between the
hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am in any one night shall not exceed one hour.
(b)
Engine testing noise shall be measured and assessed at or within the boundary of
any site zoned residential, or at or within the notional boundary of any rural dwelling
existing at 31 March 1998, other than within the AirNnoise Contour boundary. Noise
levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS6801:1991 Measurement of Sound.
Notional boundary defined as “A line 20 metres from the facade of any rural dwelling
or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling”.
(c)
If engine testing noise emissions occurring between the hours of 10.00pm and
7.00am the following day comply with the noise limits set out in R13.4.6.1(ii)
then no limits on frequency or duration of testing apply.
Explanation
This rule recognises that there is an operational necessity for testing aircraft engines as a
core function of the Airport, while limiting the potential for adverse effects on the amenity of
surrounding residences, particularly at night. The rule sets a number of conditions for aircraft
engine testing to occur, recognising the special attributes and characteristics of noise
emissions from this source.
(v)
Noise Insulation
Any habitable room used by a noise sensitive activity and any office activity in a
building within the Airport Environs Precinct shall be protected from noise arising
from outside the building by ensuring the external sound insulation level achieves
the following minimum performance standard:
DnT,w + Ctr > 35 dB
125
Compliance with this performance standard shall be achieved by ensuring habitable
rooms are designed and constructed in a manner that accords with an acoustic
design certificate signed by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer stating the design
as proposed will achieve compliance with the above performance standard.
(vi)
Ventilation
Where bedrooms and sleeping areas with openable windows are proposed, a
positive supplementary source of fresh air ducted from outside is required at the time
of fit-out. For the purposes of this requirement, a bedroom is any room intended to
be used for sleeping. The supplementary source of air is to achieve a minimum of
7.5 litres per second per person.
Office activities shall be provided with mechanical ventilation to comply with the
Building Code (G4) at the same time as achieving the required external sound
insulation level.
Explanation
Acoustic insulation is required for noise sensitive activities in buildings within the Airport
Environs Precinct to mitigate the potential adverse effects on such uses and to avoid potential
for constraint that such uses can place on airport operations. The ventilation requirement for
bedrooms is to ensure noise attenuation is not compromised if compliance with the
requirements of the Building Code (G4) for natural ventilation is achieved by installing
openable windows. The required airflow level is based on the minimum standard for habitable
spaces set out in NZS 4303: 1990.
(vii) Residential Interfaces
Where the Airport Zone and the Residential Zone and Rural Zone interface the
following noise rules apply in the Airport Zone:
Daytime (7:00am to 7:00pm)
Evening (7:00pm to 10:00pm)
Night-time (10:00pm to 7:00am)
Night-time Lmax
55dBA LAeq(15min)
50dB LAeq(15min)
45dB LAeq(15min)
75dBA Lmax
Explanation
The Airport Zone is intended to accommodate noisy activities and this can result in tensions
forming at interfaces with residential and rural activities. Residents living close to the airport
should not realistically expect a high level of aural amenity with respect to nearby activities.
The noise rules for activities in the Airport Zone that interface with residential activities are in
place to ensure that noise does not become unreasonable or excessive.

R 13.4.6.2 Airport Noise Management Plan
(i)
The Palmerston North Airport Company (or equivalent controlling body)
shall prepare a Noise Management Plan (“the NMP”) relating to the
operation of Palmerston North Airport in consultation with the
Palmerston North City Council and Manawatu District Council.
(ii)
The NMP shall include the following:
(a)
The mechanisms for giving effect to R 13.4.7.1(i).
(b)
Procedures for the establishment and maintenance of a monitoring programme to
demonstrate compliance with R 13.4.7.1(i). The monitoring programme shall be
carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced person and all measurements
shall be in accordance with NZS 6805:1992 Airport Noise Management and Land
126
Use Planning.
(c)
Procedures for reporting the results of monitoring to the respective Councils.
(d)
Procedures for carrying out such mitigation measures as are necessary to ensure
compliance if monitoring indicates that the noise controls are being exceeded.
(e)
Identification and establishment of procedures and systems to:
(iii)
(i)
Facilitate communication between the residents around the Palmerston
North Airport, airport users, Palmerston North Airport Company, and
Palmerston North City Council.
(ii)
Identify key people for communications purposes and methods of contact.
(iii)
Provide a dispute management system to receive, record, deal with and
monitor complaints.
The NMP must be submitted for approval by the Palmerston North City
Council within 12 months of [insert operative date]. All aspects of the
NMP require approval by the Council, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld. Nothing in this rule or any other rule shall detract from
Sections 16 or 17 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (and
subsequent amendments) or the Council’s powers to seek any
enforcement order pursuant to the Act, including an order requiring the
imposition of a curfew, or single event noise controls.
(iv) The NMP shall be reviewed by the Palmerston North City Council and
Palmerston North Airport Limited, with input from the community and
Manawatū District Council at three yearly intervals.
13.4.7 Rules : Airport Protection Surfaces

R 13.4.7.1 Airport Protection Surface
(i)
No structure, building, tree or other object shall impinge within the takeoff climb surfaces or the approach surfaces for the main sealed runway
(known as 07/25), transitional side surfaces or the horizontal and conical
surfaces above the airport (refer Figure 13.1).
(ii)
For the purposes of interpreting (i) above, the following specifications
apply:
(a)
Runway Strip
The runway strip contains the main sealed runway and future extensions for a total length
of 2500 metres. The runway strip is 300 metres wide, which is symmetrically disposed
about the centre line of the main runway. The eastern end extends 7 metres beyond the
end of the main runway. The western end extends 300 metres beyond the future extension
of the main runway.
(b)
Take-off Climb and Approach Surfaces for Main Runway
Take-off climb and approach surfaces extend from each end of the main runway. Each
take-off climb and approach surface is symmetrically disposed about the extended centre
line of the main runway and extends for a horizontal distance of 12.5 kilometres (or for a
slightly shorter distance where the Tararua Ranges rise higher than 30 metres below the
approach surface near its south-eastern extremity, south of the Manawatu River).
The datum elevations for the origins of the take-off climb and approach surfaces at the
127
west end of the runway is 36.9 metres above mean sea level (AMSL), and at the east end
of the runway is 45.5 metres AMSL.
The origins of the approach are 127 metres before the end of the runway strip at the
eastern end and 240 metres before the end of the runway strip at the western end. The
surface elevation increases at a gradient of 2.0 percent (1 in 50) for the full length of the
surface. The sides of the approach surfaces extend outwards from the corners of the
runway strip, each side diverging at the rate of 15 percent (1 in 6.6).
The origins of the take-off climb surfaces coincide with the ends of the runway strip. The
width of the surface at the origin is the width of the runway strip. The take-off climb
surfaces increase in elevation at a gradient of 1.6 percent (1 in 62.5). The sides of the
take-off climb surfaces extend outwards from the origins, each side diverging at the rate of
12.5 percent (1 in 8) until a width of 1.8 kilometres is achieved. The sides then extend
parallel to the extended runway centre line for the remaining length of the surface.
(c)
Transitional Side Surfaces
Transitional side surfaces extend upwards and outwards from the sides of the main
runway strip and from the sides of the approach surfaces at a gradient of 1 in 7 (14.29
percent) extending until it reaches the inner horizontal surface at 90 metres AMSL (refer
Figure 13.1).
(d)
Horizontal and Conical Surfaces
The inner horizontal surface is contained in a horizontal plane above the runway strip and
has its outer limits at a locus of 4,000 metres measured from the periphery of the runway
strip. The inner horizontal surface is at 90 metres AMSL.
The conical surface slopes upwards and outwards from the periphery of the inner
horizontal surface. It extends at a gradient of 1 in 20 (5.0 percent) to reach a maximum
elevation of 195 metres AMSL (refer Figure 13.1).
128
Map 13.1 – Airport Zone Precincts
129
9-68
Map 13.2 – Runway End Protection Areas
9-69
130
Figure 13.1 – Airport Protection Surfaces
9-70
131
Figure 13.2 – Diagram of Surfaces
9-71
132
Section 23: Network Utilities
23. NETWORK UTILITIES
23.1 Introduction
…
Infrastructure and physical resources such as roading and rail networks and airports are
also considered network utilities under the Resource Management Act, however
provisions for these types of networks are set out separately in this Plan – for road and
rail, refer to section 20 – Transportation. For provisions relating to Palmerston North
Airport see section 13.
…
23.7
Rules : Permitted Activities

R 23.7.1 Permitted Activities
Performance ConditionsStandards
(v)
No utilities structure, including masts, shall impinge within the take-off
climb surfaces or the approach surfaces for the main sealed runway
(known as 07/25), transitional side surfaces or the horizontal and conical
surfaces above the airport, as specified in Rule 13.4.7 and Figure 13.1 of
the Airport section of the Plan.
23.12 Rules : Prohibited Activities

R 23.12.1 Prohibited Activities
The following activities are prohibited activities:
(i)
The activities listed in Rule 13.4.5.2 are Prohibited Activities in the
Runway End Protection Areas.
(ii) Any utility structure within the take-off climb surfaces or the
approach surfaces for the main sealed runway (known as 07/25),
transitional side surfaces or the horizontal and conical surfaces
above the airport (refer to Figure 13.1).
(iii) For the purposes of interpreting (ii) above, the specifications set out
in Rule 13.4.7 (ii) (a) to (d) apply.
9-72
133
Explanation
REPAs are provided at the end of each runway strip. These areas are required to be
free of obstructions or activities which could interfere with aeronautical navigational
aids. They are also areas in which statistically there are greater chances of aircraft
related accidents. It is therefore desirable that the public's exposure to such risks be
reduced by limiting the range of activities permitted in the REPAs.
The REPAs comprise fan shaped areas commencing at the ends of the runway
strips as shown in Map 13.2.
While the likelihood of concentrations of people occurring on land within the REPA’s
is low, the consequences of any aircraft accident related effect are potentially of
major impact (refer section 3(f) of the Act). Other activities may attract birds and
increase the risk of bird strike accidents, particularly in take-off / landing operations;
and light sources or smoke, dust, or steam could impair pilot visibility. A balance has
to be struck between the reasonable use of land within the REPA’s and the degree
of risk associated with potentially incompatible activities. Some potentially
incompatible activities already exist and have been recognised. Exclusions have
been provided for reasons of practical necessity, for example the provision of
navigational aids for aircrafts.
9-73
134
Proposed Amendments to Planning Maps as a result of
rezoning
Note: No amendments are proposed to the notified versions of the planning maps as a result
of submissions on PPC15H. The proposed rezoning associated with PPC15H are shown in
Planning Maps 12 and 13 below:
9-74
135
9-75
136
9-76
137
APPENDIX 3: Technical Evidence of Nigel Lloyd – Acoustic Consultant
138
62
IN THE MATTER OF
The Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
Palmerston North City Sectional
Plan Review:
Proposed Plan
Rural Zone
Change 15A&H
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF NIGEL ROBERT LLOYD
Submission 28 – Brian Green Submission
Introduction
1.
My name is Nigel Robert Lloyd. I am an acoustical consultant with Acousafe
Consulting & Engineering Limited, a position I have held for 30 years.
2.
I have a degree in mechanical engineering gained at the University of Wales,
University College Cardiff in 1976.
3.
Prior to my current position, I was employed by the Industrial Acoustics
Company in the UK as an acoustical consultant between 1977 and 1980 and
then spent five years as the Department of Labour noise control engineer in
New Zealand, advising the safety inspectorates on occupational noise
management and control. I have a total of 37 years’ experience as a noise
control engineer/acoustical consultant.
4.
I am a Member of the Acoustical Society of New Zealand and I have completed
a ‘Making Good Decisions’ course.
5.
I have advised PNCC variously on noise matters since 1992 and from 1994
onwards I advised on the District Plan noise issues and reported to District Plan
hearings committees.
In 1995 I assisted PNCC in interpreting the noise
prediction reports prepared by AirPlan in Melbourne on Palmerston North
International Airport (“PNIA”) noise. I visited David Coney at AirPlan in
Melbourne during May of that year to discuss the issues. I advised PNCC up to
and during the District Plan hearing regarding PNIA noise in 1999. I prepared
an affidavit dated 9 October 2013 which opposed the application for a Declaration
by Palmerston North Industrial and Residential Developments Ltd (PNIRDL)
P.O. BOX 14-315 WELLINGTON 6241, TEL 64-4-388 3407
ACOUSAFE CONSULTING & ENGINEERING LTD
139
explaining why the Whakarongo Residential Area should not be within the Air
Noise Control Zones.
6.
I have considered the Airbiz Report dated 10 January 2014 Palmerston North
Airport, Review of Future Aircraft Noise Exposure and my evidence relies on that
report to the extent that the report analyses the future aircraft noise levels and gives
recommendations for the locations of the airnoise contours.
7.
In mid-2011 I was involved in expert conferencing for the Queenstown Airport
Plan Change 35. Plan Change 35 (“PC35”) sought to change the Air Noise
Contours around Queenstown Airport culminating in a hearing before the
Environment Court. I have also recently advised Auckland Council prior to and
during the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearings for the six Auckland
airports. This work is ongoing.
8.
I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ contained
in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. My evidence has been prepared
to comply with that Code and I have not omitted to consider material facts
known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express.
The Scope of My Evidence
9.
I have been instructed to review Submission 28 from Brian Green.
10.
Submission 28 questions whether the noise contours are in the correct location
and in that respect I rely on the evidence of Airbiz.
11.
Submission 28 also seeks that Rule R13.4.5.1 be deleted and replaced with a
discretionary activity rule that enables specific noise effects to be considered in
each case.
12.
Rule R 13.4.5.1 seeks to control the development of noise sensitive activities in
areas where the greatest impact of aircraft noise has been assessed by New
Zealand Standard NZS 6805:1992 – Airport Noise Management and Land Use
Planning. The Air Noise Contour delineates the area closest to the airport
where the noise levels are predicted to exceed 65 dB Ldn.
13.
NZS 6805:1992 recommends that noise sensitive activities should be prohibited
within the Air Noise Contour. There is provision at other airports (such as
Wellington International Airport for example) for new noise sensitive
developments to occur inside the Air Noise Boundary, with appropriate noise
P.O. BOX 14-315 WELLINGTON 6241. TELEPHONE 64-4-388 3407
140
insulation, but this is in circumstances where hundreds of (non insulated)
dwellings already exist in this area. At Palmerston North though there are few
noise sensitive activities within the Air Noise Contour and the introduction of
new developments will significantly increase the relative numbers of people
exposed to high levels of aircraft noise.
14.
There has been a significant investment in providing for a noise buffer around
the Palmerston North Airport to protect the airport from reverse sensitivity noise
issues. Reverse sensitivity issues arise when the community becomes annoyed
at increasing aircraft noise and seeks to curtail operations with restrictions on
operations, such as curfews. Currently the airport can operate on a 24 hour
basis.
15.
I recommend that noise sensitive activities, such as dwellings and motels,
continue to be prohibited inside the 65 dB Ldn Air Noise Contour, in accordance
with the recommendations of NZS 6805:1992 and that this part of Submission
28 is rejected.
16.
Submission 28 also seeks that the rural residential overlay be added to land
within the outer control boundary (55 dB Ldn).
17.
The District Plan does provide for noise insulation of dwellings that are situated
within the outer control boundary to assist with protecting residents inside their
dwellings. However, as with all noise control measures, this insulation cannot
be designed to protect all of the people all of the time. A small percentage of
the population could experience annoyance even with these noise insulation
measures in place. There is also the outdoor amenity issue to contend with.
This outdoor amenity cannot be protected from aircraft noise using acoustical
screening, which is often the case with industry or road traffic noise for
example.
18.
Adding the rural residential overlay to land within the outer control boundary
will allow more people to reside in areas adversely impacted upon by aircraft
noise. This in turn will cause people to complain about the overflying aircraft
activities to and from Palmerston North Airport, resulting in restrictions on
those activities.
19.
The current airport operations generate less noise than is provided for by the
airport noise contours but that is not to say that the airport operations will not
141
increase in the future. People moving to this area would feel disgruntled when
airport noise levels increase.
20.
I recommend therefore that the part of Submission 28 that seeks the inclusion of
the rural residential overlay within the airport noise contours be rejected.
Nigel Lloyd
Acousafe Consulting & Engineering Limited
26 August 2015
142
APPENDIX 4: Technical Evidence of Iain Munro – Aviation Consultant
143
63
IN THE MATTER OF
The Resource Management Act
1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
SECTIONAL PLAN REVIEW:
Proposed Plan Change 15H
Airport Zone
A
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF IAIN ROBERT MURDOCH MUNRO
(FOR PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL)
Appendix 4 Technical Evidence Iain Munro Page 1 of 21
144
15/10/2015
INTRODUCTION
1
My full name is Iain Robert Murdoch Munro. I am General Manager
NZ/Pacific for Airbiz Aviation Strategies Limited (Airbiz), the position I
have held since 2001.
Airbiz is a specialist consultancy group with
offices located in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK that
advises on the planning, safeguarding, design and development of
airports, terminal buildings and aviation facilities; and the business of
airports.
2
My professional qualifications are Bachelor of Engineering (Honours)
(Civil) and Master of Engineering (Civil). Both degrees were awarded
by Canterbury University in Christchurch, in 1974 and 1976
respectively.
3
I have also undertaken specialist airport planning training through an
Airport Planning Procedures Course at Loughborough University in the
UK.
4
In a 40 year professional career, I have been involved for approximately
28 years in the aviation industry providing strategic and business advice
to airports and airlines, undertaking master planning and project
planning of airport infrastructure and terminal facilities for airports, and
in the management of airport operations for airlines.
5
I have been intimately involved with advisory and planning advice at
numerous airports in New Zealand, Australia, the Pacific, Canada,
South Africa, Japan, India, Singapore and Hong Kong. As a result, my
experience includes a strong understanding of business, planning and
operational issues at domestic and international airports, from the
perspectives of both the airport owner/operator and airlines using
airports.
6
I have had extensive involvement with Palmerston North Airport for a
period of more than 10 years including being:
6.1
Project director for the Airbiz team that prepared the 2014 Airport
Master Plan (Master Plan) for Palmerston North Airport Limited
(Airport Company). The Master Plan was prepared to provide a
145
15/10/2015
long term planning framework for the facility and was intended to
act as a guide for future development, allowing the Airport to
grow in a way that is consistent with community goals and
objectives.
6.2
Project director for the Airbiz team that prepared the 2014
Review of Future Aircraft Noise Exposure for the Airport
Company. This review concluded that the future operations are
expected to still be conducted within and compliant with the
boundaries currently set with the Palmerston North City District
Plans.
6.3
Project director in 2010 when Airbiz provided expert advice to
Palmerston North Airport preparing financial models and
assisting with strategy for airline pricing consultations.
6.4
Project director for the Airbiz team that prepared the 2003
Strategic Business Plan for the Airport Company. This plan was
prepared to guide the shareholders and management with
commercial strategies over a 10 year horizon for the growth of
the Airport business and infrastructure. The plan was intended to
be complementary to the 1998 Airport Master Plan, developing
business cases for key capital developments signalled in the
1998 Airport Master Plan.
6.5
Undertaking in 2003 a critical review for the Airport Company of a
separate study examining the feasibility of the establishment of a
multi-modal freight and logistics centre at Palmerston North
Airport or other Palmerston North location.
7
On the basis of this I have a strong appreciation of the master planning
and business planning issues and requirements for Palmerston North
Airport (the Airport).
8
I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses
contained within the current Environment Court Practice Note. I agree
to comply with this Code of Conduct and confirm that the evidence I am
giving is within my area of expertise. I also confirm that I have not
146
15/10/2015
omitted to consider any material facts known to me that might alter or
detract from the opinions that I express.
OUTLINE OF EVIDENCE
9
My statement of evidence will cover:
9.1
The importance of Palmerston North Airport as a strategic asset
and economic development engine;
9.2
Land use controls for noise impacts, including how these are
applied generally in New Zealand, and specifically at Palmerston
North Airport;
9.3
The Review of Future Aircraft Noise Exposure at Palmerston
North Airport, undertaken by Airbiz in 2014;
9.4
Noise exposure contours as airport infrastructure;
9.5
Specific issues raised by a submitter; and
9.6
Land use controls for Runway End Protection Areas
PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT AS A STRATEGIC ASSET AND
ECONOMIC ENABLER
10
Further to the description of my career experience which I provided
earlier in my statement, I am also the director of Airbiz’s Aviation
Business team, which is a specialist disciplinary group across the Airbiz
staff and offices. In this role, I lead and coordinate our advisory work
which tends more towards business and financial.
Within this
workstream, Airbiz provides advice to airports on the broader “Business
of Airports”, considering the integration of and balance between
aeronautical and non-aeronautical aspects of business1.
1
Airport business activities can be split into aeronautical and non-aeronautical streams. An airport
company’s aeronautical income is derived from airfield charges, terminal services charges and airport
development charges – i.e. revenues earned by an airport business as a direct result of the provision of
facilities and services for the facilitation of aircraft, passenger and freight movements. Non-aeronautical
revenue comes from property portfolios, car parking, and retail income – i.e. revenues earned from facilities
and services not directly related to aircraft, passenger and freight facilitation but either benefitting from an
airport location or serving as a value add for airlines, passengers and freight operators.
147
15/10/2015
11
As part of my advisory work, I am often involved in advising on the
development of non-aeronautical business streams on airport land.
Recent examples have been at Wellington Airport as part of recent
master planning, Hamilton Airport for the development of their Titanium
Park business zone, Regina Airport in Saskatchewan Canada, land use
planning for Christchurch Airport and the previously mentioned 2003
Strategic Business Plan for Palmerston North Airport along with other
studies for the Airport.
We also regularly advise airport clients on
investment business cases, utilising a financial enterprise model which
analyses the health of an airport business taking account of revenue
streams from both aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities.
12
Through this work I consider that I have acquired a strong appreciation
of the importance of airports as strategic community assets and the
potential to act as an economic development engine.
13
Airports have moved beyond the role of just being a facilitator of air
travel and trade to becoming economic drivers in their own right.
Modern airports are transport hubs and major centres of employment
for local people, driving regional competiveness and economic
development.
14
In common with other modern airports, Palmerston North Airport is also
a powerful economic enabler for Manawatu-Wanganui region.
The
extent and diversity of business activities at and around an airport are
major factors in the attractiveness of an airport and its ability to function
as a successful economic enabler.
15
Of great significance to the local economy is visitor spending, part of
which is facilitated through aviation. Also of significance is the ability for
people to live and do business in Palmerston North. Strong air links to
the rest of New Zealand and the world through New Zealand’s
international gateways plays a part in attracting and retaining residence
and their businesses.
16
Those tasked with managing an airport have a responsibility to ensure
that the airport is able to perform this role.
148
Land areas should be
15/10/2015
protected for runways, taxiways, terminals and, aprons as a highest
priority, allowing for the ability to grow and to access these areas.
17
New Zealand Airports Association, of which the Airport is a member,
commissioned a study to estimate the economic and social contribution
of New Zealand’s Airports.
This study was completed by Market
Economics Ltd and was completed in December 2013.
The study
concluded that Palmerston North Airport, through the aggregation of its
own activities, its airline customers and tenant businesses, is a
substantial contributor to the city and regional economies, generating
close to 400 jobs2 in 2012 with a gross economic output generated by
the Airport estimated at $70.5 million p.a.
18
The Airport is fulfilling the role not just has a strategically, and hard to
replace piece of transport infrastructure, it is also fulfilling the role of a
regional economic enabler.
19
A major aspect of maintaining and operating a success airport business
to be able to fulfil its strategic and economic role is having a robust and
accepted development strategy. Such a strategy must include a plan
for the airport, the protection of land for future airport development and
operations, and the provision of a noise buffer for the surrounding
community. Provision of a noise buffer is particularly important around
airports because:
19.1 Undesirable levels of noise exposure in the community usually
results in restrictions being placed on the operation of an airport;
19.2 The relocation of aeronautical infrastructure required to relocate
noise exposure is usually fundamentally impractical;
2
Economic and Social Contribution of New Zealand’s Airports, Prepared for NZAA by Market Economics
Limited, 17 December 2013.
The 400 jobs are 400 modified employee counts (MEC). MEC is an indicator which captures both
employees and working proprietors. Market Economics calculates MECs based on Statistics New Zealand
estimates of employee counts (ECs) and working proprietors (WPs). An MEC is a measure or employment
and consists of both ‘Employee count’ and working proprietors. The Employee Count (EC) is a head count
of all salary and wage earners for the reference period. This is mostly employees but can include a small
number of working proprietors (who pay themselves a salary or wage). The employee count is mainly
sourced from the Inland Revenue Department's Employer Monthly Schedule although there are some
enterprises whose employee count is collected by Statistics New Zealand surveys. A working proprietor is
either a sole proprietor or partner who is actively engaged in a business or a shareholder in a limited liability
company actively engaged in its management and classified by the respondent as a working proprietor
consistently across survey periods.
149
15/10/2015
19.3 Stringent requirements must be provided and adhered to for
operations of aircraft as required by the Civil Aviation Authority of
New Zealand; and
19.4 The aviation industry is recognised as having relatively high long
term growth characteristics.
20
Many of the world’s major airports suffer from lack of noise buffer and
inappropriate land use planning. Almost without exception this results
in constraints on operational flexibility, airport capacity and noise
exposure which hamper the economic well-being and quality of life of
the community served by the airport.
21
We do not want this to happen at Palmerston North Airport and so I will
now explain how management of noise impacts is undertaken for
airports in general and specifically Palmerston North Airport.
LAND USE CONTROLS FOR NOISE IMPACTS
22
Aircraft noise is consistently identified as one of the most significant
environmental impacts associated with airport operations.
23
Aircraft noise impacts can be managed by a number of means:
23.1 At the source – through regulation of the noise emissions from
aircraft, and through certification requirements for civil aircraft.
23.2 Noise Abatement – including applying restrictions on aircraft
operations at an airport, by aircraft type, or time of operation,
flight paths and runways used.
23.3 Noise Insulation – by providing acoustic insulation for housing
and other buildings that are exposed to noise in excess of
permitted levels.
23.4 Land Use Planning – by controlling land uses in the vicinity of
airports to those least sensitive to aircraft noise, including
industrial, rural and recreational; and by limiting housing density
in these areas.
150
15/10/2015
24
I will now expand on each of these four points.
Regulation of Aircraft Noise Emissions
25
The regulation of aircraft and their noise output is through local and
international civil aviation regulations. This has included the phasing
out of the noisier jet aircraft or modification to meet the standards.
26
The restriction on noise output of aircraft is the subject of standards set
by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) which is a United
Nations organisation of which New Zealand is an active member.
Under the powers contained in section 22 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990,
the Minister of Transport has delegated to the New Zealand Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA), by Instrument of Delegation dated 31 August
1992, many of functions and powers related to the international
obligations of the Crown in respect of the ICAO and the Convention on
International Civil Aviation signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944.
27
Noise certification by other countries is relied upon. However, military
aircraft are not subject to the ICAO standards.
The standards set
maximum permissible noise levels based upon aircraft characteristics
including type, development date, number and type of engines, and
weight.
They are subject to review in the light of continuing
technological developments towards further noise reductions.
Noise Abatement
28
Noise abatement procedures, where available and appropriate,
necessarily place limitations on the flexibility of aircraft operations, and
are applied where alternative mitigation is not appropriate or possible.
29
Established as a State-Owned Enterprise in 1987, Airways Corporation
of New Zealand Limited (Airways) is responsible for the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic within New Zealand airspace. Like other air
navigation service providers, Airways are regulated by the CAA as well
as ICAO.
30
The CAA, through its Minister and relevant legislation, also influences
the control of air traffic and may require specific noise abatement
151
15/10/2015
procedures to be undertaken as part of an overall noise reduction
strategy. Such measures may include the identification of preferred
runways and flight paths, restrictions on the type of aircraft which may
use particular runways during particular periods of the day and
particular operational procedures relating to the use of engine power
settings and reverse thrust.
Noise Insulation
31
Acoustic insulation may be used for houses located in areas that are
exposed to noise in excess of the permitted level. This approach has
been successfully used in some overseas locations. It is a practical
goal to ensure that the construction of new buildings embody controls
which reduce the noise transmitted to the inside of the building, so
enabling compliance with recognised sleep disturbance levels and
daytime levels. However, it is more difficult to insulate existing houses,
especially older style houses.
32
Some difficulties with acoustic insulation in the context of New Zealand
lifestyle and climate are:

The outside noise environment remains high;

The installation of fresh air system may be required for effective
ventilation since windows must be kept closed to achieve
maximum sound attenuation.
33
As noted in the Australian Standard "Acoustics – Aircraft noise intrusion
– Building siting and construction" AS 2021-2015 §3.3:
".. In general, this will require that external windows and doors be kept
closed, since if these are opened for ventilation purposes the aircraft
noise reduction of the building envelope will be significantly reduced. If
it is necessary to close windows and doors to comply with this
Standard, building ventilation should be in accordance with the Building
Code of Australia on the assumption that windows and doors are not
openable. Mechanical ventilation or air-conditioning systems complying
with AS 1668.2 should be installed."
152
15/10/2015
34
Properly applied building insulation can provide a partial “cure” in
reducing the indoor but not outside noise levels from aircraft overflights.
However. Where economically and socially viable, “prevention” through
appropriate land use controls is to be preferred.
Land Use Planning
35
Appropriate land use planning is, in my view, the most effective means
of management and mitigation of noise impacts, for both the community
and the airport.
This necessarily involves placing appropriate
restrictions on land use in noise affected areas in the vicinity of airports.
36
In areas immediately around an airport, and particularly under the flight
paths on the extended centrelines of the runways, aircraft noise impacts
are greatest and industrial land use is recommended; and residential
and other noise sensitive usages are excluded. Further away from the
airport operational areas, land use controls may become less stringent.
37
Controls on land use in the vicinity of airports and the associated
standards and legislative controls have the complementary goals of:

Protecting residents from the negative noise impacts of airport
aircraft operations; and

Protecting the airport as a community transport and economic
asset from noise complaints and pressures to restrict aircraft
operations.
38
Where there are no conflicting land uses (i.e. there is plenty of land
available for community requirements not in the vicinity of the airport),
then a suitably sized buffer area may be provided.
39
However, where land suitable for the required uses (whether residential
or other) is a scarce resource, then there may be competition between
land for development and land required as a “buffer” for protection of
the community from aircraft noise; and the protection of the airport from
complaints and pressure for restriction on operations.
Therefore,
satisfying competing demands for buffers and community land uses
requires a balanced approach.
Appendix 4 Technical Evidence Iain MunroPage 10 of 21
153
15/10/2015
LAND USE CONTROLS FOR AIRPORTS IN NEW ZEALAND
40
The New Zealand Standard, Airport Noise Management and Land Use
Planning, NZS 6805:1992, provides recommendations and guidelines
for planning authorities for the management and mitigation of noise
impacts in the vicinity of airports.
41
NZS6805 establishes “maximum levels of aircraft noise exposure
around airports for the protection of community health and amenity
values whilst recognising the need to operate an airport efficiently”.
42
The Standard also provides guidance to territorial authorities on the
inclusion of appropriate land use controls near airports within district
plans.
43
Arising from the application of the Standard, it is established practice in
New Zealand that territorial authorities publish in their district plans
rules covering land use controls in the vicinity of airports. Typically
there are two control lines published in district plans, being the Air
Noise Boundary (ANB) and the Outer Control Boundary (OCB),
although for some airports there are other more specific land use
control boundaries identified.
44
The OCB is usually set to in correspondence to a long term future view
of noise exposure at a level of 55 Ldn3 while the ANB is set at a higher
noise exposure level of 65 Ldn.
45
NZS6805 recommends that the following land use controls occur inside
the ANB:
45.1 New residential, schools, hospitals or other noise sensitive uses
are prohibited;
45.2 Steps shall be taken to provide existing residential properties with
appropriate acoustic insulation to ensure a satisfactory internal
noise environment;
3
The term Ldn refers to Day/Night Level, and is the time-average sound level in decibels over a
three month period, with a penalty weighting for noise at night time.
154
15/10/2015
45.3 Alterations or additions to existing residencies or other noise
sensitive uses shall be permitted only if fitted with appropriate
acoustic insulation.
46
NZS6805 recommends that the following land use controls occur inside
the OCB:
46.1 New residential, schools, hospitals or other noise sensitive uses
are prohibited.
46.2 Steps shall be taken to provide existing residential properties with
appropriate acoustic insulation to ensure a satisfactory internal
noise environment.
46.3 Alterations or additions to existing residences or other noise
sensitive uses shall be permitted only if fitted with appropriate
acoustic insulation.
LAND USE CONTROLS FOR NOISE AT PALMERSTON NORTH AIRPORT
47
The Palmerston North City District Plan4 publishes objectives and land
use control limits for Palmerston North Airport following established
New Zealand practice and generally in accordance with NZS6805:1992
to ensure any noise impacts on the community from aircraft arrivals and
departures are within appropriate and tolerable limits.
48
Objective 6 of the District Plan is "To avoid, remedy or mitigate the
adverse effects of aircraft noise on noise sensitive activities in the
vicinity of the Palmerston North Airport."
49
Objective 7 is "To avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse
effects of noise sensitive activities in the vicinity of Palmerston North
Airport on efficient airport operations." This refers to the avoidance of
reverse sensitivity effects.
50
Map 10.7.6.3 of the District Plan shows an Outer Control Zone (which at
55 Ldn corresponds to the OCB; an Inner Control Zone (60 Ldn); and
4
Operative December 2000
155
15/10/2015
an Air Noise Zone (at 65 Ldn corresponding to the ANB) (refer
Annexure A).
51
Various Rules of the District Plan define what are Complying,
Discretionary, Non-Complying or Prohibited Activities within the Outer,
Inner and Air Noise Zones.
REVIEW OF FUTURE AIRCRAFT NOISE EXPOSURE AT PALMERSTON
NORTH AIRPORT, 2014, BY AIRBIZ
52
It is standard practice at commercial airports around the world for
airports or agencies to make regular assessments of what future noise
levels might be as a result of air traffic evolution in terms of the number
and type of aircraft, and changes to flight paths.
53
Periodically, Palmerston North Airport reassesses what noise exposure
might be in the future, to monitor current noise exposure and to ensure
that operations at the airport continue to comply with the noise
exposure limits of the ANB and OCB, and thereby continue to comply
with the District Plan.
54
During 2013-14 Airbiz, under my direction, undertook such a review and
the approach and findings of that work are set out in the report that we
prepared for the Airport, entitled Review of Future Aircraft Noise
Exposure at Palmerston North Airport (refer Annexure B).
55
The review has taken into account expected future levels of aircraft
operations and aircraft types, including fixed wing and helicopters, as
best we can predict at this time. It has also been based on the aircraft
flight tracks in the vicinity of the airport as we know them to be operated
today.
56
The key conclusions from that review work are that the Airport does
currently and will likely continue to comply with the District Plan controls
for the next two to three decades.
57
I would like to be very clear just what our review work was, and what it
wasn’t.
156
15/10/2015
58
Our review work generated a singular view of possible aircraft noise
exposure based on a singular forecast of future air traffic, attributed to a
singular year in the future. And then the purpose of the review was to
ask the question – “how would that singular view of the future comply
with the District Plan?” And we were able to answer with – “we expect
that it will comply”.
59
Conversely, the review was definitely not an exercise to justify a change
to or reduction of the District Plan noise control contours.
60
Yes, our review indicated that a singular view of the future should
comply with the District Plan.
61
But I can almost guarantee that the future will evolve differently than
that singular view of activity in that singular future year. Activity growth
at the Airport won’t stop at that particular future year. The aircraft mix
will evolve somewhat differently than our scenario. Aircraft flight tracks
may change over time.
NOISE EXPOSURE CONTOURS AS AIRPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
62
The protection the Palmerston North District Plan noise exposure
contours provides is a key piece of airport infrastructure that supports
the Airport’s ability to provide flexibility and capacity for changes in
aircraft and airspace operation, long term future growth beyond current
generations and other unforeseen changes.
63
For example, it is possible that flight tracks may change in the near to
medium term future as an outcome of a nationwide rollout of
Performance
5
Based
Navigation
(PBN)
procedures
by
Airways
6
Corporation and airlines .
5
Airways is the Air Navigation Service Provider in New Zealand
6
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) is a term used to describe the broad range of technologies and
procedures that involves a major shift from conventional ground-based navigation aids and procedures to
satellite‐ based navigation aids and area navigation procedures. These are more accurate and allow for
shorter, more direct flight routes between given points as well as more efficient take-offs and landings. This
potentially reduces aircraft fuel burn, airport and airspace congestion, and aircraft emissions. Under PBN,
aircraft can be expected to fly more closely and predictably along predetermined flight paths, both laterally
and in altitude.
157
15/10/2015
64
Planning for PBN procedures at Palmerston North Airport has
commenced and is also expected to be implemented within a year or
so.
The work is in its early stages of identifying issues and
opportunities, such as possible increased capacity, efficiency, reduced
noise/and emissions, as well as reduced complexity in the airspace and
improved safety. It is premature to point to possible outcomes but it
could be anticipated that there may be changes to flight tracks in the
Palmerston North airspace to save airborne time and fuel.
65
Future changes to flight tracks under PBN are complex considerations
and in addition to the location of tracks the considerations could also
involve changes to:
66

Usage of flight tracks (volume, aircraft types, time of day etc.);

Spread of activity around the flight tracks;

Aircraft descent profiles; and

Engine thrust levels.
Any changes should ideally be made in ways that achieve desired
outcomes for airlines and Airways while continuing to comply with
existing District Plan noise zone contours.
67
There may also be opportunities for flight track changes as a result of
PBN which could, in part, seek to improve the current noise situation, to
reduce noise exposure in more sensitive areas, principally over
urbanised residential areas. Whichever way the planning proceeds,
there remains a period of uncertainty until the PBN planning is resolved.
68
However, during this planning period, the Airport will need to continue
to work closely with the PBN working groups to review the noise
exposure implications of various flight track options as they emerge,
providing feedback to Airways, airlines and the Council.
69
Changes to airport operations could also be brought about for other
reasons such as the introduction of new routes or new aircraft types.
The ability for the Airport to respond to changes in aircraft and airspace
operation is contingent on the Airport’s infrastructure, including the
158
15/10/2015
Palmerston North District Plan noise exposure contours, providing the
flexibility and capacity for change.
70
In our roles as today’s custodians of this strategic airport asset we
have, in my opinion, a duty of care to do our best to protect it for future
generations.
71
Just because the Airport is likely to continue to comply with the current
District Plan controls based on our best current view of the future, and
by that I mean is not likely to exceed the noise contours, is not a sound
reason to change the contours and controls; and particularly not to
reduce the extent of the contours upon which the current land use
controls are delineated.
72
The current District Plan noise zone contours and land use controls
should be maintained. They have provided consistent guidelines for
land use planning controls for a long period since instituted, serving
their intended purpose in an optimal manner as intended, protecting the
amenity of residents from adverse effects of aircraft noise, while
allowing airport operations the flexibility to grow over time and to adapt
as required, controlling and avoiding reverse sensitivity7 effects from
encroachment of new noise sensitive activities.
73
In my opinion, it would not be prudent at this time for changes to be
made to the District Plan zones relating to air noise; or to permit
increased levels of noise sensitive land use activities within the Zones
which are likely to induce reverse sensitivity effects on airport
operations, or themselves be sensitive to and affected by aircraft noise.
74
Further, NZS6805:1992 states8 "This Standard shall not be used as a
mechanism for downgrading existing or future noise controls designed
to ensure a high standard of environmental health and amenity values".
7
Reverse sensitivity refers to the vulnerability of an established activity (e.g. an airport) to objection from
new sensitive land uses located nearby.
8
Clause 1.1.4
159
15/10/2015
SPECIFIC ISSUE RAISED BY A SUBMITTER
75
Submission 28 states that in reference to the Airbiz Review of Future
Noise Exposure “our assessment of the modelling assumptions is that
in some areas they are inaccurate and inappropriate. For example the
modelling provides for a nightime international freight service 3 days a
week. As night time jet movements are given extra weighting because
of potential noise effect the aircraft choice is crucial to the accuracy of
the modelling,. Even if the airport is able to establish an international
freight service it is highly unlikely that it will use a Boeing 767 as far out
as 2047.”
76
I have interpreted that the concern of this submitter is that the
Boeing 767-300 type is unlikely to still be operating “as far out as
2047” and is therefore an inappropriate modelling assumption.
77
In response, I will say that I agree that the Boeing 767-300 type is
unlikely to still be regularly operating “as far out as 2047”. However,
at this time, this aircraft type is the most appropriate one currently in
use to use as a proxy in the modelling for other aircraft types not yet
designed or in service that might conceivably be used as freight
aircraft many years in the future, which would not be expected to be
noisier than the Boeing 767-300.
LAND USE CONTROLS FOR RUNWAY END PROTECTION AREAS
78
I will now comment on another aspect of land use control in addition to
controls to manage noise impacts.
79
The Palmerston North City Council (the Council) and the Airport are
proposing to define and apply land use controls within areas beyond
each end of the main runway within which statistically there are greater
chances of aircraft related accidents. These areas are referred to as
Runway End Protection Areas (REPAs).
80
A REPA is an area defined at each end of a runway where certain land
use controls should be established to protect the public (that is people
and property on the ground beyond the end of a runway) from the risk
160
15/10/2015
of an accident or incident of an aircraft undershooting or overshooting a
runway.
81
Land uses recommended to be permitted under REPAs should be
activities that do not attract the assembly of a large number of people
although this is not intended to be prohibition of the presence of
persons or property within such an area.
82
A number of national aviation authorities9 have specific regulations for
REPAs or the equivalent. Of most relevance to this hearing are the
United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for
what that agency terms Runway Protection Zones (RPZ)10. The FAA
has its regulation for airports on the expectation that the land under
their RPZ will be located completely within airport boundaries and
therefore the application of land use controls is expected to be fully
within the auspices of the airport owner or authority.
83
There are no equivalent aviation regulations for REPAs in New
Zealand.
It is my understanding that the primary reason for this
situation is that much of the land that REPAs would be located on lies
outside airport boundaries at many airports and that controls on land
uses in those circumstances would be outside the jurisdiction of the
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand which regulates aviation
operations and airport design.
84
The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand does, however, encourage
local authorities in New Zealand “to protect aerodromes in their areas to
ensure the long term sustainability of the aerodrome, the safety of the
aircraft operations, and the safety of persons and property.” 11
85
When carrying out master planning for our airport clients in New
Zealand, Airbiz invariably recommends that airports plan for and work
9
Federal Aviation Administration (USA), Department for Transport (UK), Queensland
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (Australia), Ministry of Transport
(Netherlands)
10
FAA – Airport Design (AC 150/5300-13)
11
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, Guidance Material for Land Use at or near
Aerodromes, June 2008
161
15/10/2015
towards the implementation (with territorial authorities) of appropriate
land use controls in REPAs.
86
It is my understanding that Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North,
Christchurch, Nelson and Invercargill show REPAs in their Master Plans
and have established land use controls in place or are working towards
that.
Like in Palmerston North, the REPA extends beyond the
boundary of Airport Company owned land at these airports.
87
In the absence of any New Zealand regulation for REPAs, the Airport
Company has adopted the equivalent FAA provisions for the
application, dimensions and land use controls for the US RPZ.
88
In our advice to airports in respect of REPAs we at Airbiz usually
recommend the use of FAA provisions on the basis that they are well
documented, easy to understand and intuitive insofar as they have
similar shape and dimensions to the trapezoidal approach and
departure fans that form part of the obstacle limitation surfaces at each
end of a runway.
89
In profile the FAA RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and is centred on the
extended runway centreline at each end of a runway. RPZ dimensions
are a function of the approach speed of aircraft using the runway and
the approach visibility minimum distance associated with the end of a
runway.
90
For example, the FAA RPZ is specified to be 750m long, and 300 to
525m wide, for a runway serving aircraft with approach speeds more
than 121 knots operating a precision approach with navigation aids
permitting landing visibility distances of 1200m or less.
In terms of
approach speed, this would normally apply for jet passenger aircraft
although some turboprop aircraft may approach at speeds in the order
of 121 knots.
91
The FAA RPZ specifications allow for smaller dimensions – 510m long,
and 300 to 453m wide - for a runway serving aircraft with approach
speeds less than 121 knots arriving at a non-precision approach
runway with minimum landing visibility distances greater than 1200m.
162
15/10/2015
In terms of approach speed, this would normally apply for most
turboprop passenger aircraft.
92
In the case of Palmerston North Airport the REPAs that are proposed to
be established at each end of the main Runway 07/25 are the larger
size recommended by FAA, being a trapezoid of 750m length, starting
from a base width of 300m at the end of the runway strip and expanding
to a width of 525m at the furthest extent of the REPA.
93
The rationale for selecting this larger set of dimensions for application
at the Airport is to provide long term land use protection allowing for the
realistic possibility of future operations by jet passenger aircraft (i.e.
approach speeds greater than 121 knots) and the possibility of the
future adoption of precision approach landing distance minima (i.e.
1200m or less, as a result of the application of enhanced navigation
aids). This is shown in Figure 1.
REPA
Figure 1
94
REPA Dimensions
A further requirement is that the location for the western REPA is based
on the extended length of the runway strip based on a future 2,790m
length for the runway.
95
We have also recommended that the District Plan should follow the
FAA guidelines in respect of permissible land uses within the REPA, as
follows:

Golf courses (not club houses);

Agricultural operations (other than forestry or livestock);
163
15/10/2015
96

Plant and machinery buildings;

Low occupancy warehousing;

Car parking.
Further, we have recommended that the District Plan should also follow
FAA guidelines by discouraging, avoiding or prohibiting activities that
may attract the assembly of large number of people or that have the
potential to be highly hazardous in the event of an incident involving an
aircraft, such as:

Residences and public places of assembly (churches, schools,
hospitals, office buildings, shopping malls etc.);

Playgrounds, sports grounds;

Fuel storage facilities.
Dated: 16 September 2015
Iain Munro
164
15/10/2015
APPENDIX 5: Technical Evidence of Mark Tansley – Retail and Office Consultant
165
64
IN THE MATTER
of the Resource Management Act
1991
AND
IN THE MATTER
of proposed Change Nº 15H to the
Palmerston North City District Plan
_____________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY MARK GAUNTLETT TANSLEY
IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE
_____________________________________________________________________
1.0.0
INTRODUCTION, EXPERIENCE & APPROACH
1.0.1
My name is Mark Gauntlett Tansley and I am a Statistical and Retailing Consultant,
based in Auckland. I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert
Witnesses in the Environment Court (Consolidated Practice Note 2011).
I agree to
comply with that Code in giving evidence to this hearing.
I have prepared this
statement to meet my obligations under section 5.7.1(b) of the Practice Note. Except
where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person, my
evidence in this statement is within my area of expertise.
I have not omitted to
consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions
which I express. I understand that it is my duty to assist the Hearing Committee on
relevant matters within my area of expertise and that I am not an advocate for the
Council.
1.0.2
I am a Registered Property Consultant and the sole proprietor and director of
Marketplace New Zealand Limited, a consultancy providing advice, information and
evidence on growth and demographics, retail planning and related resource
management matters.
1.0.3
I have forty-nine years' professional experience, throughout New Zealand, and have
been called as an expert witness for forty-four of those. I have been directly involved
in the drafting or amending of district plans over many years, notably so in this City.
In addition, I advise a number of property developers, investors and retailers.
1.0.4
I also advise Christchurch International Airport Limited ("CIAL") concerning
commercial / distributional matters. One such that is relevant to Plan Change ("PC")
Nº 15H was a non-ancillary office development proposal for ANZCO Foods' head office,
involving 2,000m² of gross floor area. Proposed provisions for non-ancillary offices at
Palmerston North Airport are at issue in this hearing. I have prepared Appendix One
to summarise salient points and shall refer to it in part 2.0.0 of this statement.
166
1.0.5
Appendix Two summarises my involvement, since 2002, in assisting Council's planning
team on relevant resource management matters. In addition to those set out, I have
reviewed a number of development proposals referred to me by Council.
1.0.6
I do not propose to refer directly to Appendix One, beyond pointing out that my first
(and most important) job concerned the preparation of a Retail Strategy for the City.
I have quoted from that document in paragraph 4 of the Appendix and commented
upon its thrust in paragraph 5.
1.0.7
I was asked by Council to participate in the review of the Airport Zone in September
2012, with the project then allocated the title of Plan Change ("PC") Nº 12.
My
involvement in what subsequently became PC15H, has essentially revolved around
ensuring that its provisions integrate in a consistent manner with the Objectives,
Policies and Rules for the City's Business zones, as well as those provisions adopted
for the Industrial and Institutional Zones. The history of PC15H is incorporated in Mr
Duindam's evidence. I have confined my evidence to a discussion of distributional
issues within the Change as it is currently drafted and discussed in Mr Duindam's
Section 4.
2.0.0
NON-ANCILLARY OFFICES
2.0.1
Non-ancillary offices are permitted in all Business Zones in the City, but not in the
Industrial Zone. The extent, range and intensity of locations in the Business Zones
provide variety and choice for the developers and occupants of office buildings. The
issue of provision for such offices in the Airport Zone has been approached from that
context.
2.1.0
The CIAL / ANZCO Proposal
2.1.1
The Christchurch matter which I raised in paragraph 1.0.4 and described in Appendix
One ran concurrently with the development and processing of PC15H and in my view,
provides some insights into the pros and cons.
Christchurch's recently reviewed
Special Purpose Airport Zone ("SPAZ") had rendered any kind of non-ancillary office
non-complying, yet a consent was obtained. This suggests to me that a blanket noncomplying status was not the most appropriate for all Airport offices.
2.1.2
My view is that the consent was obtained for these primary reasons:
(a)
ANZCO is a very diverse meat export company, with no previous occupancy of
space in Christchurch CBD or its commercial centre network.
(b)
The nature of its head office operation called for a significant amount of air
travel, by both staff and visitors.
(c)
The consolidation of head office from several non-centre locations to one noncentre location raised no issue of adverse effect on the CBD or other centres.
(d)
The particular nature of the business minimised the prospect that consent would
set an undesirable precedent.
Page | 2
167
2.1.3
With the benefit of hindsight, one could therefore say that had a discretionary
provision been made in the SPAZ for particular types of office, with criteria such as are
exemplified above, the outcome would have been the same, but likely with less
aversion from the consent authority.
2.2.0
The Approach of PC15H : R 13.4.2.6
2.2.1
The proposed rule seeks to replicate the kinds of circumstance that led to consent for
the ANZCO office, by requiring information about the nature and degree of association
with the Airport, identified in the Assessment Criteria:
•
Whether the proposed office activity would result in an economic benefit to the City by
locating in the Airport Zone rather than in a Business Zone.
•
Whether there are particular reasons, for example relating to the strategic benefits to the
City, why the office activity is better located in the Airport Zone rather than in a Business
Zone.
•
The extent to which the proposed office activity will contribute to the effective and efficient
operation and use of the physical resources of the Airport Zone, for example, through direct
business connections with its other activities.
•
The extent to which the proposed office activity has business connections with the wider
regional or national area, rather than with the City.
•
The extent to which the proposed office activity requires airfreight access or air travel for its
staff and visitors.
•
Whether the establishment of the proposed office activity will undermine the viability and
vitality of the City Centre.
•
Whether the granting of consent for the proposed office activity could establish a broad
precedent.
The Determination Clause is quite clear that consent may be withheld as a
consequence of this assessment.
2.2.2
I support the foregoing approach, for the following reasons:
(a)
It avoids any provision for offices as a permitted activity and excludes the vast
bulk of office activities, which have no "particular Airport association".
(b)
It places a "burden of proof" of association on the applicant, presumably
Palmerston North Airport Ltd ("PNAL") or its intended occupant.
(c)
Precedent concerns associated with consent should be allayed, because of the
specific criterion proposed.
3.0.0
THE RETAIL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL THRESHOLDS
3.0.1
The Rule provisions for retailing and similar commercial activities reflect the following
approach.
3.1.0
The Terminal
3.1.1
A distinction is drawn between the Airport Terminal and the rest of the Airport Zone.
The purpose of the Terminal is to facilitate passenger travel and that is its dominant
Page | 3
168
3.1.2
function.
No stipulations concerning the size or type of commercial functions have
been imposed, as the Terminal's dominant function determines what activities can
feasibly be sustained.
Conversely, if they are sustained, it is because the demand
generated by Terminal users (and to a much lesser extent its labour force) is sufficient
to support them.
A further factor, also reflective of the Terminal's dominant function, is that it is, for
practical purposes, a domestic flight facility, with only brief pre-boarding delays for
most users.
This is a prime reason why its current and foreseeable commercial
activities are limited in scope and extent. As or when that situation changes, the Plan
as proposed by PC15H would enable more commercial activity to establish.
3.1.3
There is therefore, no reason for the Plan to intervene, especially as passengers,
greeters, farewellers and workers are residents in, or visitors to, all parts of the City
and Region. There is no possible impact on any one centre, or on Business Zones as
a whole, should they purchase a good or service in the Airport Terminal.
3.2.0
Non-Terminal Commercial Activities
3.2.1
The approach of PC15H is to exclude vehicle hire outlets from threshold controls, as
they are an integral and essential component of the transportation hub. Such outlets
are not separately identified as a commercial service activity in the Plan's Definition
they are caught by its generality. To avoid any subsequent confusion, they are for
practical purposes, proposed to be permitted in both Precincts.
Whilst small inTerminal Rental Car counters are a familiar site, logistics require that back-up activity
areas (for between-hire cleaning, simple maintenance, preparation and storage of
vehicles, plus some office and staff facilities) be located conveniently nearby. Nonincumbent operators seeking to newly establish at the Airport may not be able to be
accommodated in the Terminal, in which case they would probably seek to combine a
sales office with what I have termed above as "back-up" activities, as close as possible
to the Terminal.
PC15H would enable such to occur and there is no conceivable
reason why it should not be provided for.
3.2.2
Retailers, restaurants, takeaway bars, licenced premises and commercial service
outlets (other than vehicle hire activities) are proposed to be subject to individual
activity thresholds of 100m² gfa in the core Airport precinct (excluding the Terminal)
and 300m² gfa in the Airport Environs Precinct.
The difference in approach is
deliberate, as outlined below.
3.3.0
Core Airport Precinct
3.3.1
The Core Precinct contains the Terminal, as well as the airfield, so is considered a
scarcer, or more critical resource, than is the Environs Precinct.
Given also that
commercial thresholds are not proposed in the Terminal(s), I believe that thresholds
outside the latter should be complementary, with constrained opportunity. A 100m²
threshold precludes only commercial activities in excess of that cap, but in a sense,
makes it harder to establish individually or collectively, which is its purpose.
3.4.0
Airport Environs Precinct
3.4.1
300m² gfa was proposed by me as an appropriate threshold in this Precinct.
The
100m² cap would not accommodate a drive-in fast food outlet, or a sportsbar-tavernbistro operation or a convenience store with a superette-style range of groceries and
Page | 4
169
foodstuffs.
I consider the first example to be a realistic prospect and the one
potentially requiring most space. I researched the gfa of such stores and reached the
view that a 300m² cap would be appropriate in the Airport context. I do not consider
that any other commercial activity (which could include a bank, being a commercial
service) would be likely to approach 300m² gfa, but consider that cap to be an
appropriate one to not disbar commercial activities over 100m².
However, as a
safeguard, an overall gfa cap was considered appropriate, in light of the Objectives
and Policies.
3.4.2
My initial choice of an overall threshold was 1,500m².
With unlimited commercial
activities in the Terminal building(s), no overall cap elsewhere in the Core Precinct and
1,500sqm in the Environs Precinct, the Permitted potential for retailing, prepared food
and beverages and commercial services would be well over 2,000sqm, excluding trade
suppliers and vehicle hire activities. Although the threshold is only equivalent to five
activities at the individual maximum of 300m², my view is that few would be likely to
even approach that level. In any event, were that not the case, only a small number
of individual businesses could be accommodated in the Environs Precinct.
3.4.3
I see little prospect of 1,500m² of commercial shop-style premises being developed
and occupied on the Environs Precinct in the next ten years. However, in conjunction
with the individual activity cap of 300m², an overall threshold eliminates the possibility
of a small de facto centre based on an anchor store (which would have to be much
larger than the maximum permitted individual threshold) or a combination of
"themed" retail outlets of between 200m² and 300m². By "themed", I mean such as
factory outlets / outlet stores. In any event, I consider that the overall cap is not
going to be taken up solely by retail stores, as prepared food and beverage outlets
(restaurants, takeaways and licensed premises) and commercial services
(hairdressers, banks, drycleaners and travel booking firms, among others) would
thereby be denied access to the Precinct.
3.4.4
In the course of pre-hearing discussions, PNAL indicated that it was seeking an
Environs Precinct overall commercial threshold in excess of 1,500m². In my opinion,
in light of the opening passages of paragraph 3.4.2, such would elevate the Airport's
potential retail, prepared food and beverage and commercial services potential toward
or over 3,000m² gfa, which I consider excessive. It would not preclude a material de
facto centre establishing and would enable a stronger Airport retail focus, without
unduly cramping the opportunities for commercial services, restaurants, bars and
takeaway outlets.
3.4.5
Under the present rules, the balance of commercial activity as between the Environs
and Core Precincts is not fixed, with the Core able (subject to practicalities) to
accommodate any such traders in premises no greater than 100m² gfa. This does not
affect the Environs threshold and therefore provides PNAL with some added potential
flexibility.
4.0.0
CONCLUSIONS
4.0.1
I am therefore satisfied that the commercial thresholds proposed through PC15H do
not arbitrarily constrain PNAL from appropriately managing and developing its
property, whilst giving effect to Objectives 1 and 2 and to Policies 1.1, implicitly 1.2,
2.2, 2.3 and 2.5.
Page | 5
170
4.0.2
Reverting to non-ancillary offices, I consider that the provisions provide a pathway for
PNAL to accommodate exceptional office activities, consistent with the same
Objectives noted in the above paragraph and Policies 1.1, 1.2, 2.2 and 2.5.
4.0.3
I therefore support PC15H in the foregoing respects.
MARK G TANSLEY
13 October 2015
Page | 6
171
APPENDIX ONE : APPLICATION FOR A NON-ANCILLARY OFFICE AT
CHRISTCHURCH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ("CIAL")
1
In mid-2014, the author was asked by CIAL to consider, and, if in agreement, to support
an application for a 2,000m² gfa office building on the Special Purpose Airport Zone
("SPAZ"). The intended occupier was ANZCO Foods Ltd, seeking to consolidate its head
office labour force, foreseeably around 100 strong, in one building.
Salient resource
management issues were that non-ancillary offices were classified as non-complying on the
SPAZ, while the proposed Christchurch City Replacement Plan proposes Objectives and
Policies that direct non-ancillary offices to the CBD or to the City's suburban centre
network, especially centres identified as Key Activity Centres ("KACs") in a strategic sense.
2
The author's first report, in October 2014, considered employment trends spanning the
City's main earthquake events. It included the following passages:
3.1.0 ANZCO Classification
3.1.1 The ANZCO web-site describes the Company as:
"one of New Zealand's largest export companies which procures, processes and markets
New Zealand beef and lamb products to the world".
(emphasis added)
3.1.2 The Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification ("ANZSIC") adopted by
Statistics NZ distinguishes elements of the food chain by industry divisions as identified below:
A01
Beef cattle and sheep farming are agricultural activities (ie primary industries).
the ANZCO web-site, the company procures product from this industry.
Based on
C11
Meat and meat product processing, specifically including abattoir operation and meat
packing and freezing (among other similar businesses) are food manu-facturing activities
(ie secondary industries).
F36
Meat and meat product wholesaling, fresh or frozen, is a subset of grocery wholesaling, it
includes import / export merchants and is a tertiary industry.
3.1.3 The ANZCO operation clearly falls in part into industry category C11 and partly into F36. Its
minor role in supplying retail butcheries in other NZ locations is subsumed into its wholesale
function.
The proposed office has no direct relationship with either the CBD or the KAC
network.
Such centres have varying complementary roles servicing and interacting with
households and businesses in Christchurch and, to a reducing extent, the Canterbury Region.
ANZCO has no such role.
3.1.4 On the other hand, the other services described as "office-orientated" in Tables 1 and 2 directly
service the greater Christchurch community and to varying extents, deal directly with its
residents.
All fall into other ANZSIC tertiary industry categories, used in the census data.
Every CBD or sub-regional centre in the country and every mature KAC in Christchurch has a
range of office-orientated services, materially populated by the same brands or banners,
because these activities are required by all communities, just as are retailing and prepared food
and beverage services.
3.2.0 Conclusions
3.2.1 In respect of the Central City and suburban KACs, it would be inappropriate, in the author's
opinion, to decline consent on the possible ground that this would deprive the CBD or such
centres of a potential activity. Whilst the proposed development would result in an office, it is
not inherently an office-orientated activity.
The office sits atop a pyramid of procurement,
processing and wholesale activities, conducted in various parts of New Zealand, whilst marketed
internationally. Christchurch is its preferred national office location. There will only be one.
3.2.2 At its most simple level, the proposal's relocation of 80 or so employees from the Rest of the
City to Yaldhurst area unit, in the context of the 175,000-plus effective jobs likely to be located
in these areas by say 2016, is infinitesimal.
Page | 7
172
3.2.3 Insofar as the Airport Zone is concerned, the non-compliance would represent a very minor
element of its diverse business base and of its land holding.
Apart from those stated
generalities, this report does not address Zone-specific issues.
3
Council's economic consultant did not fundamentally disagree with the underlying analysis
on which the above passages were based.
However, he flagged that the precedent effect
of a consent pointed to a pool of 485 "office-orientated" businesses, employing 20 or more
persons, as at February 2014, who might seek to leverage the consent. The opportunity
was provided for a response to that assertion, duly contained within the author's report
dated May 2015. The author's response included these passages, necessarily excluding
detail to focus on the outcomes:
3.6
Covec's asserted 485 potential precedent-creating Geographic Units represent 25% of the City's
The Covec Report does not
1,912 Units in the three 20 Plus Employee Count categories.
explain how this assessment has been made. It is more than double the complement of the 20
Plus Units in the first two lines of Table 2 (232). Within the 50-99 Employment Count group,
there are only 39 such units, 19 of them classed as within the Wholesale Trade, ANZCO's
category.
3.7
Given the Table 2 data, I consider the 485 potential candidates to be a gross over-estimation of
office-seeking activities which could expect to rely on precedent, if the ANZCO proposal were
consented, for reasons summarised below:
[sub-paragraphs 1-6 excluded]
4
3.8
For the reasons set out in the previous paragraph, I consider that if a "probability filter" were
overlaid on Table 2, to identify potential candidate businesses which could claim precedent
following upon a favourable ANZCO decision, it would eliminate virtually all theoretical
candidates in and south of the Agriculture etc Industry line in Table 2 and significantly cull those
above it.
3.9
I consider the theoretical candidate base to be around 10 from the 20-49 Employee Count
group (totalling 1,276) also from the 50-99 Employee Count group (totalling 381) and 3 from
the 100 Plus group (totalling 255), say 25 in total.
Some of those may well have very
legitimate reasons to seek to locate within the Airport Zone, in which case precedent
implications would be more or less irrelevant.
4.0
CONCLUSION
4.1
I therefore consider that the potential pool of 2014 Christchurch businesses who might be
encouraged to rely in part on precedent in seeking to establish in the Airport Zone is 25, of
whom up to 10 could realistically have a valid case for so doing, irrespective of the outcome of
these proceedings. I do not consider that prospect a reason to deny consent.
4.2
While I have seen no basis on which the number was extrapolated, I consider Covec's 485
candidates to be very over-stated and unjustified.
Given the particular characteristics of
ANZCO's business, I think that the precedent threat raised by Covec is greatly exaggerated.
At the end of the day, the Commissioner preferred the author's evidence and duly
consented to the application for a non-complying activity on the SPAZ.
Page | 8
173
APPENDIX TWO : EXPERIENCE IN / WITH PALMERSTON NORTH CITY
Engagement by Council
1
In October 2002, Council engaged me to undertake an assessment of the City's then
current retailing role, prospective changes in that role and a suggested strategic approach
for the City. This work was undertaken in two parts – a preliminary report on Palmerston
North's then current status (on which consultation was undertaken early in 2003) with a
final report "The Retail Study" delivered in May 2003.
This, together with a summary
guide, was presented to Council on 5 June 2003 and formally received.
Council also
resolved to authorise a review of the District Plan's ("the Plan's") Business Zoning
provisions, to give effect to the Retail Study's recommendations. Thus, the latter became
the "Retail Strategy".
The Retail Strategy
2
The 2003 Retail Strategy was developed on (survey and consultation-based)
acknowledgements that the City is the dominant regional centre within an area
incorporating Pahiatua, Dannevirke, Taihape, Marton, Feilding, Foxton and Levin.
Additionally, Palmerston North's influence in comparison shopping infiltrates the Wanganui
catchment, as the latter's CBD has a much smaller and less comprehensive retail offering.
3
It was considered appropriate that the Strategy build upon the established CBD-centric
approach to all but localised convenience needs. The compact shape of the urban area of
the City meant that the CBD was readily accessible from all suburbs, unlike some similar
urban centres (such as Nelson and Tauranga, where the CBD is not central to all, for
geographical and historical development reasons). There was no need (in the sense of
inequitable access to goods and services) for Palmerston North to introduce significant
suburban shopping centres into a new strategic approach.
4
The Summary section of the 2003 Retail Strategy included the following passages:
2.4.0
The Current Physical Resource
2.4.1
A physical survey of parts of the CBD and its immediate environs was carried out in February
2003 and recorded in Section 6.0.0.
This indicated that the extent of the IBZ far
exceeds the actual or potentially supportable pedestrian core. The core is under most
pressure from the large format store trends, as both wide-spectrum and specialised types of
retailer embrace or seek to embrace the more extensive drive-in operations pioneered by
supermarkets and building supply outlets. The survey also looked at the activity mix in a
number of areas adjacent to the edge of the OBZ, to add to the database previously compiled,
on Industrially zoned land on Rangitikei Line, from the edge of the OBZ.
2.5.0
The Proposed Strategy
2.5.1
From the information gathered, and having regard to the current provisions of the Plan, the
last three topics of this report, comprising Part Three, suggest how the City might best meet
its obligations under the RMA, while dealing with the fundamentally conflicting issues of
enabling activities and communities and not undermining existing resources.
2.5.2
The approach put forward in Part Three entails the following steps:
1.
Amending or adding to Issue statements in Chapters 2 and 11, with consequential
changes to the Objectives of the latters. Exemplary wording is provided in relation to
these specific proposals.
Page | 9
174
2.5.3
2.
Identifying and implementing new or amended Policy statements to give effect to
suggested Method and Rule changes, the recommended thrust of which is clearly
outlined.
3.
Re-defining the existing IBZ by reducing its extent and expanding the OBZ
inwardly to compensate, with some sub-zone or precinctual distinction for former IBZ
areas, if that is unavoidable in the context of minimising opposition at this time.
4.
Tweaking the rules as between a reduced IBZ and the OBZ (subject to the possible
precinctual distinction) to encourage new development or re-development in the
former and reinforce the need for total on-site self-sufficiency in the latter.
5.
Re-defining the outer extent of the OBZ so as to eliminate all roading interfaces between
the IBZ and Residential zone and in some cases to alter its external boundary, subject
and in relation to item 6.
6.
Regarding the re-defined OBZ as a general fringe, outside which a new outer fringe zone
is to be introduced, possibly enveloping some current OBZ land and adding other
appropriate parcels.
7.
Framing rules for the outer fringe to enable large format retailing but to
preclude an aggregation of specialty shopping.
8.
Using improved Activity definitions to more clearly articulate Policies, to improve the
clarity and application of Rules and to ensure that Activities not capable of adverse
distributional effects are not discouraged from seeking or remaining in CBD locations.
This package is seen as one which, with appropriate further work on
•
•
•
the prospective venues of a zone change,
the rules, and with
further consultation when the specifics of the approach have been settled,
can be advanced as comprehensively satisfying the requirements of s32 of the Act, in respect
of the ensuing Plan Change or Changes, from a distributional effect perspective.
(emphasis added)
5
The emphasised passages anticipated and sought to avoid or minimise future adverse
distributional effects on the Inner Business Zone, whilst reducing the geographical extent
to which Council would need to fund and manage the City's pedestrian core, or provide
infrastructure in the Outer Business Zone.
6
The Strategy was implemented by two significant Plan Changes ("PCs").
PC28 was
confirmed in 2007, while PC1 became operative on 01 December 2013. Collectively, these
PCs refined the Plan's retail and commercial hierarchy, in the form of the Inner, Outer and
Fringe Business Zone provisions. In addition, reviews of provisions for retailing in noncommercial Zones were undertaken for the Industrial Zone (PC9) and the Institutional
Zone (PC11). These were designed to complement the adopted retail strategy and their
scope extended to cover office development and ancillary commercial activities, along
much the same lines as those proposed for PC15H.
Page | 10
175
APPENDIX 6: Memo John McCartin – Stormwater Engineer
176
65
TO
Michael Duindam
FROM
John McCartin
DATE
20/08/2015
SUBJECT
PLAN CHANGE 15H SUBMISSIONS ON STORMWATER
___________________________________________________________________________________
1. I have been asked to review a submission on Plan Change 15H – Airport Zone Review from
Horizons Regional Council (S56) and a further submission from Palmerston North Airport Limited
(FS15) regarding stormwater matters in the Airport Zone.
2. Horizons have requested that hydraulic neutrality be achieved in the 0.5% AEP storm as a
minimum. The term hydraulic neutrality should be amended to hydrologic neutrality if it is to be
included in the District Plan. However, I do not consider it appropriate that hydrological neutrality
should need to be achieved for development in the Airport Zone. Any development within this
zone will transfer stormwater into the reticulated stormwater network, which discharges into the
Mangaone Stream downstream of the Flygers Line floodway. I do not consider that the level of
stormwater that is likely to be generated in a fully developed Airport Zone scenario would be at a
level that would materially compromise flood protection in Setters Line north of the airport,
Flygers Line stopbanks or Benmore Avenue. The volumes of stormwater generated by any
changes in this area will always be insignificant compared to the volumes heading down the
floodway from the Mangaone’s main catchment
3. The only potential risk of discharge into the Mangaone Stream north of the Flygers Line
Floodway would come from the proposed runway extension. When the extension occurs, a
Regional Consent will be necessary, as the extension will traverse the current alignment of the
Mangaone Stream. Any issues related to stormwater management and the runway extension can
be dealt with as part of this resource management process.
4. I support the sentiment of the further submission by Palmerston North Airport Limited. As
previously mentioned, I see no reason for hydrological neutrality to be required in the Airport
Zone.
John McCartin
Stormwater Asset Engineer
177

Michael Duindam - Palmerston North City Council

Transcription

Similar documents

HOTEL ETOILE PEREIRE

Lodging copy_revised dates

Aeroportos do Brasil_eng

AIRMAN`S INFORMATiON MANUAL

7851 Horan Wall Perspex Posters3.indd

summer meeting

Travel information Costa Almeria - Clima and

Lynden Pindling International Airport

Road Closure - Oregon International Air Show

Airport Open House