Submission on Palmerston North City Council Proposed Plan Change 15A-H

To: Team Leader – Governance and Support City Corporate Palmerston North City Council Private Bag 11-034 PALMERSTON NORTH

Email: [email protected]

From: Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Horizons) Private Bag 11-025 Manawatu Mail Centre PALMERSTON NORTH

1. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission on Palmerston North City Council‟s Proposed Plan Change (PPC) 15A-H. Horizons would like to appear in support of its submission.

2. Horizons generally supports this proposed plan change. The following submission focuses principally on the relationship between Horizons‟ One Plan (combined regional policy statement and regional plans) and the need for the District Plan to give effect to the regional policy statement components and not be inconsistent with regional plan provisions, as set out in section 75 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The One Plan became fully operative on 19 December 2014. All references to the One Plan in this submission are to the operative version of the Plan.

3. A copy of all One Plan provisions cited in this submission are included for your information as Annex A. General Comments 4. The PPC documents make numerous references to Horizons‟ One Plan. The operative version has been renumbered; the PPC references are to the Proposed One Plan provision numbers and we request that they be updated. A cross-referencing guide to assist with this is available on Horizons‟ website at http://www.horizons.govt.nz/about- us/one-plan/one-plan-operative-version/one-plan-cross-referencing-guide/.

References to the Regional Land Transport Strategy (2010) 5. While the Regional Land Transport Strategy remains operative, please note that the document will be replaced by the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), which is expected to be adopted on the 24th of March 2015. Due to legislative changes to the Land Transport Management Act (2003) in mid-2013, the RLTP will set the transport priorities for the Manawatu-Wanganui Region over the next ten years. While Palmerston North District Plan sections make references to the Strategy, the RLTP will become operative by 30 June 2015 when the current Strategy and Regional Land Transport Programme expire.

Rule 20.3.5.1 & Appendix 20 Roading Hierarchy 6. Horizons acknowledges the District Plan Roading Hierarchy, including the road hierarchy change for the Boundary Change area, and considers the hierarchy to be generally aligned with the RLTP. It is important to ensure that the roading hierarchy matches and supports the long term planning direction for the City, with respect to their proposed urban growth areas, potential industrial development earmarked for the NEIZ and Longburn industrial areas, and implementation of the Palmerston North-Manawatu Strategic Joint Transport study. Also, alignment with the New Zealand Transport Agency‟s One Network Road Classification is important for the wider transportation network.

Plan Change 15A: Rural Zone and Rural Subdivision Versatile Soils 7. Horizons supports the inclusion of provisions in relation to versatile soils in the District Plan. These provisions give effect to One Plan Objective 3-4: To ensure that territorial authorities consider the benefits of retaining Class I and II versatile soils for use as production land when providing for urban growth and rural residential subdivision. and Policy 3-5: In providing for urban growth…, and controlling rural residential subdivision (“lifestyle blocks”), Territorial Authorities must pay particular attention to the benefits of the retention of Class I and II versatile soils for use as production land in their assessment of how best to achieve sustainable management. Surface water bodies 8. In some of the proposed provisions, the potential effects of the activity on in-stream water quality or values are addressed. This is the case for proposed Policy 3.4, “To encourage the protection of the in-stream values of spawning rivers and streams”, and Rule 9.8.3 Assessment Criteria (h):

In relation to quarrying activities undertaken near a river or stream, the extent to which any potential effects on water quality and river or stream habitats are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Rule 9.5.2 (production forestry permitted activity rule) Performance Standard (b) includes a requirement that plantation forestry plantings must not come within 10 metres of three named streams, and the rule explanation states that this is included as “Harvesting, extraction and loading activities may affect the in-stream values” of these streams. Assessment Criteria (d) of Rule 9.7.4 (restricted activity rule for production forestry not meeting the permitted activity rule standards) is: The extent to which the harvesting, extraction and loading activities safeguard the in-stream values of the Turitea Stream and Kahuterawa Stream for Trout Spawning and as a Trout Fishery. 9. Although section 7 of the RMA includes a general requirement to have particular regard to the protection of trout habitat, section 30(c) provides for the maintenance of water quality and the ecosystems of water bodies through land use controls as a function of regional councils. Territorial authorities are responsible for the effects of activities in relation to the surface of water bodies only (section 31(e)).

10. Horizons acknowledges that territorial authorities may also wish to include provisions to support their consideration of these matters when making decisions about consents for

activities that are outside regional council functions, such as subdivision. Section 7 (Subdivision), Policy 3.1 clause 4 is such a provision.

11. In the One Plan there is a policy framework set out in Part I (Regional Policy Statement), and rules in Part II (Regional Plan) to give effect to section 30. In particular, the rules in Chapter 13 of the One Plan address the effects of land disturbance and forestry on water quality, and in-stream values including Trout Spawning and Trout Fishery1, through rule standards and/or the ability to set consent conditions.

12. Horizons seeks the deletion or amendment of the following proposed provisions in Section 9 that address in-stream values:  Policy 3.4  Rule 9.5.2 Assessment Criteria (b), third bullet point (and consequentially an amendment to the fourth paragraph of the rule explanation to remove the sentence “Harvesting, extraction and loading activities may affect the in-stream values of the Turitea Stream and the Kahuterawa Stream.”)  Rule 9.7.4 Assessment Criteria (d)  Rule 9.8.3 Assessment Criteria (h) for the following reasons:  these provisions are an unnecessary duplication of the One Plan provisions;  they do not fulfill a function of territorial authorities;  in the case of Rule 9.5.2 Performance Standard (b), the provision is inconsistent with One Plan Rule 13-3 Forestry (permitted activity) condition (b); and  Section 7 (Subdivision), Policy 3.1, clause 4 provides for consideration of the effects of subdivision on spawning values.

Rural subdivision 13. Rule 7.15.1.1 provides for any subdivision for the purpose of accommodating any network utility where the maximum area of the allotment does not exceed 200 m2, as a controlled activity. Policy 9-3 of the One Plan is to avoid the placement of new critical infrastructure in an area likely to be inundated by a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event (including floodways), or in an area likely to be adversely affected by another type of natural hazard, …unless there is satisfactory evidence to show that the critical infrastructure: a. Will not be adversely affected by floodwaters or another type of natural hazard, b. Will not cause any adverse effects on the environment in the event of a flood or another type of natural hazard, c. Is unlikely to cause a significant increase in the scale or intensity of natural hazard events, and d. Cannot reasonably be located in an alternative location.

14. Horizons therefore requests that subdivision for the purposes of accommodating a network utility activity be reclassified as a restricted discretionary activity and include the matters set out in One Plan Policy 9-3 as matters of discretion, as well as those matters already included under Proposed Rule 7.15.1.1. 15. Rule 7.15.2.1 and Rule 7.15.3.1 include a Note to Plan Users which states: The approach adopted by the Council is to decline a subdivision resource consent application where the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council cannot be obtained.

1 As set out in Schedule B, Figures B:8 and B:9 and Tables B.8 and B.9.

Similarly, the explanation note following Section 7.2 Resource Management Issues, issue 4, states: To promote greater utilisation of this land resource and also to meet industry demand for appropriately sized lots, smaller lot subdivision is provided for as a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Flood Protection Zone for horticultural activities, subject to obtaining the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [emphasis added]. 16. The One Plan contains objectives and policies in relation to natural hazards, including a strong policy direction to avoid new and increased development in floodways (Policy 9- 2(a)). However, Horizons does not have a decision-making role in subdivision consent processes. While Horizons can provide advice regarding whether a proposal is consistent with One Plan Policy 9-2(a), it neither approves or declines consent for such a proposal, as implied by the advice note and explanation. As this decision rests entirely with the territorial authority, we request the deletion of the advice notes and the text emphasised in the above quote from Section 7.2.

Onsite Wastewater

17. One Plan Rule 14-14 specifies a minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 m2 for new parcels created by subdivision that are to accommodate an on-site wastewater disposal systems as a permitted activity. Proposals that cannot meet this minimum lot size condition require a restricted discretionary resource consent for the installation as well as any future upgrades or replacement of the on-site wastewater disposal system. As Horizons cannot guarantee the approval of such a consent application, Horizons cannot in principle support the subdivision of land to create lots less than 5,000m2 with on-site wastewater systems. 18. Horizons therefore supports the following provisions in relation to on-site wastewater disposal requirements:  Clause (b)(iii) of Rule 7.16.1.2 (Performance Standards for Controlled Activities) that requires at least 5,000m2 of contiguous land with a slope of less than 11 degrees, of which at least 800m2 is for the purposes of accommodating an on-site effluent disposal system.  Note 3 to Plan Users under Rule 7.16.1.2 that encourages applicants to check the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council‟s One Plan to determine if any additional consents will be required from the Regional Council, particularly in respect of on- site domestic wastewater treatments systems.  Note 4 to Plan Users under Rule 7.16.1.2 which alerts landowners to the need to maintain on-site wastewater disposal systems and keep maintenance records for future monitoring and compliance assessment in accordance with the Regional Council‟s One Plan.  Performance Standard (a) of Rule 7.16.2.1 that sets the minimum lot area requirements for subdivision within the Aokautere Rural Residential Area, the Moonshine Valley Rural Residential Area and the Rural Residential Overlay.  Notes to Plan Users 1 and 2 under Performance Standard (c) of Rule 7.16.2.1.

19. However, Horizons requests the deletion of the second sentence of the 3rd note to Plan Users under Rule 7.16.1.2 and under Rule 7.16.2.1 which state: “The expectation is that where a Discharge to Land Consent is required for on-site services, that this consent is sought and approved by the Regional Council, prior to lodging an application for subdivision resource consent, in accordance with Council’s document Engineering Standards for Land Development.”

20. Horizons also requests the deletion of Assessment Criteria (b)(i) of Rule 7.16.2.1 that requires consideration of whether a Discharge to Land Consent(s) have been applied for and granted by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council.

21. While we understand the rationale for requiring the consent to be issued prior to the subdivision this is, unfortunately, not possible. Until such time as the new Certificates of Title are issued for the new parcels, Horizons treats the available area for on-site wastewater disposal as the whole property, not the proposed allotments. The need for a discharge consent is therefore not triggered until after the subdivision has been approved. Also, the area required for on-site wastewater disposal is dependent on the number of habitable rooms that are proposed and the type of system being installed. This is determined by an appropriately qualified person through the building consent process.

22. As an alternative to requiring the discharge permit to be approved prior to the subdivision consent application being lodged, the Palmerston North City Council could require an on-site wastewater report to be prepared and submitted with a subdivision application. This report, prepared by an appropriately qualified person, should determine whether it is possible to accommodate a compliant system within the available land area, based on an average four bedroom house. However, the detailed design of the system will still need to be confirmed through the building consent process.

Miscellaneous provisions

23. Horizons supports the retention of Rule R 9.5.1 Performance Standard (c), which provides for soil conservation and rivers control works carried out by or under the supervision of Horizons as a permitted activity.

24. Please also see below (paragraphs 29 to 33) for comments regarding rural subdivision and landscapes.

Plan Change 15B: Wind Farms and Landscapes

25. One Plan Policy 3-6 provides for the recognition of the benefits of renewable energy resources by territorial authorities. Horizons therefore supports the recognition of renewable energy activities through Section 9 (Rural) Objective 8 and supporting policies.

26. However, One Plan Policy 3-1(a)(i) states that Horizons and the territorial authorities must recognise facilities for the generation of more than 1 MW of electricity and its supporting infrastructure as physical resources of regional or national significance. As these do not meet the definition of network utilities, this recognition is not established in Section 23 of the District Plan either. It may be appropriate to include this recognition with the policies supporting Objective 8.

27. Horizons supports the establishment of a policy and rule framework for the protection of regionally significant natural features and landscapes in in the District Plan, and generally supports the approach taken through this framework. However, we seek a clearer alignment between the provisions to protect the Tararua Ranges Landscape Protection Area across the District Plan, and One Plan Policy 6-6.

28. Policy 7.1 partially gives effect to One Plan Policy 6-6, which includes the:

 recognition of the series of highest ridges and highest hilltops of the full extent of the Tararua Ranges, and the Manawatu Gorge as regionally outstanding natural features and landscapes;  spatial definition of these areas through the review of district plans. Horizons therefore supports Policy 7.1 and Map 9.1. 29. One Plan Policy 6-6 also sets out a hierarchy for the management of subdivision, use and activities directly affecting these regionally outstanding natural features and landscapes. In the first instance, significant adverse cumulative effects on their characteristics and values must be avoided (Policy 6-6(a)). Other adverse effects must be avoided as far as reasonably practicable, and otherwise remedied or mitigated (Policy 6-6(b)).

30. While the proposed provisions in both PPC 15B and 15A give PNCC the ability to consider the effects of renewable energy generation and subdivision on regional significant natural features and landscapes, Horizons has some concerns that these provisions may not provide for the consideration of either the full extent of the effects of these activities or the „hierarchy‟ of protection set up through One Plan Policy 6-6:

i. Section 9 Policy 7.2 provides for “the protection of the characteristics and values” of the two regionally outstanding natural features and landscapes.

ii. Section 9 Policy 7.3 explicitly provides for avoidance of “further development of renewable energy generation activities and other major structures that have the potential to cause significant adverse cumulative effects” (emphasis added) on the Tararua Ranges Landscape Protection Area. This Policy is consistent with Policy 6- 6(a). However, there is no equivalent policy direction in Section 7 (Subdivision), for example.

iii. Section 7 includes policies that allow subdivisions provided they do “not create significant adverse effects on the characteristics and values of regionally Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes…”, but it is unclear whether this constitutes avoidance where practicable, or allows for mitigation or remediation where avoidance is not reasonably practicable.

iv. Section 9 Policy 3.5 is “to avoid significant visual effects of renewable energy generation activities on Regionally Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes” (emphasis added). It does not provide for the avoidance of other significant effects, or for mitigation of visual effects, if avoidance is not reasonably practicable.

v. Section 9 Policy 9.2 seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of renewable electricity generation that are more than minor, on the rural environment and natural features and landscapes. It does not establish that as far as reasonably practicable the effects should be avoided.

31. Horizons considers that, overall, these provisions may not give full effect to One Plan Policy 6-6, and may not provide sufficient guidance for assessing resource consent applications because:  they do not provide for the avoidance of significant adverse cumulative effects of any subdivision, use or development activities on the Tararua Ranges Landscape Protection Area; and  they do not clearly set out that other significant adverse effects of any subdivision, use or development activity on this area should be avoided as far as reasonably practicable, and mitigated or remedied if avoidance is not practicable.

32. Horizons therefore seeks clarification of how:  significant adverse cumulative effects on the Tararua Ranges Landscape Protection Area, for activities other than renewable energy generation and major structures; and  all types of significant adverse effects on the Landscape Protection Area, from all activities are provided for in the District Plan. 33. We also seek clear direction within the District Plan that, when considering significant adverse effects (other than significant adverse cumulative effects), avoidance of these effects as far as practicable will be preferred to remediation or mitigation. Miscellaneous provisions 34. Rule 9.8.6 includes the following assessment criteria: (k) Ecological impacts, particularly impacts on the Turitea Reserve and Arapuke Forest Park, water bodies, and impacts on indigenous flora and fauna, avifauna and their habitats (l) Impacts of earthworks and modifications of natural landforms, including impacts on water quality and proposed remedial and mitigation measures. 35. As discussed above in paragraphs 9 to 11, maintenance of water quality and the ecosystems of waterbodies through land use controls is a function of regional councils, and the One Plan includes provisions to implement this function. In addition, One Plan Policy 6-1 apportions responsibility for controlling land use activities for the purpose of maintaining indigenous biological diversity to Horizons. The effects of wind farms on water quality and indigenous biodiversity would be addressed through Horizons‟ resource consent process.

36. Horizons therefore requests the following amendments to the assessment criteria: (k) Ecological impacts, particularly impacts on the Turitea Reserve and Arapuke Forest Park, water bodies, and impacts on indigenous flora and fauna, avifauna and their habitats. (l) Impacts of earthworks and modifications of natural landforms, including impacts on water quality and proposed remedial and mitigation measures. Plan Change 15C Boundary Change Area 37. Horizons sought designations for existing stopbanks and flood protection structures within the Palmerston North City Council area through Plan Change 10 in 2012. Horizons now seeks to extend these designations to include those existing flood protection structures and assets that are within the boundary change area through PPC 15C. As outlined in our Notice of Requirement application, the designations required are for existing flood control structures and for their on-going maintenance. All of the structures, except for the recently constructed Ashhurst Stopbanks, have been in place for a number of years. Many of these flood control assets pre-date the existing District Plan. The inclusion of these designations in the District Plan and on the Planning Maps will assist Horizons in maintaining and repairing these flood control assets to provide ongoing flood protection to the City, and in alerting plan users of the location of Horizons flood control assets.

38. One Plan Rule 17-14 permits activities undertaken by or on behalf of the Regional Council in rivers with a Schedule B value of Flood Control and Drainage, providing the works are undertaken in accordance with the Environmental Code of Practice for River Works (Horizons Regional Council, June 2010).

39. One Plan Rule 17-15 requires discretionary consent for certain activities that could adversely affect the function of Horizons flood protection schemes, including the upgrade, reconstruction, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of any flood control structure, where the activities occur on a stopbank or any strip of land between an artificial watercourse or bed of a river and 8 metres inland of the landward toe of a stopbank. A copy of this rule is enclosed for your information. A benefit of designating these flood protection assets is that plan users will have greater certainty of their location, and when One Plan Rule 17-15 will apply.

40. However, the exact location of Horizons‟ flood protection assets have not been surveyed. We also do not currently hold width information for stopbanks within the Palmerston North City jurisdiction. We therefore request the inclusion of the following Note to Plan Users in the “Further Details” column for Designation 85 in Table 1: Schedule of Designations:

One Plan Rule 17-15 requires resource consent for activities on stopbanks and on land between artificial waterways or the bed of a river, and 8 metres inland of the landward toe of the stopbank where such activities may affect the integrity and function of the City’s flood protection. These activities include: the planting of trees and shrubs; new buildings or other structures, or extensions to existing buildings or structures; new fences; land disturbance including excavation and deposition of clean-fill; and the upgrade, reconstruction, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of any structure maintained by the Regional Council for the purpose of flood control. If property owners propose to carry out any activity on a property that contains or is adjacent to a designated flood protection asset it is recommended that they first contact the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council to confirm any consent requirements.

41. The planning maps included in PPC 15C do not differentiate between existing designations that were approved through Plan Change 10 (or were rolled over from the previous District Plan) and those that are proposed for inclusion through PPC 15C. Horizons also has concerns regarding the representation of these assets as a double- line. Horizons considers the representation of assets in this way is confusing because:

 the Horizons‟ designations confirmed through Plan Change 10 have not been represented in this way, so an inconsistent approach may cause confusion for plan users; and  a double-line gives the impression that there are stopbanks on both sides of the waterbody when in some areas there is only one.

We request that these new designations be displayed in the same way as Horizons‟ existing designations, incorporated into the District Plan through Plan Change 10.

42. Horizons is currently collaborating with PNCC to refine the representation of these flood protection assets. Prior to the PPC 15 Hearing, Horizons seeks to ensure that the proposed designations shown on the proposed District Plan Maps are consistent with the information supplied to PNCC and displayed on Horizons asset maps.

Access standards

43. Horizons supports the introduction of new access standards for arterial and collector roads in the Boundary Change area. In particular, Horizons supports the following:

 Objective 1 in Section 20.3 (Roads, Parking and Access) – “To maintain and enhance the safe and efficient functioning of the roading network.”  New Policy 2.4 which is “To manage and control vehicle access crossing points onto Major Arterial and Minor Arterial roads.”  Changes to Rule 20.3.9.1 to ensure traffic generated does not impact on the efficiency and safety of adjoining major and minor arterial routes.

Plan Change 15D Flood Hazards 44. Except for opposing the second note to plan users as set out in paragraphs 13 to 16 above, Horizons generally supports the approach being taken by PNCC with respect to subdivision and development within Flood Protection Zones and Flood Prone Areas identified on the planning maps. We consider that this approach will give effect to One Plan Policy 9-2.

45. In implementing One Plan Policy 9-2, Horizons‟ approach is to advocate to avoid further development in floodways and avoid greenfield development in floodable areas (areas that would be covered by water in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event). Where flood hazard cannot be avoided, consideration is given as to whether the flood hazard can be appropriately mitigated in accordance with Policy 9-2. Flood hazard mitigation includes having reasonable freeboard above the 0.5% AEP year flood level and ensuring that there is safe access and egress between habitable buildings and a safe area where evacuation may be carried out during a 0.5% AEP flood event.

46. Horizons supports the approach being taken in proposed Rule 7.17.1.1 in relation to subdivision within Flood Prone Areas identified on the Planning Maps. However, Horizons does not support the second note to plan users under Rule 7.17.1.1 which states that: The approach adopted by the Council is to decline subdivision resource consent applications where the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council cannot be obtained. 47. For the reasons outlined in paragraph 16, Horizons requests the deletion of this note to plan users.

48. Rule 9.5.5 permits dwellings and accessory buildings in the rural zone, subject to compliance with specified performance standards. Horizons requests the inclusion of a “Note to Plan Users” referring them to Rule 22.7.3.1 with respect to buildings structures and activities within the Flood Protection Zone, and to Rule 22.8.2.1 with respect to occupied structures and activities within Flood Prone Areas.

49. With regard to Rules 22.7.1.1 and 22.8.1.1, which together allow non-habitable structures on production land except within the Flygers Line Floodway, Horizons supports the permitted activity status of these structures. One Plan Policy 9-2(b) provides for this type of structure in areas prone to flooding other than floodways as an exception to the general approach of not allowing any new structures or extension of existing structures in these areas.

50. In general, Horizons works on the presumption that non-habitable structures on production land are allowed under Policy 9-2, but does evaluate the potential effects of this type of structure on flood flows and nearby buildings and activities, especially habitable buildings. Horizons‟ Manager Investigations and Design has raised concerns that in Palmerston North City‟s area in particular, where production land may be located adjacent to significant numbers of habitable buildings, there may be an increased risk of effects arising. For example, this could be the situation in the Rural Zone land either side of the stopbank at Ashhurst, or to the east of Ashhurst township, as shown on Planning Map 10. A particular example would be a building that is locate across the overland flow paths near Winchester Street.

51. Policy 9-2(b) states that non-habitable structures on production land “may be allowed”, wording that provides discretion to place conditions on this type of development. Horizons would therefore recommend that a performance standard be included for Rules 22.7.1.1 and 22.8.1.1 such as “Non-habitable structures on production land must not divert the flow of flood water into existing occupied structures and activities.” Consequential amendments to the rule stream and the definition of „occupied structures and activities‟ would also be required.

52. Horizons supports proposed Rule 22.7.3.1 that makes any new building, structure or activity or any increase in the scale of any existing building, structure or activity within the Flood Protection Zone (including the Flygers Line Floodway shown on the Map 22.7)) a non-complying activity if it is not provided for as a permitted, discretionary, or prohibited activity. This approach is considered to be consistent with One Plan Policy 9-2(a).

53. Horizons generally supports proposed Rule 22.8.2.1 that makes any new occupied structure or activity, or any increase in the scale of any existing occupied structure or activity, within a Flood Prone Area identified on the Planning Maps a restricted discretionary activity.

54. The “Flood Prone Areas” identified on the Planning Maps are those areas that have been modelled by Horizons as likely to be inundated during a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event or areas that Horizons is confident have a known flood risk. However, there are other areas that may be inundated during a 0.5% AEP flood event that Horizons has not yet modelled. There are numerous small watercourses and areas of low topography that are likely to pose a localised flood risk.

55. Horizons‟ current approach in areas that include waterways that have not yet been modelled is to do a site-specific flood assessment at the time of building consent. This is dependent on the supply of surveyed ground levels between waterways and the building platform, and stream cross-sections by the applicant, for areas where Horizons does not hold detailed elevation information. Where flood hazard is being assessed for a multi-lot subdivision application, it is Horizons‟ expectation that the applicant will engage a suitably qualified person to undertake a site-specific flood assessment to demonstrate that there are suitable building platforms on all proposed lots.

56. The reference in Rule 22.8.2.1 to “Flood Prone Area identified on the Planning Maps” provides certainty to future developments within areas where flood modelling has been completed. However, consideration needs to be given to what standards and assessment criteria will apply to occupied structures and activities in areas outside of the “Flood Prone Areas” overlay that are shown through further site-specific investigation to also be at risk of inundation during a 0.5% AEP flood event.

57. Horizons suggests that this could be addressed through the inclusion of a general rule such as the following:

R 22.8.2.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity

(1) Any new occupied structure or activity, or any increase in the scale of an existing occupied structure or activity, within an area that has been assessed as likely to be inundated during a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event Are a Restricted Discretionary Activity with regard to:  Flood Hazard Avoidance or Mitigation  Functional Necessity  Placement of New Critical Infrastructure Provided it complies with the Performance Standards and Assessment Criteria specified in Rule 22.8.2.1.

58. Proposed performance standard (a) of Rule 22.8.2.1 is consistent with Policy 9-2(d)(i) and is supported by Horizons.

59. Proposed performance standard (b) of Rule 22.8.2.1 is generally consistent with Policy 9-2(d)(ii). However, this performance standard does not recognise that other combinations of flood depth and velocity may still be considered “safe.” A copy of Figure L1 – Velocity & Depth Relationships from the Floodplain Development Manual: the management of flood liable land2, which illustrates the velocity and depth relationship that determines safe wading limits, is attached as Annex B. Horizons requests that performance standard (b) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be amended as follows:

b. Access between occupied structures and an identified safe area, where safe evacuation may be carried out (preferably ground that will not be flooded), must not be inundated greater than 0.5 m above finished ground level with a maximum water velocity of 1.0 m/s in a 0.5% AEP or (“1 in 200 year”) flood event, or some other combination of water depth and velocity that can be shown to result in no greater risk to human life, infrastructure or property.

60. Horizons generally supports the assessment criteria listed under Rule 22.8.2.1. In particular, Horizons supports the reference to the “extent to which any new occupied structure achieves compliance with NZS 4404:2010 Land Development and Subdivision Infrastructure, in terms of flood clearance levels.” Horizons refers to NZS 4404:2010 when considering what is “reasonable” in terms of freeboard above the 0.5% AEP flood surface. We consider that specific reference to the flood clearance levels in NZS 4404:2010 provides greater certainty for plan users in relation to floor level requirements for new occupied structures within Flood Prone Areas.

61. Assessment criteria (ii) of Rule 22.8.2.1 states “the extent to which specific flood control measures or flood hazard mitigation measures will achieve protection for the site in a 0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year) flood event.” Horizons does not support the reference to “protection for the site” with respect to flood hazard mitigation measures. Flood hazard mitigation is most often achieved through having a finished floor level that is elevated above the 0.5% AEP flood level and ensuring that there is safe access from the building to a safe area where evacuation may be carried out. This does not achieve protection for the site, but rather reduces the risk to people and property from flood hazard.

62. Horizons considers this assessment criteria may be misleading and it appears to prioritise flood control measures such as bunds that may protect the entire site from flood

2 Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, New South Wales Government (April 2005). http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/floodplains/manual.htm

hazard. Horizons does not fund new flood control measures outside of scheme areas. In addition, the use of the word “or” between “0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year)…” is unnecessary as the 0.5% AEP flood event equals a 1 in 200 year flood event.

63. Horizons recommends that assessment criteria (ii) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be amended as follows:

“the extent to which specific flood control measures or flood hazard mitigation measures will achieve protection for the site mitigate flood hazard to the occupied structure or activity in a 0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year) flood event.”

64. Assessment criteria (iii) under Rule 22.8.2.1 states:

“Whether the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures, including the certainty of the maintenance regime, will achieve protection for the site in a 0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year) flood event.”

65. For the reasons outlined in paragraph 62 above, Horizons recommends that assessment criteria (iii) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be amended as follows: “Whether the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures, including the certainty of the maintenance regime, will achieve protection for the site mitigate flood hazard to the occupied structure or activity in a 0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year) flood event.” 66. For the reasons outlined in paragraph 16 above, Horizons requests the deletion of the last sentence of the Explanation and the first “Note to Plan Users” under Rule 22.8.2.1; and the second paragraph of the explanation under Rule 22.8.3.1. With respect to the explanation below Rule 22.7.3.1, Horizons seeks the following amendment: In respect of these activities within the Flygers Line Floodway designation, the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council will be required.

Plan Change 15E: North East Industrial Zone and Extension Area, and Plan Change 15F Braeburn Industrial Area (Longburn) North East Industrial Zone (NEIZ) extension 67. Horizons supports growth of the NEIZ and proposed structure plan. Maintaining efficient access to and from the Zone is important not only for movement within the Region, but for an efficient inter-regional freight network and access to port facilities.

68. With regard to Section 12A, Horizons supports proposed Policy 5.5 which seeks to “avoid road access to the North East Industrial Zone Extension Area from Railway Road.” Horizons agrees with the approach of promoting Roberts Line, Kairanga- Bunnythorpe Road and Railway Road as a strategic route for freight movement.

69. Horizons supports the following proposed policies under Objective 3 in Section 12A of the District Plan:

 Policy 3.8, which ensures that adverse effects of stormwater runoff in the NEIZ Extension Area are mitigated on-site.  Policy 3.9, which requires an integrated approach to the provision of stormwater management that recognizes the capacity of existing systems and natural drainage patterns within the NEIZ Extension Area.

 Policy 3.10, that requires the use of sustainable urban drainage systems and low impact design systems throughout the NEIZ Extension Area.  Policy 3.12, that requires development in the NEIZ Extension Area to comply with Structure Plan 7.2 to ensure an integrated and sustainable pattern of development.

70. These policies are supported as they will ensure that additional flows from the NEIZ Extension Area into the Mangaone Stream catchment will not cause or exacerbate flooding of other properties, particularly within the Taonui Basin. Horizons therefore requests the retention of these Policies without modification.

71. Horizons supports the proposed changes to Objective 5 and new Policies 5.4 – 5.11 in Section 7 (Subdivision). In particular, Horizons supports the requirement that all subdivisions in the North East Industrial Zone Extension Area comply with Structure Plan Map 7.2, particularly in relation to requirement that gully areas be retained for stormwater detention. Horizons supports the requirement to have stormwater management measures in place in advance of industrial development and the direction to require the use of sustainable urban drainage systems and low impact design systems throughout the North East Industrial Zone Extension Area.

72. One Plan Rule 14-18 generally permits the discharge of stormwater into surface water or onto land, subject to conditions. These conditions include the following:

a. The discharge must not include stormwater from any: i. industrial or trade premises where hazardous substances stored or used may be entrained by the stormwater ii. contaminated land where the contaminants of concern may be entrained by the stormwater iii. operating quarry or mineral extraction site unless there is an interceptor system in place. b. The discharge must not cause or exacerbate the flooding of any other property. c. The activity must not cause erosion of any land or the bed of any water body beyond the point of discharge unless this is not practicably avoidable, in which case any erosion that occurs as a result of the discharge must be remedied as soon as practicable…

73. Horizons considers that the requirement to prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan for each stage of the subdivision will be beneficial in ensuring that additional stormwater generated by development within the North East Industrial Zone is able to be treated and detained on site without causing or exacerbating flooding downstream. This will ensure compliance with One Plan Rule 14-18. Horizons therefore supports the retention of the Objective 5 and associated policies in Section 7 (Subdivision) without modification.

74. Horizons generally supports the stormwater management performance standards (f)(i) – (iii) under proposed Rule 12A.6.2 (North East Industrial Zone Extension Area). However, this support is contingent on 100% mitigation of the 1% AEP plus climate change storm, as per NZS4404:2010.

75. Horizons supports assessment criteria (d)(i) and (ii) of Rule 12A.6.2 but requests the following changes to clause (i) to provide specific reference to the design storm that the stormwater retention and detention measures must be designed to mitigate:

(i) The extent to which proposed on-site stormwater retention and detention measures ensure hydraulic neutrality is achieved in the 1% AEP plus climate

change storm, as per NZS4404:2010, and that there is no increase in stormwater effects on surrounding areas.

76. Horizons considers that this proposed amendment to the assessment criteria adds greater certainty for plan users and will assist in ensuring that the appropriate design storm is considered when designing onsite stormwater retention and detention measures.

77. Horizons wishes to advise that we are currently upgrading our Mangaone Stream flood protection assets, in three locations, to the 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) design standard. These locations are:

1. Setters Line north of the airport; 2. Flygers Line stopbanks; and 3. Benmore Avenue. It is important to ensure that additionally generated stormwater from the NEIZ Extension Area does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in these locations.

Plan Change 15F: Braeburn Industrial Area

78. The Longburn Industrial Area, including Braeburn will serve as an important inland port function for the Region in the future. Horizons supports the requirement for a Comprehensive Development Plan for the Braeburn Industrial Area, particularly in relation to the requirement for the plan to consider and address the proposed road layout or circulation route, design and connectivity with other land. In relation to the strategic direction of our RLTP, improved connectivity of key strategic routes north-south and east-west of our region is highlighted as a priority. Economic growth is a focus for our Region and there is a need to ensure the transport network supports this growth. The Braeburn Industrial Area contributes towards the outcomes of the RLTP.

79. Horizons supports Objective 5 and its associated policies within Section 12 (Industrial Zone) and the general direction to plan for services at the earliest stage of development to ensure that services proceed in a coordinated and integrated manner.

80. Horizons supports the requirement for a Comprehensive Development Plan prior to the construction, external alteration or addition to building and structures within the Braeburn Industrial Area (Rule 12.8.5). Horizons considers that a comprehensive development plan will be beneficial in ensuring that any additional stormwater generated by development within the Braeburn Industrial Area is appropriately treated and detained so as to not cause or exacerbate flooding of other property.

81. Horizons specifically supports Assessment Criteria (e)(ii) of proposed Rule 12.8.5 which requires consideration to be given to innovative and low-impact stormwater design methods and requests that it be retained.

82. Horizons‟ Manager Investigations and Design has reviewed the stormwater detention pond volumes in Section 3.4 of the GEM Consulting report and has advised that they appear to be too small for an area of 81,000m3 of buildings and hardstand area, even for a 24 hour storm, unless the low impact design methodology has been clearly defined. Furthermore, he considers that hydraulic neutrality must be maintained for discharges to the Taonui Basin. In this regard, the critical design storm for assessing mitigation

requirements to the Taonui Basin is 72 hours. In accordance with New Zealand Standard 4404:2010, the design 1% storm must include the impacts of climate change.

83. The GEM Consulting Report makes reference in several places to the proposed upgrade to the flood protection to Longburn to the 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) standard of protection from the Manawatu River. These works have been completed and Longburn is now protected to the 0.2% AEP level of flood protection from the Manawatu River.

84. Horizons is particularly interested in how wastewater is to be managed on site. If wastewater is to be disposed of via on-site servicing, it will be necessary to ensure that any new or upgraded on-site wastewater disposal systems are designed in accordance with the “Manual for On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems Design and Management” (Horizons Regional Council, 2010) and comply with the relevant standards of the One Plan. If the requirements of the One Plan permitted activity rule cannot be met, a resource consent will be required from Horizons.

85. Horizons does not agree with the second Note to Plan Users under Rule 12.8.5 that states that “Resource consent for wastewater discharge and stormwater discharge to land will be required from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council.” Horizons will only be able to confirm whether a resource consent is required for the discharge of wastewater and stormwater to land once more information has been provided on what development is proposed for this site. The discharge of stormwater to land is generally provided for as a permitted activity (One Plan Rule 14-18), subject to compliance with conditions. The onsite discharge of wastewater may also comply with the permitted activity conditions in the One Plan, depending on whether the wastewater discharges are for domestic wastewater or farm animal effluent, and the available area for discharge.

86. It is recommended that Note 2 under Rule 12.8.5 be deleted and replaced by the following advice note:

2. Advice should be sought from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council in relation to any additional resource consents that are required for the proposed development.

Proposed Plan Change 15G: Utilities

87. Horizons supports the approach taken in Section 23. This approach gives effect to the Chapter 3 of the One Plan in relation to network utilities by recognising them as physical resources of regional or national significance (as set out in One Plan Policy 3-1), addressing adverse effects on them as provided for by One Plan Policy 3-2. The proposed rules enable their adverse effects to be managed through performance standards and/or the ability to impose consent conditions. Proposed Plan Change 15H: Airport Zone 88. Horizons supports the provisions relating to the Airport Zone. Taken as a whole, these recognise the Palmerston North Airport as a regionally important physical resource and address the avoidance of adverse effects on and by the Airport and its activities. Overall, they are considered to give effect to One Plan Policies 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3.

89. The western runway end protection area appears to overlap with the Flygers Line Floodway. Rule 13.4.5.2 prohibits 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) within the runway end protection areas. While Horizons‟ Designation 85 legally provides for flood protection activities, including the maintenance of existing structures, Horizons requests greater certainty that

these and other flood protection activities will still be provided for within that part of the runway end protection area that overlaps with the Floodway.

90. Horizons requests that clause (i) of Rule 13.4.5.2 be amended as follows:

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);

91. Increases to the runway length, new ancillary roads and other developments are likely to substantially increase stormwater runoff. Horizons requests that hydraulic neutrality is achieved in the 0.5% AEP storm as a minimum.

92. As noted in paragraph 77 above, Horizons is currently upgrading the Mangaone Stream flood protection, in three locations, to the 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) design standard. These locations are:

1. Setters Line north of the airport; 2. Flygers Line stopbanks; and 3. Benmore Avenue. It is important to ensure that additionally generated stormwater in the Airport Zone does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in these locations. 93. I note that performance standard (h) of Rule 13.4.1.1 (Construction, external alteration of, and addition to buildings and structures) requires connection of all sewer, stormwater and water supply services to essential services through a public service corridor. If additional stormwater from the development is connected to the reticulated stormwater network that discharges to the Mangaone Stream upstream of Flygers Line this could compromise Horizons flood protection measures. This would therefore not be supported by Horizons.

94. A different approach to stormwater management is required by proposed Rule 13.4.3.3 for Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres. Assessment criteria (z) requires the site and building design to mitigate any increase in peak stormwater run-off and peak stormwater flow due to the reduction in permeable surfaces. However, there is no performance standards specified that give plan users clarity on what the critical design storm is that must be mitigated.

95. Horizons considers that there may be additional hardstand areas, such as the runway extension, where stormwater is proposed to be managed on-site, or discharged from the site, rather than being connected to reticulated stormwater services. If this is the case, there needs to be rules and performance standards included in Section 13 of the Plan to control stormwater discharges to achieve hydraulic neutrality in the 0.5% AEP storm and to ensure that additional stormwater generated does not cause or exacerbate flooding of any other property.

96. Horizons requests that additional rules and performance standards be included in Section 13 of the District Plan to control stormwater discharges from activities, new buildings and new hardstand areas to achieve hydraulic neutrality in the 0.5% AEP design storm.

Summary of relief sought in this submission: Plan Change 15A  That all references to the Proposed One Plan within the Proposed Plan Change documents be updated to reflect the new numbering of these provisions in the Operative version of the One Plan.

 That it be noted that the Regional Land Transport Strategy referred to in the Proposed Plan Change Document is to be replaced by the Regional Land Transport Plan when this is adopted (most likely on the 24th of March 2015).

 That the provisions relating to versatile soils be retained.

 That the following proposed provisions in Section 9 be deleted or amended: o Policy 3.4; o Rule 9.5.2 Assessment Criteria (b), third bullet point (and consequentially an amendment to the fourth paragraph of the rule explanation to remove the sentence “Harvesting, extaction and loading activities may affect the in-stream values of the Turitea Stream and the Kahuterawa Stream.”); o Rule 9.7.4 Assessment Criteria (d); and o Rule 9.8.3 Assessment Criteria (h).

 That subdivision for the purposes of accommodating a network utility activity (proposed Rule 7.15.1.1) be reclassified as a restricted discretionary activity and include the matters set out in One Plan Policy 9-3 as matters of discretion, as well as those matters already included under proposed Rule 7.15.1.1.

 That the following Note to Plan Users be deleted from Rule 7.15.2.1 and Rule 7.15.3.1: The approach adopted by the Council is to decline a subdivision resource consent application where the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council cannot be obtained.

 That the explanation note following Section 7.2 Resource Management Issues, issue 4, be amended to remove the words “subject to obtaining the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council.”

 That the following provisions in relation to on-site wastewater disposal be retained as written in the proposed Plan Change documents: o Clause (b)(iii) of Rule 7.16.1.2 (Performance Standards for Controlled Activities); o Note 3 to Plan Users under Rule 7.16.1.2; o Note 4 to Plan Users under Rule 7.16.1.2; o Performance Standard (a) of Rule 7.16.2.1; and o Notes to Plan Users 1 and 2 under Performance Standard (c) of Rule 7.16.2.1.

 That the second sentence of the 3rd Note to Plan Users under Rule 7.16.1.2 and under Rule 7.16.2.1 be deleted.

 That Assessment Criteria (b)(i) of Rule 7.16.2.1 be deleted.

 That performance standard (c) of Rule R 9.5.1 be retained without modification.

Plan Change 15B  That the recognition given to renewable energy activities through Section 9 (Rural) Objective 8 and supporting policies be supported and retained.

 That wind generation facilities be given recognition as physical resources of regional or national significance within the policies supporting Objective 8 in Section 9.

 That Policy 7.1 and Map 9.1 be retained as drafted in the proposed Plan Change.

 Horizons seeks clarification of how: o significant adverse cumulative effects on the Tararua Ranges Landscape Protection Area, for activities other than renewable energy generation and major structures; and o all types of significant adverse effects on the Landscape Protection Area, from all activities are provided for in the District Plan.

 That the District Plan set a clear direction when considering significant adverse effects (other than significant adverse cumulative effects), avoidance of these effects as far as practicable will be preferred to remediation or mitigation.

 That Assessment Criteria (k) and (l) of Rule 9.8.6 be amended as follows:

k. Ecological impacts, particularly impacts on the Turitea Reserve and Arapuke Forest Park, water bodies, and impacts on indigenous flora and fauna, avifauna and their habitats. l. Impacts of earthworks and modifications of natural landforms, including impacts on water quality and proposed remedial and mitigation measures. Plan Change 15C  That the following note to plan users be included in the “Further Details” column for Designation 85 in Table 1: Schedule of Designations:

 That Palmerston North City Council Officers work with Horizons staff to refine the representation of Horizons requested flood protection asset designations prior to the Hearing. Horizons seeks to ensure that the proposed designations shown on the proposed District Plan Maps are consistent with the information supplied to PNCC and displayed on Horizons asset maps.

 That the new access standards for arterial and collector roads in the Boundary Change area be retained as drafted. In particular, Horizons requests the retention of the following provisions: o Objective 1 in Section 20.3 (Roads, Parking and Access) o New Policy 2.4 o Changes to Rule 20.3.9.1 to ensure traffic generated does not impact on the efficiency and safety of adjoining major and minor arterial routes. Plan Change 15D  That the second Note to Plan Users under Rule 7.17.1.1 be deleted.

 That a note to plan users be added under Rule 9.5.5 referring plan users to Rule 22.7.3.1 with respect to buildings structures and activities within the Flood Protection Zone, and to Rule 22.8.2.1 with respect to occupied structures and activities within Flood Prone Areas.

 That a performance standard be included for Rules 22.7.1.1 and 22.8.1.1 such as “Non- habitable structures on production land must not divert the flow of flood water into existing occupied structures and activities”, and consequential amendments be made to the rule stream and the definition of „occupied structures and activities‟.

 That proposed Rule 22.7.3.1 be retained as drafted in the Proposed Plan Change.

 That the following rule be added to manage new occupied structures and activities in areas that have identified through site-specific assessment to be at risk of inundation during a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event:

R 22.8.2.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity

1. Any new occupied structure or activity, or any increase in the scale of an existing occupied structure or activity, within an area that has been assessed as likely to be inundated during a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event are a Restricted Discretionary Activity with regard to:  Flood Hazard Avoidance or Mitigation  Functional Necessity  Placement of New Critical Infrastructure Provided it complies with the Performance Standards and Assessment Criteria specified in Rule 22.8.2.1.  That proposed performance standard (a) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be retained as drafted in the Proposed Plan Change.

 That performance standard (b) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be amended as follows:

 That assessment criteria (ii) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be amended as follows:

ii. “the extent to which specific flood control measures or flood hazard mitigation measures will achieve protection for the site mitigate flood hazard to the occupied structure or activity in a 0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year) flood event.”

 That assessment criteria (iii) of Rule 22.8.2.1 be amended as follows:

1. “Whether the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures, including the certainty of the maintenance regime, will achieve protection for the site mitigate flood hazard to the occupied structure or activity in a 0.5% AEP or (1 in 200 year) flood event.”  That the last sentence of the Explanation and the first Note to Plan Users under Rule 22.8.2.1; and the second paragraph of the explanation under Rule 22.8.3.1 be deleted and the explanation below Rule 22.7.3.1, be amended as follows: In respect of these activities within the Flygers Line Floodway designation, the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council will be required. Plan Change 15E  That the following proposed provisions be retained as drafted in the Proposed Plan Change:

o Policies 3.8, 3.9, 3.10 and 3.12; o Objective 5, and associated policies in Section 7 (Subdivision); and o Policies 5.4 to 5.11.

 That it be noted that Horizons supports Rule 12A6.2 stormwater management performance standards (f) (i)-(iii), contingent on 100% mitigation of the 1% AEP plus climate change storm, as per NZS4404:2010.

 That assessment criteria (d) (ii) of Rule 12A.6.2 be retained as drafted.

 That assessment criteria (d) (i) of Rule 12A.6.2 be amended as follows to provide specific reference to the design storm that the stormwater retention and detention measures must be designed to mitigate: i. The extent to which proposed on-site stormwater retention and detention measures ensure hydraulic neutrality is achieved in the 1% AEP plus climate change storm, as per NZS4404:2010, and that there is no increase in stormwater effects on surrounding areas.  That PNCC ensures that additionally generated stormwater from the NEIZ Extension does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in the following locations: o Settlers Line north of the Airport; o Flygers Line stopbanks; and o Benmore Avenue. Plan Change 15F

 That the requirement for a Comprehensive Development Plan for the Braeburn Industrial Area be retained.

 That the following provisions in Section 12 be retained as drafted: o Objective 5 and associated policies; o Assessment Criteria (e)(ii) of proposed Rule 12.8.5.

 That Note 2 under Rule 12.8.5 be deleted and replaced by the following advice note:

2. Advice should be sought from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council in relation to any additional resource consents that are required for the proposed development.

Plan Change 15G  That Horizons‟ support for Section 23 be noted. Plan Change 15H  That Horizons‟ general support for Section 13 be noted.

 That clause (i) of Rule 13.4.5.2 be amended as follows:

 That PNCC ensures that additionally generated stormwater from the Airport Zone does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in the following locations: o Settlers Line north of the Airport; o Flygers Line stopbanks; and o Benmore Avenue.

 That additional rules and performance standards be included in Section 13 of the District Plan to control stormwater discharges from activities, new buildings and new hardstand areas to achieve hydraulic neutrality in the 0.5% AEP design storm. Horizons wishes to be heard in relation to this submission and would welcome the opportunity to resolve or narrow issues prior to submissions being heard.

Lisa Thomas Coordinator District Advice HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL

ANNEX A – One Plan Provisions

Objective 3-4: Urban growth and rural residential subdivision on versatile soils

To ensure that territorial authorities consider the benefits of retaining Class I and II1 versatile soils2 for use as production land^ when providing for urban growth and rural residential subdivision.

Policy 3-1: Benefits of infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance (a) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must recognise the following infrastructure^ as being physical resources of regional or national importance: (i) facilities for the generation of more than 1 MW of electricity and its supporting infrastructure^ where the electricity generated is supplied to the electricity distribution and transmission networks (ii) the National Grid and electricity distribution and transmission networks defined as the system of transmission lines, sub- transmission and distribution feeders (6.6kV and above) and all associated substations and other works to convey electricity (iii) pipelines and gas facilities used for the transmission and distribution of natural and manufactured gas (iv) the road^ and rail networks as mapped in the Regional Land Transport Strategy (v) the Palmerston North and Wanganui airports^ (vi) the RNZAF airport^ at Ohakea (vii) telecommunications and radiocommunications facilities (viii) public or community sewage treatment plants and associated reticulation and disposal systems (ix) public water supply* intakes, treatment plants and distribution systems (x) public or community drainage systems, including stormwater systems (xi) the Port of Wanganui. (b) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must recognise the following facilities and assets as being physical resources of regional or national importance: (i) solid waste* facilities including landfills*, transfer stations and resource recovery facilities that deal with municipal waste* (ii) existing flood protection schemes (iii) New Zealand Defence Force facilities. (c) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must, in relation to the establishment, operation*, maintenance*, or upgrading* of infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance, listed in (a) and (b), have regard to the benefits derived from those activities.

1 As identified in the Land Use Capability Classification system. 2 For general information purposes these soils largely comprise the following soil series: Egmont, Kiwitea, Westmere, Manawatu, Karapoti, Dannevirke, Ohakune, Kairanga, Opiki and Te Arakura. (d) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must achieve as much consistency across local authority^ boundaries as is reasonably possible with respect to policy and plan provisions and decision-making for existing and future infrastructure^.

Policy 3-2: Adverse effects^ of other activities on infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must ensure that adverse effects^ on infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance from other activities are avoided as far as reasonably practicable, including by using the following mechanisms: (a) ensuring that current infrastructure^, infrastructure^ corridors and other physical resources of regional or national importance, are identified and had regard to in all resource management decision-making, and any development that would adversely affect the operation*, maintenance* or upgrading* of those activities is avoided as far as reasonably practicable, (b) ensuring that any new activities that would adversely affect the operation*, maintenance* or upgrading* of infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance are not located near existing such resources or such resources allowed by unimplemented resource consents^ or other RMA authorisations, (c) ensuring that there is no change to existing activities that increases their incompatibility with existing infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance, or such resources allowed by unimplemented resource consents^ or other RMA authorisations, (d) notifying the owners or managers of infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance of consent applications that may adversely affect the resources that they own or manage, (e) ensuring safe separation distances are maintained when establishing rules^ and considering applications for buildings, structures^ and other activities near overhead electric lines and conductors eg., giving effect to the New Zealand Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001), prepared under the Electricity Act 1992, and the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 prepared under the Electricity Act 1992, (f) ensuring safe separation distances are maintained when establishing rules^ and considering applications for buildings, structures^ and other activities near transmission gas pipelines eg., giving effect to the Operating Code Standard for Pipelines - Gas and Liquid Petroleum (NZS/AS 2885) and the Gas Distribution Networks (NZS 5258:2003), the latter promulgated under the Gas Act 1992, (g) ensuring that any planting does not interfere with existing infrastructure^, eg., giving effect to the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 promulgated under the Electricity Act 1992 and Section 6.4.4 External Interference Prevention of the Operating Code Standard for Pipelines - Gas and Liquid Petroleum (NZS/AS 2885), and (h) ensuring effective integration of transport and land^ use planning and protecting the function of the strategic road^ and rail network as mapped in the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

Policy 3-3: Adverse effects^ of infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance on the environment In managing any adverse environmental effects^ arising from the establishment, operation*, maintenance* and upgrading* of infrastructure^ or other physical resources of regional or national importance, the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must: (a) recognise and provide for the operation*, maintenance* and upgrading* of all such activities once they have been established, (b) allow minor adverse effects^ arising from the establishment of new infrastructure^ and physical resources of regional or national importance, and (c) avoid, remedy or mitigate more than minor adverse effects^ arising from the establishment of new infrastructure^ and other physical resources of regional or national importance, taking into account: (i) the need for the infrastructure^ or other physical resources of regional or national importance, (ii) any functional, operational or technical constraints that require infrastructure^ or other physical resources of regional or national importance to be located or designed in the manner proposed, (iii) whether there are any reasonably practicable alternative locations or designs, and (iv) whether any more than minor adverse effects^ that cannot be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated by services or works can be appropriately offset, including through the use of financial contributions.

Policy 3-5: Urban growth and rural residential subdivision on versatile soils

In providing for urban growth (including implementing Policy 3-4), and controlling rural residential subdivision (“lifestyle blocks”), Territorial Authorities^ must pay particular attention to the benefits of the retention of Class I and II versatile soils for use as production land^ in their assessment of how best to achieve sustainable management.

Policy 3-6: Renewable energy^ (a) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must have particular regard to: (i) the benefits of the use and development of renewable energy^ resources including: (A) contributing to reduction in greenhouse gases, (B) reduced dependency on imported energy sources, (C) reduced exposure to fossil fuel price volatility, and (D) security of supply for current and future generations, (ii) the Region’s potential for the use and development of renewable energy^ resources, and (iii) the need for renewable energy^ activities to locate where the renewable energy^ resource is located, and (iv) the benefits of enabling the increased generation capacity and efficiency of existing renewable electricity generation facilities, and (v) the logistical or technical practicalities associated with developing, upgrading, operating or maintaining an established renewable electricity generation activity. (b) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must generally not restrict the use of small domestic-scale renewable energy^ production for individual domestic use.

Policy 6-1: Responsibilities for maintaining indigenous biological diversity^

In accordance with s62(1)(i) RMA, local authority responsibilities for controlling land^ use activities for the purpose of managing indigenous biological diversity^ in the Region are apportioned as follows: (a) The Regional Council must be responsible for:

(i) developing objectives, policies and methods for the purpose of establishing a Region-wide approach for maintaining indigenous biological diversity^, including enhancement where appropriate (ii) developing rules^ controlling the use of land^ to protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna and to maintain indigenous biological diversity^, including enhancement where appropriate. (b) Territorial Authorities^ must be responsible for: (i) retaining schedules of notable trees and amenity trees in their district plans^ or such other measures as they see fit for the purpose of recognising amenity, intrinsic and cultural values associated with indigenous biological diversity^, but not for the purpose of protecting significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as described in (a)(ii) above. (c) Both the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must be responsible for: (i) recognising and providing for matters described in s6(c) RMA and having particular regard to matters identified in s7(d) RMA when exercising functions and powers under the RMA, outside the specific responsibilities allocated above, including when making decisions on resource consent^ applications.

Policy 6-6: Regionally outstanding natural features and landscapes

The natural features and landscapes listed in Schedule G Table G.1 must be recognised as regionally outstanding and must be spatially defined in the review and development of district plans. All subdivision, use and development directly affecting these areas must be managed in a manner which: (a) avoids significant adverse cumulative effects^ on the characteristics and values of those outstanding natural features and landscapes, and (b) except as required under (a), avoids adverse effects^ as far as reasonably practicable and, where avoidance is not reasonably practicable, remedies or mitigates adverse effects^ on the characteristics and values of those outstanding natural features and landscapes. Policy 9-2: Development in areas prone to flooding

(a) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must not allow the establishment of any new structure^ or activity, or any increase in the scale of any existing structure^ or activity, within a floodway* mapped in Schedule J unless:

(i) there is a functional necessity to locate the structure^ or activity within such an area, and (ii) the structure^ or activity is designed so that the adverse effects^ of a 0.5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) (1 in 200 year) flood event2 on it are avoided or mitigated, and (iii) the structure^ or activity is designed so that adverse effects^ on the environment^, including the functioning of the floodway, arising from the structure^ or activity during a flood event2 are avoided or mitigated, in which case the structure^ or activity may be allowed.

(b) Outside of a floodway* mapped in Schedule J the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must not allow the establishment of any new structure^ or activity, or an increase in the scale of any existing structure^ or activity, within an area which would be inundated in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event2 unless:

(i) flood hazard avoidance* is achieved or the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood hazard is mitigated, or (ii) the non-habitable structure^ or activity is on production land^, or (iii) there is a functional necessity to locate the structure^ or activity within such an area, in any of which cases the structure^ or activity may be allowed.

(d) When making decisions under Policies 9-2(a) and b(i) regarding the appropriateness of proposed flood hazard mitigation measures, the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must:

(i) ensure that occupied structures have a finished floor or ground level, which includes reasonable freeboard, above the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood level. (ii) ensure that in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event2 the inundation of access between occupied structures^ and a safe area where evacuation may be carried out (preferably ground that will not be flooded) must be no greater than 0.5 m above finished ground level with a maximum water velocity of 1.0 m/s, or some other combination of water depth and velocity that can be shown to result in no greater risk to human life, infrastructure^ or property*, (iii) ensure that any more than minor adverse effects^ on the effectiveness of existing flood hazard avoidance* or mitigation measures, including works and structures^ within River and Drainage Schemes, natural landforms that protect against inundation, and overland stormwater flow paths, are avoided, (iv) ensure that adverse effects on existing structures^ and activities are avoided or mitigated, (v) have regard to the likelihood and consequences of the proposed flood hazard mitigation measures failing, (vi) have regard to the consequential effects^ of meeting the requirements of (d)(ii), including but not limited to landscape and natural character, urban design, and the displacement of floodwaters onto adjoining properties*, and (vii) have regard to the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures including the appropriateness and certainty of the maintenance regime.

(e) Within that part of the Palmerston North City Council district that is protected by the Lower Manawatu River Flood Control Scheme to a 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) standard, including the Mangaone Stream stopbank system, additional flood hazard avoidance* or mitigation measures will generally not be required when establishing any new structure^ or activity or increasing the scale of any existing structure^ or activity.

(f) Despite Policy 9-2(d)(i) and (ii), within that part of the Wanganui central city bounded by Bates Street, Ridgway Street and Victoria Avenue, flood hazard mitigation measures will not be limited to considering flood height and flow but will include such methods as resilient construction and emergency management systems.

(g) This policy does not apply to new critical infrastructure*.

Policy 9-3: New critical infrastructure*

The placement of new critical infrastructure* in an area likely to be inundated by a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event2 (including floodways mapped in Schedule J), or in an area likely to be adversely affected by another type of natural hazard^, must be avoided, unless there is satisfactory evidence to show that the critical infrastructure*:

(a) will not be adversely affected by floodwaters or another type of natural hazard^, (b) will not cause any adverse effects^ on the environment^ in the event of a flood or another type of natural hazard^, (c) is unlikely to cause a significant increase in the scale or intensity of natural hazard^ events, and (d) cannot reasonably be located in an alternative location.

Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

13-3 Except as regulated by Rule 13-8 and 13-9, Permitted (a) The activity must not take place on land^ that is within a any forestry* pursuant to s9(2) RMA, and coastal foredune*. Forestry* any ancillary: (b) Any earthworks, the formation of any new track* and any (a) disturbance of the bed^ of a river^ or planting or replanting of forestry* trees must not occur on lake^ pursuant to s13(1) RMA by land^ that is in, or within 5 m of: forestry*, or (b) diversion of water^ pursuant to s14(2) (i) the bed^ of a river^ that is permanently flowing RMA on the land^ (but not within a (ii) the bed^ of a lake^ river^) where the forestry * is (iii) a rare habitat*, threatened habitat* or at-risk habitat*. undertaken, or unless the new track* or earthworks in (b)(i) or (b)(ii) is: (c) discharge^ of sediment or slash* into water^ or onto or into land^ that may (A) necessary to connect to and from a formed river* enter water^ pursuant to s15(1) or crossing point that is a consented or permitted activity, 15(2A) RMA resulting from the and/or forestry*. (B) for the purpose of the maintenance* or upgrade* of an existing track* or earthwork.

(c) Any new planting of forestry* trees and associated formation of any new track* or earthworks must not occur on land* that is in, or within 10 m of wetland^ habitat types (including lakes^) as defined in Schedule F.

(d) Any earthworks or the formation of any new track* must not occur on land^ that is in, or within 10 m of a reach of a river^ or its bed^ with a Schedule B Value of Trout Spawning or Trout Fishery, unless the new track* or earthworks is:

(A) necessary to connect to and from a formed river* crossing point that is a consented or permitted activity, and/or

(B) for the purpose of the maintenance* or upgrade* of an existing track* or earthwork. Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

(e) If any rare habitat*, threatened habitat* or at-risk habitat* is present within 5 m of an area of forestry* prior to undertaking harvesting an Operational Plan*, detailing measures taken to avoid or mitigate adverse effects^ on these areas, must be prepared and submitted to the Regional Council at least 48 hours prior to harvesting commencing and the Operational Plan* must be complied with.

(f) Any area of forestry* that is harvested (other than firebreaks, tracks*, landing sites* or areas in (a) and (b)) must be planted or replanted to protect from erosion as soon as practicable and no later than 18 months from the date of the harvesting, unless the area is left to revegetate naturally. (g) Water^ run-off controls must be installed and maintained for tracks* and landing sites*. (h) Batters, cuts and side castings must be established by methods that prevent slumping. (i) Felled vegetation must be felled away from and not be dragged through any water body^ other than where this is necessary to avoid endangering the health and safety of workers, or where it is unavoidable and is the best harvest method such as, but not limited to, hauling through corridors or butt extraction, and (i) any discharge^ resulting from the activity must not, after reasonable mixing, breach the water quality standards for change in visual clarity identified for that water body^ set out in Schedule E, and (ii) the activity must not occur in a water body^ with a Trout Spawning value identified in Schedule B during the trout spawning season (1 May to 30 September inclusive), and (iii) the activity must not occur in a water body^ greater than 5 m in width, and (iv) the activity must not occur in an area listed in (b) (iii). (j) Harvesting must be planned and carried out so as to minimise the amount of slash* discharging^ into any area Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

listed in (b)(i) and (ii) and entering any area listed in (b)(iii). (k) Slash* must be removed from within areas listed in (b)(i) where it is blocking river^ flow, or is diverting river^ flow and causing bank erosion. (l) Slash* associated with landing sites* and processing sites* must be placed on stable ground and contained to prevent accumulated slash from causing erosion or land instability. (m) The use of mobile machinery in or on the bed^ of a river^ with a Schedule B Value of Trout Spawning in a manner that disturbs the bed^ of the active flowing channel must not take place during the trout spawning season (1 May to 30 September inclusive). (n) The use of mobile machinery in or on the bed^ of a river^ with a Schedule B Value of whitebait migration in a manner that disturbs the bed^ of the active flowing channel must not take place 15 August to 30 November (inclusive). (o) The activity must be undertaken in accordance with an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan* which must be submitted to the Regional Council upon request. (p) Any discharge^ resulting from the activity must not, after reasonable mixing, breach the water quality standards for change in visual clarity identified for that water body^ set out in Schedule E.

(q) Regional Council must be notified at least 48 hours prior to the activity commencing.

13-8 Except as regulated by Rules 14-5, Discretionary 14-13, 14-24, 16-9, 17-2, 17-4, 17-5, Some activities within 17-7 in relation to any existing small dam at-risk habitats* structure^, 17-14 and 17-15, any of the following activities within an at-risk habitat*:

(a) vegetation clearance*, land disturbance* or cultivation* pursuant to s9(2) RMA (b) forestry* pursuant to s9(2) RMA that does not meet condition^, standard or Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

term of Rule 13-3(b)(iii) or (e) (c) the drilling, construction or alteration of any bore* pursuant to s9(2) RMA (d) activities restricted by s13(1) or s13(2) RMA in the beds^ of rivers^ or lakes^ (e) the taking, using, damming or diverting of water^ pursuant to s14(2) RMA (f) discharge^ of water^ or contaminants^ into water^ or onto or into land^ pursuant to s15(1) or s15(2A) RMA.

This rule does not apply to activities described in paragraphs (a) to (f) where they are carried out for the purposes of protecting or enhancing the habitat, including the control of pest animals and pest plants.

14-14 The discharge^ of domestic wastewater* Permitted (a) The activity must comply with conditions (a) to (g) of Rule onto or into land^ pursuant to ss15(1) or 14-13. New and upgraded 15(2A) RMA and any ancillary discharge^ of (b) All aspects of the wastewater treatment and land^ application system, including soil assessment, design, discharges^ of contaminants^ into air pursuant to ss15(1) domestic wastewater* installation and operation, must be in accordance with the or 15(2A) RMA from a new or upgraded on- Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and site wastewater treatment and land^ Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010). application system which either: (c) Where the property* within which the discharge^ occurs is 10 ha or greater: (a) is newly established after this rule^ becomes operative^, or (i) septic tanks must be fitted with effluent outlet filters, unless the equivalent level of treatment is provided (b) involves the upgrade* of a system that within a secondary or advanced secondary wastewater existed at the date that this rule^ treatment system becomes operative^. (ii) the areal loading rate within the wastewater land^ application area must be no greater than the least conservative rate provided in Tables 6.2, 6.6, 6.8 and 6.10 of the Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010). Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

(d) Where the property* within which the discharge^ occurs is less than 10 ha but 4 ha or greater: (i) the treatment system must be either secondary treatment which must achieve, as a minimum, the following discharge^ quality standards: 20 g/m3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand and 30 g/m3 Suspended Solids or an improved primary septic tank and outlet filter (ii) the land^ application system must be via pumping to dose load pressure compensating dripper irrigation lines for secondary or advanced secondary treated effluent and shallow low pressure effluent distribution trenches for primary treated effluent or lesser rate in accordance with that prescribed in Table 6.2 in the Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010) (iii) the areal loading rate within the wastewater land^ application area must be no greater than 5 mm/d (5 litres per m2 per day) for secondary treated effluent and no greater than 3 mm/d (3 litres per m2 per day) for primary treated effluent. (e) Where the property* within which the discharge^ occurs is less than 4 ha: (i) the property* must cover an area of at least either 5,000 m2 for properties* created by subdivision after this rule^ becomes operative^, or 2,500 m² for properties* that existed at the date that this rule^ becomes operative^

(ii) the wastewater treatment system must include secondary treatment which must achieve, as a minimum, the following discharge^ quality standards: 20 g/m³ Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 30 g/m³ Suspended Solids, and 60 g/m³ Total Nitrogen

(iii) the land^ application system must be via pumping to dose load pressure compensating dripper irrigation lines

(iv) the areal loading rate within the wastewater land^ Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

application area must be no greater than 3 mm/d (3 litres per m² per day) or lesser rate in accordance with that prescribed in Table 6.2 in the Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010).

(f) Separation distances to water bodies^ and property* boundaries must be in accordance with those specified in Table 2.2 in the Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010). (g) The placement, burial, covering and exclusion of the land^ application area must be as specified in section 6 in the Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010). (h) For secondary treatment systems there must be at least a 50% reserve disposal area allocation. For primary treatment systems this reserve area allocation must be not less than 100%. (i) The activity must not take place in any rare habitat*, threatened habitat* or at-risk habitat*. (j) The activity must not be to any historic heritage^ identified in any district plan^ or regional plan^. (k) The wastewater treatment and land^ application system must be maintained by a manufacturer-approved contractor in accordance with the supplier’s specifications or the requirements of the Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and Management (Horizons Regional Council, 2010), whichever are the more stringent. All records of each maintenance* action must be retained and made available for inspection by the Regional Council or its agents upon request. (l) The discharge^ must not cause any offensive or objectionable odour beyond the property* boundary. 14-18 The discharge^ of stormwater into surface Permitted (a) The discharge^ must not include stormwater from any: water^ pursuant to s15(1) RMA or onto or (i) industrial or trade premises^ where hazardous Discharges^ of into land^ pursuant to ss15(1) or 15(2A) substances* stored or used may be entrained by the stormwater stormwater to surface RMA, and any ancillary takes or diversions (ii) contaminated land^ where the contaminants^ of Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification water^ and land^ of stormwater pursuant to s14(2) RMA concern may be entrained by the stormwater forming part of the stormwater system. (iii) operating quarry or mineral^ extraction site* unless there is an interceptor system* in place. (b) The discharge^ must not cause or exacerbate the flooding of any other property*. (c) The activity must not cause erosion of any land^ or the bed^ of any water body^ beyond the point of discharge^ unless this is not practicably avoidable, in which case any erosion that occurs as a result of the discharge^ must be remedied as soon as practicable. (d) There must be no discharge^ to any rare habitat*, threatened habitat*, at-risk habitat*, or reach of river^ or its bed^ with a Schedule B Value of Natural State. (e) For discharges^ of stormwater onto or into land^: (i) the discharge^ must be below a rate that would cause flooding outside the design discharge^ soakage area, except in rain events equivalent to or greater than the 10% annual exceedance probability design storm. Any exceedance must go into designated overland flow paths (ii) there must not be any overland flow resulting in a discharge^ to a natural surface water body^, except in rain events equivalent to or greater than the 10% annual exceedance probability design storm (iii) the discharge^ must not contain concentrations of hazardous substances* that are toxic to aquatic ecosystems, or accumulate in soil. (f) For discharges^ of stormwater into surface water bodies^ the discharge^ must not cause any permanent reduction of the ability of the receiving water body^ or its bed^ to convey flood flows. (g) For discharges^ of stormwater into surface water bodies^ the discharge^ must not cause, after reasonable mixing*, any of the following effects^ in the receiving water body^: (i) the production of conspicuous oil* or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or suspended materials (ii) any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

of the receiving water^ (iii) any emission of objectionable odour (iv) the rendering of fresh water^ unsuitable for consumption by farm animals (v) toxicity to aquatic ecosystems. (h) The activity must not be to any historic heritage^ identified in any district plan^ or regional plan^. Rule 17-14 The following activities within a reach of a Permitted (a) The activity must be undertaken in accordance with the river^ with a Schedule B Value of Flood Environmental Code of Practice for River Works (Horizons Activities undertaken Control and Drainage, where they are Regional Council, June 2010). by or on behalf of the undertaken by or on behalf of the Regional (b) The activity must not involve: Regional Council in Council: (i) an activity prohibited under Rule 17-1 rivers^ with a (ii) an activity regulated under Rule 17-3, except to the Schedule B Value of (a) the erection, placement, or extension extent that the activities may be carried out in specified Flood Control and of any structure^ in, on, under or over Sites of Significance - Aquatic and Sites of the bed^ of a river^ pursuant to 13(1) Significance - Cultural in accordance with (a). Drainage RMA (b) the excavation, drilling, tunnelling or other disturbance (including gravel extraction) of the bed^ of a river^ pursuant to s13(1) RMA (c) any damming or diversion of water^ pursuant to s14(2) RMA (d) any discharge^ or deposition of plants, removed bed^ material, rock, shingle, earth, cleanfill material*, water^ or sediment into water^ or onto or into land^ pursuant to ss13(1), 15(1) or 15(2A) RMA (e) the damage, destruction, disturbance or removal of plants or parts of plants pursuant to s13(2) RMA.

17-15 Except as regulated by Rule 17-5, the Discretionary following activities pursuant to ss 9(2) and Activities affecting 13(1) RMA in, on or under an artificial Schedule B Value of Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

Flood Control and watercourse* or a reach of a river^ with a Drainage Schedule B Value of Flood Control and Drainage or adjacent land^ as defined in (j) to (m):

(a) the planting of a tree or shrub (b) the erection, placement or extension of any building or other structure^ (including accessways) (c) the erection, placement or extension of a fence perpendicular to a river^ or artificial watercourse* (d) the erection, placement or extension of a fence greater than 1.2 m high parallel to a river^ or artificial watercourse* (e) the deposition of any rock, shingle, earth, debris or other cleanfill material* (f) any excavation, drilling, tunnelling or other disturbance likely to undermine the functional integrity of a stopbank or river^ control structure^ (g) any land disturbance* that impedes access required for maintenance* of a river^ or drainage scheme (h) the upgrade*, reconstruction, alteration, extension, removal or demolition of any structure^ that is maintained by the Regional Council for the purposes of flood control or erosion protection or drainage and any ancillary:

(i) excavation, drilling, tunnelling or other disturbance of the river^ or lake^ bed^ pursuant to s13(1) RMA (ii) damming or diversion of water^ Rule Activity Classification Conditions/Standards/Terms Control/Discretion

Non-Notification

pursuant to s14(2) RMA (iii) discharge^ of water^ or sediment into water^ or onto or into land^ pursuant to ss15(1) or 15(2A) RMA (iv) deposition of substances in or on the bed^ of the river^ or lake^ pursuant to s13(1) (v) land disturbance* pursuant to s9(2) RMA where the activities listed in (a) to (h) are undertaken in any of the following areas:

(i) within the bed^ of a river^ or within an artificial watercourse* (j) on a stopbank (k) on any strip of land^ between an artificial watercourse* or bed^ of a river^ and 8 m inland of the landward toe of a stopbank (l) for areas without stopbanks, anywhere within 10 m of an artificial watercourse* or the bed^ of a river^ (l) Only land^ use activities described under (f) and (g) are controlled under this rule^ on land^ described under (j) and (k) on and adjacent to the Manawatu River secondary stopbank located between Ruahine Street at Fitzroy Bend and Ruamahanga Crescent. The other listed land^ use activities are not controlled in that area.

This rule^ does not apply to activities undertaken by or on behalf of the Regional Council.