Proposed Regional Air Plan
Decision Report
1 Introduction
This decision report considers the submissions received on Environment Southland’s Proposed Regional Air Plan 2014 (PRAP).
In making its decision Council has:
(a) been assisted by a Section 42A report prepared and peer reviewed by Council staff; (b) had regard to matters raised by submitters and further submitters in their submissions, further submissions, and at the Council hearing; (c) had regard to legal aspects clarified by the Council’s Legal Counsel, Mr Barry Slowley; and (d) had regard to the provisions of section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
The appendix to this decision report (Appendix Two) sets out the changes to the PRAP made in the Decision. These are shown as “tracked changes” in the appendix (i.e. additions are underlined while deletions are struck through).
Abbreviations used throughout this decision report are located in Section 1.2 of this report.
Background: Submitters and further submitters were notified on 19 May 2015 that the section 42A report for the Proposed Regional Air Plan 2014 (PRAP) was available on the Environment Southland website, or alternatively as a hardcopy upon request.
Date of Hearing: Tuesday, 2 June 2015 Wednesday, 3 June 2015 Monday, 15 June 2015 Tuesday, 16 June 2015 Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Thursday, 18 June 2015
Date of Deliberations: Wednesday, 24 June 2015 Monday, 13 July 2015 Tuesday, 25 August 2015
Hearing Committee: Mr J Iseli (Chair) Mrs M Johnstone Cr R Cockburn Cr P Jones Cr M Rodway
Staff in Attendance: Mr G Gilder (Resource Planner) Mr D Richardson (Principal Planner) Mr O West (Air Quality Scientist) Mr B Slowley (Council Legal Counsel) Mrs T McCann (Communications Co-ordinator) Mrs K Harper (Office Support Secretary)
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 1
Evidence Presented at the Hearing
In person: Barry Slowley (legal submission) Gore District Council Mary-Jane Thomas representing members of Gore & Districts Senior Citizens Club and individuals Graeme Humphries Juliet Humphries John McIntyre Allistair & Ann Meikle Allan Katon Allan Thomas Sally McIntyre Ernie Wilson Gore and District Budget Advisory Service Brian Bennett for Marjory Bennett John Gardyne Helen Highsted John Barnett Yvonne Bannerman John Bannerman Stephen Mitchell Peter Shand Jeff Walker (and on behalf of Caroline Corkhill) Rayners Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited Barry Douglas Jon Havenaar Southland District Council Southland Farm Forestry Association Grant Meyer Southern Rural Fire Authority NZ Fire Service Commission Straterra Bathurst Resources Ltd James Pirie Debbie McKenzie Chris Henderson Venture Southland Jenny Campbell Philip McCallum Noel Bonisch for Diana and Noel Bonisch Peter Brown Nathan Surendran Pauline Blee, Allan Blee and Kathleen Mason Steven Olde-Olthof and Sharon Thomas Gore District Council (in response to Hearing Committee questions) Federated Farmers of NZ Invercargill City Council Zella Downing speaking on behalf of Tim Jones Department of Conservation for Director-General of Conservation Murray Blackadder
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 2
Tabled evidence: Mitre 10 Mega Invercargill Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd The Fertiliser Association of NZ Julie Anderson June Todd Allan and Denise Sadlier Airways Corporation of NZ Ltd Transpower New Zealand Ltd Alliance Group Ltd Ministry of Education Horticulture New Zealand NZ Agricultural Aviation Association
1.1 Structure of the report
During the submission period 796 submissions and 23 further submissions were received. The submissions addressed a large number of matters in the PRAP and associated Section 32 Report. The submissions and further submissions to the PRAP have been assessed by the Hearing Committee but given the number of submissions, individual analysis and responses have not been considered as an effective approach to this report. Instead, the key issues throughout the submissions and the hearing evidence have been responded to under the provisions to which they relate, or identified and responded to in the general analysis section of the report.
Section 2 of this report presents the evaluation of submissions along with the technical and planning evidence considered by the Hearing Committee.
Appendix One of this report contains a Table showing whether a submission point has been accepted, accepted in part or rejected as a consequence of these recommendations. Accept in part means that only part of the decision requested in that submission has been accepted. References in the table direct the submitter to the part(s) of the analysis relevant to their submission.
Appendix Two of this report sets out the changes to the PRAP made in the Decision. These are shown as “tracked changes” in the appendix (i.e. additions are underlined while deletions are struck through).
Appendix Three of this report is a clean version (underlining removed and struck through provisions deleted) of the changes to the PRAP made in the Decision.
Appendix Four of this report is the Section 32 Evaluation Report.
1.2 Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used throughout this Decision report:
HSNO Act Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 NES National Environmental Standard NESAQ National Environmental Standards for Air Quality 2011 PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PRAP Proposed Regional Air Plan 2014 RAQPS Regional Air Quality Plan for Southland (1999) RMA Resource Management Act 1991 RPS Proposed Southland Regional Policy Statement 2012
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 3
Note: Abbreviations for submitters and further submitters are presented in the Index of Submitters and Further Submitters which accompanies this Decision report.
1.3 Summary of key themes
Section 15 of the RMA regulates the discharge of contaminants to air. In summary no person may:
discharge contaminants to air from an industrial or trade premise, unless expressly allowed by a national environmental standard (NES), or other regulation, a rule in a regional plan, or by resource consent. discharge in a manner that contravenes an NES unless expressly allowed by other regulation, resource consent, or section 20A discharge in a manner that contravenes a rule in a regional plan unless the discharge is expressly allowed by an NES, resource consent or section 20A.
To allow that range of matters to be considered within the region, an Air Plan is required to manage those discharges.
National Environmental Standards are technical environmental regulations which must be complied with. The National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) sets out a range of baseline standards that regional councils are expected to monitor and seek compliance on in relation to air. The NESAQ sets minimum requirements for outdoor air quality to provide a set level of protection for human health and the health of the environment.
To achieve this, a standard for PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter), which is the measure to deliver clean healthy air for all New Zealanders has been set. The NESAQ requires that airsheds with greater than 10 exceedances per year of PM10 (in Southland’s case, Invercargill) must be reduced to meet three exceedances per year by 2016 and one per year by 2020. Airsheds with less than 10 exceedances per year (in Southland’s case, Gore) must meet one exceedance by 2016.
Domestic home heating rules in the PRAP focus largely on reducing PM10 concentrations in ambient (outdoor) air to achieve compliance with National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds and to ensure domestic home heating does not result in localised air quality problems. Outdoor burning rules focus on minimising localised health and nuisance effects regionally, with stricter rules in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds to reduce contributions of this source to ambient PM10 concentrations during the winter months, when breaches of the NESAQ occur.
Agrichemical spray drift has the potential for localised adverse effects on non-target species. Rules have been proposed to minimise the effects of spray drift onto non-target species.
New rules for domestic home heating, outdoor burning, the application of agrichemicals and fertilisers, and fire training have been developed as Stage 1 of a review of the Regional Air Quality Plan for Southland (1999). All other discharges to air (such as industrial and commercial discharges) will be reviewed in Stage 2.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 4
2 Analysis of Submissions
The submissions have been grouped and responded to under each provision of the PRAP. However, a number of key issues were identified by submissions and these have been responded to in Section 2.1 of this report. 2.1 General submissions
The submissions received on the PRAP have identified a number of key issues. This section of the report outlines those key issues, the submitters concerns or comments, and Council decision.
2.1.1 Procedural issues
Submitters have raised some procedural concerns about the PRAP. Some of these concerns include the amount of consultation undertaken, clarification around the staging of the Plan, the use of prohibited activity statuses, information provided on the Council website, timing of the RPS process and existing use rights.
The decision on the RPS was released during the hearing process. The objectives and policies of the RPS have been taken into account and the Council is confident that the Plan is consistent with the RPS.
Council is confident in the legality of procedures undertaken and a legal submission was provided by Council’s Legal Counsel at the start of the hearing in response to these submissions.
2.1.2 Health effects: air quality vs warm homes
Submitters have raised concerns about the cold temperatures and the inadequate insulation of dwellings in Southland, with the view that the health benefits of improving air quality will be negated by the health impacts associated with cold homes when households are unable to afford to heat their homes if multi fuel burners are prohibited. The concerns relate to both the expenditure required for a replacement heating method and the inability to continue to use coal as fuel for the new heating method. In addition, the inability of households to bank down an NES compliant wood burner as a replacement method is perceived to result in unacceptably low overnight time indoor temperatures.
Council acknowledges that the proposed rules will mean that some households will experience financial pressures as they replace heating methods sooner than they otherwise would. Some households will simply not be able to afford alternative heating methods if adequate financial assistance/incentives packages are not offered. Others may be able to afford a replacement heating method if given sufficient lead in time. The proposed burner phase-out dates are based on a 15 year average burner life and the assumption that households would be looking to reinvest in heating methods after this period in the absence of regulations. However, submissions suggest the expectation of a much longer useful life for multi fuel burners in Invercargill and Gore and indicate that households cannot afford replacement heating methods within this 15 year time period.
This is a valid concern and Council acknowledges that health impacts may eventuate if vulnerable people are living in cold homes. It is also noted that many of these vulnerable people (those with respiratory or cardiovascular illness) will the most vulnerable to the impacts of poor air quality and that the degraded air quality that they are exposed to is contributed to by those that can afford to change to less polluting heating options. The rules, as proposed, strive to achieve an outcome of improved air quality but not at the expense of cold homes. The support needed to avoid the latter will vary with circumstance. Council has decided on a combination of revising phase out dates to give more notice of change, allowing a longer useful burner life (i.e., phasing out burners after 20 years) to reduce the real cost of the policy, and providing a financial assistance/incentives package to assist low income households.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 5
Concerns regarding the inability to bank down an NES compliant wood burner overnight to assist with the heating of a house and therefore reducing the temperature in houses are valid as these burners are typically unable to be banked down overnight. However, it is worth noting that the heat released from a fire burning overnight is unable to sustain adequate temperature in a dwelling as the combustion process is inefficient and fuel burning rate is very low. Moreover, the pollution resulting from this practice is significant.
Based on submissions, Council has revised the burner phase out dates and will develop a financial assistance/incentives programme to assist low income households. Submitters are referred to Section 2.6.8 for discussion on the revised phase out dates.
2.1.3 Air Plan monitoring and enforcement
Submitters have raised concerns about how certain provisions in the PRAP will be monitored and enforced as we work towards improving air quality, particularly in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. Some of these concerns include; who will monitor the use of prohibited fuels and materials, what penalties will be imposed for non-compliance with any rules, and how Council will work with residents to look at possible solutions over time prior to considering enforcement action. These are all valid concerns when it comes to the implementation of the rule framework.
Council has given plenty of consideration to the implementation of air quality rules and it has been identified as a significant challenge to Regional Councils across the country. Council has developed a draft compliance strategy but is reliant on the completion of this RMA process before it can be completed and published. However, right from the outset, Council has communicated that an “education first” approach is imperative on this issue as the health effects from being in cold homes could outweigh any gains from improving ambient air quality in many instances.
2.1.4 Central government legislation
Submitters have raised concerns relating to the appropriateness of Central Government legislation, in particular the NESAQ for PM10. Specifically issues identified include the level of protection of the standard (expressed as the number of allowable exceedances) and the timeframe for achieving the targets being too tight. There are concerns that the impact of measures to achieve these legislative requirements will result in undue hardship by means of households going cold as they have insufficient time and money to adapt to the proposed burner phase out rules. There are also concerns that Council is over regulating in order to meet the timeframes specified in the NESAQ, particularly in Gore. The impact on households of proposed regulations is a valid concern.
A review of the stringency of the NESAQ was carried out by Central Government in 2011. This considered increasing the number of allowable exceedances of PM10 from one per year to three and extending the timeframes required for compliance. The review found that the health costs of lowering the set level of protection specified by the NESAQ and allowing more exceedances were significant. The timeframe for achieving compliance was extended from 2013 to either 2016 or 2020 depending on the extent of the air quality problem. Notwithstanding the timeframes being extended, meeting the NESAQ for PM10 by either 2016 or 2020 is a significant challenge for many Regional Councils throughout New Zealand. Council recognises that the health benefits of clean air will be negated if it is at the expense of warm homes and reconciling these issues is the crux of the air plan. It is unlikely that there is sufficient time available to ensure clean air is not at the expense of cold homes and also meet the 2016 NESAQ requirements. Council is required under the Resource Management Act 1991 to ensure air quality in Southland meets the National Environmental Standards. However, some compromises to the timeframe should be considered.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 6
Based on submissions and considering all factors, the phase out dates have been re-evaluated and the necessity of all phase out measures have been validated for both the Invercargill and Gore airsheds.
2.1.5 New technology and adaptation of existing technology
The issue of the role of new technology and the potential adaption of existing technology has been raised by submitters. Some note that secondary control technologies such as electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have become available for domestic scale appliances in recent years and they would like to see rules adapted to allow for the use of older wood and multi fuel burners if fitted with approved mitigation technology. In addition, some submitters propose allowing existing older burners to be modified to reduce emissions, for example by limiting the oxygen controls, rather than phasing them out. Concerns were raised about different existing technologies and that some burner types and operators were worse than others. Options proposed to address inequitable emissions from existing technology included phase out by burner type (e.g., the destructor), treating boilers differently, assessment on a case by case basis and an education based approach. Many submitters proposing technology solutions were concerned about the impact of the proposed burner phase outs on low income households and the elderly.
In its evaluation of potential measures, Council found an approach based on in-situ testing of burner emissions to assess impacts using case by case data or burner modification options to be cost-prohibitive. Notwithstanding this, the emissions differential between multi fuel burners and NES compliant wood burners is significant and it is unlikely that modification options such as restrictions on oxygen supply would result is sufficient improvements in emissions. Council has also considered options for technology solutions to assist with meeting the air quality targets. There are currently a small number of new technology wood burners that have been approved to the Environment Canterbury Ultra Low Emission Burner (ULEB) standard. The cost of these burners is significantly higher than a current NES compliant wood burner. Council considers imposing this lower emission standard limit would have negative impacts on household warmth as fewer households could afford to replace burners with the new technology burners meeting the ULEB criteria. New secondary technology with the potential for emissions reductions was identified as being available (e.g., electrostatic precipitators). There is currently insufficient certainty around the particulate reduction efficiency for various fuel and burner types to enable Council to rely on these options, particularly given the cost to households to install and the ability to achieve sufficient reductions through phasing out of existing older technology. Notwithstanding this Council acknowledges that technology and our understanding of its effectiveness will progress with time and allowing for future technologies via the air plan review process is important.
Council’s decision is to provide for ULEB’s in the PRAP. Refer to Sections 2.11.17 and 2.12 of this report.
2.1.6 Wood energy
Submitters have commented in support of adopting and promoting the use of wood energy as a sustainable energy resource. In particular, there has been reference to the Wood Energy South project that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) has entered into with Venture Southland (VS) to deliver in the Southland region. Council has noted these supportive submissions.
It should be noted that the Wood Energy South project is more targeted at commercial and industrial users and will be investigated as part of the scoping into Stage 2 of the RAQPS review.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 7
2.1.7 Power failure
Submitters have raised concerns about the use of prohibited heating appliances during power failures. It is widely recognised that occurrence of power failures are infrequent and generally of short duration in urban areas. However, there is always the possibility of a power failure that could impact on households in extreme cases. If such circumstances should occur, Council would generally look to take a pragmatic approach in these instances. As recently as last November, Council issued a temporary notice to dairy farmers allowing effluent to be discharged to land even though extreme weather conditions occurring at the time would normally prohibit this. A similar approach is anticipated should these instances arise and could be included as part of the Council’s compliance strategy for air quality. See also Section 2.10 of this report.
Council’s decision is that it is not considered necessary to include specific provisions in the PRAP for emergency use during power outages.
2.1.8 Natural attrition
Submitters have raised concerns that the proposed burner phase outs are not warranted, particularly in Gore, as significant reductions in exceedances have occurred already as a result of natural attrition. Some suggest that ongoing natural attrition may be all that is required to achieve the NESAQ for PM10 in Gore.
Council has carried out scientific evaluations to determine the extent of management intervention required for both Invercargill and Gore to reduce PM10 concentrations to meet the NESAQ. The reductions in PM10 concentrations for Gore were set in 2013 based on 2010 air quality monitoring data as these results indicated the highest PM10 concentrations in Gore in recent years. While some reductions in PM10 concentrations may have occurred since 2010, it is likely that the recent reduction in PM10 exceedances occurs in part as a result of meteorological conditions being less conducive to elevated concentrations. The monitoring undertaken shows significant year to year variability in PM10 concentrations. Relying on natural attrition to achieve reductions in PM10 is a high risk scenario as there is no certainty that reductions in PM10 will occur within an appropriate time frame.
2.1.9 Nuisance and amenity
Concerns are raised about the use of the term nuisance and also that the plan has reference to amenity impacts in rural areas. The term nuisance is considered ambiguous and in particular there are concerns regarding definitions and the lack of case law under the RMA detailing what comprises nuisance. Farming activities may give rise to dusts, odours and smoke which have the potential for reducing amenity. Including amenity in the plan in rural areas may mean farmers are no longer able to engage in best practice farming. Some submitters see the terms nuisance and amenity as interchangeable and object to the use of both terms within an issue.
Council acknowledges that some types of amenity impacts, e.g., odour, may be more acceptable in rural areas. However, there is still potential for activities to produce impacts that are offensive or objectionable even in a rural setting. The plan uses the terms offensive and objectionable where appropriate. However the term nuisance has a common law meaning and also a definition under Section 29 the Health Act, which encompasses broader principles including frequency to determine the extent of loss of amenity occurring as a result of an activity. Council does not consider the terms amenity and nuisance as being interchangeable. It is possible that an air quality impact results in loss of amenity but does not comprise a nuisance. For example a brown haze caused by a burn off may not result in a nuisance to an observer but may contribute to reduced visual amenity.
Council has decided that preservation of amenity impacts in rural areas and the use of the term nuisance are considered to be valid for managing air quality.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 8
2.1.10 Air quality monitoring
Submitters have raised concerns about the location of the monitoring sites in Invercargill and Gore, expressing concern that they are not representative of the wider urban area. Regulation 15 of the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality (NESAQ) requires that regional councils conduct monitoring in that part of the airshed where people are exposed and the standard is breached by the greatest margin or the most frequently. Where there are multiple monitors in an airshed, they are each assessed against the NESAQ and not averaged across the airshed.
While multiple monitors in each airshed would improve our knowledge of the spatial variability of PM10 concentrations, Council is following a monitoring strategy that ensures smaller towns (e.g. Mataura, Wyndham, Otautau, Ohai, Nightcaps) are investigated.
Council’s monitoring sites were selected to meet the requirements of the NESAQ and the Australia/New Zealand Standard 3580.1.1:2007 - The Guide to siting air monitoring equipment. The latter includes a number of recommended criteria such as the site’s distance from a road, buildings, trees and extraneous sources.
A number of submissions identified that Gore met the NESAQ requirements during 2014 and expressed the view that the proposed measures are unnecessary. In developing the proposed plan rules, ES has looked at the longer term trend in PM10 concentrations at the Gore site. Since continuous monitoring began at the Gore site in 2006, there has been significant year to year variability in PM10 concentrations. For example, there were 2 exceedances recorded in 2009, but 11 in 2010.
Council has determined that the monitoring sites comply with the requirements of NESAQ and there is no evidence that the monitoring sites are inappropriate.
2.1.11 Climate
A number of submitters have expressed concern about the cold climate in Southland, the inefficiency of heat pumps and the effectiveness of complying solid fuel burners.
While it is true that annual average temperatures are lower than many other parts of the South Island, it is notable that Invercargill’s monthly average temperatures during the winter are warmer than more northern towns such as Alexandra, Queenstown and Timaru. Likewise, Gore also has warmer winters that Alexandra and Queenstown. These towns have been making the transition to cleaner burning appliances despite having colder winters.
There is a common misconception among submitters that heat pumps do not work in Southland’s climate. While this may have been true of very early models, the current heat pumps on the market are very effective and efficient when installed in homes with compliant insulation and double glazing.
Many submitters also expressed concern that households would go cold if not allowed to continue using their existing heating source. As previously mentioned, ES is aware of the need to balance the health effects of cold homes with the health effects of poor air quality, so will be taking an educational approach to the phase outs to ensure people transition as effectively and as efficiently as possible.
Having considered the submissions, Council has determined that the NESAQ applies throughout the country regardless of the climate in a particular location. There are a number of heating methods available that are very effective in Southland’s climate.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 9
2.1.12 Other emission sources
Submitters have expressed concern that emission sources such as industry, rural burning and vehicles are a significant cause of poor air quality in the airsheds rather than from domestic heating. While these sources do contribute, they are not the leading cause. ES has completed emission inventories for both Invercargill and Gore that show that domestic heating emissions are the primary cause of poor air quality in the airsheds. Those inventories indicate that domestic heating accounts for 92% of all human-caused PM10 emissions in Invercargill and 96% in Gore. Motor vehicles, industry and outdoor burning made up the remaining 8% and 4%, respectively.
There is some concern among submitters that industrial discharges are not being addressed through this plan change. Because they contribute significantly less PM10 to the airsheds, they are being addressed in the second stage of the plan review process. Changes to the industrial discharge rules are likely, but the current proposal is focused on reducing emissions from domestic heating.
Some submitters have pointed to the change in availability of certain types of coal as being a contributor to the poor air quality in the airsheds. While coals vary in moisture content, sulphur content and heat output, multi-fuel burners burning coal produce significantly greater PM10 emissions than complying wood burners. Currently there are no multi-fuel burners that comply with emission and efficiency requirements of the NESAQ and as a result, the ongoing widespread burning of coal in small scale appliances is not commensurate with improving air quality.
After considering submissions, Council has decided that it will proceed with stage two of the RAQPS review, which will address industrial and trade emissions after stage one is completed.
2.1.13 Airsheds
Some submitters have queried the appropriateness of the boundaries of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. The airshed boundaries were gazetted with the government in 2005 and cannot be changed through this plan review process. Reconfiguring airshed boundaries requires a separate investigation and approval by the Ministry for the Environment. The current airshed boundaries were determined by selecting high density urban areas where exceedances of the PM10 standard were likely to occur1 (Fisher et al, 2005). A buffer zone was then placed around the urban areas, recognising that atmospheric contaminants are not stationary, but are transported by convective flows. Finally, the airsheds were required to follow existing legal boundaries so that land parcels were either in or out of the airshed and not split down the middle. This is why some predominately rural areas are included in the airshed boundary.
The transportation of PM10 within the airsheds is an important concept and necessary to understand why the boundaries encompass whole urban areas and not just the area that is exceeding the standard. For example, a recent study by GNS Science2 (2015) identified that peak biomass combustion (domestic heating) contributions to PM10 occurred under low wind speeds (less than 2 metres per second) from the north. This indicates that emissions from north of the Pomona Street site are contributing to the PM10 measured there.
Clarification was also sought on the applicability of the rules to any new airshed (e.g. Winton) that is formed. As the proposed rules specifically name the Invercargill and Gore airsheds, the proposed airshed rules apply only to those areas. An additional plan change will be required to include any new airshed in those rules.
1 Fisher. G., King, D., Bluett, J., Gimson, N., Wilton, E., Xie, S., Faulk, R., Cudmore, R., Kingham, S., Sturman, A., and Ladd, M. (2005). Defining New Zealand’s Airsheds: Local Air Management Areas (LAMAs) – Information (20 May 2005). Full Version. 2 References - Ancelet, T., Davy, P., Trompetter, B., (2015). Sources and transport of particulate matter on an hourly time-scale in Invercargill, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2015/02. 59p.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 10
2.1.14 General support
Council notes the submitters that generally support the approach taken by Council to improve air quality and in particular, the management of discharges from domestic heating sources. This is an extremely difficult issue to manage and Council has proposed a framework that works towards compliance with the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality.
A number of submitters also agree that there is a need to improve air quality but don’t necessarily agree with some of the methods proposed to achieve this goal. Responses to these submissions have been made against the relevant provisions in the report below.
2.1.15 Other submissions
In addition to the submission points raised above, there have been a small number of submissions or sections of submissions that request responses that are beyond the scope of this RMA process or where it is not clear what response is being sought.
Submissions referenced to this section were requested to clarify these aspects of their submission through the hearing process or discuss these issues with Council staff outside of this process to investigate an appropriate response where necessary.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 11
2.2 Introduction and plan framework
2.2.1 General support
Council notes the general support to this section of the PRAP. Submissions requesting amendments to the introduction and plan framework section are discussed below.
2.2.2 Staged plan approach
One submission suggested some changes to the wording that Council generally agrees with. However it is proposed to remove the reference to completion of the RPS as the reason for staging the Air Plan. The main reason for staging the Air Plan is to address the main contribution to air quality issues in the airsheds to work towards compliance with the National Environmental Standards. The staging of the Air Plan then allows for a more thorough review of the remainder of the other sections of the plan that generally focus on industrial and trade discharges.
Council agrees that more clarification could be provided around the staging of the Air Plan and considers it appropriate to amend the introduction.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment:
Introduction
“The Council has resolved to approach this review in two stages. The purpose is to immediately address on-going exceedances of the NESAQ of PM10 in the Gore and Invercargill airsheds and allow for a more thorough review of the remainder of the Air Plan subsequent to this process.
Stage 1 will cover emissions from domestic and small scale heating sources, outdoor burning, application of agrichemicals and fertilisers, and fire training activities.
Stage 2 will cover emissions from all other sources not addressed in Stage 1, generally associated with industrial and commercial activities.
New rules for domestic home heating, outdoor burning….”
2.2.3 Focus of the review
One submission requested that wording be inserted into the Introduction section to ensure the focus of the reviewed PRAP is made clear.
Council agrees that it is beneficial to highlight the key focus of stage 1 of the review and considers it appropriate to amend the introduction.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment:
“…as Stage 1 of a review of the Regional Air Quality Plan for Southland (1999).
A key focus of Stage 1 is addressing on-going exceedances of the NESAQ for PM10 within the Gore and Invercargill airsheds. Domestic home heating rules focus largely on reducing PM10…”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 12
2.2.4 Reference to fertiliser
One submission requested that wording be inserted into the Introduction section to reference the application of fertilisers.
Council agrees that this needs to be addressed and considers it appropriate to amend the introduction.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment:
“Agrichemical and fertiliser spray drift has the potential for localised adverse effects on non-target species. Rules have been proposed to minimise the effects of spray drift onto non-target species.”
2.2.5 Spatial and temporal patterns
One submission requests modified wording to the plan framework; however, the proposed addition is a repetition of Regulation 14 of the NESAQ, which Council considers unnecessary.
There seems to be some confusion among the remaining submitters about the split between ambient air quality issues and localised issues. Both the NESAQ and the ambient air quality guidelines apply throughout the region. The NESAQ applies in those areas specified by Regulation 14 of the standards, while the ambient air quality guidelines apply in the ambient air. Also, localised discharges contribute to ambient concentrations. It is therefore appropriate that applications seeking to discharge contaminants to air have regard to the ambient air quality guidelines.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to wording of the plan framework.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 13
2.3 Issues
2.3.1 General support
Council notes the general support to this section of the PRAP. Submissions requesting amendments to the introduction and plan framework section are discussed below.
2.3.2 Issues 1.1 and 1.2
Submitters have raised concerns about the use of the terms nuisance and amenity. As outlined in Section 2.1.9 above, the concept of nuisance, for which there is a common law meaning and also a definition under Section 29 the Health Act, encompasses broader principles including frequency to determine the extent of loss of amenity occurring as a result of an activity. Council does not consider the terms amenity and nuisance as being interchangeable. It is possible that an air quality impact results in loss of amenity but does not comprise a nuisance. For example a brown haze caused by a burn off may not result in a nuisance to an observer but may contribute to reduced visual amenity.
Council has decided that the term nuisance is considered to be valid for managing air quality.
A request was made that a list of activities that may give rise to localised effects be included with the issue. While Council acknowledges that this may assist readers in recognising issues it does not consider it appropriate to include a list of activities.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to the issues.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 14
2.4 Objectives
2.4.1 General submissions
Council notes the general submissions to this section of the PRAP. Submissions requesting amendments to the objectives are discussed below.
2.4.2 Objective 2.1 – Compliance with the NESAQ by improving ambient air quality
Council notes the general support for this objective. Two submitters have suggested minor amendments to the objective but from different perspectives. One asks for the objective to only achieve the minimum required by the NESAQ, whilst the other seeks to improve air quality in all areas with an initial focus on the airsheds.
Council believes the current wording in the objective achieves the purpose of improving air quality in accordance with the NESAQ and it is not necessary or appropriate to include a reference to only achieving the minimum. There are a number of factors that can contribute to increasing PM10 emissions and continuing to improve air quality provides a buffer to the standard and room for urban growth within the airshed areas.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this objective.
2.4.3 Objective 2.2 – Maintain or enhance ambient air quality
Council notes the general support for this objective although a number of submissions have raised issues over the wording. One submission suggests some amended wording that seems to incorporate the requests in other submissions. A couple of minor additions to the wording from the submission are suggested to keep the intent of the original objective.
As a result of the submissions and discussion above, Council agrees that it is appropriate to amend this objective.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the objective:
Objective 2.2 Maintain or enhance ambient air quality
To maintain or enhance ambient air quality in the areas of the region that have high ambient air quality by:
(a) improving ambient air quality to reduce adverse effects on the health of humans and the health of the environment where monitoring shows air quality has been degraded; (b) ensuring human health and the health of the environment are protected by having regard to appropriate ambient air quality guidelines.
To maintain ambient air quality in those parts of the Southland region that have good air quality and enhance air quality in those parts of the region where it is poor or has been degraded, to reduce adverse effects on human health and the environment.
2.4.4 Objective 2.3 – Ambient air quality: Invercargill and Gore
Council notes the support to retain this objective.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this objective.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 15
2.4.5 Objective 2.4 – Localised air quality
Submitters have raised concerns about the use of the terms nuisance and amenity. As outlined in Section 2.1.9 above, the concept of nuisance, for which there is a common law meaning and also definitions under section 29 the Health Act, encompasses broader principles including frequency to determine the extent of loss of amenity occurring as a result of an activity. Council does not consider amenity and nuisance as being interchangeable. It is possible that an air quality impact results in loss of amenity but does not comprise a nuisance. For example a brown haze caused by a burn off may not result in a nuisance to an observer but may contribute to reduced visual amenity. The term nuisance is considered to be valid for managing air quality.
Apart from the issue of nuisance and amenity, the objective is generally supported.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this objective.
2.4.6 Objective 2.5 – Localised air quality: Maori culture and traditions
Council notes the support to retain this objective.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this objective.
2.4.7 New objectives
One submission has asked for the inclusion of new objectives and/or policies relating to use of heating sources in emergency situations, explanations regarding polluted airsheds and offsets in Regulation 17 of the NESAQ and to provide for the identification of and consultation with solid fuel retailers to promote good practice and compliance with Rule 4.9.
Council does not consider it appropriate to provide an explanation of “polluted airsheds” as this is outlined in Regulation 17 of the NESAQ. Regulation 17 implies that once an airshed has become polluted by exceeding the standard on more than one occasion, then there needs to be five years of no more than one exceedance to become a non-polluted, or compliant, airshed. Using Gore as an example, because it did not exceed in 2014, after four more continuous years of no more than one exceedance, it would then revert back to a compliant airshed.
Provisions around offsets have been intentionally excluded as they directly relate to industry which is part of Stage 2 of the RAQPS review.
Council agrees that solid fuel retailers need to be identified and consulted with to promote good practice and compliance. This should form part of the education package to support this plan framework. The submitter is referred to Section 2.5.6 of this report for further discussion on this matter.
The submitter is referred to Section 2.1.7 of this report regarding emergency use of heating sources.
Council’s decision is that no new objectives are required.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 16
2.5 Policies
2.5.1 Policies – General submissions
Council notes the general submissions supporting the intent of this section of the PRAP.
A submitter has concerns that some of the proposed policies contain wording that is more consistent with rules as opposed to policies. Council notes this comment and where appropriate, has addressed these in the relevant provisions.
Another submitter has requested that the policies be amended to refer only to health effects. It is agreed that health effects are a key driver behind the NESAQ and RAQPS review, however, it is not appropriate to limit the policies to health effects alone. There are numerous effects associated with discharges to air including environmental, economic, social and cultural effects. The RMA also defines the meaning of effect which can include positive effects. It is therefore not considered appropriate to focus solely on health effects.
One submission raised an issue around airsheds. The submitter is referred to Section 2.1.13 of this report regarding the issue of airsheds.
2.5.2 Policy 3.1 – Emission limits
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy.
One submitter has stated that a more appropriate method of achieving compliance is a point of sale approach. This is considered further in Section 2.6.8 of this report. Even if a point of sale approach was adopted, it is still appropriate to set emission limits.
Another submitter has requested that the policy should not be more stringent than is required to meet the NESAQ, which applies only to woodburners and open fires. Projections in scientific reports guiding the regulations in the PRAP have outlined that further measures in addition to the minimum are required to comply with the NESAQ. It is also consistent with approaches used throughout New Zealand and considered to be an appropriate option for Southland.
Another submitter has requested that the policy should be amended to refer to domestic and small scale solid fuel burners to be consistent with Stage 1 and the rule framework. This amendment is accepted with regard to the small scale solid fuel burners and outlined in the amendment below. It is not considered appropriate to limit the installation restrictions to domestic situations.
One submitter has requested that the installation of solid fuel boilers be permitted. Council had intended that these be permitted as those with heat outputs of less than 40 kW are a subset of the small scale solid fuel burners. Inclusion of the term boiler in the amendment below improves clarity and allows installations of domestic scale boilers (up to 60 kW heat output) which meet the specified emission limits.
One submitter has also requested that the reference to the words “that are in breach of NESAQ” is removed as it implies that the policy ceases to have effect once the NESAQ are complied with. This amendment is accepted and outlined in the amendment below.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.1 Emission limits
Set emission limits for new installations of small scale solid fuel burners and boilers in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds that are in breach of the NESAQ.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 17
2.5.3 Policy 3.2 – Phase out
Council notes the submissions generally support this policy.
A number of submitters have raised concerns over the phase out policy. Submitters are referred to Sections 2.6.7, 2.6.8 and 2.6.9 for discussion on amendments to the phase out rule which have resulted in consequential changes to this policy below.
Gore District Council has also suggested that the current wording is not appropriate and Council agrees that it should be amended to be consistent with changes to Policy 3.1. A minor amendment to wording to refer to Invercargill and Gore Airsheds has also been made in this policy.
As a result of changes to Rule 4.7 the definition for Wood Fired Cooking Stove has been deleted and replaced with a definition for Solid Fuel Cooking Stove. Refer to Section 2.11.19 of this report.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.2 Phase out
Phase out the use of open fires from 1 September 2015 January 2017 and small scale solid fuel burning appliances, excluding pellet burners and wood fired cookerssolid fuel cooking stoves, that do not meet specified emissions criterioncriteria no less than 1520 years after installation in an airshed that breaches NESAQ for PM10 the Invercargill and Gore airsheds.
2.5.4 Policy 3.3 – Incentives programme
Many submitters have highlighted that an incentives programme to provide financial assistance to residents is an essential component to enable the change to cleaner forms of heating. In particular, where Rules 4.6 – 4.8 require existing heating appliances be prohibited from use after certain dates. Without appropriate support there is a very real risk that any gains from health effects associated with improving air quality could be replaced and outweighed by the effects of people being cold in their homes.
Council has a responsibility to ensure that an appropriate incentives programme is developed that will provide the assistance necessary and has undertaken conversations with both the Invercargill City and Gore District Councils along with other key stakeholders about the possibility of implementing incentive programmes. An appropriate incentives package is essential to avoid the risk of replacing one health effect with another. Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2018 has allocated funding for an appropriate incentives programme to provide assistance to those people in Invercargill and Gore who would qualify for help to change to cleaner heating options.
Gore District Council has requested that this policy be deleted. It is not considered appropriate to delete this provision given its importance to support and enable change to cleaner heating options. Gore District Council also queried the meaning of the term “hotspots”. Council is of the opinion that the term “high concentration areas” is more appropriate.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
(a) encourage the use of cleaner heating options to reduce PM10 in hotspotshigh concentration areas; and
2.5.5 Policy 3.4 – Outdoor burning in the Invercargill and Gore Airsheds
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 18
One submitter has queried the prohibited activity status in the corresponding Rule 5.6. The submitter is referred to Section 4.7.6 of this report for discussion on this matter.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this policy.
2.5.6 Policy 3.5 – Social and economic effects/education
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy.
Many submitters have highlighted that education is an essential component to improving air quality. As much as cleaner heating options can reduce emissions, the operation of heating appliances can have significant effects when looking at an overall improvement in air quality in airsheds.
The Council has established an Air Quality website and already published some educational material but this will need to be increased once the planning framework is finalised. A far more intensive educational approach to domestic heating, outdoor burning and other contributors to ambient air quality will be required in order to achieve the necessary improvements to meet the NESAQ. This will be an on-going programme with a particular focus on the winter months when the majority of exceedances are likely to occur.
As stated in submissions and outlined in Policy 3.6, these can include but are not limited to:
advocating to install insulation and cleaner forms of heating; good wood schemes; education campaigns; incentives; best practice guides; woodburner operation toolkits.
Submitters have requested specific changes to the Policy in regard to some of the wording and references to outdoor burning as a contributor to ambient air quality. A combination of those recommendations has been accepted in part and is shown in the amendment outlined below.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.5 Social and economic effects/educationEducation
Assist with mechanisms including education campaigns to iInform the community and business sectors of:
the effects of discharges on ambient air quality, how clean forms of heating and improved insulation are available to all households to mitigate adverse social health effects., and best practice guidance to minimise the effects of discharges from domestic heating and outdoor burning sources.
2.5.7 Policy 3.6 – Ambient air quality
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy.
One submitter has requested that the policy apply to small scale solid fuel burners only whilst another has requested that it be expanded to include outdoor burning. Council considers that the policy should apply to both small scale solid fuel burners and outdoor burning. Both sources can affect ambient air quality.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 19
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.6 Ambient air quality
Use non-regulatory methods, in addition to rules for small scale solid fuel burners and outdoor burning, to maintain and enhance air quality including:
(a) advocating for the installation of cleaner forms of heating; (b) advocating for the installation of improved insulation technology to improve energy efficiency in dwellings; (c) a good wood scheme; (d) collaborating with territorial authorities and Government; (e) undertaking education on how to enhance air quality; (f) financial and economic incentives.; (g) best practice guidance for woodburner operation and outdoor burning.
2.5.8 Policy 3.7 – Objectionable smoke from domestic heating appliances
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy. No specific amendments have been requested by submitters. Some submitters have once again highlighted the importance of education and are referred to Section 2.5.6 of this report for further discussion.
One consequential change from Section 2.5.9 of this report is shown below.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.7 Objectionable smoke from domestic heating appliances
Require tThat small scale solid fuel burning…
2.5.9 Policy 3.8 – Agrichemical spray drift
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy.
One submitter requested that the title be amended to include fertiliser. Council agrees and support this amendment.
One submitter suggested that spray drift is not applicable to fertilisers. Council agrees and consequently the word spray is removed from the policy.
Another submitter requested the inclusion of the words “best practicable option should be encouraged”. Council considers the current rule framework sufficiently encourages best practise particularly for larger scale applications and no change to the policy is necessary.
Some submitters have suggested a number of amendments to the wording of the policy to better reflect the origins of the policy in Section 17 of the RMA and to acknowledge that not all effects resulting from the application of agrichemicals and fertilisers can be avoided but where adverse effects may occur, they are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Council agrees that some amendments to the policy are appropriate and submitters are directed to the new wording below.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 20
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.8 Agrichemical spray and fertiliser drift
Require that spray drift from the application of fertilisers and agrichemicals does not result in adverse effects that are offensive or objectionable odour beyond target areas or the property boundary. Any discharge from the application of agrichemicals or fertiliser which is likely to have an offensive or objectionable effect beyond the boundary of the target property, shall be managed such that the effect is suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
2.5.10 Policy 3.9 – Odour
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy. However, submitters have suggested a number of amendments to the wording of the policy to better reflect the origins of the policy in Section 17 of the RMA to acknowledge that not all odour can be avoided, but where adverse effects may occur, they are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Council agrees that some amendments to the policy are appropriate and submitters are directed to the new wording below.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.9 Odour
Require activities that result in odorous discharges to mitigate emissions or provide buffer zones to avoid offensive or objectionable odour beyond the property boundary. Any discharge of odour which is likely to have an offensive or objectionable effect beyond the property boundary, shall be managed such that the effect is suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
2.5.11 Policy 3.10 – Particulate and dust
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy. However, submitters have suggested a number of amendments to the wording of the policy to better reflect the origins of the policy in Section 17 of the RMA to acknowledge that not all smoke and dust can be avoided, but where adverse effects may occur, they are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Council agrees that some amendments to the policy are appropriate and submitters are directed to the new wording below.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Policy 3.10 Particulate and dust
Require activities that result in the production of dust or particulate to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of offensive or objectionable smoke, dust nuisance or dust deposition beyond the property boundary. Any discharge of smoke or dust which is likely to have an offensive or objectionable effect beyond the property boundary, shall be managed such that the effect of smoke or dust is suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
2.5.12 Policy 3.11 – Hazardous air pollutants
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy. One submitter is concerned that there may need to be more research conducted before the policy is implemented. Council disagrees with the submitter in this instance and believes there is enough information to support this policy.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this rule.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 21
2.5.13 Policy 3.12 – General adverse effects on the environment
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy. One submitter requested some recognition of the potential effect on navigable airspace. Council accepts that submission point. The rule framework specifically recognises the effects of visibility on navigable airspace, so it is appropriate for the policy to do so as well.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
(e) navigable airspace
The following minor amendment in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA to correct the policy numbering has also been made:
Policy 3.12 General adverse effects on the environment
2.5.14 Policy 3.13 – Localised air quality
One submitter requests modified wording to the policy; however, the proposed addition is a repetition of Regulation 14 of the NESAQ, which is considered unnecessary.
There seems to be some confusion among the remaining submitters about the split between ambient air quality issues and localised issues. The first point to clarify is that both the NESAQ and the ambient air quality guidelines apply throughout the region. The NESAQ apply in those areas specified by Regulation 14 of the standards, while the ambient air quality guidelines apply in the ambient air. The second point to make is that localised discharges contribute to ambient concentrations. It is therefore appropriate that applications seeking to discharge contaminants to air have regard to the ambient air quality guidelines.
Council’s decision is to retain the proposed policy, subject to the following minor amendment in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA to correct the policy numbering:
Policy 3.13 Localised air quality
2.5.15 Policy 3.14 – Outdoor burning
Submitters have outlined that the policy refers to good practice guidelines and these are not appended or referenced. Council agrees with submitters but due to practices changing over time, listing guidance is not the most practical approach in planning documents. Instead, a more general policy is proposed in relation to the localised effects of outdoor burning.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Require outdoor burning and the burning of green waste to be carried our to avoid adverse effects beyond the property boundary in accordance with good practice guidelines. Any discharge from outdoor burning which is likely to have an offensive or objectionable effect beyond the property boundary, shall be managed such that the effect is suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The following minor amendment in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA to correct the policy numbering has also been made:
Policy 3.14 Outdoor burning
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 22
2.5.16 Policy 3.15 – Reverse sensitivity
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this policy. These submitters have recognised that reverse sensitivity is a significant issue for existing industrial discharges.
Submitters have requested that the policy should be strengthened by changing wording from discourage to avoid.
Some submitters want a reference to reverse sensitivity inserted into the introduction. Council disagrees that this is necessary as reverse sensitivity has limited relevance to Stage 1 of the review of the RAQPS. It is however a significant issue as for Stage 2 and will be dealt with accordingly at that time.
A definition for reverse sensitivity has been requested along with additions to the definition for sensitive areas. Refer to Section 2.11.8 of this report.
Some submitters have requested that this policy be deleted as the policy is not relevant to Stage 1 of the RAQPS review. Council accepts the submissions to delete the policy as reverse sensitivity is an issue that is primarily relevant to Stage 2 of the review of the RAQPS. Stage 1 of the review addresses small scale fuel burning that primarily occurs in dwellings and also activities such as outdoor burning and agrichemical/fertiliser application where the location of the discharge on a property can be changed. In this context, establishment of new sensitive activities in close proximity to these existing discharges (often occurring as permitted activities) is not a significant issue. It is anticipated that Stage 2 of the review will contain policy addressing reverse sensitivity effects in relation to large scale discharges.
Council’s decision is to delete the policy in full as follows:
Policy 3.15 Reverse sensitivity Discourage the establishment of sensitive activities near existing activities that discharge to air, unless the new activity can avoid or mitigate the adverse effects of the existing discharge.
2.5.17 New Policies
A submitter has identified that there is no guiding policy for Fire Training activities. Council supports the inclusion of a new policy, however the wording differs from that proposed by the submitter. A new policy is shown below.
Another submitter has requested the inclusion of a policy relating to biosecurity incursions under the Biosecurity Act. Council has decided that the existing policy and rule framework allows for this and no additional policy is necessary.
A submitter has requested a policy on approved mitigation technology. The submitter is referred to Section 2.1.7 of this report for discussion on why this has not been included.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the policy:
Enable the discharge to air from fire training activities provided that where the discharge may increase PM10 concentrations during May to August inclusive, the effects of the discharge are suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The following minor amendment in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA to correct the policy numbering has also been made:
Policy 3.156 Fire Training
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 23
2.6 Domestic heating rules
2.6.1 General submissions
Council notes the general submissions on the domestic heating rules section. Submitters are referred to Section 2.1 of this report on the relevant issues and to the relevant rule for discussion in the report below.
2.6.2 Rule 4.1 – General conditions
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this rule.
The Department of Conservation has requested a new rule to provide for the burning of wet wood in back country huts. Council agrees that it is appropriate to allow for this exemption but not by creating a new rule. There are considered to be greater implications as a result of that approach. The submitter is referred to Section 2.6.10 of this report for discussion on this matter.
Airways have submitted that the term “aircraft flight path” should be changed to “navigable airspace” as it is more appropriate and better suited to the intent of the rule. Council agrees with the suggested change and considers it appropriate to make the amendment shown below.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 4.1 General conditions for small scale fuel burning appliances
The discharge from any small scale fuel burning appliance is a permitted activity, unless otherwise prohibited by Rules 4.5-4.8, subject to compliance with the following conditions:
(a) at or beyond the boundary of the subject property, the discharge shall not result in adverse effects from any:
(iv) smoke or water vapour that reduces visibility on any road or in any aircraft flight path navigable airspace; or
2.6.3 Rule 4.2 – New installations for solid fuel appliances in airsheds
Submitters have stated that they are opposed to this rule because it effectively prohibits the installation of new multi-fuel appliances. The purpose of this rule is to set an emission limit for new appliances. An emission limit has been set so that should any device be tested in accordance with the emission, operational and other requirements of Appendix A, the discharge is permitted. This allows for new technology including multi-fuel burners to be developed over time.
Having a different standard to allow the installation of new multi fuel burners is not considered to be an appropriate mechanism for complying with the NESAQ due to the significantly higher emissions achieved by current multi fuel burning appliances. The installation of new boilers is allowed under the rule as the definition of small scale fuel burning equipment includes a small scale boiler but only one that has a heat output of less than 40kw. Under the proposed rules, boilers up to 40kW are allowed to be installed provided they meet emission limits of 1.5 g/kg fuel burned. However there is an anomaly for boilers in that the phase out rules are specific to the boiler definition which allows heat output up to 60 kW.
The emission testing regime specified by Appendix A is designed for batch fed solid fuel burning appliances and is not well suited to testing of boilers. Emission testing of such small boilers can be more appropriately undertaken using methods typically employed for larger scale boilers installed in industrial and commercial facilities. A boiler particulate emission concentration of 300 mg/m3 (adjusted to standard conditions) is approximately equivalent to a rate of 1.5 g/kg for solid fuel burning appliances, after
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 24 accounting for “real life” operating conditions. Council considers that it is appropriate to specifically allow for new solid fuel boilers up to 60kW in the rule, provided testing demonstrates compliance with a particulate matter emission concentration limit of 300mg/m3 (adjusted to standard conditions).
A minor amendment is required to the rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. An error exists in the notified version and needs correcting. Clause (a) should refer to a building consent application not a building consent.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 4.2 Small scale solid fuel burning appliances and small scale solid fuel boilers in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
Within the Invercargill and Gore airsheds the discharge of contaminants to air from the burning of solid fuel in any small scale solid fuel burning appliance or small scale solid fuel boiler installed after the date of notification of this plan6 September 2014 is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met at all times:”
(a) a building consent application for the appliance was lodged prior to notification of this plan6 September 2014; or (b) for small scale solid fuel burning appliances, at all times the appliance: (i) complies with the emission, operational and other requirements of Appendix A; (ii) the appliance complies with the stack requirements of Appendix B; (iii) the appliance burns only fuels approved for use in the device and burns no prohibited fuels (Rule 4.9). (c) for small scale solid fuel boilers: (i) emission testing undertaken by a suitably qualified person demonstrates compliance with either the emission, operational and other requirements of Appendix A or a maximum emission limit of 300 mg/m3 adjusted to 0°C, 12 percent carbon dioxide, 101.3 kPa on a dry gas basis, when tested to a method equivalent to ISO 9096:2003; (ii) the boiler complies with the stack requirements of Appendix B; (iii) the boiler burns only fuels approved for use in the device and burns no prohibited fuels (Rule 4.9).
2.6.4 Rule 4.3 – New installations for liquid or gas fuel appliances in airsheds
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this rule. One submitter seeks measures to discourage the use of gas because of the excessive risks gas presents in case of earthquake, fire or malfunction of the appliance. This is not considered to be unsafe or an unacceptable risk as gas heating appliances are operated in many places.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this rule.
2.6.5 Rule 4.4 – New installations for appliances outside airsheds
Council notes the submissions generally supporting this rule. There has been misinterpretation of clause (a) of this rule. For clarity, multi-fuel burners are permitted outside the airsheds under this rule.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this rule.
2.6.6 Rule 4.5 – Prohibited new installations
Submitters have stated that they are opposed to this rule because it effectively prohibits the installation of new multi-fuel appliances. As stated in the discussion for Rule 4.2, the purpose of these rules is to set an emission limit for new appliances. An emission limit has been set to permit the discharge from any device shown to be compliant with the emission, operational and other requirements of Appendix A. This allows for new technology including multi-fuel burners to be developed over time.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 25
Having a different standard to allow the installation of new multi fuel burners is not considered to be an appropriate mechanism for complying with the NESAQ due to the significantly higher PM10 emission rate from current multi fuel burning appliances. The installation of new boilers is allowed under the rule as the definition of small scale fuel burning equipment includes a small scale boiler but only one that has a heat output of less than 40kW. Under the proposed rules, boilers up to 40 kW are allowed to be installed provided they meet emission limits of 1.5 g/kg but there is an anomaly for boilers in that the phase out rules are specific to the boiler definition which is up to 60 kW. Council agrees it would be more appropriate if boilers and solid fuel burning appliances be treated in a similar manner and believes 60 kW to be the appropriate upper limit for boilers.
A minor amendment is required to the rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. Errors exists in the notified version and needs correcting. The exceptions to Rule 4.5 are Rules 4.1-4.3, not 4.1-4.4, as Rule 4.4 does not apply to the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. The rule should also refer to a building consent application, not a building consent.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 4.5 Small scale solid fuel burning appliances, small scale solid fuel boilers and open fires within the Invercargill and Gore Airsheds
Except as provided for in Rules 4.1-4.44.3, the discharge to air from any small-scale solid fuel burning appliance, small scale solid fuel boiler or open fire within the Invercargill and Gore airsheds installed after the date of notification of this plan6 September 2014 is a prohibited activity, with the following exceptions:
(a) industrial or trade premises where the open fire is used exclusively for the smoking and cooking of food for wholesale or retail sale; (b) where a building consent application for a small scale solid fuel burning appliance has been lodged prior to the notification of this plan6 September 2014.
A minor amendment is required to the explanation following this rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. An error exists in the notified version and needs correcting. The amendment is as follows:
“Outside of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds emission limits for new installations of solid fuel wood burners are 1.5 g/kg particulate and 65% efficiency as specified in the NESAQ (Regulations 23 and 24), unless the burner is in a building on a property with an allotment size of 2 hectares or greater (Regulation 22).”
2.6.7 Rule 4.6 – Open fires in airsheds
Open fires received a significant number of submissions. Submitters are concerned about the approach to prohibit the use of open fires from 1 September 2015.
Open fires are most often very inefficient forms of heating as most of the heat is lost up the chimney. Open fires may warm the room they occupy a little bit, but create such a draught that they draw cold air into the rest of the house. Open fires also produce large amounts of air pollution. For these reasons, it is still seen as a critical step to improve both air quality and the efficiency of heating used in the homes that are still reliant on open fires. These numbers are estimated to be around 800 homes in Invercargill and 100 homes in Gore.
Council is of the opinion that the timeframe of 1 September 2015 is no longer appropriate as the decision making process has superseded that timeframe and the use of open fires will decline as we move from winter to summer for this year. However, open fires are still seen as a priority for the reasons outlined above. Council has decided that a new date of 1 January 2016 will be adopted, with an exception to permit the use of open fires burning wood only until 1 January 2017. The reasoning for the wood only exception is that burning coal results in significantly greater particulate matter emissions than burning
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 26 wood. This exception is in acknowledgement of the limited capacity of heating installers in Southland to replace so many open fires within such a short timeframe. The exception allows existing stocks of dry wood stored by households to be burned during 2016.
Council notes that immediate assistance is going to be required by many of the households still reliant on open fires as a primary heating source. These households should be the target of any initial incentives package to avoid replacing one health effect with another.
Some submitters have requested the ability to continue to use open fires for amenity purposes. This is not considered to be appropriate or feasible. As stated in Section 2.1.7, the only time where it may be considered appropriate is when emergency circumstances apply.
Submissions wanting ‘Jetmaster’ style fireplaces excluded from the definition of ‘open fire’ were received. Council has decided that exclusion is not appropriate. While the emissions are likely to be lower than conventional open fires, there is no good information on real life testing that could differentiate the two. Although there is some control on the airflow, ‘Jetmaster’ fires still have a low heat output relative to fuel consumption and are less efficient than conventional enclosed burners.
Clause (b) has been amended consequently to an amendment to the definition of recorded historic heritage site as discussed in Section 2.11.11 of this report.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 4.6 Open fires in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
Discharges to air from an open fire in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds are a prohibited activity after 1 September 2015 January 2016 except:
(a) from an open fire in an industrial or trade premises where the open fire is used exclusively for the smoking and cooking of food for wholesale or retail sale; or (b) where the open fire(s) is located within a recorded heritage building on a recorded historic heritage site.; or (c) the open fire may be used for the burning of wood only until 1 January 2017.
2.6.8 Rule 4.7 – Phase out of non-compliant solid fuel appliances in airsheds
The proposed phase out of non-compliant small scale solid fuel appliances is the most significant rule in the PRAP. The rule as proposed prohibits the use of existing non-compliant appliances after 15 years and up to 20 years in some instances from the 1 January 2016, based on their intended life.
Approximately 460 submitters specifically commented on this rule in the PRAP and while there were some in support, the vast majority were opposed. Many submitters have significant concerns regarding the time proposed to change their appliance and the significant cost in doing so. Others have concerns about the replacement of an existing appliance that may still be in good operating condition depending on how well it has been maintained. Some submitters suggest that natural attrition may be all that is required to achieve the NESAQ for PM10 in Gore. This rule contains the highest amount of health risk in terms of replacing improved air quality with cold homes and as a result, it is imperative that an appropriate financial assistance package is provided that enables residents to change to cleaner heating options. The primary concern is for lower income households where the ability to repay any loan is beyond their means and further assistance is required. Finding a balance between the implementation of the phase out dates and the supporting assistance package is going to be critical in determining the success of this rule and subsequent improvement in ambient air quality in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds.
Most submitters are asking for this rule to be deleted, for significantly more time before implementation (anywhere between 2 and 10 years) and for appropriate financial assistance to give effect individually.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 27
A point of sale rule has been raised by a number of submitters as a more acceptable approach that will considerably reduce the financial pressure on households. However, the administration of such a rule can be difficult from a regional council perspective and has been more successfully implemented when introduced by unitary or territorial authorities. The Hawkes Bay Regional Council does have a point of sale rule in addition to their phase out rule so it is achievable. However, modelling of the effectiveness of this option for other areas shows improvements in air quality are minimal. Information provided during the course of the hearing indicates that adopting a point of sale approach for Gore would be unlikely to achieve compliance with the NESAQ until beyond 2030. Based on the evidence Council has decided that a point of sale rule would not be able to achieve the necessary improvement in air quality within a reasonable time frame.
Options such as relying on natural attrition will not result in sufficient reductions in PM10 to meet the NESAQ.
The numbers of pre 1997 burners likely to require conversion is around 4000 in the Invercargill airshed and between 340 and 650 in the Gore airshed. Those numbers include between 2000 and 2700 multi fuel burners in the Invercargill airshed; and between 140 and 450 multi fuel burners in the Gore airshed. The local heating industry has indicated that while replacement appliances would be readily available, local industry does not have the capacity to install those numbers of appliances within a short timeframe.
Given numbers of pre 1997 burners likely to require conversion and the limited capacity of the local industry to install those numbers of appliances within a short timeframe, Council agrees that the timeframe of 1 January 2016 is not appropriate. Council also acknowledges the potential impact on households and does not want to replace one health effect with another. Council notes that assistance is going to be required by many households to avoid hardship.
Extending some of the phase out dates will give the local heating industry more time to replace non- compliant burners. It will also reduce the potential impact on households and allow time for the financial assistance and education programmes to be established and publicised.
Council has decided to phase out the burning of coal after 1 January 2017 in multi fuel burners that were installed before 1 January 1997 in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. Those with pre 1997 burners in the Invercargill airshed will be permitted to burn wood only until 1 January 2019. Those will pre 1997 burners in the Gore airshed will be permitted to burn wood only until 1 January 2020. The reasoning for the wood only exemption is that burning coal results in approximately twice the PM10 emissions than burning wood.
The additional year for burning wood only in pre 1997 burners in the Gore airshed acknowledges the fact that, while PM10 concentrations exceed the NES in both airsheds, air quality in Gore is better than in the Invercargill airshed. Council notes the peculiarity of the NESAQ which gives Gore less time to achieve compliance with the NESAQ than Invercargill because it had better air quality to start with.
Council has decided to change the phase out dates and provided an exemption to burn wood only in pre 1997 burners for a period of time while noting that this will potentially delay both airsheds achieving compliance with the NESAQ and result in greater ambient PM10 concentrations in the interim. Refer to Figures 1-1 to 1-2 (Gore) and Figures 1-3 to 1-4 (Invercargill) below for timeframe projections for the proposed rules achieving compliance with the NESAQ.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 28
120%
100%
NES target 80%
60% Air plan projections - 20 year 40% phase out revised dates (updated
distribution of age) Percent of 2011 emissions2011 of Percent
20% Air plan projections - 20 year phase out revised dates (updated 0% distribution of age) with pre 1998 burners allowed wood use for two
years
2015 2011 2013 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029
Figure 1-1: Gore (20 year burner phase out) with updated distribution of age of multi fuels allowing pre 1998 burners to use wood for three more years (assuming wood use rate of 20 kg/day – same as wood burner)
120%
100%
NES target 80%
60% Air plan projections - 20 year 40% phase out revised dates (updated
distribution of age) Percent of 2011 emissions2011 of Percent
20% Air plan projections - 20 year phase out revised dates (updated 0% distribution of age) with pre 1998 burners allowed wood use for two
years
2015 2011 2013 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029
Figure 1-2: Gore (20 year burner phase out) with updated distribution of age of multi fuels allowing pre 1998 burners to use wood for three more years (until 2020) assuming wood use rate of 26 kg/day
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 29
120% Air plan projections - 20 year phase out (updated age distribution of multi fuels) 100% Air plan projections - 20 year phase out and allow two years of 80% wood use on pre 1998 burners NES 2020 target - one exceedence 60% NES 2016 target - three exceedences
40% Percent of 2012 emissions2012 of Percent
20%
0%
2024 2026 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2028 2030
Figure 1-3: Invercargill (20 year burner phase out) with updated distribution of age of multi fuels allowing pre 1998 burners to use wood for two more years (assuming wood use rate of 22 kg/day – same as wood burner)
120% Air plan projections - 20 year phase out (updated age distribution of multi fuels) 100% Air plan projections - 20 year phase out and allow two years of 80% wood use on pre 1998 burners NES 2020 target - one exceedence 60% NES 2016 target - three exceedences
40% Percent of 2012 emissions2012 of Percent
20%
0%
2024 2026 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2028 2030
Figure 1-4: Invercargill (20 year burner phase out) with updated distribution of age of multi fuels allowing pre 1998 burners to use wood for two more years (assuming wood use rate of 29 kg/day)
Council notes the likely small number of coal and wood fired cooking stoves in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds, and the significant cost of converting from a solid fuel fired cooking stove to suitable alternatives. In addition to being both the cooking appliance and source of heating for a dwelling, such cooking stoves are often used to heat a dwelling’s hot water. Converting from a solid fuel fired cooking stove may therefore require significant electrical and plumbing work. Converting from a cooking stove may also require significant modifications to the dwelling. Therefore, Council has decided to allow the use of coal fired cooking stoves in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds until 1 January 2022. After that date their use is prohibited unless burning wood only. This gives owners of dwellings with coal fired cooking
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 30 stoves a reasonable period of time to convert to alternatives. As discussed above, burning coal results in approximately twice the particulate matter emissions as burning wood.
As a result of changes to Rule 4.7 the definition for Wood Fired Cooking Stove has been deleted and replaced with a definition for Solid Fuel Cooking Stove. Refer Section 2.11.19 of this report.
A minor amendment is required to the rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. An error exists in the notified version and needs correcting. The words “Small scale” have been left of the start of the heading.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 4.7A Small scale sSolid fuel burning appliances installed or approved prior to plan notification6 September 2014 in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
The discharge to air in the Invercargill or Gore airsheds from a small scale solid fuel burning appliance, excluding pellet burners and wood firedsolid fuel cooking stoves,3 that was lawfully installed:
(a) before 1 January 20011997, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 20162017 except the appliance may be used for the burning of wood only until 1 January 2019; (b) between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 2001, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2022; (c) between 1 January 2001 and 1 September 2005, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 20212025; (d) between 1 September 2005 and 1 January 2010, that does not meet the criteria specified in Appendix A is a prohibited activity after 1 January 20252030; (e) between 1 January 2010 and notification of this plan6 September 2014 that does not meet the criteria specified in Appendix A is a prohibited activity after 1 January 20292034.
Rule 4.7B Small scale solid fuel burning appliances installed or approved prior to 6 September 2014 in the Gore airshed
The discharge to air in the Gore airshed from a small scale solid fuel burning appliance, excluding pellet burners and solid fuel cooking stoves,3 that was lawfully installed:
(a) before 1 January 1997, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2017 except that the appliance may be used for the burning of wood only until 1 January 2020; (b) between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 2001, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2022; (c) between 1 January 2001 and 1 September 2005, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2025; (d) between 1 September 2005 and 1 January 2010, that does not meet the criteria specified in Appendix A is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2030; (e) between 1 January 2010 and 6 September 2014 that does not meet the criteria specified in Appendix A is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2034.
Rule 4.7C Solid fuel cooking stoves installed or approved prior to 6 September 2014 in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
The discharge to air in the Invercargill or Gore airsheds from a solid fuel cooking stove3 that was lawfully installed prior to 6 September 2014 is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2022, unless burning wood only.
3 A definition of wood firedsolid fuel cooking stove is included in the Definitions of this plan.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 31
2.6.9 Rule 4.8 – Phase out of solid fuel boilers in airsheds
The proposed phase out of solid fuel boilers also generated a significant number of submissions. The rule, as proposed, prohibits the use of existing boilers that emit more than 3g/kg based on a minimum 15 year life or up to 20 years in some instances, from 1 January 2016.
The phase out rule for solid fuel boilers has raised concerns from the submitters. A couple of the key issues relate to the larger investment and therefore replacement cost of boiler systems and the difficulty in testing already installed systems. Solid fuel boiler systems tend to have lesser particulate matter emissions than most existing small scale solid fuel burning appliances but in many cases the models do not have test results that show they can meet the 3 g/kg limit in the rule. Furthermore, the systems are significantly more expensive to replace than most solid fuel burning appliances. To provide funding to enable solid fuel boiler systems to change will disproportionately impact on the overall incentive package available which is better focused on the higher emitting small scale solid fuel burning appliances.
Boilers that emit particulate matter at a tested rate of less than 300 mg/m3 (adjusted to standard conditions) have “real life” emissions that are no more than modern solid fuel burning appliances that can be installed as a permitted activity under the plan and it is reasonable to allow for those boilers. Conversely boilers that are unable to be operated within the 300 mg/m3 emission limit are to be phased out after 1 January 2034. It is expected that most well designed and operated boilers are capable of complying with this limit. The 1 January 2034 phase out will give households with boilers unable to be operated within the emission limit sufficient time to look at options around replacement of those systems.
A minor amendment is required to remove “or less” from the introductory part of the rule as it does not make sense when reading.
A minor amendment is required to the rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. An error exists in the notified version and needs correcting. The words “Small scale” have been left of the start of the heading.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 4.8 Small scale sSolid fuel boilers installed or approved prior to plan notification6 September 2014 in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
A small scale solid fuel boiler that either: (a) emits more than 300mg/kgm3 adjusted to 0°C, 12 percent carbon dioxide, 101.3kPa on a dry gas basis, or less when tested to a method equivalent to AS/NZS 4013:1999ISO 9096:2003,; or (b) cannot comply with the emission, operational and other requirements of Appendix A; and that was lawfully installed; before 6 September 2014 is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2034.
(a) before 1 January 2001, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2016; (b) between 1 January 2001, and 1 September 2005, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2021; (c) between 1 September 2005 and 1 January 2010, is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2025; (d) between 1 January 2010 and notification of this plan is a prohibited activity after 1 January 2029.
A consequential amendment to the explanation for Rules 4.6 – 4.8 is necessary in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA as part of the proposed changes:
“Pellet firesburners and wood firedsolid fuel cooking ovensstoves are included in the definition of enclosed burners but are excluded from Rules 4.7A and 4.7B.”
“The use of open fires for the burning of coal is prohibited from September 2015 January 2016 to assist in achieving compliance with the 2016 timeframes for meeting the NESAQ.”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 32
“Coal and wood fired boilers are sometimes used for central heating systems and can behave relatively smalllow particulate matter emissions owing to the different technology and automated fuel supply. Boilers that emit particulate matter at a rate less than 300mg/m3 (adjusted to standard conditions) have emissions that are no more than modern solid fuel burning appliances that can be installed as a permitted activity under the plan and it is reasonable to allow for those boilers, and conversely. boilers Boilers that are unable to be operated within the emission limit or alternatively the emission limit specified by Appendix A for solid fuel burning appliances are to be phased out after 1 January 2034. It is expected that most well designed and operated boilers are capable of complying with limits. Recognising the cost of installing a boiler system is significant, the 1 January 2034 phase out will give households with boilers unable to be operated within the emission limit sufficient time to look at options around replacement of those systems.The AS/NZS 4013:1999 test method for wood burners is not designed for automated systems such as boilers. However, “functional equivalence procedures” allow testing to be carried out on an equivalence basis to give an emission output reasonably comparable to those from wood burners. Under Rule 4.2 new domestic boilers installed in Invercargill and Gore must meet an emission limit of 1.5 g/kg. This is the emission limit specified in the NESAQ for wood burners and also applies to domestic wood boilers4. However, existing boilers that can demonstrate laboratory emission limits of 3.0 g/kg when tested to an “equivalent” method are allowed to continue to be used under Rule 4.8. This is because the “real life” emissions from boilers are likely to be lower on average than from wood burners that meet the emission limit of 1.5 g/kg because of the automated operation of the boiler systems. “Real life” emissions refer to the performance of a burner or boiler when operated in the home as opposed to the “test emissions”, which refer to emissions when a burner is tested in the laboratory to the strict testing regime specified under NZS 4013 or equivalent. The rule also recognises the cost of installing a boiler system is significant.
A small number of wood firedsolid fuel cooking stoves may be used in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. These will be permitted until 1 January 2022 unless burning wood onlyexcluded from the prohibition owing to the small number, uncertainties about the emission levels, and the cost and replacement issues.”
2.6.10 Rule 4.9 - Prohibited fuels and materials used in appliances
The proposed inclusion of high sulphur content rule in the PRAP was primarily for amenity reasons based on consultation prior to notification of the plan, but ended up receiving the most submissions. Approximately 530 submitters specifically commented on this rule in the PRAP and while there were some in support, the vast majority were opposed.
Due to this being an amenity based rule and there being little correlation between sulphur content of coal and particulate matter emissions, Council has decided to delete this rule from the plan.
Provision is also made for an exemption to the burning of wood with a moisture content of more than 25% dry weight for back country huts. Consequently, a definition of back country huts has been added as part of the definition section of this report.
Council is of the opinion that the term “used oil” is more appropriate than “waste oil” so the rule and the definition have been amended accordingly. Refer also to Section 2.11.16 of this report.
Some submitters also commented on the prohibition of used oil where boiler systems burning this fuel have been recently installed or diesel systems converted. Used oil can contain a number of different contaminants, including particulates, metals and halogens, so it is not appropriate to burn used oil in high density areas such as the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. However, in locations well removed from sensitive activities (such as neighbouring dwellings and schools) where the potential adverse effects associated with the burning of used oil can be avoided or mitigated via appropriate consent conditions it may be an appropriate activity. For example, it may be necessary to treat the oil by filtration or other methods to remove contaminants prior to combustion. Council has therefore decided to provide for the burning of used oil in small scale fuel burning appliances outside of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds as a discretionary activity. This approach enables effects to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
4 The definition of a wood burner in the NESAQ is “a domestic heating appliance that burns wood but which is not an open fire or multi fuel heater, a pellet heater or a coal burning heater or a cooking stove.”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 33
Council’s decision is to make the following amendments to the rule:
Rule 4.9A Fuels and materials used in small scale fuel burning appliances
The combustion in any small scale fuel burning appliance of any of the following materials is a prohibited activity:
(a) from 31 December 20164, wood having a moisture content of more than 25% dry weight except when being used in a back country hut; (b) from 31 December 2014, any fuel with a sulphur content exceeding 0.5% by weight; (cb) wood that is painted, stained, oiled or coated; (dc) wood treated with preservatives or impregnated with chemicals, including but not limited to, wood treated with Copper-Chrome-Arsenic (CCA): (ed) pellets containing greater than 10 mg/kg (dry) of copper and 0.02 w-% (dry) of chlorine; (fe) composite wood boards containing formaldehyde or similar adhesives, including but not limited to, chip board, fibreboard, particle board and laminated boards; (gf) metals and materials containing metals, including but not limited to cables; (hg) materials containing asbestos; (ih) materials containing tar or bitumen: (ji) all rubber, including but not limited to, rubber tyres; (kj) synthetic material, including, but not limited to, motor vehicle parts, foams, fibreglass, batteries, chemicals, paint and other surface-coating materials, or any type of plastics; (lk) wasteused oil from 1 January 2017 within the Invercargill and Gore airsheds; (ml) peat; (nm) sludge from industrial processes.
Rule 4.9B Used oil in small scale fuel burning appliances outside of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
The combustion of used oil in any small scale fuel burning appliance outside of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds is a discretionary activity.
A consequential amendment to the explanation for Rules 4.9A and 4.9B is necessary in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA as part of the proposed changes:
“In the case of the moisture content of wood, the limit is imposed for PM10 purposes (wood moisture content is a key factor influencing PM10 emissions from wood burners). Burning wet wood is also very costly as the heat which would otherwise be available for space heating is used to drive off the moisture. Burning fuel with high sulphur content may cause adverse health effects in addition to adverse effects such as odour and impact on amenity values. These This materials will be permitted until 31 December 20164 to allow existing fuel stocks throughout the region to be burnt, although material being used in a back country hut is exempt from this requirement altogether.”
“Used oil can contain a number of different contaminants (including particulates, metals and halogens) so it is not appropriate to burn used oil in high density areas such as the Invercargill and Gore airsheds. However, in locations well removed from sensitive activities (such as neighbouring dwellings and schools) where the potential adverse effects associated with the burning of used oil can be avoided or mitigated via appropriate consent conditions it may be an appropriate activity. For example, conditions might require treatment of the oil by filtration or other methods to remove contaminants prior to combustion. Rule 4.9B therefore provides for the burning of used oil in small scale fuel burning appliances outside of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds as a discretionary activity.”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 34
2.7 Outdoor burning rules
2.7.1 Rule 5.1 - Burning outside airsheds
One submitter has requested a change to the rule to include conditions based on land use type rather than the two hectare size limit as proposed in clauses (c) and (d). Council has chosen to use property size in the place of zoning because land uses and zone types differ between local authorities. Each property owner is likely to know the size of their property and it is a simple process for staff to access that information. Council have decided that no change is required in this regard.
There was a request to change the property ownership condition to include ‘under the same management’. This proposal would enable material from a larger number of properties to be moved between sites for burning purposes. One outcome of this proposal is that the fires are potentially larger, given the material being transported to the site. Another outcome may be that fires occur more frequently on a particular site than would otherwise occur. These factors have potential to cause an increase in adverse effects experienced by neighbouring properties. It is considered appropriate that any variation to the requirements of condition (a) be dealt with as a Discretionary Activity under Rule 5.5 and consequently Council rejects that submission point.
Upon consideration of a submission point from Southern Rural Fire Authority, Council acknowledges that greater flexibility is needed in the rule to ensure safe outdoor burning practices. Council has therefore expanded clause (a) to include an adjoining property. The increased flexibility allows greater scope to locate the fire away from neighbours and potentially flammable material, while minimising the potential for large amounts of material being transported to a single burn site.
A submission suggested a change to the wording of clause (b) of Rule 5.1 to refer to offensive or objectionable effects. Council accepts that suggestion.
Another submission suggested that it might be possible to remove setbacks in rural areas, where effects may be more acceptable. Council disagrees with this approach and notes that the written approvals option is in place where reduced setback distances are sought.
Council agrees with the submission that suggested the inclusion of ‘places of assembly’ to clause (d). The amendment is included below.
One submitter suggested that the provision of written approvals in clause (d) of the rule is not authorised under section 68 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Council has received advice from its Legal Counsel that is contrary to this submission point. The rule is drafted so that burning may occur with or without written approvals, however, the setbacks may only be reduced if written approval has been obtained. The inclusion of a Restricted Discretionary rule to address these written approvals, as requested, is considered to be unnecessary.
“Navigable airspace” has been substituted for ‘aircraft flight path’ to align with the language used by Airways. Council also accepts the proposed addition: “or above the property on which the burning is being carried out” to clause (b).
Council agrees that it is appropriate to include a setback from national transmission assets. This has been included as clause (e).
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 5.1 Outdoor burning outside of the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
The discharge of contaminants into air from the outdoor burning of vegetative matter, paper, cardboard and untreated wood is a permitted activity outside the Invercargill and Gore airsheds provided the following conditions are met:
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 35
(a) burning shall only consist of vegetative matter, paper, cardboard and untreated wood generated on the same property, or a property under the same ownership, or an adjoining property; (b) at or beyond the boundary of the property on which the burning is carried out, or above the property on which the burning is carried out, or on any public land, the discharge shall not result in adverse effects from any: (i) objectionable deposition of particulate matter on any land or structure; (ii) noxious or dangerous levels of airborne contaminants; (iii) offensive or objectionable effects of smoke or odour; (iv) smoke or water vapour that reduces visibility on any road or in any aircraft flight pathnavigable airspace; or (v) corrosion of any structure; (c) if the property on which the burning is carried out is less than 2 hectares in area, the material burned shall not exceed 2 cubic metres in any 24 hour period; (d) if the property on which the burning is carried out is more than 2 hectares in area, and more than 2 cubic metres of material is being burnt, the burning must not occur within 100 metres upwind or 50 metres in any other direction, of any residential unit or place of assembly that is not located on the property where the burning is occurring unless written permission has been obtained from the occupier(s) of the residential unit. (e) outdoor burning shall not occur within 100 metres of any national grid line or substation.
Council acknowledges the role the Southern Rural Fire Authority plays in the management of outdoor burning in Southland. To ensure Plan users are aware that they may have obligations under Southern Rural Fire Authority’s requirements, Council considers it appropriate to insert the following note under the heading Chapter 5: Outdoor Burning Rules.
Note: Plan users should note that in addition to the outdoor burning provisions of the Proposed Regional Air Plan they may be subject to requirements stipulated by Southern Rural Fire Authority. Southern Rural Fire Authority is responsible for managing the outdoor fire season in Southland and issuing fire permits during restricted seasons. This includes both urban and rural areas under the Fire Prevention (Vegetation) Bylaw 2010 adopted by Gore District Council, Invercargill City Council and Southland District Council. For further information please contact Southern Rural Fire Authority - Phone: 0800 773 363 - Website: www.southernrural fire.org.nz
2.7.2 Rule 5.2 - Burning in airsheds
Submissions have requested changes to the wintertime restrictions on outdoor burning within the airsheds. There is a degree of conflict between safe burning practices (with regard to fire risk) and the proposed plan rules addressing winter air quality, but there are other options available to residents living within the airsheds, such as recycling, composting and greenwaste. The majority of properties within the airsheds are relatively small and thus the volume of vegetative material generated per property is not typically large. No change to the rule is considered necessary in this regard.
As discussed in relation to Rule 5.1, no change is necessary to accommodate different land use types. Setting conditions based on property size is consistent with other regulations under this plan and is easy for owners and local authorities to evaluate. Likewise, it is not appropriate to expand this rule to allow the burning of damp, wet or moist vegetation. Under such conditions, significantly more PM10 would be released into the air within relatively densely populated areas. Any vegetation burned should be in a dry condition in order to comply with condition (c) of the rule. The intent of this rule is to reduce the PM10 concentrations within the airshed and to minimise localised adverse effects. The suggested change would be contrary to those objectives.
A submission suggested a change to the wording of clause (c) of Rule 5.2 to refer to offensive or objectionable effects. Council accepts that suggestion.
Another submission suggested that it might be possible to remove setbacks in rural areas, where effects may be more acceptable. Council disagrees with this approach and notes that the written approvals option is in place where reduced setback distances are sought.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 36
Council agrees with the submission that suggested the inclusion of ‘places of assembly’ to clause (e). The amendment is included below.
One submitter suggested that the provision of written approvals in clause (e) of the rule is not authorised under section 68 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Council has received advice from its Legal Counsel that is contrary to this submission point. The rule is drafted so that burning may occur with or without written approvals, however, the setbacks may only be reduced if written approval has been obtained. The inclusion of a Restricted Discretionary rule to address these written approvals, as requested, is considered to be unnecessary.
“Navigable airspace” has been substituted for ‘aircraft flight path’ to align with the language used by Airways. Council also accepts the proposed addition: “or above the property on which the burning is being carried out” to clause (c).
Council agrees that it is appropriate to include a setback from national transmission assets. A setback has been included as clause (f).
Some submitters suggested that the proposed rule should go further and ban outdoor burning in the airshed year-round. At this time, exceedances of the PM10 standard only occur during the winter months specified. Outdoor burning during the remainder of the year has the potential to cause some nuisance, but Council considers that the new permitted activity criteria will address those effects to an acceptable degree.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 5.2 Outdoor burning in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds
The discharge of contaminants into air from the outdoor burning of vegetative matter, paper, cardboard and untreated wood is a permitted activity in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds provided the following conditions are met:
(a) outdoor burning is between 1 September and 30 April only, except where the discharge is from an outdoor open fire; (b) burning shall only consist of vegetative matter, paper, cardboard and untreated wood generated on the same property, or a property under the same ownership; (c) at or beyond the boundary of the property on which the burning is carried out, or above the property on which the burning is carried out, or on any public land, the discharge shall not result in adverse effects from any: (i) objectionable deposition of particulate matter on any land or structure; (ii) noxious or dangerous levels of airborne contaminants; (iii) offensive or objectionable effects of smoke or odour; (iv) smoke or water vapour that reduces visibility on any road or in any aircraft flight path navigable airspace; or (v) corrosion of any structure; (d) if the property on which the burning is carried out is less than 2 hectares in area, the material burned shall not exceed 2 cubic metres in any 24 hour period; (e) if the property on which the burning is carried out is more than 2 hectares in area, and more than 2 cubic metres of material is being burnt, the burning must not occur within 100 metres upwind or 50 metres in any other direction, of any residential unit or place of assembly that is not located on the property where the burning is occurring unless written permission has been obtained from the occupier(s) of the residential unit. (f) outdoor burning shall not occur within 100 metres of any national grid line or substation.
A consequential amendment to the explanation for Rules 5.1 and 5.2 is necessary in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA as part of the proposed changes:
“In rural areas, burning larger amounts of material is appropriate if burning is to be used for disposing of tree fell or orchard prunings. In rural areas some smoke, odour or dusts may also be more acceptable. Additional requirements for a larger fire include the fire being at a distance of 100 metres upwind or 50 metres in any other direction of any residential unit or place of assembly, unless permission has been obtained. The purpose of this buffer distance is to minimise potential effects of the fire on neighbouring dwellings activities.”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 37
2.7.3 Rule 5.3 - Burning of animal carcasses and offal
One submitter suggested that descriptive rules would be favourable when addressing offal pit location. Council considers that it is difficult to provide for descriptive rules that also reduce odour and emissions. A prescriptive approach ensures these effects are mitigated.
There was a request to amend the rule to include ‘farming enterprise’ in the restriction on property ownership. This proposal would enable material from a larger number of properties to be moved between sites for burning purposes. One outcome of this proposal is that the fires are larger, given the material being transported to the site. Council considers the use of the property ownership clause as drafted is appropriate and do not accept that submission point. Any variation to condition (a) can be dealt with as a Discretionary Activity under Rule 5.5.
“Navigable airspace” has been substituted for ‘aircraft flight path’ to align with the language used by Airways. Council also accept the proposed addition: “or above the property on which the burning is being carried out” to clause (b).
One submission suggested increasing the setback distance to residential units and places of assembly to 200 m, consistent with the Southland Regional Water Plan. Council agrees that this is appropriate, given the sensitive nature of the material being burnt in the offal pits and the potential for discharge of significant smoke and odour under poor combustion conditions. It is also accepted that ‘dwelling’ should be replaced with ‘residential unit’.
Council also accepts the Federation Farmers of NZ’s submission that the setback distance from a property boundary be set at 100 m. This is considered to be appropriate given the 200 m setback to dwellings and places of assembly where affected persons are more likely to be present. Council have also taken into account that such offal burning typically occurs in rural areas that are not densely populated.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 5.3 Outdoor burning of animal carcasses and offal
The discharge of contaminants into air arising from the burning in the open of animal carcasses and offal is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
(a) the carcasses or offal are derived from the same property on which the offal pit or “dead hole” is situated or the activity is carried out by a local authority or government agency in the exercise of their statutory powers; (b) at or beyond the boundary of the subject property, or above the property on which the burning is being carried out, or on any public land, the discharge shall not result in adverse effects from any: (i) objectionable deposition of particulate matter on any land or structure; (ii) noxious or dangerous levels of airborne contaminants; (iii) offensive or objectionable effects of smoke or odour; (iv) smoke or water vapour that reduces visibility on any road or in any aircraft flight path navigable airspace; or (v) corrosion of any structure; (c) burning does not occur within 100200 metres of a dwelling residential unit or place of assembly,; (d) burning does not occur within 100 metres of a property boundary; (de) there are no adverse effects on recorded historic heritage sites; (ef) the burning comprises only of animal carcasses, vegetative matter, paper, cardboard or untreated wood, and; (fg) the burning is carried out on any property outside the Invercargill and Gore airsheds.
2.7.4 Rule 5.4 - Burning of stubble
One submitter has suggested that Rule 5.4 be removed. Council disagrees with this and notes there are other submissions that are in support of the rule. Stubble burning can occur over large areas and result in significant air quality impacts under some conditions. Stubble fires can smoulder under some conditions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 38 and generate significant particulate matter emissions. The stubble often retains moisture, which contributes to inefficient combustion and increased smoke. It is, therefore, appropriate that conditions be placed on this discharge through the permitted activity framework.
Another submitter suggested that the provision of written approvals in clause (a) of the rule is not authorised under section 68 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Council has received advice from its Legal Counsel that is contrary to this submission point. The rule is drafted so that burning may occur with or without written approvals, however, the setbacks may only be reduced if written approval has been obtained. The inclusion of a Restricted Discretionary rule to address these written approvals, as requested, is considered to be unnecessary.
Council agrees with the submission that suggested the inclusion of “places of assembly” to clause (d). The amendment is included below.
“Navigable airspace” has been substituted for ‘aircraft flight path’ to align with the language used by Airways. Council also accept the proposed addition: “or above the property on which the burning is being carried out” to clause (b).
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 5.4 Outdoor burning of stubble
The discharge of contaminants into air arising from the burning of stubble is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
(a) stubble burning does not occur within 300 metres upwind or 100 metres in any other direction, of any residential unit or place of assembly that is not located on the property where the burning occurs unless written permission has been obtained from the occupier(s) of the residential unit; (b) at or beyond the boundary of the subject property, or above the property on which the burning is being carried out, or on any public land, the discharge shall not result in adverse effects from any: (i) objectionable deposition of particulate matter on any land or structure; (ii) noxious or dangerous levels of airborne contaminants; (iii) offensive or objectionable smoke or odour; (iv) smoke or water vapour that reduces visibility on any road or in any aircraft flight path navigable airspace; or (v) corrosion of any structure.
2.7.5 Rule 5.5 - Burning discretionary
Council notes the submission supporting this rule.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this rule.
2.7.6 Rule 5.6 – Prohibited burning in airsheds
One submitter has suggested that this rule should hold a discretionary activity classification, rather than the prohibited activity status proposed. Council disagrees with this approach, given that the airsheds are effectively over-allocated during the winter months and removing outdoor burning emissions during this time will reduce the total PM10 emissions over the winter period. There are opportunities to undertake burning during autumn and spring, as well as alternative disposal options that can be utilised.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this rule.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 39
2.7.7 Rule 5.7 - Burning agricultural wrap and plastic containers
Council is aware of the AgRecovery programme which recycles agrichemical containers, but has chosen not to name specific examples in the explanation section, as requested by one submitter. In specifically naming such programmes there is always the risk that one will be missed or that programmes will change over time. As the programmes continue to evolve and new initiatives are formed, Council will hold that information for interested parties, but does not consider it appropriate to include that information in the planning document.
One submitter has suggested that the burning of baleage wrap should continue as a permitted activity. Council disagrees with this approach for the reasons outlined in the explanation. There are alternatives available to burning and plastics commonly release hazardous air pollutants when burned, particularly when combustion conditions are poor. Federated Farmers requested that an exception be made for burning up to 2 m3 of dirty bale wrap, to allow for disposal of material that cannot be readily recycled. Council has considered this matter carefully but find that such an exception is not appropriate. A rule of this type would be difficult to enforce and burning of such wrap would typically occur under poor combustion conditions when emissions of smoke and hazardous air pollutants can be significant.
Council’s decision is to make no changes to this rule.
There is a minor amendment required to fix errors in the explanation following Rule 5.7 in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA as follows:
An alternative to wrapping baleage into individual plastic wrapped parcels may also be an option for some farmers. The alternative involves placing the baleagesilage in a concrete bunker on the side of a bank, so that chopped grass can be dumped in at the top and drawn from the bottom in winter. BaleageSilage can also be placed in large heaps on the ground and rolled by tractor to push out all the air, then wrapped in a plastic covered held tight by tyres.
2.7.8 Rule 5.8 – Fuels and materials
Submitters have suggested that waste oil should be removed from the prohibited list in Rule 5.8. In addition to being a contributor to PM10, waste oil also contains heavy metals, which have potential to be harmful to human health. These metals may be inhaled, but also can be deposited onto land and activities where food is produced. The proposed rule relates to burning of materials in the open air, where there is no control over the airflow and combustion. It is not appropriate to burn waste oil under these conditions, and it is to be retained in Rule 5.8.
Council is of the opinion that the term “used oil” is more appropriate than the “waste oil” so the rule and the definition have been amended accordingly. Refer also to Section 2.11.16 of this report.
It has also been suggested that peat should be removed from Rule 5.8. Council disagrees with this approach, given that peat occurs in damp conditions and such conditions are likely to release a significant amount of particulate matter into the air. Any outdoor burning on peat should be managed so that the peat does not burn. It is noted that Rule 5.8 does not prevent outdoor burning on peat soils, provided appropriate measures are taken to ensure the underlying peat does not become involved in the fire.
The inclusion of a limit on the sulphur content of fuel has also been queried by submitters, primarily in relation to the domestic heating rules. This rule was included in response to complaints received by Council about the smell of high sulphur coals. These coals are not generally burnt in the open air, but in domestic heating appliances. Council agrees that clause (a) can be removed from Rule 5.8, consistent with changes to the domestic heating rules. It is not expected that material burned on outdoor fires would have high sulphur content. Burning of such material would likely not comply with the conditions of the permitted activity rules that require no objectionable or offensive effects of smoke or odour.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 40
The words “on any property” are superfluous and have been deleted from the rule as a minor amendment in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 5.8 Fuels and materials user for outdoor burning
The discharges to air from outdoor burning (excluding fire training activities authorised under Rule 7.1) on any property of any of the following materials is a prohibited activity:
(a) any fuel with a sulphur content exceeding 0.5% by weight; (ba) wood that is painted, stained, oiled or coated; (cb) wood treated with preservatives or impregnated with chemicals, including but not limited to, wood treated with copper-chrome-arsenic (CCA); (dc) composite wood boards containing formaldehyde or similar adhesives, including but not limited to, chip board, fibreboard, particle board and laminated boards; (ed) metals and materials containing metals, including but not limited to cables; (fe) materials containing asbestos (except for the processing of vehicle brake shoes subject to a resource consent under Rule 5.3); (gf) material containing tar or bitumen; (hg) all rubber, including but not limited to, rubber tyres; (ih) synthetic materials, including, but not limited to, motor vehicle parts, foams, fibreglass, batteries, chemicals, paint and other surface-coating materials, or any type of plastics including agricultural wrap and agrichemical containers; (ji) wasteused oil; (kj) peat; or (lk) sludge from industrial processes.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 41
2.8 Agrichemical and fertiliser rules 2.8.1 Rule 6.1 – Agrichemicals using hand-held application methods
The Department of Conservation objects to the rule that “the agrichemical is prepared and applied in such a manner that does not exceed any rate (including equivalent rate per hectare), or contravene any other requirement specified on the product label,” describing situations where exceeding the rate may be appropriate. As an alternative it is suggested that the application of chemicals comply with the conditions for which the use of the substance is approved under the HSNO Act. Council accepts that submission point.
There may be legitimate reasons why the specified rated on the product label for agrichemical application may be exceeded, with effects on the environment being negligible. This is dependent on the environmental setting and the target species. For a number of weed species targeted by the Department of Conservation there is unlikely to be a rate or other requirement specific for the target species on the product label.
The HSNO Act approves the use of hazardous substances including in New Zealand. It is considered more appropriate to require the use of agrichemicals to comply with the conditions for which a substance is approved under the HSNO Act, than to require the directions of a product label to be followed. This approach is also consistent with Rules 4 and 5 of the Regional Water Plan.
Submitters expressed concern over the definition of hand-held application being limited to 15 litres of mixed spray or 500 grams of unmixed spray. In particular they are concerned that non-compliance with this use rate in a hand-held application would be prohibited and that the rule would be overly restrictive. In addition it is submitted that this rule is to distinguish application methods and should be revised to apply to domestic applications, making the definition of hand held redundant.
A main limiting condition of this rule that might affect a reasonably small scale operation would be the potential requirement for GROWSAFE® or equivalent introductory certification. The intent of the rules is to permit small scale application that might be required for domestic or commercial/industrial premises without requiring certification. The application type is less relevant than the scale of operation which is why the definition includes limitations on the amounts that can be applied. Council acknowledges there is ambiguity around use of the term “hand-held” but maintain the need to have the limit defined by a measure directly related to the scale of the operation i.e., the volume of material applied.
Council’s decision is to amend the definition of hand-held application methods to allow for 800 grams of unmixed or 25 litres of mixed spray to be applied before an application is considered not to be hand-held. See Section 2.11.12 of this report for the amended definition.
Fonterra requested the inclusion of the words “of spray contaminants” before the words “to air from the application of agrichemicals.” Council has decided to accept in part that submission point such that the rule refers to the “discharge of contaminants to air from the application of agrichemicals”. This wording is consistent with the terminology used in the RMA and for other rules in the plan.
Council also considers it appropriate to change Rule 6.5 to a discretionary status to allow for consideration of applications that do not meet the permitted activity criteria. See Section 2.8.4 of this report.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 6.1 Agrichemicals using hand-held application methods
The discharge of contaminants to air from the application of agrichemicals using hand-held application methods is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 42
(a) the agrichemical is prepared and applied in such a manner that does not exceed any rate (including equivalent rate per hectare), or contravene any other requirement specified on the product labelthe substance is approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the use and discharge of the substance is in accordance with all conditions of that approval; and (b) the discharge must be undertaken in such a way that agrichemicals do not get sprayed or drift onto any adjoining property.
A consequential amendment to the explanation for Rule 6.1 is necessary in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA as part of the proposed changes:
Explanation “This rule allows the small scale application of agrichemicals to be carried out by people provided they can operate in such a way as to ensure it does not get sprayed or drift onto any adjoining property. The scale of application is limited for laypeople because of their lack of expertise in the application of agrichemicals. Limiting the scale minimises the potential for adverse effects from the activity.
The rule requires the application of agrichemicals at the recommended concentrations and application rates and that the spray be prepared in accordance with the manufacturers requirements as specified on the product label. The product has been prepared and its risks assessed relative to the prescribed doses and operation outside of these parameters may result in negative consequences.”
2.8.2 Rule 6.2 – Agrichemicals using other than hand-held application methods
As discussed in Section 6.8.1 of this report there may be legitimate reasons why the specified rates on the product label for agrichemical application may be exceeded, with effects on the environment being negligible. For Rule 6.2 an example is the aerial spraying of wilding conifers in Southland where product rate specifications are often required to be exceeded to achieve the desired results. Council has decided to amend clause (b) accordingly.
Many submitters were in support of the proposed rules. One submitter raised concerns that the wording of the pilot qualifications for conducting aerial application is too loose and may result in debate. The submitter that the rule specify that pilots hold current Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) CERTIFICATION as required by Rule Part 137 (AGRICULTURAL). Another submitter suggests that it be a requirement that aerial operators have GROWSAFE accreditation.
Council has decided to require any contractor using aerial application methods to ensure that the pilot holds a current Pilot's Agrichemical Rating approved by the Civil Aviation Authority; and the aircraft company/organisation must have AIRCARETM, or an equivalent nationally recognised accreditation. Clause (e) has been amended accordingly.
One submitter requested the deletion of the words “get sprayed or drift onto” from clause (c). Council rejects that submission point as it can be difficult to determine after the event if overspray has had an adverse effect and it is good practice for there to be no overspray onto neighbouring properties.
The issue of responsibility for notification of neighbours in the case of aerial application was raised by submitters with a specific request that this be the responsibility of landowners. Council acknowledges the importance of establishing responsibility for notification of neighbours and is of the opinion that the responsibility lies with the landowner to ensure that this has been done. Clause (e) has been amended accordingly and a new clause (f) inserted.
Fonterra requested the inclusion of the words “of spray contaminants” before the words “to air from the application of agrichemicals.” Council has decided to accept in part that submission point such that the rule refers to the “discharge of contaminants to air from the application of agrichemicals”. This wording is consistent with the terminology used in the RMA and for other rules in the plan.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 43
Horticulture New Zealand requested that the specific sections of NZS 8409 relevant to discharges to air be included in the rule rather than specifying the mandatory requirements of NZS 8409. Council considers that the existing wording of the rule with respect to reference to NZS 8409 is appropriate.
One submitter raised the issue of the potential need to spray agrichemicals outside of the proposed rules for the purposes of biosecurity.
Council acknowledges the unique situation of a biosecurity threat and have included a rule to allow for this. Council has decided that a new rule be included as Rule 6.4 below and that the existing Rule 6.4 be renumbered to 6.5 and amended to a discretionary activity as discussed under the assessment of Rule 6.1 above.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to Rule 6.2 and include a new Rule 6.4 below (The existing Rule 6.4 has been renumbered to 6.5 to accommodate the new rule):
Rule 6.2 Agrichemicals using other than hand-held application methods
The discharge of contaminants to air from the application of agrichemicals using other than hand-held application methods is a permitted activity provided all of the following conditions are met:
(a) the discharge of agrichemicals to air must comply with the mandatory requirements of NZS8409:2004, (or future versions of NZS 8409); (b) the agrichemical is prepared and applied in such a manner that does not exceed any rate (including equivalent rate per hectare), or contravene any other requirement specified on the product label the substance is approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the use and discharge of the substance is in accordance with all conditions of that approval; (c) the discharge must be undertaken in such a way that agrichemicals do not get sprayed or drift onto any adjoining property; (d) where agrichemicals are applied: (i) every person, other than an agrichemical contractor, applying agrichemicals shall be: under training for, or hold, a current GROWSAFE® Introductory Certificate, or an equivalent nationally-recognised qualification, or be under direct supervision of a person holding a GROWSAFE® Applied Certificate or GROWSAFE® Registered Chemical Applicators Certificate, or an equivalent nationally- recognised qualification; and (ii) every agrichemical contractor applying agrichemicals shall hold a GROWSAFE® Registered Chemical Applicators Certificate, or an equivalent nationally-recognised qualification; (e) any contractor using aerial application must ensure that: (i) the pilot holds a current Pilot's Agrichemical Rating issued approved by the Civil Aviation Authority; and (ii) the aircraft company/organisation must have AIRCARETMsuitable, or an equivalent nationally recognised accreditation; for agrichemical application; and (f) the property owner or occupier who authorizes the discharge shall ensure that: (i) all adjoining landowners or occupiers who are also within 500 metres of the perimeter of the application site shall be notified at least 24 hours but not more than 30 days prior to the application. (g) for application in sensitive areas that are amenity areas or public places as defined in New Zealand Standard on the Management of Agrichemicals (NZS 8409:2004): (i) place a public notice in a local newspaper or letter drop in the area to be sprayed at least seven working days prior to the application date; and (ii) place signs in the immediate vicinity of the spraying during the spray period and any required stand down period afterwards, or where spraying is occurring on or alongside roads, any vehicle associated with the spraying must display a sign on the front and rear of the vehicle advising that spraying is occurring.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 44
Rule 6.4 Biosecurity incursions
Notwithstanding Rules 6.1-6.3, the discharge of agrichemicals to air to manage a declared biosecurity incursion under the Biosecurity Act 1993 is permitted subject to the following conditions: (a)_ the responsible authority shall notify the Council and make a public notice 48 hours prior to spraying occurring. The public notice shall advise of the following matters: (i) the organism to be eradicated; (ii) the principal actions that are to be taken in the attempt to eradicate the organism; (iii) the geographical area of the intended spraying; (iv) the duration of the discharge, the name of the agrichemical to be used, the rate and method of application, and the name and contact details of the applicator.
2.8.3 Rule 6.3 – Application of fertilisers
Many submitters were in support of the proposed rules. A number of submitters are also concerned that the 30 metre setback buffer for fertiliser application from a residential unit or particularly from an organic farm would significantly reduce the allowable fertilised cropping area of a farm. In particular it was submitted that organic farms are highly sensitive activities and that the setback distance be an internal requirement of their operation. Submitters have also proposed changes to terminology and the intent of rules (e.g. changing from a no-drift philosophy to a no adverse effects philosophy) and referencing specific accreditation or qualifications.
Council has considered the submissions and decided that it is appropriate to retain the 30 metre setback from residential units. Any loss of land area where fertiliser may be applied under this condition is typically small and it is appropriate to set a readily enforceable limit to prevent any adverse effects on residential activity.
In the case of organic farms and orchards, Council has decided that a specific setback distance is not appropriate, and to adopt a “no deposition of fertilizer over the boundary” approach. Where fertiliser is applied adjacent to orchards or organic farms, it will be incumbent on the operator to ensure that there is no deposition over the property boundary. Careful regard will need to be had to wind conditions and the method of application. Under certain conditions a setback distance of greater than 30 metres may be required to prevent fertiliser deposition over the adjacent orchard or organic farm.
Submitters requested inclusion of a register of farms complying with the condition Rule 6.3 a (i). Council has decided that is not appropriate within the PRAP and it is more appropriate that industry be the source of that information.
A submitter also notes the use of the term aircraft flight path and requests changing it to the terminology navigable air space. Council accepts that submission point.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the rule:
Rule 6.3 Application of fertilisers
The discharge of fertiliser to air is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
(a) unless written approval has been obtained by the occupier, there shall be no fertiliser drift application within 30 metres of a residential unit; over any property that is: (b) unless written approval has been obtained by the occupier, there shall be no deposition of fertiliser over any: (i) property that is registered or certified by the Biological Producers’ and Consumer’s Council or the Biodynamic Farming and Garden Association as an organically farmed property, provided that this registration or certification was established before any discharge activity is commenced; or (ii) orchard where there is fruit on the trees or vines;
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 45
(b) at or beyond the boundary of the subject property, or on any public land, the discharge shall not result in adverse effects from any: (i) objectionable deposition of particulate matter on any land or structure; (ii) noxious or dangerous levels of airborne contaminants; (iii) offensive or objectionable particulate or odour; (iv) water vapour that reduces reduction of visibility on any road or in any aircraft flight pathnavigable airspace arising from the discharge; or (v) corrosion of any structure.
2.8.4 Rule 6.4 – Prohibited agrichemicals and fertilisers
Some submitters were in support of Rule 6.4. Several submitters opposed the rule suggesting alternatives such as non-complying, restricted discretionary or discretionary activity status.
Giving consideration to these submissions Council considers a change from a prohibited to discretionary status is appropriate. This would allow the effects of discharge outside the conditions of the permitted activity rules to be considered on a case by case basis. As stated above, the rule is also renumbered to become Rule 6.5.
A minor amendment is required to the rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. The words “to air” have been added for consistency with other rules.
Council’s decision is to make the following changes to Rule 6.4 below:
Rule 6.45 Application of agrichemicals and fertilisers
Except as provided for in Rules 6.1–6.34, the discharge of agrichemicals and fertilisers to air is a prohibited discretionary activity.
The notified version of the Proposed Plan had the explanation for Rule 6.3 following Rule 6.4. This error needs to be corrected. In addition to a minor amendment to the explanation to correct an error in the wording in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA, the explanation has been amended consequently to changes to Rule 4.3. The amended explanation is as follows:
Explanation “The application of fertilisers including aerial application is a common land management practice. The rule requires that application of fertiliser shall not result in objectionable deposition of particulate matter on any land or structure. This is essentially a “no discharge beyond the boundary” rule unless the discharge is not found to be objectionable. The latter will largely depend on the occupier. In cases where the occupier is highly likely to find the discharge objectionable e.g. adjoining an organically farmed property or an orchard the specification is tightened to ensure there is no deposition within 30 metres of the property boundary.
In some cases aerial application is the only practical means of distributing fertilisers effectively. Provided that certain criteria are met, this practice will have minimal environmental effects.
The conditions seek to limit adverse cross-property effects that may arise from the discharge ofr fertiliser to air. Adherence to the Code of Practice for Fertiliser Use (www.fertresearch.org.nz) is also encouraged.
Note: Freshwater rules in the Regional Water Plan for Southland must be consulted if it is likely that fertiliser may enter any waterway or lake.”
“The conditions seek to limit adverse cross-property effects that may arise from the discharge or of fertiliser to air. Adherence to the Code of Practice for Fertiliser Use (www.fertresearch.org.nz) is also encouraged.”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 46
2.9 Fire training rules
2.9.1 Rule 7.1 – Fire training
Submitters were largely in support of the fire training rules in the proposed plan. The potential for visibility impacts was identified and suggested as an inclusion to the conditions. This is a valid concern for those navigating airways.
Council acknowledges that smoke occurring as a result of the training of fire fighters may result in reduced visibility that should be appropriately managed.
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to Rule 7.1:
Rule 7.1 Fire Training
The discharge of contaminants to air from fire training activities is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
(a) the discharge takes place under the control of a Fire Authority in terms of the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, a Fire Brigade established under the Fire Service Act 1975, or an Airport Authority fire service, or a nationally recognised training provider; (b) the Southland Regional Council is notified at least two working days prior to the activity commencing; (c) there is no burning of materials prohibited by Rule 5.8 except if the discharge takes place under the control of a fire brigade established under the Fire Service Act 1975; (d) the discharge does not occur in the Invercargill and Gore airsheds between 1 May to 31 August inclusive; and (e) in the case that the burn is likely to result in smoke or odour beyond the property boundary, neighbouring property owners within a 200 metre radius of the burn site are informed at least two working days prior to the activity commencing.; and (f) the discharge does not reduce visibility in navigable airspace.
2.9.2 Rule 7.2 – Fire training
Submitters were largely in support of the fire training rules in the proposed plan. The potential for visibility impacts was identified and suggested as an inclusion to the conditions. This is a valid concern for those navigating airways.
Council acknowledges that smoke occurring as a result of the training of fire fighters may result in reduced visibility.
A minor amendment is required to the rule in accordance with Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA. For clarity the word “dust” has been changed to “smoke”.
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to Rule 7.2:
Rule 7.2 Fire Training
Any discharge that contravenes the permitted activity conditions in Rule 7.1 is a restricted-discretionary activity.
The Council will restrict its discretion to the following matters:
(a) the material burnt or used in the fire training activity; (b) the location of the activity; (c) the time and duration of the activity, including the time of the year; (d) the meteorological conditions under which the activity may occur; and
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 47
(e) control of dustsmoke, odour and other contaminants.; and (f) the discharge does not reduce visibility in navigable airspace.
The application need not be notified, the written approval of affected persons will not be necessary and notice of applications need not be served on any person.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 48
2.10 New Rules
The Department of Conservation requested a new rule to enable an exemption to the burning of dry wood rule for back country huts. This has been provided for in Rule 4.9. Refer to Section 2.6.10 of this report.
The request to specifically allow for biosecurity incursions in the outdoor burning section has been rejected as Council is satisfied it is appropriately allowed for under the current framework. However, the request to specifically allow for biosecurity incursions in agrichemical application section has resulted in a new proposed Rule 6.4. Refer to Section 2.8.2 of this report.
Gore District Council requested that a new rule be provided to permit the use of prohibited open fires, small scale solid fuel burning appliances and solid fuel boilers during emergency situations. Council’s decision is not to provide a new rule for emergency situations. The Invercargill and Gore airsheds are urban areas where power outages are typically brief and infrequent. Also, prohibited open fires, small scale solid fuel burning appliances and solid fuel boilers will not typically be maintained over time and their use during power outages carries a fire risk. The Council has processes to provide relief to residents in a pragmatic manner when appropriate as discussed in Section 2.1.7 of this report.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 49
2.11 Definitions
2.11.1 Small scale fuel burning appliance, small scale solid fuel boiler and small scale solid fuel burning appliance
Submitters raise concerns about the interpretation of the plan for households and in particular about differentiating between small scale solid fuel burners, boilers and small scale fuel burning appliances.
Different terminologies are required for each of these categories as they refer to different things. Small scale solid fuel burning appliances and boilers are both a sub category of small scale fuel burning appliances.
The installation of new boilers are allowed under the proposed rules as the definition of small scale fuel burning appliance includes a small scale boiler, but only one that has a heat output of less than 40kw. Under the proposed rules, boilers up to 40 kW are allowed to be installed provided they meet emission limits but there is an anomaly for boilers in that the phase out rules are specific to the boiler definition which is up to 60 kW. Council considers that they should be treated the same in both rules and believes 60 kW to be the appropriate size limit for small boilers.
The Ministry of Education submitted that the maximum boiler size controlled by the domestic heating rules in Stage 1 of the plan be should 40 kW. The Ministry is concerned that some very small school boilers may be caught by the rules. The Council has decided that it is appropriate for all boilers up to 60 kW within the Invercargill and Gore airsheds be controlled by the Stage 1 rules. The heat output of the larger boilers used for home heating can exceed 40 kW.
Council’s decision is to make the following amendment to the definition for Small Scale Solid Fuel Burning Appliance:
Small scale solid fuel burning appliance A small scale fuel burning appliance which is capable of burning solid fuel, at a rate of up to 40 kW, or up to a rate of 60 kW for boilers. It includes (but is not limited to) appliances for interior space heating in buildings, such as wood burners, pellet burners, pot belly and domestic ranges and stoves, water heaters or central heating units, boilers, multi-fuel (coal/wood and waste burning systems), and similar appliances, but excludes open fires and small-scale domestic devices for smoking food.
2.11.2 Navigable airspace
One submitter seeks the term ‘aircraft flight paths’ be replaced in the Proposed Plan by the term Navigable Airspace and that the definition be included as “Navigable Airspace: Has the same meaning as set out in Part 77 of the Civil Aviation Authority Rules.”
The definition of Navigable Airspace in Part 77 of the Civil Aviation Authority Rules means airspace at or above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under the Civil Aviation Rules, including all legitimate low level operations but not including restricted, danger, and military operations areas activated for use by the New Zealand Defence Force. Altering from a requirement relating to aircraft flight path to navigable air space may impact on some activities ability to create smoke plumes that reduce visibility if they extend beyond the minimum flight altitudes. For example high country burning may result in a large smoke plume that could extend into the navigable air space. However, Council recognises the need for good visibility within the navigable air space.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 50
As a result, Council has decided to include the following definition:
Navigable Airspace Means airspace at or above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under the Civil Aviation Rules, including all legitimate low level operations but not including restricted, danger, and military operations areas activated for use by the New Zealand Defence Force.
2.11.3 Fire training
One submitter requests that a definition for fire training be included in the definitions section. Council notes that all aspects of what would be required by a definition are included in the conditions of the rules.
Council’s decision is that no amendment is necessary.
2.11.4 Ambient air quality
One submitter requests that the definition of ambient air quality be changed in accordance with the way ambient air quality is used within the policy section, particularly in relation to the airshed-wide spatial extent.
The existing definition is appropriate in conveying what is intended in terms of ambient air quality. Council notes that the ambient air quality can vary across an airshed so a definition that encompasses this spatial extent is not intended.
Council’s decision is that no amendment is necessary.
2.11.5 Hazardous air pollutants
A submitter has queried the appropriateness of the current definition for hazardous air pollutants and has suggested some options to reword. Council agrees that the wording needs amending but proposes the Ministry for the Environment’s wording for hazardous air pollutants as a more appropriate alternative.
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to the definition:
Hazardous air pollutants Gaseous, aerosol or particulate pollutants which are present in air and which are hazardous to human, plant or animal life. Examples of hazardous air pollutants include Benzene, 1,3 Butadiene, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Benzo(a)pyrene, Mercury, Chromium, Arsenic and Lead. Any substance known or suspected to cause a significant adverse effect on human health or the environment due to its toxicity, persistence in the environment, tendency to bio-accumulate, or any combination of these things.
2.11.6 Sensitive areas
A submitter has requested that the definition of sensitive activities should refer to places where people congregate. It is suggested that this is relevant to the agrichemicals provisions and needs to be broader than that notified in the Proposed Plan. Council agrees with the recommendation to amend the sensitive areas definition. Refer to Section 2.11.9 of this report for a new definition, “place of assembly”
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 51
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to the definition:
Sensitive areas Include: (a) artificial water bodies used for public drinking water supply; (b) any river, lake, stream pond or wetland; (c) sensitive crops or farming systems (e.g. organic farms); and (d) any place, area or feature of special significance to Tangata Whenua as identified in this Plan. (a) dwelling houses; (b) educational facilities; (c) amenity areas and public places; (d) domestic and community water supplies; (e) water bodies and associated riparian vegetation; (f) non-target plants and/or crops which are sensitive to agrichemicals; (g) organically certified properties e.g. Bio-Gro; (h) wetlands, indigenous flora and fauna habitat areas and reserves; (i) places of assembly.
2.11.7 Vegetative matter
A submitter has recommended a minor amendment to the definition for vegetative matter to include crop residue. Council supports the change.
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to the definition:
Vegetative matter Any tree branches, roots, leaves, grass cuttings, seed pods, stalks and stubble (stems), crop residue, prunings, wood and similar organic plant material.
2.11.8 Reverse sensitivity
One submitter requests a definition for reverse sensitivity.
Council notes that any definition used for reverse sensitivity in the PRAP should be consistent with the definition in the decisions on the RPS. However, as discussed in Section 2.5.16 of this report the policy relevant to this definition has been deleted as it is not relevant to Stage 1 of the review of the RAQPS. A definition for reverse sensitivity is therefore not required. 2.11.9 Place of assembly
A new definition for place of assembly has been requested and is appropriate given amendments to rules in the outdoor burning section.
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to the definition:
Place of assembly Means any building or land used for public and/or private assembly or meeting of people and includes education facilities, libraries, churches, halls, marae, clubrooms, community centres, conference centres, recreational facilities, chartered clubs, premises with a club license, and other similar establishments.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 52
2.11.10 Approved mitigation technology
A submitter has requested the inclusion of a definition for approved mitigation technology. This has been addressed in Section 2.1.5 of this report and as a result, a definition is not considered necessary.
2.11.11 Recorded historic heritage sites
Gore District Council has requested that the definition of recorded historic heritage sites be amended to provide an exemption for buildings included on any list of heritage structures contained in any District Plan or Regional Plan. Gore District Council also submitted that it is not appropriate to exempt newer buildings on a recorded historic heritage sites. Council’s decision is to amend the definition so that it refers to buildings not sites, and to include heritage buildings listed in any District Plan or Regional Plan.
Recorded historic heritage buildingssites BuildingsSites recorded on Rarangi Taonga: the Register of Historic Places, Historic Areas, Wahi Tapu and Wahi Tapu Areas or, on the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) Site Recording Scheme, or listed in any District Plan or Regional Plan.
2.11.12 Hand-held application methods
In response to submissions as discussed in Section 2.8.1 of this report the definition for hand-held application methods has been amended as follows:
Hand-held application methods In relation to agrichemical use means using a total agrichemical spray unit carried and operated on foot by the applicator on a site involving less than 500800 grams of agrichemical when applied in solid form, or less than 1525 litres of agrichemical mixture applied in liquid form (when mixed as specified on the product label) over any 24-hour period,. When the total agrichemical spray unit is motorised, the application technique shall result in the spray only being applied directly to the target species.
2.11.13 Agrichemicals
A submitter requests the definition of agrichemicals be modified to be consistent with NZS 8409:2004 in that it needs to be clear that it excludes vertebrate toxic agents and also requests that it specifically exclude fertilisers given they are regulated separately. A submitter also requests the inclusion of a definition of an agrichemical contractor. Council supports the proposed revisions and it is also proposed to include a new definition for agrichemical contractor.
As a result, Council has decided to make the following amendment to the definition:
Agrichemical Any substance, whether inorganic or organic, man-made or naturally occurring, modified or in its original state, that is used in any agriculture, horticulture or related activity to eradicate, modify or control flora and fauna. For the purposes of this Plan it includes agricultural compounds and animal remedies, but excludes any dispersant approved for use on oil spills within the Coastal Marine Area fertilisers, vertebrate toxic agents and oral nutrition compounds.
Council has decided to include the following new definition:
Agrichemical contractor Means a person who holds a GROWSAFE® Registered Chemical Applicators Certificate, or an equivalent nationally- recognised qualification.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 53
2.11.14 Fertiliser
Some submitters were in support of the definition of fertiliser. However, one submission requested that it be changed to be consistent with the definition of fertiliser as per the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act regulations.
The air quality impacts of the application of fertiliser are managed under the proposed air plan and the definition of fertiliser needs to be consistent with the impacts intended to be managed by the proposed rules. The definition for fertiliser proposed by submitters does not exclude materials discharged or applied as part of waste treatment or disposal processes.
Council has decided to retain the existing definition.
2.11.15 Back country hut
In accordance with the exemption provided for back country huts in Rule 4.9, it is proposed to include the following definition of back country huts:
Back country hut means a building that: (a) is located on land that is administered by the Department of Conservation for conservation, recreational, scientific, or other related purposes, including any land administered under any of the following: (i) the Conservation Act 1987; (ii) the National Parks Act 1980; (iii) the Reserves Act 1977; and (b) is intended to provide overnight shelter to any person who may visit and who carries his or her own food, bedding, clothing, and outdoor equipment; and (c) contains only basic facilities, which may include (but are not limited to) any or all of the following: (i) sleeping platforms or bunks; (ii) mattresses; (iii) food preparation surfaces; (iv) appliances for heating; (v) appliances for cooking; (vi) toilets; and (d) has been certified by the Director-General as being in a location that wheelchair users are unlikely to be able to visit; and (e) is intended to be able to sleep: (i) no more than 20 people in its backcountry hut sleeping area; and (ii) no more than 40 people in total; and (f) does not contain any connection, except by radiocommunications, to a network utility operator.
2.11.16 Waste oil
The term “waste oil” in Rule 4.9 has been amended to “used oil”. Consequential changes are therefore needed to the definition “Waste oil”.
WasteUsed oil Oil that has been used for a process (typically lubrication, either in internal combustion engines or moving parts to minimise component wear) that results in contaminants building up in the oil. Contaminants may include heavy metal particles, combustion by-products, fuel and used additives. Note: While some “purification” processes may result in the removal of a number of these contaminants, the oil even though described as “processed wasteused oil” is still defined to be wasteused oil because the removal is often only partial.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 54
2.11.17 ULEB
The following definition for “ULEB” or “Ultra Low Emission Burner” is needed. Refer to Section 2.12 of this report for an amendment including ULEB’s into the PRAP provisions.
ULEB A ULEB or Ultra Low Emission Burner is a burner that can meet an emission standard of 0.5 grams of particulate per kilogram of fuel burned, with at least 65% efficiency rating.
2.11.18 Localised Air Quality
Fonterra has requested a definition for Localised Air Quality. Defining this term is appropriate and adds clarity. Council’s decision on that submission point is to adopt part of the wording suggested by Fonterra.
Localised air quality The air quality that is localised to specific areas where emissions from single sources significantly influence maximal air contaminant concentrations.
2.11.19 Solid Fuel Cooking Stove
As a result of changes to Rule 4.7 the definition for Wood Fired Cooking Stove has been deleted and replaced with a definition for Solid Fuel Cooking Stove. See Section 2.6.8 of this report. See also Section 2.5.3 of this report.
Wood fired cooking stove A wood fuelled cooking appliance containing an oven of not less than 20 l capacity and a hot plate. A “wood fired cooker” does not include a pot belly, chip heater or a wood burner.
Solid fuel cooking stove A solid fuelled cooking appliance containing an oven of not less than 20 litre capacity and a hot plate. A solid fuel cooking stove does not include a pot belly, chip heater or a wood burner.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 55
2.12 Appendices
One submission raised concern that applying the NESAQ emission standards to multi fuel heaters and coal burning appliances will restrict the future installation of those appliances. It is Council’s intention that the future installation of these coal burning appliances be restricted, as they consistently emit more particulate matter than NES compliant wood burners. The proposed standards will bring the multi fuel and coal burners into line, ensuring that all new solid fuel burning appliances have a consistent emission limit regardless of fuel type. It is considered by Council to be a fair approach. It is Council’s intention that Appendix A allows for the future authorisation of multi fuel and coal burning appliances, where they demonstrate compliance with the emission requirements. Although there may not currently be any coal burning appliances that comply with the NESAQ, Council sees it as a challenge to the industry to produce such an appliance.
Clause (c) of Appendix A is also opposed by a submitter. The requirement in this clause is that the appliance has an authorisation number assigned by an authority that has independently reviewed that information from the tester that demonstrates compliance with clauses (a) and (b). The boiler mentioned by the submitter may be approved by Council if it demonstrates compliance with (a) and (b) or the 300mg/m3 particulate matter emission concentration limit specified in the rules.
The submission by Gore District Council on Appendix A and Appendix B, suggests that there may need to be methods and policies included to administer and monitor the implementation of the requirements in those Appendices. Council disagrees and notes that the territorial authorities already check wood burner compliance with the NESAQ. The proposed requirements in Appendix A and Appendix B are simply an extension of the check performed at that stage.
One submitter requested that Appendix A provide for Ultra Low Emission Burners (ULEB). Council accepts that submission point and has decided to amend clause (a) of Appendix A as follows. Refer to Section 2.11.17 of this report for a new definition, “ULEB”:
(a) emit no more than 1.5 grams of total suspended particulate per kilogram of fuel burned, calculated by averaging the total suspended particulate emissions for high, medium and low burn rates, when tested in accordance with AS/NZS4012:19992014 and AS/NZS4013:19992014 or the functional equivalent for non-batch fed appliances and appliances excluded from AS/NZS4013:2014, or AS/NZS 5078 2007 and AS/NZS 4886 2007 for pellet burners, or be authorised by Environment Canterbury as an ULEB or Ultra Low Emission Burner. Where the nominated test fuel is wood then the test shall be carried out using softwood in accordance with the requirements of AS/NZS 4014.2:19992014. Where the test fuel is wood pellets the test shall be carried out using pellets which meet the specifications of AS/NZS 4014.6 2007;
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 56
2.13 Section 32
Submitters raise concerns with the section 32 evaluation, in particular that the costs to households have not been adequately assessed and that the impacts of the proposed rules are likely to include householders going cold. The submitters do not consider the section 32 evaluation to contain an adequate economic analysis of costs and benefits. It is questioned whether issues such as the ability of the power infrastructure to cope with the likely additional demand has been considered as well as the costs to householders for factors related to the removal of solid fuel burning appliances such as flue and appliance removal, upgrading of wiring to cope with increased electrical demand and the relocating of walls. Some submitters are concerned that the analysis does not adequately address the issues around high sulphur coal. The analysis of health impacts and associated costs are not considered reliable or applicable to Gore by some submitters.
Council acknowledges that the section 32 evaluation is deficient with respect to a prohibition on high sulphur coal as the costs and benefits of this proposed rule were not assessed. Council has relied on a national health impacts assessment (HAPINZ) for quantifying health impacts and the associated costs. This study was supported by the Health Research Council and stood up to both national and international peer review. Council’s proposed rules prohibit the discharge from burners rather than requiring the removal of burners. Removal costs could therefore be avoided if considered a burden. Council notes that there are wood burners with wetbacks on the NES approved burner list so aspects relating to water heating can be avoided if households are able to install NES compliant wood burners as replacement heating methods. It is also acknowledged that some households may not be able to afford to install low (operating) cost heating options such as wood burners or heat pumps without financial assistance.
Council has decided to remove the rules prohibiting the use of high sulphur coals from the PRAP and to develop a financial assistance/incentives programme to assist low income households. Overall it is considered that the section 32 evaluation meets the requirements of the Act and is sufficient to inform the decision making process.
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 57
Proposed Regional Air Plan
Decision Report Appendix One
Submitter Table
Appendix 1 – Submitter table
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56846 Aaron John Rawcliffe Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 56954 Abby Gilchrist Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57665 Adams Wade Jackson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56955 Adele and Mike Savill Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56956 Adrian Van Uden Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57493 Adroit Solutions Ltd Support Accept in part 2.8.2 56782 Aidan Forbes Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56957 Aileen Mavis Cullen Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56958 Aimee Stewart Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56876 Airways Corporation of NZ Ltd Support Accept in part, reject 2.1.14, 2.5.13, 2.6.2, 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3 (57705/F27), 2.7.4 (Airways) (57705/F29), 2.8.3, 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.11.2 (57705/F46), 2.11.3, 56753 Alan Leitch Oppose Accept in part 2.5.3, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 56959 Alan Robert Brown Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56316 Alanna Barrett Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.15, 2.6.7 56960 Alexander and Irene Balfour Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
5 Italics indicate a Further Submission All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 59
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56961 Alexander George McDonald Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56858 Alexander John & Elizabeth Keith Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.6.10 56962 Alexander Steven King Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56963 Alf Tayles Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56964 Alisha Kaye Byron McColl Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56358 Alison Bishop Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56965 Alison Frances Nicol Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56966 Alistair Ian Nichol Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 56967 Alistair Thomson Diack Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56121 Allan and Denise Sadlier Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 (57655/F5) 56968 Allan and Diane Young Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 (57655/F6) 56969 Allan Harold Grace Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.1.10, 2.6.7, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 56970 Allan James Bennett Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56634 Allan James Collett Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 (56760/F32, 56793/F21) 56860 Allan Katon Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56861 Allan Thomas Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57547 Alliance Group Limited Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part 2.3.2, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 2.5.10, 2.5.11, 2.5.12, 2.5.13, 2.5.14, 2.5.16, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 60
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56627 Allistair Meikle Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 (56996/F1), 2.6.10 56981 Allyn Blee Oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.12, 2.5.3 56982 Amanda Jane Henderson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56983 Amanda Jones Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56984 Andrew J Russell Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.1.10, 2.6.8 56747 Andy Bartlett Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part, 2.1.1, 2.1.10, 2.5.2, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.5.6, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, reject 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.7.6, 2.11.1 56985 Angela Carse Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56986 Angela Jones Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56987 Angus Alexander William Burns Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56988 Anita Joy Rose-Kubala Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56989 Anna Hetaraka Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56990 Anna Margaret Hart Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56991 Annette McNamara Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56992 Annette Peek Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 56862 Ann Meikle Neutral Note 2.1.1, 2.1.8 56716 Annie Cao Support Accept in part 2.5.3 56993 Anthony John Oliver Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56994 Anthony White Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 61
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56748 Ants Field Oppose Accept in part 2.6.7, 2.6.10, 2.8.3, 2.8.4 56995 Arlene Duffy Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 56996 Arthette M J Boutherway Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 (56996/F7) 56997 Arthur Paul Duncan Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56998 Arthur Philip Mouat Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56999 Avis Frame Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56645 Barbara McBain Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57001 Barry Clearwater Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57002 Barry Edward Holloway Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56865 Barry J Douglas Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F27, 57697/F13, 57698/F13) 56866 Bathurst Resources Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F28, 57697/F14, 57698/F14), 2.10 57000 B Campbell and Chris Stack Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56871 Bethina Beadle Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.9, 2.6.10 57044 Betty Jane Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57040 Bev Johnson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56872 Bill and Beverley Blakie Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 (56046/F8, 56996/F3) 57041 Brenda Duncan Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57042 Brendon Alan Wyatt Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57043 Brendon James Humphries Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 62
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56794 Brent Pope Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4 57714 Brett & Maureen Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57715 Brett Lees Norager Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57045 Brian Alexander McNamara Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57046 Brian George Highsted Oppose Accept in part 2.6.3, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 56873 Brian Lindsay Turner Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57047 Brian Stewart Copland Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57048 Bridget Windle Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57049 Brithney Caldwell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57050 Bronwyn Carse Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56874 Bruce Cournane Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.4 57051 Bruce James Pirie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57052 Bruce Lindsay Barron Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57053 Bryan Trevor Routhan Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57717 Callum John Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57054 Cameron Ainslie Taylor Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57055 Carey Wayne Murray Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57056 Carl William Uren Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.12, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57718 Carole E Ashworth-Morton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 63
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57057 Caroline Byres Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56877 Caroline Corkhill and Jeff Walker Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.15, 2.6.7 56878 Carolyn and Tony Weston Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.11, 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57058 Carolyn Graves Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57059 Catherine Anne Baxter Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56692 Catherine Cheung Neutral Note 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.10, 2.5.4 57060 Catherine Margaret Bennett Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57061 Cathryn Mary Williams Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57062 Cecelia Nellie Stanton Support Note 2.1.14 57719 Charlotte Emma McLean Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57063 Charmaine Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57064 Cheryl May Rawcliffe Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57065 Chris Carson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57554 Chris Henderson Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.2, 2.5.6 57066 Christine Barbour Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57067 Christine Marie Haar Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57068 Christine Matheson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56879 Christopher and Kylie Weir Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 56880 Christopher George Parish Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 64
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56881 Christopher Stephen Smith Oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8 (56996/F4), 2.6.10, 2.7.2 57069 Claire Farry Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57070 Claire Mutch Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57073 Clarence Hugh Briggs Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57074 Clarence Robert Stevenson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57076 Colette Peeters Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56764 Colin Clark Neutral Note 2.1.3 57077 Colin George Volp Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56882 Colin John Bryce Oppose Accept in part 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57078 Colin Mc Dowell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57079 Colin Robert Sharp Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57080 Colleen Cross Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57081 Coral Eleanor Burns Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57082 Coral Glenice McCauley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56883 Craig Beattie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56884 Crosbie and Candace Grieve Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.5.6, 2.6.10 57083 Curson Motors Gore Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56885 DA and LJ Chalmers Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.4, 2.6.8
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 65
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57084 Daile Lewis Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57086 Daimon Brown Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57087 Damon John Ritchie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57088 Daniel Christian Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56039 Daniel Wilson Neutral Note 2.1.5 56785 Daniela Bagozzi Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.15, 2.6.4, 2.6.5, 2.6.7, 2.6.10 (56793/F26), 2.8.4 (56793/F7) 2.9.2 57089 Daphne Carol Proctor Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57720 Darryl Arthur Small Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.13, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10, 2.13 57090 Darryl Robert Hood Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56886 Darryl Robert Kim Svensson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57091 Daryl Brian Highsted Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.1.13, 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57092 David Allison Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57093 David Anthony Price Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57095 David Bathard Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57094 David B Harrington Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57096 David Briggs Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57097 David Brown Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 66
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56887 David Carse Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57098 David Horrell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57099 David John Minty Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56888 David Joseph Vincent Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57100 David Leslie Glassey Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57107 David Mills Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57108 David Murray Broome Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57109 David Neil McKelvie Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57110 David Ronald Hill Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57111 David Stewart Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57112 David Thomas McKenzie Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57113 David Tobis Steel Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57114 David Van Tangeren Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57115 David William King Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57116 Dayle and Margaret Norton Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56890 Debbie Ackroyd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56891 Debbie Harrison Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56760 Debbie McKenzie Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.6, 2.6.3, 2.6.8, 2.6.10, 2.7.2 57117 Deb Henderson Oppose Accept in part 2.7.2
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 67
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56356 Deborah Greaves Neutral Note 2.1.2, 2.1.11 57118 Deborah Marie Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56892 Deborah Snodgrass Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 (56996/F5) 56889 Deb Shirley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57119 Dee MacKay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56943 Deep South Helicopters Oppose Accept in part 2.8.2 56701 Denis Bartley Support Note 2.1.14 57636 Dennis Stephen Clive Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56893 Derrick Hills Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56894 Desiree McBride Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.11, 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57120 Diana and Noel Bonisch Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.7 56895 Diane Davidson Oppose Note, accept in part 2.4.2, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57122 Diane Kaui Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57121 Dianne Brown Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, Group Submitter B 56896 Dianne Elstob Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57555 Director-General of Conservation Neutral, support, Accept in part 2.6.2, 2.8.1, 2.8.2 (57701/F33, 57705/F34), 2.8.4 (57669/F10, (Department of Conservation) oppose 57701/F41, 57705/F40), 2.9.1, 2.10 (57705/F45) 57123 Donald James Ramsay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57124 Donna Caldwell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 68
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57125 Dorothy Affleck Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56633 Dorothy Duncan Neutral Note 2.1.8 57952 Dorothy Pascoe Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4 57126 Dorothy Joan Holloway Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57127 Douglas James Gordon Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56710 Dr David Redshaw Support Accept in part 2.5.3 56776 Dr Harvey Molloy Neutral, support Note, accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.5.6, 2.5.7, 2.5.13 56778 Dr Mark Smith Support Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.10 56739 Dr Robert Howell Support Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F24) 57721 Dylan Richard Ashby Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56897 Elaine Joy Ross Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57128 Elaine Linton Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57129 Elizabeth Adams-Gray Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57130 Elizabeth Campbell Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57131 Elizabeth Jane Thayer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57132 Elizabeth MJ and Robin RJ McCann Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56898 Ellen Jessie Heslip Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56899 Elsie Kerr Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56900 Elsie Muriel Graves Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 69
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56901 Emmeline Melva Grace Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56902 Eparaima Collins Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57702 Eric Galbraith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56120 Eric Shackel Neutral Note 2.1.10 56903 Erin Jean Gray Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56904 Ernest and Barbara Wilson Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.2, 2.5.6 56905 Ernie MacManus Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.5.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 56906 Ethel Monaghan Oppose Note, accept in part 2.6.1, 2.6.8 (56996/F6), 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57133 Ethel Violet Bacon Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56789 Euan Hastie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57722 Evelyn Janet Hamilton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57134 Evelyn Phyllis Brunton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57135 Ewan Fraser Falconer Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57705 Federated Farmers of NZ (Federated Neutral, support, Note, accept in part, 2.1.9, 2.1.14, 2.4.5, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.9, 2.5.10, 2.5.11, Farmers) oppose reject 2.5.16, 2.6.2, 2.6.5, 2.6.10, 2.7.1 (57701/F25), 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.7.7, 2.8.4 (57669/F14, 57701/F45) 56763 Fernlea Manson Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57136 Fiona Grace Haslemore Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57556 Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd Neutral, support, Note, accept in part, 2.1.1, 2.1.14, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.5.1, (Fonterra) oppose reject 2.5.2, 2.5.5, 2.5.6, 2.5.7, 2.5.9, 2.5.10, 2.5.11, 2.5.14, 2.5.16,
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 70
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 2.6.10 (56793/F32, 57547/F16, 57697/F16, 57698/F16, 56793/F33, 57547/F17, 57697/F17, 57698/F17), 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.7.5, 2.7.6, 2.7.7, 2.7.8, 2.8.1(57701/F27, 57705/F31), 2.8.1, 2.8.2 (57701/F34, 57701/F35), 2.8.3 (57701/F38, 57669/F8), 2.8.4 (57669/F11, 57701/F42, 57705/F41), 2.11.4, 2.11.14, 2.11.18 56912 Frances Shepherd Oppose Accept in part, reject 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.10, 2.7.6 57138 Frank Wilson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57137 Fran Leslie Grant Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57139 Freda Elsie Warman Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 56913 Frederick Eon Stenning Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57140 Frederick Matthew John McCarthy Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56914 Freya Waipouri Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56915 Frida Inta Support Note, accept in part 2.1.14, 2.5.4, 2.5.6 56916 Gabriel Farry Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57142 Garrick Murray Deans Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57143 Garry Clement Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57144 Garry Ward Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56758 Gary Davis Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 57723 Gary Marlow Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57724 Gary McLean Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 71
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57145 Gary Shanks Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57146 Gary Stephen George Rawcliff Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56917 Gavin Haig Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57147 Gaylene Marie Buchanan Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57141 GE and LC Green Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 56918 Geoff Colvin Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.10, 2.5.3, 2.5.6, 2.6.2, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56771 Geoff Gorrie Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.11, 2.5.6, 2.6.7 56919 Geoffrey Butler Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56920 Geoffrey Christie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56921 Geoffrey John Lietze Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.6, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10, 2.7.8 56923 Geoffrey Mason Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F29)
56924 Geoffrey Nicholson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.8.4 56926 George Thomas Stratton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.13 57003 Gibbs Wood and Coal Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.15, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56928 Gillian Bedwell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56929 Glenda Braithwaite Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10, 56930 Glenise Terry Oppose Note, accept in part 2.6.1, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56931 Gloria Phillipson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 72
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56933 Gordon John McAllister Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56938 Gordon Leslie McDonald Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56932 Gordon Muir Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56937 Gordy Jones Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56939 Gore & Districts Senior Citizens Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.6.8 57178 Gore and Districts Budget Service Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.10, 2.1.15, 2.5.2, 2.5.4, 2.5.6 57859 Gore District Council Neutral, oppose Accept in part, reject 2.1.1, 2.1.7, 2.1.13, 2.4.3, 2.4.7, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.6, 2.5.10, 2.5.14, 2.5.16, 2.5.17, 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 (56793/F39, 57697/F19, 57698/F19), 2.7.1 (57701/F26), 2.7.2 (57705/F26), 2.7.4 (57705/F30), 2.7.8 (57697/F22, 57698/F22), 2.10.1, 2.11.11, 2.12, 2.13 (56793/F40, 57697/F21, 57698/F21) 56940 Grace Rogerson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56941 Grace Telfer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56942 Graeme Allan Humphries Neutral Note 2.1.1, 2.1.10 57726 Graeme Gardyne Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57004 Graham Donald Allison Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 57005 Graham Ian English Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57007 Graham Peter Butcher Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57008 Graham Robert Head Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10,
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 73
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57009 Grant John Mawley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56036 Grant Meyer Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.5, 2.6.8 57010 Grant Walter Findlay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57011 Gregory Alan Crawford Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57467 Grey Power Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57012 Guy Murrell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57013 Guy Tane Henderson Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56944 Harry and Judith Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57014 Haydn Mark Gilchrist Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57015 Hayley Maree Turnbull Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56945 Hazel Emmeline Harrington Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57016 Heather Joy McKenzie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57017 Heather Margaret McPhail Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57019 Helen Ann Minty Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57018 Helen Cave Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10, 2.7.8 57020 Helen Isobel Highsted Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57023 Helen Mary Louise Boyer Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57021 Helen M Clement Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57022 Helen Soper Oppose Accept in part 2.6.1, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 74
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57024 Herbert James Clement Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57497 Hokonui Haulage Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57701 Horticulture New Zealand Support, Note, accept in part, 2.1.9, 2.2.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.5, 2.5.9, 2.5.11, 2.5.14, 2.5.15, 2.5.16, reject 2.5.17, 2.7.1 (57705/F24), 2.7.7, 2.8.1, 2.8.2 (57705/F35, 57706/F1), 2.8.3 (57705/F38), 2.8.4 (57669/F13, 57705/F44), 2.10, 2.11.5 (57671/F4, 57705/F49, 2.11.6, 2.11.7, 2.11.8 (57705/F50), 2.11.13 (57705/F47), 2.11.14 (57705/F48), 2.11.1, 2.13 57026 Huong Webb Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57028 Ian Alma Russell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57027 Ian and Alison Spence Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57029 Ian Haim Sinclair Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57030 Ian Lindsay Chittock Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57031 Ian Maurice Sheddon Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56769 Ian McFadzien Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57032 Ian Walter Southern Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57700 Invercargill City Council Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.1, 2.1.13, 2.5.4, 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57033 Invercargill Youth Council Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57034 Iola Miller Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57035 Isabel Lorraine Holmes Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57036 Ivan Leslie Grant Oppose Accept in part 2.1.11, 2.5.4, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 75
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57148 Jack and Fely Ricketts Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.6.8 (56793/F22), 2.6.10 57149 Jack McIntosh Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57150 Jacqueline Ferguson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57151 Jacqui Cosman Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57152 James Barclay Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57745 James Bruce Laird Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57153 James Dalgarvo Rae Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57154 James Grandiek Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.9 (57655/F7), 2.6.10 57155 James Mollison Pirie Neutral Note 2.1.13 57157 James Murray Dickson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57158 James Ogle Haydon Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57159 James Richard Bishop Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57037 J Anderson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57160 Jane-Anne Windle Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56780 Jane Forbes Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57163 Jared Adam Humphries Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57164 Jared Milford Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57165 Jason Moffat Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57172 Jason Webb Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 76
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57173 Jason Woods Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57038 J Burnett Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57174 Jean Haslemore Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57175 Jeffery G Taylor Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 57176 Jeffrey Broome Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57177 Jeffrey Gordon Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56315 Jennifer Cummings Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57161 Jennifer Hoogduin Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10, 57179 Jennifer Kay Crozier Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57180 Jennifer McLauchlan Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56490 Jenny Campbell Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.4 57181 Jenny Palmer and Matt Henson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57727 J E Whyte Neutral Note, reject 2.1.11, 2.4.7 57182 Jill Anna Shelton Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57183 Jillian Wilson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56673 Jillian Phillips Neutral Note 2.1.11 57184 Jim Haydon Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57728 J M Turnbull Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57185 Joan Duncan Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 77
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56774 Joan van Olst Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.10 57747 Joanne Maree Toogood Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57186 Joanne Susan Middlemiss Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57187 Joanne Wilson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57746 Joann Small Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57748 Jodi Marlow Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57188 Joe Bede Geary Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57189 Johanna (Anna) Maria Elisabeth Butcher Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57190 John and Averil Ibbotson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57709 John Bannerman Neutral, support, Note, accept in part, 2.1.1, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.1.12, 2.3.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, oppose reject 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.5.6, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 2.5.9, 2.5.10, 2.5.11, 2.5.12, 2.5.13, 2.5.14, 2.5.15, 2.5.16, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 (56793/F37), 2.12, 2.13 57699 John Barnett Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57191 John Braxton Oppose Note, accept in part 2.3.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57192 John Charles Kerse Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57193 John Dowse Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57194 John Duffy Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57195 John Ewan McColl Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56735 John Gardyne Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.10 (57705/F22), 2.8.2 (57705/F32)
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 78
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57270 John Havenaar Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 (56760/F33), 2.7.2 57196 John Hendry Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57197 John Jackson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57198 John Lancelot Lockyer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57200 John Michael Walsh Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57201 John Milne Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57202 John Nicol OShea Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57203 John Purey-Cust Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57205 John Robert Lynch Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57204 John Rodney Thayer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57263 John Roy McIntyre Neutral Note 2.1.10 57266 John Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57267 John Steven Diggs Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57268 John Walsh Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57269 John William Deans Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57273 Jonathan Carey McLean Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57274 Jorgen Lund Hansen Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57275 Josephine Hauora Tuhakaraina Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57276 Josephine Marie Highsted Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 79
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57277 Joy and Neville Murchland Oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.12, 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57262 JR Sheddan and KA Menlove Sheddan Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.1.5, 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57278 Judith Bette Pulley Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57279 Judith P Stevens Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.5, 2.6.8 57280 Judy Bryce Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57281 Judy Hoffman Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57282 Julie Andrews Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57283 Julie Dickson Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.5, 2.5.4, 2.6.8 (57670/F34), 57284 Juliet Elizabeth Humphries Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57285 June McArthur Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57286 June Todd Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.11, 2.6.8 57287 Justin John Foster Nicholson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57288 Justin Petterson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57553 Kai Point Coal Company Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F31, 57003/F13, 57697/F15, 57698/F15) 57290 Karen and Hartley Hay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56948 Karen Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57291 Karen Ramsay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57292 Karen Temple Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 80
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57293 Karla Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57294 Karla Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57295 Karyn Faith Barnden Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57296 Katherine Sherer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57308 Kathleen Adcock Neutral Note 2.1.15 57307 Kathleen Jordan Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56946 Kathleen Marion Symanski Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57310 Kathleen Mary Nichol Neutral Note 2.1.15 57311 Kathleen Mason Neutral Note 2.1.15 56947 Kathleen Richardson Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57312 Kathleen Wendy Matheson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57313 Kathryn Mary Salter Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57314 Keith and Prue Beale Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57315 Kelly Phillips Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57316 Kelvin Gutsell Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56717 Ken Chittock Oppose Accept in part 2.5.3, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56949 Kenneth, Lynette and Lee Oliver Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57318 Kenneth Douglas Youngson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 81
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57319 Kerry Janine Crawford Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57320 Kerry Stewart Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57321 Keryn Page Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57322 Kevin Paul Cummings Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56950 Kimberley McEwan Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57749 Kirsten Denise Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57323 Kirsty Jayne Sutherland Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57289 K Lee Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57324 Kristian Highsted Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57325 Kylie Emmaline Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57697 L&M Coal Kaitangata Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F35), 2.7.8 57698 L&M Lignite Ashers Waituna Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F36), 2.7.8 57334 Leeann and Ian Wilson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 57332 Leeanne Hallam Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57333 Lee-Ann Evans Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57335 Lennox W B Crawford Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57337 Leonie and Wilfred Briggs Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57338 Lesley and Jim Eide Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57339 Lesley Margaret Haydon Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 82
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56786 Lesley Soper & David Melmoth Oppose Accept in part 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.5.4, 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57340 Leslie John Palmer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57341 Leslie N Wyatt Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56951 Lester and Lynley Dean Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57750 Lester Dawson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57342 Lilian Margaret Saunders Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57344 Linara Renata Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57345 Linda Huggins Oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.6.7, 2.6.10 57373 Linda Joy Oliver Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57346 Linda Mann Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56360 Linda McDonald Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57358 Linda Pavitt Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57360 Linda Vass Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57359 Linda V Bradfield Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57361 Lindsay Stevens Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57362 Lindsay Wilson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56363 Lisa Grace Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57364 Lisamarie Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57363 Lisa Michelle Stanton Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 83
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57365 Liviu Radu Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57366 Lloyd and Marie Anderson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57367 Lloyd Eric Braithwaite Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56618 Lloyd Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57326 LM and VM Grieve Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57327 L Marie Todd Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57331 L O'Callaghan Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4, 2.1.13, 2.5.4, 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8 57616 Logan Affleck Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57075 Lois Clark Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56952 Lois Marjorie Miller Support Note 2.1.14 57368 Lois Valerie Davidson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57369 Lorraine Murch Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57370 Louisa Cunningham Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56749 Louise Larking Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.15, 2.5.4, 2.5.5, 2.5.6, 2.6.3, 2.6.7, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57751 Louwenda Robinson Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.11, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57371 Lyle Clement Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57374 Lyndon Wohlers Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57375 Lynette Christian Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57377 Lynette Mae Hamlin Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 84
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57378 Lynley Jean Routhan Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57379 Lynley Leatham Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57372 Lyn MacKay Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57380 Lynne Knowler Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57384 Madeleine McAlister and John Clarke Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57385 Malcolm Anderson McCauley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57386 Malcolm Hunter McKelvie Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57387 Malcolm John Brunton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57388 Marcus Highsted Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57389 Margaret Elizabeth Argyle Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.5, 2.6.8 57390 Margaret Hannah Briggs Oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57391 Margaret Isabell Milne Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57396 Margaret Janet and Graeme Richard Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.9 57397 Margaret Lois Hurley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57398 Margaret McCord Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57399 Margaret McGill Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57400 Margaret McKelvie Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56953 Margaret Moore Support Note 2.1.14 57860 Margery Elaine Bennett Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 85
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57752 Marian Josephine Cunningham Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57402 Mariea Jane Schofield Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.5, 2.1.10, 2.1.13, 2.5.3, 2.5.6, 2.5.8, 2.13 57403 Mario Keatch Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57404 Marion Joy Wilkins Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57405 Marjorie Anne Tarasiewicz Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57406 Mark Andrew Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57753 Mark Andrew Robinson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56927 Mark Ashby Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57407 Mark Copland and Peter Hargest Neutral Note 2.1.15 56677 Mark Frew Oppose Accept in part 2.5.3, 2.5.8, 2.6.8 57408 Mark Witham Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57409 Marlene Gael Sinclair Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57410 Marshall Tamakehu Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57411 Mary Ayson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57412 Mary Barbour Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56365 Mary Gibson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57413 Mary Hardy Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57414 Mary Klaver Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.12, 2.6.10 57415 Matthew Callum McKenzie Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 86
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57416 Matthew Dickie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57417 Matthew Donaldson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57418 Matthew John Hart Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57419 Matthew Salter Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57420 Maureen McGregor Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57376 Maureen Nicholson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57421 Maurice Bredin Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57754 Maurice Stanley Hamilton Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57422 Mavora Briggs Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57423 Max Peter Bradbury Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 56615 Megan O'Brien Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56783 Melanie Shepherd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57424 Melba Annie White Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57425 Melissa Withers Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57426 Melva Pilgrim Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57427 Meralyn Gail Shields Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57428 Merle Barnett Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.4, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, 2.1.11, 2.6.7, 2.6.8 57429 Michael A Craft Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57430 Michael Benjamin Lintern Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 87
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57431 Michael Delahunt Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57432 Michael Harrington Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57433 Michael John Vetters Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57755 Michael Joseph Dowling Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57434 Michael Solari Oppose Accept in part 2.8.3, 2.8.4 57435 Michael Sydney James Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57756 Michelle Yvonne Palmer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57436 Milner Donald James Carter Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57711 Ministry of Education Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.7.1, 2.7.3 (57705/F28), 2.7.4, 2.11.9 57712 Mitre 10 Mega Invercargill Support Accept in part 2.6.8 57381 M J and C K Gardyne Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57382 M Milne Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 56674 Morgan Patterson Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.1, 2.5.4 57383 M Orlowski Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57437 Murray Bedwell Neutral Note 2.1.15 56616 Murray Blackadder Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57438 Murray Davidson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57439 Murray James Bradford Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57440 Murray John Robins Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 88
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57441 Murray Thompson Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.3, 2.1.10, 2.1.12, 2.6.8 57442 Nadine Pay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56046 Nathan Surendran and Phil Orr Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 (56760/F1), 2.1.15, 2.5.3, 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.10, 2.13 57443 Neil James Darragh Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57444 Neil Livingstone Neutral Note 2.1.10, 2.1.11 57445 Neil McPhail Oppose Accept in part 2.13 57454 Neil Sinclair Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57455 Neville John Boyer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57456 Newton & Winifred Wills Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57459 Nicola Jane Cronin Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57458 Nicola Mclean Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57457 Nicol J McFarlane Neutral Note 2.1.10 57461 Noelene Ross Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57462 Noeline Gibson-Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57460 Noel Ryan Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57463 Nola Grant Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57758 Noleen Barbara Dowling Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57464 Norma Broome Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57759 Norma McDonald Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 89
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57465 Nura Blackie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57757 NW & FE McCone Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57466 Nyalle Paris and Sophia Dommisse Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57776 NZ Agrichemical Education Trust Oppose Accept in part 2.8.2 57264 NZ Agricultural Aviation Association Support Accept in part 2.8.2, 2.8.3 (57701/F30, 57701/F31, 57701/F32, 57705/F33, 57701/F37), 2.8.4 57696 NZ Fire Service Commission Support Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.5.15, 2.5.17, 2.7.2, 2.9.1, 2.9.2 57468 Olivia Kelly and Ben Hall Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57469 Ossie McCord Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 56925 Otama Dairy Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.8.3 (57705/F36), 2.8.4 (57705/F39) 57471 Paige Croad Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57478 Pamela Ann White Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57472 Pamela Brandford Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57473 Pamela Claire Highsted Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57474 Pamela Clement Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57475 Pamela Joy Crowley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57476 Pamela May McColl Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57477 Pamela Stewart Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57479 Patricia Dawn Orr Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 90
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56766 Patricia Kane Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.10 57760 Patricia Mary Nicholson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57480 Patricia Myrna Ashby Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57486 Paula Mary Gray Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57861 Paula McNamara Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 (57862/F9) 57481 Paul Butel Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57482 Paul Heslip Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57483 Paul Hurley Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57488 Pauline Miller Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57484 Paul Morton Wyeth Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.10, 2.7.2 57485 Paul O'Brien Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57487 P Blee, A Blee and Kathlean Mason Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.6.8 57489 Pearl Olive Davis Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57490 Peggy Haar Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57491 Peta Kirkwood Neutral Note 2.1.15 56784 Peter Beaver Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.6, 2.1.8, 2.1.15, 2.6.10 (56793/F25) 57492 Peter Brown Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57494 Peter Hickmott Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 91
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57495 Peter Joseph Owens Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.10 57496 Peter Kempthorne Oppose Accept in part 2.7.2 57498 Peter Meikle Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57499 Peter Shand Neutral Note 2.1.11 57501 Peter Woods Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57500 Philip Capil Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57502 Philip McCallum Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57503 Philip McDowall Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57504 Philip Page Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57505 Philippa Udy Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9 57470 P Kimura Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57506 Prudence V Scorgie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57511 Ralph Charles Orr Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57512 Ramari Hawthorn Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57669 Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd Support Note, accept in part 2.1.14, 2.5.9, 2.5.16, 2.2.4, 2.3.1, 2.4.5, 2.5.9, 2.5.16, 2.8.3 (57701/F40), 2.8.4 (57701/F44) 57513 Raymond Andrew Broome Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57713 Rayners Neutral, support, Note, accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.3.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, oppose 2.5.5, 2.5.8, 2.6.4, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.11.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 92
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57507 R B Malone Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57509 R Corlett Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57514 Redford Easton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57515 Reg G A McLeod Neutral Note 2.1.4, 2.1.10 57518 Rhonda June Wilson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57761 Rhonda Marie Hodge Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57519 Rhonda Marie Reid Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57524 Richard Alexander Whyte Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.1.10, 2.5.4, 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57523 Richard and Isobel Agnew Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.13, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10, 2.7.2 57525 Richard Gordon Dore Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57526 Richard Gutschlag Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57527 Richard John Lawson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 57528 Richard John Tremaine Oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.1.10, 2.5.12, 2.6.9, 2.6.10, 2.9.1 57530 Richard Preston Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57531 Richard Savory Neutral Note 2.1.5, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.6 57532 Richard Sydney John Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57533 Ricky Ritchie-Cleaver Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57510 R J Paterson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57535 Robert Donald Kent Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 93
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57536 Robert James Todd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57537 Robert Lloyd & Mari Kathryn Oppose Note 2.1.15 57538 Robert Malcolm White Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57539 Robert Mullen Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57540 Robert Neil Harvey Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57541 Robert Stephen Vercoe Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57542 Robin M McGowan Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.8, 2.1.12, 2.5.6, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 (56793/F30) 57543 Robyn Thompson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.5.4, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57544 Roderick Bruce McLeod Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57762 Roger Barry Toogood Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57545 Roger David Hamlin Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57546 Roger Hartley Hay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57567 Roger Nicholson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57568 Ronald David MacKay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57569 Ronald William Elder Neutral Note 2.1.15 57572 Ron Davies Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57575 Rose Mary Johnstone Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57579 Rosina Joy Gardyne Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 94
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57582 Ross Blair Ramsay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57583 Ross Hanley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57588 Ross Haslemore Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 57589 Russell and Marlene Newland Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57590 Russell David Lush Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57591 Russell J Brash Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57592 Russell Lynch Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57593 Russell Norman Morton Neutral Note, accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.13, 2.5.3, 2.5.6, 2.7.3, 2.13 57594 Russell Stewart Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57595 Ruth Ellen Benny Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57596 Sacha Ramsay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57862 Sally McIntyre Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.1.15, 2.5.4, 2.6.8 (57862/F7), 2.6.9 (57862/F8), 2.6.10 (57862/F9) 57597 Samantha Elizabeth Jane Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57598 Sandra Kennedy Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57611 Scot MacKay Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57764 Scott and Leiza Egan Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.2, 2.6.10 57612 Scott William Ramsay Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57587 Sharon Lea Wenlock Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 95
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57639 Sharon Lee Beer Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57640 Sharon Louise Adams Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57641 Sharon Ritchie Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57623 Sharon Simmons Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10 57624 Shaughan Gibson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57630 Shona Frances Ross Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56628 Shona Ramsay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57770 Silver Fern Farms Ltd 2.1.14, 2.1.1, 2.2.1 57571 S Olde-Olthof and S Thomas Neutral Note 2.1.13 56738 Southern Rural Fire Authority Support Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.5.7, 2.5.15, 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.7.8 57765 Southland District Council Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.13, 2.5.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.5, 2.6.10 (56793/F38, 57697/F18, 57698/F18, 57705/F23), 2.7.1, 2.8.1, 2.8.2, (57701/F36), 2.11 56859 Southland Farm Forestry Association Neutral, oppose Note, accept in part 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57633 Stanley George Hume Chittock Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57637 Stephen Gray Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57638 Stephen Lynch Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56754 Stephen Mitchell Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57570 Stephen William Hope Lowndes Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 (56793/F34)
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 96
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57634 Stephanie Rhind Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57632 Steve Crump Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57573 Steven Matin Hamlin Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57574 Stewart Soper Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56793 Straterra Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 (57003/F8, 57697/F8, 57698/F8), 2.6.9 (57003/F9, 57697/F9, 57698/F9), 2.6.10 (56760/F35, 57003/F10, 57697/F10, 57698/F10, 57003/F11, 57697/F11, 57698/F11, 57003/F12, 57697/F12, 57698/F12), 2.13(57003/F14, 57697/F20, 57698/F20) 57576 Stuart Bruce Robertson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.7 57577 Stuart James Smith Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57578 Sue and Bernie Nicholl Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57580 Susan Eleanor Shanks Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57581 Susan Jane Miller Oppose Accept in part 2.8.3 (57705/F37), 2.8.4 (57705/F42) 57599 Susan Lesley Tairi Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.5.6, 2.6.8 (56793/F23) 57600 Susan Marie MacKay Oppose Accept in part 2.5.6, 2.6.8 57601 Susanne Margaret O'Shea Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57603 Tane Mann Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57604 Tane Pohatu Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57605 Tania Jane Simmond-McCammon Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 97
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57606 Tania Peterson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57608 Tarnya Johnson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57602 T D Page Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57609 Teresa McLeod Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57610 Teresa Wilson Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57613 Terrence Michael Sayer Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57664 The Fertiliser Association of NZ Support Note, accept in part 2.3.1, 2.4.5, 2.5.16, 2.8.3 (57669/F9, 57701/F39), 2.8.4 (57701/F43, 57705/F43, 57669/F12) 57671 The Southern District Health Board Neutral, support Note 2.1.2, 2.1.14 57614 Thomas Charles Johnson Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57615 Thomas Grandiek Support Note, accept in part 2.1.14, 2.5.6 57763 Thomas Roger Nicholson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56787 Tim Jones Support Note, accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.4 57617 Tim Page Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.10, 2.5.6, 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57618 Tina Brand Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57619 Toni-Ann McIntosh Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57620 Toni Hurley Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57621 Tony Robins Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57622 Tony Shepherd Oppose Accept in part 2.6.9 (57655/F8), 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 98
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57625 Tracey Newland Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57863 Transpower New Zealand Ltd Oppose Accept in part 2.7.1, 2.7.2 57643 Trevor Ballantine Oppose Accept in part 2.5.3, 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57644 Trevor David McGregor Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57607 TR Swain and CS Deans Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57645 Trudy Helen Graham Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 57646 Tyler James Brent McNoe Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57647 Ursula Scully Neutral Note 2.1.10, 2.1.11 57677 Val Brocks Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57678 Valda Catherine McLeod Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57679 Valerie Frances Briggs Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57680 Valma Fenton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56975 Vanessa Harvey Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56974 Vaughan Wilson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57648 Venture Southland Neutral, support Note 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.12, 2.1.14 56973 Vicky Muir Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8, 2.6.10 57681 Vicky Pamela Ross Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57682 Vicky Turner Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56972 Victor A Jones Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 99
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 56971 Victor Laurence Botting Oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A, 2.6.10, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57683 Violet Jean Keen Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57661 Virginia Jean Carter Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 56781 Wade Devine Oppose Note, accept in part 2.4.1, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.7, 2.6.8 (56996/F2), 2.6.9, 2.7.1 57666 Wallace Athol Ramsay Oppose Accept in part 2.5.4, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57667 Wallace Patrick James Hetaraka Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57668 Walter Thomas Gee Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57674 Wanda Copland Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 57650 Warren Crighton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 56352 Wendy Soper Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57675 Wilfred Woods Oppose Note 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A 56392 William Braithwaite Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57676 William Brent Hewlett Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57651 William Coupe Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57653 William David MacKay Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57654 William Henry Heslip Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.10 57662 William John Dennison Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B (57262/F11), 2.6.9, 2.6.10 57655 William John Grindell Oppose Accept in part 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.12, 2.6.8 (57655/F4), 2.6.9, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 100
Support, Submitter Submitter (in alphabetical order) Oppose or Decision Reference to reasons/comments5 number Neutral 57658 William Russell Cunningham Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57659 William Templeton Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 57663 W J Robinson Oppose Accept in part 2.6.10 57660 Wybranda Cook Oppose Accept in part 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B 56453 Yvonne Bannerman Neutral, oppose Accept in part 2.1.4 – Group Submitter A (57655/F3), 2.1.10, 2.6.7, 2.6.8 – Group Submitter B, 2.6.9, 2.6.10
All submitters are referred to Appendix Two of this report to view the final wording of the provisions
File Reference: A210609 PRAP Decision Report Page 101