DOCSLIB.ORG

Interim Closing Statement by Reporting Officer for Chapter 2: Objectives Hearing 12-15 April 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interim Closing Statement by Reporting Officer for Chapter 2: Objectives Hearing 12-15 April 2016 BEFORE THE PROPOSED KAPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF The Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan INTERIM CLOSING STATEMENT BY REPORTING OFFICER FOR CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVES HEARING 12-15 APRIL 2016 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 I have considered the evidence and submissions of submitters during the course of this Hearing and make the following interim closing statement in response. This is an interim closing statement, given that several submitters have chosen to delay commenting on Chapter 2 Objectives until the hearing of the “Coastal Resource” chapters (Chapter 3 Natural Environment, Chapter 4 Coastal Environment, Chapter 8 Open Space and Chapter 9 Hazards) later in the hearings schedule. I will attend the hearings of the “Coastal Resource” chapters to hear and consider submissions on the relevant objectives, following which I will prepare my final closing statement. 1.2 In addition to submissions to the panel on specific Objectives some key themes emerged from the hearing and these include: balanced Objectives that are less restrictive in nature the removal or editing of explanations private property rights concerns relating to issues identification and analysis out of scope submissions 1.3 Whilst one submission was out of scope, a response to issues raised is identified below, as it provides further clarification and information for the submitter. 1.4 Section 2 of this response relates to general issues and Section 3 focuses on the issues relating to specific Objectives. In particular submitters raised concerns with the following Objectives: 2.2 Ecology and Biodiversity 2.3 Development Management 2.4 Coastal Environment 2.5 Natural Hazards 2.9 Landscapes 2.11 Character and Amenity 2.15 Incentives 2.17 Centres 1.5 These can be categorised into three main areas of concern including the ability for greater freedom in the rural areas (Objectives 2.2, 2.3, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.15), issues relating to Coastal Hazards (Objectives 2.4 and 2.5), and issues relating to the management of development in the Town Centre (Objectives 2.15 and 2.17, and a request for a new Objective). These will be considered in more detail in Section 3 of this response. 1.6 Whilst I have noted that Ian Jensen (275) submitted to the panel on a range of Objectives, I note that Mr Jensen’s original submission only commented on Objective 2.9, therefore, recommended amendments in this response have only been recommended where scope is provided by other submitters. 1.7 Where Landmatters (411) is referred to in this response their submission is also on behalf of the following submitters: - 2 Waikanae Christian Holiday Park Inc (319) Michael and Elizabeth Welch (369) Barry, Suzanne and Timothy Mansell (380) USNZ Forestry Group Ltd (408) Lutz Brothers Ltd (425) Bellcamp Trust Company Ltd (487) Kennott Trust Company Ltd (492) Mahaki Holdings Ltd (495) 1.8 In response to evidence presented during the hearing I have identified recommended changes where they are over and above those recommended in the Section 42A (s42A) report. In line with the convention in the s42A report new text is denoted by strikethrough and insertions are underlined. Where black text has been struck through and underlined this relates to changes originally recommended in the s42A report and changes subsequent to the s42A report are reflected in red. An amended marked up version of the recommended changes can be seen at Appendix 1. 2.0 General Issues The Need for More Positive Enabling / Balanced Objectives 2.1 At the hearing Waa Rata (327), Allan Smith (443), Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Ltd (276), Margaret Niven (251) and Land Matters (411) commented on the need for the Objectives and plan in general to be less restrictive and more balanced, and this has been echoed in written submissions to the PDP as notified. Of particular note were Objectives 2.2: Ecology and Biodiversity, 2.4: Coastal Environment, 2.9: Landscapes and 2.17: Centres. The issues raised related to a requirement for more enabling Objectives in the rural areas and centres, to support farming activities and retail development, to recognise that subdivision may have benefits such as increasing vegetation, and the ability to develop plan provisions to deal appropriately with Coastal Hazards. 2.2 In my opinion the Objectives strike an appropriate balance and give effect to the matters of national importance in section 6b) and c) of the RMA - the protection of outstanding natural features and significant indigenous vegetation as well as other matters in section 7b) of the RMA - “the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources”. 2.3 I consider it is appropriate in Objective 2.2: Ecology and Biodiversity, for example, for the Council to signal that it wants to improve indigenous biodiversity and protect areas of significant indigenous vegetation. Other Objectives, such as 2.3: Development Management and 2.7: Rural Productivity provide a balance by recognising the productive potential of land whilst identifying that protection will be sought from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. In addition Objective 2.2 does not preclude development taking place and gives effect to the RMA as well as Objective 3 and Policy 24 in the Regional Policy Statement. 2.4 Maypole (263) submitted that the objectives, particularly Objectives 2.4: Coastal Environment and 2.9: Landscapes should be more positively worded to allow appropriate development, rather than protect from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. Maypole also sought that a new clause should be added to Objective 2.2 to include this wording. In my opinion the wording as recommended in the s42A report is more consistent with the RMA. 3 2.5 However, I do recommend some changes to the Objectives that may address the concerns of submitters including Allan Smith (443) and Waa Rata (327) identified in Section 3.11 below. In particular in clause f) of Objective 2.3: Development management I recommend the change of the term “preserve” to “sustain” (the actual change is reflected in the recommendations below to Objective 2.3). This is more consistent with section 5 of the RMA, which identifies that the purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and recognises that the RMA is not a “no effects” statute. Other changes recommended in the s42A report such as the addition of protection from “inappropriate subdivision use and development” in Objective 2.4: Coastal Environment and 2.9: Landscapes may also address concerns of submitters. Explanations 2.6 The s42A report recommended that explanations to the Objectives are retained to provide some clarity for plan users in the place of the Issues Statements which applied under the former version of Section 75 of the RMA. Listening to submitters over the course of the hearing it was clear that some submitters feel that the Objectives should stand on their own or the explanations should be edited, whilst others supported their retention, stating that they provided useful information / clarity. I agree with the view that, if the panel were to recommend their retention, the explanations would benefit from editing to ensure that only the most relevant and appropriate information is included. 2.7 Richard Jessup (115) also considered that the explanation in Objective 2.11: Character and Amenity was incorrect in respect of Peka Peka and that it had not grown up from bach use, whilst Allan Smith (443) and Landmatters (411) also commented that the explanations to Objective 2.6: Rural Productivity was incorrect in its presentation of globalisation issues. 2.8 I do not consider there is sufficient clarity regarding the final form of Objectives to make recommendations regarding what should be retained in the explanations. This I because, in the interests of consistency and integration, changes may be recommended to the Objectives based on submissions and s42A reports relating to later chapters. This is most relevant to Chapters 3: Natural Environment, 4: Coastal Environment, 8: Open Space and 9: Hazards in light of Minute 5 of the panel, which recommended ring fencing these four chapters so that a whole of coast approach is presented at the hearings that addresses integration matters. Any amendments to the Objectives may require different explanations to those currently proposed. 2.9 On this basis I am not recommending changes to the explanations over and above those set out in the s42A report. My recommendation would be that proposed changes to the explanations are considered as part of the suggested integration hearing and associated s42A report. I do, however, recommend they are retained in some form as they can help provide clarity regarding the intent of the Objective and identify the relationship with higher order documents. Private Property Rights 2.10 In some respects the comments made in respect of private property rights are linked to more enabling Objectives. Many submitters raised concerns that they should be able to manage their land in ways that was appropriate to the activity being carried out and that they are custodians of the land and are actively seeking to ensure environmental protection. 4 Submissions included those from Allan Smith (443), Margaret Niven (251), Ian Jensen (275) and Rick Swan (231). Bryce Wilkinson (280) also raised a more general issue about respecting private property rights with regards to all Objectives except Objectives 2.10: Contaminated Land, 2.11: Character and Amenity, 2.12: Housing Choice and Affordability, 2.13: Infrastructure, 2.14: Access and Transport, 2.15: Incentives and 2.20: Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Conservation. 2.11 Some changes recommended in the s42A report and in this response may address some of these submitters’ concerns, such as recommended amendments to Objective 2.3: Development Management.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE February 2017
    AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE February 2017 ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND AIRPORTS ASSOCIATION 2 FOREWORD 3 PART A: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN GUIDE 5 1 INTRODUCTION 6 2 IMPORTANCE OF AIRPORTS 7 3 PURPOSE OF AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING 9 4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 13 5 BASIC PLANNING PROCESS 15 6 REGULATORY AND POLICY CONTEXT 20 7 CRITICAL AIRPORT PLANNING PARAMETERS 27 8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT 46 9 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN 50 10 CONCLUSION 56 PART B: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TEMPLATE 57 1 INTRODUCTION 58 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 59 C O N T E S 3 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 64 AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE New Zealand Airports Association | February 2017 ABOUT THE NZ AIRPORTS ASSOCIATION The New Zealand Airports Association (NZ Airports) is the national industry voice for airports in New Zealand. It is a not-for-profit organisation whose members operate 37 airports that span the country and enable the essential air transport links between each region of New Zealand and between New Zealand and the world. NZ Airports purpose is to: Facilitate co-operation, mutual assistance, information exchange and educational opportunities for Members Promote and advise Members on legislation, regulation and associated matters Provide timely information and analysis of all New Zealand and relevant international aviation developments and issues Provide a forum for discussion and decision on matters affecting the ownership and operation of airports and the aviation industry Disseminate advice in relation to the operation and maintenance of airport facilities Act as an advocate for airports and safe efficient aviation. Airport members1 range in size from a few thousand to 17 million passengers per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Findings of the EPA National Investigation Into Firefighting Foams Containing PFOS
    Findings of the EPA national investigation into firefighting foams containing PFOS 4 APRIL 2019 Contents Executive Summary 5 Background 9 PFOS: International and New Zealand regulation 11 Strategy for the investigation 12 Resources 12 Scope of our role 12 Identifying where to investigate 14 Definition of the ‘use’ of foam 15 Definition of compliance 15 Our compliance approach 16 Enforcement actions available to us 16 Carrying out the investigation 18 Collection of evidence 18 Sites where the PFOS in firefighting foam was discovered 18 Observations 19 Compliance and enforcement 21 Outcome 22 Next steps 24 Compliance and enforcement 24 Review of regulatory tools 24 On prosecution 25 Conclusions 25 Appendix 1 Public interest and communications 27 Appendix 2 Sites included in the investigation 29 3 Investigation into firefighting foams containing PFOS | April 2019 4 Investigation into firefighting foams containing PFOS | April 2019 Executive Summary In December 2017, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) began a national investigation into whether certain firefighting foams were present at airports and other locations in New Zealand. The foams under investigation contain a banned chemical, perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS). This report describes the outcome of this initiative. PFOS foams were restricted in New Zealand in 2006 when they were excluded from the Firefighting Chemicals Group Standard1, meaning PFOS-containing foams could no longer be imported into New Zealand, or be manufactured here. In 2011, an international decision that had recognised PFOS as a persistent organic pollutant2 was written into New Zealand domestic law3. This meant, in addition to the 2006 restriction, any existing products containing PFOS could no longer be used in New Zealand, and strict controls were set to manage their storage and disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Part C.10 Landscapes for List of Outstanding Landscapes and the Planning Maps)
    APPENDIX 3 Operative Kāpiti Coast District Plan Objectives and Policies Proposed Kāpiti Coast District Plan Objectives and Policies S149(G)3 Key Issues Report – Kāpiti Coast District Council C.1: RESIDENTIAL ZONE C.1 RESIDENTIAL ZONE Over 90% of the district's population live on less than 4% of the land. This land comprises the residential environment. To accommodate this population there has been considerable investment made in buildings, services (water, gas, wastewater disposal) roading and amenity facilities (shops and schools). This represents a significant physical resource which needs to be managed to enable people and communities to meet their needs and to minimise any adverse effects of activities on both the natural and physical environment. The management of this resource can be achieved within the District Plan through controls in the design of subdivision, use and development. The objectives and policies set out below in C.1.1 are intended to address the significant resource management issues identified in B.2. The related subdivision and development issues in B.8 are addressed in C.7. C.1.1 Objectives & Policies OBJECTIVE 1.0 - GENERAL ENSURE THAT THE LOW DENSITY, QUIET CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT’S RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS IS MAINTAINED AND THAT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE AMENITY VALUES THAT CONSTITUTE THIS CHARACTER AND MAKE THE RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS SAFE, PLEASANT AND HEALTHY PLACES FOR RESIDENTS ARE AVOIDED, REMEDIED OR MITIGATED. The residential environments within the Kapiti Coast District generally have a low density character, typified by low building heights and density and a high proportion of public and private open space.
    [Show full text]
  • Kapiti Airport Including Attachments
    18 February 2021 Kapiti Airport Preservation Society Request for Official Information responded to under the Local Government and Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) – reference: 7978115 (OIR: 2021-174) I refer to your information request we received on 2 February 2021 for the following: I am seeking any information the Kapiti District Council holds relating to the level of community support to preserve the Paraparaumu Airport as an Airport. Council response regarding your request We have three items that may be of interest in relation to community support for retaining Kāpiti Coast Airport as a working airport. These are attached for your information. Two are surveys that asked local residents about their views on the value of the airport to the community. The first was carried out by Colmar Brunton in April 2018 and the second by Curia in December 2020. A summary of the Colmar Brunton survey is available on our website at https://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/our-district/the-kapiti-coast/kpiti-coast-airport/. In addition, we have provided a number of community contributions from the recent ‘What Matters Most?’ campaign aimed at gathering ideas from the community to inform development of the Long Term Plan 2021-41. These are responses to one of four open-ended questions, ‘What matters most (in your community/ neighbourhood/ as we plan for the district’s future/ as we experience growth?)’ and were gathered through online submissions and at community events and drop boxes located at libraries and community centres. Forty-eight of 486 contributions (from 230 unique contributors) make reference to the airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Lockdown Measures Continue to Shift with Evolving Pandemic and Socioeconomic Tensions
    Worldwide – May 20, 2020 Lockdown Measures Continue to Shift with Evolving Pandemic and Socioeconomic Tensions Authors: Stephanie Kiefer, Senior Regional Analyst – Europe, the Caucasus, & Central Asia Samson Sampson, Senior Regional Analyst – Middle East & North Africa Kimberly Doyle, Senior Regional Analyst – Sub-Saharan Africa Zachary Nelson, Senior Regional Analyst – Latin America & the Caribbean Josh Strongin, Lead Intelligence Analyst – North America Zachary Huffman, Regional Analyst – Asia/Pacific Contact: [email protected] OVERVIEW The global number of confirmed cases of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is nearing 4.9 million people and more than 322,000 associated deaths have been reported, according to Johns Hopkins University. A report released on May 19 by the World Economic Forum indicated that surveyed risk managers anticipate a prolonged global recession. The head of the International Monetary Fund cautioned this week that a full global economic recovery is unlikely before next year and encouraged governments to avoid protectionist measures. On Tuesday, the World Bank chief warned that the pandemic and associated economic crisis could drive about 60 million people worldwide into extreme poverty, underscoring how the most vulnerable in societies have been and may continue to be among those hit hardest by the pandemic and associated economic crisis. Active outbreaks and hotspots continue to evolve with reopening processes around the globe. While new cases in Russia appear to have stabilized and the United States is seeing the ongoing phased easing of state-by-state measures, Brazil’s COVID-19 epidemic is continuing to grow. Many European countries are advancing their phased withdrawals of lockdowns with increasing hope for summer travel, particularly for countries with a substantial portion of their economies dependent upon tourism.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Hearings Panel in The
    BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Council Plan Review 2012 AND Submissions by Coastlands Shoppingtown Limited Submitter No. 218 and Further Submitter No. 55 BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD MILLER ECONOMICS AND RETAIL ON BEHALF OF COASTLANDS SHOPPINGTOWN LIMITED 31 March 2016 ________________________________________________________________________________ Solicitors: Counsel Acting: Matthew McClelland QC / Phernne Tancock D’Ath Partners Harbour Chambers Level 3 Harbour City Towers Level 10, Equinox House 29 Brandon Street 111 the Terrace PO Box 1078 PO Box 10 242 Wellington Wellington Phone: (04) 4990431 Phone: (04) 499 2684 Facsimile: (04) 4990662 Facsimile: (04) 4992705 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD OGILVY MILLER ON BEHALF OF COASTLANDS SHOPPINGTOWN LIMITED 1. INTRODUCTION Qualifications and Experience 1.1. My full name is Richard Ogilvy Miller I am the Managing Director of McDermott Miller Limited, a commercially independent Wellington- based strategic planning and economics consultancy, which specialises in retail planning, market analysis and development planning. 1.2. I have a BA Hons in Public Administration and Economics from Victoria University and a MSc in Regional Planning from Edinburgh University. I am a long-standing member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and have been a Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute for thirty-five years. 1.3. As a consultant over the last twenty-eight years, I have directed and undertaken for private and public sector clients strategy studies, market appraisals, feasibility studies and economic impact assessments of retail development projects in Auckland, Rotorua, Hastings, Masterton, Kapiti Coast, Lower Hutt, Porirua, Wellington City, Blenheim, Nelson City, Christchurch, Rangiora, Timaru, Dunedin, Queenstown and Invercargill.
    [Show full text]
  • Kapiti Coast, After the District Council Voted to Tighten Control of the Great Here- After
    Inmates knit coats for pups Kapiti P26 Grow beautiful blooms from P40 Thursday, September 15, 2016 seeds Workhaltedbyasbestos ADAM POULOPOULOS Asbestos has been found embed- ded in concrete at the site of Waikanae’s troubled $1.7 million park and ride facility. Greater Wellington Regional Council’s construction of the planned 240-park facility, on the old Waikanae Hotel site, has been delayed by the discovery. Public transport acting general manager Angus Gabara said that despite piles of broken concrete at the site, there was no danger, and samples were being tested. ‘‘We’re following the industry protocols for dealing with asbes- tos on a construction site ... safely removing and disposing of asbes- tos takes extra time.’’ The long-delayed facility would now open in stages - half the parks ‘‘We’re following the would open to the public in November, with the rest opening industry protocols in January. for dealing with The regional council said in August that the car park would asbestos on a open before Christmas, after pre- construction site ... vious delays in the project. It is not the first time asbestos safely removing and has been found on the site. disposing of Last year the Waikanae Hotel was found to contain it during asbestos takes extra demolition. time.’’ Asbestos in the insulation, ceil- Council public transport acting ing panels, roof panels and pipes general manager Angus Gabara. was removed and disposed of by a contractor, which took about four weeks. southern side, which would be Kapiti regional councillor retained. Nigel Wilson said the delays to the A concrete parking pad the project could not be predicted.
    [Show full text]
  • Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited Private Plan Change Request: Prohibited Activities – Airport Zone
    Date of Issue: 19 December 2016 Client: Project Reference: PRIVATE PLAN CHANGE REQUEST - AIRPORT ZONE: PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES Name of File: AIRPORTY:\Q to Z\TRAFFIC ZONE:\MACKAYS PROHIBITED TO PEKA PEKA EXPRESSWAY ACTIVITIES\PekaPeka Desgntn Bdy Adjust\MHA__Review M2PP Designation Boundary Adjustment [amended].docx MHA Reference: 029427-0/07/8 Reference: AIRPORT ZONE: PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES Document Issued to: Mr Robert Schofield, Consultant Planner, Boffa Miskell, assisting Kapiti Coast District Council. Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited Private Plan Change Request: Prohibited Activities – Airport Zone 1.0 Introduction Malcolm Hunt Associates [MHA] have been commissioned to review noise-related matters arising from Private Plan Change Request 84 (PPCR84) by Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited to amend ‘Prohibited Activities’ in the Airport Zone of the operative Kapiti Cost District Plan ("District Plan"). While PPCR84 covers a group of requested land use planning changes, this assessment and advice to Council has considered only the environmental noise issues associated with the request. The assessment is based upon the recommended assessment methods and criteria set out in a relevant NZ Standard, also importantly considering the policies and objectives of the relevant provisions of the operative District Plan. MHA are familiar with the issues having been involved assisting Council with airport noise issues regarding Plan Change 73 at the initial Council hearing level and in the resolution of appeals in the environment court1. Through the Airport’s recent planning history we have noted a consistent theme, that the Kapiti Coast Airport is an important general aviation airport for the Wellington region. The evidence brought before Council indicated that while Wellington International Airport is an international gateway and a major domestic airport it simply could not accommodate the flight training, recreational, and other types of general aviation activity that occur at Paraparaumu.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Issue 47 Complete
    KiwiFlyer TM Magazine of the New Zealand Aviation Community Issue 47 2016 #4 Annual Training Guide $ 6.90 inc GST ISSN 1170-8018 Pitbull Gyro Flying with Yellow 10 Onboard for a SOFIA mission Products, Services, News, Events, Warbirds, Recreation, Training and more. KiwiFlyer Issue 47 2016 #4 From the Editor In this issue Here’s a bumper issue of KiwiFlyer for you. As 8. NZ Warbirds new nest at Ardmore well as all the usual content, this one includes our The NZ Warbirds Assoc. are in the process of annual Guide to Aviation Training in New Zealand. moving into one of the best hangar complexes The Guide is as much for licensed flyers as it is for at Ardmore. Frank Parker tells the story. beginners, with plenty of material related to specialist qualifications or extending your abilities – some 10. Star Struck - by SOFIA advanced mountain flying, or a float-plane rating Matt Hayes caught a ride on NASA’s B747 perhaps? The Guide profiles numerous training stratospheric observatory out of Christchurch providers and covers everything from microlights recently and shares this very special experience. and autogyros, through to advanced MEIFR and PBN training. It begins with a summary of a recent 19. Maintenance Shop Insurance Air New Zealand seminar I attended aimed at those Bill Beard from Avsure updates aircraft considering a career in airline flying. Judging by the operators on the things you should know about age of most of them, I should have gone along insurance during maintenance. about 30 years ago. To a degree I say that in jest, as 20.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 June 2021 Enabling Drone Integration
    4 June 2021 Enabling Drone Integration - Consultation Ministry of Transport PO Box 3175 Wellington 6140 Email: [email protected] Submission on the Ministry of Transport Discussion Document ‘Enabling Drone Integration’ (Discussion Document dated 6 April 2021) 1. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Ministry’s Discussion Document ‘Enabling Drone Integration’ dated 6 April 2021 (the ‘Discussion Document’). 2. NZ Airports also appreciates the opportunities that have been provided for early consultation as the drone environment develops, and in particular for NZ Airports representatives to meet on 21 April 2021 to be briefed on the Discussion Document. 3. This submission is from NZ Airports and is made on behalf of the Association’s members1. Individual airports may also provide comments, and this submission should be read in conjunction with any separate submissions from airports. 4. NZ Airports has no objection to this submission being made public. 5. NZ Airports will be pleased to provide any further information required in support of this submission. The contact person is: Kevin Ward DDI: 04 384 3217 Chief Executive Mobile: 021 384 524 New Zealand Airports Association Email: [email protected] PO Box 11 369 Wellington 6142 General 6. NZ Airports supports the Ministry’s approach in the Discussion Document to use ‘drone’ as a generic term to describe all forms of unmanned aircraft to which CAR Parts 101 or 102 apply for the purposes of this consultation. 7. Airports have a strong interest
    [Show full text]
  • Further Submission on Behalf of Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited
    FURTHER SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF KAPITI COAST AIRPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED To: Greater Wellington Regional Council Further submission on Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region P O Box 11646 Manners St Wellington Email: [email protected] 1. Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited (KCAHL) is a submitter and seeks to make further submissions on the Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region 2015 (Proposed Plan). 2. KCAHL is a significant landholder and owner of Kapiti Coast Airport and as such represents a relevant aspect of the public interest. 3. The submissions on which further submissions are made by KCAHL have a direct effect on the interests and operational capabilities of KCAHL. 4. KCAHL has an interest in the Proposed Plan that is greater than the public generally. 5. KCAHL makes the further submissions as set out in the attached table. 6. KCAHL wishes to speak at the hearing in support of its further submission. DATE: 22 March 2016 Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited Address for Service c/- Brigid Kelly Todd Property P O Box 106 249 Auckland Phone: 09 306 8676 Email: [email protected] Original Original KCAHL’s Parts of submission supported or opposed Reasons Relief sought submitter submissio position n number Wellington S282/005 Support 3. Objectives: KCAHL supports the need to Accept new objective. International specifically recognise the Airport Limited New Objective O# (amend numbering as necessary) - enablement and growth of Development of regionally significant infrastructure - regionally significant infrastructure. c/- Mitchell's Provide for and enable the development and growth of Partnerships Ltd, regionally significant infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNEXURE B Continued Further Submitters - Proposed Natural Resources Plan PLEASE NOTE the COURT's DIRECTIONS for SERVICE
    ANNEXURE B continued Further Submitters - Proposed Natural Resources Plan PLEASE NOTE THE COURT'S DIRECTIONS FOR SERVICE Further Submitter Number Further Submitters Name Address for Service Address updated FS38 Aaron Sadler 58 Bridge Street, Rongotai, Wellington, 6022 FS44 Alana Bowman PO Box 24332, Wellington, 6142 FS9 Alessandro Bonora 296 Queens Drive, Lyall Bay, Wellingtom, 6022 FS2 Allan A Smith 150 Terrace Road, RD 1, Reikorangi, Waikanae, 5391 FS90 Andrew Bell 54A Yellowstone Crescent, Burwood, Christchurch, 8083 FS94 Anna MacLean 25 Endeavour Street, Lyall Bay, Wellington, 6022 FS53 Beef and Lamb NZ Level 4, Wellington Chambers, 154 Featherston Street, Wellington, 6011 FS21 Birds New Zealand (OSNZ) 244 Blue Mountains Road, RD1, Upper Hutt, 5372 FS77 Blair Waipara 11 Seine Street, Island Bay, Wellington, 6023 FS95 Bohdan Szymanik 1 Kotinga Street, Kilbirnie, Wellington, 6022 FS85 Carterton District Council PO Box 9, Carterton, 5743 FS40 CentrePort Limited (CentrePort) PO Box 794, Wellington, 6140 FS49 CentrePort Properties Limited PO Box 1291, Wellington, 6140 FS11 Christina Roberts 3/3 Severn Street Island Bay, Wellington, 6023 Unknown FS41 Coastal Ratepayers United Incorporated 199 Manly Street, Paraparaumu Beach, Paraparaumu, 5032 FS84 DairyNZ and Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited PO Box 85066, Lincoln University, Lincoln, 7647 FS19 Dave Gilbert 79 Apu Crescent, Lyall Bay, Wellington 6022 Yes FS58 David and Michael Keeling 194 Takapu Road, Levin, 5573 FS20 Dickon Lentell 10 Maybury Way, Island Bay, Wellington, 6023 Unknown
    [Show full text]