SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CANTERBURY LAND AND WATER REGIONAL
PLAN UNDER CLAUSE SIX OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT ACT 1991
To:
Proposed Land and Water Plan Submissions
Environment Canterbury
PO Box 345
CHRISTCHURCH 8140
EMAIL: mailroom@ecan.govt.nz
Name: Waitaki District Council
Private Bag 50058
Oamaru 9444
Attention:
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
David Campbell
(03) 4330300
(03) 4330853
dcampbell@waitaki.govt.nz
The Waitaki District Council (Council) makes the general and specific submissions on
the Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) set out in the
attached document. The Council is aware and supportive that LWRP must, and
does, enable
the
CWMS
and
therefore
supports
the
general
direction of the plan.
The Council confirms its submission does not relate to trade competition or the effects
of trade competition.
The Council would like to be heard in support of its submission
If other persons make a similar submission then the Council would consider
presenting joint evidence at the time of the hearing.
______________________________
Alex Familton
Mayor
For and behalf of Waitaki District Council
Dated this 5th day of October 2012
Table of Contents
1.
Community Drinking Water Supply (page 2-5) ......................................................................... 3
2.
Group Drinking Water Supply (page ........................................................................................ 3
3.
Objective 3.1.4, Policy 4.4, Policy 4.46 and Policy 4.47 (pages.................................................. 3
4.
Policy 4.61 (page 4-12) .......................................................................................................... 5
5.
Rule 5.88 (page 5-21) ............................................................................................................ 5
6.
Policy 4.20 Protect sources of Human Drinking Water (page 143) ............................................. 7
7.
Schedule 1 Group or Community Drinking Water Protection Areas (page 16-3) ......................... 7
8.
Rule 5.162 (page 37) ............................................................................................................. 8
9.
Table 1a Outcomes for Canterbury Rivers (page 4-2) .............................................................. 8
10.
New policy -Best Practicable Option .................................................................................... 9
11.
Policy 4.13 (page 4-5) ...................................................................................................... 11
12.
Policy 4.82 (page 4-14) .................................................................................................... 11
13.
Rule 5-71 (page 5-16) ...................................................................................................... 11
14.
Rules 5.72 and 5.73 (page 5-17)...................................................................................... 13
15.
Policy 4.12(c) (page 4-5) .................................................................................................. 13
16.
Rules 5.7 and 5.9 (page 5-3) ............................................................................................ 14
17.
Rule 5.113 (page 5-26 and 5-27) ...................................................................................... 15
18.
Rule 5.114 (page 5-27) .................................................................................................... 16
19.
Definition Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (2-11) ......................................... 17
Water Quantity Matters
1. Community Drinking Water Supply (page 2-5)
2.
Group Drinking Water Supply (page 2-8)
3. Objective 3.14, Policy 4.4, Policy 4.46 and Policy 4.47 (pages 3-1, 4-1, 4-10)
1.
These submissions address community water supplies, primarily from a water quantity
perspective. In particular Objective 3.14, Policy 4.4, Policy 4.46 and Policy 4.47 which address
the provision for community and stock drinking water supplies as a priority, and establish the
regimes to apply to community drinking water supplies at times of restrictions. The use terms
to describe community water supplies and the definitions of community drinking water supplies
and group drinking water supplies are important to the implementation of the LWRP.
2.
The terms ‘Community Drinking Water Supply”, “Group Drinking Water Supply” and
“Community Water Supply” are used inconsistently throughout the LWRP. For example Rule
5.88 refers to Community Water Supplies whereas Objective 3.14 refers to “Community
Drinking Water Supply”. When addressing water quality matters the terms are further
confused with drinking water, community drinking water supply and group drinking water
supply being used inconsistently.
3.
Provision of water for community supplies, particularly community drinking water is and has for
some time been recognised as an important issue influencing water management within
Canterbury. The priority of water for these purposes is recognised within the Proposed
Regional Policy Statement (RPS) in Objective 7.2.1 (3) and Policy 7.3.4. Further, the provision
of water for community supplies is recognised as a first order priority within the Canterbury
Water Management Strategy (CWMS). Recognition of this important issue was also a key
component of the Natural Resources Regional Plan (NRRP).
4.
A key concern with the LWRP relates to the definition of community drinking water supply and
how this term is used within the provisions. The current definition and its use do not give
effect to the RPS nor appropriately have regard to the CWMS.
5.
The RPS and the CWMS do not contain definition of Community Drinking Water Supplies and
refers more generally to community water supplies, which encompass all of the important uses
from a community water supply, including, but not limited to drinking water. From reading
these documents it is clear that when considering the provisions within both documents that
the provisions when referring to community water supplies are using the term it is broadest
application. To illustrate this the explanation to Issue 7.1.2 in the RPS recognises that over
80% of the region’s population has access to community water supplies and that community
water supplies vary in their scale and level of treatment. The CWMS principles states that a first
order priority are ‘community supplies’.
6.
The NRRP uses the terms community water supplies, community drinking water supplies and
group drinking water supplies. The NRRP provides priority in water allocation to all community
water supplies, not just for drinking water.
7.
The LWRP definitions of Community Drinking Water Supply and Group Drinking water Supply
are too limiting. All of the important community uses of water adequately recognised. In
addition these terms are used in an inconsistent manner throughout the provisions. The Plan
also inconsistent with the priority given for community water in both the RPS and the CWMS.
8.
To illustrate the inconsistent use of terms Objective 3.14 makes reference only to Community
Drinking Water Supplies, whereas Policy 4.46 refers both to Group and Community Drinking
Water Supplies. This approach results in provisions for community drinking water supplies and
the priority for these supplies not being available to a number of community supplies within
Canterbury. Rule 5.88 refers to “group and community water supplies” . These are terms not
defined within the LWRP.
9.
Without amendments being made to the provisions they will not be capable of consistent
administration and implementation. The provisions will not provide for a number of community
supplies and will not provide for the full range of important uses that community water supplies
fulfil, such as fire fighting. This is not consistent with the RPS and the CWMS and it does not
appropriately provide for the wellbeing of people and communities.
10.
It is appropriate for the provisions relating to water allocation to refer to community water
supplies in the broadest sense. It is noted that water supply strategies and the restrictions in
the use of water that are required for any consent for community water will address the full
range of uses of community water.
11.
Recognition of the importance of community water in the objectives and policies are supported
subject to the changes sought.
12.
One further matter related to community water arising from the current drafting of the LWRP is
that there are no rules included that enable the taking of water for community stockwater
supplies. Currently the only rule addressing community stockwater is Rule 5.85 relating to
taking of water from rivers with Water Conservation Orders. Given that stockwater is also a
first order priority in the CWMS this is not appropriate. The inclusion of the definition of
Community Water Supply, which includes community stockwater supplies, will address this.
13.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Add a definition of Community Water Supply to read:
Community water supply means water taken primarily for drinking water and includes
group drinking water supply, community drinking water supply and community
stockwater supply but that may also be used for other purposes such as supply to
institutional, industrial, processing, or amenity irrigation use and fire-fighting.
and
b. Amend the definition of Group Drinking Water Supply to read:
means a drinking-water supply that provides more than 25 but fewer than 501
people with drinking water for not less than 60 days each calendar year.
and
c.
Amend the provisions of Objective 3.14, Policy 4.4, Policy 4.46, Policy 4.47 and Policy
4.61 to ensure that the provisions apply to all community water supplies regardless of
their size, not just community and group drinking water supplies.
d. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
4. Policy 4.61 (page 4-12)
1.
This policy addresses partial restriction regimes for surface water. The issue of concern is that
the relationship between Policy 4.61 and Policy 4.46 lacks clarity and results in policies that are
inconsistent and not capable of effective implementation. In order for Policy 4.46 to be
effectively applied a specific exclusion for any water supply addressed by Policy 4.46 needs to
be included within Policy 4.61.
2.
This change is necessary to give effect to the RPS and is needed in order to ensure that the
first order priority for community water within the CWMS is accurately reflected. The change
sought is necessary to contribute to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and
communities.
3.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend Policy 4.61 as follows:
To prevent the flow falling below a minimum flow for the catchment, due to
abstraction, partial restriction regimes for surface water shall:
(a) have a single flow monitoring point for the whole catchment that all abstractors
are referenced to, with additional flow monitoring points that some or all
abstractors are subject to, should the hydrology of the surface water body
justify it;
(b) provide for groups of water permit holders in the same sub-catchment to share
water when takes are operating under partial restrictions; and
(c)
unless specified in a relevant sub-regional section, or is the taking of water for
a community water supply, be based on a stepped or pro rata restriction
regime that applies equally to all takes within an allocation block and does not
induce the flow to fall below the minimum flow due to abstraction.
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
5. Rule 5.88 (page 5-21)
1.
This rule addresses taking and use of water for a group or community water supply. The
terminology used within this rule has already been addressed in submissions 1-3. The activity
status for the taking of water for community purposes of restricted discretionary is supported.
This appropriately reflects the importance of the water for community purposes and subject to
the definition changes appropriately reflects the first order priority in the CWMS and the RPS.
2.
If the definition changes subject to an earlier submission are accepted then the reference to
group water supply can be deleted from this rule and the definition of community water supply
will cover the full range of uses.
3.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Retain the Restricted Discretionary Activity Status in Rule 5.88.
b. Subject to acceptance of the submission in submissions 1-3 amend Rule 5.88 as
follows:
The taking and using of water for a group or community water supply from
groundwater or surface water is a restricted discretionary activity provided
the following condition is complied with:
1. There is an operative Water Supply Strategy.
c. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
Water Quality Matters
6. Objective 3.13 Contact Recreation (page 3-1)
1.
This objective is that those parts of lakes and rivers that are valued by the community for
recreation are suitable for contact recreation.
2.
The concern in the submission is that for some waterbodies, regardless of whether they are
valued by the community for recreation the water quality will not be suitable for contact
recreation. Urban waterways are an example of this. There needs to be other considerations
to waterbodies being suitable for contact recreation other than the water body is valued.
3.
The inability for some waterbodies to meet contact recreation standards was appropriately
recognised within the NRRP. When addressing the desire for contact recreation it was
recognised that in Canterbury, with appropriate land use management, all rivers except springfed rivers on the plains, rivers in urban areas and those on Banks Peninsula, should be able to
achieve grading as suitable for contact recreation. It is not practicable to eliminate the risk of
contamination of rivers in urban areas, although overflows of raw sewage are unacceptable
and their frequency must be reduced. Objective 3.13 needs to be realistic.
4.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend Objective 3.13 as follows:
Those parts of lakes and rivers that are valued by the community for recreation,
other than spring-fed rivers on the plains and rivers in urban areas are suitable for
contact recreation.
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
7. Policy 4.20 Protect Sources of Human Drinking Water (page 4-6)
1.
This policy addresses water quality matters and seeks to protect any water source used for
drinking water from discharges that may have an actual or potential effect on drinking water.
The intent of the policy is supported. The protection of drinking water supplies is an important
matter contributing to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities.
2.
A minor wording change to the policy is sought as it is considered that the protection should be
from any discharge of contaminants that may have any actual or potential “adverse” effect.
The current wording would include any effect, including potentially any positive effect that
could occur if the quality of an existing discharge were being improved.
3.
The wording in the heading to the policy references human drinking water, while the policy
itself addresses any drinking water. The rules that relate to the implementation of the policy
relate only to Community Drinking Water Supplies and Group Drinking Water Supplies. The
way the terminology is used within the policy and rules will affect the consistent administration
of the Plan. To avoid confusion and ensure that there are strong linkages between the
objectives, policies and rules consistent terminology should be used throughout the heading,
the policy and the rules.
4.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Retain the focus of Policy 4.20 on protecting drinking water but amend the wording
as follows:
Protect sources of Human Drinking Water
Any water source used for drinking water supply is protected from any discharge of
contaminants that may have any actual or potential adverse effect on the quality of
the drinking water supply including its taste, clarity and smell and group and
community drinking water supplies are protected so that they align with the CWMS
drinking water targets and meet the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand.
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
8. Schedule 1 Group or Community Drinking Water Protection Areas (page 16-3)
1.
This schedule establishes drinking water protection areas. For surface water group and
community drinking water supplies there should be some lateral protection from discharges
provided. Discharges in close proximity to the waterbodies can potentially have just as
significant effects as discharges directly into the water.
2.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend Schedule 1 relating to surface water as follows:
Existing surface water group or community drinking water supplies, including
galleries, are protected from discharges for the following distances, across the full
width of the bed, and within a lateral distance of 50 m from the bed:’
Upstream on a river
1000 m
Downstream on a river 100 m
On a lake
500 m radius from the point of take
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
9. Rule 5.162 (page 37)
1.
This rule addresses the management of hazardous substances. The issue of concern is that
potentially the application of the rule, particularly conditions 4(b) and 5 which exclude storage
of substances within a group or community drinking water supply protection area could mean
that substances important for the treatment of water may not be stored as a permitted activity.
The provider of the group or community drinking water supply regularly stores chemicals
including chlorine that are necessary to treat drinking water so that the quality of water is at an
appropriate standard. Substances necessary for the treatment of drinking water should be
specifically allowed within drinking water protection areas. The storage of these substances
will not have an adverse effect on the drinking water supply.
2.
The remaining conditions are sufficient to ensure that any storage of these substances occurs
correctly. No adverse effects will occur as a result of the changes sought.
3.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend Rule 5.162 conditions 4 (b) and 5 as follows:
A group or community drinking water supply protection area as set out in Schedule 1,
unless the hazardous substance is necessary for the treatment of the drinking water;
and
The container(s) do not remain on the site for more than 90 days in any consecutive
12 month period, unless the hazardous substance is necessary for the treatment of
the drinking water.
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
10. Table 1a Outcomes for Canterbury Rivers (page 4-2)
1.
Table 1a generally reflects of the equivalent table within the NRRP. There are some changes
that while appearing minor are of great significance to the appropriateness and ability to
achieve the outcomes.
2.
A key difference between the current table and the equivalent NRRP table is the siltation
indicator in the 10th column of the table. The provision relating to fine sediment being the
diameter size of the maximum cover of bed has been changed from that in the NRRP.
3.
Within the NRRP the indicator for fine sediment was less than 0.0625 mm diameter. The
dimension in the LWRP is less than 2 mm diameter. This is a significant change. The LWRP
indicator would include sediment such as sand and that this is not an appropriate outcome. The
appropriate dimension of fine sediment is the diameter within the NRRP.
4.
The percentage area for spring fed lower basins, spring fed plains and urban management
units have also been changed from that in the NRRP and these changes are not necessary or
appropriate in order to promote sustainable management of natural physical resources.
5.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. amend the sediment indicator column of Table 1a as follows:
Fine sediment <2 0.0625 mm diameter [Max cover of bed](%)
b. amend the fine sediment percentage cover for spring fed lower basins, spring fed
plains and urban management units as follows:
10 20
20 30 40
30 30-40
c.
Any similar or consequential amendments to the LWRP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
11. New policies -Best Practicable Option and existing local authority discharges
1.
Two new policies are sought to be included within the LWRP. These recognise that for some
activities, particularly existing activities the water quality standards set will not be able to be
achieved in the short and sometimes medium term. In particular, for existing activities such as
stormwater discharges from existing urban areas and in areas where the quality of water
bodies is already degraded it will take some time for the quality to be improved.
2.
The first policy seeks to address this reality of this by seeking that the best practicable option
be considered when addressing discharges from regionally significant infrastructure activities.
This will better provide for the enabling parts of Section 5 of the Resource Management Act
and will enable this to be considered alongside the water quality provisions.
3.
The approach of best practicable option is generally consistent with the National Policy
Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM), PolicyA3.
It is also a term used in the
Resource Management Act. The best practicable option in relation to a discharge of
contaminants includes consideration of the best method for preventing or minimising adverse
effects on the environment are having regard to amongst other things
 the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment adverse
effects
 the financial implications and effects on the environment of that option and
 the current state of technical knowledge and the likelihood that the option can be
successfully applied.
4.
These matters are all relevant with respect consideration of whether the sustainable
management of natural physical resources are being promoted
5.
The addition of the new additional policy addressing the enabling parts of the Act will give
more appropriate recognition to the range of national values of freshwater as expressed in the
NPSFM which includes commercial and industrial processes and cleaning, dilution and disposal
of waste. The current provisions do not adequately address all of the national values of
freshwater.
6.
The second policy sought to be introduced mirrors Policy WQL(2)(b)(iii) of the NRRP. This
policy specifically recognised that for an existing discharge from a local authority network and
where the existing water quality is degraded that it may take some time to achieve
improvements. The policy provides that any discharge cannot occur in a way that will prevent
the water quality outcomes being achieved, but recognises that for a number of existing urban
area improvement will only be able to be achieved over time.
7.
This policy recognises that in some situations the existing water quality may be at a standard
where regardless of the amount of treatment provided to a stormwater discharge the water
quality outcomes may not be improved. At present within the Plan provisions there is limited
to no recognition in the provisions that the existing ambient water quality of some water bodies
are degraded below that quality specified. This provides no guidance on the ‘rate’ of
improvement required to meet the objectives and policies. It also does not recognise that if
the quality of a point source discharge is improved, the quality of the water body may not be
materially improved because of the existing water body environment (degree of channel
modification, degree of shading, amount and type of riparian vegetation, existing flow regimes)
and other wider catchment considerations (geology, land use).
8.
Different rates of improvement will require different capital expenditure by those undertaking
the discharge. It is accepted that an individual discharge should not significantly contribute to
non-achievement of the relevant water quality standards. However, when investment is
required, this should be affordable and result in meaningful improvements to the water quality
of the lake or river. It is important that some consideration be given to adopting the best
practicable option and ensuring that there is also a balance between the environmental benefit
which can be reasonably achieved and the potential cost to communities of achieving it.
9.
The inclusion of the policy within the LWRP will effectively provide a temporal element to the
achievement of the water quality limits.
10.
The addition of the new policy will better give effect to the NPSFM and will better promote the
purpose of the Resource Management Act.
11.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. add a new policy to read:
Discharges from regionally significant infrastructure activities should be managed so
that the quality of the discharge occurs in accordance with the best practicable
option.
b. add a new policy to read:
Where the discharge is from existing local authority network and there is a substantial
commitment to progressively improve the quality of the discharge so that, as soon as
practicable but no later than year 2025, the discharge will not breach the water quality
standards for the receiving water, or prevent achievement of the outcomes in Table
1a for a river or Table 1b for a lake.
c.
Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
12. Policy 4.13 (page 4-5)
13. Policy 4.82 (page 4-14)
14. Rule 5-71 (page 5-16)
1.
These provisions addresses public reticulated stormwater systems for any urban area. The
policy seeks that urban areas are managed in accordance with stormwater management plan.
While providing a stormwater management plan is not challenged there are a number of
serious practical implications relating to the development of such plans for all urban areas.
2.
This matter was subject to considerable evidence and submissions on the NRRP. A key concern
in the development of stormwater management plan relates to the amount of resources and
the time it takes to prepare these plans let alone implement them. It is simply not possible to
have stormwater management plans for all urban areas prepared six months after the LWRP
becomes operative.
3.
In order for the Plan to provide for appropriate and resilient outcomes particularly in relation to
regionally significant infrastructure that is essential to securing the health and well-being of
people and communities it is essential that the provisions of the plan can be achieved. To
require all consents needing the preparation of stormwater management plans within six
months will result in failure by all parties to achieve sound outcomes. The rules in the NRRP
provided a period of five years for resource consent involving the preparation of stormwater
management plans to be lodged. Even five years was a very tight timeframe for urban areas
but this was considered to be appropriate in order to provide a clear direction to all parties that
the preparation of stormwater management plans within urban areas was a priority.
4.
A period of 5 years can be provided for the implementation of the rule while still enabling the
objectives and policies of the Plan to be achieved. The period of 5 years is the least amount of
time required.
5.
A further matter within the policy is that 4.13(b) effectively requires the discharge of
stormwater to be subject to a land-based treatment system or wetland treatment prior to any
discharge to a lake or river. Requiring such treatment is not appropriate nor is it necessary.
There are situations including for existing urban stormwater systems where such retrofitting of
land-based treatment may not be practicable. Provided that the appropriate quality of
discharge can be achieved (including consideration of mixing zones) within an appropriate
timeframe then the Regional Plan should not dictate or unreasonably limit the type of
treatment system that can be utilised. Requiring land-based treatment or wetlands treatment
prior to a discharge to a lake or river is not necessary to promote the sustainable management
of natural physical resources. While these may be treatment options considered they should
not be mandatory.
6.
The submission on this part of Policy 4.13(b) is also linked to Policy 4.82. This policy addresses
wetland systems for both stormwater systems and land drainage systems. The provision of
this policy is not effective or necessary. It should be deleted.
7.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend policy 4.13(b) to read:
Any public reticulated stormwater system for any urban area shall be managed in
accordance with a stormwater management plan that addresses the following
matters:
(a) the management of all discharges of stormwater into the stormwater system;
(b) for any public reticulated stormwater system established after 11 August 2012,
including any extension to any existing public reticulated stormwater system, the
discharge of stormwater being subject to a land-based treatment system or wetland
treatment prior to any discharge to a lake or river;
(c) how any discharge of stormwater, treated or untreated, into water or onto land
where it may enter water meets or will meet in an appropriate timeframe the water
quality outcomes for that waterbody set out in Sections 6-15 or Table 1 (whichever
applies); and
(d) The management of the discharge of stormwater from sites involving the use,
storage or disposal of hazardous substances.
b. Amend Rule 5.71 read:
5.71 The discharge of stormwater from a community or network utility operator
stormwater system onto or into land or into or onto land in circumstances where a
contaminant may enter water, or into groundwater or a surface water body is a
restricted discretionary activity. An application for a discharge permit for a discharge
that existed at 11 August 2012 must be completed and lodged with Environment
Canterbury within five years of the date this rule becomes operative.
c.
Delete Policy 4.82.
d. Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
15. Rules 5.72 and 5.73 (page 5-17)
1.
This rule addresses discharges of stormwater, primarily on-site discharges. The key concern
with these rules is that if an activity does not meet all of the permitted activity conditions then
the activity defaults to being a non-complying activity. This is a significant change in activity
status and is not considered to be efficient and efficient to achieve the objectives, policies and
purpose of the Act. To illustrate the way the current rule is written would mean that any
discharge from potentially contaminated land (even if it is shown that the land is not
contaminated) would be a non-complying activity. This is regardless of the quality of the
discharge that would result and regardless of whether there was an actual or potential effect in
relation to contamination.
2.
The breaching of a number of the permitted activity conditions will not result in adverse effects
on the environment that would render the activity generally inappropriate that justifies a noncomplying activity status. Differentiation within the permitted activity standards and activities
that breach some of the conditions could be considered as a discretionary activity.
3.
It is submitted that either the activity status and Rule 5.73 should be changed to discretionary
or some further differentiation between some of the conditions should be provided with only
those with potentially significant adverse effects being rendered a non-complying activity.
Discretionary activity status would enable a full range of effects to be considered and will
enable any consent to be declined if it is shown that the effects are not appropriate.
4.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend rule 5.73 to make activity is not complying with Rule 5.72 a discretionary
activity.
Or
b. Amend Rule 5.73 to make activities that do not comply with conditions 3(b), 3(c) and
condition 6 a non-complying activity and activities that do not comply with other
conditions a discretionary activity.
c.
Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
16. Policy 4.12(c) (page 4-5)
1.
This policy seeks any reticulated stormwater or waste water reticulation system installed after
11 August 2012 is designed and managed to avoid sewage discharge into surface water.
2.
The concern with this policy is what can practicably be achieved with respect to avoiding
sewage discharge into surface water. While avoidance of this type of discharge is appropriately
a desirable outcome it cannot practically be guaranteed to be achieved. To illustrate there are
situations where a refurbishment of the pump station has been undertaken that includes
duty/standby pumps, standby power generation capacity as well as system storage provided
within the reticulation. Even with all of these contingencies in a severe rain event the
reticulation could still become overloaded and spill and the pump station could become
overloaded and spill.
3.
It is important that the Plan provisions can be applied in real world situations. The activity
status for such spills is as a non-complying activity. Given that it is known that in some
situations and circumstances these types of spills and discharges will occur. For a noncomplying activity the gateway test in Section 104D must be passed. The current policy
approach in relation to the design and management of new reticulation systems will make
getting through the gateway test likely impossible.
4.
New systems are designed, as far as possible, to avoid overflows, spills and discharges,
however this cannot be guaranteed. It is important that the policy approach recognise this.
Having a strong focus on seeking avoidance as far as practicable is appropriate. This still
sends the expectation that the design of any system should seek to achieve as far as possible
avoidance. Wording to this effect is sought with in the policy. This is consistent with the final
position adopted in the NRRP that recognised that avoidance could not occur in all situations.
5.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend policy 4.12(c) as follows:
Any reticulated stormwater or waste water reticulation system installed after 11
August 2012 is designed and managed to avoid, as far as practicable, sewage
discharge into surface water.
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
17. Rules 5.7 and 5.9 (page 5-3)
1.
These rules relate to the discharge of waste water from an existing or new or upgraded on-site
domestic wastewater treatment system.
2.
There is a major issue with the compliance costs of meeting the requirements of Rules 5.7 and
5.9. The key concern lies with the provisions relating to septic tank suitability areas.
Insufficient consideration has been given to the ability to implement the rules and the
compliance costs associated with them. The current rules are not efficient or effective and are
inappropriate.
3.
The provisions relating to septic tank suitability areas are not capable of effective
implementation and will result in a significant number of resources consent being required that
will not result in improved environmental outcomes. The outcome is that there are increased
compliance costs without improved environmental outcomes.
4.
A similar issue occurred when the NRRP on-site wastewater rules were first notified. The
notification of the NRRP rule resulted in a significant number of resource consents being
required without environmental benefits resulting. It is disappointing that the lessons of the
recent past have been repeated in rules 5.7 and 5.9.
The identification of “septic tank
suitability – area A” on the planning maps have not been well thought through, insufficient care
in mapping the areas has occurred and the criteria and characteristics for determining the
areas are not robust.
5.
The rules as drafted will result in an unnecessary number of parties requiring consent for
existing and new septic tanks without the resulting benefit with respect to environmental
effects. This is not efficient or effective.
6.
The relief sought is that either the reference to the septic tank suitability-areas be deleted or
alternatively that Rule 5.7 and 5.9 are deleted and the existing rules from the NRRP are
reinserted.
7.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend rule 5.7 as follows:

Delete condition 5
And
b. Amend rule 5.9 as follows:

Delete condition 2
Or
c.
Delete all of the conditions in Rule 5.7 and Rule 5.9 and replace it with the conditions
in Rule WQL9 of the NRRP.
d. Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
Activities in or near the beds of lakes and Rivers
18. Rule 5.113 (page 5-26 and 5-27)
1.
This rule relates to the structures and works provided for as a permitted activity over the bed
of a lake or river. The provision of these small scale activities as a permitted activity in or
under the bed of a lake or river is supported. Overall, these works are of minor nature and the
actual or potential adverse effects are also correspondingly minor. It is therefore appropriate
that these be provided for as permitted activities.
2.
The area of concern is condition 1 and the requirement for pipes, ducts the, cables or wires to
run perpendicular to the channel. This condition is not necessary and will be inappropriately
limiting where these activities are to be located on or adjacent to curved structures over a
waterbody such as bridges. This condition would render many activities with minor effects not
being permitted.
This is not efficient or effective and it will result in unnecessary and
inappropriate compliance costs with resource consents being required for minor activities.
3.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend Rule 5.114 condition 1 as follows:
The pipes, ducts, cables or wires run perpendicular to the channel and do not
prevent access to or over the bed or to lawfully established structures, including flood
protection works or flood control vegetation;
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
19. Rule 5.114 (page 5-27)
1.
This rule relates to the structures and works provided for as a permitted activity in or under the
bed of a lake or river. The provision of these small scale activities as a permitted activity in or
under the bed of a lake or river is supported. Overall, these works are of minor nature and the
actual or potential adverse effects are also correspondingly minor. It is therefore appropriate
that these be provided for as permitted activities.
2.
The area of concern is condition three which requires that the activity is undertaken at a
distance greater than 10 m from any dam, weir, bridge, or network utility pole, pylons or flood
protection vegetation, 150 m from any water level recorder, 50 m from any flood protection
works. The activities permitted include installation and maintenance of pipes ducts cables and
wires. While the intent of providing separation from bridges and similar structures is
understood this condition is impractical as delivery location of many pipes can be near bridges.
The condition would render many activities with minor effects not being permitted. This is not
efficient or effective and it will result in unnecessary and inappropriate compliance costs with
resource consents being required for minor activities. This issue could be overcome by
excluding activities undertaken by a network utility operator.
3.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend Rule 5.114 as follows:
Delete condition 3
OR
Amend condition 3 to read
Unless undertaken by a network utility operator the The activity is undertaken at a
distance greater than 10 m from any dam, weir, bridge or network utility pole, pylons
or flood protection vegetation, 150 m from any water level recorder, 50 m from any
flood protection works
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought
20. Definition Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (2-11)
1.
The definition is not appropriate, it should not include any reference to additional outstanding
natural features and landscapes listed in the relevant district plan. Environment Canterbury in
its LWRP should only reference to those outstanding natural features and landscapes listed
within the RPS.
2.
It is not appropriate to reference any additional outstanding natural features and landscapes
that may be listed in a relevant District Plan and then apply these to consideration of activities
under this LWRP. This creates uncertainty to all parties as it is not known what landscapes may
end up being identified in District Plans. In addition, when outstanding natural features and
landscapes are identified in district plans these will be accompanied by provisions that will
identify what the values of those landscapes or features sought to be protected from
inappropriate subdivision, use and development are. District Plan will also likely address the
types of activities or effects that may be appropriate or inappropriate. All of this information
will provide a coordinated and integrated set of provisions which manage these areas within
District Plans.
3.
To include consideration of only the areas identified in District Plans within the context of the
LWRP will create uncertainty and may not result in consistent administration of the provisions.
The RPS has identified those landscapes that have regional significance and these are the
landscapes that the Regional Council should focus on in fulfilling its functions. If additional
landscapes are sought to be included for consideration in the LWRP or the RPS then this should
be done by way of a formal variation or change that enables parties to lodge specific
submissions on the provisions.
4.
The submitter seeks the following relief:
a. Amend the definition of outstanding natural features and landscapes as follows
Means natural features and landscapes listed in Appendix 4 to the Canterbury RPS
2012 and any additional outstanding natural features and landscapes listed in the
relevant District Plan.
b. Any similar or consequential amendments to the PLWP that stem from the
submissions and general relief sought