FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Further Submission on Proposed
Canterbury Land and Water
Regional Plan
Submitter ID:
File No:
Form 6: Further Submissions in support of, or in opposition to, submission on a Publicly Notified
Proposed Policy Statement or Regional Plan under Clause 8 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management
Act 1991
Return your signed further submission by 5.00pm Wednesday 14
Freepost 1201 Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan
Environment Canterbury
P O Box 345
Christchurch 8140
November 2012 to:
Full Name: Matt Hoggard
Phone (Hm):
Organisation*: Kaikoura District Council
Phone (Wk): 03 319 5026
* the organisation that this further submission is made on behalf of
Postal Address: PO Box 6, Kaikoura
Phone (Cell):
Postcode: 7340
Email: matt.hoggard@kaikoura.govt.nz
Fax: 03 319 5308
Contact name and postal address for service of person making further submission (if different from above):
Only certain people can make further submissions. Please tick the option that applies to you:
I am a person representing a relevant aspect of the public interest; or
I am a person who has an interest in the proposal that is greater than the interest the general public has (for
example, I am affected by the content of a submission); or
I am the local authority for the relevant area.
I do not wish to be heard in support of my further submission; or
I do wish to be heard in support of my further submission; and if so,
I would be prepared to consider presenting your further submission in a joint case with others making a
similar submission at any hearing
Service of your further submission:
Please note: any person making a further submission must serve a copy of that submission on the original
submitter no later than five working days after the submission has been provided to Environment
Canterbury. If you have made a further submission on a number of original submissions, then copies of your
further submission will need to be served with each original submitter.
Please note that often the term “Support Oppose” has been used. This term has been used where the
submission point seeks multiple changes of which some are supported and other are opposed.
Signature:
Date:
(Signature of person making submission or person authorised to sign on behalf of person making the submission)
Please note:
(1) all information contained in a submission under the Resource Management Act 1991, including names and addresses for service, becomes public information.
(1) I support or oppose the submission of:
(2) The particular parts of the
submission I support or
oppose are:
(3) The reasons for my support or opposition are:
(4) Support or oppose
Name & postal address of original
submission
Submission point reference
number i.e. 4.23
Provide reason for support or opposition
Note support or oppose
93.
93.34
As stated in KDC submission paragraph 7 page 5
Support
“The LWRP definitions of Community Drinking Water Supply and Group
Community and Public Health CHCH
Drinking water Supply are too limiting. Neither definition includes
community drinking water supplies that provide for fewer than 25 people, of
which there are several examples within the District (including Kekerengu,
Rakautara, Mt Fyffe, Omihi). Nor are 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 is inconsistent
with the priority given for community water in both the RPS and the CWMS.
Working with the Medical Officer of Health before setting any distances for
the application of a Vertebrate Toxic Agent which may pose a risk to public
health, will help protect a number of our districts small water supplies
which would not necessary be protected by rule 5.21 in its current form.
94.
94.3
Current definition of earthworks is too restrictive and the proposed
amendments goes some way in helping reduce KDC concerns in the
impact of the earthwork rules
Support
94.10
Current definition of vegetation clearance does not provide for common
farming practices such as clearing of fence lines, and removal of exotic
pest plant species. Support is given to approach suggested by Waimakariri
DC
Support
106.70
Adding the words “unless part of the stormwater treatment system” is
appropriate when addressing the ponding of stormwater. Some systems
are specifically designed to provide for ponding and the rule should reflect
this.
Support
Waimakariri DC
94.
Waimakariri DC
106.
Christchurch City Council
This change is necessary so that the rule can be implemented in a sensible
manner that promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources
120.
Director General of Conservation
120.271
Support is given to including the Clarence River in table 2. However given
the length of the river, multiple minimum flow points are suggested.
Detailed scientific data should support the minimum flows set for the
Clarence.
The zero allocation block of the Clarence River is not supported. A number
of existing farming operations currently have consented watertakes from
Support and Oppose
the lower sections of the river. These existing takes appear to be operating
with no adverse impact on that section of the Clarence River.
120.
120.272
The zero allocation block of the Clarence River is not supported. A number
of existing farming operations currently have consented watertakes from
the lower sections of the river. These existing takes appear to be operating
with no adverse impact on that section of the Clarence River.
Oppose
120.316
Support is given for the inclusion of a more detailed Schedule 17 which
more accurately reflects actual salmon and inanga spawning sites within
the region. The Kaikoura District Council submission (125.48) specifically
seeks that Schedule 17 is updated to reflect all known inanga spawning
sites within the Canterbury Region. Table 1 of the Director General of
Conservation submission does not list any Kaikoura rivers or streams. This
may be because Kaikoura is located within the Marlborough Conservancy.
Support is given on the basis that this matter is corrected and Kaikoura
river and streams with inanga spawning areas are included. It is noted that
Table 3 of the Director General’s submission includes a number of “inanga”
species which are within Kaikoura rivers and streams and this could be the
basis for identifying Kaikoura inanga spawning streams.
Supports
148.14
It is not always possible for structures to be perpendicular to the channel or
a river.
Support
148.15
The need for a change in this rule is supported.
Support in part
Director General of Conservation
120.
Director General of Conservation
148.
MainPower (RMG)
148.
The wording suggested by MainPower’s submission is not supported.
The suggestion results in only the owners of the structure being able to
undertake works. The installation, extension, use, maintenance or removal
of bridges and culverts, in particular their use should not be limited to only
the owners of the structures. Additional details are outlined in Kaikoura
District Council submission 125.29
MainPower (RMG)
160.
160.9
Kaikoura District Council has a telemetry system for its town water supply
this however is not linked directly to the CRC or its nominated agent. If
CRC seek data associated with the implementation of any consent then
this can be forwarded upon request. There is no need to duplicate existing
telemetry systems.
Support
160.22
The summary of decisions requested by Kaikoura District Council contains
a typographical error referring to 20120 rather than 2012. This submission
seeks same relief but has the correct year and is supported. Refer KDC
submission point 125.19.
Support
161.29
The submission deleting the definition removes potential confusion and
lack of clarity that will exist with the current definition.
Support
Timaru District Council
160.
Timaru District Council
161.
Mackenzie District Council
The change sought in the submission will promote the sustainable
management of natural physical resources. The change is needed to
ensure that this plan gives effect to the Regional Policy Statement.
167.
167.6
Exclusion of drinking water supplies which service less than 25 person
results potential health risks. Supplies of few than 25 persons are not
monitored by Community Public Health or Territorial Authorities. Excluding
these water supplies provides for permitted and controlled activities to
occur which may have a direct impact on these small water supplies.
Users of supplies will have no way of knowing what is occur up stream and
the effect of such activities on their water supply. Within the Kaikoura
District the schemes of few than 25 persons are often supplied from crown
or a private land with no formal supply agreements in place, or agreements
under dispute.
Oppose
167.12
Provide certainty as to Seasonally High Water Table Level, the policy could
benefit from more specific dates.
Support
167.19
Support is provided for amendments (a), (b) and (c) it is noted that
Kaikoura District Council does not support the telemetry requirement for the
CRC or its nominated agent
Support in part
167.24
The Kaikoura District Council supports
Support in part
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
1. Adding the word “domestic” after “on-site” in the first line;
2. Deleting condition 5 (“Septic Tank Suitability Area”)
When addressing the third point it is suggested that either the term
“hazardous waste” is struck out, as it is not possible to have a system
which will remove all bacteria. The definition of hazardous waste states:
means waste that contains:
1. a hazardous substance; or
2. an infectious substance, or material known or reasonably
expected to contain pathogens, including bacteria,
viruses, rickettsia, parasites, fungi or recombinant microorganisms (hybrid or mutant) that are known, or
reasonably expected, to cause infectious disease in humans and
animals that are exposed to them; or
3. radioactive material that meets the definition in Section 2 of
the Radiation Protection Act 1965.
Kaikoura District Council opposes point 3:
Adding two additional conditions:
The discharge shall not contain hazardous substances or hazardous waste;
The discharge shall not result in wastewater being visible on the ground
surface.
In particular the use of the term “Hazardous Substances”
Alternatively for the current CRC submission to be affective condition 2.
could be amended to read:
2. an infectious substance, or material known or reasonably
expected to contain pathogens, including bacteria,
viruses, rickettsia, parasites, fungi or recombinant microorganisms (hybrid or mutant) that are known, or and
reasonably expected, to cause infectious disease in humans and
animals that are exposed to them;
or
A separate definition could be provided outlining acceptable values for
discharge.
167.
167.25
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
I am uncertain if scope exists for either of these changes as all submission
have not been reviewed. However, the inclusion of “or” is potentially
confusing, the use of “and” avoids this confusion. If no submission exists
this appears to be a matter which can be dealt with as a minor correction
under Section 16(2) of the RMA.
Changes suggested to points 5.9.1, 5.9.2, 5.9.3(b) and 5.9.6 are supported.
The change to 5.9.7 is not supported for the reasons discussed in 167.24
above.
Support & Oppose
167.26
Provides greater certainty on ground water expectations
Support
167.27
Provides greater certainty on ground water expectations
Support
167.28
Provides greater certainty on ground water expectations
Support
167.49
Support is given to points 2 and 4 which add the words other than for use
of maintenance of a structure. This submission heads in the general
direction of Kaikoura District Council submission 125.29.
Support
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
Support is also given for the correction of the typographical error address in
point 6.
167.
167.51
Limiting to only artificial watercourses results in additional consents being
required for most bridge maintenance operations, this will result in
Oppose
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
additional costs with no environmental benefits.
167.52
Limiting to only artificial watercourses results in additional consents being
required for most bridge maintenance operations, this will result in
additional costs with no environmental benefits.
Oppose
167.57
KDC supports reducing wetland losses
Support
167.59
Weed removal appropriate
Support
167.60
Comments on LH1 areas can be found in Kaikoura District Council
submissions 125.33 and 125.50. Kaikoura District Council supports most
of the changes to the mapped soil erosion risk areas.
Support Oppose
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
167.
Canterbury Regional Council
The Canterbury Regional Council submission seeks to include the term
“high soil erosion risk”. Submission point 167.99 results in the “LH2” being
replaced with “high soil erosion risk” as outlined as a map which show
“Land >20 slope and subject to deep seated forms of erosion” (submission
point 167.99).
Kaikoura District Council is concerned with the content of the amended
map, for example parts of the recently created lifestyle living area “Ocean
Ridge Comprehensive Living Zone” are included. Kaikoura District Council
has detailed geotechnical reports produeced by URS on the suitability of
the area. It is requested that Kaikoura’s zoned residential areas including
Ocean Ridge are removed from the “high soil erosion risk” as outlined in
KDC submission 125.33. Kaikoura District Council opposes the inclusion
of any urban areas within the high soil erosion risk area including the
Ocean Ridge Comprehensive Living Zone.
167.
167.79
See submission point 167.6 above
Support Oppose
169.110
The comments in NZTA’s submission are supported KDC also has
responsibility for bridges and structure outside of the state highway
network.
Support
169.111
See comments made for 169.110 above.
Support
187.22
The addition to the policy sought by the submitter being “(d) all
communities greater than 200 residents shall have reticulated wastewater
treatment systems by 2030” is not necessary in order to avoid, remedy or
mitigate adverse effects on the environment and is not necessary to
Oppose
Canterbury Regional Council
169.
New Zealand Transport Agency
169
New Zealand Transport Agency
187
Synlait Milk Limited
promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
309
309.1
The Kaikoura District Council is also concerned about the inclusion of the
LH2 areas. Details of concern are outlined in submission points; 125.33
and 125.50
Support
315.12
The addition to the policy sought by the submitter being “(d) all
communities greater than 200 residents shall have reticulated wastewater
treatment systems by 2020” is not necessary in order to avoid, remedy or
mitigate adverse effects on the environment and is not necessary to
promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources
Oppose
324.2
Kaikoura District Council supports greater collaboration between both
Canterbury Regional Council and Marlborough District Council to determine
appropriate allocation limits for the Clarence.
Support in part
358.9
The controlled activity status is opposed for rule 5.7 and consequential
amendments for rule 5.8. Refer submission point 125.25, a number of
effects based options exists which can avoid additional consenting costs to
communities without generating adverse effects. Such an approach has
been confirmed in past decisions on the NRRP.
Support in part
Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc
Banks Peninsula Bracnch
315
Dairy NZ incorporated
324
Marlborough District Council
358.
Nga Runanga of Canterbury & Te Runanga
o Ngai Tahu
The amendment 5.7(5) is supported to the degree that certain types of soil
and sand may allow for different separation distances from ground water.
Support including of condition 6 to ensure that any discharge “into land
that is culturally significant” is seen as discretionary.
358.
358.24
Increasing separation distances provides for precautionary approach to
pest control.
Support
358.25
This submission helps to protect water supplies for domestic use with are
not seen as group or community drinking water supplies, ie those supplies
which serve fewer than 25 persons.
Support
Nga Runanga of Canterbury & Te Runanga
o Ngai Tahu
358.
Nga Runanga of Canterbury & Te Runanga
o Ngai Tahu
Add further pages as required – please initial any additional pages.