Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park

435 Pages·2016·18.53 MB·English

IN THE MATTER OF section 71 of the Canterbury Earthquake
Recovery Act 2011 and the Canterbury
Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement
District Plan) Order 2014

AND

IN THE MATTER OF proposals notified for incorporation into a
Christchurch Replacement District Plan

Date of hearing: 11–18, 22 and 23 March, 24 May and 4 August 2016

Date of decision: 10 November 2016

Hearing Panel: Environment Judge Hassan (Chair), Ms Sarah Dawson, Mr Stephen
Daysh, Ms Jane Huria

___________________________________________________________________________
DECISION 57
Chapter 6: General Rules and Procedures (Part) – Noise, Airport matters
and Hagley Park
(and relevant definitions and associated Planning Maps)
___________________________________________________________________________

Outcomes: Proposals changed as per Schedules 1 and 2

Directions to Council made
2
COUNSEL APPEARANCES

Mr D Laing, Mr H Harwood, Mr M Leslie Christchurch City Council

Mr D Allen, Ms L Bazalo Crown

Ms J Appleyard Pacific Park Investments Limited,
Lyttelton Port Company Limited

Ms J Appleyard, Ms A Hill Christchurch International Airport Limited,
Orion New Zealand Limited

Mr A Beatson Transpower New Zealand Limited

Mr J Gardner-Hopkins, Mr E Hudspith Air New Zealand Limited

Ms H Marks Carter Group Limited, Scentre New
Zealand Limited, Kiwi Property Holdings
Limited, Bunnings NZ Limited,
NPT Limited

Mr G Cleary Radford Family Trust

Mr J Leckie Canterbury District Health Board,
Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Ngā Rūnanga

Mr D van Mierlo Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Ngā Rūnanga

Ms J Crawford Kennaway Park Joint Venture Partnership,
Go Media

Mr D Caldwell, Ms A Limmer, Ms J King Isaac Conservation and Wildlife Trust

Ms A Arthur-Young KiwiRail Holdings Limited

Mr E Chapman, Ms G Hall University of Canterbury

Ms J Robinson Commodore Airport Hotel

Mr D Pedley K & B Williams

General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6
Status of Revised Version and the Decision Version ............................................................. 7
Effect of decision and rights of appeal .................................................................................. 7
Provisions deferred ................................................................................................................ 8
Identification of parts of Existing Plan to be replaced .......................................................... 8
Conflicts of interest ................................................................................................................ 8
Reasons...................................................................................................................................... 9
Statutory framework ............................................................................................................... 9
Submissions ............................................................................................................................ 9
Council’s s 32 Report........................................................................................................... 10
Relationship of objectives to evaluation of other provisions under s 32AA ........................ 10
Section 32AA — Sub-chapter 6.1: Noise overview ............................................................. 11
Summary of Revised Version Sub-chapter 6.1 ..................................................................... 11
Our consideration of issues raised ...................................................................................... 14
Section 32AA — Sub-chapter 6.1: Airport noise ................................................................ 14
Context and chronology ....................................................................................................... 14
Relevance or otherwise of the RMA s 16 duty and ‘best practicable option’ ...................... 17
Relevance or otherwise of concepts of ‘reverse sensitivity’ and ‘mitigation at source’ ..... 19
Evidence concerning engine testing and related noise effects............................................. 34
Effects of engine testing claimed by residents ..................................................................... 40
Evaluation of the narrowed arguments on noise for residents and refined plan provisions
.............................................................................................................................................. 49
Evidence concerning airport noise effects on birds at Peacock Springs ............................. 60
Noise rules for shooting ranges in the McLeans Island zone .............................................. 65
Noise from helicopter movements ........................................................................................ 66
Noise associated with temporary military training and emergency management activities69
Rail corridors — vibration controls for residential dwellings and reverse sensitivity
matters.................................................................................................................................. 72
Rule 6.1.5.2 — issues as to standards for ventilation systems and sound insulation triggers
.............................................................................................................................................. 77
Rule 6.1.4.1 — whether the SAC adjustment in NZS 6802 should remain excluded ........... 80
Industrial zone noise limits and standards .......................................................................... 83
Tonal reversing alarms for the South West Hornby industrial zone ................................... 86
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
4
Section 32AA — 6.1 evaluation of Sub-chapter 6.1 provisions.......................................... 89
Strategic Objective 3.3.12 .................................................................................................... 90
Objective 6.1.2.1 .................................................................................................................. 92
Policies ................................................................................................................................. 94
Rule 6.1.6.2.5 Aircraft operations at Christchurch Airport ................................................ 96
‘On-wing’ v ‘on-aircraft’ ..................................................................................................... 98
Table 5 — on-aircraft engine testing noise limits: 8 v 5 monitoring points ........................ 98
Rule 6.1.6.2.6.a.ii — number of unplanned engine testing events ....................................... 98
Rule 6.1.6.2.6.a.iii — on aircraft testing and exemptions ................................................... 98
6.1.6.2.7.1 — Airport Noise Management Plan ................................................................... 99
6.1.6.2.7.2 — Acoustic treatment and advice ...................................................................... 99
6.1.6.2.7.2 — Time limits for offers of acoustic treatment................................................. 100
6.1.6.2.7.2 — Acoustic treatment: $30,000 inflation adjusted cap .................................... 100
6.1.6.2.7.3 — Airport Noise Liaison Committee ................................................................ 100
6.11.14 — Airport Noise Management Plan ...................................................................... 102
6.11.5 — Acoustic Treatment Programme ......................................................................... 102
Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 102
Consequential change to Rural rules for sensitive activities in engine testing noise contour
............................................................................................................................................ 104
Various noise contours and various definitions most appropriate .................................... 104
Changes to figures, appendices and planning maps .......................................................... 105
Section 32AA — 6.7 Aircraft Protection............................................................................ 105
Protection surfaces ............................................................................................................ 105
Birdstrike............................................................................................................................ 111
Section 32AA — 6.2 Temporary activities, buildings and events .................................... 124
Overview of the Revised Version ....................................................................................... 124
Remaining issues raised by submissions............................................................................ 127
Hands Off Hagley concerns ............................................................................................... 127
Overall effect of provisions on Hagley Park, particularly as to temporary activities ....... 131
Proposed Objective (now 6.2.2.1) ...................................................................................... 132
Policies ............................................................................................................................... 132
Re-named ‘How to interpret and apply the rules’ ............................................................. 135
Proposed permitted restricted and discretionary activity Rules 6.2.2.2.1 and discretionary
activity Rule 6.2.2.2.4 ........................................................................................................ 136
Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 140
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
5
Specific Purpose (Golf Resort) Zone .................................................................................. 143
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 145
Schedule 1 ............................................................................................................................. 148
Schedule 2 ............................................................................................................................. 377
Schedule 3 ............................................................................................................................. 427
Schedule 4 ............................................................................................................................. 430

General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
6
INTRODUCTION
[1] This decision1 (‘decision’) is one of a series by the Independent Hearings Panel
(‘Hearings Panel’/‘Panel’)2 for the formulation of the Christchurch Replacement District Plan
(‘CRDP’). It follows our hearing of submissions and evidence concerning Christchurch City
Council’s (‘Council’) notified Stages 2 and 3 General Rules and Procedures proposals
(‘Notified Version’). It deals with:
(a) Noise (6.1, Stage 3), including:
(i) the general noise provisions; and
(ii) airport noise, including from aircraft engine testing;
(b) Temporary activities, buildings and events (6.2, Stages 2 and 3);
(c) Aircraft protection (6.7, Stage 2), including:
(i) aircraft protection surfaces (the ‘in air’ protections) and runway and
protection surfaces (the ‘on ground’ obstacle protections); and
(ii) birdstrike.
[2] It also deals with the following (which we include in our references to ‘Notified Version’
and ‘Revised Version’):
(a) Related definitions;
(b) Noise sensitive activities in the Special Purpose (Tertiary Education) zone;3 and

1 Further background on the review process, pursuant to the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch
Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 (‘the OIC’/‘the Order’) is set out in the introduction to Decision 1,
concerning Strategic Directions and Strategic Outcomes, 26 February 2015 (‘Strategic Directions
decision’).
2 Members of the Hearings Panel who heard and determined this proposal are set out on the cover sheet.
3 Deferred for determination in this decision, as recorded in Pre-hearing Report and Directions – Stage 2
Chapter 21: Specific Purpose Zone Proposal (part) (and related definitions and associated planning
maps), 10 August 2015, at [5].
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
7
(c) The Specific Purpose (Golf Resort) zone as it relates to Clearwater Golf Resort.
[3] The Panel’s companion Decision 56, released with this one, deals with other provisions
of the Notified Version.
Status of Revised Version and the Decision Version
[4] As we explain, for some topics, there were extensive processes of expert conferencing
and mediation that resulted in the Council making substantial changes in what it ultimately
proposed to us in its closing submissions (‘Revised Version’).4 Those changes were
particularly in relation to the topic of aircraft engine testing. Given that context, we treat the
Revised Version as effectively superseding the Notified Version, insofar as the Council’s
position is concerned. The changes we make to the Revised Version are in Schedules 1 and 2
(‘Decision Version’).5
Effect of decision and rights of appeal
[5] The Decision Version will become operative as part of the CRDP, as soon as reasonably
practicable, upon release of this decision and the expiry of the appeal period. 6
[6] Under the OIC,7 the following persons may appeal our decision to the High Court (within
the 20 working day time limit specified in the Order), but only on questions of law (and, for a
submitter, only in relation to matters raised in the submission):
(a) Any person who made a submission (and/or further submission) on the relevant
provisions of the Notified Version;
(b) The Council; and
(c) The Ministers.8

4 Closing submission for the Council, dated 27 July 2016.
5 Also included in Schedules 1 and 2 are provisions included in Chapter 6 by the Panel’s Companion
Decision 56.
6 We refer to and adopt Strategic Directions decision at [5]–[9] on this matter.
7 OIC, cl 19.
8 The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Minister for the Environment, acting jointly.
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
8
Provisions deferred
[7] This decision does not defer any matters, other than those subject to directions in [545](b)
and (c).
Identification of parts of Existing Plan to be replaced
[8] The OIC requires that our decision also identifies the parts of the existing Banks
Peninsula District Plan and existing Christchurch City Plan (together ‘Existing Plan’) that are
to be replaced by the Decision Version.9 We have had regard to what the Council identified
for replacement. However, that was in respect to the Notified Version which, as we have noted,
has been essentially superseded by the Revised Version insofar as the Council is concerned.
We identify that all general rules of the Existing Plan pertaining to this decision are replaced
by the Decision Version.
Conflicts of interest
[9] We have posted notice of any potential conflicts of interest on the Independent Hearings
Panel website.10 In the course of the hearing, it was identified on various occasions that
submitters were known to members of the Panel either through previous business associations
or through current or former personal associations. Because much of this decision is concerned
with matters concerning Christchurch International Airport Limited (‘CIAL’) and Hands Off
Hagley Inc, Hon. Sir John Hansen has recused himself from this decision.
[10] As has been disclosed, Judge Hassan acted for Transpower New Zealand Limited
(‘Transpower’) and CIAL prior to his judicial appointment. As Transpower and CIAL differed
on the matter of ‘protection surfaces’ in Sub-chapter 6.7 (Aircraft Protection), he re-enquired
of counsel and submitter representative, Mr Lawry, whether anyone would have any concerns
about his involvement in those matters. All counsel and Mr Lawry confirmed there were no
concerns. As such, Judge Hassan continued in these matters, which are addressed at [397]–
[422] of this decision.11

9 OIC, cl 13(3).
10 The website address is www.chchplan.ihp.govt.nz.
11 Transcript, page 592, line 43 to page 593, line 31.
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
9
___________________________________________________________________________
REASONS
___________________________________________________________________________
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
[11] The OIC directs that we hold a hearing on submissions on a proposal, and make a decision
on that proposal.12
[12] It sets out what we must and may consider in making that decision.13 It qualifies how
the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’) is to apply and modifies some of the RMA’s
provisions, both as to our decision-making criteria and processes.14 It directs us to comply with
s 23 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (‘CER Act’).15 The OIC also specifies
additional matters for our consideration.
[13] Decision 1 (Strategic Directions), which was not appealed, summarised the statutory
framework for that decision. 16 As it is materially the same for this decision, we apply the
analysis we gave of that framework in that decision as we address various issues in this
decision. On the requirements of ss 32 and 32AA of the RMA, we endorse and adopt [48]–
[54] of Decision 6 (Natural Hazards).17
Submissions
[14] In reaching our decision, we have considered all of the submissions on those provisions
of the Notified Version addressed in this decision. Several submitters exercised their right to

12 OIC, cl 12(1).
13 OIC, cl 14(1).
14 OIC, cl 5.
15 Our decision does not set out the text of various statutory provisions it refers to, as this would
significantly lengthen it. However, the electronic version of our decision includes hyperlinks to the New
Zealand Legislation website. By clicking the hyperlink, you will be taken to the section referred to on
that website. The CER Act was repealed and replaced by the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act
2016 (‘GCRA’), which came into force on 19 April 2016. However, s 148 of the GCRA provides that
the OIC continues to apply and the GCRA does not effect any material change to the applicable statutory
framework for our decision or to related Higher Order Documents. That is because s 147 of the GCRA
provides that the OIC continues in force. Further, Schedule 1 of the GCRA (setting out transitional,
savings and related provisions) specifies, in cl 10, that nothing in that Part affects or limits the application
of the Interpretation Act 1999 which, in turn, provides that the OIC continues in force under the now-
repealed CER Act (s 20) and preserves our related duties (s 17).
16 At [25]–[28] and [40]–[62].
17 Decision 6: Natural Hazards — Stage 1, 17 July 2015, pages 20–21.
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park
10
be heard. Schedule 3 lists those witnesses who gave evidence for various parties, and submitter
representatives. We appreciate the efforts of several residents concerned about airport engine
testing noise to co-ordinate their representation, and their calling of expert evidence. We deal
with the issues that submitters raised (and their related representations, legal submissions, and
evidence) in the context of our s 32AA evaluations of the different provisions, in topic order.
Council’s s 32 Report
[15] As required, we have had regard to the Council’s s 32 Report,18 but it carries little weight
(beyond some non-contentious provisions) in view of the extent to which the Revised Version
changes the Notified Version.
Relationship of objectives to evaluation of other provisions under s 32AA
[16] Under s 32AA RMA, we must evaluate the provisions for this decision in terms of
whether these “are the most appropriate way to achieve the [relevant CRDP] objectives”, and
the objectives for whether they are most appropriate for achieving the RMA’s purpose.
Further, ss 75 and 76 RMA describe a hierarchical relationship between objectives, policies
and rules; namely that rules are to implement and achieve objectives and policies and policies
are to implement objectives.
[17] Our evaluation of provisions is against the objectives that we determine as the most
appropriate for Chapter 6 General Rules and Procedures, and other relevant objectives now in
effect. Chapter 6 is intended to work in conjunction with various zone or topic specific chapters
and with Chapter 3 Strategic Directions. Therefore, our evaluation of whether provisions are
the most appropriate for achieving related objectives includes the objectives of those other
chapters.
[18] Our following evaluation to determine the most appropriate provisions does not strictly
follow the order of the Revised Version, as it is more logical to deal with all noise and
Christchurch Airport matters together.

18 Stage 2: Draft Section 32 Report, Chapter 6 General Rules and Procedures, and separate Addendum —
Noise, Appendix 2.3 Engine Testing Provisions; Stage 3: Section 32 Report, Chapter 6 General Rules
and Procedures Addendum.
General Rules and Procedures (Part) — Noise, Airport matters and Hagley Park