introduction.. statement of facts and issues
extracts from the Proposed District Plan
issues to be heard
careys bay proposed noise management regime

Amend Rule 21.5.1 (iv)(d) to read 
[General noise limits do not apply to:]
(d) Noise generated within the Port 1 Zone at Port Chalmers provided that Rule 21.5.2 is complied with.

Amend Rule 21.5.2 to read…
Rule 21.5.2 – 
Performance Standards and Noise Management Plan – Port Chalmers 

Part 1 – Noise Limits
(i) The maximum limit of noise generated by the combination of activities taking place within the Port 1 Zone and the Ships' Berthing Area as shown on the attached Map 70A [the Ships' Berthing Area is that part of the coastal marine area included within the predicted 65 dBA Ldn rolling 5-day average contour computed for the busy 5-day scenario, bordered in blue on Map70A.] shall not exceed:

• (a) 65 dBA Ldn measured at any point on, or within 3 metres of, the Port Noise Control Boundary (Central and Peripheral) as shown on the attached Map 70A [red and yellow lines].
• (b) 65Day/55Night dBA L10 measured at any point on, or within 3 metres of, the Port Noise Control Boundary (Central) identified on the attached Map 70A [red line], and 55Day/45Night dBA L10 measured at any point on, or within 3 metres of, the Port Noise Control Boundary (Peripheral) identified on the attached Map 70A [yellow line]. Day-time L10 levels shall apply between 7.00 am and 11.00 pm on any day. Night-time L10 levels shall apply from 11.00 pm on any night until 7.00 am the following day.
• (c) Between 9.00 pm on any night and 7.00 am the following day, 75 dBA Lmax measured at any point on, or within 3 metres of, the Port Noise Control Boundary (Central and Peripheral) as shown on the attached Map 70A [red and yellow lines].

Part 2 – Noise Management Plan

(vi) The port operator shall create and implement a Noise Management Plan that meets with the approval of the Dunedin City Council, that shall be revised from time to time, and that at all times contains, but is not limited to, the following requirements all of which shall be complied with:

(a) Acoustic Treatment and Purchase Option

Mitigation Areas
When the Mitigation Threshold Limits set out below are equalled or exceeded, according to the Mitigation Threshold System (also set out below), then the Mitigation Package (also set out below) shall be made available to every residential property owner within the associated Mitigation Area as shown on the attached Map 70A [with purple borders]. 

If in future years a given threshold is not reached, then the Mitigation Package will no longer need to be made available to that area. The Mitigation Package will not apply to a new residence, or to any additions or alterations on an existing residence, unless the construction was completed prior to: in areas A and B, the operative date of this district plan; and in area C, the date of the Mitigation Package first being made available to area C.

Mitigation Threshold Limits
  Mitigation Area A -  Threshold 55
  Mitigation Area B -  Threshold 60
  Mitigation Area C -  Threshold 65

[The Mitigation Areas are based on Ldn contours, using predicted rolling 5-day average contours computed for the busy 5-day scenario, (with some minor adjustments to take into consideration local knowledge of noise effects), as follows:
  Area A Threshold 55 Between contours 65 and 60
  Area B Threshold 60 Between contours 60 and 55
  Area C Threshold 65 Between contours 55 and 50]

Mitigation Threshold System
The mitigation threshold is equalled or exceeded if over a period of one calendar year the Ldn rolling 5 day average measured according to Rule 21.5.2(i)-(iv) equals or exceeds the threshold at any time of day on more than 60 days. The assessment of thresholds shall be carried out annually by the Dunedin City Council, the first assessment to cover the year commencing on the operative date of this district plan, each assessment to be completed within 20 working days of the end of the assessment year. For the purpose of this clause a day is the period from midnight to midnight. During the year being assessed the requirement of 60 days shall be reduced by one day for every whole day for which relevant noise data is not available.

Mitigation Package
The following options are to be made available on request to residential property owners within the relevant Mitigation Area, to be paid for by the port operator:

OPTION A – Acoustic Treatment
For any dwelling, installation of acoustic insulation from external noise so as to meet an indoor design level of 40 dBA Ldn within any kitchen, dining area, living room, study or bedroom.

OPTION B – Property Purchase
Purchase of the affected residential property at a price that allows the owner to relocate to a property of similar quality, but without the adverse effects of industrial noise. The purchase price shall cover removal costs and also compensate the owner for the inconvenience of relocation.

If the owner and purchaser cannot reach an agreed price by negotiation then the following method shall be used to determine the purchase price:

The purchase price shall equal the Agreed Value established according to the method set out below, plus 15% (as compensation), plus removal expenses. 

An appropriate reference property shall be selected by registered valuers, being a property in a similar neighbourhood, of similar qualities, but not adversely affected by industrial noise. The valuers shall determine the value of the reference property, and that shall be the Agreed Value. If necessary two reference properties can be selected, in which case the average value of the reference properties shall be the Agreed Value.

(b) Monitoring
Continuous monitoring of noise shall take place, with at least one noise monitor provided by the port operator permanently located at or within 3 metres of the point marked Noise Monitoring Station on Map 70A, providing continuous real-time results available to the public, and from which it is possible to assess the degree of compliance with Rule 25.5.2 (i)-(iv) and to assess the mitigation thresholds in Rule 25.5.2. (vi)(a).

(c) Port Noise Liaison Committee
A Port Noise Liaison Committee shall be established by the port operator to facilitate a co-operative approach to managing port noise.

(d) Response to Breaches
Where a breach of Rule 25.5.2 (i)-(v) takes place, the immediate response will be to cease operations at a single berth, and to keep progressively shutting down berths until the problem is solved.

(e) Noise Control at Source
The Noise Management Plan will implement methods to reduce and control noise emissions at source as soon as possible after a nuisance noise source has been identified, with the aim of progressively reducing noise levels wherever practicable.

Noise Contour Plan 
(as proposed by the Careys Bay Association Inc. in association with their proposed noise management regime).

Careys Bay Association Incorporated
Explanation of Proposed Noise Regime
for proposed Dunedin City Council District Plan
version 5 dated 27/6/2001

General principles

1. If the elements of a reasonable regime cannot be implemented in the district plan, but can be implemented in a resource consent, then a resource consent should be required.
REASON  It is contrary to the principles of the RMA to fail to place controls on an adverse effect because requiring a resource consent is seen as an imposition on the industrial user.
2. Basing a regime on what is believed to be "existing use rights" is simplistic. We have based our regime not on authorising existing use rights, but on authorising a level of noise emissions that would permit the port to continue to operate economically.
REASON  Care must be taken to create a regime that does not force the port operator into long term reliance on existing use rights. This potentially prevents conditions in the regime being enforced, while introducing an undesirable level of uncertainty for the port operator. However, the precise extent and nature of any existing use rights is subject to dispute. This makes any attempt to simply authorise existing use rights fraught with uncertainty. Consideration must be given to the factor of existing use rights, but ultimately a good regime must be based on what is reasonable, and not on what are perceived to be existing use rights.
3. Basing a regime solely on the general noise limits of 50Dt/40Nt dBA, 45SP dBA L10 is inappropriate.
REASON  Operating the port that quietly is not economically viable. It is our objective to permit the port to continue to operate economically. (However, we expect the port operator to incur costs for noise management and mitigation.)
4. There exists an area that lies between the edge of the Port 1 Zone and the rest of the city where the general noise limits cannot apply. What applies in this area must be a compromise whereby the port operator is exempt from the general noise limits in exchange for a set of measures designed to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the noise.
REASON  The RMA permits an adverse effect to be authorised, provided that measures are put in place to avoid, remedy, or mitigate that adverse effect.
5. We believe that the Dunedin City Council has the responsibility to make sure that the measures designed to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the noise are in place, as they are the authority which proposes to authorise the adverse effect. We also believe that the City should take an active and well defined role in monitoring and enforcement.
REASON  Although the RMA requires these things as part of the statutory responsibilities of the City, we wish to emphasise our expectation that these things will be done because we feel that the City is proposing a plan that either neglects these matters, or gives insufficient certainty to their being provided.

Specific parts of our proposed regime

Map 70A
Map 70A is based on Map 70 of the Proposed Dunedin District Plan.

• The blue border of the Ships' Berthing Area is drawn following Map 70 alone. It follows the Mean High Water line and the Port Noise Boundary where it crosses water. 
• The red and yellow lines of the Port Noise Control Boundary are drawn following Map 70 alone. They follow the original Port Noise Boundary where it crosses land, and then follow the edge of the adjoining residential zones or the coastline as appropriate.
• The purple and green lines bordering the Noise Mitigation Areas and marking the Port Noise Outer Boundary are based on the contours in Figs 12 and 14 "predicted Ldn contours for Busy 5 day scenario" and "40/45 dBA L10 CONTOURS" in the evidence of Keith Ballagh, Submission by Port Otago Limited (Submitter 2890) to the Environmental Issues Section of the proposed Dunedin City Council District Plan, 20 August 1998. Where Fig 12 was incomplete Fig 14 was used as a guide. The purple line between Mitigation Area B and Mitigation Area C is the original Port Outer Control Boundary from Map 70. The contours were adjusted to cadastral boundaries, and some minor adjustments were made based on local knowledge of the effects on noise on the areas in question.

Rule 21.5.2(i)(a) 
 As in the DCC proposed plan

Rule 21.5.2(i)(b) 
 Ldn averages are inappropriate as a measure of nuisance noise at a port. They are appropriate for an airport. An airport has a timetable (more or less). One can predict the effect on the rolling 5 day average of cancelling a weekly flight, or changing to a quieter aircraft for a particular service. Hence, when Ldn levels are exceeded one can make a plan to fix the problem. With ports, shipping movements and noise levels of ships are essentially random. Controlling the average does not control the peak levels, and nor can the onset of noise be arranged to be compatible with human waking and sleeping patterns. Breaches cannot necessarily be acted upon before the offending operation ceases anyway, only to recommence at a later, but unpredictable, date. In the airport model the Ldn will certainly be affected by each daytime event, but this is not necessarily so with a port. At certain times and locations the noise of traffic and other noise compliant industry may drown a significant amount of the port noise. The inappropriateness of the Ldn control in the Port model is further pointed to by NZS 6809:1999, which uses the airport noise control model, and then states (in C6.5.3) "However, unlike people's reactions to aircraft noise, there is no significant research into reaction to noise from port operations." Given that there is no research to support the use of Ldn in the control of port noise, we fall back on accepted practice for other industries, that is NZS 6802:1991, which would have noise, controlled by way of L10 and Lmax measures.
 We accept that the predicted 65 dBA Ldn busy five-day scenario rolling five day average contour is an appropriate boundary for certain control purposes, and we will refer to it as the Port Noise Control Boundary. This provides certainty as to the appropriate place for compliance monitoring. At Port Chalmers there are apparently no residences within this contour. At ports where there are residences within this contour a special arrangement would need to be made for those residences.
 We also maintain that the 55/45 dBA L10 controls, with 11pm-7am night time, placed as part of the reclamation consents for the latest of the reclamations at Boiler Point and Back Beach should remain as part of the new district plan.  It is not appropriate to remove conditions of consent as part of a district plan review unless circumstances have changed. In this case, the reclamations were built in the full knowledge that the noise limits applied to their use, and the circumstances remain unchanged.
 We believe that a limit of 65 dBA L10 should be sufficient for operation of the port. According to the evidence of Mr Goodwin given in the Hall Stevens case 63 dBA L10 is typical during normal loading activities (paragraph 18), and other data seems to support this. 

Rule 21.5.2(i)(c)
 As recommended by NZS 6802.

Rule 21.5.2(ii)
 The only noise standards to be referred to in the plan are those that existed at the time the review of the plan was first notified.

Rule 21.5.2(iii)
 As in the DCC proposed plan

Rule 21.5.2(iv)
 This rule is the logical outcome of combining two factors:
When measuring noise levels, it is generally impossible to distinguish between noise generated in the coastal marine area by ship berthing and loading operations, and noise generated in the district by loading and cargo handling operations.
This plan cannot restrict or control any activities in the coastal marine area.

Rule 21.5.2(v)
 The area over which noise emissions from the port have an adverse effect on the community is that area where you can expect the general noise limits to be exceeded. This area can be approximately defined as the area between the 65 dBA Ldn rolling five-day average contour, and the 45 dBA Ldn rolling five-day average contour. The reason for this is that typical readings at the 45 dBA Ldn contour are expected to be approximately 45 dBA L10 when readings at the 65 dBA Ldn contour are 65 dBA L10. This is supported by the topographic similarity between the contours in Figs 12 and 14 "predicted Ldn contours for Busy 5 day scenario" and "40/45 dBA L10 CONTOURS" in the evidence of Keith Ballagh, Submission by Port Otago Limited (Submitter 2890) to the Environmental Issues Section of the proposed Dunedin City Council District Plan, 20 August 1998. 45 is the shoulder period maximum for the general noise limits. While it is likely that the 50Dt/40Nt 45SP dBA L10 controls would be exceeded on occasions at this contour line, it is unlikely that this exceedance would exceed 5 dBA. On balance we feel that this line is an appropriate line for indicating the extent of the adverse effect of port noise.
 This rule places a definite limit on the area, and enables property owners in the port vicinity to determine the true noise situation for their property from an examination of Map 70A.

Rule 21.5.2(vi)(a)
  This long term (twelve month) assessment of adverse effect is necessary because the mitigation package is itself a long term solution, and represents a significant capital investment in the viability of the port. Consequently, it is unreasonable to require the port to activate the mitigation package until a pattern has emerged over at least twelve months that clearly demonstrates that the package is needed.
  It is important that the port operator bears the cost of the mitigation of the noise.
  One consequence of this mitigation package is that it envisions the possible destruction of significant parts of the community. For this reason our preference is for acoustic treatment rather than property purchase. However, we believe that it is important to give property owners the choice. 
  We have used the principle that the mitigation package is appropriate within the 50 dBA Ldn contour. This is 5 dBA lower than the 55 dBA Ldn level used for airports. The reason for this is that we have applied what is essentially a 5 dBA penalty reflecting the adverse tonal characteristics and unpredictably irregular noise of ports, especially the possibility of port noise preventing a night's sleep. For the same reason we have specified an indoor design sound level of 40 dBA Ldn for acoustic treatment of residences. This is the same level used elsewhere in the district plan in Rule 8.7.2(xi) and is consistent with NZS 6809:1999 6.5.2, but 5 dBA below the upper limit of acceptability in that standard. 
  NZS 6809:1999 calls for an indoor design sound level measured in dBA Ldn. We may wish noise insulation performance to be specified in terms of octave band spectra, but we have too little octave band data at present to permit us to develop a definite position on this. We wish to reserve our position on the actual method of specifying noise insulation performance until our acoustical consultant has had the opportunity to access more noise data, both predicted and actual.
  New residences, additions, and alterations will be required to be acoustically treated at the expense of the property owner within the 55 dBA contour. This is provided for in Rule 8.7.2(xi) of the district plan.

Rule 21.5.2(vi)(a)-(e)
  We see these rules as necessary to ensure compliance and to ensure that the Noise Management Plan is mandatory.