|
|
 |
|
DUNEDIN
CITY PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS ... RELATING TO MANAGEMENT OF
NOISE ASSOCIATED WITH PORT ACTIVITIES AT PORT CHALMERS
Links
to Excerpts from the schedule of the proposed noise management hearings
before the Environment Court set to start on 27 August 2001:
 introduction..
statement of facts and issues
extracts
from the Proposed District Plan
issues
to be heard
careys
bay proposed noise management regime
Issues to be
heard
45.
The parties are agreed that the issue needing to be determined by the Court
is the most appropriate means of controlling noise emissions from port
activities at Port Chalmers to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects
of such noise on the health and amenity of residents near the port without
imposing unreasonable restrictions on the ability of the port to operate.
46.
The
Council’s position is that:
-
(i) the
current noise control regime in the Proposed Plan should be retained, but
strengthened by the addition of short term noise limits and backed by an
appropriate noise management plan and monitoring protocols;
-
(ii) the
management plan and monitoring protocols must be binding but may need to
remain outside the Plan;
-
(iii)
the management plan would need to include clear processes for identifying
and addressing problem noise and for community liaison and dealing with
complaints. In this respect it would require greater detail than is included
in the draft circulated by Port Otago Limited at the end of May
-
(iv) it
would be appropriate to amend definitions to make them consistent with
terminology used in the port noise standard
-
(v) it
would be appropriate to pursue insertion of complementary rules in the
Regional Plan: Coast if this is possible.
47.
The
reasons for this position are:
-
(i) the
Ldn regime in the Plan is the most practical, effective and efficient method
for managing port noise at Port Chalmers appropriate in that it imposes
noise limits which are consistent with the need to maintain health and
amenity of residents while enabling the port to continue lawfully established
activities,
-
(ii) the
addition of short term noise limits would make the controls more consistent
with the New Zealand Port Noise Standard, would better maintain the amenity
of residents and would provide benefits in enforceability,
-
(iii)
an agreed management plan and monitoring protocols would enable the port
operators and the community to work together to find appropriate solutions
to noise problems which arise at the port;
-
(iv) greater
flexibility in reaching appropriate solutions is likely to be available
if the details of the management plan and monitoring protocols are kept
outside the District Plan;
-
(v) provision
in the Regional Plan: Coast for complementary controls in the coastal marine
area would be desirable for integrated management of noise emissions from
activities on both land and harbour sides of the coastal marine area boundary.
The
text in red below is the DCC's attempt to summarise the Careys Bay decision.
...
For
complete Careys Bay regime and explanatory notes click
here.
48.
The
referrers position is that the regime in the Proposed Plan should only
be maintained if it is made subject to the following:
-
(i) inclusion
of controls on the ships’ berthing area in the coastal marine area;
-
(ii) inclusion
of further noise control boundaries;
-
(iii)
inclusion of short term noise limits;
-
(iv) a
compulsory noise management plan incorporating:
-
(a) provision
by the port operator for acoustic treatment or purchase of affected properties
in identified areas;
-
(b) continuous
monitoring at an identified site, with real-time results available to the
public;
-
(c) establishment
of a Port Noise Liaison Committee to facilitate a cooperative approach
to noise management;
-
(d) immediate
response to rule breaches by progressive closure of operations until the
problem is solved;
-
(e) methods
to progressively reduce and control noise wherever practicable, with identification
of all identified nuisance noise sources and a record of steps taken.
In
the absence of these, the referrer’s position is that a resource consent
should be required for emission of noise above that permitted by existing
use rights.
49.
The
reasons for this position are:
-
(i) the
regime should be based on enabling the port to continue to operate economically,
rather than on existing use rights
-
(ii) the
regime must be a compromise allowing an adverse noise effect to occur,
but including measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate that effect
-
(iii)
the Council has a responsibility to ensure the necessary measures are in
place and to monitor and enforce.
50.
The
position of Port Otago Limited and South Wood Limited? is that they
support the provisions in the Proposed Plan.
51.
The
position of Public Health South is similar to the Council’s position.
52.
The
parties are agreed that the following matters are not at issue:
-
(i) that
the port contributes significantly to the economy of Dunedin and the region;
-
(ii) That
the port would not be economically viable if it had to operate in a way
which protected the general residential noise limits (50Dt/40Nt dBA, 45SP
dBA L10).
|
