This page contains information about the appeals lodged on the Plan Change; the status of the appeals and the consent orders approved by the Environment Court that resolved the appeals.
As at July 2018, all the appeals have been resolved by consent order except for the Mackenzie appeal relating to the scope of the Plan Change (detail below) which awaits a decision of the High Court.
Now that most appeals are resolved, the Plan Change provisions that are not under appeal can be treated as 'effectively operative’.
The proposed provisions still under appeal have legal effect but decision-making processes affected by these provisions take account of the fact that the provisions are under appeal.
The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Boomerang Farms Ltd & M V Wratten, M F & L K Manson and R Bradley.
Essentially the rule notified at ‘decisions’ stage remains, except that in the Rural 1 and 2 zones:
The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Horticulture NZ relating to:
The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Ewing Poultry Ltd.
The order differentiates between the setback for sheds and enclosures that house poultry and poultry body part/offal processing and composting activity. The setback for sheds and enclosures from farm boundaries was reduced from 170m to 100m.
The appeal and consent order only addressed setbacks for poultry farming activities from farm boundaries in the Rural 1 zone.
Proposed Variation 2 to PC60 proposes to:
The consent order resolved appeal requests submitted by Fulton Hogan Ltd and Boomerang Farms Ltd & M V Wratten.
The consent order amended the rule to:
Variation 2 proposes to extend the addition of ‘home occupation’ to Rural 2 and 3 and the Rural Residential zone.
To help understanding of the Plan during this appeal period, below is a link to the parts of the proposed Plan Change affected by the appeals. The proposed provisions that can be ‘treated as effectively’ operative are shown in red, while the proposed provisions that have legal effect but are under appeal are highlighted in yellow.
Note: These documents are for guidance only. Please check with the Environment Court for the latest status of appeals (tel: 04 9188300).
A list of Plan Change 60 appeals that Council knows about as at 24 February 2017 is listed below.
Please note that this list may be incomplete. Sometimes Council receives copies of the appeals several days after they are filed with the Court and sometimes it does not receive a copy at all. Please check directly with the Environment Court in Wellington to obtain up-to-date and complete information about appeals filed against Plan Change 60 (phone 04 9188300).
The provisions appealed against are:
(a) The changes to rules 17.5.3 2(e) and 22.214.171.124(f) which provide for a 30m setback for habitable buildings from internal boundaries in the Rural 1 and Rural 3 zones. The appellants request that the rules are deleted and a 10m setback is provided for.
(b) Rule 126.96.36.199(a)(xiv) which limits the parking and storage of more than two heavy vehicles (other than those directly associated with plant and animal production) in the Rural 1 zone. The appellants request that the rule is deleted.
Fulton Hogan Ltd has appealed the provision in condition 188.8.131.52(a)(xiv), the similar provisions in the Rural 2, 3 and Rural Residential zones and the temporary activity provisions in 184.108.40.206A that limits the maintenance, parking or storage of heavy vehicles not associated with plant and animal production activity. The reason for the appeal is that the provisions preclude the temporary storage of vehicles when undertaking works, i.e., what constitutes a “temporary” activity is not specified in the Plan.
Ewing Poultry Ltd has appealed the provision in condition 220.127.116.11(n) and the equivalent provision in the Rural 2, 3 and Rural Residential zones that states that setbacks for intensive livestock farming that is poultry farming is 170m from site boundaries. The reason for the appeal is that the relevant definitions do not distinguish between small/free-range poultry farming and intensive poultry farming in cages, barns or sheds and it is inappropriate to have a setback of 170m for free-range farming.
Horticulture NZ has appealed the following provisions and requested in its submission:
The Mansons are appealing all the provisions in 17.5.3, 17.6.3, 17 7.3 and 17.8.3 that increase the boundary setback for dwellings/habitable buildings from 5 metres to 30 metres in the Rural 1, 2, 3 and Rural Residential zones.
Ralph Bradley is appealing provisions in 18.104.22.168 (kb), 22.214.171.124 (e)(i), and 17.6.3 (n)(i) that increase the boundary setback for dwellings/habitable buildings from 5 metres to 30 metres in the Rural 1 and 2 zones.
Catherine Mackenzie is appealing that PC 60 did not remove ‘Awaroa’ from the locations referred to in Rule 126.96.36.199 which prohibit subdivision in various locations, including the Awaroa Rural Residential zone.