implemented in the 2021-2022 monitoring year.
A glossary of common abbreviations and scientific terms, and a bibliography, are presented at the end of
the report.
1.1.3 The Resource Management Act 1991 and monitoring
The RMA primarily addresses environmental ‘effects’ which are defined as positive or adverse, temporary or
permanent, past, present or future, or cumulative. Effects may arise in relation to:
a. the neighbourhood or the wider community around an activity, and may include
Name ………………………………………….……
Address ………………………………………….……
………………………………………….……
Email …………………………………………..…..
Phone ………………………………………….……
Subscription: $ …..………………………………..…
Donation: $ …..……………………………..……
` Donations over $5 are tax deductible and
receipts will be issued
Total: $ …..……………………….…….……
Our Bank Account Number is 15-3953-0497531-00.
Please use your name as a reference.
Email your completed form to pukeiti@pukeiti.com
or post to: The Secretary, Pukeiti Rhododendron
Management Act (1991) and monitoring
The RMA primarily addresses environmental ‘effects’ which are defined as positive or adverse, temporary or
permanent, past, present or future, or cumulative. Effects may arise in relation to:
a. the neighbourhood or the wider community around an activity, and may include cultural and socio-
economic effects;
b. physical effects on the locality, including landscape, amenity and visual effects;
c. ecosystems, including effects on plants, animals, or habitats,
the 2021-2022 monitoring year.
A glossary of common abbreviations and scientific terms, and a bibliography, are presented at the end of
the report.
1.1.3 The Resource Management Act 1991 and monitoring
The RMA primarily addresses environmental ‘effects’ which are defined as positive or adverse, temporary or
permanent, past, present or future, or cumulative. Effects may arise in relation to:
a. the neighbourhood or the wider community around an activity, and may include cultural and
had been noted during complaint investigations at complainant’s properties as well as at
the site entrance. This occurs, on occasion, during loading and unloading exercises, when the material is
agitated, or fresh from the supplier.
More than 20 complaints were received by the Council during this monitoring period, relating to
objectionable odour from the facility, beyond the boundary of the site. On one occasion (2 October 2020)
objectionable odour was identified by Council Officer which
2016
Counsel and parties:
J M Savage for Craddock Farms Limited
LFMuldowney and L E J Bielby for P L and R G Berry - s274 party
J C Brabant for Wai Shing Holdings Ltd and ors - s274'Dartie
PT Milieu-s274 party
G C Lanning and M McCullough for the Auckland Council
DECISION ON APPEAL
Decision issued: 2 j MAR 2016
The appeal is declined
Costs are reserved
/!%^w%:\
-'' ^'^ '''.. ^''. ~ '..
L/ SW\^
IIFillSJi
my^W
':i^'cn\^ ^:
page
Introduction and background
[1] In
Regional Air Quality Plan for Taranaki (RAQP) provided significant adverse effects
on the amenity and aesthetic qualities of air are avoided, remedied or mitigated to
the extent possible.3
The case for Airport Farm is that it operates to at least the industry best practice.
Of most relevance, the changes proposed will significantly reduce the likelihood
(frequency, intensity and duration) of detectable offsite odours such that these
levels will be acceptable for the receiving
serious (see [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]).
(6) Section 104(1) of the Act requires a consideration of “any actual
or potential effects”. The Environment Court’s reference to “accumulative
effects” was unnecessary, and invited confusion and uncertainty
(see [160], [161]).
Dye v Auckland Regional Council [2002] 1 NZLR 337,
[2001] NZRMA 513 (CA) referred to.
Other cases mentioned in judgment
Appealing Wanaka Inc v Queenstown Lakes District Council
[2015] NZEnvC 139.
228 [2017]High
Judge concluded that the appellant had not
identified any deficiency in the relevant planning instmments to justify resort to
pt 2 in accordance with King Salmon.
30 " Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on the following
questions of law: (a) Did the High Court err in holding that the Environment
Court was not able or required to consider pt 2 of the Resource Management
Act 1991 directly and was bound by its expression in the relevant planning
documents? (b) If the first question
resultant
changes to the baseline monitoring programme, they have been included in this report. This is to provide
some continuity and an indication of the further work required should the project proceed.
No rating is given for environmental or administrative performance as the project was on hold for the year
under review and monitoring was for the purpose of baseline monitoring as oppose to compliance
monitoring of the exercise of any of the consents.
This report includes recommendations