|
Planning,
Environment and Parks Committee
30 March 2023
|
|
Helicopter
Activity - Compliance and Monitoring update; findings and options
File No.: CP2023/01540
Te take mō te
pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To
advise the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee of options available to
address helicopter activity in the Auckland region as directed by Planning Committee Resolution PLA2022/40
(e).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. During
late 2021 and 2022, concerns were raised by members of the Planning Committee
and the Waiheke, Aotea/Great Barrier and Waitematā local boards about the
number of resource consents for helipads that have been approved, and the noise
effects of the helicopter activity. Concerns were
registered about the capacity of the regulatory framework rules to assess all
effects (climate change and sites of significance to mana whenua being
particularly highlighted); and whether there was adequate input from the community
and mana whenua in terms of public notification. The local boards also
questioned the level of compliance of consent holders with their resource
consent conditions. The local boards sought the implementation of a compliance
and monitoring programme and requested plan changes to strengthen the Auckland
Council District Plan – Hauraki Gulf Islands Section (HGI Plan) and
Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) rules for helipads.
3. A
report responding to the local boards’ notices of motion was provided to
the Planning Committee at its meeting on 5 May 2022. Planning Committee Resolution PLA2022/40 directed further investigation into
helicopter activity in the Auckland region to assist with determination of next
steps. Planning Committee Resolution PLA2022/40 (c) noted the commencement of a
project to analyse consent conditions from helicopter resource consent holders
on Waiheke Island and central Auckland to determine the extent of compliance and
assist with an evidence-base of effects.
4. A
memorandum titled ‘Update on Helicopter Compliance and Monitoring
Project’ was provided to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on
21 December 2022 which noted that the research component of the compliance and
monitoring project would include some data collection from the 2022/2023
Christmas /New Year period. The report has been completed and is provided as a
separate agenda item to this meeting. The findings of the investigation provide
a factual input for this report. The findings are summarised in Part A of this
report.
5. The
results of the Compliance and Monitoring team investigation into consent
holders’ compliance with helipad consents conditions shows that there is
a high level of compliance. An analysis of flight logs for a one-year period
(April 2021 to April 2022) shows that flight numbers and flight paths
correspond to the limitations set by the consent conditions. Non-compliance is
largely limited to deviation from the model of helicopter used, generally due
to upgrading of the helicopter to a more modern (and typically quieter)
aircraft.
6. The
flight data was also analysed to provide a general overview of helicopter
flight patterns[1].
The analysis shows two tiers of helicopter activity in urban Auckland. The
first tier shows high levels of activity in North Shore (50% of all activity)
and Howick (25% of all activity), which are the busiest locations in urban
Auckland. A lower second tier of activity applies to other parts of urban
Auckland (considered busy based on the presence of commercial helipads). The
level of helicopter activity ranges from 2% to 7% of all helicopter activity in
the Auckland urban area. Helicopter activity for Waiheke sits within this
second tier. Helicopter activity on Waiheke is approximately 3% of all
helicopter activity in urban Auckland.
7. Focusing on Waiheke, the highest volumes of activity[2] (landings) occurred
in December (264), January (248), February (189) and March (145). The
proportion of Waiheke helicopter activity that is airport and emergency
services activity is approximately 15% to 20% of all helicopter activity in the
Waiheke area[3].
The proportion of helicopter activity for Waiheke that is
overflying (does not land on Waiheke) is approximately 10%. In a busy holiday
period this may increase to as much as 40%[4].
8. The level of helicopter activity for Waiheke has been discussed with
the Civil Aviation Authority and in their view, it is not considered to be
unsafe.
9. The Compliance and Monitoring Report includes a review of
council’s complaints register. The number of complaints received about
helicopter activity is low. There were 11 complaints received in 2020; six
complaints received in 2021; and nine complaints received in 2022.
10. Planning
Committee Resolution PLA2022/40 (e) directed that a report be prepared to
advise the committee on options available to address helicopter activity in the
Auckland region based on analysis of the compliance and monitoring
investigation. Part B of this report sets out four potential options for
management of helicopter activity. The findings of the Compliance and
Monitoring report are just one of a range of factors that are considered in the
analysis of options. The four options are:
11. Option
1: Defer until AUP Review. This option defers a review of helicopter
planning regulations until the next review of the AUP commencing from 2026
under current legislation.
12. Option
2: Early implementation of National Planning Standard 15 (NPS15) for
helicopter noise measurement, ahead of when it is required by the National
Planning Standards (2019). This option involves amending only the HGI Plan and
would involve removing provisions in the HGI Plan which allow the use of a
three-day rolling average to measure helicopter noise, recognising that the
NPS15 does not allow averaging. This option would manage noise effects in line
with the National Planning Standards and align the HGI Plan and AUP in relation
to noise measurement. No change would be needed for the AUP as it does not use
a rolling average to measure helicopter noise.
13. This
option could occur in a short time-frame because s58I(3) of the Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA) specifies that an amendment
required by the National Planning Standards must not be subject to the
processes set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA; and that an amendment must be
publicly notified not later than five working days after the amendment is
made. This means that the amendments implemented are not open to
challenge through submissions or appeals.
14. Option
3: A detailed plan modification to HGI Plan only; replacing Restricted
Discretionary Activity status with Non-complying Activity status (in
residential zones); and Discretionary Activity status (in non-residential
zones). As in Option 2, this option would also remove the three-day rolling
average for the measurement of helicopter noise.
15. Option
4: Plan change to the AUP and a plan modification to the HGI Plan -
introducing Prohibited Activity status for helicopter activity in residential
zones (HGI Plan and AUP); and changing the activity status of Restricted
Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary Activities in non-residential
zones (HGI Plan only).
16. Option
2 is recommended. This is a focused early implementation of NPS15 in the
HGI Plan. Benefits include that it achieves alignment of the HGI and AUP noise
measurement methodologies, and unlike Options 3 and 4, it can be delivered
within the budget available to the Plans and Places department. This option recognises the government’s intention to
standardise helicopter noise measurement and, in this context, early
implementation to achieve this in relation to the HGI Plan and AUP is
justifiable.
17. Option
2 does not change the activity status for applications for helipads, however it
strengthens existing provisions and will have a bearing on determination of
activity status by making compliance with noise standards more difficult to
achieve, particularly in residential areas. Non-compliance with the noise standards
would result in a helipad application becoming a Discretionary Activity.
18. Option
2 addresses noise effects by increasing minimum distances of helipads from
notional boundaries of sensitive receiver sites (e.g. residential neighbours)
and may reduce the number of flights (required to qualify as a Restricted
Discretionary Activity).
19. It
is noted that existing helipad consent holders have existing use rights under
section 10 of the Resource Management Act. None of the above options would
impact on the helicopter activity provided for in an existing resource consent.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment
and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / approve a plan change to the Hauraki Gulf Islands District
Plan to implement the National Planning Standard 15 for helicopter noise
measurement (as outlined in option 2 in the agenda report)
b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the implementation of the
National Planning Standard 15 for helicopter noise measurement is not subject
to the normal Schedule 1 process, therefore no public submissions will be
sought
Horopaki
Context
Notices of motion from Waiheke, Waitematā and Aotea Great Barrier local boards
20. Concern has
been expressed by some Auckland residents, public interest groups, and three
local boards about the number of and noise generated by helicopters and
helipads, particularly on Waiheke Island; the regulatory framework and process
of considering resource consent applications; and whether consent holders are
complying with consent conditions.
21. A report was
provided to the Planning Committee on 5 May 2022 responding to resolutions from
the Waiheke local Board, Waitematā Local Board,
and the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board:
a) Waiheke
Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WHK /2021/178 (a) to (f)
b) Waitematā Local Board resolutions of 15 December 2021, WTM
2021/298 (a) to (c)
c) Aotea
Great Barrier Local Board resolutions of 22 March 2022.
22. The local
board resolutions identified concerns about the strength of the current
regulatory framework for helipads and sought a compliance and monitoring
investigation into the levels of compliance and monitoring of helipad consent
holders in terms of their adherence to consent conditions.
23. The local
boards’ resolutions request plan changes to strengthen the district plan
rules for helipads. The Waitematā local board
sought the introduction of Prohibited activity status for helipads (for recreational
use) to be applied in the residential urban, residential suburban and adjoining
coastal zones. The Waiheke and Aotea/Great Barrier local boards seek stronger
provisions generally, including a requirement for the public notification of
all helipad applications. The Waiheke local board requested that the HGI
Plan assessment of effects be widened to include the consideration of climate
change and greenhouse gases. The Aotea/Great Barrier local board also reported
concerns raised by mana whenua about the recognition of their role as kaitiaki
and for greater input into the resource consents process. A key concern was
raised in relation to ensuring the protection of sites of cultural significance
to mana whenua.
24. A suspension/moratorium on private helipad consent applications was
also requested by the Waitematā local board and the Waiheke Local Board, and was supported by the
Aotea/Great Barrier local board.
25. Advice was given to the Planning Committee in the 5 May 2022 report
was that a moratorium is not possible under the RMA. The council is obliged to
receive and process resource consent applications.
26. Advice was also given that until amendments to the RMA came into force on 30
November 2022, effects on climate change from greenhouse gases were not matters
able to be considered by councils under the RMA. These amendments have now come
into force and are discussed in this report under the heading ‘Climate
Impact Statement’.
HGI Plan and AUP helipad rules
27. An
analysis of the current regulation of the HGI Plan and AUP was set out in the 5
May 2022 report. In brief:
28. For
the HGI Plan, the rules for helipads are set out in section 13.8 of the HGI
Plan. Provision is made for Permitted Activities (Rule 13.8.1), Restricted
Discretionary Activities (Rule 13.8.2) and Discretionary Activities (Rule
13.8.3). Permitted Activities (helipads associated with farming, access and
maintenance of infrastructure, and access to coastal fishing) do not require a
resource consent (provided they meet all other relevant standards in the HGI
Plan).
29. All
other helipads are Restricted Discretionary Activities if they meet specified
noise standards; or Discretionary Activities (where noise standards are not
met). Restricted Discretionary activities require an application for resource
consent which can be declined but only for reasons that relate to the matters
over which council has restricted its discretion; Discretionary Activities
require a resource consent application which can also be declined. There are no
limits on the scope of matters that can be considered when assessing a
Discretionary Activity (provided they are within the scope of the RMA).
30. For
the AUP, in the residential zones, helicopter landing and take-off is a
Non-complying Activity under provision (A1) of the relevant activity tables.
Item (A1) applies Non-complying Activity status to activities not provided for
(in the activity tables). For rural zones, helicopter landings and take-offs
associated with servicing rural activities fall under the activity ‘rural
airstrip’ and are a permitted activity in all rural zones. Helicopter
activity outside of this context (i.e. private use) is a Discretionary Activity[5]3.
31. Regarding
noise standards of the AUP and the HGI Plan, the relevant rules are:
a) AUP noise standard at Rule E25.6.32 applies
Ldn 50 dB and LAFmax 85 dB
b) HGI noise standard for Restricted
Discretionary Activity at Rule 13.8.2 applies Ldn 50 (but uses a rolling
three-day average). For additional context, it is highlighted here that Rule
13.8.2 is still more restrictive than NZS 6807:1994 Noise Management and Land
Use Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas as the NZ Standard refers to a seven-day
averaging period.
32. Both
the AUP and HGI Plan apply Ldn 50dB. The AUP provisions are identified as more
restrictive, as compliance is based on any single (24 hour) day rather than an
average over three days. Applying the AUP rules, an indicative setback distance
to comply with 50 dB Ldn for one flight (landing and take-off) is a minimum of
approximately 100m from the helipad to the nearest notional boundary. In
comparison, using the HGI Plan Ldn three-day rolling average, the minimum
setback distance could be reduced by around 50m for one flight (i.e. the
setback is approximately 50m).
33. The
report noted that the less strict rules for helicopter landing and take-off and
helipads on the Hauraki Gulf Islands were developed in the early 2000s to recognise
the tourism and economic benefits that can arise from enabling travel to and
from the Hauraki Gulf Islands by helicopter, and the very different transport
needs that exist on the Hauraki Gulf Islands compared to other parts of
Auckland.
34. The
report noted that the HGI Plan provisions for Restricted Discretionary
Activities, while less strict than the AUP, do allow assessment of noise
effects, impacts on visual amenity and aural amenity and cumulative effects,
and enable the council to decline resource consent applications. The criteria
include consideration of helipad locations, flight numbers and flight
movements. It was further highlighted that where Discretionary and
Non-complying Activity status is triggered, whether under the AUP or HGI Plan, the
range of discretion is unlimited (within the scope of the RMA).
5 May 2022 Planning Committee Resolutions PLA2022/40
35. Planning
Committee resolution PLA2022/40 for the meeting of 5 May 2022 requested that
findings from a compliance and monitoring investigation being undertaken by the
Compliance and Monitoring team into compliance with consent conditions and an
overview of patterns of activity be reported to the committee; and that options
for managing helicopter activity based on the investigation findings be
assessed and also reported to the committee.
36. The
Compliance and Monitoring report from the compliance team precedes this report.
The findings of that report are summarised in Part A of this report.
37. An options
analysis that takes into account (together with a range of other matters) the
findings of the Compliance and Monitoring report is set out in Part B of this
report.
Tātaritanga me ngā
tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Part A Consents Compliance and flight patterns
38. The
findings of the Compliance and Monitoring Report from the compliance team are
summarised below:
Compliance with consent conditions
39. Flight log
data has been obtained and analysed for a one-year period (April 2021 to April
2022). Helipad consent holders flight logs have been verified against other
data[6] sets to
confirm correlation of data. The cross referencing identifies some unrecorded
flights; however this does not appear to be a deliberate or prevalent action.
Overall, the record keeping by consent holders is considered to be of a
reasonable standard.
40. Investigation
of compliance with consent conditions showed a high level of compliance by
helipad consent holders with resource consent conditions. Consent holders are
largely adhering to flight paths and flight take-offs and landings are within
the consented limits. The analysis of flight logs, cross referenced with data
held by other entities verifies that flight numbers and flight paths correspond
to the limitations set by consent conditions. Non-compliance is largely limited
to deviation from helicopter model, generally due to upgrading of helicopter
type to a more modern aircraft. It is noted that the modern helicopters are
generally quieter than those replaced. It should be noted that weather
conditions may affect pilots from strictly adhering to consented flight paths
for take-off and landing.
Flight patterns
41. Flight data
has been analysed to provide some general overview of flight patterns. Covid-19
intersects the period of enquiry, and the analysis should be considered in this
context.
42. Flight patterns for urban Auckland were investigated over two
separate years peak summer holiday seasons: 20 December 2020 – 10 January
2021 and 20 December 2022 – 10 January 2023). The research identified two
groups of activity levels[7].
The first group, with the highest (proportional) level of activity
comprises North Shore 50% and Howick 25%. The second group showing
significantly less activity (ranging between 2% and 7% of all activity) is
comprised of the CBD 7%, Mangere 3%, Mt Wellington 2%, Papakura 2%, Waitakere
2%, Waiheke 2% and Other[8]
(6%).
43. Flight
tracking on consents in the Hauraki Gulf Islands including Aotea/Great Barrier,
and for the Waitematā Local Board area showed very low volumes of helicopter traffic and
flights were often associated with emergency services or maintenance works.
44. Focusing on
Waiheke, helicopter activity for the period April 2021 –
April 2022 shows the highest levels of activity occurred during the summer
period. The highest volumes of activity[9]
(landings) occurred in December (264), January (248), February (189) and March
(145). The activity is shown to occur predominantly in the weekends[10].
45. Analysis
of busy holiday periods (Labour Weekend, a week in May and a weekend in January
2022)[11]
showed the following levels of activity:
|
Labour Weekend 2022
|
May 2022 (one week)
|
January 2022 (weekend)
|
|
Waiheke received 30% of
all activity compared to urban Auckland which received 63% (the remaining 7% overflew
Waiheke);
|
Waiheke received 20% and
urban Auckland received 72% (the remaining 8% overflew Waiheke)
|
Waiheke and urban Auckland
have the same level of activity, with both registering 45% of activity (the
remaining 10% overflying Waiheke).
|
|
17% of all helicopter
activity on Waiheke for this period is overflying
|
39% of all helicopter
activity on Waiheke for this period is overflying
|
20% of all helicopter
activity on Waiheke for this period is overflying
|
46. The
proportions of helicopter activity (landings) on Waiheke attributed to airport,
emergency services was also investigated for 20 December 2020
– 10 January 2021 and 20 December 2022 – 10 January 2023. The
proportions were 15% over December 2020 - January 2021
and 22% over the period December 2022-January 2023.
Complaints
47. Between
1 January 2020 – 31 December 2022, there were 26 complaints about
helicopter noise or nuisance logged through council’s official system.
48. Between
1 January 2020 – 31 December 2022 the suburbs with the highest number of
complaints were Waiheke (8), Herne Bay (7) and Kumeu (2). The remainder were
individual complaints for suburbs Mairetahi, Matakana, Mount Eden, New Windsor,
Onehunga, Riverhead, Rodney, Takapuna, Waiau Pa.
49. Table
1 below shows the complaints for each year. There were eleven complaints in
2020; six complaints in 2021; and nine complaints in 2022. The number of
complaints officially registered is considered to be low.
Table 1:
complaints about helicopter noise or nuisance logged through council’s
complaints registry.
|
Suburb
|
2020
|
2021
|
2022
|
|
Herne
bay
|
4
|
1
|
2
|
|
Kumeu
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Mairetahi
|
|
|
1
|
|
Matakana
|
1
|
|
|
|
Mt
Eden
|
|
1
|
|
|
New
Windsor
|
|
|
1
|
|
Onehunga
|
|
|
1
|
|
Riverhead
|
1
|
|
|
|
Rodney
|
1
|
|
|
|
Takapuna
|
1
|
|
|
|
Waiau
Pa
|
1
|
|
|
|
Waiheke
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
|
Total
Complaints
|
11
|
6
|
9
|
Part B Assessment of Options to address helicopter
activity
50. This part of the report
responds to Planning Committee Resolution PLA2022/40 (e) which asks for an
assessment of options available to address helicopter activity.
Options
51. Four
options have been assessed. These are:
Option 1:
Address as part of the AUP review
52. This option
involves timing a comprehensive review of the helicopter regulatory framework
(for both AUP and HGI Plan) to occur as part of the AUP review[12]; noting the Hauraki
Gulf Islands will be brought fully within the scope of the AUP as part of the
AUP review; and that full integration of all National Policy Standards
including NPS15 – helicopter noise measurement must be part of the AUP
review[13].
Under the RMA, a review of the AUP must commence in November 2026 (i.e. 10
years after the plan become largely operative).
Option 2: Early Implementation of National
Planning Standard - NPS15 for helicopter noise measurement (HGI Plan only)
53. This option
would implement the mandatory directive contained in NPS15(1) that specifies
use of New Zealand Standard 6807:1994 – Noise Management and Land Use
Planning for Helicopter Landing Areas to exclude 4.3 use of averaging.
54. This option
would delete text at Rule 13.8.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities in the HGI
Plan which specifies averaging (specifically, the use of three-day rolling
average) for the measurement of helicopter noise; and would add new text to
provide clarification about the noise measurement method required under NPS15. As the three-day rolling average is not used in the AUP,
no change to the AUP would be required.
55. In accordance
with s58I(3) of the RMA, the implementation of the standard must not be subject
to the processes set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA; and requires that amendments
must be publicly notified not later than five working days after the amendments
are made. The amendment can be made within a short timeframe.
56. This option goes some way to
strengthening the HGI helipad rules as sought in the notices of motion from the
Waiheke local board and Aotea / Great Barrier local board. Option 2 would
strengthen the HGI Plan’s Restricted Discretionary Activity rules and may result in a greater number of helipad applications being
assessed as Discretionary Activities, as it would increase the minimum
separation distances to notional boundaries needed to achieve compliance with
the noise standards; and /or may reduce flight numbers.
Option 3:
Plan change to HGI Plan – helicopter rules; introducing
Non-complying activity status in residential zones; and changing activity
status of Restricted Discretionary Activities to become Discretionary
Activities in non-residential zones
57. This option is for a plan change to the HGI Plan only, to bring the
HGI provisions into closer alignment with the AUP across the issues of activity
status, notification guidance, and the implementation of NPS15 –
helicopter noise measurement.
58. This option would involve deletion of the Restricted Discretionary
Activity category in the HGI Plan, and instead providing for these activities
to become Non-complying Activities (for helipads in the residential zones) or
Discretionary Activity status (for helipads outside of residential zones)[14].
The proposed changes would bring the HGI Plan and AUP rules for helipads into
closer alignment noting that currently the AUP applies Non-complying Activity
status to helipads in residential areas, while the HGI Plan applies Restricted
Discretionary Activity status (subject to meeting noise standards) or
Discretionary Activity status - where compliance with the standard is not met.
59. The removal of the Restricted Discretionary Activity category
results in implementation of NPS15 as it would remove the provisions in the HGI
Plan that specify the use of averaging in relation to helicopter noise
measurement. Consequently, the HGI Plan and AUP would be brought into alignment
in relation to implementation of the NPS15 helicopter noise measurement
directives (that ‘averaging’ not be applied)[15].
60. The removal of Restricted Discretionary Activity category would also
align the HGI Plan with the AUP on the issue of notification, removing the
presumption of non-notification for some helipad applications. The HGI Plan
Restricted Discretionary Activity rules presume non-notification (subject to
assessment of whether special circumstances apply – determined on a
case-by-case basis). This option would remove the Restricted Discretionary
Activity category and therefore also removes the non-notification provisions
included in that rule.
61. This option would significantly change the HGI Plan's helipad rules
as sought by the Waiheke and Aotea/Great Barrier local boards. The
Discretionary Activity status may provide for greater public input and the
input of directly affected parties (through the removal of the general
restriction on public notification or notification of directly affected
parties) with no limitations on matters for consideration (within the scope of
the RMA) when assessing resource consent applications.
Option 4:
Plan change to AUP and plan change to HGI Plan – helicopter rules -
introducing Prohibited Activity status for helicopter activity in residential
zones (HGI Plan and AUP); and changing activity status of Restricted
Discretionary Activities in non-residential areas to become Discretionary
Activities (HGI Plan only).
62. This option would remove any ability to establish
helipads/helicopter activity in residential areas in both the AUP and HGI Plan,
by making this a Prohibited Activity. This option would also amend the HGI Plan
rules to remove the category of Restricted Discretionary Activities in
non-residential areas and provide for these as Discretionary Activities instead
(as outlined in Option 3 above).
63. This option does would not amend provisions for permitted helicopter
activities.
Assessment of Benefits, Costs, Risks, Effectiveness and
Efficiency
64. A
high-level analysis of Benefits, Costs, Risks, Effectiveness and Efficiency of
the proposed options is set out below.
Benefits
65. Option 1 (Defer until AUP review) has the financial benefit of using
the existing AUP review timeframes to review helicopter provisions and does not
incur costs of additional plan changes.
66. Option 2 (Early implementation of NPS15) has the financial benefit
of being able to be implemented within the budget available to the Plans and
Places department. It can also be implemented within a short timeframe[16]
and would ensure the HGI Plan is aligned with the national approach to noise
measurement.
67. Option 3 would bring the HGI Plan and AUP helicopter provisions into
closer alignment, through the removal of Restricted Discretionary Activity
status from the HGI Plan and through both plans having Non-complying Activity
status is residential zones. There would also be alignment in terms of NPS15.
It has the benefit of enabling a wider range of matters to be considered by the
council when assessing resource consent applications for helipads on the
Hauraki Gulf Islands.
68. Option 4, as with Option 3, enables a wider range of matters to be
considered by the council when assessing resource consent applications for
helipads on the Hauraki Gulf Islands. This would only apply in non-residential
areas, as Option 4 would prevent resource consent applications for helipads
being applied for in residential areas. It also has the benefit of addressing
the concerns expressed by stakeholders who are opposed to establishing helipads
in residential areas.
Costs
69. Option 1 has least financial cost, however there is a possible cost
to people (social effects) in terms of reduced amenity in terms of noise levels
and flight frequencies if new helipads are created under the current
provisions.
70. Options 2, 3 and 4 would incur economic (opportunity) and social
costs to helipad operators by making consent applications more complex, and at
higher risk of being declined. This can also give rise to opportunity costs for
businesses that cannot obtain consents for helipads. There are also economic
costs to the Council and ratepayers associated with initiating a plan change
(or plan changes). The costs include resourcing for staff and other expert
input, research to establish the evidential basis for change, community and
stakeholder engagement, hearings processes and possibly appeals to the
Environment Court (in terms of Options 3 and 4).
71. The costs increase with the increased complexity and scope of the
changes proposed. Financial cost estimates for council for Options 2, 3
and 4 are as follows:
· Option 2 is for a
narrow amendment to the HGI Plan (limited to implementation of NPS15). This
option does not change activity status and is limited to discrete text
amendments. The cost is estimated at approximately $5,000.
· Option 3 is more
complex involving amendments to activity status and the objectives and policies
framework of the HGI Plan. It would therefore be more costly than Option 2. A
conservative estimate places the cost at approximately $250,000. If the plan
change was appealed to the Environment Court, the costs could be considerably
higher than this. The scale of change would require significant research to
provide the necessary evidential basis for change. Also required are significant
pre-engagement processes with the community and all stakeholders (noting that
helipads are a contentious topic and that there are interested parties in
support of and opposed to helipads).
· Option 4 is more
complex than Option 3 and requires changes to both the HGI Plan and the AUP.
The proposed introduction of a Prohibited activity status for helicopter
activity in residential zones demands significant evidential support.
Additionally, Option 4 is also likely to incur significant legal costs as
Prohibited activity status has a higher risk of decisions being appealed, and
from judicial review. A conservative estimate places the starting cost of
Option 4 at approximately $400,000[17]
.
72. In terms of timeframes, even starting now, the timeframes of the
plan changes for Options 3 and 4 are likely to overlap with the AUP review
commencing in 2026. This brings into focus the duplication of effort in terms
of resources. It is likely that the same issues would be re-litigated in the
AUP review.
73. Given
existing mandatory work being undertaken (e.g. implementing the National Policy
Statement on Freshwater Management and National Policy Statement on Urban
Development), the Plans and Places department does not have the resources
available to prepare a plan change to the HGI Plan, or both the AUP and the HGI
Plan.
Effectiveness
74. Option 2 Early implementation of NPS15 would lift the bottom line
for meeting the noise standards to qualify as a Restricted Discretionary
Activity. It would increase minimum distances to notional boundaries from and
/or reduce the maximum no of take-offs and landings able to be considered as a
Restricted Discretionary Activity. This option would be an effective approach
to address noise concerns arising from use of the three-day rolling average,
and effectively aligns HGI Plan and AUP noise measurement methodologies over
the interim period until the Hauraki Gulf Islands are brought fully within the
AUP.
75. Option 3 would (if successful) be very effective in significantly
tightening the regulatory framework for assessment of new helipads in the HGI
Plan. While Option 3 would satisfy the concerns of some stakeholders who oppose
helipads, it may not be a correctly balanced outcome considering the other
stakeholders with an interest in helipads. The topic of helipad regulation was
a contentious topic during the 2016 review of the HGI Plan, with strongly
divided stakeholder groups in opposition and in support of helipads.
76. The report to the Planning Committee on 5 May 2022 discussed the
development of the rules. It is noted that the HGI Plan helicopter provisions
were developed to strike a balance with a wider range of activity status than
the AUP that included Restricted Discretionary Activity as a category to
provide access that recognised the separation of the Hauraki Gulf Islands from
the mainland by the sea; gave support to tourism; and protected residential
amenity values.
77. It is considered the level of change introduced by Option 3 would be
open to challenge given the low level of complaints received by the Council
about helicopter activity. However, it would be effective in addressing a wider
range of potential effects from helicopter activity (e.g. the effects of
helicopters taking off and landing in the vicinity of ecologically significant
areas).
78. Option 4 would prevent helicopter activity in residential areas of
both the HGI Plan and the AUP. A very high level of evidence is needed to
justify absolute prohibition and it is considered that the current evidence
would not meet the threshold necessary to support this level of regulation. The
effectiveness of Option 4 is impacted accordingly.
Efficiency
79. Option 1 - ‘Defer until AUP Review’ is highly efficient
in that the regulatory approach to helicopter activity (within the
Council’s jurisdiction under the RMA) is addressed comprehensively on a
regionwide basis through a single process. However, Option 1 does not address
the various benefits discussed above in relation to Options 2, 3 and 4.
80. Option 2 - Early implementation of NPS15 could occur within a short
timeframe.. As the implementation of the standard is not subject to
Schedule 1 of the RMA (i.e. the process is without public consultation or
submissions), the resources required to implement this option are minimal and
the process is significantly streamlined. Option 2 is considered an efficient
use of the Council’s resources as it would expediently achieve
consistency across the HGI and AUP for noise measurement methodology, and
allows for a comprehensive regionwide review to be undertaken as part of the
review of the AUP.
81. Options 3 and 4 - which are for plan changes to the HGI Plan, and
HGI Plan and AUP respectively, are inefficient in the sense that they both
involve expensive processes that would likely result in re-litigation at the
time of the full AUP review. However, in terms of being able to address a wider
range of potential effects from helicopter activity on the Hauraki Gulf
Islands, the benefits of Options 3 are acknowledged.
Risks
82. Option 1 – ‘Defer until AUP Review’ carries the
risk of helicopter activity being consented on the Hauraki Gulf Islands prior
to the review adversely impacting residential amenity to a greater degree than
elsewhere in Auckland. It also runs the risk of helicopter activity consented
on the Hauraki Gulf Islands prior to the review having other adverse impacts on
the Hauraki Gulf Islands that cannot be considered under the current rules.
83. Option 2 ‘Early implementation of NPS15’ has the least
risk as it addresses a national planning standard and is directed towards
dealing with helicopter noise. Option 2 aligns the HGI Plan and AUP
provisions and ensures equitable determination of activity status (as relevant
to meeting noise standards) as both plans will be applying the same noise
measurement methodology.
84. Option 3 carries the risk of there being insufficient evidence to
justify a stricter activity status for helicopter activity on the Hauraki Gulf
Islands in light of the lack of complaints received by the council and in
consideration of the unique economic and transport circumstances associated
with the Hauraki Gulf Islands.
85. Option 4 carries a risk of successful Environment Court appeals and
judicial review. The Courts have set a very high bar for Prohibited Activity
status.
Discussion
86. Having considered the range of matters outlined in the previous
section of this report, Option 2 is recommended.
87. Option
2 addresses a National Planning Standard and aligns noise measurement methods
in the HGI Plan and the AUP. This option is limited to implementation of NPS15,
can be implemented in the shortest time (without a Schedule 1 process) and can
be achieved with the budget currently available to the Plans and Places
department.
88. Option 2 does not involve changes to activity status but makes
compliance with noise standards for Restricted Discretionary Activities more
difficult to achieve. Helipad applications, particularly in residential areas
where sites are smaller, might not meet required noise standards – which
they otherwise might have met when applying the rolling average noise
measurement method. The non-compliance with the noise standards would result in
a helipad application becoming a Discretionary Activity.
89. The impact of the rolling average on setback distances of helipads
to nearest nominal boundaries was reported in the 5 May 2022 report to the
Planning Committee. The report highlighted that both the AUP and HGI Plan apply
Ldn 50dB highlighting that for the AUP noise standard compliance is based on a
single (24 hour), while the HGI Plan noise standard uses a rolling three-day
average. The report went on to identify the effect of the use of each
method on helipad location setback distances to nominal boundaries:
“Applying the AUP rules, an
indicative setback distance to comply with 50 dB Ldn for one flight (landing
and take-off) is a minimum of approximately 100m from the helipad to the
nearest notional boundary. In comparison, using the HGI Plan Ldn three-day
rolling average, the minimum setback distance could be reduced by around 50m
for one flight (i.e., the setback is approximately 50m).”
90. The
effect of the reset to the ‘bottom line’ by Option 2 would be to
increase the setback distance to the nearest nominal boundary by approximately
50m as outlined above (factors such as helicopter type,
flightpath, duration of ground idle and topography will determine actual
setback distance).
91. Option
1 is not recommended as it retains misalignment of helicopter noise measurement
approaches of the HGI Plan and AUP for the period that the HGI Plan is outside
the AUP, with the possible cost to people (social effects) in
terms of reduced amenity in terms of noise levels and flight frequencies if new
helipads are created under the current provisions.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
92. The
Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) released on 16 May 2022
sets out how New Zealand will meet its first emissions budget (2022-2025) and
set the path towards meeting long-term climate targets.
93. Auckland
Council’s climate plan, Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri:
Auckland’s Climate Plan, has called for a 64 percent reduction in
transport emissions by 2030. Council’s Transport Emissions Reduction Plan
(TERP), August 2022 outlines concrete actions to dramatically reduce transport
emissions by 2030. The plan identifies that aviation emissions
account for 7% of Auckland’s emissions profile and sets a pathway for
this to be reduced by 50% by 2030. Commercial airlines are the highest
contributor in the emissions profile and are the target category for aviation
emission reduction. The level of helicopter activity would represent a very
small quotient in the emissions profile for Auckland.
94. The
Government’s ERP and the Council’s TERP will be relevant to the
assessment of helipad applications and may be considered in any determination
as to whether ‘special circumstances’ are triggered in association
with a resource consent assessment.
95. These plans
will also have relevance to any future changes proposed to the regulatory
framework of the AUP and HGI Plan.
Greenhouse gas emissions - Resource Management Amendment Act
amendments in force from 30 November 2022
96. RMAA
amendments relating to greenhouse gas emissions came into force on 30 November
2022. The amendments made by the RMAA provide for climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions to be considered in an application for resource
consent for a helipad. However, where the helipad resource consent
application has a Restricted Discretionary Activity status, these are
permissible considerations only if they are inside the scope of the matters
over which the council has restricted its discretion. Where the helipad
resource consent application has a Discretionary or Non-complying Activity
status “the effects of climate change” may be relevant under
section 7(i) in the context of the Council’s Part 2 assessment (albeit
the relevance of those effects will depend on the specifics of the application
in question).
97. In
terms of the options discussed in this report, it is highlighted that Option 2
which retains Restricted Discretionary Activity status under the HGI Plan,
would not provide for consideration of climate change or greenhouse gases. A
policy and rule framework relating to greenhouse gas emission reduction is likely
therefore to need to be the subject of a separate plan change process. Option
3, which would remove the Restricted Discretionary Activity category and
replace it with Discretionary and Non-complying Activity status would enable
consideration of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
Ngā whakaaweawe me
ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
98. The Resource
Consents and Compliance and Monitoring departments have contributed to the
preparation of this report.
99. Eke Panuku,
Auckland Transport and Auckland Unlimited would be
consulted as part of any process involving changes to the provisions for
helicopters in the AUP and HGI plan.
Ngā whakaaweawe
ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
100. This
report responds to resolution from the Planning Committee 5 May 2022,
PLA2022/40(e) which directs council staff to report options to
manage helicopter activity in the Auckland area based on the findings of
Compliance and Monitoring investigation, which is the subject of PLA2022/40(c).
101. These
resolutions from the Planning Committee respond to concerns about helicopter
activity that have been raised by the Waiheke Local Board, Waitematā Local Board and Aotea/Great Barrier
Local Board.
102. The
Compliance and Monitoring report and an options analysis were reported to the
Waitematā Local Board
meeting on 21 March 2023. The resolutions of the
Waitematā Local Board are
included as Attachment A.
103. The
Compliance and Monitoring report and an options analysis were reported to the
Waiheke Local Board meeting on 22
March 2023. The resolutions of the Waiheke Local Board are available here
(see Item 14).
104. The
Compliance and Monitoring report and an options analysis will be reported to
the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board meeting on 28
March 2023. The resolutions of the Aotea/Great
Barrier Local Board will be provided at the meeting.
Tauākī whakaaweawe
Māori
Māori impact statement
105. The report provided to the Planning Committee on 5 May 2022
responding to resolutions from the Aotea/Great Barrier Local Board identified
concerns from Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea Trust about the ability
of the resource consents process to provide for mana whenua’s kaitiaki
role, and to give adequate protection of cultural sites and values. The lack of
a schedule in the HGI Plan protecting sites and places of archaeological and
cultural significance was highlighted. It is noted that council’s
Cultural Heritage team is working on a proposed plan change to address this
issue and has been in consultation with Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea
Trust about proposed sites for inclusion in the HGI Plan.
106. Also highlighted in the notice of motion is that mana whenua have
also sought consideration of suspension of private helipad consent applications
on Aotea to allow the planning process to factor in mana whenua’s
kaitiaki role, management of compliance and wider concerns.
107. Mana whenua input into the resource consents process was discussed
in the 5 May 2022 report, where it was noted that all consent applications
received by the Council are provided to mana whenua on a weekly basis,
providing an opportunity for mana whenua to review applications and highlight
matters of concern. However, it is acknowledged that the current Restricted
Discretionary Activity status on the Hauraki Gulf Islands limits the degree to
which concerns raised by mana whenua can be considered.
108. The 5 May 2022 report also noted that a suspension of consent
applications (i.e. a moratorium) is not provided for under the RMA. The Council
is obliged to receive and process resource consent applications, avoiding
unreasonable delay as directed by s21 of the RMA.
Ngā ritenga
ā-pūtea
Financial implications
109. Early
implementation of NPS15 (Option 2) is not currently factored into the Plans and
Places department work programme. However, the implementation process does not
follow the processes set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA, so the financial cost to
the Council is minimal. It is noted however that the changes to the HGI Plan
under Option 2 would otherwise be incorporated as part of the AUP review
process, which is required to commence in November 2026.
110. Options
3 and 4 involve relatively complex plan changes and preparation costs would
reflect this. Options 3 and 4 would likely be strongly contested. The current
provisions of the HGI Plan were arrived at via the Environment Court, and
therefore will likely take several years to be resolved.
111. Cost
estimates based on other plan changes the Council has recently processed are as
follows:
a) Option
2 is an amendment in accordance with s58I of the RMA. The costs estimate is
approximately $5,000
b) for a
complex plan change such as Option 3 a conservative estimate places the
starting cost at approximately $250,000
c) Option
4, which is a complex plan change to the HGI Plan and a complex plan change to
the AUP, a conservative estimate places the stating cost at approximately $400,000.
Ngā raru tūpono me
ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
112. Risks
associated with the options to address helicopter activity under the HGI Plan
and the AUP are discussed earlier in this report.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
113. Option 2 – Early
implementation of NPS15 is the recommended option.
114. If the committee
supports this option, staff will prepare the amendments and publicly notify
that the changes have been made in accordance with s58I(3) of the RMA.
Ngā tāpirihanga
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩
|
Resolutions of the Waitematā Local Board - 21
March 2023
|
21
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
|
Author
|
Alison Pye - Senior Policy Planner
|
|
Authorisers
|
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places
Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy
|
