27-127-1

351.2

Keith Stackhouse

Take groundwater < 10 lts per second. I believe this should be in category 3. This groundwater take should be for household and stock water only with an annual consented volume.

Ten takes of 5 litres per second combine to make a take of 50 litres per second. Experience in the Waipara catchment suggests groundwater surface water takes are inter connected and more work needs to be done in this area.

Evaluation: Under the proposal there will be no distinction between categories. However, an option considered in the lead up to developing the proposal distinguished between small domestic takes and those used for commercial purposes. A limit of 10 litres per second was set to separate these small scale users. Following pre-Draft LTCCP consultation, the majority of the feedback was that the difference in administration fees between Options 3 and 4 was so small that to reduce administrative costs one flat charge should apply, i.e. Option 3. As this option still retains an hourly rate for monitoring, resources still remain flexible and can be targeted to where effects (including cumulative ones, such as multiple small takes) are greatest Any new approached adopted will be reviewed during the year and if necessary adjustments will be made for subsequent years to ensure the system is effective..

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

4.9

Raewyn Clegg

Support for compliance monitoring charge. Resource consent compliance must be paid by users.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

11.8

Captain William S Stafford

Should abolish this charge.

Evaluation: It is Environment Canterbury’s policy to fund the monitoring of resource consents by way of charging consent holders. Section 36 of the Resource Management Act enables Environment Canterbury to recover the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out its consent monitoring functions. Under this new proposal consent monitoring charges will be spread more evenly across all consent holders.

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

13.3

DF Adams

Resource consent compliance and monitoring charges, again further charges on producers should charge bodies that want this information. Opposed to consent and compliance charges.

Evaluation: It is Environment Canterbury’s policy to fund the monitoring of resource consents by way of charging consent holders. Section 36 of the Resource Management Act enables Environment Canterbury to recover the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out its consent monitoring functions. Under this new proposal consent monitoring charges will be spread more evenly across all consent holders.

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

20.11

JG Mayhew

Support draft plan. Less cost for low users, more cost for high users.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

26.11

Carolyn Boulton

I support the new resource consent administration charge.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

29.4

Peter Taylor

Resource Consent admin charge user pays principle is accepted, there is no mechanism to ensure value services are provided. Independent review and benchmarking of ECan costs, including turn around times is needed. ECan should schedule costs against the comparable entities and publish such information to RC holders.

Evaluation: The proposed changes will be managed to ensure all revenue accrued through the user pays admin charge will be accounted for and spent on consent monitoring projects as detailed in the Draft LTCCP 2009-2019. Raising part of the revenue in this manner allows for a more equitable distribution of the costs, while retaining the principal of a user pays system which is actual and reasonable based on the revised hourly rate. It is Environment Canterbury’s policy to fund the monitoring of resource consents by way of charging consent holders. Section 36 of the Resource Management Act enables Environment Canterbury to recover the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out its consent monitoring functions.

Any new funding model will be reviewed after a year of operation. Benchmarking could be carried out but it would be important to do this in the context of a mixed fixed and variable charging model.

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

38.2

Edward Clark

Resource Consent admin changes. The holders should pay the costs of administration of the consent but you need to stop overcharging them!

Evaluation: The administration fee has been developed to ensure sufficient time can be allocated to general administrative functions relating to resource consent use that would not be appropriate to charge to an individual, or group of consent holders. Work funded by this administration fee, as detailed in the Draft LTCCP 2009-2019, is anticipated to increase the effectiveness of consent monitoring. The proposed changes will also result in a lower hourly rate when consent monitoring occurs.

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

45.10

Keith & Helen Gunn

Support

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

59.9

Marion Macbeth

Establish new flat customer charge for Resource consent administration.

Evaluation: Supportive submission

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

130.1

Mark Peacocke

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

191.4

Philip Louis Garrett

Compliance monitoring is in danger of becoming a water management recovery cost with users then paying twice!

Evaluation: The proposed consent compliance charges are for monitoring compliance with consent conditions. The charge is cost neutral, with the revenue generated equalling the amount consent holders used to pay under the former user pays system. The charge is not related to the proposed charges to recover the cost of water management. Those charges are required to pay for the extra investigation and environmental monitoring needed in response to increasing demands for water and will vary across the region, depending on the water allocation management zone.

Recommendation: No change to LTCCP

27-127-1

242.3

Dairy NZ and Fonterra

We think that it is a fairer approach to have all consent holders contributing to the costs of compliance monitoring. This approach will also have the additional benefit of removing a barrier to consent holders communicating with ECAN officers if they have a query regarding compliance (i.e because they will no longer get a bill in the mail shortly afterwards).

This proposal is supported and option 4 is preferred.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

277.2

Richard Wilson

I oppose resource consent compliance monitoring charges. This is big brother out of control. Charging a fee on all septic tanks is a great way to raise money. How big does ECan want to be? If your septic tank doesn't work you get it fixed a charge to ECan won't do anything.

Evaluation: It is Environment Canterbury’s policy to fund the monitoring of resource consents by way of charging consent holders. Section 36 of the Resource Management Act enables Environment Canterbury to recover the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out its consent monitoring functions. Under the new proposal consent monitoring charges are spread more evenly across all consent holders.

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

308.8

A G Talbot

Support new resource consent administration charge.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

351.1

Keith Stackhouse

I support option 3. I have had a gully dam for storage of water & irrigation since the Glenmark scheme was constructed. This water storage requires 5 consents to operate. Compare this paper work and cost to an irrigator in the same catchment taking underground water. With climate change I believe that water storage in the long term option. Can we amalgamate consents or make it simpler to encourage water storage on farm?

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

409.5

Beacon Pathways Ltd

Supports establishing a new flat customer services annual charge for all resource consents.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1

422.2

Waimakariri Irrigation Ltd

It is difficult to judge exactly how WIL and others might be affected by the various funding options. Our submission requests that costs for administration and monitoring of consents should be no more than is required to ensure the water resources are not experiencing adverse affects as a result of consent holders activities

WIL would support a monitoring system undertaken by local representatives who are trained by, and liaise with, ECan staff so that consent monitoring is done through a partnership approach rather than having ECan as a remote body in a policeman role which sometimes seems to be the case.

Seeks a high level of accountability and good water resource management is achieved by the administration and management that is carried out.

Should consider involving local representatives in the monitoring process to promote a partnership approach with consent holders.

Evaluation: The proposed changes will be managed to ensure all revenue accrued through the user pays admin charge will be accounted for and spent on consent monitoring projects as detailed in the Draft LTCCP 2009-2019. Raising part of the revenue in this manner allows for a more equitable distribution of the costs, while retaining the principal of a user pays system which is actual and reasonable based on the revised hourly rate. It is Environment Canterbury’s policy to fund the monitoring of resource consents by way of charging consent holders. Section 36 of the Resource Management Act enables Environment Canterbury to recover the reasonable costs incurred in carrying out its consent monitoring functions.

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1

436.6

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

Board is supportive of Option 3 being a flat customer service charge plus the additional monitoring charge. Concern about the potential scope to "end load" disbursements on top of the base charges. Ask that if adopted by Environment Canterbury, they give publicity to the explanation of the charges.

Evaluation: If the proposal, specifically option 3, is adopted Environment Canterbury will give publicity and further explanation to these charges

Recommendation: Submission noted

27-127-1[3]

133.1

Mike Hammond,135 Mathew Ward, 141.1 Steve & Sharon Schmack, 226.1 Geoff Stevenson, 228.1 Ian Chatterton, 233.1 Bryson Hargreaves, 235.1 Murray Marshall, 236.1 Scott Searle, 239.1 Murray Marshall, 245.1 Leighton and Michelle Pye, 254.1 Dairy Holdings Limited, 256.1 Stuart Brander, 258.1 Alderbrook Farm Limited,

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

283.1

Eiffelton Community Irrigation Scheme

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

284.1

Stu Litchfield

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

303.1

Beverley Gilbert

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

304.1

Charlotte Glass

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

306.1

David Turner

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

323.1

Ashburton Community Water Trust

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

324.1

E G Mackie

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

382.1

Peter W Densem

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

383.1

Ian Dersen

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

384.1

Northbank Irrigation Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

385.1

Seentkinn Farm Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

386.1

Gary McGregor

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

387.1

Jeff Wheeler

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

388.1

John Foster

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

400.1

Alpine Fresh Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

405.1

Mike Chaffey

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

421.1

Synlait Farms Limited

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

425.1

Ross Keeley

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

426.1

Brendon Barns,Viewbank Dairy Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

429.1

Dromuny Farm Ltd.

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

430.1

Cloverflats DairyFarm Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

431.1

Thorndale Dairies Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

432.1

Pahau Dairy Limited

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

459.1

Derek Gilbert

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

460.1

Lindsay Gilbert

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

461.1

Francis John Gilbert

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

474.1

Darrochs Grazing Ltd

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

508.1

Garry Lamers

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

511.1

Zeldon View Limited

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

529.1

Dale Armer

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

530.1

Colin C Armer

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-127-1[3]

533.1

Grant Ludermann

Submission supports this proposal:

The proposed changes will result in a more equitable sharing of costs among consent holders in the Canterbury region.

The removal of the requirement for officers to charge for short phone calls or discussions is positive and will lead to an improved environmental outcome and reduced frustration for the consent holders.

Option 4 is preferable to Option 3 in that the Customer Services charge is better aligned to the scale of the activity and the resulting costs incurred by the Council.

Seek adoption of Option 4 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Alternatively, the second most preferred option is Option 3 as detailed in the draft LTCCP.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-166-1

242.4

Dairy NZ and Fonterra

The charges for monitoring of permitted dairy and piggery effluent discharges have been increased; however there is no explanation or justification for these increases.

The proposed cost increases will potentially result in those operating under the permitted activity requirements paying more than those who hold resource consents.

Assuming that the recommended changes are made to the compliance monitoring cost recovery system, consent holders who received a 3 hour monitoring charge, and their annual customer services charge would pay $285.75, $51.75 less than the permitted activity charge. Additionally, any repeat inspections would not include the annual charge so would be charged to a consent holder at $222.75, $114.75 less than those operating under the permitted activity requirements.

This is inequitable and those operating under the permitted activity rule should pay the same amount as consent holders, if not less.

The charges should reflect the actual cost of a compliance monitoring visit. This should be based on an average of 2-2.5 hours per visit, an allowance for mileage (say $20-$30) and should be comparable to the charges imposed on the holder of a consent receiving the same visit.

Evaluation: Under the proposed changes ECan agrees that the Permitted Activity monitoring fee becomes somewhat out of alignment with consent monitoring charges.

Recommendation: This current fee should only increase by the rate of inflation.

27-166-1

435.1

Mrs Gaynor Kelly

New resource consents should be paid for via the hourly rate. People requiring large consents requiring large volume of work should pay.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-166-1

466.2

Waimate District Council

Whilst the recovery of costs associated with the processing of consent applications is accepted in principle, the increases proposed within Part A of Appendix 4 are of a concern, particularly those associated with a resource consent. It is acknowledged that the recovery of costs associated with processing applications can be difficult, however the table contained within Part A is unclear exactly what is being charged.

The Waimate District Council therefore seeks a decision to return to the detailed breakdown of charges so that is clear exactly what each invoice issued for each stage of the process, covers.

Evaluation: Part A of Appendix 4 outlines the fixed charges that apply for a new application and then if it moves to notification and then a hearing.These fixed charges offset the actual costs that are incurred in processing the consents and a invoice for further costs or a refund is issued at the conclusion.The table in Part A is to show those fixed costs not to indicate the detail that would be provided when invoicing for the work carried out. The invoices for actual costs will continue to outline the detailed breakdown of costs incurred.

Recommendation: No change to LTCCP.

27-172-1

2.1

BJD Stringer

Supports new flat customer service annual charge. It would be fairer to all consent holders for short contact queries.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.

27-172-1

445.3

St. Albans Community Centre

Agrees with Option 3.

Evaluation: Supportive submission.

Recommendation: Submission noted.