Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
31ATTACHMENT~
1.6 Figure 2 shows the optimum placement position for the proposed frost fan and takes into
consideration the following 'placement' factors:
• To provide frost protection to the more frost susceptible blocks,
,. The predominant direction of the cold nocturnal (night time) drift,
..!. The size and shape of the block in relation to the nocturnal drift direction,
...t. The topography of the block and in particular features that have the potential to stall or dam the cold air floWing through the orchard,
..!. The presence, lay and potential effectiveness of the internal wind shelter to stall or dam the cold air flowing through the orchard.
The placement option selected focuses on retarding the development of frost within the field.
Figure 2: Proposed placement of the Frost Boss C49 frost fan GPS Co-qrdinates: 5833840; E1860688
Page 2 of6
32
ATTACHMENTlAJ 2 Background:
2.1 Recent experience suggests that the need for permanent frost protection is now required for this
orchard. In particular, the occurrence and frequency of crop threatening frost events appears to be increasing
both in ear1y spring and in autumn.
2.2 The primary concern has been the increasingly unpredictable nature of the weather; in particular, the
increasing frequency and severity of frost events throughout the region.
2.3 The use of frost fans for the frost protection of orchards is a well recognised and well accepted
farming practice. The frost fan draws down warm air from the inversion layer, mixing it with the cold air that
is already flowing through the field, thereby lifting ambient temperatures within the field and preventing cold
injury damage and frost damage to the crop.
2.4 Careful consideration has been given to the many and varied alternative methods of frost protection,
but the frost fan offers the best overall solution for this orchard. The Frost Boss C49 4-Biade Frost Fan is, in
terms of Section 16 of the Resource Management Act, the best practical option available. Should this
application fail the orchard will be protected by the next best option, which would be a helicopter.
Page 3 of&
33
3 ATTACHMENT 0
Assessment of Effects:
3.1 Physical effects: The Frost Boss C49 4-blade frost fan consists of a tower 10.5 metres in height and
0.5 metres in diameter, and a 5.5 metre diameter 4-blade fan. The overall height to the top of the fan tip is
13.3 metres. The unit is powered by a John Deere 6068T diesel engine which is housed in an attenuated,
weatherproof, lockable enclosure which sits at the bottom of the tower. The fan rotates around the tower
every 6mins 40 seconds.
3.2 Landscape effects: The fan assembly and upper portion of the tower will be visible from a distance
along Lancaster Road, Katikati, but less so up close. Similarly, from the surrounding properties but the frost
fan is generally hidden behind the external or internal wind shelter. The visual impact will be minimal as the
galvanized tower and the painted composite blades are a grey colour that blends with the colour of the sky.
3.3 Noise effects: Independent noise testing showed the noise level of the Frost Boss C49 4-blade frost
fan, when run at its designed maximum operating engine speed of 1800 rpm, was 64 dBA leq at 100 metres
and 51 dBA leq at 300 metres. (See Hegley Acoustic Consultants report dated April 2016 attached). From this,
if we extrapolate from this measured data, it shows that a noise level of 55dBA Leq will be achieved at 220m.
See graph below.
81)
70
'iF Ql
~ 60 .Q "0
"t 'II) -::.
" _, 40
.'\0
g ... ----
... Q ... ~
"" '""
--~ "'"
Dbtance(m)
Noise Level at Different Distances
"' c =
The major source of noise from a frost fan is from the fan, followed by the engine, and then the gearboxes and
other rotating machinery (radiator fan, turbo charger, alternator, etc). The noise from the fan is dictated
primarily by the radius of the blades and the speed of rotation of the fan.
3.4 Lessening the Environmental Effects:
Ways to mitigate the environmental effects of the noise are:
• That the hours of operation be restricted to the times when the danger of frost damage is
imminent or for maintenance purposes.
Page 4 of6
34
ATTACHMENTIAJ • That the frost fan be operated in such a manner to start when the air temperature falls to
+0.5"C and will tum off when the air temperature reaches +2.5"C.
• The frost fan shall be run at a maximum engine speed of 1800rpm
• The frost fan shall be maintained annually in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications. (see section 4)
• Operation of the frost fan for maintenance purposes shall take place only between the hours
of Bam and 6pm on weekdays. Test operations outside of these hours will take place only for
noise monitoring with Council's written approval or for emergency maintenance.
• Ensuring affected homes have windows closed
3.5 Effect on Livestock. Livestock is generally not affected by noise that they are accustomed to.
Sheep, cattle, horses and pigs are usually very docile and in practice do not get unsettled by noise from frost
fan or sources that they have heard before; tractors, trucks, trains etc. (Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic
Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife. NERC 88!29 AFESC TR88.14 June 1988 Engineering Services
Centre US Airforce).
3.6 Frost Fan Specs:
Frost Fan Specs for the FrostBoss C49 frost fan with a John Deere Engine
• Frost Fan Model: FrostBoss C49 Frost Fan
• Engine specifications
• Engine casing and exhaust
• Muffler
• Gear Box Ratios
• Operating Engine RPM
• Tower height
• Blade RPM
• Blade Length and Type
John Deere 6068T Diesel powered;
Premium FrostBoss cabinet
Engine rubber mounted and housed in a fully enclosed noise
attenuated metal cabinet manufactured by NZ Frost Fans
Manufactured by NZ Frost Fans to John Deere specifications.
Top Box Amarillo ratio 1.6364:1 Bottom Box Amarillo ratio 2.563:1 Overall ratio of 4.194
1750
10.5m
418
C49 FrostBoss Blade- 5.5m diameter- fiXed pitch
Manufactured in composite materials by NZ Frost Fans
Page 5 of6
35ATTACHMENT~
4 Machine Maintenance
4.1 Under the current warranty period, the frost fan must be serviced annually. Unlike a vehicle, it is the
lack of use that can cause the problems. +he Preventative maintenance is imperative to maintain reliability
and longevity of the frost fan, so that it is ready to perform when needed. The maintenance program is carried
out by experienced NZFF staff and the following maintenance and safety checks are done:
• A thorough general check over & adjustment where necessary
• Grease the universal joints, inspect the hanger bearings, adjust the slew & check the blades for deterioration
• Oil & grease the drive shaft joints inside the tower
• Change the engine oil & engine filter. Change the fuel filter
• Remove the air filter, inspect & clean it
• Check the belts, hoses, light units, flapper & exhaust system & all connections
• Examine cabinet door fastenings & hinges, remove spiders and spray down
• Check solar panel & voltage. Install new battery if needed
• Check condition of radiator coolant and gearbox oil
• Check thermostat calibration & condition of temperature probe & cable
• Check throttler connections & adjustments
• Check auto-start function & test
• Check tower hold down bolts & tighten if necessary
• Test run the frost fan
• Check fuel level & report to owner if fuel is low
• Inspect area surrounding frost fan for tree growth near the blades & safe access to site
Page 6 of6
36
ATTACHMENT~
B HEGLEY ACOUSTIC con':>Ul.TAnT':>
1/355 Manukau Road Epsom, Auckland 1 023 PO Box262B3 Epsom, Auckland 1344
T: 09 638 8414 E: [email protected]
FROST BOSS C49 FROST FAN
FIELD TESTING
NOISE REPORT
Prepared for:
New Zealand Frost Fans Ltd Hastings Apri/2016
Report No 8912v2
Prepare~ Nevil Hegley
37
ATIACHMENT~ 2
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 3
2 TEST CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 4
3 TEST RESULTS ............................................................................. 7
4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 12
38
ATTACHMENT~ 3
1 INTRODUCTION
This report sets out the results of field measurements undertaken on the night of 11 -
12 August 2010 of a Frost Boss C49 frost fan. Measurements were undertaken at
300m from the frost fan at 382 Twyford Road, Hastings as shown on Figure 1.
Figure 1. Test Locations
39
ATTACHMENTG11 4
2 TEST CONDITIONS
The weather during the noise monitoring was fine and the sky was clear. It was
generally calm although there was the occasional gust Of wind as shown on Figure 2.
Normally these gusts would have shut the frost fan down but for the testing the
automatic sensor was turned off. This did result in some temporary higher noise
levels which have been included in the assessment (and are highlighted later in the
report). Tl:le meteorological conditions were compatible with those set out for
Category 5 in Concawe 1, which gives slightly enhanc~d meteorological conditions.
Testing commenced with the temperature at 0°C dropping to -2°C at the completion
of the testing. Even taking into account the occasional gust of wind, which did not
have any significant effect on the results of the measurements, the conditions were
considered ideal for monitoring the frost fan noise. The topography was flat with
apple trees in a dormant state without any leaves in the orchard tested.
Wl•·d . ,..,.,. , .. (i...);.t f.\..!.'"""' ... .. n-4 ttlb· .i. ... ~ r_..._ T•.., 2:t~n
-{~-/''-- /'-- v-/ (w~~ ~ni •w still sc n · ssw s ~ff E« " -
T~st period
- 0 - - - - • • - - - • • - - - • • • • • • -i E ~ a ~ i ; ; E ; ; ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ i i i i ~ i
Figure 2. Meteorological Conditions
The technical information of the frost fan tested is:
• C49 Frost Fan • 5.5m diameter • fixed pitch {it cannot be changed) • manufactured in composite materials by NZ Frost Fans
1 The Propagation of Noise from Petroleum and Petrochemical Complexes to Neighbouring Communities, Report No 4/81, May 1981 prepared by C J Manning, Acoustic Technology for Concawe's Special Task Force on Noise Propagation
3t
2t
to
40
A TI ACHMENT 111 5
• upper gearbox is a DeRan GB11 ratio 42:25 = 1.68;
• lower gearbox is DeRan CT10 ratio 41:16 = 2.56; • overall ratio of 4.3;
• fan speed at 418rpm • engine speed 1800rpm;
• external rotation ring gear teeth number= 112;
• rotation pinion teeth number = 8; • procession time 6 minutes 40 seconds;
• engine details: i) perkins 1 006-6T (6 cylinder turbo diesel); ii) 160 hp; iii) diesel powered; iv) muffler manufactured by NZ Frost Fans to Perkins specification; v) engine rubber mounted and housed in a fully enclosed noise
attenuated metal cabinet manufactured by NZ Frost Fans; • tower height 10.5m.
It is proposed to replace the above Perkins engine with a John Deere engine with the
following specification:
• Engine
• Engine Cabinet • Exhaust • Blade type • Blade number • Fan Diameter • Fan pitch • Tower height • Upper gearbox • Lower Gearbox • Overall ratio • Precession time • Fan Speed • Engine Speed
John Deere S068T - 153Hp continuous rating - Diesel powered turbo engine - Engine rubber mountec;l and housed in a fully enclosed
attenuated metal cabinet manufactured by FrostBoss Standard FrostBoss Alloy powder coated cabinet Standard FrostBoss single chamber internal muffler Standard C9 series composite blades four 5.5m fixed 10.5m Amarillo ratio 1.6364:1 Amarillo ratio 2.563:1 4.194 6'10" 418rpm 1750
As shown above, the tested frost fan has some small differences to the proposed
replacement frost fan. The differences are a different engine and hence a slightly
different overall gear ratios to maintain the sane fan speed for the C49 fan system
that will be marketed by NZ Frost Fans.
41
ATTACHMENT~ 6
The engine tested was a Perkins 1006-6T 6 cylinder, 611tre turbo-diesel engine
whereas the production engine will be a John Deere 6.8 litre, 6 cylinder turbo-dieSel
engine. Both engines have similar mufflers and the cabinet design is the same for
both engines with a similar noise output at the same engine speed.
The C49 fan is designed to run at 418rpm, regardless of the engine driving it. The
test fan had an overall gear ratio from the fan to the engine of 4.3; therefore the
engine speed is 418rpm x 4.3, which equals 1, 797 rpm. The replacement fan will
have an overall gear ratio from the fan to the engine of 4.194; therefore the engine
speed is 418rpm x 4.194, which equals 1, 735 rpm. Thus, the replacement frost fan
will operate at 62rpm lower engine speed compared to the original fan so theoretically
the engine noise will be slightly lower than the engine tested. Regardless, it is noted
the engine noise does not control the measured operating frost fan noise; the noise
into the environment is controlled by the frost fan itself so the resulting noise level
with the replacement engine will be the same as the test with the original engine
operating.
The noise measurement equipment used was:
• Briiel & Kj83r 2250 Hand-held Analyser platform with Sound Level Meter Software BZ 7222, Frequency Analysis Software and BZ 7225 Enhanced Logging Software. Re-calibration is next due in May 2011;
• Btiiel & Kjaer %"type 4189 microphone, serial number 2650951. Re-calibration is next due in May 2011 ;
• Btiiel & Kj83r 4230 calibrator serial number 930422. Re-calibration is next due in September 201 0;
• Sroel & Kjaer type UA0237 90mm diameter Windscreen;
• All measurements were undertaken In accordance with the requirements of NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and assessed in accordance with the requirements of NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics ..... Environmental Noise.
42
ATIACHMENTWJ 7
3 TEST RESULTS
Measurements were undertaken at four locations at 300m; one upwind, one
downwind and two at 90° clockwise from these two measurements as shown on
Figure 1 and labelled Sites 1 - 4. Each site was measured for a minimum of 15
minutes, which gave just over two full rotations of the frost fan. The real time noise
trace was recorded as well as the sound spectrum for each measurement.
Figure 3 - 6 shows an example of the real time trace for Sites 1 - 4.
I I I
ProJaol 037 - ji ••• looo•d
I I I I I I I
-~- _____ -- ~ - ____ -- ~ --:z-- ~~-~r~_9 ___ __ ~ __ ·-- ___ ~ _______ ~ --' I I t I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I 80---- - - , --- 1 ------ r- ----- -r-------,- ----- - r - ••-• , -- - ~ -
115
eo
1 I I I I I I
- --L------- ~ __ __ J _ _ I I
l~---··
Figure 3. Real Time Noise Trace for Site 1
-----------------.r.:.roJaoi oSe- P •• i Lc;~uo•d
I I
J ___ _ I
::c_ -r I I I I I I
- -L ~ ------ • i __ L_<!u_s~t0!~~~~- ____ ; ___ _ _ I ;r -· I - - ~- - ~ I I
I I I I t I
001------ -r----- . -~ ---515 - ---L-- · -- - J-
I I I I -----,--- -- , I
I
10:20:00 PN 10: 22: 0t) PM 't0:-24:00 PIVI 10:2& 00 PM 10:28:00 PM 10: 30.00 PM 10:32:00 PM ~-0o P - -LAF
Figure 4. Real Time Noise Trace for Site 2
43
ATTACHMENT~1
8
~ I 8 fi
I I I I I I I __ J ________ l __ _ __ ___ , ________ J ____ _
I I I I I I
I I I •o ~--- - - - -- , - -
I
Figure 5. Real Time Noise Trace for Site 3
tsr;jllat 0<4o - F -• Cog~cl - &woklde • •v ppt
~~'====~====~=r=======T======~~======r=~~==T=====~;========r====~
GO
I
' • 1.--.--I
I I I : I I I I I j I I
I = I
- ~ - · - - -- ~ -Pukeko -ca,ls-· -----~ -~tot~od -~-- ~ - - -
I I I I I : I - r - ----· · r ·--- -r-------r ---- -- r - -- : --- r- --- - -- r -I I I I i I I
I : I I
--- - -L-- - ~---~-------1 : I I _:
--r - --~--- · --- -- -~~~!~~~ I
40~-.~.~"~4~,~~~~M~~ •• ~,~ •• ~, O~O~~=M~~.~,~1=0,~00~P~M~1~.~,.~ .. ±,DO~P~M~~ • • ~,~ •• ~,~OO~P=M~~.~,~ •• ~,~OO~P~M~1~1~,.~.~,0~0~P~M~1~1~,.~.±,0~0~P~M~~ --LAF
Figure 6. Real Time Noise Trace for Site 4
Figure 7 shows the sound spectrum in one third octave bands as measured over a 15
minute period for the tests undertaken at 300m and 1800rpm and Figure 8 shows the
same information in octave bands for Sites 1 - 4. It is noted that the higher level
recorded at Site 2 between 250 - 630Hz is the result of a gust of wind passing
through.
44
Ill -a . 'ii > ~
70
60
50
20
10
0
80
70
60
so 40
30
20
31
ATTACHMENT(!'~ 9
Frequency- Hz
-~it~ I
Figure 7. Sound Spectrum at 300m and 1800rpm (One Third Octave)
63 125 250 500 lk 21< 4k Sk
Frequencv· Hz
- SIIt l - SIIt>l --Site~
Figure 8. Sound Spectrum at 300m and 1800rpm (Octave)
The overall logarithmic average noise level over a minimum of 15 minutes duration at
each of the four sites tested around the Frost Boss C49 frost fan at 300m is 51dB
LAeq(1s min) with a ±2d8 variation in four of the tests when operating at 1800rpm. This
difference includes the effects of the wind gust, which would not normally occur as
the machine would have automatically been shut down.
45
ATTACHMENTW 10
This gives a level of 55dBA LAeq{15minl at 240m.
Appendix 84 of NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental Noise sets the test to
determine if there is a tone to the sound of interest. To determine if a tone is present
the relevant section of the Standard states:
84.2 Objective test methods Where there is doubt about the presence of tonality, the following two methods provide an objective measure for tonality. The simplified test method may be carried out using one-third octave band measurement equipment. The reference test method requires the use of narrow band analysis. If the simplified method does not indicate tonality, it may still be necessary to use the reference method to confirm the presence or absence of tonality. In addition, the reference method can properly assess modulated tones or complex tones.
84.3 Simplified test method for tonality A test for the presence of a prominent discrete-frequency spectral component (tonality) can be made by comparing the levels Of neighbouring one-third octave bands in the sound spectrum. An adjustment for tonality shall be applied if the LEO in a one-third-octave band exceeds the arithmetic mean of the LEO in both adjacent bands by more than the values given in table 82.
Table 82 • One-third octave band level differences
One-third octave band Level difference
25-125 Hz 15dB
160-400 Hz BdB
500 ·~ 1 0000 Hz 5dB
NOTE .,. At frequencies below 500Hz the criterion could be too severe and tones might be identified where none is actually audible. For complex spectra the method is often inadequate and the reference method should be used.
A visual check of the individual frequencies as set o~;~t on Figures 4 and 5 (1/3 octave
and octave bands) does not indicate any tonal characteristic to the sound. In
addition, a mathematical check of the differences in the frequencies has been
46
ATTACHME~JT~~~; 11
undertaken, which verifies there is no tonal characteristic to the sound from the C49
frost fan operating. That is, there Is no special audible characteristics to the sound.
There is also the potential of an impulsive sound frOm the frost fans this aspect of the
sound has been considered. In the evaluation of the impulsive nature of the frost fan
the testing undertaken during the wind gusts has not been included in the analysis as
in normal conditions the frost fans would have turned off automa~ically under su.ch
conditions. This feature was overridden during the testing in order to ensure the 15
minutes required in accordance with the Council requirement wa~ achieved.
When checking for impulsive noise guidance was taken from a OELTA2 paper
Objective Method for the Measurement of Prominence of Impulsive Sounds and for
Adjustment of Leq by Torben Holm Pederson, December 2000. Essentially, this paper
adopted an approach that the sudden onset of a sound is defined as an impulse
where the onset of a sound is defined as part of the positive slope of a time history of
LpAF where the gradient exceeds 1 OdB/s.
Figure 9 is an example of the checking undertaken where the most impulsive part of
the sound trace shown in Figure 3 has been evaluated. Figure 3 shows the sound
plotted at 10 times a second so the rise time can be evaluated accurately. From this
trace the noise from the frost fan was not impulsive and this confirmed the subjective
effect of these frost fans although as already noted, if the fans operate with a wind
blowing there is the potential for there to be impulsive noise to the sound. However,
operating the frost fans in windy conditions can damage the machines so they have
automatic shut offs to ensure this does not occur during normal operation.
~ .. i>.:p~=o-=••-,;;a,....-7-,- '""•"'"••"L•""O<I=•d:rt,..:=-.c'<=iii>=cu=i•=d-=o----- ---
~~- ~=======r======~-~~-.=======~======r=====~~==~ I I I I I
, : • Sseconds .. : : 1 ·· L!- . ---r --------:---------r ------ r;p-
.oL-+--------: ---1
--- ~~~~)lv~~~~t ------1 I I f I I I I I I I i I I I
.. ~ T ·~ -:- --- --- --~ - -- .. --- -f --- -~- - -- -- ---!- -- --- - -- ~ -- - -- --- ~
2 40 Lj,. p,. , 0,00
1
= PM , 0,oolos PM ---::,o::::,oo:-=':::::,oc=PM,.,---,,:-=o,:c:oot::ss- ,.-.. - 10:oo1..-,o-,. .. -- LAF
Figure 9. Inspection of Potential Impulsive noise
47
ATTACHMENTf61 12
4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above, when measured in accordance with the requirements of NZS
6801 :20o8 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and assesSE!d in
accordance with the requirements of NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental
Noise, the noise from the Frost Boss C49 frost fan operating at 1800rpm is 51d8
LAeq(15 mtnl when measUred at 300m.
Based on field testing there are no special audible characteristics to the frost fan
noise.
Field measurements have also been undertaken at 1OOm, 1700rpm and 1900rpm.
While fewer measurements were undertaken for these tests, based on the more
detailed testing undertaken at 1800rpm and 300m the additional measurements will
be within ±2dB of any more detailed monitoring.
The sound power level has been calculated for 1800rpm and the sound power at
1700rpm will be 3dB lower and at 1900rpm 2dB higher than for 1800rpm.
* .. *
48
ATTACHMENT is
Western Bay of Plenty District Council Sections 95A to 95F
Resource Management Act 1991 Report determining whether an application for Resource Consent should be processed as publicly notified, limited notified or non-notified
Application Number: Applicant: Site address: Legal Description of Site: Description of Application:
Planning Framework • Relevant Plan:
• Zoning:
• Rule Number:
RC10514L A&.N Dawson Lancaster Road Lot 3 DPS 79545 Establish and Operate a Frost Fan
Western Bay of Plenty Operative District Plan 2012
Rural
Rule 4C.1.3.7(a) - Noise from the operation of frost protection fans shall not exceed SSdBA Leq and 65dBA Lmax at any point within the notional boundary of any dwelling in a Rural Zone (excluding any dwelling on the subject site).
Rule 4C.1.3.7(b) - The maximum height of any frost fan (including blade) shall not exceed 15m.
• Reason for Non-Compliance: The proposed frost protection fan would not comply with Rule 4C.1.3.7(a) as it would exceed SSdBA Leq in respect to the notional boundary of a dwelling on a neighbouring property. The frost fan would comply with Rule 4C.1.3.7(b) as it is less than 15m in height.
• Activity Status: In accordance with Rule 4C.1.3.7 the proposed frost protection fan is a restricted discretionary activity.
Permitted Baseline Assessment • The permitted baseline is not considered relevant as exceeding the noise
prescribed in Rule 4C.1.3.7 is not permitted.
Description of Existing Environment • The site Is located on the southern side of north side of Lancaster Road and is
accessed directly from Lancaster Road. The site is vacant of buildings and contains solely existing kiwifruit orchard. The topography of the site and
49
ATTACHMENT~
surrounding area is generally flat and there are substantial stands of shelterbelt trees on the boundaries of the site as well as within the site.
• The principal land use activity of surrounding properties is horticulture (kiwi fruit), agriculture (stock grazing) and residential accommodation and therefore the established character of the area is reflective of the underlying rural zoning. The site of the frost fan is in close proximity to Tauranga Harbour.
Has the applicant requested that the application be publicly notified? [Section 95A(2)(b)
• NO
Introduction • The applicant proposes to establish and operate a frost protection fan on a
property located at Lancaster Road, Katikati, legally described as Lot 3 DPS 79545. The frost fan model is the "Frost Boss C49 4-Biade Frost Fan". The fan would have a tower height of lO.Sm (and is O.Sm in diameter) and attached 4-blade fan with a S.Sm diameter. The total height of the fan (incl. blade and tower) is 13.3m. The fan would be powered by a John Deere 6068T Diesel engine.
• The fan would be located approximately 98m from the southern boundary, 58m from the eastern property boundary, 247m from the northern property boundary and 102m from the western property boundary. The closest dwelling is approximately 125m from the proposed frost fan. Based on a noise assessment for this frost fan model, (prepared by Hegley Consultants, dated April 2016), noise levels over 55 dBA Leq would be experienced within 240m of the fan. At a distance of 240m or more, noise levels below SSdBA would be experienced.
• The applicant has sought written approval from several persons as specified below, however none have provided their consent as indicated.
• A site visit was undertaken on 8 June 2017.
Pursuant to Section 95A{2)(a), will any adverse effects of the activity on the environment for which consent is sought be more than minor?
District Plan Assessment
• Rule 4C.1.3.6 Frost Protection Fans - Pedotmllnce Standard for Permitted Activity
Frost protection fans (including portable non-fixed type) shall be a Permitted Activity subject to the relevant performance standards of the underlying zone. Should the fan not comply with the relevant noise standards the activity shall default to be considered as a Controlled or Restricted Discretionary Activity as detailed in 4C.1.3.7 and 4C.1.3.8.
50
ATIACHMENT~.:·
Comment: The frost fan is not a permitted activity, as it does not comply with the general noise standards for all activities in the Rural zone. In accordance with the Rule, regard is therefore given to Rules 4C.1.3.7 and 4C.1.3.8. The noise limits for the Rural zone are as follows:
Time Period Sound Level Not to be Exceeded
Day Hours Leq Lmax Monday to 7amto lOpm 50dBA N/A Saturday Sunday 7am to 6om 50dBA NIA At all other times and on public 40dBA 65dBA holidays
• Rule 4C.1..3.7 Frost Protection Fans- Performance Standard for Controlled Activity
Where the following performance standards cannot be met then the activity shall fall to being assessed as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. [emphasis added by writer] (a) Noise from the operation of frost protection fans shall not exceed 55dBA Leq and
65dBA Lmax at any point within the notional boundary of any dwelling in a Rural or Lifestyle Zone (excluding a residential dwelling on the same property on upon which the fan is operating) nor at any point within the boundary of any property within a Resident/a~ Rural-Residential or Future Urban Zone.
(b) The overall height for the fan including the fan blade shall not exceed 15m. (c) When the frost protection fan is in operation for frost protection the frost protection
fan must not start up until the air at canopy height drops to 2oC, and shall cease operation when the rising temperature reaches 4oC at canopy height
(d) When the frost protection fan is operating for maintenance purposes the machine shall only be used from Monday to Friday Bam to 5pm. Explanatory Note: Fan Type - The distance required to achieve 55dBA will vary depending on the noise performance of the frost protection fan. Applications for resource consent must be supported with evidence identifying the noise performance of the fan to be used.
Comment: Rule 4C.1.3.7(a)- Based on the Hegley Acoustic Consultants' Report, noise from the proposed frost fan would exceed SSdBA Leq within 240m of the frost fan. There are dwellings within 240m of the frost fan therefore the rule is not met and the frost fan requires consideration as restricted discretionary activity. The "notional boundary" is defined as follows:
"Notional Boundary* is as defined in New Zealand Standard NZS 6801:2008 Measurement of Sound and is a line 20m from any side of a dwelling, or the legal boundary of the property on which the dwelling is locatect whichever point is closer to the dwelling.
51
ATTACHMENT[§]
Rule 4C.1.3.7(b) - The proposed frost fan has a maximum height of 13.3m (including blade and tower) and therefore complies with the 15m height limit prescribed by Rule 4C.1.3.7(b). Due to this, no regard is required to be given to any visual or landscape effects.
Rule 4C.1.3.7(c) and (d) - Should the Council approve the resource consent application, the conditions of consent will include a requirement to comply with this rule. Maintenance and testing should comply with the noise limits consented to by the Council.
Due to the fan not complying with Rule 4C.1.3.7(a), the application falls to be assessed as a "restricted discretionary activity''.
• Rule 4C.1.3.8 Frost Protection Fans - Performance Standard for Restricted Discretionary Activity
Where the written approvals of all affected persons have not been obtained then notice shall be served on those persons.
Explanatory Note: For the purpose of identifying affected persons where the noise from the operation of the frost protection fan exceeds 55dBA Leq at any point within the notional boundary of any dwelling in a Rura~ Lifestyle or Future Urban Zone, (excluding a residential dwelling on the same property on upon which the fan is operating) or at any point within the boundary of any Residential or Rural-Residential zone, those occupiers/owners shall be deemed to be affected.
Comment: In accordance with the above "Explanatory Note", those persons affected by the application are those persons who would experience noise above SSdBA Leq at any point with the notional boundary of their dwelling. An assessment of affected properties is provided below.
• 4C.1.5.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity - Frost Protection Fans Council shall restrict its discretion to the following: (a) The best practicable option, this should address as a minimum; alternative options
for frost protection, effectiveness of those alternative options, affordabili~ cumulative effects of existing machines in the vicini~ and any effects on established land uses, and proposed mitigation.
(b) The effect of the increased noise level on those persons who will experience noise levels over 55dBA Leq at their notional boundary or boundary.
Comment: As a restricted discretionary activity and in accordance with Section 87A(3) and Section 104C of the Act (refer to the below), the Council, legally, can only consider those matters under Rule 4C.1.5.2 in assessing the effects of the application. The below determination of affected persons is based on Rule 4C1.3.8 and 4C.1.5.2.
52
ATIACHMENT@i
Assessment of Effects
• The noise emissions of the frost fan would comply with the prescribed 55 dBA Leq at a distance of 240m or more from the frost fan. The noise emissions at a distance of Om and 240m from the frost fan would range between 55 and 65dba. It is considered that any dwelling within 240m of the frost fan would experience minor effects on their respective amenity.
• In accordance with Rule 4C.1.3.8, those persons who are to be considered affected are the owners/occupiers of dwellings within the rural zone which would experience noise levels in excess of 55 dBA Leq, and who have not provided their written approval. Based on the 240m radius and written approvals already obtained, the Council has identified the following persons as adversely affected.
Martray Partnership- Lot 2 DPS 79545- 93A Lancaster Road; J & K Hilhorst - Lot 1 DPS 79545 - 93 Lancaster Road
• The applicant had sought to obtain the written approval from the above identified affected parties, by way of approaching via email, phone and door knocking. All parties have been provided copies of application documents and written approval forms, however no written approvals have been received to date.
• Alternative options have been considered, including the application of water and the use of helicopters.
• The application of water is a method now approached with some uncertainty due to the prevalence of Pseufomonas syringae pv. Actinidiae (PSA) and responsible for the devastation of New Zealand's kiwifruit orchards. The application of water is particularly conductive to spreading PSA during colder months when frost protection is necessary. Consequently this alternative has been dismissed.
• The second alternative, is the use of a helicopter which is the approach currently used at the site. Helicopters are expensive and based on research are louder, at approximately 80-lOOdBA and have a wider noise effect than frost protection fans due to their inherent mobility. In addition the applicant has noted the dangers of helicopters especially when flying at low altitudes in a dark environment while landowners, including those outside of the noise contour boundary, have raised concerns about helicopters frightening animals, particularly horses. This option is proposed to be replaced with the installation of the frost protection fan.
Notwithstanding the above1 do any special circumstances exist in relation to this application which would lead you to conclude that the application should be notified? If the answer is yes1 why? [Section 95A(4)]
• No
53
Recommendation:
ATTACHME~ITre;·
That the application need not be publicly notified in accordance with Section 95A of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Who may be considered to be adversely affected by the granting of this application? Identify the properties on the attached plan. [Section 9SE and 95F]
• Those persons considered adversely affected are as follows:
Martray Partnership - Lot 2 DPS 79545 - 93A Lancaster Road; J & K Hilhorst - Lot 1 DPS 79545 - 93 Lancaster Road
Has the written approval of every person who may be considered to be adversely affected by the granting of the resource consent been obtained? [Section 9SE(3)(a)]
• No
If the answer to the above question is no, do you consider that it is unreasonable in the circumstances to require the obtaining of every such approval? [Section 95E(3){b)]
• No
Recommendation: That the application be processed on a limited notified basis in accordance with Section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991, and that it be served on all parties identified under Section 95E and 95F above.
Reported and Recommended by: __,.::....L-AJ-1~'---------------Anna Price, Senior Consents Planner ~ Date: lijj6jwl1
Decision: That the above recomm
54ATIACHMENTZ' ~-,..~ I f;~.E~ (~ L ~:D1€£3'=7
! 2 6 JUN 2017 SUBMISSION BY
MARTRAY PARTNERSHIP (JD & JM BATCHELOR)
93A LANCASTER ROAD
RD4
KATIKATI3181
Phone 07 552 0791
RE: APPUCATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT FOR RC10514L
i: ~
I , ,. ~~ ~ • . · -.
The application concerns the proposal to erect a frost fan on AD & NO Dawson's property, a kiwifruit
orchard, which adjoins ours.
We oppose the application for the following reasons.
1 The noise level of the proposed frost fan must not exceed the allowable noise levels at any point
within the notional boundary of any dwelling in the Rural Zone. The level given in the
conclusions in the test results submitted for the noise levels In the application states that the
fan noise would be above SSdBA at 240 metres from the fan location. At 100 metres the level
would be 65dBA. This Is a 10-fold Increase above the permitted level. Our dwelling is only 125 metres from the proposed site of the frost fan, with our main bedroom upstairs looking directly
at it.
2 The helicopter currently used also exceeds these noise levels but as it is expensive it only
protects when necessary, and it does a circuit of orchards so we don't get continuous noise.
There are real fears that the proposed frost fan would be used much more often than the
helicopter is used, and even by Including limits as to when the frost fan may be used, how can
the limits be monitored or controlled in a timely manner?
3 Although the frost fan may not be particularly noticeable from the road, the proposed location
of the frost fan on the orchard means it would be a dominant feature from our main bedroom
upstairs, and an eyesore to the view we currently enjoy from the front of our house. There is no
shelter belt to partly hide it (the fan would be higher than the shelter belt), just wind cloth
which can be seen through.
4 Consultation With members ofthe real estate industry confirm our tears that this proposed frost
fan would have a significant impact on our property, both in decreasing its value considerably
and in reducing the number of potential buyers willing to come and look at it when we wish to
sell. We would certainly not have considered purchasing this property If there had been a frost
fan on the proposed site.
5 There are alternatives such as irrigation which are far less Intrusive.
.,
'
55
ATTACHMENT IQJ
The decision we wish the council to make is to decline the application as it does not comply with Rule 4C.1.3.7(a).
Uhfortunately, we are going to be out of the country from the 9th July until September, so are unable to
make our submission In person, something we would have liked the opportunity to do. In light of this,
can all correspondence to us In regard to this submission be by email to
Yours faithfully
Doug and Jocelyn Batchelor
26111 June 2017
2
.....
I
56
Produced using ArcMap by the Western Bay of Plerty District Co!n:ll GIS Team.
[ DatE: 27/07/2016
I Crown CDpyTight reserved. UNZ di!jtalllcense no. HN/352200/03 l T0093522. Operator: LanGasll!r Rd Locatlon or services Is Indicative only. Councl1 aaEpls no liability for any error. M Scale 1: 3,464 Ardlaeologiall data 50Jillllied by NZ Ard1aeological Ass«/Del)t. of Conservation. 0 173 Meters
[ 240m )[I] Westem Bay of Plenty
57Date Subject
31 July 2017 Open Session Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board - July 2017 New Road Name - Lamay Place, Te Puke
Western Bay of Plenty District Council
Regulatory Hearings Committee
Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board July 2017 New Road Name
Lomay Place, Te Puke
Summary
The Regulatory Hearings Committee is required to consider the recommendation and resolve accordingly. The following options are available to the Regulatory Hearings Committee and where appropriate the preferred option has been recommended.
Please note the following is a recommendation only.
The Regulatory Hearings Committee to resolve to:
(a) adopt as recommended (b) to modify (c) refer to another Committee (d) to decline (giving reasons) and refer back to the Te Puke Community Board
Recommendation from the Te Puke Community Board -27luly 2017
TP6.5 New Road Name - Te Puke
A2959656
The Board considered a report from the Environmental Consents Manager dated 11 July 2017.
Resolved: Member Spratt I Councillor Scrimgeour
1. THAT the Environmental Consent Manager's report dated 11 July 2017 and titled ''New Road Name- Te Puke" be received.
2. THAT it be recommended to the Regulatory Hearings Committee that pursuant to Section 319 and 319a of the Local Government Act 1974, the Regulatory Hearings Committee adopt the following road name for the new private-way arising out of subdivision consent 5/8/11856 at 17 No.1 Road, Te Puke:
''Lamay Place"
Page 1
58Date Subject
31 July 2017 Open Session Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board - July 2017 New Road Name - Lamay Place, Te Puke
Staff Comments- Environmental Consents Manager
Staff Support the road name identified in the recommendation .
Recommendation
1. THAT the report from the Democracy Advisor dated 31 July 2017 and titled Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board July 2017 New Road Name- Lomay Place, Te Puke be received.
2. THAT the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of low significance in terms of Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.
3. THAT it be recommended to the Regulatory Hearings Committee that pursuant to Section 319 and 319a of the Local Government Act 1974, the Regulatory Hearings Committee adopt the following road name for the new private-way arising out of subdivision consent S/B/11856 at 17 No.1 Road, TePuke:
¥-·~\_~, Aileen Alty \ 1
DemcScracy Advisor
A2959656
"Lomay Place"
Page 2
59Date Subject
1.
31 July 2017 Open Session Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board - July 2017 New Road Name - Lamay Place, Te Puke
Research and Further information
1.1 Background
We note that the developer has previously approached council for the road to be named "Kingfisher Lane", which was subsequently endorsed by the Te Puke Community Board (4 May 2017) and then the Regulatory Hearings Committee (RH3 on 25 May 2017).
However, by the time the road name reached Land Information New Zealand, Council were advised that the road name had arisen in a subdivision in Papamoa within Tauranga City Council jurisdictional area. Land Information New Zealand would not accept the name and Council approached the developer for name options.
The following names were considered but also under conflict within Tauranga City Council boundaries.
• Clover leaf Lane • Meadow View Lane
1.2 Private-way Name
The purpose of this report is to consider the proposed private-way name in relation to a subdivision consent (Council Reference S/B/11856) recently completed development and now in the market.
This subdivision created 12 lots as a subdivision of 17 No.1 Road, Te Puke. The private-way is in a shared ownership and is not vested in Council. Certification under Section 224(c) Resource Management Act 1991 has concluded and titles issued. Council has issued road numbers but needs to resolve the road name matter.
Council has engaged with the consent holder (Mr Todd Whittaker) with the naming of the new private-way.
The proposed road name "Lomay Place'.
The reason for this name is that this is the developers' mother's name "Lama May".
As required, Council staff have researched and considered the name and checked for any conflict or duplication with adjoining Councils throughout the Bay of Plenty region. No conflict was found.
A2959656 Page 3
60Date Subject
31 July 2017 Open Session Recommendatory Report from the Te Puke Community Board - July 2017 New Road Name
II -· !i7 Of"t'n,s.' l
"
lOrao -
~ ~ .. . .. J- -::- r ---· ' . ' . I
....:::;-'_ --- '
...,, . ............ "".
- I ...... .... .... .,. .
~011 •• .,.,._.,
"". -·"""
..... . ~ .... T1
2. Statutory Compliance
As discussed, there is a clear requirement for a private-way to be named when there are a number of additional lots involved. Land Information New Zealand sets this at 5 or more lots. The reason for naming the roads is for clarification for emergency services, mapping, postal services and other agencies.
There is also a need to avoid potential for confusion with similar road/ private-way names in nearby districts.
As part of the road naming process, the proposed private-way name was checked for any conflict or duplication with the neighbouring Tauranga City Council, Whakatane District Council, Hauraki District Council and Rotorua District Council.
No duplication was found with the proposed name.
Funding/ Budget Implications
Budget Funding Relevant Detail Information
$300 - $500 There are generally no financial or budget implications with a road naming process with sign costs otherwise covered by an applicant/ developer.
On vested roads maintenance of the road sign falls to West/ink; however, in this case, on private-ways sign and maintenance costs fall to the private-way/ access lot owners
A2959656 Page 4
61Date 31 July 2017 Open Session Subject Recommendatory Report from Te Puke Community Board - July 2017 New Road
Name - Lamay Place, Te Puke
3. Other Considerations
There are no other matters arising from this application that need to be considered by the Te Puke Community Board.
4. Consultation and Communication
There is no statutory obligation for the land owners or the Council, to discuss or engage with the wider community on road names.
No additional consultation was undertaken other than that as advised in the background discussions earlier in this report.
A2959656 Page 5
