The LPG Association of New Zealand has appealed the Dunedin City Council's decision to change its district plan rules around hazardous substances.
Port Otago and Anthony Parata, of Waikouaiti, are also parties to the appeal of Plan Change 13 - Hazardous Substances, which came in to effect on July 7.
Parties had the right to appeal the decision to the Environment Court until August 17.
The council says it is keen to enter mediation with the appellants to try to reach an agreement instead of heading to court.
Earlier this year the council consulted on its proposal to bring its district plan rules on storage, use, disposal and transportation of hazardous substances in line with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996, and its associated regulations.
Changes included changes to the limits for hazardous substances that could be stored without a resource consent, including increased limits at some sites, but the LPG Association says it would rather see no thresholds at all, and/or the council should remove reference to hazardous substances management in its district plan and rely solely on the HSNO and associated regulations for regulation of hazardous substances.
The association's notice of appeal from association executive director Peter Gilbert says it is appealing the council's decision not to accept the association's submission that the effects of handling, storing and using lpg were appropriately dealt with under the HSNO and it was unnecessary and costly for people for the council to duplicate such controls in the district plan.
It also appealed the decision to increase the limit for lpg as a permitted activity to 200kg on site, saying there was no sound evidential reasoning for a limit.
Port Otago's notice of its wish to be party to the proceedings said it was particularly interested in ensuring the provisions in the proposed plan change that affected the port and industrial zones were not more restrictive than those already contained in council's decision.
Mr Parata said he wanted to be party to the appeal because it was unnecessary to duplicate HSNO and Resource Management Act controls in the district plan and in its proposed minimum thresholds rule, the council had gone beyond its powers under both Acts.
While the appeal was under way the parts of the plan change being appealed were not being enacted by the council.
