Thread: Auckland shooting club. Resource consent help

I'm not associated with this (was there on the original opening day, and was a member for a bit.),but I think it's a fantastic facility and they need a bit of help. So if anyone feels like writing a letter....

Below copied and pasted -



Resource consent for Auckland Shooting Club is now open for public submissions

Friends: please make a submission in support of the resource consent. Shown here are the 1st & last pages of the letter that has been sent out to people in the area. It doesn't matter where in NZ you are based, this is public & will attract a lot of submissions from lots of anti-firearms folks, from all over NZ.

In fact, international submissions would also help. Please.

Here is the link to make a submission online:

https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/...um=LUC60419114

Please help Auckland Shooting Club.

I followed the link but it isn’t open until this Friday. My submission will simply say “Just let Raymond and Victoria build the world class shooting facility that they envisioned when they first formed the club. Well I might add in a few other words like you and fucking and morons.

Originally Posted by Rushy

I followed the link but it isn’t open until this Friday. My submission will simply say “Just let Raymond and Victoria build the world class shooting facility that they envisioned when they first formed the club. Well I might add in a few other words like you and fucking and morons.

I echo your thoughts.
And will be politely saying the same...

Also a mention of the economic benefit to the region, especially if they get to host a international event.....(which if it's built like the plans said, they will be able to) and it serious coin to.

I don't want to rain on your parade.
I am a qualified Hearings Commissioner and Hearings Panel Chair for Resource Consent & Plan Change Hearings.

The link to the application on the Auckland Council website is
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/...um=LUC60419114

It is the quality of you submission that matters not the quantity.
The process is not an election, numbers without evidence don't carry much weight.

You/we would be better off making a $$$$ donation to the applicant(s) to help them hire a good planner(s) and expert witnesses to support their case.

They will have to challenge the assessment that it is a "non-complying" activity.
They will need a planner/lawyer to challenge this.
A non-complying activity status is a big hurdle to jump.

Generally in consents one has to remedy, mitigate or avoid problems to achieve the required outcome.

Hundreds or thousands of submissions saying "this is a good idea" "let them do it" will carry no weight.

One would need to read the application and find specific points to support in the application.

Thank you Cyclops.

As Cyclops said, evidence from an independent planner/RMA lawyer/SME experts that the activity will not have detrimental effects is what is going to be required.

$$$$$$

Originally Posted by Cyclops

It is the quality of you submission that matters not the quantity.
The process is not an election, numbers without evidence don't carry much weight.

100% this.

Having processed applications for various councils across NZ for over 2 decades, and been at numerous hearings on behalf of Council, I agree, the number of submissions received mean very little, especially if they are all proforma type ones. It is refreshing to see someone actually puts in the effort and articulates why they support or oppose a proposal.

See that is why the world is so fucked up now. Red Tape up the whaazoo. How the hell did mankind get by for all those millennia without it?it’s their land, it’s miles from anywhere and they want they want to build their dream facility. A couple of centuries ago they just would have done it and people today would have called them visionaries. Today some moaning pricks that want to contemplate their navals have shut it down for the last couple of years due to some trumped up noise issue. I say trumped up as one day I was down there re-enacting the battle of Long Tan with an AR15 and shotgun and when exiting the gate I encountered the closest neighbour who had not heard a thing.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I don't want to rain on your parade.
I am a qualified Hearings Commissioner and Hearings Panel Chair for Resource Consent & Plan Change Hearings.

The link to the application on the Auckland Council website is
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/...um=LUC60419114

It is the quality of you submission that matters not the quantity.
The process is not an election, numbers without evidence don't carry much weight.

You/we would be better off making a $$$$ donation to the applicant(s) to help them hire a good planner(s) and expert witnesses to support their case.

They will have to challenge the assessment that it is a "non-complying" activity.
They will need a planner/lawyer to challenge this.
A non-complying activity status is a big hurdle to jump.

Generally in consents one has to remedy, mitigate or avoid problems to achieve the required outcome.

Hundreds or thousands of submissions saying "this is a good idea" "let them do it" will carry no weight.

One would need to read the application and find specific points to support in the application.

Sage words.

Not trying to create a proforma type submission, but do you have any further key messages or points that people maybe able to add in to help out?

I'm currently reading the application and associated documentation.

I'm thinking about a few points that people might use in a supporting submission - but then they'll start to read like a ChatGPT version of a proforma submission.

I'm not saying don't submit in support. It helps, but it helps more if you can give good reasons for your support, and reasons that stack up in the RMA context.

"I'm a shooter and this'll be a great place to let of a few rounds" probably won't help.

Highlight the efforts to mitigate and improve on the environmental effects.
The location with few neighbours.
Support for a sporting group.
The favourable acoustic reports.

However I do, honestly, have a few concerns.
15 carparks. Can the applicant guarantee there will only be 15 vehicles visiting at any one time? How?
If not what provision for overflow parking?

Accessibility - only on accessible carpark (1/15 is probably okay) but will there be accessible access to the Portaloos?
Will there be accessible access to all the ranges? If not why not?

They've engaged a lot of consultants in the right areas.
I wish them well.

Might put in a submission against this, hopefully they can try again but somewhere in South Auckland/North Waikato, much more convienient location for me.

(obviously sarcasm)

@Cyclops…well stated and certainly information that we could all wisely use and abide…..I would hope that the owners of this proposed venture would have already gone down this road or have been advised to address the issues youve mentioned.????
@Rushy……maaaaaate!…I still like your posts the best!!!…lol

Originally Posted by A330driver

@Rushy……maaaaaate!…I still like your posts the best!!!…lol

Mate I have reached that grumpy old man stage of life where I have had all filters surgically bypassed and now dump what I need to say without regard to others. The owners of the property have sunk millions into the place and the facility was even opened by the then minister of police. I enjoyed the flexibility of the access arrangements as did others so it had a great membership uptake and the development plans would have no doubt seen it become a world class venue. Then it all went pear shaped when complaining dissenters (including the naval gazing meditation centre miles down the road) started up about noise and too much dirt being shifted and the multiplicity of oxygen thieving bureaucrats from the council and police got involved, sat on their chuffs and dusted off the rule books to quote chapter and verse. I have always had a dim view of councils and waste of space bureaucrats and since the Tarrant fuck up I now feel similarly about Police management (note not the coppers doing the real work). I would like to think that the resource consent application will be successful but I am sceptical and suspect that regardless of how much money gets thrown at this process complaining Karens will prevail because that is just how shit goes these days. Some rules and regulations are absolutely essential to the survival of civilised society (e.g. drive on the correct side of the road) but most simply slow shit down and justify the existence of the multitude of bureaucrats. In the worst of possible threats to mankind survival conditions i am in that dwindling minority that will just get on with it and do what needs to be done while others are wondering whether they really should start a fire and cook the neighbours dog because of the rules.

Lol… yeah @Rushy,.. there’s always 2 sides to a story(maybe more)…. Yours is the other side of the coin,both sides are important I reckon!!

Greetings All,
Thanks @Cyclops for your sage advice. I think the example quoted demonstrates that is not only the Arms Act that needs to be complied with when creating a rifle range and that the costs can be extensive even before the first shovel full of gravel is dug. Yet another reason why we need to consolidate on the Rifle Ranges we have before thinking about green field development.
Regards Grandpamac.