Dear Wellington City Council,

In the “General Approach” Section of the “How the Plan Works” within "Part 1 – Introduction and General Provisions” of the new 2024 District Plan, the following instruction is provided:

"The rules have the effect of regulations and set out the activity status for different activities that may be proposed. There may be a number of rules that apply. Each rule has a specific number; for example MRZ-R4.

Rules may refer to standards that need to be complied with. Again, there may be a number of standards that apply. Each standard has a specific number; for example MRZ-S4."

From the above statement we note that it is unclear if Rules have a relationship to one or more *specific* Standards, or all Standards must be complied with -- in which case there would be no reason to refer to any Standard from within a Rule.

For example, in the General Rural Zone:

ER-R3: Earthworks for the purposes of constructing and maintaining public walking or cycling tracks in Open Space and Recreation Zones

is defined as a Permitted activity where Compliance is achieved with EW-S9.

EW S9: Track width associated with the construction or maintenance of walking and cycling tracks in the Open Space and Recreation Zones

Noting that:
- no where within the the district plan’s Instructions, nor the text of EW-R3 or EW-S9 refer to any other Rule or Standard.
- EW-R3's text clearly states that the Rule is permitted when Compliance with EW-S9 is met.

Please confirm that the district plan, as currently published, permits making bike tracks of 1.5m width or less, even if surpassing limits defined in other -- but unspecified -- Standards (EW-S2, EW-S1, etc.).

If not, please provide an evidenced rebuttal clarifying why the above interpretation is incorrect, and that the other unreferenced Standards are applicable as well.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Wellington RatePayer