transcript of proceedings board of inquiry ......2012/09/13 · transcript of proceedings board of...
TRANSCRIPT
-
31 Leslie Hills Drive, Riccarton, Christchurch
ph. (03) 366-9671; fax: (03) 943-3608
e: [email protected]; w: www.adeptsts.co.nz
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BOARD OF INQUIRY
New Zealand King Salmon Proposal
HEARING at BLENHEIM on 13 SEPTEMBER 2012
BOARD OF INQUIRY:
Judge Gordon Whiting (Chairperson)
Environment Commissioner Helen Beaumont (Board Member)
Mr Mark Farnsworth (Board Member)
Mr Edward Ellison (Board Member)
Mr Michael Briggs (Board Member)
-
Page 1637
Blenheim 13.09.12
APPEARANCES
MR D. NOLAN, MR J. GARDNER-HOPKINS, MR J. MARRINER and 5
MS R. BALASINGAM for New Zealand King Salmon
MR P. BEVERLEY and MR D. ALLEN to assist the Board
MS K. MULLER, MS E. JAMIESON, MS S. BRADLEY and MR R. WITTE 10
for the Minister of Conservation
MR W. HEAL for Sustain Our Sounds, Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman
Bay and Nelson Underwater Club
15
MR S. QUINN and MR B. LUPTON for the Marlborough District Council
MS B. TREE for the Environmental Defence Society
MR J. IRONSIDE for the Pelorus Wildlife Sanctuaries, J&R Buchanan, 20
H Elkington and whanau
MR M. HARDY-JONES for Mr and Mrs Halstead
MS S. GREY for Pelorus Boating Club and others 25
MR CADDIE for the Kenepuru and Central Sounds Residents Association
MR C. SODERBERG
30
MR B. PLAISIER for Tui Nature Reserve Wildlife Park and Wildlife Trust
MR F. HIPPOLITE for Ngati Koata Trust Board
MS W. McGUINNESS for McGuinness Institute 35
MR S. BROWNING
MR D. BOULTON for Sustain our Sounds
40
-
Page 1638
Blenheim 13.09.12
LIST OF WITNESSES
-
Page 1639
Blenheim 13.09.12
[9.31 am]
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, good morning everybody. Now, I think we are
interpolating for Mr? 5
MS CLAFFERTY Mr Wilson, sir.
JUDGE WHITING: Mr Wilson.
10
MR WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE WHITING: You are Mr Wilson?
MR WILSON: Yes. 15
JUDGE WHITING: Now, Mr Wilson, you have filed some material, what tab
number was it?
MS CLAFFERTY: Folder 7, tab 8. 20
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, Mr Wilson, you have filed some material which we
have read as part of the evidence, and now you wish to make some
representations.
25
MR WILSON: That is right.
JUDGE WHITING: Well, the floor is yours, you may stand and it is all over
to you.
30
MR WILSON: Okay.
JUDGE WHITING: If you could just, for the record, state your name and the
reason why you are here and then make your submission.
35
MR WILSON: Yes, okay. So my name is Quentin Mackinder Wilson, I am
representing myself, my wife and my two children and I am here to
make submissions in respect of the whole proposal for all of the farms.
I am basically opposed to permission being granted for all of those
farms and I want to outline some of the reasons for my concerns and 40
my submission.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you and, if you wish, you can refer to any of
the material that you have filed, yes.
45
-
Page 1640
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR WILSON: Yes, thank you. So, sir, I would like to start with a very brief
description of my background because a number of aspects of that are
relevant to this particular application, partly by coincidence. I would
like to go on and paint a picture of what it is like in the bay and the
channel, which is a little bit different to what some of the experts have 5
actually said in their particular reports. I want to talk a bit about a code
that appears for some Marlborough properties in the Marlborough
District Council rating records which is an OBS status.
[9.35 am] 10
I believe that a fundamental mistake has been made in a lot of the
expert reports and it relates to this OBS status in the District Council
records, and I hope to try and explain that to you.
15
And then I would like to just briefly go through some of our concerns
and then conclude. So my background, to start with, is that I have had
a love of the environment from a very early age. I am a qualified
accountant but I trained with the NZ Yachting Federation and became a
club instructor and then went on to become a sailing master for a 20
number of years.
I have also picked up quite a lot of building skill and, by chance, I have
just finished building an ordinary car garage in Martinborough and
getting a code of compliance and going through all of the five 25
inspections under the new building code, which is not an easy issue, but
there is a relevance in that and particularly in the fact that the actual
permitted quoted price of that ordinary garage was $40,000. You will
see the relevance to that in a while.
30
We first purchased the land in Ruakaka in the 1970s and we built our
first bach. It was on the fringe of a group of other baches right at the
head of the bay. At that stage the salmon farm in Ruakaka Bay was
actually a mussel farm and it was owned by a Wellington electrician
called John Luke, who was one of my neighbours. Unfortunately that 35
mussel farm was subject to a fair amount of debate and argument as a
mussel farm because it was somewhat easier to get bigger mussels off
the farm than it was off the beach. So there was a constant haggle
about mussels being flocked off the beach and about issues with the
sharing of the wharf in Ruakaka Bay. 40
We sold Ruakaka Bay in 1986 and I went off to Perth, that was the time
of the America‟s Cup in Perth. On our return we purchased 70 acres in
Deep Bay. One of the issues about Queen Charlotte Sound is that it is
lying north-south and it is usually quite blustery in the northerly which 45
is the prevailing wind. So I really wanted to get up into Tory Channel
-
Page 1641
Blenheim 13.09.12
because Tory Channel lies east-west and is very sheltered from the
northerly. So we bought 70 acres in Deep Bay in 1990. It is very
sheltered unspoilt water. We have two children and they are both
absolutely obsessed with the Sounds, so they both want to inherit the
property in the Sounds so the only option was to buy a second title. So 5
we bought a second title, which is out on the Point and overlooks the
Ngamahau Bay site.
At that point of time Te Pangu was a rundown lodge and it was owned
by Paula and had about nine cabins. Peter, the water taxi operator 10
became her partner. At about that point of time a few years later the
salmon farm made moves to move into Te Pangu and Peter and Paula
welcomed them with open arms. The staff stayed in the cabins at
Te Pangu.
15
We were quite annoyed when the Clay Point farm just appeared
because we don‟t believe that we were aware of any consultation going
on at the time and, of course, we were in the bay around the corner so
maybe there was.
20
Just about the bay, the thing that you notice about being up in
Deep Bay is that it is just incredibly quiet and peaceful. You are 25
kilometres away from the nearest road, so basically you hear a little bit
of noise occasionally when boats go past but not much.
25
[9.40 am]
The day starts about an hour before dawn when the wekas start
squawking in an orchestrated kind of a Mexican wave, it goes right
around the bay about an hour before dawn and you can hear it from 30
miles and miles away.
JUDGE WHITING: Are you able to just point out exactly where your property
is on the map?
35
MR WILSON: Oh, sure. So Deep Bay is in here.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, I understand that.
MR WILSON: And our property is just right in the end of that bay. 40
JUDGE WHITING: Right at the end of it?
MR WILSON: Yes, but we own that whole piece of land right out to the point
- - - 45
-
Page 1642
Blenheim 13.09.12
JUDGE WHITING: Yes?
MR WILSON: - - - and then back about 300 metres pretty well to the edge of
where that farm would be. So that land out there was on a separate
title, so first purchased 27 (INDISTINCT 1.15) about 50 acres in 5
(INDISTINCT 1.17) part way along this side.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, we need to get this on the record.
MR WILSON: Okay, so I will just repeat that we first purchased the 27 10
hectares that along the edge of the bay, so it runs right from the edge to
about half way along and then subsequently we purchased the second
title which runs from half way along the bay right to the head of the
bay, and then along pretty well to where the edge of the farm would be.
15
I did actually enclose a lot plan with my submission which has got the
two titles fairly clearly shown.
JUDGE WHITING: So you own most of the land on the northern side of the
bay? 20
MR WILSON: All of it, yes.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
25
MR WILSON: And about 300 metres to the edge of the farm in the Tory
Channel part of it.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you, I understand.
30
MR WILSON: Sir, the water is incredibly calm most days. There are a couple
of days a year when things get pretty exciting but it does not happen
very often.
On any given summer‟s day there would be half a dozen boats in the 35
bay with people picnicking on the beach. Typically the families are
dropped off at about 10 o‟clock in the morning and picnic on the beach,
and the men go off fishing out in Tory Channel. Of course if they go
out of Deep Bay and they turn right they hit the two existing fish farms
so they turn left and generally go fishing out in the area of the proposed 40
farm.
The fishing is incredibly good, and especially good since the cod ban
has been in place and is periodically lifted. There are a number of
shellfish in the bay and in the areas of Tory Channel just out in the 45
edge and there are some quite unusual things that we do not brag too
-
Page 1643
Blenheim 13.09.12
much about because we do not really want people coming in and
getting involved in – and I am holding a paper nautilus shell.
The paper nautilus shells wash up on the beach about every two years.
Somewhere out in the edge of Tory Channel these fish (which are a 5
type of octopus) actually breed and these shells wash up. They are
pretty rare in terms of all of New Zealand, and one of the articles I did
put in the thing was a – in my submission was a – do you want me to
pass that around?
10
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MR WILSON: It is incredibly delicate. So the fish actually lays its eggs inside
that, the eggs hatch and those wash up on the beach, and those are rare
by New Zealand standards. In Auckland – in downtown Auckland, in 15
the viaduct there are concrete imitations of those things but I do not
think you would find any real ones anywhere in the Auckland region
now.
[9.45 am] 20
There is quite a big group of shags out towards the point and I know
those are protected but I do not actually have too much love lost for
them. The birds just circle endlessly all day so there are terns that are
flying around and gliding, and periodically go thumping into the water 25
as they dive for fish.
We actually monitor the bay and I have gone to the expense of buying
my own underwater camera so we can keep an eye on underneath and
out on the edge of Tory Channel. 30
The bay is composed of two completely different types of surface
underneath. Towards the head of the bay it is a very heavy grey mud.
Out where the bar is (and you can see the bar quite clearly on the charts
that I put down) it is more of a whitish coloured silt. We believe that 35
that whole bar, and on both sides, has actually been thrown up by the
ferries over the years.
We have actually got an extensive library of books going right back to
pre-European time and those bars are not mentioned in any of the very 40
early literature relating to Tory Channel.
I just want to say that there is an issue that is going to arise in relation
to Ngamahau Bay out in the future, and that is that if you look at those
lot plans that I sent down there is a very large area of land in behind 45
there and most of that land does not actually have any access points
-
Page 1644
Blenheim 13.09.12
out. There are some tracks and roads drawn on the plans but in actually
fact the most practical way of getting out of that land is actually right
through Gledhill‟s place.
Generally the tracks come down the ridges (they are bulldozed down to 5
the ridges), but they do not go right to the bottom. For the last hundred
yards the contour is virtually vertical. So I do not know what is going
to happen to Gledhill‟s land in the future because what has happened
with the submission but there is going to be an access issue arise out in
the future unless that land is sold to either myself or one of the other 10
people who has got land bordering the sea. And, sir, I do have to say
that I have attempted to buy that land off Harold Saunders a couple of
times, the whole 250 hectares of it.
Okay, the OBS status - - - 15
JUDGE WHITING: Sorry, the what?
MR WILSON: The OBS status.
20
JUDGE WHITING: Oh, yes.
MR WILSON: Mr Gledhill‟s land and the relevance to the expert reports – in
a lot of these reports (and I am quoting from the Halstead Report at this
point of time), without considering any form of mitigation there is a 25
potential for occupants for the dwelling in Ngamahau Bay to
experience significant loss of residential amenity arising from visual
and offsite noise, line of site, occasional odour and various other things.
That is not only in one of these expert reports, sir. There are lots of
them which pick up the same thing, in other words they are referencing 30
the nearest dwelling. Then they go on to say that the next nearest
dwelling is 1.1 kilometres away, which is Pinder‟s house.
So they are saying one dwelling is going to be really badly affected,
which is or was Gledhill‟s property, and then the next problem is a 35
dwelling that is 1.1 kilometres away.
[9.50 am]
So what does OBS mean. Basically, Gledhill‟s land has got the nature 40
of the improvements OBS on it, and OBS actually stands for Other
Buildings, probably uninhabitable, so what it is saying is that that is
actually a shed, it is not actually a dwelling, and the government
valuation, the quotable value actually provides reinforcement of that,
the value of the improvements on that land is forty thousand dollars. 45
-
Page 1645
Blenheim 13.09.12
So what I am wanting to say, sir, is that that is virtually a piece of
vacant land. There are several other pieces of vacant land out there,
and the experts actually ignore that. They‟re saying that Gledhill‟s land
is very badly affected, Gledhill‟s dwelling, but what I am saying, sir, is
that that is actually a section, and if that house is badly affected in the 5
ways that these experts all say it is badly affected, then surely those
blocks of building land out there are equally badly affected, well before
you get out to 1.1 kilometres where Pinder‟s place is. All of these
expert reports seem to completely ignore that, and there are lots of
other places in the Sounds where properties have got this OBS status in 10
the rating records.
I suspect that probably quite a few of these sites, they have completely
ignored the impact on vacant land. We have every intent of building on
that site, and I spoke to the Marlborough District Council building 15
inspectors only yesterday, and asked if there is any impediment at all to
us building on there, that does have a particular rating status, so it is
rural land but building – you can build on it, and the building – the
Marlborough District Council doesn‟t have a problem with you
building on it, you have to get a percolation test, and you have to get an 20
engineering stability test, and I have an engineer‟s report on my two
sites out there.
If you like, I can leave this rating search query with the OBS status in
it. 25
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you. Could you look at your map, your aerial
photograph - - -
MR WILSON: Yes. 30
JUDGE WHITING: - - - which appears to show your present dwelling.
MR WILSON: Yes, it does, our present dwelling is right down the end - - -
35
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MR WILSON: - - - and on the point, right out at the point there, there is quite
a significantly bulldozed piece - - -
40
JUDGE WHITING: You have got a circle around it?
MR WILSON: Yes.
JUDGE WHITING: Is that the site you are talking about? 45
-
Page 1646
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR WILSON: That is one of the sites, and further over towards the farm, the
site of the farm, there is another circle around there.
JUDGE WHITING: And where are they in relation to the proposed farm?
5
MR WILSON: You can see Mr Gledhill‟s house - - -
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, I see yes.
MR WILSON: - - - shed - - - 10
JUDGE WHITING: That orientates me, yes. The farm is straight out from
that?
MR WILSON: Yes. 15
JUDGE WHITING: By some hundred – I forget the metres.
MR WILSON: Yes. I will just make a point while you have got that
photograph there. I also think there is quite a possibility of that farm 20
being visible from Taylor‟s place, so if you look directly across from
our dwelling and along a bit, you can see a jetty on the other side, fairly
small.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes. 25
MR WILSON: It is just above that red line, the red line being the - - -
JUDGE WHITING: Sorry, I missed that – oh yes, with „Taylor‟ beside it?
30
MR WILSON: Yes.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MR WILSON: Taylor‟s house is about a hundred metres to the right of that 35
and about 50 metres up above sea level, so I actually believe there is
quite a significant possibility that he would actually see the salmon
farm if you take the angle across there. He has had a heart attack and I
don‟t think he is taking particularly much interest in what is going on. I
believe - - - 40
[9.55 am]
JUDGE WHITING: I wonder if the witness could be shown map number –
yes, in the navigation bundle that was produced by Mr Bermingham, I 45
think – map number 5.
-
Page 1647
Blenheim 13.09.12
These are a series of maps showing the position of the farms, and I just
want you to have a look at it so as we are absolutely certain where your
property is in respect of the farm.
5
MR WILSON: Okay. I can demonstrate this - - -
JUDGE WHITING: No, no, if you just look at this map please. It is map
number 5, have you got that?
10
MR WILSON: Yes, I have.
JUDGE WHITING: You can see that yellow piece out from Ngamahau Bay,
Ngamahau Bay, is the area of the pens or the cages surrounded by
20 metres which is the exclusion zone, and you will see it is 197 metres 15
out from that point, the closest point.
MR WILSON: Yes.
JUDGE WHITING: And it looks like your property is that property to the 20
south of that point where the 197 metres goes to. Is that right?
MR WILSON: Just to the left of where that 10g is.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, that‟s right. 25
MR WILSON: You can see our - - -
JUDGE WHITING: That line is your boundary line?
30
MR WILSON: That‟s right.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, and your building site is in from, or on the point,
numbered 2?
35
MR WILSON: Yes.
JUDGE WHITING: 2A.
MR WILSON: And the point numbered 3 right on the end there. 40
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, and the point numbered 3.
MR WILSON: Yes.
45
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, I think that orientates us.
-
Page 1648
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR WILSON: So you can see there is a paper road up there, half way along
Deep Bay, and that road is completely impassable, it is almost vertical,
there is no way anything is ever going to be able to get up there.
5
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, made by a surveyor in his office.
MR WILSON: Yes, that‟s right, quite a long time ago. So, sir, the point that I
am making about that land, is that that land is going to be severely
affected by that farm - - - 10
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, I understand - - -
MR WILSON: - - - partly because we are elevated as well. But equally, our
neighbours which are between us and Gledhill‟s, will also be equally 15
affected as will the people around to one side of Gledhill‟s, the other
side of Gledhill‟s.
I wanted to talk very briefly about recreation. As I mentioned, on any
given day, there are boats in our bay and people out fishing. One of the 20
expert reports actually mentions that the recreational use of
Tory Channel is less than Queen Charlotte Sounds, and that is just
completely incorrect. There is very substantial recreational use in
Tory Channel because it is very calm and particularly in Deep Bay
because Deep Bay is one of the very few places where there is actually 25
sand, so people – I think husbands justify buying nice boats on the
basis that they are going to be used for picnics and the wives get
dropped on the beach with the kids and the husbands go fishing.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes. 30
MR WILSON: Noise. It might surprise you, but we can hear a chainsaw
going right over in Orua Bay.
[10.00 am] 35
I don‟t know if it is all the time but we just hear chainsaws and engines
from a long way away and it is possibly because of the shape of the
hills.
40
We also hear the announcements on the ferry as the outgoing ferry,
there is a standard announcement that you are about to leave Tory
Channel and enter Cook Strait, “As the weather is moderate we suggest
that you remain seated”. So, for some reason, it carries a long way
because of the, I don‟t know, just because of the shape of the hills or 45
whatever.
-
Page 1649
Blenheim 13.09.12
I guess a very big concern that we have got is the potential – oh, I
didn‟t mention that the shape of the bay and the bar is such that you get
a lot of water coming at the extremes of the bay on either side. So
when the tide is going out the bar stops the water all going out over the 5
bar but there is quite a lot of water roars out on either side right near the
edges. So it is like a great big vacuum cleaner because millions of
litres of water is going out. It goes out around the bar on either side
and so it is like a big vacuum cleaner and there is rubbish gets washed
up in the corner of the bay, it can actually get sucked in and thrown up 10
in the corner of the bay.
I guess one of our big concerns is that we get a lot of shellfish in the
edge of Tory Channel and we are fiercely protective of the bay and we
are really concerned about the possibility of this discharge getting in 15
and getting into Deep Bay, and about its impact on our favourite places
out in Tory Channel. Will it be safe to get paua out there? We get
paua out there all the time and one of the pictures, that I have put in
with my submission, shows people that came out from France getting
paua out there. And they thought enough about that experience to 20
decide to come back this Christmas from France to spend a few weeks
with us. It has a fundamental effect on people when they go and stay
there because it is so environmentally clean and beautiful. So we are
very concerned about what will happen with this discharge.
25
Ironically there was an expert here a few days ago talking about
greywater and he said that he didn‟t think that it mattered that
greywater was going to be discharged from the farms. And actually, in
the same edition of the Marlborough Express, it was reported that the
Marlborough District Council is forcing the owners of accommodation 30
around the Sounds to build water treatment plants for greywater. It
does seem a bit of a double standard from what I can see of it.
When we build we have to undergo extensive water percolation testing,
which is backbreaking work, to ensure that not one drop of sewerage or 35
greywater gets anywhere near the water. The standards for building
nowadays are incredibly strict. To give you an example, we
accidentally ordered clear glass in our toilet window, and there is 70
acres of bush behind the house, and the council made us change that to
opaque glass. 40
So we have talked a bit about recreational use. We think the value of
our land overlooking the site would be devastated. The site is probably
worth about 220,000. We are good friends with Claire and Martin
Pinder and I feel incredibly for them. We all bought that land down 45
there and we were told that there was no way that it was a prohibited
-
Page 1650
Blenheim 13.09.12
site for fish farming. Claire and Martin have built this brand new house
and it was built before there was any knowledge of potentially the fish
farm, and that has been built with little expense spared. And the living
areas in that, every single one of them, all of the windows point straight
down over the property. If you designed it to have the worse possible 5
impact from the salmon farm, that is what has actually happened, every
window in the living space looks straight down on where that farm
would be.
[10.05 am] 10
I want to mention potential disaster. It might seem remote but about
once in every five years there is a really serious storm down there and it
is plain scary. You cannot stand up outside the wind is so strong, you
crawl. And there are articles in there from Heather Heberley‟s book 15
referring to the necessity to crawl across the lawn, about sheds being
blown around, the ends being blown out of sheds, and I can tell you
that is not an abnormal thing to happen. We have ended up with a
dinghy washed up on our beach in one of those storms and it came with
the painter, which is the rope on the front, still tied to a bollard and 20
about two square feet of the deck of the boat that it came from. The
wind is just simply incredible and I would classify that as open sea
conditions.
Now, one of the experts in the submissions did say that those salmon 25
farms are not suitable to be used in open sea conditions, and what I am
saying is that every once in a while, very rarely, you will get open sea
conditions down there. And you can do anything you like, you can tie
stuff down with a huge rope, you can tie stuff down with chains, but the
force of nature is just incredible in a really serious storm. And that is 30
brought out by the two books that I sent down.
I don‟t believe that anybody should be allowed to harm the
environment even if they can make money and generate economic
advantage out of it. King Salmon opened their submissions by saying 35
that they need the sea area to expand for economic gain. And, sir, I
would say that they don‟t. The video that I sent down with my
evidence shows quite clearly that you can farm fish and it shows fish
being farmed in tanks on dry land. All this is, is that this is cheaper and
you make more money if you do it this way with a downside of the 40
economic disadvantage. So I would say that if they wished to expand
there is other ways that they could it and that video shows quite clearly
paua and fish being farmed in tanks on dry land.
-
Page 1651
Blenheim 13.09.12
I just want to finish by saying that the area is not as pristine as it was
and you people have the ability to stop it getting any worse. That is all
I want to say.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Wilson. I will just see if 5
any of the Board members wish to ask a question.
MR……….: No, your Honour.
JUDGE WHITING: Commissioner Beaumont? 10
COMMISSIONER BEAUMONT: No, thank you, sir.
JUDGE WHITING: Mr Ellison?
15
MR ELLISON: Thank you, sir. Mr Wilson, good morning. That map you
have got in your evidence or your submission.
MR WILSON: Yes.
20
MR ELLISON: If you look at that Deep Bay map and can you tell us where
you are getting, you mentioned getting shellfish or cockles?
MR WILSON: Yes, I can. I am a bit reluctant to do so.
25
JUDGE WHITING: That is all right.
MR ELLISON: We live a long way away from you.
JUDGE WHITING: He is actually staying here this weekend and probably a 30
few more if he finds some.
[10.10 am]
MR WILSON: Can I just explain that comment a bit? The cockles are actually 35
right at the head of the bay on the left hand side. So about four years
ago the forestry people applied for a consent to put a forestry loading
ramp down in the corner of deep bay, and I fronted up in the hearing
and I said that I objected to on the grounds of the fact that the cockles
were down in the beach, down there. 40
That application to put that ramp was actually declined but about a
week and half later some people came in with a dredge and dredged all
the cockles out of the bay, or most of them, because I had been stupid
enough to stand up in a hearing and say that there was cockles there. 45
-
Page 1652
Blenheim 13.09.12
So I guess there is a downside in everything, but, sir, there are some
other places where there are cockles in the bay as well.
MR ELLISON: I was also interested you thought that that bar may have been
formed by the ferries, but it appears as though there are bars all along 5
those bays if you look at that particular map.
MR WILSON: Yes, so I did enclose a ferry timetable and if you look at that
ferry timetable basically there is about 10 sailings a day and each one
of those ferries that goes through puts up a couple of bow waves about 10
a metre high and about seven stern wages. So the colour of that is
whitish silt and it is completely different to the greyish mud, so we
believe that that has been thrown up there on both sides of the channel
all the way down and those ferries are moving at around 18 knots.
15
We also believe that that increases the risk of that sediment out of the
salmon farm actually getting into Deep bay because of the – I have read
the expert reports and basically they are saying that that sediment will
travel about 300 metres. Well – and there is a detailed report in there
saying that the distance that that will travel will be based on the depth 20
of the water ie the time that the sediment is dropping to the bottom and
the strength of the tide. Well, if you have got a whole swag of ferries
coming through throwing this stuff along it must actually increase the
spread of it a little bit and it must be pretty marginal about how far 300
metres from the edge of that farm will be about the possibility of it 25
getting into our bay.
So, yes, we believe that the ferries have thrown it up and the bay
altered quite substantially when the fast ferries were operating.
30
MR ELLISON: I was just also thinking of the circulation effect. Is there
circulation in that bay or do the fast currents generally rip past back and
forth as the tides change?
MR WILSON: The circulation in the bay is generally pretty poor. They – on 35
either side (as I mentioned) there are pretty strong currents, but it is
only about six feet deep at low tide on the bar.
MR ELLISON: Yes, I see that. Thank you.
40
MR WILSON: And that is quite a significant area, so there is several hundred
metres where the bar is effectively stopping the circulation.
MR ELLISON: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
45
JUDGE WHITING: Mr Briggs?
-
Page 1653
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR BRIGGS: Thank you, your Honour. Just one question, Mr Wilson. If you
look at your photograph of the bay with the red lines on it and your
house.
5
MR WILSON: Yes.
MR BRIGGS: Now behind your there is a ridge that leads upwards and on
that ridge there appears to be ridges like a mussel shell. Can you tell
me what those are – some sort of vegetation or ridges in the land? 10
MR WILSON: So where are you – can you repeat the question?
MR BRIGGS: If you go to your house - - -
15
MR WILSON: Yes?
MR BRIGGS: - - - and the ridge straight behind your house there are semi-
circular lines leading, going up the ridge.
20
MR WILSON: Oh, yes. Sir, we planted 20,000 pine trees down there.
MR BRIGGS: They are pine trees?
MR WILSON: Yes, so those are now worthless. So we planted those when – 25
when we planted those trees they had a projected future value of a
couple of million dollars, but they are basically worthless now.
MR BRIGGS: Oh, okay. Thank you.
30
[10.15 am]
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Wilson. Thank you for
your assistance.
35
MR WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, Ms Jamieson?
MS JAMIESON: Thank you, sir. 40
JUDGE WHITING: We are back to your submissions?
MS JAMIESON: Please. Now, sir, I think we were at the top of page 21.
45
JUDGE WHITING: We were, yes.
-
Page 1654
Blenheim 13.09.12
MS JAMIESON: And I was talking about the Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha sites
in particular.
So looking now at the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management 5
Plan, plan change 24 does not propose to change operative provisions
relating to natural character, landscape or amenity. Ms Cameron
discusses these provisions as they relate to the proposed Ruaomoko and
Kaitapeha sites.
10
A key part of the MSRMP is the framework for assessing natural
character. Ms Cameron‟s evidence is that there is some tension
between the proposed rezoning of the two Queen Charlotte sites and
the priority and methods given for natural character in the Marlborough
Sounds Resource Management Plan. In my submission plan change 24 15
offers no resolution of this tension.
Part 2 – the New Zealand King Salmon proposal in Queen Charlotte
Sound also highlights some of the tensions contained in part 2. There
is no dispute that the proposal to site salmon farms at Ruaomoko and 20
Kaitapeha will have implications for natural character, landscape and
amenity values. Mr Rough and Mr Baxter‟s evidence is that these
implications will be significant. Mr Grose is similarly concerned.
Evidence for New Zealand King Salmon has discussed the attributes of 25
the Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha sites that make it attractive for salmon
farming; however the precise benefits of these two sites in particular
appear to be unquantified in evidence before the Board.
It is well established that section 6 and 7 matters do not trump. Section 30
5 must be considered in the round and a broad overall judgement made.
Section 5 requires careful consideration of a proposal‟s social,
economic and cultural wellbeing.
The proposed farms at Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko will contribute to 35
economic wellbeing; however Queen Charlotte Sound already
contributes significantly to the same and is highly valued as a result.
In our submission sections 5A and 5C are particularly relevant to the
proposal to rezone the Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha. Section 5.2(a) 40
requires the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the
reasonably foreseeable of future generations to be sustained.
In our submission it is reasonably foreseeable that future generations
will value the largely natural and highly accessible nature of Queen 45
-
Page 1655
Blenheim 13.09.12
Charlotte Sound, particularly as other parts of the Sounds are
extensively developed.
In relation to section 5.2(c) while there is some disagreement as to the
magnitude of adverse effects of the farms at – sorry, in relation to 5
section 5.2(c) while there is some disagreement as to the magnitude of
adverse effects the farms at Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha will cause no
witness has given evidence that these effects can be avoided or
remedied. Partial mitigation in the form of a redesigned and re-sighted
service barge is proposed by Mr Boffa. 10
[10.20 am]
The evidence of Mr Rough, Mr Baxter and Mr Grose, is that this will
not adequately mitigate the range of adverse effects, the two proposed 15
salmon farms at the marine crossroads, that is the confluence of Queen
Charlotte Sound and Tory Channel.
Turning to the Papatua site. The Papatua site is located in Pig Bay,
Port Gore. The area proposed for the salmon farm in Port Gore, some 20
90 hectares, although New Zealand King Salmon‟s application
indicates it intends to operate the farm on a rotational basis to address
seabed effects that will arise as a result of the depth and hydrology of
Pig Bay and Port Gore.
25
The site is partially located in front of the Cape Lambert Scenic
Reserve. The Reserve comprises 166 hectares, it is a narrow headland
and is remnant of once extensive kohe kohe forest which was burnt and
cleared for farming in the late 1880‟s. A possum and goat resistant
fence separates the reserve from the neighbouring farm. Cape Jackson, 30
the eastern Port Gore headland, is not managed by the Department of
Conservation.
Mr Grose‟s evidence is that Cape Lambert is extremely valuable
ecologically, being a very good example of natural restoration and 35
contains one of the best examples of Outer Sounds kohe kohe forest.
There is no dispute that the natural character values at the Papatua site
are significant. Both Mr Boffa and Mr Rough agree that the effects of
the farm will be high and unavoidable. Similarly, the landscape values 40
are not in dispute. The area is shown in the Marlborough Sounds
Resource Management Plan, as an area of outstanding landscape value,
and this classification is not disputed by Mr Boffa or Mr Rough.
Mr Rough and Mr Boffa agree that the area has high visual amenity
and a wilderness type quality. Mr Grose‟s evidence confirms that this 45
is consistent with his knowledge of and experience in Port Gore.
-
Page 1656
Blenheim 13.09.12
The Minister‟s submission in respect of Port Gore, sought removal of
the line of cages closest to the Cape Lambert Scenic Reserve. In
essence, the Minister‟s submission is a compromise focusing primarily
on visual effects. As Mr Grose explains, removal of those cages would 5
lessen the visual impact for people travelling by boat out of Port Gore.
It would allow a relatively unobstructed view of the Cape Lambert
Scenic Reserve from that perspective. Mr Baxter‟s evidence is that if a
salmon farm is to be located in this area, shifting the north-eastern
boundary away from the Cape Lambert Scenic Reserve, would mitigate 10
the effects of the farm on natural ridge top to sea floor biotic patterns.
Mr Rough has considered the proposal but finds that while it would
mitigate the visual effects somewhat, in his opinion, issues in respect of
policies 13 and 15 of the NZCPS and sections 6(a) and (b) of the Act,
would remain. 15
New Zealand King Salmon witnesses have not addressed the minister‟s
submission in evidence, although Mr Keeley appears to have given
some thought in relation to the potential effect of the seabed impacts.
Nor is it addressed in opening legal submissions for New Zealand King 20
Salmon.
The Minister remains of the view that the proposed reduction in size of
the Papatua farm to mitigate effects on the Cape Lambert Scenic
Reserve, should be carefully considered by the Board, particularly at its 25
forthcoming site inspection.
And we are going to turn now to water column issues, and Ms Bradley
is going to take you through our comments on the latest set of
conditions, so thank you. 30
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, Ms Bradley.
MS BRADLEY: Thank you, sir, and it might be useful if the Board had the
updated conditions, if you want to get into a debate - - - 35
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MS BRADLEY: Thank you, sir. As noted earlier, the Minister submitted in
relation to the potential effects of the proposed farms on the water 40
column raising issues regarding, first, the modelling undertaken by
King Salmon‟s consultants, including issues regarding unreliability and
inaccuracies. Secondly, the modelling having only been undertaken in
respect of the initial feed discharges and not for the maximum amounts
of fee discharges sought to be included in both the plan change and the 45
resource consent applications.
-
Page 1657
Blenheim 13.09.12
[10.25 am]
Thirdly, the levels of initial and maximum feed discharge proposed,
and fourthly, the adaptive management regime proposed by King
Salmon. 5
In terms of adaptive management, as counsel for King Salmon noted in
opening, the use of adaptive management in New Zealand has
developed through a number of Environment Court cases dealing with
the impacts of proposed mussel farms, and the concept has since been 10
applied in a range of other contexts involving potential effects on
complex ecological systems.
The first in a line of aquaculture cases mentioned by counsel, is Golden
Bay Marine Farmers v Tasman District Council. The comprehensive 15
list of requirements which the Court developed from the evidence in
that case is set out in attachment 1 to these submissions.
And the reason we have set that out in attachment, is because there is a
whole page. 20
And as I note, the more recent Crest case referred to in the opening
submissions of King Salmon, is a useful summary of the requirements
for adaptive management, but it is not directed specifically at
aquaculture. 25
Many of the Golden Bay Marine Farmers‟ criteria are addressed in the
Crest criteria, but we note that some relate specifically to aquaculture
management area regime, and that no longer applies.
30
Turning to the draft proposed conditions. A discussion which follows
focuses on the outstanding issues we have relating to water column
effects which, in our submission and supported by the evidence, are not
satisfactorily addressed in the draft proposed conditions. These largely
flow out of the adaptive management regime proposed by King 35
Salmon, already discussed, and relate to baseline monitoring, how
nutrient releases should be limited through the conditions, the role and
makeup of the peer review panel, appropriate initial feed discharge
rates, particularly in relation to the Papatua site, which model is to be
used to guide defining monitoring sites, and the potential for use of a 40
model in adaptive management, the setting of appropriate thresholds
for water column effects, different management responses depending
on the level of effects or breach, and finally, enforce ability of the
standards or conditions.
45
-
Page 1658
Blenheim 13.09.12
We were provided with a fresh PDF version of updated conditions by
King Salmon on Monday night, and these are entitled “Hearing version,
10 September, 2012”, which I understand you have in front of you.
Now given the short timeframe for consideration and the absence of 5
track changes to identify the changes between the new and earlier
versions, we are able to provide preliminary high level comments only
at this point, on the updated conditions.
We would therefore like the opportunity to provide further input on the 10
conditions as they are further developed.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, well, we were discussing this yesterday and this
morning, and have been discussing it from time to time during the
course of the hearing, and we think it would be helpful to all parties if a 15
caucusing of the planners for the sole purpose of conditions, is
facilitated by one of the Board members, and of course that would be
Commissioner Beaumont, who is the ecologist on the panel, and that
could very well bring up a lot of agreement between parties.
20
We are looking at our timetable and we are hoping if we keep on track
reasonably well, that there will be two or three days available from the
time we sit in the marae until we can come back and sit here, and we
were thinking we could use those three days as a time for facilitation,
rather than the parties arguing the matter before us at this stage, and 25
when that is completed, we would then hear from the parties if there
was anything still to be discussed. And we think that would perhaps be
more useful than having an in-detailed, or in-depth discussion about it
now.
30
[10.30 am]
That would mean that all the parties would have to consent to
Commissioner Beaumont facilitating that meeting and, at the same
time, remaining as a member of the Board. 35
MS BRADLEY: Sir, we would also find quite a great deal of value if there
was caucusing on the technical issues as well.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, well, unfortunately the technical witnesses have 40
gone and we didn‟t get as much from them as we had hoped on
conditions, in fact all of them shied away from it. You will recall when
they were questioned on conditions they said, “Well, we‟re not a
wordsmith we‟re boffins”, and didn‟t want to be involved in
wordsmithing and left that to Ms Dawson. 45
-
Page 1659
Blenheim 13.09.12
MS BRADLEY: Yes, sir, I think - - -
JUDGE WHITING: As far as the King Salmon experts were concerned and
the other experts were of a similar view. We have got their agreement
on what should be implemented in that document that they filed at the 5
end. It is a question of turning that into reality and turning that into
sensible, workable, uncomplicated conditions and, looking at this
document, we are thinking it is just getting quite unnecessarily complex
and could be simplified.
10
Now, I am not criticising anyone in putting that together because it has
come about as a result of meeting the demands that the experts sought,
and I really don‟t think it would be of any benefit to have the experts
back here, the expense would be too great. And I think we have heard
enough from them at this stage, and we have been looking at their 15
evidence because it is completed, and we think it is really just a matter
now of endeavouring to get some workable conditions put together so
as we can then assess the merits, having regard to those conditions.
MS BRADLEY: We are certainly willing to make Dr Longdill available, in 20
terms of emailing around the comments or telephone conferencing.
JUDGE WHITING: Well, yes, there is no reason why they can‟t be used, yes.
MS BRADLEY: Because the way we see the conditions there are still quite a 25
few outstanding technical issues that it would - - -
JUDGE WHITING: Well, yes.
MS BRADLEY: - - -be valuable to have further discussion amongst the 30
witnesses, the expert witnesses on as opposed to the planners, sir.
JUDGE WHITING: Well, yes, we can‟t force Dr Longdill to come back. I
don‟t know about Mr Hartstein. They weren‟t cross-examined much
on the condition unfortunately. In fact they weren‟t cross-examined at 35
all, one of them.
MS BRADLEY: Well, sir, Dr Longdill is going to be back in the country from
1 October if that would assist. However, he has expressed his
willingness to engage in email discussions and telephone conferencing 40
on the technical matters.
JUDGE WHITING: Anyway, you just carry on with this and we will see
where you are coming from.
45
-
Page 1660
Blenheim 13.09.12
MS BRADLEY: Thank you, sir. So, in terms of the baseline monitoring,
effective adaptive management is reliant on good baseline data to
measure environmental change as the result of an activity.
Condition 65 of the 22 August iteration of conditions, discussed with
the expert witnesses during the hearing, proposed that baseline surveys 5
only be required on four occasions with at least two of these occurring
during mid summer and at least two during winter, spring and/or
autumn. As Mr Knight noted during cross-examination this could be
satisfied within a six to nine month monitoring period. The collective
view of the water column experts appearing before the Board, 10
including experts called by New Zealand King Salmon, was that more
monitoring over a longer monitoring period was desirable.
Condition 77 of the updated 10 September version of conditions
requires baseline monitoring on 12 occasions over one year prior to fish 15
being stocked but allows for this to be reduced, in whole or in part,
depending on the availability of existing water column data.
[10.35 am]
20
In our submission a single year of baseline data, even if captured at
monthly intervals, is insufficient to set the baseline against which
impacts will be measured and thresholds set. At least two full years of
baseline monitoring, with monitoring undertaken at least fortnightly,
should be undertaken as proposed by the Board appointed peer review, 25
Dr Broekhuizen.
And we note that Mr Quinn noted in submissions that the Council has
budgeted for NIWA to undertake some baseline monitoring this year in
both the Pelorus and Queen Charlotte Sounds but the degree to which 30
this monitoring will assist, with the current state of the environment
relevant to the King Salmon proposal, is not clear.
In terms of controlling nutrient releases, as Commissioner Beaumont
observed, feed discharge limits do not, in themselves, control the 35
amount of nutrient released into the water column from the feed. As
Dr Longdill noted in his evidence the draft conditions, as they were at
the time he prepared his statement of evidence, did not include controls
on nutrient discharges per se leaving the possibility for changes in feed
composition or conversion rates in the future to lead to increased water 40
column nitrogen release. This remains an unresolved issue with the
current draft conditions.
Dr Broekhuizen agreed that the limits should be placed on nitrogen
inputs and Dr Longdill also agreed but noted, “You can‟t actually 45
measure in real time the mass of nitrogen coming out from the fish pen.
-
Page 1661
Blenheim 13.09.12
You have to use calculations, equations, different publications are
going to have slightly different values for how much is retained in the
fish, how much is not retained in the fish.” So that, if you were to go to
that level, there are other complicating factors that would make it more
difficult as well. 5
That said, however, this does appear to be how the matter has been
approached by the Cawthron experts in assessing the levels of
dissolved inorganic nitrogen and total nitrogen from the proposed
farms, for example, through the nitrogen waste calculations as set out 10
in table 5 of Mr Knight‟s evidence-in-chief.
And a further thought, sir, would be simply to have a condition limiting
the amount of nitrogen in the feed so that it doesn‟t exceed a certain
amount, and conditions 41 or 42 might be an appropriate place to have 15
such a condition.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, well, you see, we have got no wording. You haven‟t
proposed any wording. Dr Longdill hasn‟t proposed any wording. No
one has proposed any wording. It is in the air and we are not going to, 20
we are not draftspeople. If you want the conditions changed you have
to come up with wording, just like any party has to. That is any plan
change matter or a consent matter, the wording of the plan change and
the wording of the conditions of consent are very important matters
which people seem to push to one side. And the applicant has been 25
trying its best to get some words together and has been meeting some
of the issues but no one has suggested any wording other than
criticisms, and it needs to go further than that. And that is why we
think there needs to be a caucusing where someone says, “Well, this is
what we think should happen” and get the parties into some form of at 30
least understanding the issues and coming up with alternative wording.
This exercise gets us nowhere and I wonder whether we should just
wait until – I mean that is the position Mr Quinn has taken – to wait
until the conditions get further down the track until we hear and
perhaps, if we have to, we can hear those parties who wish to make 35
submissions on that as a separate issue.
MS BRADLEY: Yes. Well, I am happy to do that, sir, I am happy to leave
this discussion until later.
40
JUDGE WHITING: See, we can read your submissions, we know what the
principles are.
MS BRADLEY: Yes.
45
-
Page 1662
Blenheim 13.09.12
JUDGE WHITING: But rather than take up everyone‟s time now, and it is not
that we don‟t want to hear from you, I think that would be a more sort
of efficient way of dealing with this matter. I don‟t know what other
counsel think, Mr Gardner-Hopkins.
5
[10.40 am]
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Yes, sir, quite happy to proceed in that way.
Obviously we have had the opportunity to see these and would see
benefit from further discussion, but perhaps agree, that it may not be 10
the best use of time to go through this now.
JUDGE WHITING: It is a bit premature, I think. I don‟t know whether the
lawyers at the back – Mr Ironside.
15
MR IRONSIDE: Certainly agree, your Honour, that the conditions matter
needs to be considered later, it is just a case of how that is done and at
what point in time it is done.
JUDGE WHITING: Well, it has to be done before the hearing is completed. 20
MR IRONSIDE: I think with respect, your Honour, it would need to be made
very clear to all parties which includes a large number of lay
submitters, the basis upon which the - - -
25
JUDGE WHITING: We have said that many times, I said it right at the very
beginning, and I don‟t think we need to repeat it all the time that the
conditions of consent need to be put in place so as we can make a
determination on the substantive issues, because we cannot determine
effects unless we know what the conditions are. 30
MR IRONSIDE: Thank you.
JUDGE WHITING: Mr Hippolite.
35
MR HIPPOLITE: Sir, we are happy to be directed by the Court on this, and if
it is a more effective use of the Court‟s time, then we would be happy.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes. Mr Quinn.
40
MR QUINN: Certainly, sir, and as outlined in opening, the position remains
the same, the planners are happy to be engaged in that discussion.
JUDGE WHITING: Ms Tree.
45
MS TREE: We are not involved in the conditions of consent.
-
Page 1663
Blenheim 13.09.12
JUDGE WHITING: No. I don‟t know whether there is any other party around
who would like to make comment, any of the parties or submitters – I
think that is the efficient way to go, and we will determine one or two
days, it will probably be in early October, won‟t it. We will set them 5
down in concrete as to when that facilitation is to take place, and that
doesn‟t mean to say that the parties can‟t keep trying to reach some
form of arrangement between now and then. We don‟t want the time to
be left to the last minute, so I would be grateful if the parties could
keep up their discussions, and there is no reason why you can‟t 10
formulate some proposed conditions to meet, for example, this last
issue, the discharge of nitrogen. How it is going to be formulated in
my mind, I don‟t know, but I don‟t think you know either at this stage.
MS BRADLEY: Thank you, sir, I think that is a very good way to proceed. 15
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MS BRADLEY: I would just like to carry on though with a brief section in
this part of the submissions - - - 20
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MS BRADLEY: - - - on Papatua, and then finish with the concluding
comments. 25
JUDGE WHITING: Thank you. We will read your submissions so as the
principles that you have got here, if we can understand, but hopefully
those principles can be formulated into some form of alternative
condition - - - 30
MS BRADLEY: Yes.
JUDGE WHITING: - - - by the time we have to have submissions, if we need
submissions on it. 35
MS BRADLEY: Thank you, sir, and yes, we would be very grateful for
King Salmon to continue that engagement.
I think on that basis then, sir, I would just like to conclude the section 40
on the water column effects, paragraph 128, on page 35.
So to conclude then in relation to water quality. The evidence of
Ms Cameron is that management and the potential adverse effects on
water quality is a priority issue for the NZCPS. A precautionary 45
approach is required towards proposed activities where effects on the
-
Page 1664
Blenheim 13.09.12
coastal environment are uncertain, unknown or little understood, but
potentially significantly adverse. That is policy 3.
A precautionary approach is especially warranted in this instance where
the only modelling of water column effects by King Salmon‟s experts, 5
has been the initial proposed feed discharges rather than the maximum
proposed discharges.
And as noted, our submission is that further amendments to the draft
conditions are required to ensure the adaptive management regime 10
proposed for water quality monitoring is sufficiently robust.
[10.45 am]
So as I have said, the Minister‟s experts do continue to remain 15
available for those further discussions, and I will hand back over to
Ms Jamieson, thank you, sir.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you.
20
MS JAMIESON: Sir, in light of that discussion about conditions, I think what
I will do now is address the section I have got on page 35 relating to
plan change 24 wording issues which is very short, and then leave the
marine mammals and seabed benthic issues which are also conditions
issues - - - 25
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MS JAMIESON: - - - for that, and then I will discuss the Minister‟s role in
the regional coastal plan process and conclude, if that is okay with you. 30
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you.
MS JAMIESON: Wording issues with respect to plan change 24.
35
The Minister‟s submissions raised some concerns with the wording of
plan change 24. Two particular issues were the activity status of marine
farms in the new CMZ3 zone, whether it be controlled or discretionary,
and the reference to the nationally important salmon farming industry.
40
The first of these issues was substantially resolved with King Salmon‟s
agreement that the activity status should be changed to discretionary,
and amended provisions were appended to Ms Dawson‟s
evidence-in-chief. Ms Cameron‟s opinion was that some further
amendments were required to the plan change, particularly the policies 45
and methods of implementation to avoid a disconnect between those
-
Page 1665
Blenheim 13.09.12
provisions and the marine farming rule. Ms Dawson provided a further
revised vision of plan change 24 with her rebuttal evidence. This
version largely addresses the Minister‟s submission although some
further suggestions will be provided to New Zealand King Salmon for
consideration. Ms Cameron remains available to assist the Board with 5
the wording of plan change 24 as required.
The revisions to plan change 24 attached to Ms Dawson‟s rebuttal
evidence, addresses the second issue I raised above – and that is the
issue about nationally significant salmon farming. 10
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, well, being available is not good enough,
Ms Cameron has to be proactive, she has to get on the phone and ring
Ms Dawson up and say this is what I want, - - -
15
MS JAMIESON: And that is exactly what we will do.
JUDGE WHITING: Rather than just sitting doing nothing and criticising.
MS JAMIESON: That is precisely what we have been doing, providing 20
suggestions through evidence and in meetings with Ms Dawson and
King Salmon, so I am pleased to see that you think we can continue in
that light.
JUDGE WHITING: That‟s fine, you are happy and I am happy. 25
MS JAMIESON: Yes.
JUDGE WHITING: And the Board is happy.
30
MS JAMIESON: Good. So it is necessary to talk briefly about the Minister‟s
role in relation to a regional coastal plan.
For completeness, and this is on page 38. For completeness, we
comment briefly on the Minister of Conservation‟s role in relation to 35
the plan change components of the current proceedings. Under the
RMA the Minister plays a distinct role in the processing of changes to
regional coastal plans noting that plan change 24 will amend the
regional coastal plan component of the Marlborough Sounds Region
Resource Management Plan. Clause 18 of the first schedule to the 40
RMA provides that the regional Council shall adopt a proposed
regional coastal plan for reference to the Minister. Clause 19 sets out
the approval process.
-
Page 1666
Blenheim 13.09.12
Section 149W of the Act, provides that the Minister‟s schedule 1
approval process also applies when plan changes have been considered
under this Board of Inquiry process.
Just briefly, on witnesses. I am in the unusual position - - - 5
JUDGE WHITING: Yes - - -
MS JAMIESON: - - - sorry.
10
JUDGE WHITING: It is not a matter that we – it is not a recommendation to
the Minister, we make a decision.
MS JAMIESON: It is a decision that goes to the Minister.
15
JUDGE WHITING: And then it goes to the Minister who then either
implements it or varies it or whatever.
MS JAMIESON: Who applies clause 19 of the first schedule to that
conditions, is my understanding, yes. 20
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
MS JAMIESON: Turning to witnesses. I am in the unusual position, sir,
where you have already heard from half our witnesses, despite this 25
being our opening, so you have heard from Dr Longdill, Mr Baxter,
and Mr Duffy. You will hear from Mr Grose soon. Mr Rough will
appear led by my friend from Marlborough District Council in relation
to landscape, natural character and visual amenity, and Ms Cameron
has provided briefs in relation to the planning – or a brief, in relation to 30
planning matters.
[10.50 am]
I note that Mr Duffy was called at the request of New Zealand King 35
Salmon. Mr Baxter‟s evidence in relation to the subsurface natural
character values of the Pelorus Sound sites was provided at the request
of Marlborough District Council. Thank you, sir.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, well, thank you for that, and we will have a break 40
now and start the evidence, we will hear from Mr Grose and then we
will start the landscape evidence.
MS JAMIESON: Thank you.
45
ADJOURNED [10.50 am]
-
Page 1667
Blenheim 13.09.12
RESUMED [11.13 am]
JUDGE WHITING: Yes.
5
MS JAMIESON: Mr Grose‟s brief is at tab 1 in the white folder with the
green dot on the end.
JUDGE WHITING: Thank you.
10
-
Page 1668
Blenheim 13.09.12
which myself and my team manage is from Cape Soucis, which is over
here in the north, all the way up to past D‟Urville Island to
Takapourewa, which is Stephens Island, across all this area here into
Port Gore. Port Gore here, Port Underwood and then going up the
Pelorus Valley which is off the map here, so it is quite a big area. 5
So my duties are involved within that area and they range everything
from working with communities, working with iwi, looking after the
specific sites as I mentioned earlier, mainly collection of reserves and
we have about 200 of those in the Marlborough Sounds. Around about 10
120 of those are scenic reserves. Working with industry, working with
the Marlborough District Council, pest and weed eradication, recreation
facilities, which is huts and tracks, and also we get involved in RMA
issues.
15
And we also, in the Marlborough Sounds, have got a particular unique
situation in that most of the Marlborough Sounds is surrounded along
the shoreline, from the shoreline and 20 metres up in Sounds Foreshore
Reserve, which is very similar to an esplanade reserve. And we have
about 900 kilometres of coastline which is covered by that particular 20
type of reserve. So we get involved in, I guess that is where we have a
very close involvement with the community because that 900
kilometres takes in most of the Marlborough Sounds area and if people
require to put in a new boatshed, a track, that sort of thing, then they
consult with the department in terms of an application. 25
MR FARNSWORTH: Just a point of clarification, can you just show us on a
map what you mean by that reserve, is that the esplanade reserve? So
can we just go to, I think it is one of these maps, and I think it is the
strip that looks like a road right around the foreshore? 30
MR GROSE: That is correct.
MR FARNSWORTH: Okay, fine.
35
JUDGE WHITING: Which map are you looking at?
MR FARNSWORTH: Your Honour, I am looking at the Ngamahau map,
which is the - - -
40
JUDGE WHITING: Bermingham 1.
MR GROSE: It is on average about 20 metres, a 20 metre strip but in some
places it is a lot wider.
45
MS………..: What map number was it, sorry?
-
Page 1669
Blenheim 13.09.12
[11.20 am]
MR FARNSWORTH: That was tab 5.
5
JUDGE WHITING: It is Bermingham.1, tab 5.
MR GROSE: Yes, that is correct.
MR FARNSWORTH: Thank you. 10
MS JAMIESON: And you have prepared a brief of evidence dated August
2012 in relation to these proceedings?
MR GROSE: I have. 15
MS JAMIESON: And can you confirm its contents are true and correct?
MR GROSE: Yes, I can.
20
MS JAMIESON: Thank you. Please answer any questions my friends and the
Board may have.
JUDGE WHITING: Ms Tree?
25
MS TREE: Thank you, sir.
-
Page 1670
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR GROSE: That is correct.
MS TREE: And the boundary of that reserve is shown on map 2a, attachment
2 to your evidence? And I appreciate that this map is of a large scale – 5
or sorry, a small scale – and I will provide another map shortly to assist
with that.
JUDGE WHITING: Sorry, could you just wait a moment please? These
things are stapled and I am trying to un-staple it. It is a lot easier if it is 10
unstapled, I can write on the other side – on the un-typed side. So,
what are we at, paragraph 98?
MS TREE: Yes, sir, and then we were just looking at map 2a which was
attachment 2, which just shows the reserve. And so, Mr Grose, the 15
green area on Cape Lambert, that corresponds to the area of the scenic
reserve?
MR GROSE: That is correct.
20
MS TREE: And in your evidence you also refer to a possum and goat resistant
fence that was built in 1992?
MR GROSE: That is correct.
25
MS TREE: And this fence has assisted with the regeneration of the vegetation
on the peninsula side of the fence?
MR GROSE: Yes.
30
MS TREE: And that has been over the last 20 years?
MR GROSE: That is correct.
MS TREE: The predator fence is not located on the DOC boundary, but on 35
private land. Is that correct?
MR GROSE: That is right.
MS TREE: Now, I have just two – well, one aerial and one map that I will 40
hand up. Sorry, I will hand them both up at the same time just to save
some time.
And just for the benefit of the Board, the first map (the map that I am
handing out, rather than the aerial photo) that map there is appendix 1 45
to Mr Marchant‟s evidence, and that was in the submitter evidence in
-
Page 1671
Blenheim 13.09.12
folder 4, tab 2, but I will get Mr Grose just to mark out the boundaries
and the predator fence on that map so I am providing a separate copy to
you so we can mark those out and provide that as an exhibit, just so that
is clear. Sorry, I have not hole punched the plans.
5
JUDGE WHITING: Now, this was an exhibit and who was the witness?
MS TREE: It was to Mr Marchant‟s evidence. It was appendix 1, and his
evidence can be found in the submitter‟s folder 4 at tab 2.
10
JUDGE WHITING: Thank you.
MS TREE: Mr Grose, so just starting with the map, just if you could confirm
so the boundary of the Cape Lambert reserve is to where the darker
green finishes on this map? 15
MR GROSE: Yes, that is correct.
MS TREE: And then the predator fence that has been built in 1992 – so if you
go along there is the next title boundary that is shown. Is that predator 20
fence on that title boundary?
MR GROSE: Yes, it is.
JUDGE WHITING: So which title boundary are we looking at? 25
MS TREE: So the next title boundary along from the reserve. So that is the
reserve boundary and then the next title boundary is where the predator
fence boundary is.
30
Could I just get you to mark both of those on this map? So just with a
pen if you have one, and just do an arrow to the scenic reserve
boundary and just write “scenic reserve boundary”. And then at arrow
to the title boundary, and just label that as the “predator fence”
location. 35
And I thought as long as we were all happy to mark our own maps
rather than get them copied again, if – once he has done it if that can be
shown to everyone to make sure that they have it right. Would that be
acceptable to the Board? 40
JUDGE WHITING: Yes. Can you just show that around? Thank you.
MR ECCLES: Sir, I am going to display this map on the screen and can you
just tell if it is the right map? 45
-
Page 1672
Blenheim 13.09.12
MS TREE: That is correct. And, Mr Grose, do you understand that the private
land on the east side of the predator fence is in the process of
regenerating roughly at the same rate as the scenic reserve?
[11.30 am] 5
MR GROSE: Yes, over the last 15 years it is regeneration and that areas been
quite remarkable since the stock have been removed and the wild
animals have also been removed from that site. The fence actually, the
reason the fence is along the line that you have pointed out is because it 10
is the most practical line to get a fence that was going to be solid
enough to withstand pressure from animals and therefore it was easier
to put in, that is why it follows that line as opposed to the scenic
reserve line.
15
MS TREE: And just turning to that aerial photo, do you agree that that kind of
really illustrates that that area to the east of the predator fence, is
regenerating?
MR GROSE: Yes, the photo is quite graphic in that it shows the amount of 20
regeneration that has occurred there probably over the last 15 to 18
years. And if you look at the northern side, which is the brown
coloured part of the aerial photo, the reason that that is not showing up
green with vegetation is because the cliffs are so steep and the ground
is so unstable. 25
MS TREE: Do you understand that private land between the DOC land and
the predator fence is in the process of being covenanted?
MR GROSE: I understand that from the Miletta (ph 1.40) family along with 30
some other covenants that are also in place on the property where the
owners agree to them but legally they haven‟t been put in place.
MS TREE: Maybe if we could produce these as exhibits, sir, so the map - - -
35
JUDGE WHITING: We will make map Grose.1A and the photograph
Grose.1B.
EXHIBIT #GROSE.1A
40
EXHIBIT #GROSE.1B
MS TREE: Thank you, sir. Mr Grose, are you familiar with the ONL status
of Cape Lambert?
45
MR GROSE: Yes.
-
Page 1673
Blenheim 13.09.12
MS TREE: Do you agree that, in terms of the extent of that ONL
classification, it actually extends further around to include Pig Bay?
MR GROSE: I am not familiar that it does extend right into Pig Bay. 5
MS TREE: Do you agree that it includes the peninsula form so when we look
at, so I suppose looking at that map on the overhead, so it includes that
peninsula form around into Pig Bay?
10
MR GROSE: Yes, certainly the peninsula.
MS TREE: Now, I appreciate that you are not a landscape expert, do you
defer to the landscape experts on the potential for mitigation of effects
on landscape, natural character and amenity values? 15
MR GROSE: Yes.
MS TREE: You have also referred to, in your evidence-in-chief, and attached
the memorandum of understanding for environmental enhancement 20
between DOC and King Salmon?
MR GROSE: Yes, that is correct.
MS TREE: And this provides that King Salmon may contribute up to 10,000 25
per year towards an environmental enhancement project for a period of
five years?
MR GROSE: Yes, that is correct.
30
MS TREE: Now, in the memorandum of understanding there is no obligation
by King Salmon to agree to fund a particular project, is there?
MR GROSE: No.
35
MS TREE: And there is no obligation to provide 10,000 each year, it could be
less than that?
MR GROSE: Yes, it could be, yes.
40
MS TREE: So when you consider the cost of a multispecies predator control
programme or the cost of a predator control fence, particularly in the
terrain of the Marlborough Sounds, do you agree that $10,000 isn‟t a lo
of money?
45
-
Page 1674
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR GROSE: You can always do with a lot more money, $10,000 doesn‟t go
a long way.
MS TREE: So, for example, a predator control fence, so $10,000 might build
about 100 metres of fencing? 5
MR GROSE: It depends on the type of fence that you are putting in but, in the
general sense, if you were going to a complete predator proof fence,
which included rats and mice, you would certainly in a coastal
environment $10,000 wouldn‟t buy much at all. So I would say that 10
you are correct and around about 100 metres.
MS TREE: Thank you, no further questions.
JUDGE WHITING: Yes, thank you, Ms Tree. Mr Gardner-Hopkins? 15
-
Page 1675
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR GROSE: That would be correct.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And as Sounds‟ Area Manager, you are
responsible for the management of all the public conservation land and
reserves that you have taken us through just earlier. To what extent 5
were you involved in the formulation of the Minister‟s submission on
this application?
MR GROSE: I was involved in terms of drafting up a submission along with a
team of other staff, so my submission was basically put forward in 10
terms of the overall context of the department‟s submission, but my
own – worked on my own submission.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Sorry, just wanting to make the distinction
between your evidence and the original submission that was lodged by 15
the Minister. Just so that we are clear here, I am just asking you about
that formal submission, and in particular, that set out the relief sought
and the reasons for the relief. To what extent does that represent your
opinions?
20
MR GROSE: I was involved in that early on, so I am representing that
position.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Well, the particular relief sought in terms of the
declining of the two marine farms and then the removal of the row of 25
cages, was that at your recommendation?
MR GROSE: That was – I was part of the team that was involved in that
submission, so it was a discussion, yes.
30
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: But was that your personal recommendation
based on your experience as Sounds area manager, for the Minister to
adopt that position in her relief?
MR GROSE: I guess from an operational perspective, yes. 35
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Who within the department, has the authority
through this process to agree to any changes that might be proposed
through the course of this hearing?
40
MR GROSE: The Minister basically.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Are you aware of whether that has been
delegated down to any particular level?
45
MR GROSE: Not that I am aware of.
-
Page 1676
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And in terms of the coordination of the case that
is being presented on behalf of the Minister through this process, to
what extent have you been involved in that?
5
MR GROSE: I have been part of the team working on that.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: But would you say that you were responsible for
the engagement and briefing out of any of the experts called on behalf
of the Minister? 10
MR GROSE: No.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: You refer in your evidence to a number of other
organisations. The first one is the Marlborough Sounds Restoration 15
Trust and you refer to the Trust a number of times in your evidence,
and in particular, their intention to poison the wilding pines on the
Ruaomoko Scenic Reserve. You recall that?
[11.40 am] 20
MR GROSE: Yes, that is correct.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And in fact you give them quite high praise, just
by way of example, at paragraphs 73 and 74 of your evidence. 25
You say at paragraph 73, “The planned pine poisoning will bring a
huge benefit to the reserve in years to come by greatly improving the
ecological and visual amenity values of the site.”
30
At 74 you say, “The Marlborough Sounds‟ Restoration Trust have done
an incredible job.”
Would it be fair to say that you value the support provided by the
Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust? 35
MR GROSE: Yes, greatly.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And it would be fair to say that you would want
to retain that support from the trust? 40
MR GROSE: In the overall context of the community and conservation lands
within the Marlborough Sounds, yes.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Well specifically their support is important to 45
the management of the Ruaomoko Scenic Reserve, is it not?
-
Page 1677
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR GROSE: It is of great benefit, yes, and you could say that that is important
along with a number of other reserves that we have in the Sounds and
on private land.
5
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: How much has the department set aside in its
budget for its own management of the Ruaomoko Reserve each year?
MR GROSE: For Ruaomoko there has very little been set aside. We have
traditionally done work on the other side of – when I say the other side 10
of Ruaomoko Reserve, that is the Tory Channel side where over a
number of years we have chipped away at the wilding pines.
We do not see any budget for Ruaomoko although around $20,000 a
year to date has been set aside for the trust to carry out work which 15
includes work on private land and reserve land.
So the Trust run a five year work plan and each year they come to us
and update that and less us know what sort of progress they have made
on the sites that they have proposed to actually carry out control, and 20
we have a special agreement with them when they are doing work on
reserve land to make sure that health and safety issues are taken of –
that type of thing.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: So in terms of the contribution of the trust to the 25
Ruaomoko Reserve you mentioned a general figure of $20,000. You
agree that that sort of contribution is of assistance?
MR GROSE: Definitely, yes.
30
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Would you agree that if New Zealand King
Salmon were to offer a contribution to the management of the
Ruaomoko Reserve as some sort of mitigation that that would also be
of benefit to the department?
35
MR GROSE: Yes, in a general sense if there was a specific requirement to
carry out work. What you have to take into consideration is, for
instance, with the pine control, is that is usually a one off event and
therefore once the poison which is scheduled that – they are actually
working on that right at this moment – once that work is scheduled and 40
carried out and the type of method that they use then it is unlikely that
further pine control work can be done on a particular section once it is
covered. But it is not to say it excludes work further round on the
reserve or on an adjoining reserve.
45
-
Page 1678
Blenheim 13.09.12
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: So there could be other activities that any
contribution could be usefully put towards?
MR GROSE: Yes.
5
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: You are a member of the Marlborough Sounds‟
Restoration Trust, are you not?
MR GROSE: Yes.
10
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And are you aware as to whether or not the
Trust supports or opposes the present applications?
[11.45 am]
15
MR GROSE: I am not aware what their stance is.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: Are you familiar with the trustees of this Trust?
MR GROSE: I am aware of – I know most of them or have met most of them. 20
Some I know reasonably well, others I do not.
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: You would know that Peter Beech is a trustee?
MR GROSE: Yes. 25
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: And you would understand that he opposes the
application?
MR GROSE: I think that is a fairly well known – right throughout actually. 30
MR GARDNER-HOPKINS: You would know that Eric, I think it is Jorgenson
(ph 0.38), is another trustee?
MR GROSE: Yes, he may have come onto the Trust late after my earlier 35