12.10.2013 Views

Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers

Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers

Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

50. In our submission, <strong>Federated</strong> <strong>Farmers</strong> sought the inclusion of an explanation to Rule<br />

14 to the effect that: This rule is not intended to prohibit further development, but<br />

requires the applicant to consider methods of reducing potential future phosphorus loss<br />

into Lake <strong>Brunner</strong>. The 42A report recommended the Council accept this submission<br />

at Decision Requested: 18.1.73. <strong>Federated</strong> <strong>Farmers</strong> appreciates this recommendation.<br />

3.7 Rule 72 <strong>–</strong> Application of fertiliser<br />

51. In submissions, <strong>Federated</strong> <strong>Farmers</strong> opposed in part amendments to Rule 72 to only<br />

provide for application of fertiliser as a permitted activity, as part of land development in<br />

the Lake <strong>Brunner</strong> catchment, if the solubility of the fertiliser is less than 10%. This very<br />

low solubility makes Rule 72 very difficult to apply in the <strong>Brunner</strong> catchment because<br />

10% is too low a solubility to support the rapid plant growth necessary for successful<br />

land development, and to consolidate sediment. This is unnecessary given that land<br />

development in the <strong>Brunner</strong> catchment is a discretionary activity under Rule 14.<br />

52. In our submission we requested that provision for higher solubility fertiliser might make<br />

Rule 72 more useful. The staff recommended the Council reject our relief sought at<br />

Decision Requested: 18.5.9.<br />

53. In further submissions, <strong>Federated</strong> <strong>Farmers</strong> opposed the submission of the Department<br />

of Conservation, discussed at Decision Requested: 18.5.10, because the imposition of<br />

farm plans across the region would be very difficult to enforce, and would be a severe<br />

administrative burden for the Council, and would seek to address something that is a<br />

non-issue according to water quality in the SOE report. The 42A report recommended<br />

the Council reject this submission.<br />

3.8 Rule <strong>–</strong> 83 Application of phosphorous fertiliser associated with Rule 14 in the<br />

Lake <strong>Brunner</strong> catchment<br />

54. In submissions, <strong>Federated</strong> <strong>Farmers</strong> sought that Council either removes condition (ii) of<br />

Rule 83 or clarifies:<br />

how the amount of fertiliser is to be defined;<br />

how properties are to be established where boundaries change or lease<br />

agreements are established;<br />

how an annual average will be established in the absence of accurate records;<br />

and;<br />

how an appropriate bench mark period will be established given concerns with<br />

the 2005 <strong>–</strong> 2010 years<br />

Condition (ii) of Rule 83 is:<br />

The average amount of phosphorous fertiliser applied per property per year is to<br />

be no more than the annual average applied between 2005-2010.<br />

55. No submissions were received in opposition of this submission.<br />

12

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!