Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers
Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers
Hearing Evidence – Brunner - Federated Farmers
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