BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV 2012- IN THE MATTER ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The decision was made by Ruapehu District Council. The decision that Federated Farmers of New Zealand is appealing is: Summary of the decision specific provision or matter Definition: Factory Farming and Animal Boarding Facility Submission 284.3 Buffer Zone: Issue RU2.4 and associated policy stream, Rule RU3.2.3, Rule SU3.2.1.3 and RU3.5 Assessment Criteria Submission 284.13 Riparian Management: RP2.4 Public Access Submission 284.27 Rural Zone: RU3.3.1 Front Yard Submission 284.44 Rural Zone: RU3.3.3 Density Submission: 284.45 Rural Zone: RU 3.3.5 Noise Submission 284.46 Rural Zone: RU3.4.6 Extraction Activities Submission 284.49 and 284.50 Rural Zone: RU3.4.13 Airport Activities Submission 284.57 and 284.58 Road Transport: Vehicle Access Separation TI3.3.2 Submission 284.59 Hazardous Substances: HS3.2.1 List of Permitted Activities Submission 284.67 Summary of reasons for the appeal Definition: Factory Farming and Animal Boarding Facility Submission 284.3 Council decision was to accept this submission in part. Federated Farmers is concerned that the definition of factory farming includes outdoor enclosures which could also include paddocks. Federated Farmers believes that farming in paddocks is not factory farming and therefore the definition could inhibit normal farming practices. Relief sought That the definition be replaced with the definition we provided in our submission: Includes any agricultural production which results in the creation of living matter and which is carried out primarily within buildings, including but not limited to such activities as intensive poultry farming (excluding low density free range poultry or the keeping of fewer than 20 birds), boarding kennels Federated Farmers appeal to the Ruapehu District Plan 2
and catteries, rabbit or fitch farming, intensive pig farming or mushroom production. For the purpose of this Plan ‘factory farming’ excludes horticulture. Intensive pig farming means the keeping, breeding or rearing for any purpose of more than five pigs that have been weaned, or more than two sows, where the predominant productive processes are carried out within buildings or closely fenced outdoor runs where the stocking density precludes the maintenance of pasture or ground cover but excludes non-intensive pig farming. Intensive poultry farming means the keeping, rearing or breeding of 20 or more poultry, whether in relation to the production of poultry for human consumption or in relation to egg production, where the predominant productive processes are carried out primarily within buildings and includes freerange poultry farming activities, but excludes low density free-range poultry. Low density free range poultry means the keeping, rearing or breeding of poultry (whether for the purpose of raising poultry for human consumption or for egg production) where: a) birds have permanent access to open air runs; b) permanent vegetation cover exists on the land where birds are permitted to range; c) the stocking rate of the runs to which the birds have access does not exceed 1.5 per square metre; and d) the stocking rate of any permanent weatherproof shelter to which birds have access does not exceed 5 birds per square metre of deep litter floor space or 10 birds per square metre of slatted floor space or 13 birds per square metre on framed perches. Non-intensive pig farming means the keeping, breeding or rearing for any purpose, of pigs on pasture (but including areas used for access to shelter) at a stocking density that sustains the maintenance of pasture or ground cover. Buffer Zone: Issue RU2.4 and associated policy stream, Rule RU3.2.3, Rule SU3.2.1.3 and RU3.5 Assessment Criteria Submission 284.13 Council decision was to reject this submission. Federated Farmers believes that the buffer zone is a blunt tool to achieve ensure consultation with the Department of Conservation when development is occurring. Federated Farmers and the Department of Conservation undertook pre-hearing discussions and came to an agreed viewpoint which was presented at the hearing but ignored by Council. Federated Farmers believes that the Department of Conservation was comfortable that our shared position would allow them the level of comfort they required to ensure they were consulted regarding development which could affect important conservation estate. Relief sought Federated Farmers appeal to the Ruapehu District Plan 3
Page 1: BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT To: Th
Page 5 and 6: Restricted Discretionary Activities
Page 7 and 8: Federated Farmers is concerned that
Page 9 and 10: Federated Farmers is of the opinion
Page 11 and 12: Persons to be served with a copy of
Page 13 and 14: Miriam Gillingham Erua Lodge & The
Page 15 and 16: Sharon Adams RD1 OWHANGO 3989 ss.ad
Page 17: SR Blackburn 73 Fisher Road NATIONA

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV 2012- IN THE MATTER ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?