transcript of proceedings board of inquiry ......2012/09/13 · transcript of proceedings board of...

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)

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

Blenheim 13.09.12

LIST OF WITNESSES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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

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?

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.

Blenheim 13.09.12


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?


20

MS TREE: And in your evidence you also refer to a possum and goat resistant

fence that was built in 1992?


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?


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

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


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

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.

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?


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?


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

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

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.

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 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?

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

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

transcript of proceedings board of inquiry ......2012/09/13 · transcript of proceedings board of...

Documents