Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 – It's Back
Press Release – Primary Land Users Group
With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election, says Andy Loader, P.L.U.G.
Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration.
(813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP.
Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability?
In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices.
Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors.
Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff.
Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits.
In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance.
The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate.
The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population.
The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy.
When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration.
The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse.
Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways.
The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules.
Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector.
WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation.
The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy.
It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers.
It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts.
The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region.
In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled.
Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment.
In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production.
The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country.
A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference.
Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented.
New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens.
With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
4 days ago
- The Spinoff
Windbag: The little decisions that make a big impact
Two overlooked votes on obscure council policies could make a significant difference to new housing in Wellington. It's no secret that council rules and processes are arcane. Local government is a bureaucratic minefield of jargon and seemingly pointless minutiae. It's not uncommon for councillors to sit through hours of explanations from council staff, simply to understand the significance of an upcoming vote. Even then, there's often some confusion about what certain amendments mean and how they should vote to get their preferred outcome. Nowhere is that more evident than in Wellington's District Plan. Wellington City Council finalised the major decisions around housing density back in March 2024, but the process didn't end there. For more than a year, the council has continued to vote on increasingly minor and mostly uninteresting points. Last Thursday, the council completed the final touches, bringing the District Plan process to a close and officially adopting it. It was no mere signing ceremony, though; the meeting's agenda ran to 2,568 pages. The decisions made on the day weren't huge headline-grabbers, but two small but important points are worth delving into. The airport conundrum The first was about the airport's Obstacle Limitation Surface, or OLS, an obscure but powerful mechanism that gives Wellington Airport veto power over building heights anywhere near the airport. The airport is proposing a vastly expanded OLS zone, covering most of the city, at heights as low as eight metres. (Read more about the OLS controversy here.) Rebecca Matthews introduced an amendment to change the minimum height to 11 metres, which would ensure all townhouse developments are unaffected, and to exclude areas that are shaded by hills. Tim Brown, a former chair of the airport company, launched a spirited defence of the OLS, emphasising that the airport had never used the veto power. 'There is very clear evidence that the OLS has had no impact on densification. We effectively have a situation of international safety standards versus a very hypothetical concern about people's ability to undertake development,' he said. Matthews said she felt she was being asked to reconcile two contradictory ideas: 'that a massive increase in powers is essential to their operation and that it will never be used. I can't hold both of those ideas in my head at once.' A majority of councillors supported Matthews' amendment. However, the council doesn't have the power to change the OLS unilaterally. Essentially, all the council can do is write to the airport and ask them very nicely to change the OLS. If the airport doesn't agree, the matter could end up in the Environment Court. The e-bike apartment question Wellington City Council has made a significant investment – both financially and politically – in bike lanes and other infrastructure to encourage more low-carbon transport and lifestyles. If more people are going to take up cycling, especially if that means going car-free, they need the ability to store their bikes in their homes. To address this, council staff proposed a bike parking minimum for new apartments. It was a well-intentioned policy, but it went too far. It would have required developers to set aside 2.5 square metres of space, with access to electricity, for every unit. It provided enough space for every apartment dweller to store a large electric cargo bike. Large apartment developers would have had to set aside an entire floor for bike parking. That would increase the build cost for developers, which would increase the price they would need to sell units for to make their margins work. That either means apartments will be more expensive, or they won't be built at all. Exactly how much more expensive is hard to calculate – estimates from developer Stratum claimed as much as $58,000 extra per unit. Those numbers seem a bit too high to be credible, but it's inarguable that the policy would add some additional cost. The independent hearings panel, which oversaw the District Plan process, recommended reducing the requirement to one e-bike parking space per four units. But that number was plucked out of thin air and didn't make anyone happy. Ben McNulty introduced an amendment to remove the bike parking requirement. 'As we allow developers to make their own decisions on car parks, gyms, pool and laundry, so we should on e-bikes and micro-mobility,' he said. Iona Pannett saw it differently: 'Developers are like small children, they need to be told what to do. If we just let them do what they like, they will not provide enough.' The debate has echoes of a 2021 decision by then-transport minister Phil Twyford to ban councils from requiring a minimum number of car parks in new developments – a policy that won international praise in urbanist circles for enabling lower housing costs for people who don't need or want a car. The same financial argument could be made for mandatory bike parking, but bikes also have wider social benefits for dense urban areas. A majority of councillors voted in favour of McNulty's amendment, but some Green councillors were uncomfortable with how it might discourage cycling uptake, so they tasked council staff with finding an alternative solution. The final twist in this tale is that the new work may all be for nothing. Housing minister Chris Bishop was watching the process play out – and tweeting about it. He doesn't like bike parking minimums any more than Twyford liked car parking minimums, and there is growing speculation that he will ban them under his upcoming RMA reforms.
Scoop
12-06-2025
- Scoop
Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 – It's Back
Press Release – Primary Land Users Group With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election, says Andy Loader, P.L.U.G. Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration. (813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP. Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability? In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices. Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors. Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff. Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits. In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance. The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate. The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population. The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy. When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration. The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse. Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways. The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules. Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector. WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation. The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy. It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers. It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts. The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region. In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled. Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment. In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production. The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country. A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference. Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented. New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens. With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.
Scoop
12-06-2025
- Scoop
Waikato Regional Council Plan Change 1 – It's Back
Press Release – Primary Land Users Group With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election, says Andy Loader, P.L.U.G. Plan Change One (PC1) INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT is now ready for Council input and consideration. (813) Farming in Whangamarino Wetland catchment is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in both the Decisions Version and WRC's Final Proposal and effects on the Whangamarino Wetland is a matter over which WRC restricts its discretion in both cases. Rule 3.11.4.6 5.v in WRC's Final Proposal reinforces this by requiring FEPs to provide evidence that the significance and sensitivity of the Whangamarino Wetland has been considered in development of the FEP. Does this mean that farmers in the large Whangamarino Catchment will have to apply for a Restricted Discretionary Consent which may impact adversely on their decision-making ability? In the years since PC1 was first proposed up to the present time, farmers in the Waikato Region have continued making improvements to their management practices. Evidence of this can be seen in the requirements dairy farmers now face just to supply milk to the Milk Companies and that dry stock farmers must meet to supply stock to processors. Many of the proposed PC1 requirements are already being complied with by farmers, to enable them to meet their supplier requirements. For instance, stream fencing on dairy farms is mandatory practice, nutrient management, e.g. Fertiliser is strategically used with increased use of speciality mixes designed to limit runoff. Dry stock farmers have not been stationary either with much planting along stream banks; ensuring that cattle are kept well away from critical source areas, and managing stocking rates to suit land type while vegetable growers too have had to meet stringently imposed market audits. In the Whangamarino catchment it appears that farming will be a Restricted Discretionary Consent activity, which will require the use of Farm Environment Plans to ensure compliance. The hope is that these will not require expensive external audit requirements, particularly given the improvements to farming practices that are ongoing and in light of the current economic climate. The imposition of restrictive regulatory burdens and expensive compliance costs for farmers in this catchment will most likely lead to increased loss of productive land eventually resulting in upward costs of food produced within the catchment which is one of the country's main vegetable production areas and provides most of the fresh vegetable production for the Auckland population. This is nearly a quarter of the total NZ population. The proposed rules would appear to add to production costs rather than add to measurable outcomes. This is particularly true when you read the interim report from the Environment Court and find that there is no mention anywhere in the report of controlling/eradicating koi carp- the number one enemy. When it comes to making a discernible impact on improving water quality in the catchment then the effects from Koi Carp must be taken into consideration. The true fact is that without an achievable eradication/control plan for Koi Carp then reduction in sediment and erosion effects will never be realised and in fact the levels of both sedimentation and erosion of the waterways and watercourses will only get worse. Failure to control or eradicate Koi Carp will also lead to a reduction in the levels of indigenous flora and fauna and over time will more than likely lead to mass extinction of native species of both flora and fauna in, and on the margins of, the waterways. The eventual outcome will be that the deleterious effects from Koi Carp will far outweigh any benefits that may be gained from the farming sectors under these new rules. Local Government New Zealand commissioned a report on the impact of their proposed new rules (which are very similar to PC1) on the Waikato region and the end result of the implementation according to that report was that 68% of Sheep & Beef farmers and 13% of Dairy farmers would leave the agricultural sector. WRC in their initial costing of the implementation of PC1 which has virtually the same rules, predicted that the cost to the agricultural sector in the Waikato region alone would be $500 to $600 million dollars per year for the eighty year time frame of the proposed plan change implementation. The worst part of this whole debate around the costs of the implementation of these new rules is that all of the costs are non-productive and will only serve to increase the size of the non-productive bureaucracy. It is claimed that the new rules will result in improved human health from better quality water, reduced sediment and less erosion, but what is not being said is that they could cost rural jobs and community services and the uncertainty is already causing increased mental health issues among farmers. It has also been claimed that the significant and lasting benefits of the policy will, over the long term, exceed the costs of transition and implementation, but this claim is just not supported in any way by the facts. The proposed PCI rules even stop agriculture making sensible decisions such as changing land use to better suit the needs of the region. In relation to improved water quality in the lower Waikato and Waipa catchments, the overall levels of sediment and erosion will never be controlled or even reduced until the noxious pest fish, Koi Carp, is eradicated/controlled. Koi Carp must be addressed as they have a huge effect on the waterways and along with Catfish they are one of the most rapidly multiplying invasive pests that have been released into the New Zealand environment. In this post Covid economy NZ is looking to strategies to improve the nation's economy and the main way that this is going to be possible is through export earnings from agricultural production. The last thing that we need is an accelerated implementation of the new rules that is going to negatively impact on the productive agricultural sector which provides a means of income and also security of food supply for our country. A responsible approach would I believe see Council recommending 'Permitted Status' as at present to continue and alongside this status, Council should increase support for Catchment led groups who do make a measurable difference. Many excellent examples are springing up within our region, where measurable impacts are documented. New Zealand farmers are World leaders in picking up and embracing new technology that leads to better long-term sustainability but will not do so if held down with unnecessary regulatory burdens. With the upcoming local body elections I firmly believe that PC 1 will again become a major election issue which candidates will have to address as part of their run up to the election.
