SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CANTERBURY LAND AND
WATER REGIONAL PLAN
To:
Chief Executive Officer
Environment Canterbury
P O Box 345,
Christchurch
Submission on:
Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
(proposed Plan)
Name of Submitter:
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-operative Limited
PO Box 1049
CHRISTCHURCH
Address of Submitter:
C/- CHC Ltd
P O Box 51-282
Tawa
WELLINGTON 5249
Attention: Chris Hansen
Phone: 021 026 45108
Email: Chris@rmaexpert.co.nz
1.
The specific provisions of the proposed plan change that Ravensdown’s
submission relates to are:
The Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Plan in its entirety.
2.
Ravensdown’s submission is:
Refer to submission points below. The relief sought by Ravensdown are also
outlined in the submission points below.
3.
Ravensdown wishes to be heard in support of this submission.
Ravensdown would be prepared to present a joint case with others that have made
similar submissions at a hearing.
……………..……………………
Chris Hansen
Authorised Agent for Ravensdown
Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd
5 October 2012
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 1 of 40
SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED CANTERBURY LAND & WATER
REGIONAL PLAN
1
Ravensdown’s interest in the Canterbury Region
The following submission is made on behalf of Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd
(Ravensdown) to the Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan (the proposed Plan).
The period for submission closes on 5 October 2012.
Ravensdown owns and operates three fertiliser-manufacturing plants in Ravensbourne
(Dunedin), Hornby (Christchurch) and Awatoto (Napier). Ravensdown also operates 46 bulk
fertiliser stores throughout NZ, and has an interest in a further 70 consignment fertiliser stores
which are operated by third parties in which Ravensdown products are stored.
In addition to these facilities, Ravensdown operates a number of quarries that mine and
process agriculture lime in various parts of New Zealand.
Ravensdown takes an interest in regional and district plans from two perspectives – how plan
provisions affect their own manufacture and storage activities, and how the plan provisions
may affect the users of their products. When considering plans Ravensdown wishes to ensure
planning provisions are enabling and are not unduly restrictive.
In this context, Ravensdown is mindful that the purpose of the Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA) is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources,
while achieving a number of outcomes, including avoiding, remedying or mitigating the
actual or potential adverse environmental effects of an activity. Ravensdown therefore seeks
for policies and plans to recognise that the RMA enables activities and anticipates
environmental effects will occur, so long as these effects are managed to levels considered
acceptable by the community. The RMA does not anticipate no development or zero effects
from activities.
2
General Comment on the Proposed Plan
Ravensdown has assessed the proposed Plan in detail in relation to its prime interests stated
above; of particular interest are the following matters:
 Nutrient Zones and related rule activity status
 Recognising the importance of providing for economic growth and development
while managing land and water resources
 Definition of terms, such as “changed”; “nutrient discharge”; “Lake Zone”;
“catchment”.
 Setting of a region wide nitrogen discharge limit
 The appropriateness of Table 1 as an objective rather than policy
 Policies for management of nitrogen discharges
 Policies for establishing catchment-based nutrient loss limits
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 2 of 40
 Rules for nutrient/fertiliser discharges
 Providing for permitted activity
 Practicality/ necessity of annual nutrient budgets /nutrient management plans and
anniversary dates proposed
 Rules for discharges of storm water
 Rules for hazardous substances/industries
 Regard be given to consistency and practicality in the approach to establishing Farm
Environment Plans (Schedule 7) and audited self-management
3
General Submission Points
The following are ‘high-level’ matters of interest to Ravensdown:
Plan Provision: Section 3 – Objectives (Pages 3-1; 3-2)
Submission: Submissions on specific aspects of the Objectives are included below in Section
4 Specific Submission Points. The following are ‘high-level’ submission points Ravensdown
wishes to make:

It would be helpful if there was an indication of which policies implement the
Objectives;

The Objectives are directed towards water resources – a small number of objectives
relating to land resources appear as ‘add-ons’ at the end. For example, there is no
overarching objective for land as Objective 3.1 is for water;

There are a variety of terms/phrases uses in the Objectives that are undefined and
may be emotive – these include: ‘respect’; ‘embracing’; ‘protected’, ‘are suitable for
use by’, ‘good practice’ – it would be helpful to have such terms/phrases either
deleted or replaced with RMA terms. Other terms that place an importance on a
resource such as ‘outstanding, significant, high quality’ also need reference to either
schedules or assessments that verify such an importance;

Objective 3.5 reads: “Outstanding fresh water bodies and hāpua and their margins
are maintained in their existing state or restored where degraded.” It is considered
this Objective expresses well the intent of the proposed Plan, and there seems little
need for Objectives 3.6 – 3.10 which seem to divide the fresh water bodies into lakes,
rivers, and natural wetlands and sets individual objectives for aspects of indigenous
biodiversity, mauri, health of ecosystems and natural character.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for the above matters to be addressed through amendments
to the proposed Plan – some recommended amendments are outlined further below in its
submission.
Plan Provisions: Section 4 - Policies (Page 4.1)
Submission: Submissions on specific aspects of the Policies is included in Section 4 below.
The following are ‘high-level’ submission points Ravensdown wishes to make:
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 3 of 40

It would be helpful if there was an indication of which rules implement the policies
(and which policies implement the Objectives);

The Strategic Policies (Policies 4.1 – 4.8) are all water related, with no strategic
policies for land. This seems to support the concerns raised that Objectives are
heavily water orientated;

There is no reference to Schedule 8 (Industry Derived Nitrogen Discharges) in the
Strategic Policies

The policies are not written using the SMART approach (specific; measurable;
achievable; realistic and with timeframes). As a result many are poorly written and
require clarification and amendment.

Policy 4.1 introduces the outcomes for Canterbury rivers, lakes and aquifers. The
appropriateness of these figures to represent the outcomes being expressed through
the Objectives and Policies is questioned.

Throughout the policies there is reference to ‘catchments’, however these are not
water catchment areas, but catchment committee boundaries. This causes some
confusion when considering policies.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for the above matters to be addressed through amendments
to the proposed Plan – some recommended amendments are outlined further below in its
submission.
Plan Provision: Nutrient Zones Planning Map (Page 4-8)
The Nutrient Zones Planning Map sets out Nutrient Allocation Zones for the Canterbury
Region. These zones determine activity status for the use of land for farming activities in the
rules.
Submission: The determining of the Nutrient Zones is a key mechanism in the proposed Plan,
and requires a high level of confidence in the robustness of zone allocation and how the
boundaries are decided. It is unclear how accurate the Nutrient Zones are or what levels of
confidence can be placed around boundaries. It is also not clear what process is in place to
address those nutrient zones that are ‘unclassified’.
In addition, Ravensdown considers that given the size of some catchments and the varying
land use within them a sub-catchment / catchment approach is desirable, and not just apply in
part for certain 'sensitive lakes'. A sub-catchment approach also better aligns with the policy
approach to setting limits under the NPS FM (including when addressing integrated
management of freshwater and land under Objective C1 and Policy C1 of the NPS FM).
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks some flexibility in the setting of, and amendments to,
Nutrient Zone boundaries as new information and science becomes available and to include
provision for a sub-catchment approach to setting limits.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 4 of 40
4
Specific Submission Points
Plan Provision: General Provisions: Section 1- Introduction, Issues and Major Responses
Submission: Ravensdown is concerned that in Section 1 ‘Land and Water Resources in
Canterbury’ the description of issues and major responses regarding resources such as fresh
water and land and the need to protect them, fails to identify the need to provide for the use of
these resources sustainably in order to ensure economic growth, social and cultural well-being
outcomes.
Ravensdown considers one of the most important issues impacting on the management of
land and water resources in the Canterbury Region is the need to manage resources while at
the same time provide for economic growth and development and this issue should be clearly
acknowledged. It is felt there has been insufficient detailed analysis of the potential economic
impact of restrictive limits resulting from this plan.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Section 1.1.1 to include reference to the issues arising
from the need to manage land and water resources and the importance of providing for
economic growth and development, and social and cultural wellbeing outcomes.
Plan Provision: 1.2.6. Managing new and existing Activities
Submission: Ravensdown notes that it is stated in the 5th sentence of this section that when
resource consents for infrastructure (irrigation and hydro-electricity schemes) expire, the
activity must be assessed as if new even when there is no practical alternative to continuing
using the existing infrastructure. This consideration is subject to Part 2 of the RMA. As well
as the matters identified in the proposed Plan, it needs to be explicitly acknowledged that Part
104(2A) of the RMA states that: “the consent authority must have regard to the value of the
investment of the existing consent holder”.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for explicit acknowledgement that Part 104(2A) of the
RMA states that “the consent authority must have regard to the value of the investment of the
existing consent holder” be added to the 5th sentence of this section.
Plan Provision: Section 2.10 Definitions
The following definitions are of particular interest to Ravensdown:
“Changed (in terms of Rules 5.42 to 5.45): means a change in land use, calculated on a per
property basis that arises from either:
1. a resource consent to use, or increase the volume of, water for irrigation on a
property; or
2. an increase of more than 10% in the loss of nitrogen from land used for a farming
activity above the average nitrogen loss from the same land for the period between 1
July 2011 and 30 June 2013. The amount of nitrogen loss shall be calculated using the
OVERSEERTM nutrient model for the 12 months preceding 1 July in any year and
expressed as kilograms per hectare per year.”
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 5 of 40
Submission: Ravensdown considers that the proposed definition of ‘change’, and the manner
in which it is used in the proposed Plan, poses a number of potential administrative and
monitoring/enforcement difficulties which have not been addressed within the proposed Plan
or the supporting section 32 Report.
Ravensdown is opposed to the definition of ‘changed’ in reference to 2, as more than 10 % in
loss of Nitrogen from the same land.
Ravensdown is concerned as to the practicable application of this definition as it relates to
Rules 5.42 to 5.45. In particular, Ravensdown is of the view a 10 % change is an arbitrary
selection, not necessarily linked adverse effects.
Such a change may be of quite variable significance depending on the current losses. For
example a farm with N loss of 50 kg N/ha/yr could affect a relatively significant change,
increasing average loss by up to 5 kg N/ha/yr without registering land use change, while
inequitably, a low intensity farm with N loss of just 10 kg N /ha/yr would trigger a
requirement for consent under this definition with relatively mild N loss increase of just 1 kg
N /ha/yr.
In addition, considering the accepted margin of error for Overseer of 20-30 % the selection of
10 % N loss as a definition of land use change seems inconsistent with the accepted bounds of
system variability.
Furthermore the establishment of the data inputs for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2013
will introduce in effect, a cap which is not necessarily linked to effects but will inhibit on–
going growth and development. Ravensdown is opposed to this. In some cases data for the
period will be difficult to verify, making the requirement difficult to enforce.
Under these circumstances consent would be unduly onerous, costly and would achieve no
resource management purpose. The definition, if amended and retained, should specifically be
for measures which apply prior to 2017.
It is also noted ‘changed’ is to be measured on a ‘per property’ basis, and the definition of
‘property’ is not included in the proposed Plan. Ravensdown believes a broad definition of
‘property’ is needed (for example it would not be restricted to land title but area of farm
operations) to ensure the determination of change is appropriate and associated with a
particular farming activity. (The clear and practical definition for a farm is required also for
application of the Farm Environment Plan under Schedule 7).
Given the above, Ravensdown is opposed to the definition of ‘changed’ under the proposed
Plan.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks the deletion of the current definition of ‘changed’ within
the proposed Plan and consideration be given to an alternative approach/definition with
application specifically for those rules which apply prior to 2017, with any definition
adopting a broad definition of ‘property’ that relates to the area being farmed.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 6 of 40
An alternative definition for ‘change’ could be;
i.
Greater than 20 % of the farm area changing from one of the listed farm
activities to another farm activity, or
ii. Increase in average Nitrogen loss/ha/yr as estimated by Overseer of more
than 6 kg N/ha/yr
Listed farm activities being; dairy, drystock grazing, cropping, horticulture, irrigated
farming.
Note: The rationale for selecting a change of 6 kg N loss/ha/yr as a definition of land use
change is made on the basis of there being 20 % of an arbitrary 30 kg N/ha/yr benchmark N
loss for most farms, (assuming 20 kg N /ha/yr is too low to be practicable for most farms,
using Overseer Version 6).
“Environmental Management Strategy for Irrigation: means an environmental management
plan for an irrigation scheme using the methodology described in: “An Environmental
Management System for Irrigation Schemes in New Zealand” by C. Mulcock, S.
Cumberworth, and I. Brown (June 2009).”
Submission: Ravensdown is opposed to the definition of ‘Environmental Management
Strategy for Irrigation’ being included in the proposed Plan. Ravensdown notes that the term
does not appear in the objectives, policies or rules and thus questions why it has been defined
within the proposed Plan.
Ravensdown is concerned that should it be used to inform the development of Farm
Environment Plans (including nutrient management plans), that adopting the template
contained in the material “An Environmental Management System for Irrigation in NZ” for
auditing and standards for nutrient management may cause a fragmented approach within the
industry. There are aspects of the nutrient management templates that the industry does not
agree with. For example, the draft version on which feedback was sought was an incomplete
document. It also included input limits for nutrient application, making the system
contradictory to an ‘output’ based approach.
Furthermore, while the irrigation companies and individual sector groups (such as the dairy
industry) may be taking responsibility for managing and auditing their member farmer clients
/customers environmental performance, it is essential there is a consistency and synergy with
the fertiliser industry in its delivery of nutrient management plans. This means a nutrient
management plan should be regionally and, preferably, nationally consistent, and should be
nested within the farm environmental plan. It is not clear why this particular system should
be included in definitions, when other audit systems and assurance programmes are not.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for the definition to be deleted.
“Farm Environment Plan Auditor: means a person who has either:
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 7 of 40
1. a Certificate of Completion in Sustainable Nutrient Management in New
Zealand Agriculture and a Certificate of Completion in Advanced Sustainable
Nutrient Management in New Zealand Agriculture from Massey University;
2. a Certificate of Completion in Sustainable Nutrient Management in New
Zealand Agriculture from Massey University and can provide evidence of at
least 5 years professional experience in the management of pastoral, horticulture
or arable farm systems; or
3. a tertiary qualification in agricultural sciences and can provide evidence of at
least 5 years professional experience in nutrient management for pastoral,
horticulture or arable farm systems.”
Submission: While the Certificates in Sustainable Nutrient Management and Advanced
Sustainable Nutrient Management in New Zealand Agriculture as given above are endorsed
and supported by the Fertiliser Industry, and while they represent components of the
certification of an Accredited Nutrient Management Adviser currently under development, the
definition presented is not entirely consistent with the requirements of certification of a
Nutrient Management Adviser. Furthermore, the fertiliser industry would not consider the
certification requirements for the Nutrient Management Adviser would necessarily be the
same as those required for a Farm Environment Plan Auditor.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks the deletion of the definition, and for the proposed Plan to
give recognition to Industry Certification as they apply for their given purpose.
“Nutrient discharge: means the modelled discharge of nutrients using OVERSEERTM.”
Submission: While the intent of this definition is supported, the practicality of the definition
in the context of the wider plan may not be practical. Ravensdown considers that not all land
use activities are included in OVERSEERTM, and therefore, by this definition those land use
activities not in OVERSEERTM would remain outside the definition for nutrient discharge.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for an amendment to the definition of Nutrient Discharge
as follows (or similar):
“Nutrient Discharge: Nutrient loss from the farm system boundary by surface runoff or by
leaching below the root zone”
Plan Provision: Definition of ‘Catchments’
Submission: Throughout the policies there is reference to ‘catchments’, however these are
not water catchment areas, but catchment committee boundaries. This causes some confusion
when considering policies.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for clarity regarding the use of ‘catchment’ and in
particular when reference to ‘catchment’ relates to water flow, or when ‘catchment’ refers to
committee administrative boundaries, or sub-regional zones.
Plan Provision: Definition of ‘Farm’
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 8 of 40
Submission: Ravensdown notes that throughout the policies and rules there is reference to
‘farm’, ‘a farming activity, or ‘any farming activity’. Interpretation of these terms will have a
significant impact on resources and capability needed to meet the requirements of rules which
apply to nutrient management and nutrient losses from farming activities. If defined by area,
a minimum of 10 ha at least should apply.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks the introduction of a new definition for interpretation of
‘farm’, ‘a farming activity, or ‘any farm activity’ as they are applied in the rule regime. In
particular this definition should include a minimum area of 10 ha.
Plan Provision: Objective 3.1 (Page 3-1)
“Water is recognised as essential to all life and is respected for its intrinsic values.”
Submission: The term “respected” is not defined, and it is not clear in RMA terms what this
might mean. It is also considered this objective should also incorporate land resources.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks Objective 3.1 to be amended to read (or similar):
“Water and land is recognised as essential to all life and is respected for its intrinsic values.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.3 (Page 3-3)
“The relationship of Ngāi Tahu and their culture and traditions with the water and land of
Canterbury is protected.”
Submission: The use of the term “protected” is not defined in the proposed Plan.
Ravensdown is concerned that Objective 3.3 extends the policy context beyond what decision
makers are to ‘have particular regard to’ under Schedule 1 of the ECan Act. Furthermore, in
achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), in relation to managing
the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, recognition and
provision is to be given to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga under section 6(e). This does not
require that such values be ‘protected’.
Ravensdown is therefore concerned that Objective 3.3 does not align with section 6(e) of the
RMA and extends a very broad level of protection to sites and areas of importance to Ngai
Tahu. Ravensdown considers that the objective needs to be amended to better reflect both the
matters provided for under Schedule 1 of the ECan Act and the provisions contained within
section 6 (e) of the RMA.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Objective 3.3 to be amended to read (or similar):
“The relationship of Ngāi Tahu and their culture and traditions with the water and land of
Canterbury is protected recognised and provided for.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.5 (Page 3-1)
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 9 of 40
“Outstanding fresh water bodies and hāpua and their margins are maintained in their
existing state or restored where degraded.”
Submission: As commented above in the General Assessment, Ravensdown considers there
is a need to define ‘outstanding’ in terms of a reference to an assessment in a schedule of such
water bodies. Furthermore, Ravensdown considers the use of the management approach
“maintained in their existing state or restored where degraded” is appropriate, and should be
adopted in other Objectives and Policies, as recommended below. Ravensdown is also of the
view that achieving Objective 3.5 will also mean a number of the following will also be met,
and questions whether these additional objectives are needed.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Objective 3.5 and seeks a schedule of
‘outstanding’ fresh water bodies and hāpua and their margins be included in the proposed
Plan for clarity. Ravensdown also seeks for the management approach to “maintained in
their existing state or restored where degraded” be retained, and adopted elsewhere as sought
below.
Plan Provision: Objective 3.6 (Page 3-1)
“The significant indigenous biodiversity values of natural wetlands and hāpua are protected
and wetlands in Canterbury that contribute to cultural and community values, biodiversity,
water quality, mahinga kai or ecosystem services are enhanced.”
Submission: Similar to comments above, Ravensdown considers the “significant’ values
referenced in the Objectives need to be established and referenced in a schedule. In addition,
it is likely that all wetlands in Canterbury contribute to one of the elements identified, and
therefore need to be enhanced. It is considered that Objective 3.5 would achieve this
objective, as wetland is included in the definition of water body in the RMA. If this Objective
is not deleted, it should reflect a “maintained in their existing state or restored where
degraded” approach as supported above.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for either Objective 3.6 to be deleted, or amended as
follows (or similar):
“The significant indigenous biodiversity values (as defined in Schedule XX) of natural
wetlands and hāpua are protected and wetlands in Canterbury that contribute to cultural and
community values, biodiversity, water quality, mahinga kai or ecosystem services are
enhanced maintained in their existing state or restored where degraded.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.7 (Page 3-1)
“The mauri of lakes, rivers, hāpua and natural wetlands is maintained or restored and they
are suitable for use by Ngāi Tahu and the community.”
Submission: Similar to comments made above, Ravensdown considers the achievement of
Objective 3.5 would mean Objective 3.7 is not needed. Should Objective 3.7 be retained, the
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 10 of 40
term “and they are suitable for use” is uncertain and should be deleted, and a consistent
management approach as taken in Objective 3.5 should be adopted.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for either Objective 3.7 to be deleted, or amended as
follows (or similar):
““The mauri of lakes, rivers, hāpua and natural wetlands is maintained in the existing state
or restored where degraded and they are suitable for use by Ngāi Tahu and the community.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.8 (Page 3-1)
“The health of ecosystems is maintained or enhanced in lakes, rivers, hāpua and wetlands.”
Submission: Similar to comments made above, Ravensdown considers the achievement of
Objective 3.5 would mean Objective 3.8 is not needed. Should this Objective remain, the
Objective should apply to natural water bodies, and a similar management approach be
adopted as in Objective 3.5.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for either Objective 3.8 to be deleted, or amended as
follows (or similar):
“The health of ecosystems is maintained in its existing state or enhanced where degraded in
natural lakes, rivers, hāpua and wetlands.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.9 (Page 3-1)
“The existing natural character values of alpine rivers are protected.”
Submission: Similar to comments made above, the achievement of Objective 3.5 would
mean Objective 3.9 is not needed. Should this Objective remain, it should apply to
recognised outstanding natural character values listed in a new schedule to the proposed Plan,
and a similar management approach be adopted as in Objective 3.5.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for either Objective 3.9 to be deleted, or amended as
follows (or similar):
“The existing outstanding natural character values of alpine rivers (as defined in Schedule
XX) are protected maintained in their existing state or restored where degraded.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.10 (Page 3-1)
“The significant indigenous biodiversity values, mahinga kai values, and natural processes of
rivers are protected.”
Submission: Similar to comments made above, Ravensdown considers the achievement of
Objective 3.5 would mean Objective 3.10 is not needed. Should this Objective remain, it
should apply to recognised significant indigenous biodiversity values listed in a new schedule
to the proposed Plan, and a similar management approach be adopted as in Objective 3.5.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 11 of 40
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for either Objective 3.10 to be deleted, or amended as
follows (or similar):
““The significant indigenous biodiversity values (as defined in Schedule XX), mahinga kai
values, and natural processes of rivers are protected maintained in their existing state or
restored where degraded.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.17 (Page 3-2)
“The mauri and the productive quality and quantity of soil are not degraded.”
Submission: While the intent of this Objective appears to ensure that soil as a resource is
managed to ensure it is not degraded, the very nature of most farming activities mean that
some damage to the soil resource occurs, particularly under cultivation. Ravensdown
considers it is not clear how any degradation of the mauri, productive quality and quantity of
soil will be measured, and what steps might be taken to achieve the Objective. Further, in
giving effect to the CRPS relating to the enhancement of soil quality, where this has been
degraded, Ravensdown considers that it is appropriate to adopt the phrase ‘or where
practicable’ given that it will not be possible to achieve the enhancement of soils in all cases.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Objective 3.17 to be amended to read (or similar):
“The mauri and the productive quality and quantity of soil are not degraded maintained or
where practicable enhanced”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.21 (Page 3-2)
“Land uses continue to develop and change in response to socio-economic and community
demand while remaining consistent with the CWMS targets.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers that developing land uses may not necessarily mean
change in land use (when considering the proposed Plan definition of ‘changed’), and the
Objective should reflect this.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Objective 3.21 to be amended to read (or similar):
“Land uses continue to develop and/or change in response to socio-economic and community
demand while remaining consistent with the CWMS targets.”
Plan Provision: Objective 3.22 (Page 3-2)
“Community outcomes for water quality and quantity are met through managing limits.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers there are other aspects to achieving community
outcomes, other than just managing limits – including adopting non-regulatory approaches.
Ravensdown considers the Objective should provide for a broader suite of management
approaches.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 12 of 40
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Objective 3.22 to be amended to read (or similar):
“Community outcomes for water quality and quantity are met through a range of regulatory
and non-regulatory management tools managing limits.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.1 (Page 4-1)
“Lakes, rivers, wetlands and aquifers will meet the fresh water outcomes set in Sections 6-15.
If outcomes have not been established for a catchment, then each type of lake, river or aquifer
will meet the outcomes set out in Table 1.”
Submission: It is noted this is more an ‘aspirational objective’ than a policy, and should be
presented as an Objective.
Never the less, this is a cornerstone piece for the proposed Plan, and requires the outcomes set
out in Table 1 to be met, if not established in Sections 6-15. If presented as a policy rather
than an objective, Ravensdown is concerned about the way the policy is currently written, as
the use of the term ‘will’ is all inclusive and leaves no room for working towards the
outcomes sought, and in essence is unachievable and unrealistic.
Ravensdown is also concerned with the manner that the Table 1 standards are to be applied.
It understands that Table 1a is largely the same as Table WQL5 of the Canterbury NRRP and
that Table 1b is largely the same as Table WQL6 of the Canterbury NRRP. The NRRP
recognised that the objectives sought water quality conditions (in Table WQL5) that were not
met in some rivers, but that water quality would be progressively improved to meet those
conditions and that this may take a period of some years.
There are no timeframes associated with this policy (and no timeframes included in Table 1).
As noted above, Ravensdown has concerns regarding whether the outcomes for rivers, lakes
and aquifers included Sections 6-15 and/or Table 1 are appropriate and achievable, and this is
addressed elsewhere in this submission. If retained as a policy amendments are required to
make it workable as suggested below.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Policy 4.1 to be deleted as a policy and included as a
new ‘Objective’.
Should Policy 4.1 be retained as a policy, Ravensdown seeks it be amended as follows; (or
similar):
“Lakes, rivers, wetlands and aquifers should, where appropriate will meet the fresh water
outcomes set in Sections 6-15 within community agreed timeframes. If outcomes have not
been established for a catchment, then each type of lake, river or aquifer will should, where
appropriate meet the outcomes set out in Table 1 within timeframes set by the NPSFM.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.2 (Page 4-1)
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 13 of 40
“The management of lakes, rivers, wetlands and aquifers will take account of the cumulative
effects of land uses, discharges and abstractions in order to meet the fresh water outcomes in
accordance with Policy 4.1.”
Submission: Giving effect to [new Objective] Policy 4.1, timeframes should be included in
this policy. Similar to above, the use of the term ‘will’ is all-inclusive, and in some cases
might not be achievable. Ravensdown considers this is particularly so if the fresh water
outcomes in Sections 6-15 have not been identified for a particular sub-region.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Policy 4.2 to be amended as follows (or similar):
“The management of lakes, rivers, wetlands and aquifers will should, where appropriate, take
account of the cumulative effects of land uses, discharges and abstractions in order to meet
the fresh water outcomes in accordance with Policy 4.1. within community agreed
timeframes”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.3 (Page 4-1)
“The discharge of contaminants to water or the damming, diversion or abstraction of any
water or disturbance to the bed of a fresh water body shall not diminish any values of cultural
significance to Ngāi Tahu.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers the phrase “…shall not diminish any values…” is allinclusive and uncertain, particularly as the cultural values may not be known or recognised.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Policy 4.3 to be amended as follows (or similar):
“The discharge of contaminants to water or the damming, diversion or abstraction of any
water or disturbance to the bed of a fresh water body shall should not diminish any
recognised values of cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.10 (Page 4-5)
“For other discharges of contaminants to surface waterbodies or groundwater, the effects of
any discharge are minimised by the use of measures that:
(a) first, avoids the production of the contaminant;
(b) secondly, reuses, recovers or recycles the contaminant;
(c) thirdly, reduce the volume or amount of the discharge; or
(d) finally, wherever practical utilise land-based treatment, a wetland constructed to treat
contaminants or a designed treatment system prior to discharge; and
(e) meets the receiving water standards in Schedule 5.”
Submission: Ravensdown is opposed to the current wording of this policy and seeks clarity
on the way it is intended to be applied.
With regard to bullet point (e), Ravensdown considers it is not clear what the relationship is
between the receiving water standards included in Schedule 5, and the outcomes for lakes,
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 14 of 40
rivers and aquifers included in Table 1. Schedule 5 has provision for water ‘not classed as
natural’. Presumably water ‘not classed as natural’ must comply with Schedule 5, in
addition to Tables 1a, b, and c.
In addition, there is no clear objective to which this policy is linked.
There is also no definition for ‘water not classed as natural’, however there are definitions
for ‘natural lakes’, ‘natural state waterbodies’ and ‘natural wetlands’. Natural State water
bodies means rivers, lakes and natural wetlands within land administered for conservation
purposes by the Department of Conservation.
With regard to bullet point (e) it is not clear what could be meant by; “use of measures that;...
meet the receiving water standards in Schedule 5”.
Presumably this policy requires measures that result in the receiving water meeting the
standards in Schedule 5 [after reasonable mixing] however it could also be interpreted as the
discharges meeting receiving water standards in Schedule 5. It is also not clear which of the
levels of protection for Toxicants in Schedule 5 apply: 90 %, 95% or 99%.
It would also seem from Policy 4.10 wording that Schedule 5 is to apply to groundwater,
when the text of Schedule 5 does not appear to include groundwater.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown is opposed to the current wording of this policy and seeks clarity
on the definition of ‘water not classed as natural’ and clarity on the Bullet Point 4.10 (e),
how Schedule 5 is to be applied in relation to this policy and whether Schedule 5 applies to
groundwater.
Plan Provision: Policy 4.11 (Page 4-5)
Any discharge of a contaminant into or onto land where it may enter groundwater shall:
(a) not exceed the natural capacity of the soil to treat or remove the contaminant; and
(b) not exceed available water storage capacity of the soil; and
(c) where this is not practicable:
(i)
meet any nutrient allowance in Sections 6-15 of this Plan;
(ii)
utilise the best practicable option to ensure the size of any contaminant
plume is as small as is reasonably practicable, and there is sufficient distance
between the point of discharge, any other discharge and drinking water
supplies to allow for the natural decay or attenuation of pathogenic microorganisms in the contaminant plume;
(iii)
not result in the accumulation of pathogens, or a persistent or toxic
contaminant that would render the land unsuitable for agriculture,
commercial, domestic or recreational use or water unsuitable as a source of
potable water or for agriculture;
(iv)
not raise groundwater levels so that land drainage is impeded; and
(v)
not have any adverse effects on the drinking water quality of the
groundwater, including any risk to public health.”
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 15 of 40
Submission: Ravensdown is opposed in part to Policy 4.11. Firstly, it is noted that Policy
4.11 addresses any discharge of a contaminant into or onto land where it may enter
groundwater, and that clause (c)(i) of the policy states:
“where this is not practicable:
(i) meet any nutrient allowance in Sections 6-15 of this Plan:”.
Secondly, currently there are no nutrient allowances set within Sections 6-15 of the proposed
Plan and each chapter refers the reader to Rules 5.30 to 5.51. As such, the Policy as currently
worded is unclear and ambiguous. Ravensdown considers that this part of the policy should
be deleted and further advanced when nutrient limits allowances are advanced via plan
changes to the proposed Plan.
Furthermore, clause (c)(v) requires that any discharge of contaminants “not have any adverse
effects on the drinking water quality of the groundwater, including any risk to public health.”
Ravensdown does not agree that all adverse effects can be addressed when discharging
contaminants to land or where it may enter water. In this regard, it is well-established case
law that the Act is not a ‘nil effects’ statute.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks the following amendments to Policy 4.11 (or similar):
“Any discharge of a contaminant into or onto land where it may enter groundwater shall:
(a) not exceed the natural capacity of the soil to treat or remove the contaminant; and
(b) not exceed available water storage capacity of the soil; and
(c) where this is not practicable:
(i) meet any nutrient allowance in Sections 6-15 of this Plan;
(ii) utilise the best practicable option to ensure the size of any contaminant plume is as
small as is reasonably practicable, and there is sufficient distance between the point
of discharge, any other discharge and drinking water supplies to allow for the
natural decay or attenuation of pathogenic micro-organisms in the contaminant
plume;
(iii) not result in the accumulation of pathogens, or a persistent or toxic contaminant that
would render the land unsuitable for agriculture, commercial, domestic or
recreational use or water unsuitable as a source of potable water or for agriculture;
(iv) not raise groundwater levels so that land drainage is impeded; and
(v) not result in unacceptable have any adverse effects on the drinking water quality of
the groundwater, including any risk to public health.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.22 (Page 4-7)
“Activities involving the use, storage or discharge of hazardous substances will be
undertaken using best practicable measures to:
(a) as a first priority, avoid the discharge (including accidental spillage) of hazardous
substances onto land or into water, including reticulated stormwater systems; and
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 16 of 40
(b) as a second priority, to ensure, where there is a residual risk of a discharge of hazardous
substances including any accidental spillage, it is contained on-site and does not enter
surface water bodies, groundwater or stormwater systems.”
Submission: Ravensdown has facilities (such as Hornby) that use and store hazardous
substances. Ravensdown considers this policy is pragmatic and is supported.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Policy 4.22 as it is currently written.
Plan Provision: Policy 4.28 (Page 4-7)
“The loss of nitrogen to water is minimised through first, raising awareness of the nitrogen
losses from farming by requiring record-keeping on existing farms, secondly, supporting the
use of industry articulated good practice and finally, introducing, through plan changes to
Sections 6-15 of this Plan, nutrient discharge allowances to achieve collaboratively agreed
catchment-based water quality outcomes.
Submission: Overall Ravensdown considers the general intent of this policy is pragmatic and
is supported. The approach advances a form of ‘audited self-management’, thus embracing
an acceptable degree of flexibility and innovation, while also providing for ongoing farm
production and growth in the farming sector. The support given to good practice (as defined
by industry) in addressing nutrient management and the ability to achieve nutrient discharge
allowances through a collaborative process is supported, given that it is both enabling and
accords with the purpose of the RMA.
Notwithstanding this, as discussed above, there is a need to better define the terms ‘nutrient
discharge’ and ‘catchments’. In addition, Ravensdown considers alternative methods also
need to be provided for as well as determining nutrient discharge allowances.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the overall intent of Policy 4.28, subject to better
defining the terms ‘nutrient discharge’ and ‘catchments’ and the following amendment (or
similar):
“…introducing, through plan changes to Sections 6-15 of this Plan, nutrient discharge
allowances and/or established alternative methods to achieve collaboratively agreed
catchment-based water quality outcomes.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.29 (Page 4-7)
“Priority will be given to collaborative catchment management processes to introduce plan
changes to set nutrient discharge allowances where regional water quality outcomes are not
being met, as shown on the Planning Maps, and in the interim risks to the environment from
the loss of nitrogen to water will be managed through compliance with industry articulated
good practice or, in the absence of any such articulation, granting, subject to conditions, or
refusing applications for resource consents.”
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 17 of 40
Submission: Similar to above, the general intent of Policy 4.29 to set nutrient discharge
allowances through a collaborative process is supported by Ravensdown, subject to better
defining the terms ‘nutrient discharge’ and ‘catchments’. In addition, Ravensdown considers
alternative methods also need to be provided for as well as determining nutrient discharge
allowances.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the overall intent of Policy 4.29, subject to better
defining the terms ‘nutrient discharge’ and ‘catchments’, and the following amendment (or
similar):
“… introduce plan changes to set nutrient discharge allowances and/or established
alternative methods where regional water quality outcomes are not being met, …”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.30 (Page 4-7)
“Until 1 July 2017 the loss of nitrogen to water from existing farming activities will be
minimised by raising awareness of the actions and activities that give rise to these discharges
and the effects of these discharges on the environment and as a result of nitrogen discharges
being recorded by each farming enterprise.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers the general intent of Policy 4.30 to take a non-regulatory
approach to existing farming activities that discharges nitrogen to water prior to 2017 is
appropriate and supports Policy 4.30.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the overall intent of Policy 4.30 as it is currently
written.
Plan Provision: Policy 4.31 (Page 4-7)
“Minimise the loss of nitrogen to water from any change in farming activities in an area
coloured red on the Planning Maps, by demonstrating the nitrogen loss from the proposed
activity, when assessed in combination with the effects of other land uses or discharges, will
not prevent the water quality outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved or the nitrogen
discharges from the property are a significant and enduring reduction from existing levels.”
Submission: While Ravensdown understands the intention of Policy 4.31 is to limit a further
reduction in water quality within areas already identified as ‘Not meeting Water Quality
Outcomes’, there is concern with the terminology used within Policy 4.31. The phrase
‘significant and enduring reduction’ in Policy 4.31 is not easily defined or frequently used in
resource management instruments, such as the CRPS or NPS FM. While it is appreciated that
policies are not rules, and thus should not have to be definitive, they do, however, need to
import as much certainty as they can and avoid ambiguity.
In addition to not being clear how “a significant and enduring reduction from existing levels”
might be measured, Ravensdown consider the policy would be difficult to achieve as there is
a need for any farming activity to know and understand the effects of other land use or
discharges. It may be difficult if not impossible to determine whether the water quality
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 18 of 40
outcomes of Table 1 are not prevented, and there are no timeframes for the policy, unless they
are introduced to Policy 4.1 as request in our submission above.
Ravensdown considers that the policy is open to divergent interpretation by parties giving
effect to it and as such is neither concise nor clear.
Given the above, Ravensdown is opposed to Policy 4.31.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks either Policy 4.31 be deleted, or amended as follows:
“Minimise the loss of nitrogen to water from any change in farming activities in an area
coloured red on the Planning Maps, by demonstrating the nitrogen loss from the proposed
activity, when assessed in combination with the effects of other land uses or discharges, will
not prevent the water quality outcomes [new Objective XX] of Policy 4.1 being achieved. or
the nitrogen discharges from the property are a significant and enduring reduction from
existing levels”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.32 (Page 4-9)
“To minimise the risk of the outcomes in Policy 4.1 not being achieved, where there is no
industry articulated good industry practice nitrogen discharge limit for a particular industry
sector included in this Plan prior to 1 July 2017 then all farming activities in that industry
sector will be required to obtain a resource consent to continue the farming activity and any
proposal will be required to demonstrate the nitrogen loss from the proposed activity, when
assessed in combination with the effects of other land uses or discharges, will not prevent the
water quality outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved or the nitrogen discharges from the
property are a significant and enduring reduction from existing levels.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers this is a confusing policy and seems to contradict the
Rules 5-39 and 5-40 which provide for permitted activities prior to 2017 and without the
Schedule 8 Industry Derived Nitrogen Discharges limit. Similar comments above on Policy
4.31 also apply.
As discussed above this policy includes a currently impossible requirement:
“...to obtain a resource consent to continue the farming activity and any proposal will be
required to demonstrate the nitrogen loss from the proposed activity, when assessed in
combination with the effects of other land uses or discharges, will not prevent the water
quality outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved”.
Overall Ravensdown opposes the intent of Policy 4.32, and considers it should be either
deleted or re-written to reflect the provisions of Rules 5-39 and 5-40.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown opposes the intent of Policy 4.32 and seeks for it to either be
deleted or re-written to reflect the provisions of Rules 5-39 and 5-40. In the alternative,
amend Policy 4.32 as follows (or similar):
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 19 of 40
“To minimise the risk of the outcomes in [new Objective XX] Policy 4.1 not being achieved,
where there is no industry articulated good industry practice nitrogen discharge limit for a
particular industry sector included in this Plan prior to 1 July 2017 then all farming activities
in that industry sector will be required to obtain a resource consent to continue the farming
activity and any proposal, will be required to demonstrate the nitrogen loss from the
proposed activity, when assessed in combination with the effects of other land uses or
discharges, will not prevent the water quality outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved. or the
nitrogen discharges from the property are a significant and enduring reduction from existing
levels.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.34 (Page 4-9)
“Prior to 1 July 2017, to minimise the loss of nitrogen to water from any change in farming
activities in an area coloured red or within a Lake Zone as shown on the Planning Maps, an
applicant for resource consent must demonstrate that the nitrogen loss from the proposed
activity, when assessed in combination with the effects of other land uses or discharges, will
not prevent the water quality outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved and show that the
nitrogen discharges from the property are a significant and enduring reduction from existing
levels.”
Submission: Ravensdown’s concerns with Policy 4.34 are the same as for Policy 4.31and
4.32 above. In particular, it is not clear how “a significant and enduring reduction from
existing levels” might be measured, and the policy would be difficult to achieve as it is
currently not possible for any farming activity to know and understand the effects when
assessed in combination with the effects of other land use or discharges. It is not clear why
this policy requires a consent application to demonstrate it will not prevent Water Quality
outcomes of Policy 4.1 being achieved AND show that nitrogen discharges are a significant
and enduring reduction.
Furthermore, there are no timeframes for implementation of this policy. At this stage it is
difficult to determine what amendments to the policy may satisfy these concerns as a re-write
is required.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks either Policy 4.34 be deleted, or amended to address the
concerns raised above, and in particular by deleting the phrases “when assessed in
combination with the effects of other land uses or discharge” and “or the nitrogen discharges
from the property are a significant and enduring reduction from existing levels.”.
Plan Provision: Policy 4.35 (Page 4-9)
“To minimise the loss of nitrogen to water prior to 1 July 2017, where the land owner holds
an existing water permit to take and use water, or is a shareholder in an irrigation scheme,
and there are conditions on the water permit that address nutrient management, any change
in farming activities will be enabled subject to requirements to prepare and implement a farm
environment plan, the regular audit of that plan and to record, on a per enterprise basis,
nitrogen Discharges”.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 20 of 40
Submission: While Ravensdown understands the good intent of Policy 4.35, it opposes the
approach advanced within the Policy which seeks to bundle nutrient management conditions
with existing water permits.
Ravensdown supports the principles that underlie the permitted activity status (Rules 5.39 and
5.40), including the use of ‘Farm Environment Plans’ and ‘Nutrient Management Plans’ and
employing ‘best management practices’ in order to maximise farm production and minimise
adverse effects of nutrient in the environment (subject, of course to the Council making
amendments that were referred to in the Ravensdown’s earlier submission). The reliance on a
form of ‘audited self-management’ allows an appropriate level of flexibility and should foster
innovation in the manner that they are adopted in managing nutrient discharges. It also
provides for ongoing farm production and growth in the farming sector. This is consistent
with the purpose of the RMA.
However, Ravensdown opposes these conditions being bundled with existing water permits
and believes the requirement are met by the rules and policies proposed, without the need for
bundling.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Policy 4.35 to be deleted.
Plan Provision: Policy 4.37 and 4.38 (Page 4-9)
“All activities shall achieve the nutrient load limit and nutrient allowance for the catchment
in Sections 6-15 of this Plan.”
“If the measured or predicted nutrient load from land uses and discharges exceeds the
nutrient load limit for the catchment in Sections 6-15 of this Plan, the loss to water of
nutrients from land uses in the catchment will be reduced to achieve the nutrient load limit for
the catchment.”
Submission: Ravensdown notes that Policy 4.37 and Policy 4.38 establish the policy
framework for the setting of nutrient ‘load’ limits for each catchment (and which are to
ultimately be inserted into Sections 6-15 of the Plan). Ravensdown supports this approach in
principle on the basis that they are based on industry benchmarks for good management
practices and specifies discharge limits to be met that respond to both catchment and subcatchment requirements.
Ravensdown also notes that Policies 4.37 and 4.38 should reflect reference to ‘catchment and
sub-catchment’ nutrient ‘load’ limits, should these be developed as part of the limit setting
approach promulgated for each of the catchments set out in Sections 6-15 of the Plan.
For this reason, Ravensdown supports (in part) Policy 4.37 and 4.38 of the proposed Plan.
It should be noted the term nutrient ‘load’ in this instance is interpreted to mean nutrient load
in the water body, not nutrient load to the land area. To make this distinction clear, the term
nutrient ‘loss’ limit is preferred.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 21 of 40
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Policy 4.37 and Policy 4.38 to be amended as follows
(or similar):
“Policy 4.37 All activities shall achieve the nutrient load loss limit and nutrient allowance for
the catchment and sub-catchments in Sections 6-15 of this Plan.”
“Policy 4.38 If the measured or predicted nutrient load loss from land uses and discharges
exceeds the nutrient load loss limit for the catchment and sub-catchments in Sections 6-15 of
this Plan, the loss to water of nutrients from land uses in the catchment will be reduced to
achieve the nutrient load limit for the catchment.”
Plan Provision: Policy 4.76 (Page 4-13)
“Resource consents for the use of land for farming activities and the associated discharge of
nutrients in catchments that are coloured red on the Planning Maps and resource consents
for water take and use in catchments or groundwater allocation zones that are over-allocated
will generally be subject to a 5 year duration if the land use and associated nutrient
discharges or water take and use may impede the ability of the community to find an
integrated solution to manage water quality and the over-allocation of water.”
Submission: As discussed in the General Assessment section above, the proposed Plan
introduces a Planning Map that shows Nutrient Zones, and colours areas ‘red’ where the
water quality outcomes are not being met. It is considered there are serious implications if the
robustness of zone delineation not supported.
Policy 4.76 introduces a new concept that land use and associated nutrient discharges (as
discuss above this term needs to be better defined) or water take and use ‘may impede the
ability of the community…’. This concept is not defined and there are no criteria to assess
whether such an outcome may eventuate. Notwithstanding this, the policy intends a 5 year
duration on resource consents. As discussed above, the definition of ‘catchment’ needs
clarity.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks the term ‘may impede the ability of the community…’ to be
defined with measurable assessment criteria, or for this reference to be deleted. Any
amendments should also be subject to clarity around how ‘catchment’ is defined.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.2 (Page 5-2)
“Unless specifically stated to the contrary, any rule on the same subject matter in the relevant
sub-regional zones in Sections 6-15 of this Plan prevails over the relevant rule of Section 5.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers this is an unusual rule regime, and may cause confusion
now and in the future when further provisions are added to the sub-regional areas. There is
the possibility that the introduction of a regional plan in the sub-region does not cover the
same subject matter as the proposed Plan covers, and therefore the activities may be subject to
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 22 of 40
two sets of rules under two separate plans. An example of this may be the nutrient discharge
rules under the proposed Plan which are not included in the Proposed Hurunui Waiau River
Regional Plan.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown wishes to raise concern about how the hierarchy of rules work,
and seeks clarity around how it will be determined one rule prevails over another.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.7 (Page 5-3)
“The discharge of wastewater from an existing on-site wastewater treatment system onto or
into land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water is a permitted activity,
provided the following conditions are met:
1. The discharge was lawfully established prior to 1 November 2013;
2. The treatment and disposal system has not been altered or modified from that established
at the time the system was constructed, other than through routine maintenance;
3. The volume of the discharge has not been increased as a result of the addition of buildings,
an alteration of an existing building, or a change in use of a building that is connected to the
system;
4. The treatment and disposal system is operated and maintained in accordance with the
system’s design specification for maintenance or, if there is no design specification for
maintenance, Section 6.3 of New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 1547:2012 – On-site domestic
wastewater management;
5. The discharge is within the area marked “Septic tank Suitability – Area A” on the Planning
Maps; and
6. The discharge is not onto or into land:
(a) where there is an available sewerage network;
(b) that is potentially contaminated;
(c) that is listed as an archaeological site;
(d) where the discharge would enter any surface water body;
(e) within 20 m of any surface water body or the Coastal Marine Area;
(f) within 50 m of a bore used for water abstraction; or
(g) within a group or community drinking water supply protection area as set out in Schedule
1 of this Plan.”
Submission: Ravensdown has a number of stores in the region, and stormwater discharges
are an important aspect of its operations. Overall Ravensdown considers the rule provisions
are appropriate, and supports it intent.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent and provisions of Rule 5.7 as it is currently
written.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.25 (Page 5-7)
“The discharge of an agrichemical, or agrichemical equipment or container washwater, into
or onto land, including the bed of a lake, river or artificial watercourse, in circumstances
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 23 of 40
where a contaminant or water may enter water is a permitted activity provided the following
conditions are met:
1. The agrichemical and application technique or method is approved for use under the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996;
2. The discharge of the agrichemicals is undertaken in accordance with Section 5 and
Appendices L and S of New Zealand Standard NZS 8409:2004 Management of
Agrichemicals;
3. No mixing or diluting of an agrichemical or rinsing or cleaning of containers or equipment
takes place within:
(a) 5 m of a surface water body, or a bore; or
(b) in the bed of a river or lake, or within the Christchurch Groundwater
Protection Zone as shown on the Planning Maps, unless:
(i) the mixing or dilution takes place within a sealed, bunded system
that will contain a volume of at least 110% of the largest spray tank
to be filled; or
(ii) the mixing or dilution is for a hand-held application technique
or method.
4. If the water used for mixing or dilution is being abstracted from a surface water body or
groundwater, a backflow prevention system is in place to prevent the agrichemical from
flowing back into the source water.
5. Where the discharge is from an aircraft:
(a) the discharge is be carried out by a person who holds a GROWSAFER
Pilots’ Agrichemical Rating Certificate or an AIRCARETM Accreditation;
(b) the flight paths are recorded by an on-board differential global positioning
system and this record is kept for at least 12 months following the discharge and
made available to the CRC upon request; and
(c) the discharge in the bed of a river in Hill and High Country areas does not
occur between the first day of September and the last day of November in any
year; and
6. The discharge is not within a group or community drinking water supply protection area as
set out in Schedule 1 or within 10 m of any bore used for drinking water supply.”
Submission: Ravensdown supports the intent of Rule 5.25 as it is currently written.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Rule 5.25 as it is currently written.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.39 (Page 5-11)
“Prior to 1 July 2017, the use of land for any farming activity existing at 11 August 2012 and
outside of the Lake Zone shown on the Planning Maps, is a permitted activity if the following
condition is met:
1. A record of the annual amount of nitrogen loss from the land, for the period from 1 July in
one year to 30 June in the following year, calculated using the OVERSEERTM nutrient model,
is kept and is provided to the CRC upon request.”
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 24 of 40
Submission: Ravensdown supports a planning process which allows farming activities to
proceed under permitted activity status, and considers this rule is pragmatic and reasonable.
It is noted that land-use activities not included in OVERSEERTM under this rule, by default,
fall to restricted discretionary activity status. Ravensdown considers permitted activity for
these activities should be provided.
Notwithstanding this, Ravensdown opposes in part the rule as it considers there are a number
of uncertainties that arise from the terms uses. For example, it is not entirely clear what the
‘Lake Zone shown on the Planning Maps’ refers to, and there is no definition included in the
proposed Plan. The Nutrient Zones Planning Map (refer Attachment A) includes ‘Sensitive
Lake Catchments’, and this could be what the rule refers to as the Lake Zone. In addition, the
rule uses the term ‘any farming activity’ which is also not defined, and is all-inclusive.
In addition, Ravensdown is opposed to annual production on Nutrient Budgets, as the
OVERSEERTM model provides for long term equilibrium and average farm system outputs.
It is not necessary to produce annual nutrient budget, unless there has been a significant farm
system change. To require annual nutrient budgets without significant farm system changes,
provides little additional environmental benefit, but adds unnecessary burden on farmers,
council staff and service industries.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the general intent of Rule 5.39, while seeking
clarification of what the Lake Zone is, certainty regarding what ‘any farming activity’ might
mean, and Annual Nutrient budgets should be valid for up to three years, unless there is a
significant farm system change.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.40 (Page 5-12)
“Prior to 1 July 2017, the use of land for a farming activity existing at 11 August 2012 and
within the Lake Zone shown on the Planning Maps, is a permitted activity if the following
conditions are met:
1. A record of the annual amount of nitrogen loss from the land, for the period from 1 July in
one year to 30 June in the following year, calculated using the OVERSEERTM nutrient model;
2. A Farm Environment Plan is prepared and implemented in accordance with Schedule 7;
3. The Farm Environment Plan is externally audited each year for the first three years by a
Farm Environment Plan Auditor. Following three consecutive years of full compliance, the
audit shall occur once every three years; and
4. A record of the audit compliance grading and the average annual loss of nitrogen for the
property is provided to the CRC by 31 August of that year.”
Submission: Ravensdown has similar concerns as above for Rule 5.39 regarding defining
what the ‘Lake Zone’ is and annual nutrient budgets. In addition, while conditions 3 and 4
require an audit of compliance with the Farm Environment Plan, there is no indication of
what happens if non-compliance is identified, and what an ‘audit compliance grading’ might
mean. Ravensdown considers such uncertainties need to be clarified.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 25 of 40
Furthermore, it is noted that bullet point 1. and the proposed Plan in general refer to recording
annual nitrogen loss for the period 1 July to 30 June in the following year when using the
OVERSEERTM nutrient model. This presents a considerable conflict, in particular with Dairy
industry programmes based on the production year 1 June to 31 May. There is potential for
major capability difficulties if industry programmes and Regional Council are demanding
different time periods to apply to nutrient budgets, as will be the case with this rule.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the general intent of Rule 5.40 while seeking
clarification of what the Lake Zone is, seek nutrient budgets to be valid for 3 years, certainty
regarding what ‘a farming activity’ might mean, and the purpose and implications of the
‘audit compliance grading’, and reporting of nitrogen losses 1 June to 31 May, to remain
consistent with farming season.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.41 (Page 5-12)
“The use of land for a farming activity that does not comply with one or more of the
conditions of Rules 5.39 or 5.40 is a restricted discretionary activity.
The CRC will restrict discretion to the following matters:
1. The proposed management practices to avoid or minimise the discharge of nitrogen,
phosphorus, sediment and microbiological contaminants to water from the use of land;
2. The potential effects of the land use on surface and groundwater quality, sources of
drinking water;
3. The contribution of nutrients from the proposed activity to the nutrient allocation status of
the management zone.
4. The extent to which the proposed activity will prevent or compromise the attainment of the
environmental outcomes sought by, or is inconsistent with, the objectives and policies of this
Plan relating to nutrient management and water quality.
Notification
Pursuant to sections 95A and 95B of the RMA an application for resource consent under this
rule will be processed and considered without public or limited notification.
Note that limited notification to affected order holders in terms of section 95F of the RMA
will be necessary where relevant, under section 95B(3) of the RMA.”
Submission: Ravensdown notes that land use activities not included in OVERSEERTM will
come under this rule. Overall Ravensdown considers the restricted discretionary activity
status of the rule is pragmatic and reasonable within the context of land use which is included
within OVERSEERTM, and is supported. Notwithstanding this, Ravensdown notes the term
‘management zone’ is not defined, and needs to be clarified.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Rule 5.41 as a restricted discretionary
activity, while seeking the term ‘management zone’ to be defined.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.42 (Page 5-12)
“Prior to 1 July 2017 the use of land for a change to an existing farming activity is a
permitted activity if the following conditions are met:
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 26 of 40
1. The land holder has been granted a water permit, or holds shares in an irrigation company
that has been granted a water permit, that authorises irrigation on the land and the land is
subject to conditions that specify the maximum amount of nitrogen that may be leached;
2. The property is outside a Lake Zone as shown on the Planning Maps;
3. A record of the annual amount of nitrogen loss from the land, for the period from 1 July in
one year to 30 June in the following year, calculated using the OVERSEERTM nutrient model;
4. A Farm Environment Plan is prepared and implemented in accordance with Schedule 7;
5. The Farm Environment Plan is externally audited each year for the first three years by a
Farm Environment Plan Auditor. Following three consecutive years of full compliance, the
audit shall occur once every three years; and
6. A record of the audit compliance grading and the average annual loss of nitrogen for the
property is provided to the CRC by 31 August of that year.”
Submission: Several of the comments made above in relation to Rules 5.39 and 5.40 apply,
in particular relating to defining the ‘Lake Zone’, the purpose of the ‘audit compliance
grading’, and the definition of ‘change’. Ravensdown notes that a key factor in Condition 1
is whether the land holder has a water permit that is subject to conditions that specify the
maximum amount of nitrogen that may be leached. Ravensdown has a concern regarding the
practicality and legality of this requirement (e.g. adding additional conditions relating to
nutrient management to an existing water permit), as it is likely not many existing farming
operations (that may wish to change) would have a maximum amount of nitrogen that could
be leached on any water permit they hold.
As discussed above reporting of nitrogen losses should be from 1 June to 31 May, to remain
consistent with farming season.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Rule 5.42 subject to clarification of a
number of terms used, alignment of reporting dates for the year to 1 June to 31May and
establishing the practicality and legality of the requirement for a maximum amount of
nitrogen that could be leached being on an existing water permit.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.43 (Page 5-12)
“Prior to 1 July 2017, the use of land for a change to an existing farming activity that does
not comply with Condition 1 in Rule 5.42 and is within an area coloured pale blue or green
on the Planning Maps is a restricted discretionary activity.
The CRC will restrict the exercise of discretion to the following matters:
1. The proposed management practices to avoid or minimise the discharge of nitrogen,
phosphorus, sediment and microbiological contaminants to water from the use of land;
2. The potential effects of the land use on surface and groundwater quality, and sources of
drinking water;
3. The contribution of nutrients from the proposed activity to the nutrient allocation status of
the management zone.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 27 of 40
4. The extent to which the proposed activity will prevent or compromise the attainment of the
environmental outcomes sought by, or is inconsistent with, the objectives and policies of this
Plan relating to nutrient management and water quality.”
Submission: This rule identifies non-compliance with Condition 1 on Rule 5.42, and
therefore previous comments above also apply for this rule.
It may be questioned why Unclassified Zones should default to restricted discretionary status
if there is little risk to water quality identified for these zones. In other respects, subject to the
concerns raised Condition 1 of Rule 5.42, as the rule addresses a change in land use, restricted
discretionary activity is accepted.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Rule 5.43.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.46 (Page 5-13)
“From 1 July 2017, the use of land for any farming activity, is a permitted activity if the
following conditions are met:
1. The land is outside a Lake Zone shown on the Planning Maps; and
2. The average annual loss of nitrogen does not exceed the rate for the relevant farming
activity in Schedule 8; and
3. The annual average loss of nitrogen, averaged over three consecutive years is less than 20
kilograms per hectare a record of the annual amount of nitrogen loss from the land, for the
period from 1 July in one year to 30 June in the following year, calculated using the
OVERSEERTM nutrient model, is kept and is provided to the CRC upon request;
or
4. If the annual average loss of nitrogen, averaged over three consecutive periods from 1 July
in one year to 30 June in the following year, is 20 kilograms per hectare or more:
(a) a Farm Environment Plan is prepared and implemented in accordance with
Schedule 7;
(b) the Farm Environment Plan is externally audited each year for the first three
years by an Farm Environment Plan Auditor. Following three consecutive years
of full compliance, the audit shall occur once every three years; and
(c) a record of the audit compliance grading and the average annual loss of
nitrogen for the property be provided to the CRC by 31 August of that year.”
Submission: While Ravensdown supports the permitted activity status for the use of land for
farming activities from 1 July 2017, rule is opposed in part, and in particular Conditions 3 and
4. It is understood Council believes the 20 kg N loss limit will provide for 92 % of land area
to continue with existing land use as a permitted activity. Ravensdown does not have
confidence that this is the case.
Comments above regarding to better defining the ‘Lake Zone’ apply to this rule also.
Notwithstanding this, there are some uncertainties regarding the implications of this rule as it
is not known what will be in Schedule 8, and the limit of 20kg limit is considered to be
unduly restrictive. Ravensdown considers that compliance with Schedule 8 should be all that
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 28 of 40
is required. If nitrogen loss is over Schedule 8 limits then further requirements may be
appropriate.
While Ravensdown appreciates that from 1 July 2017, the default position will require all
properties leaching on average more than 20 kg nitrate/ha/yr to prepare a farm plan, beyond
this interim period the consequence of not complying can result in a resource consent as a
discretionary activity under Rule 5.48(c). This is a significant consequence, particularly in
relation to the increased cost and risk that is associated with it. As such, Ravensdown
considers that the 20 kg nitrate/ha/yr limit must be deleted and replaced with a limit that is
both valid and robust.
As discussed earlier, it is noted that land-use activities not included in OVERSEERTM will
under come this rule however and by default will fall to be a restricted discretionary activity.
Consideration should be given to accommodating those land uses under a permitted activity
regime.
Earlier comments on nutrient budgets remaining valid for 3 years unless there is a significant
farm system change, also apply to this rule and comments about the purpose and relevance of
the audit compliance grading are also relevant.
As discussed above reporting of nitrogen losses should be for 1 June to 31 May, to remain
consistent with farming season.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent of Rule 5.46 to provide for the use of land for
farming activities from 2017 as a permitted activity, but opposes in part the rule and seek the
following amendment (or similar):
“From 1 July 2017, the use of land for any farming activity, is a permitted
activity if the following conditions are met:
1. The land is outside a Lake Zone shown on the Planning Maps; and
2. The average annual loss of nitrogen does not exceed the rate for the relevant
farming activity in Schedule 8; and
3. A The annual average loss of nitrogen, averaged over three consecutive years
is less than 20 kilograms per hectare a record of the annual average amount of
nitrogen loss from the land, for the period from 1 July June in one year to 30
June 31 May in the following year, calculated using the OVERSEERTM nutrient
model, is kept and is provided to the CRC upon request by 31 August of that year
upon request.
or
4. If the annual average loss of nitrogen, averaged over three consecutive periods
from 1 July in one year to 30 June in the following year, is 20 kilograms per
hectare or more:
(a) a Farm Environment Plan is prepared and implemented in accordance with
Schedule 7;
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 29 of 40
(b) the Farm Environment Plan is externally audited each year for the first three
years by an Farm Environment Plan Auditor. Following three consecutive years
of full compliance, the audit shall occur once every three years; and
(c) a record of the audit compliance grading and the average annual loss of
nitrogen for the property is be provided to the CRC by 31 August of that year.”
Note: Annual N loss calculated by Overseer, would be valid for three years
unless there is a significant change to the farm system.
Plan Provision: Auditing of Information flowing out of Nutrient Management Rules (Rules
5.39 – 5.54)
Submission: Ravensdown notes that the rules implementing the ‘nutrient discharges’ policy
framework are principally 5.39 to 5.54. While supporting the general approach advanced in
providing for the continuation of farming activities under Rule 5.40, 5.42, and 5.46,
Ravensdown is concerned that the proposed Plan potentially imposes a significant burden for
each and every property to have information available that demonstrates the annual amount of
nitrogen loss from their properties.
Ravensdown is concerned that given the extensive number of farming properties within
Canterbury that there will simply not be the resources available to undertake Nutrient Budgets
and Nutrient Management Plans on every property every year.
Furthermore it places an unnecessary burden on the farming community and Council staff
alike, with little benefit over a scheme where nutrient budgets are valid for up to three years
unless there is a significant farm system change, and /or only significant scale farming
systems are being addressed. Average annual data is sufficient in order to understand the
long term overall impacts of farming systems.
Requiring an annual nutrient management plan on each and every property, every year
combined with the auditing process, upon which this evaluation system is based, could
potentially be comprised or significantly delayed, with subsequent flow on effects to the
administration of this nutrient management approach.
While auditing of farm practices against the FEP’s annually and then once every three years
may be feasible under industry schemes, the provision of Nutrient Budgets and Nutrient
Management Plans every year is an unnecessary burden, and should only be required every
three years unless there has been a significant farm system change The basis for this is twofold; firstly it reduces the costs incurred to both farmer and service support industry, with no
environmental detriment (or cost), secondly, and touching upon the point raised above, it will
reduce the potential administrative costs associated with having to implement auditing of all
FEP’s (for those landowners who do not comply with the 20kg nitrate/ha/year limit).
Given the above, Ravensdown opposes the requirements for annual nutrient budgets and
nutrient management plans established within Rules 5.40, 5.42, and 5.46 of the proposed
Plan.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 30 of 40
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for the auditing requirements for nutrient budgets and
nutrient management plans in Rules 5.40, 5.42, and 5.46 be amended to once every three
years.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.48 (Page 5-13)
“From 1 July 2017, the use of land for any farming activity is a discretionary activity where
either:
(a) The activity does not meet Condition 2 in Rule 5.46 or there is no rate for the relevant
farming activity specified in Schedule 8 and where the property is within an area coloured
orange on the Planning Maps; or
(b) The activity complies with Condition 2 but not Condition 1 in Rule 5.46; or
(c) The activity does not meet Condition 3 or 4, whichever is relevant, in Rule 5.46.”
Submission: Ravensdown notes the use of the different terms ‘any farming’ and ‘relevant
farming activity’ are noted. The rule also cross-references conditions with issues such as
defining the ‘Lake Zone’, the 20 kg leaching limit in Rule 5.46, and the relevance of the audit
compliance grading as discussed above. Overall Ravensdown considers the discretionary
activity status is considered reasonable for activities in the orange Nutrient Zone.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown generally supports the intent of Rule 5.48 subject to addressing
the concerns identified above in regards to definitions, and deleting clause (c).
Plan Provision: Rule 5.49 (Page 5-13)
“From 1 July 2017, the use of land for any a farming activity that does not meet Condition 2
in Rule 5.46 or where there is no rate for the relevant farming activity specified in Schedule 8
and where the property is within an area coloured red or within a Lake Zone shown on the
Planning Maps is a non-complying activity.”
Submission: Ravensdown is opposed to the non-complying activity status that arises from
Rule 5.49.
While Ravensdown supports the broad nutrient management approach adopted within the
proposed Plan (including enabling land uses), it is concerned about the socio and economic
effects of the non-complying activity status underpinning Rule 5.49.
As is reinforced within the Section 32 Report, “a discretionary activity is generally
considered acceptable provided the adverse effects arising from the activity proposed are
avoided, remedied or mitigated, as distinct from a non‐complying activity where the
presumption is that the activity is generally unacceptable.”
For those existing farming operations that are unable to comply with the average annual loss
of nitrogen rates prescribed within Schedule 8 (which is still to be developed) or are located
within an area ‘coloured red’ or are located within a Lake Zone, there is a significant chance
that consent will not be approved. This introduces a significant hurdle for those land
managers who are unable to comply by the 1st July 2017 and could result in significant
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 31 of 40
adverse socio and economic impacts on individual properties and the individuals and families
that are supported by these farming operations. In Ravensdown’s view, the section 32 report,
does not adequately address these adverse socio-economic consequential effects. It is
difficult to support the approach that is being advanced in the absence of such information.
The Section 32 Report states that “a non‐complying activity status generally indicates that a
new activity is an exception and is not condoned but it would allow an applicant to make the
case that their proposal is acceptable. A strong case must be made to allow the activity. The
Environment Court has endorsed such a policy approach in both Variation 5 (Lake Taupo)
and Variation 6 (water allocation) promulgated by the Waikato Regional Council.”
In summary, therefore, Ravensdown considers that that the Council has the ability to refuse
consent under a discretionary activity, while giving the farming community greater certainty.
A non-complying activity status provides little certainty for existing landowners that may be
affected by this rule, nor does the Section 32 Report (which assesses the nutrient management
approach) sufficiently account for the existing level of investment on many of the farms that
may be compromised by the imposition of a non-complying activity status under this rule.
Ravensdown therefore seeks that any non-compliance with Rule 5.49 should be discretionary
activity.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for the activity status for non-compliance with Rule 5.49
be amended to a discretionary activity.
Plan Provision(s): Rule 5.50 and 5.51
“Rule 5.50: The discharge of nutrients onto or into land in circumstances that may result in
a contaminant entering water that would otherwise contravene s15(1) of the RMA is a
permitted activity, provided the following condition is met:
1. The land use activity associated with the discharge is authorised under Rules 5.39 to 5.49.
Rule 5.51: The discharge of nutrients onto or into land in circumstances that may result in a
contaminant entering water that would otherwise contravene s15(1) of the RMA and does not
meet the condition in Rule 5.50 is a discretionary activity.”
Submission: Ravensdown supports the intent of these rules as they are currently written.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for the intent of Rules 5.50 and 5.51 be retained as they
are currently written.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.52 (Page 5-14)
“The discharge of fertiliser onto or into land in circumstances where a contaminant may
enter water is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are met:
1. There is no fertiliser discharged when there is water ponding on the surface of the land;
and
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 32 of 40
2. Fertiliser is not discharged directly into or within 10 m of the bed of a permanently flowing
river, lake, artificial watercourse or within 10 m of a wetland boundary or any identified
significant indigenous biodiversity site unless the equipment used has a current Spreadmark
Certificate, in which case the setback distance is reduced to 5m.”
Note: The discharge of fertiliser may also be restricted by Rules 5.39 to 5.51.
Submission: Ravensdown supports the intent of this rule, and the Permitted activity status for
the discharge of fertiliser.
Ravensdown notes that Condition 1 prevents application to water ponding on the surface of
land. While this practice is discouraged a regulation to this effect may be unreasonable for
some cropping situations which maintain crop productivity through carefully timed fertiliser
application to match crop growth stages. Failure to meet demands could result in significant
yield reduction Application is an essential requirement. Slight ponding where there is no
surface water flow should not be a barrier to maintaining crop production.
Ravensdown considers Condition 1 should be amended to apply to surface water flow
associated with ponding.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent and permitted activity status of Rule 5.52 and
seeks an amendment to it by amending Condition 1 as follows (or similar):
“1. There is no fertiliser discharged when there is water flow associated with water ponding
on the surface of the land; and…”
Plan Provision: Rule 5.53 (Page 5-14)
“The discharge of fertiliser from an aircraft onto or into land in circumstances where a
contaminant may enter water and into any river is a permitted activity provided the following
conditions are met:
1. There is no fertiliser discharged when there is water ponding on the surface of the land;
2. The equipment used has a current Spreadmark Certificate;
3. The discharge is be carried out by a person who holds a GROWSAFER Pilots’
Agrichemical Rating Certificate or an AIRCARETM Accreditation;
4. Fertiliser is not discharged directly into or within 10 m of the bed of a permanently flowing
river or artificial watercourse that is more than 2m wide, any lake, or any wetland boundary;
and
5. The flight paths are recorded by an on-board differential global positioning system and this
record is kept for at least 12 months following the discharge and made available to the CRC
upon request.”
Note: The discharge of fertiliser may also be restricted by Rules 5.39 to 5.51.
Submission: Similar to Rule 5.52 above, the permitted activity status is supported.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 33 of 40
Also similar to Rule 5.52 above, Ravensdown notes that Condition 1 prevents application to
water ponding on the surface of land, and seeks a similar amendment for the same reasons as
outlined above.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent and permitted activity status of Rule 5.53 and
seeks an amendment to it by amending Condition 1 as follows (or similar):
“1. There is no fertiliser discharged when there is water flow associated with water ponding
on the surface of the land; …”
Plan Provision: Rule 5.54 (Page 5-14)
“The discharge of fertiliser onto land, or onto or into land in circumstances where a
contaminant may enter water that does not meet one or more of the conditions in Rule 5.52 or
rule 5.53 is a discretionary activity.”
Submission: Ravensdown considers it is not clear why non-compliance with one or more
conditions in Rule 5.52 or Rule 5.53 is a discretionary activity. It is considered restricted
discretionary activity, with Council restricting its discretion to the condition not met, is more
appropriate.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown opposes the discretionary activity status of Rule 5.54 and seeks
restricted discretionary activity status, with Council restricting its control to the condition not
met.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.72 (Page 5-17)
“The discharge of stormwater into a river, lake, wetland or artificial watercourse or onto or
into land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water is a permitted activity
provided the following conditions are met:
1. The discharge is into a community or network utility operator stormwater system; or
2. The discharge is not from or onto potentially contaminated land;
3. The discharge is not into:
(a) a water race, as defined in Section 5 of the Local Government Act 2002;
(b) a wetland, unless the wetland is part of a lawfully established stormwater or
wastewater treatment system;
or
(c) a water body that is Natural State, unless the discharge was lawfully
established before 1 November 2013;
4. The discharge does not result in an increase in the flow in the receiving water body at the
point of discharge of more than 1% of a flood event with an AEP of 20% (one in five year
event);
5. For a discharge of stormwater onto or into land:
(a) the discharge does not cause stormwater from up to and including a 24 hour
duration 2% AEP rainfall event to enter any other property;
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 34 of 40
(b) the discharge does not result in the ponding of stormwater on the ground for
more than 48 hours;
(c) the discharge is located at least 1 m above the highest groundwater level that
can be reasonably inferred for the site at the time the discharge system is
constructed;
(d) there is no overland flow resulting from the discharge to a surface water
body unless via a treatment system or constructed wetland; and
(e) for a discharge from a roof, the discharge system is sealed to prevent the
entry of any other contaminants; and
6. For a discharge of stormwater to surface water:
(a) The discharge meets the water quality standards in Schedule 5 after
reasonable mixing with the receiving waters, in accordance with Schedule 5;
(b) the concentration of total suspended solids in the discharge shall not exceed:
(i) 50 g/m3, where the discharge is to any spring-fed river, Banks
Peninsula river, or to a lake; or
(ii) 100 g/m3 where the discharge is to any other river or to an
artificial watercourse; and
(c) the discharge to water is not within a group or community drinking water
supply protection area as set out in Schedule 1.”
Submission: Ravensdown is opposed (in part) to Rule 5.72.
It is noted that Rule 5.72(5)(c) requires that ;
“(c) the discharge is located at least 1 m above the highest groundwater level that can be
reasonably inferred for the site at the time the discharge system is constructed;”
It is unclear how Rule 5.72 would apply to Ravensdown’s existing infrastructure, most of
which has been developed and embedded in the environment for many years. The rule is
ambiguous as to the specific effect that clause (5)(c) is seeking to address.
Put another way, the rule does not acknowledge existing infrastructure, or seek to exclude it
from the rule. This leads to a natural expectation that Rule 5.72 applies to existing
infrastructure. This outcome has the potential to place an unnecessary and unjustified
consenting burden on existing discharges points.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Rule 5.72 to be amended to make clarify that it does
not apply to lawfully established infrastructure and any associated (and existing) stormwater
discharge points.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.73 (Page 5-17)
“The discharge of stormwater into a river, lake, wetland or artificial watercourse or onto or
into land in circumstances where a contaminant may enter water that does not meet the
conditions of Rule 5.72 is a noncomplying activity.”
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 35 of 40
Submission: Ravensdown considers it is not clear why non-compliance with the conditions in
Rule 5.72 is a non-complying activity. It is considered a discretionary activity is more
appropriate, as Council can still decline consent and consider any matters it wishes as it has
not limited its discretion.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown opposes the non-complying activity status of Rule 5.72 and
seeks discretionary activity status.
Plan Provision(s): Rules 5.162 and 5.163 (Page 5-37)
“The use of land for the storage in a portable container and use of a hazardous substance
listed in Part A of Schedule 4 is a permitted activity provided the following conditions are
met:
1. The aggregate quantity of specified hazardous substances stored on a site in one or more
portable containers does not exceed 2,000 litres;
2. The container(s) are located in an area, or a structure, that will contain a leak or spill of
the substance and will allow the spilled substance to be collected;
3. Equipment that is suitable to absorb any leak or spill of the substance (a “spill kit”) is
located with the container(s) at all times, along with instructions on how to use the spill kit;
4. The container(s) are not located within
(a) 20 m of a surface water body or a bore;
(b) a group or community drinking water supply protection area as set out in Schedule 1; and
5. The container(s) do not remain on a site for more than 90 days in any consecutive 12
month period.”
While Ravensdown opposes the conditions applied in these rules as they apply to Fertiliser
products, it supports the storage and use of fertiliser products as a permitted activity.
Although the rule may at first appear to have little impact on fertiliser use and storage, this
may not be the case with a literal interpretation of the rule, thereby requiring unreasonable
conditions for storage and use of bagged fertiliser product (The 2000 litre requirement can
apply to volume of a solid as well as a liquid).
Most fertilisers have HSNO classifications of ; 6.1D ; 6.3B ; 6.4A ; 9.3C and some may also
have HSNO classifications of ; 6.1E ; 6.3A ; 9.1D ; 9.3B. These are subgroups within the
Class 6 – Health Hazards (6.3B = irritating to the skin, 6.4A = irritating to the eye,) and Class
9-Environmental Hazards (9.3C = toxic to terrestrial vertebrates, 9.1D = slightly harmful to
the aquatic environment)
Ravensdown considers the rule as it currently stands will encompass all these subclasses and
therefore capture products like fertiliser. Ravensdown produces bagged fertiliser, therefore
farmers storing and using bagged fertiliser will have to comply with the conditions for
permitted activity, or default to restricted discretionary consent.
Pursuant to section 96B of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO),
the HSNO group standards for fertilisers were developed as a nationally consistent regulation
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 36 of 40
for managing storage, handling, transport and use of fertiliser products with HSNO
classifications, to protect the environment and human health. HSNO regulation was
developed with the end user in mind.
There are four group standards for fertilisers;

Corrosive
HSR002569

Oxidising [5.1.1]
HSR002570

Subsidiary Hazards
HSR002571

Toxic [6.1C] HSR002572
There is no clear reason why more a stringent requirement should apply for fertiliser products.
The section 32 report (page 50) states “[t]he pL&WRP seeks to reduce the regional council
requirements through placing greater reliance on the HSNO approval process. The pL&WRP
rule provisions seek to identify particular locations and circumstances where hazardous
substance storage needs to be considered more thoroughly, particularly with respect to
environmental and water quality risk, but leaves the remainder, including large storage, to
the HSNO and territorial authority approval processes. Overall, this is likely to result in
considerably fewer resource.”
Ravensdown considers fertiliser products should be exempt from this rule subject to
compliance with HSNO regulation.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown opposes this rule in its current form and seeks for fertiliser to be
exempt from Rules 5-162 and Rule 5-163, subject to complying with requirements under the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Plan Provision: Rule 5.164 (Page 5-37/38)
“5.164 The use of land for the storage, other than in a portable container, and use of a
hazardous substance listed in Part A of Schedule 4 is a permitted activity provided the
following conditions are met:
1. All hazardous substances on a site are stored and used in accordance with requirements
under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Evidence of compliance with
these requirements shall be made available to the CRC upon request;
2. A current inventory of all hazardous substances on the site is maintained, and a copy of the
inventory shall be made available to the CRC or emergency services on request;
3. For hazardous substances stored or held on or over land, all areas or installations used to
store or hold hazardous substances are inspected at least once per month and repaired or
maintained if any defects are found that may compromise the containment of the hazardous
substance;
4. For hazardous substances stored or held in a container located in or under land, stock
reconciliation is undertaken:
(b) for all other sites storing any hazardous substances:
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 37 of 40
Stock reconciliation is undertaken within 24 hours of a substance being
delivered and thereafter on a fortnightly basis. If the stock reconciliation shows
a discrepancy for the measurement period of more than 100 litres or 0.5%,
whichever is the smaller, the CRC shall be notified within 2 working days unless
the loss occurred from a container in any area listed in condition (5), in which
case notification shall occur within 24 hours; and
(c) records of stock reconciliations over the past three months shall be made
available to the CRC upon request. If requested, a copy of the stock
reconciliation and the most recent certification of the container shall be
provided to The CRC within five working days;
6. Except where the storage was lawfully established before 4 July 2004 and the maximum
quantity stored has not increased since that date, the substances shall not be stored within:
(a) 20 m of a surface water body or a bore used for water abstraction;
(b) 250 m of a known active fault that has a recurrence period of less than
10,000 years, and the land is:
(i) over an unconfined or semi-confined aquifer; or
(ii) within 50 m of a permanently or intermittently flowing river or a lake.
Submission: While Ravensdown supports the intent of the rule which is to permit the use of
land for the storage of hazardous substances as a permitted activity, subject to conditions, it
seeks an amendment to Rule 164.
As discussed for Rule 5-162 and 5-163, there is no clear reason why more stringent regulation
should apply than is provided for by the HSNO Group Standards for Fertiliser. Ravensdown
notes in Condition Rule 5-164, 4(b) a requirement for stock reconciliation to be undertaken
with 24 hours and thereafter on a fortnightly basis. If stock reconciliation shows a discrepancy
for the measurement period of more than 100 L or 0.5%, which- ever is smaller, the CRC
shall be notified with 2 working days. This requirement in particular is impractical within the
context of bulk, or bagged fertiliser storage and use.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown supports the intent and permitted activity status of Rule 5.164,
while seeking for fertiliser to be exempt from Conditions 2 – 6, subject to complying with
requirements under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Plan Provisions: Sections 6 – 15 Sub-regions
Submission: The proposed Plan includes 10 sub-regions in Sections 6 – 15. These areas
generally reflect Canterbury Water Management Zone Committee boundaries, but have been
aligned with surface water catchment or groundwater management boundaries.
The policies and rules in the sub-regional chapters apply in a location instead of, or in
addition to, policies or rules in Sections 4 and 5 of the proposed Plan. They are intended to
implement the region wide objectives in the most appropriate way for that particular
catchment or catchments.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 38 of 40
There are a number of information gaps in each sub-region, and the intent is for a regional
plan to be prepared and the information gaps to be addressed through a plan change process.
In the meantime the provisions (objectives, policies and rules) of the proposed Plan apply.
In order to achieve successful, practical application of farm planning tools and audits it is
important that there is national consistency for the industry systems and procedures.
Therefore it is necessary that Regional Council have regard to national consistency and
consistency in industry programmes when ratifying sub regional schemes.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown note that in particular there is no information in on the nutrient
management provisions which will apply to Sections 6-15, as these will be developed by the
communities concerned on a catchment /zone basis.
As a key stakeholder in the practical application of nutrient management provisions, the
Fertiliser Industry welcomes close engagement with CRC in the development of Nutrient
Management provisions for Sections 6-15, and that provision developed for Sections 6-15 are
developed with national consistency in mind.
Plan Provision: Schedule 3 – Hazardous Industries
Schedule 3: A. Chemical manufacture, application and bulk storage includes:
“6. Fertiliser manufacture or bulk storage’
Submission: Ravensdown notes that Schedule 3 identifies fertiliser manufacture or bulk
storage as a hazardous industry. It is questionable whether bulk storage should be included in
this schedule, as it is not an ‘industry’ (which is not defined in the proposed Plan) and does
not include industrial processes. It is also subject to stringent health and safety and
environmental controls under HSNO. Ravensdown considers that the reference to bulk
storage is unnecessary and should be deleted.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks deletion of the reference to bulk storage from Number 6 of
Schedule 3.
Plan Provision: Schedule 7 – Farm Environment Plans
Schedule 7 provides the requirements of a Farm Environmental Plan which are required by a
number of rules relating to farming activities.
Submission: Overall Ravensdown supports the voluntary use of farm planning tools and
audited self-management.
In order to achieve successful, practical application of farm planning tools and audits
Ravensdown considers it is important that there is national consistency for the industry
systems and procedures. Therefore it is necessary that Regional Council have regard to
national consistency and consistency in industry programmes when ratifying sub regional
schemes.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 39 of 40
However there is a need for a clear definition of the farm for which the Farm Environment
Plan and Schedule 8 limits apply. If accredited professional practitioners are required to
produce and audit Farm Environment Plans for properties down to 4 ha, then it will present an
entirely impractical requirement.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks for Council have regard to national consistency and
consistency in industry programmes for the application of farm planning tools and audits
when ratifying sub regional schemes. In particular Ravensdown seeks a clear definition of
‘farms’ for which the Farm Environment Plan and Schedule 8 limits apply, and that definition
should exclude small ‘hobby’ farms to ensure the provision can be applied practicably as
described by accredited and qualified practitioners.
Plan Provision: Schedule 8 – Industry Derived Nitrogen Discharges
Submission: Ravensdown notes that Schedule 8 remains blank. The Schedule signals the
development of industry derived nitrogen discharge values which are understood will be
specific to rural industry sector groups and will apply region wide.
Schedule 8 currently references the Technical Report No. R10/127 “Estimating nitratenitrogen leaching rates under the rural land uses in Canterbury”. Ravensdown does not
believe this report and its recommendations were developed for application to a regulation
and considers is not suitable for regulatory purposesat farm scale. Indeed page 13 of the
report itself says;
“while these values are suitable for exploration of regional or large catchment scale land use
scenarios and for screening the effects of proposed changes in land uses, they are not
suitable for use at the farm scale (e.g in a consent process)”
.
For this reason, Ravensdown seeks reference to the report be deleted.
As a key industry group, with extensive knowledge, expertise, tools, service capability and
research commitments relating to nutrient cycling on farms and nutrient management;
Ravensdown welcomes engagement with the Council and the industry groups for developing
Industry Derived Nitrogen Discharges.
Ravensdown considers itself a key stakeholder in ensuring the practical and successful
application of the recommendations which arise.
Relief Sought: Ravensdown seeks the deletion of the reference in Schedule 8 to Technical
Report No. R10/127 “Estimating nitrate-nitrogen leaching rates under the rural land uses in
Canterbury, and for Council to engage with it and Fertiliser Industry representatives in the
development of ‘Industry Derived Nitrogen Discharges’.
Ravensdown Fertiliser Co-op Ltd
Submission on Proposed Canterbury Land & Water Regional Plan
Page 40 of 40