A Dairy farming couple who ''mistakenly thought'' they had approval to clear native vegetation on their farm near Lake Hawea sought retrospective resource consent for the clearance they had carried out and also consent for a small, further clearance, at a hearing in Wanaka on Wednesday.
A tearful Peter Phiskie told Queenstown Lakes District Council independent commissioner David Whitney he and his wife, Yvonne, bought the 289ha property alongside the Hawea River in 2012.
It had one centre pivot irrigator but the couple decided to expand the property's irrigation system by adding two further pivots, costing $634,000, and sought resource consent from the council.
The couple was granted consent and went ahead with clearing 2.2ha of kanuka where one of the pivots would operate close to the walking and cycling track running along the river corridor.
Mr Phiskie told the hearing he and his wife understood farming the land was a permitted activity and did not require resource consent.
''We also mistakenly thought that the clearance of vegetation was covered by resource consent RM127048, which was granted to erect two centre pivots, as the application detailed that clearance of scattered kanuka would be required to install the pivots.''
Mr Phiskie said no-one told them the removal of vegetation would be a problem ''or that we needed any additional consents''.
''If they had, we could have done things differently.''
Mr Phiskie said he only became aware of their ''oversight'' when contacted by the council, and he immediately stopped any further clearing.
He provided evidence the property had been farmed for over 100 years and grazed intensively by sheep and cattle at times.
In support of the application, AgScience scientist Dr Peter Espie said removal of kanuka or remnant fescue tussock from either the land cleared or proposed to be cleared did not result in important loss of local ecological values.
''The site is not one of the best examples of an indigenous vegetation type, habitat or ecological process in the district.''
He noted there was 870ha of similar protected land in the general area.
Forest and Bird Protection Society Otago-Southland regional conservation volunteer manager Sue Maturin told the hearing the society was ''deeply concerned'' by the clearing of the 2.2ha of vegetation in ''an acutely threatened'' environment.
She acknowledged the ''good work'' the council and the applicant had done to investigate the site and on the proposed mitigation measures ''for the damage done''.
''Sadly, the loss cannot be undone.''
She called for the application to clear a further 4700sq m to be declined.
The couple, through lawyer David Jackson, proposed 6ha of ''mitigation'' to include new and existing native species, with appropriate fencing.
As well, they planned to protect the area by covenant.
Mr Jackson noted a section 45A report issued in March recommended the application be declined, but it had had since been amended, and the author of the report ''has recommended that the application be granted subject to a number of conditions''.
The hearing was adjourned to allow Mr Whitney to obtain further information.
