Deadline looms for dairy plans

Environment Minister Nick Smith has until next Friday to decide whether to call in resource consent applications of two companies with controversial plans to establish new dairy farms in the Omarama and Ohau area.

The proposals from the three companies involve establishing 16 dairy farms with up to 17,850 cows housed in cubicle stalls.

• Labour points to wide issues [2] 

In a letter to Dr Smith, Environment Canterbury chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins said any decision relating to the "call-in" of applications by Five Rivers Ltd and Southdown Holdings Ltd had to be made by January 15 and for Williamson Holdings Ltd, by January 22.

Under the Resource Management Act, the Government can "call in" consent applications if it considers them of national importance and refer them to a board of inquiry or the Environment Court for a decision.

Yesterday, duty minister Pansy Wong said she understood Dr Smith received Dr Jenkins' letter late last year and he was "currently considering the issue".

Dr Jenkins wrote to Dr Smith on December 23 to "address issues" which had arisen as a consequence of the applications.

More than 3000 submissions were lodged in relation to the Five Rivers and Southdown Holdings applications.

Submissions on the two companies' applications closed last month, while for Williamson Holdings the closing date is next Friday.

In the letter, Dr Jenkins said the submissions had not yet been analysed in detail.

A sample of about 10% suggested about 75% of the total raised issues relating to animal welfare.

He had sought legal advice as to whether issues relevant to animal welfare could be considered and assessed in the context of the consent applications lodged with regional councils.

The advice he received was that the effects which were relevant and therefore had to be assessed were those which related to the activity for which consent was sought.

Therefore, the effect of "factory dairy farming" on the welfare of the cattle was not relevant, given the application was for a discharge permit and animal welfare issues were more appropriately addressed via the Animal Welfare Act.

Dr Jenkins had been advised a stronger argument lay in ascertaining whether any activity might have a detrimental effect on New Zealand's image internationally, which might be seen to fall within the scope of the definition of "effect" under the Resource Management Act.

The advice he received, however, was that any such effects would again be associated with a land-use activity rather than with the terms of any discharge or earthworks (in riverbeds) permits, which have to be processed by a regional council.

"In other words, it is unlikely that any regional council as a consent authority can place significant weight on this issue," he said.

Given his advice that the matter of animal welfare could not be the subject of a ministerial call-in, Dr Jenkins wanted to know if the ministry shared the same view as to the legal terms governing the situation.

sally.rae@odt.co.nz