North Waikato farmer Cr Peter Buckley said Rule 7, the one preventing future dairy conversions unless a resource consent was granted, handcuffed owners of non-converted land to their existing land use with few future options.
But plan supporter Cr Alan Livingston said the collaborative process had involved all affected parties and canvassed all the issues.
Buckley was one of seven councillors who voted against the plan being accepted by Waikato Regional Council for public notification.
The hung 7-7 vote resulted in chairwoman Paula Southgate using her casting vote.
“To make the land use change a rule requiring a resource consent sets a high bar,” Buckley said.
“I think if it had been set as a restricted, discretionary activity that would have still required compliance with rules and regulations but not as strict. That was the stumbling block for me.”
He believed other points in the plan could be modified through the submission process, including an allowance for horticultural growers to expand their enterprises beyond a maximum area set between July 2006 and July 2016.
He reiterated concerns held by drystock farmers over the need to fence off waterways from stock. He acknowledged the plan did provide flexibility for other mitigation methods but it lacked specifics on what was acceptable.
“I would also like to see more time for farmers to mitigate, given the costs are high to do so.”
But Buckley was resigned to Rule 7 remaining in the plan’s final draft. He was also aware of some significant-sized dairy conversions likely to continue that have been caught between the plan’s conception and notification.
Livingston said the plan’s collaborative nature meant the council had a responsibility to take it to the next stage for public submissions.
“I took a close interest in the plan over the two and a half years and saw the extent of the consultation given to it by all parties affected by it, taking into account all the issues raised.
“It was a robust process giving New Zealanders an opportunity to a process they have not had before, to have a real impact on a plan at the front end of it.”
He noted the vocal criticism of the plan from north Waikato farmers in particular.
“It was a robust process giving New Zealanders an opportunity to a process they have not had before, to have a real impact on a plan at the front end of it.”
Cr Alan Livingston
Farmer
“My feeling is why should north Waikato farmers be given undue advantage ahead of others? You have other sectors that are not happy but who accept it for what it is and will make their submissions on it.”
He expected Rule 7 would be approved, given the huge surge in conversions experienced in the catchment over the past decade.
“Clearly, that was an issue signalled to the regional council six to eight years ago and this could not continue.”
About 60,000ha of land in the catchment had been converted to dairying in the past 10 years in the river’s upper catchment.
He praised the “healthy, better informed” debate that arose early on in the process, compared to the issues still swirling around the Horizons One Plan.
Livingston said he appreciated the irony that the day the Healthy Rivers plan was voted on was the same day the One Plan was once again being dragged through the Environment Court, five years after its implementation.
Council staff had acknowledged the Healthy Rivers plan might still ultimately end up in the Environment Court given its breadth and complexity.
But Livingstone remained confident that even if it did, the court would put considerable weight on the collaborative history underpinning the plan’s creation.
