|
Post by aotea on May 23, 2018 18:26:07 GMT 12
Hi folks,
Just been looking at the QLDC proposed distrcict Plan. It is extremely anti mining for any activity in the bed of a river or lake. Proposed rule 21.11.1.2 states Mining activity will not be undertaken in the bed of a lake or river, and if you need a consent, it is a Non-complying activity. This is harder than southland, westland or any other district in Otago.
Clearly miners have not expressed their concerns in this process. Appeal date closes around 28 May. After that you have 15 working days to be able to lodge a s274 appeal on the proviso you have an interest greater than the general public. if you are a claim holder in the riverbed you would meet this test. This would then need to go to mediation to get the Council to become a restricted discretionary or discretionary activity like other areas, but you will need a RMA solicitor…this is a genuine issue for dredgers in QLDC country when they come to seek consent or renew consent.
If you are concerned, seek legal advice …
Check the paydirt thread, another miner has followed this up and has posted good info
|
|
|
Post by RKC on May 28, 2018 11:00:25 GMT 12
G’day, If this is actually being proposed, then it really stinks! There are laws currently in place to prohibit mining in any waterway by heavy earth moving equipment like excavators. New Zealand wide regulations were introduced in the 1990s to stop L&M Mining from mining the Shotover River by restricting the amount of turbidity that could be generated by a mining activity. That then meant that the only remaining mechanized mining method that could legally mine any active river bed was eductor dredging on a hobby scale. The introduced rules on turbidity also impacted the possible use of commercial scale eductor dredges, such as 10-inch production dredges. In most instances, the turbidity generated in nearly every auriferous South Island river, by large commercial scale eductor dredges, would contrivine the turbidity regulations. So, it’s possible that this planning rule is intended as a means to ban hobby eductor dredging for gold in the Lakes District. Just another one of the death-by-a-thousand-cuts process designed to eventually do away with all gold mining in New Zealand. The recently proposed blanket ban on gold mining on all conservation land, which is presently being formulated, and the increase in fees to maintain a mining permit, along with the ever present bureaucratic delays and hoops that have to be jumped through to do any mining, has made it obvious to most miners that in New Zealand there is no future for any legal gold mining. And, in recent years we have seen miners dropping granted permits (especially Exploration Permits) and attempts made to sell permits to pass on the problems to someone else. If its any consolation, the doing away with gold mining in New Zealand pales into insignificance compared to this present governments stated ending of gas and oil exploration ( www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12030723Act Leader David Seymour has said any ban on oil and gas exploration would put 11,000 jobs at risk and could harm the environment.
The oil and gas industry created thousands of jobs, contributed $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy and $500 million to the Government in royalties each year, he said.
"Not only would a ban on exploration make us poorer as a country, it would drive production of oil and gas overseas, which will harm the environment." ) and the ending of coal mining. Regards, Rob (RKC)
|
|
|
Post by mongolminer on May 28, 2018 14:34:44 GMT 12
Hi
I'm an affected person I have a mining permit on the Kawarau river I want to lodge an objection under the s274 appeal provision but need to find someone who has made a submission objecting to the proposed change to QLDC new district plan so I can piggy back my objection on theirs. I only found out about this three days ago just wish I had known about it earlier so I could have made a submission before it got to this stage. So if there is anyone out there who has objected and would not mind me coming in to help with pushing this further now that submissions have finished and been ignored please post your details so I can make contact.
|
|
|
Post by aotea on Jun 23, 2018 15:41:24 GMT 12
k, so heres your plan, only if you have an existing mining permit in the QLDC area.
Cut this below into Word. Fill in the gaps, and tidy up the formatting, and email to:
dpappeals@qldc.govt.nz. Christine.McKee@justice.govt.nz
--------------PAGE STARTS HERE-------------------
IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH ENV-2018-CHC-
IN THE MATTER of an appeal under clause 14(1) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991
AND IN THE MATTER OF the Proposed Queenstown Lakes District Plan – Stage 1
BETWEEN [INSERT YOUR FULL NAME]
Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL
Respondent [INSERT YOUR FULL NAME] PURSUANT TO SECTION 274 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 22 JUNE 2018
To: The Registrar Environment Court Christchurch
TAKE NOTICE that [INSERTYOUR FULL NAME] gives notice pursuant to s274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 that it wishes to appear as a party to the above proceedings.
_______________PAGE BREAK-------------------
This Notice is made upon the following grounds:
1 [INSERT YOUR NAME] did not lodged a Submission or Further submission to the Proposed Queenstown Lakes District Plan – Stage 1 (the Plan) to which this appeal relates.
2 I have an interest in these proceedings that is greater than the public generally under section 274(1)(da).
3 Section 308CA sets out the limits for s274 notices to which the party had not previously submitted or provided a further submission. Person A may be a party proceeding only if directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the proceeding that (a) adversely affects the environment.
4 I am not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the Resource Management Act 1991.
5 My hobby mining will be adversely affected, and I consider the decision document has created an unintended and perverse outcome. I am part of the environment as described in section 2 of the Act, where the environment includes, (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities.
6 I have a current mining permit [INSERT NUMBER HERE] on the [NAME] River within the Queenstown Lakes District.
7 The decisions document for the Plan states in Chapter 21.11 that the standards for mining in the bed of a river is a non-complying activity. This creates a significant challenge to hobby gold miners using suction dredges under the Otago Regional Council permitted activity 13.5.1.7 of the RP:W. This is directly at odds with Chapter 21.4.29 of the Plan.
8 Chapter 21.4.29 of the decision document states: The following mining and extraction activities that comply with the standards of Table 8 are permitted: (a) Mineral prospecting (b) Mining by means of hand-held, non-motorised equipment and suction dredging where the total motive power of the dredge does not exceed 10 horsepower (7.5kw) and…
9 Suction dredge mining exclusively occurs in the bed of the river. While permitted under 21.4.29, it is a non-complying activity under 21.11 and Table 8.
10 It also means the four public recreation gold mining areas administered by the NZ Petroleum and Minerals will require a consent. That consent will be non-complying.
11 A non-complying consent requirement is a perverse outcome whilst the Regional Council considers the activity a permitted activity in the same waterbody.
12 I seek the following relief, that Table 8 and Chapter 21.11.1.2 is amended to allow for suction dredge mining and hand method/detecting consistent with the permitted activity rules in 21.4.29.
13 [INSERT YOUR NAME] agrees to attend mediation and/or dispute resolution in regard to these proceedings.
Dated the 25 June 2018
SIGN HERE
[INSERT YOUR NAME] [insert your address and email]
|
|