Wednesday, 17 December 2008

Same tired line spouted by Nelson Winegrower

In an article published today in the Nelson Mail, Chairman of the Nelson Winegrowers, Mike Brown asked that "existing planning regulations surrounding consent for frost fans be retained".

Why would he do that?

Because at the moment the only condition that a frost fan needs to meet is the restriction on height.
Other than that they are a permitted activity.

Of course the esteemed Mr Brown spouted the same pathetic arguments for their use;
They'll only be used a few times a year
Helicopters will be noisier
Smoke pots will cause pollution
The issue will put livelihoods on the line

Wake up Mr Brown (winemaker and manager of Waimea Estates).
Keep a neighbour awake for a SINGLE night and they are a health hazard to everyone.
Be responsible in using a form of frost control that is appropriate to the situation. There are plenty of alternatives, but I suppose frost fans are the easiest way out. Especially if you don't live at the property concerned (Like Mr Jeff Marr who has installed the first fans in Nelson).

You probably want your legal department do a quick check of their facts as well. You see even if there isn't a specific rule for frost fans to meet a noise level in the district plan, they are still required to comply with the Resource Management Act (section 16 amongst many) and the Health Act (that would be section 35). Either the District Council puts a set of rules in place that allow for the peaceful coexistence of frost fans and community residents, or they (the Council) and the vineyards will find themselves dragged backwards through the Courts (That would be the Environment and District Court by the way).

Tuesday, 16 December 2008

New Style Frost Fan Officially Unveiled

Well there was a flurry of news releases today about the new frost fan based on the Amarillo.


I must take a drive out there and check it out.

It has been named the 'Defender' and comes with a raft of promised features;
"halve the noise from wind machines"
"achieved a more than 10 decibel reduction"
"available for installation for the 2009 spring frost season"
"substantial increase in air moving performance along with much lower noise levels"
"new blades are the same length, but have a different shape and rotate slower"
"wind machine being about half as loud but the noise has a more pleasant character and is consequently less intrusive"
"performance testing expected to be completed and fully documented this month"
"The new blades not only offer a huge reduction in noise but also increase the performance of the wind machines"
"a new computer management system that allows full remote monitoring and control"
"increased performance levels and maximised efficiency, as well as a reduction in noise output and the Defender’s new design provides both"
"low noise output will substantially reduce complaints and issues with neighbouring properties"

Well good show. So far the talk has been big. I look forward to seeing the independent testing bear out these claims.
I applaud the recognition of the need for change. The cynic in me feels like the horse has bolted with over 1000 wind machines installed in Marlborough that do not feature these enhancements and let's see local bodies embrace the recognition that the noise levels have been too high for too long.

A couple of interesting points from the press;

  1. The new Defender wind machine featuring a revolutionary custom designed blade".  Very good. I get it. Revolutionary. Nice.
  2.  Claims are for "Halving" and "10 dB reduction". These are not the same things. Even taking the non linear response of the human ear into account. I'll put it down to poor reporting. If not, can I assume that the Amarillo produces 10dB more than this new one?
  3.  And just what is the  noise level? / Blade rotation speed? / Engine type? / Engine speed? I know that I need to wait for the testing results, but why announce it without results? Looking for sales without firm data?
  4. "FMR Group Ltd managing director Chris Clifford said they recognised the noise coming from wind machines was becoming a real issue and were keen to find a solution". Sorry, how did this recognition come about? Goodness of your hearts or pressure from concerned citizens and legal action? I suppose that would make you keen.
  5. "Dr Pearse said they were able to use the FMR Group Ltd’s experience and expertise in wind generated noise". Yes, they have considerable experience in this area.
  6. "the noise has a more pleasant character". Or 'the noise is less offensive'. Either way could be correct.
  7. "There was a perception that four-bladed machines were quieter than two blades, but FMR sales manager Cam Clifford said that was because the noise characteristics were different". That man doesn't live beside frost fans. The four bladed fans are quieter in my CONSIDERABLE experience of trying to sleep through both types.
  8. "Mr Clifford said he hoped the new machine would be "a silver bullet" to end conflict surrounding the machines". I hope so to.


Sunday, 30 November 2008

The Hurunui District Council Responds Positively

The Hurunui District Council have heard a proposed change in the District Council Plan to deal with Frost Fan Noise.

While I have no details on the proposal put forward, or the councils response to it, It would be expected to be formed along the lines of the discussion paper published in the Middle of the year.

First of all kudos to the Hurunui District Council for moving forward with the issue. Whether the changes are right or wrong, they have at least done something positive instead of sitting on their hands. 
Having said that, the proposed changes have yet to be sighted and confirmed as sensible. But at least the public will have their chance to pass comment.

Text of the agenda for the meeting is as follows;

PLAN CHANGE 18 – FROST CONTROL FANS 
 
Report by Manager of Environmental Services – A draft district plan change  (Proposed Plan Change 18) and section 32 analysis has been prepared to  deal with managing the effects of noise associated with frost fans used for  crop protection. The change has been prepared in response to an issues and  options paper prepared on this issue, and feedback received by the Council.  The Council, if it is satisfied with the direction of the change, should resolve to  proceed to publicly notify the change under the Resource Management Act  and call for public submissions. Given the upcoming Christmas break it is  recommended that the statutory minimum time limit for public submissions be  doubled to 60 working days.

Saturday, 22 November 2008

Nelson Wine Grower and Polluter of the Environment, Jeff Marr

It's great to see the Tasman District Council on top of their game. 

It turns out that they believe that the only restriction that needs to be placed on a frost fan being installed is to make sure it's below a certain height.

Reference this news article on the first Frost Fans being installed in Nelson by all around nice guy, responsible vineyard owner and neighbour, Jeff 'Go back to town' Marr.

Are there no noise restrictions in the Tasman District Council Plan?
Wait.....
A quick check of their Tasman Resource Management Plan finds that one of its "main functions" is;
"control of noise emissions."
That makes sense. Shouldn't they have some figures written done somewhere?
Wait.....
A quick check of their Rural Zone regulations finds that they do have noise restrictions that allow for the restriction of unreasonable (according to the Resource Management Act) or nuisance (according to the Health Act) noises. Including figures for checking the noise!

So why aren't they doing anything?

Well, expect the same old story. They will back the polluting wine grower because he has more money and is more likely to throw a legal challenge at them if they try to protect the health and safety of the environment and the residents.
For shame Tasman District Council! Do your job. Protect your rate payers, not the industrialisation of the countryside.

Wednesday, 19 November 2008

Rural = Expendable II

I'm sorry.

I still don't get it. 

Why would you have a rule that maintained a level of 55dBA L10 at 300m for noise on the assumption that this would be within a tolerable level to allow sleep and then in the same piece of legislation, allow the placement of a frost fan that met that level within 100 metres of a neighbors property.

It beggars the imagination. This MUST be a mistake. There can be no law that allows for a neighbour to produce that much noise that it prevents sleep without some kind of limit.
It doesn't make sense. Whoever drafted that legislation and whoever proof read it and whoever voted to accept it were either incompetent or ignorant. Possibly both.

Sunday, 16 November 2008

Bruno's the man


The Marlborough District Council have advised that Bruno Brosnan has been appointed as a designated Duty Planner to answer all public telephone and counter enquiries directed to them.

(Edited excerpt from the Council Web site)
Mr Bruno Brosnan is available from 9.00 am to 3.00 pm, Monday to Friday. He will apparently be able to answer enquiries in regard to matters involving the Resource Management Act 1991. Enquiries received outside the Duty Planner hours will be taken by a Customer Services Officer and relayed to Mr Brosnan who will respond the next work day.

So don't forget that the Council ARE here to work for you. This is their job. This is what we (the ratepayers) pay them to do.
Don't hesitate to give Bruno a call. He may be able to help or to point you in the right direction.

The Marlborough District Council operates a Customer Service Centre to handle all personal and telephone enquiries. It is staffed from 8.00 am-5.00 pm Monday to Friday. Outside these hours the main council phone number will still be answered, to handle any urgent issues such as noise complaints.
Postal Address:Marlborough District Council
PO Box 443
Blenheim 7240
New Zealand
Email:mdc@marlborough.govt.nz
 
BLENHEIM CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTRE
Phone:520 7400 
Fax:520 7496 
Street Address:15-21 Seymour Street (Seymour Square)
Blenheim 7201

Friday, 14 November 2008

Rural = Expendable?

Why is there a rule in the District Plan in Marlborough that allows a frost fan to be sited within 100m of a residence (not on the same property) if it is zoned Rural?

Do people in rural areas not sleep?
Are they all operating frost fans, so they will be up and about any way?
Are rural neighbours so complacent that they don't mind the sound of whirling blades beating the air into submission within spitting distance of their bedrooms?
Are there rules that ensure that rural houses are built with better sound insulation?
Was there little or no thought put into the Plan when it was drafted?

In my humble opinion, one of those questions is right.

Wednesday, 12 November 2008

Cartoon: Carbon Footprint

Although I believe the 'Carbon footprint' concept to be a fraud perpetuated by the Y2K, bird flu, Ostrich breeding crowd, any use of the concept by frost fan wielding vineyards deserves suitable scorn just on basic principles.

Monday, 10 November 2008

When is enough enough?

A simple question popped into my head this weekend.

How much noise it too much noise?

The frost event on Saturday morning has certainly highlighted the significant volume of noise that is produced by frost fans, but presumably this noise level is adjudged by the Marlborough District Council as reasonable.
So what constitutes a reasonable level of noise?

They have set a value for an individual machine (55dBA L10 at 300m), but this certainly doesn't take into account the hundreds of machines that operate simultaneously. Aside from one Environment Court ruling that has imposed a need to consider the noise from more than one machine cumulatively there seems to be little comprehension that more machines = more noise.
It's pretty fundamental, it has a legal precedent, and yet I not an installation of approximately 20 Frost Boss machines being installed approximately 2.5km from Renwick.
Now there are a couple of points to note here;
Firstly, Frost Boss fans have a weighty reputation for being the quietest machine on the market due to their four bladed design and subsequent lower rotation speed. However, ultimately there is a noise being produced.
Secondly, at a distance of 2.5km, people tend to dismiss the effect because it seems so far away.

So, how loud will they be?
Calculations on the back of a napkin show that 20 fans producing 55dBA L10 at 300m result in a noise of approximately 50dBA L10 at 2.5km.

This is on the cusp of being intrusive to people's sleep when they are 2.5km away! Yet was any investigation done to protect residents who were closer? (rest assured there are plenty)

Saturday, 8 November 2008

Cool! (but not in a good way)

As predicted a cool evening has produced a significant frost event (considering the November date).

In my humble opinion, this would be the worst of the growing season this year. I woke at 3am and a quick drive around the neighbourhood confirmed significant activity with helicopters, frost fans and return stack burners.

This would be the loudest that I can remember a frost event and I presume this is due to the increase in numbers of fans. The cumulative effect is certainly significant.

Interestingly, The cumulative effect has a positive spin of partially masking the 5 minute oscillation of frost fan noise and instead the noise is steadier (Louder, but steadier). The thumps from the blades are still significant, but the longer duty cycle oscillations are less noticeable because of the overall increase in noise.

Friday, 7 November 2008

Consider yourselves softened up.

November frosts are occurring around the country on the back of a few southerly fronts that have recently passed over the country.

No surprise then that frost protection methods will need to be employed to protect the new growth on budding vines.

Also no surprise to learn of the hoards of helicopters being readied for mixing the inversion layers over crops.
The frost fans will also be in action of course, but in an ironic twist of legislation, you can't currently regulate against the noise produced by a helicopter in flight under the Civil Aviation Act or the Resource Management Act. It might be possible under the Health Act if someone was brave enough (or annoyed enough after sleepless nights) to make a complaint that they presented a nuisance (literally, they would be referred to as a nuisance).

So prepare for reports of the massed flights of choppers saving crops across the nation. Also watch for the little anecdotes that are traditionally attached to these reports that tell of the annoyance of the neighbours of these devices.  What a pity! But at least the wine crop was saved! More mind altering drugs for everyone in these difficult economic times. 
Outstanding.

P.S. It's nice to be back after my little vacation. There was no truth to the rumours of my jaunts around the country campainging in the election. If the taxman asks, it was a family holiday!

Thursday, 23 October 2008

Frost Fan Trainspotters

I came across an interesting post today about some folks in the US spotting different typs of frost protection devices.
There are several different models including this particular beast.



See the full post here for a good look at some variations,

Tuesday, 21 October 2008

2 New Amarillo Blades

For those who are interested in such things, there are actually 2 new Amarillo fans spotted out and about in Marlborough.
The first is the strikingly large silver model estimated at approximately 6.4m in diameter. The second looks a bit more like the original blades except for the rounded tips. The images have been scaled approximately in size to provide a comparison of dimensions.

Frost Fan Workshop Day One

How ironic to see that Councillor Jill Bunting is providing the welcome and introductions at today’s frost fan workshop. 

This would be the same Councillor Bunting that sat on the application for resource consent for two frost fans that found that the frost fans would meet the District Plan. Opponents to the installation said they wouldn’t.

Many thousands of dollars in lawyers and experts fees later, the Environment Court found that they wouldn’t as well and ordered new conditions and tests.

This would be the same Councillor Bunting that sat on the application for resource consent for two frost fans that decided that the houses that were adjacent (and opposing the application) were not a bona fide residential area. Strangely enough, the Council Decided that wasn’t quite right and had to state that “actually that isn’t the position of the Council”. Never mind, by that time the residents were so irate they had taken the matter to the Environment Court anyway.

Good work Jill. You made some good decisions there. My rates dollars have been wisely spent.

Sunday, 19 October 2008

New Amarillo Blades

Recently spotted undergoing trials in Marlborough is a new style blade fitted to an Amarillo frost fan.

This sucker is a whopper. Estimates from photo comparisons put it at approximately 6.4 metres long. This would be the longest blade diameter currently known in NZ (for a frost fan).

Astute observers will note that the design has at least made some attempt to shape the blades in an aerodynamic fashion, although devotees will realise that it takes more than shaping some curves into the end of your metal to produce an efficient design.

The site of the blade is one subject to a recent Environment Court ruling that imposed a condition of consent that the cumulative noise from both machines should be no more than 55dBA L10 at 300 metres. For those so inclined, take a drive down Paynters road in Fairhall (just outside Blenheim). Or you could view the location here on Google Maps.

For those that need reminding the picture below is the standard Amarillo blade shape. I know they look crude, but......  OK, they have no redeeming features other than being crude.


On another point, I know that I've poked the borax at the Department of Labour (OSH) in the past, but I'm glad to see their message getting through to operators of cherry pickers like the guy in the top photograph. For those who want to know, the accepted safe practice is to be wearing a safety harness when working in a cherry picker. That may be it draped on the rail beside him. Perhaps he took it off so he could reach out of the platform as he appears to be doing.  If anyone cares, please leave a comment on this post and I can try to find out who 'safety first' guy is.

Frost Fan Workshop

The Marlborough District Council will be hosting a workshop on noise issues realated to the installation of frost fans. This will be taking place on the 21st and 22nd of October (yes this week). It will be at the Copthorne Hotel in Nelson Street starting at 9am each day.
To be perfectly honest, this is the second such workshop (the first was earlier in the year), and the game will have to be lifted from the trite posturing of the Council and the industries involved in installing these machines in what has become a practically uncontrolled manner.

Sure they require a building consent (revenue gathering for consultants and Council), and sure if they contrvene the District Plan they will need a resource consent (revenue gathering for consultants and Council).
But untill the real issues of finding and enforcing practical methods of controlling noise in our environment are addressed, there will continue to be an increasing pressure on the Council as arbiters of public safety to review and address the ridiculous standards they have currently in place (Rural rule Section 1.4.2.3).
 
Irrespective of the 'talk fest' issues on display, the following will show if the Council are serious about confronting the growing frost fan noise proplem;
Protect residents from excessive noise from frost fans,
Put practical methods in place for monitoring compliance,
ACTUALLY MONITOR THEM.

For those interested in reading the discussion document that is being used during the meeting, a copy is available here (Be warned, it is a 32 page document and is approx 850kB in size).

Thursday, 16 October 2008

What is the Councils involvement with frost fans?

So why is the Council copping so much grief over the issue of frost fans? 

The information below is taken from the Marlborough District Councils web site that outlines their role from a regulatory standpoint. 

The Marlborough District Council is responsible for administering a wide range of regulatory functions, powers and duties conferred by Acts of Parliament.

The council's Regulatory Department administers more than 40 different statutes and regulations.

These statutes include the Resource Management Act (RMA), the Building Act and the Health Act. Generally these involve the council authorising certain activities, e.g. marine farming, and building construction. Having approved consents for such activities, the council monitors them to ensure on-going compliance.

The council's role also includes the investigation of complaints.

The council is required to develop plans that set out policies and rules for the sustainable management of Marlborough's natural and physical resources.

In short, they are responsible for ensuring that the laws of the land that are outlined in Acts of Parliament are observed on a local scale with respect the management of the environment and managing the safety and health of the population. 

They do this via a District Plan. This takes the relevant laws and ensures that a framework for following them is maintained at a local level. 

For the purposes of frost fans, the Council are bound to ensure the following in accordance with the Resource Management Act (these are not the full sections, just some juicy bits). 

Section 3:
Meaning of effect 
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term effect includes— 
(d) Any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects 

Section 16: 
Duty to avoid unreasonable noise 
(1) Every occupier of land (including any premises and any coastal marine area), and every person carrying out an activity in, on, or under a water body or the coastal marine area, shall adopt the best practicable option to ensure that the emission of noise from that land or water does not exceed a reasonable level. 

Section 17:
Duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects 
(1) Every person has a duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effect on the environment arising from an activity carried on by or on behalf of that person.

Section 326: 
Meaning of excessive noise 
(1)  In this Act, the term excessive noise means any noise that is under human control and of such a nature as to unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, and convenience of any person (other than a person in or at the place from which the noise is being emitted) 

Likewise, the Health Act; 

Section 29 
Nuisances defined for purposes of this Act 
Without limiting the meaning of the term "nuisance'', a nuisance shall be deemed to be created in any of the following cases, that is to say:  
(ka) Where any noise or vibration occurs in or is emitted from any building, premises, or land to a degree that is likely to be injurious to health:] 

Section 30:
Penalties for permitting or causing nuisances-
(1). Every person by whose act, default, or sufferance a nuisance arises or continues, whether that person is or is not the owner or occupier of the premises in respect of which the nuisance exists, commits an offence against this Act. 

So the Council Set the Rules in the District Plan.
For frost fans they have a set of rules under section 1.4.3.2.

So why is there a problem?

Well, if a developer wants to install a frost fan that exceeds any of those rules, they have to apply for and be granted a resource consent to do so.

Problem here is that there is a history that suggests a failure to comprehend the implications of some of the applications and in some cases a failure to understand basic physics.
In short frost fan resource consent applications typically get approved. 
Aside from the issue of incompetence in dealing with the resource consent process, there is a fundamental problem that has plagued the Council for years.

They can’t / don’t / won’t enforce their frost fan rules or consents with regard noise.

It really is that simple. If a neighbour complains that a frost fan is exceeding the noise limit in the District Plan, the Council have no mechanism in place for ensuring compliance.

None. 

So this is why the Council are copping grief.
Annoyed neighbours of frost fans that are kept awake see no possibility for a resolution to their problem.
The Council have applied a policy that they cannot measure compliance of and cannot monitor.

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Touché

Touché. Well done Orchard Rite.

I must have seen the headline at some point in the past, but never twigged.


Tuesday, 14 October 2008

Orchard Wrong

Something just twigged today. I'm a bit slow I suppose.

You see when I described the noise of the Orchard Rite fans from Royce McKeans property up the Wairau Valley (and let's not forget the Hurunui). I referenced a report from Hegley Acoustics.
This report was completed in January 2006 from testing carried out in 2005.
In it Nevil Hegley records the noise levels of the model 2500D and 3000D Orchard Rite fans at 100 metres and calculates the levels that will be present at 300 metres.

They are as follows (all are L10 values by the way);

Wind Machine      @100m  @300m
2500D at 1850rpm  69dBA 59dBA
at 2000rpm 71dBA 61dBA
at 2270rpm 73dBA 63dBA
3000D at 1850rpm 64dBA 54dBA
at 2000rpm 67dBA 57dBA
at 2100rpm 67dBA 57dBA
at 2270rpm 69dBA 59dBA

Throughout the report Mr Hegley describes the noise as 'tonal' in other words it is exhibiting 'Special Audible Characteristics'. Now these characteristics mean that in accordance with the requirements of NZS 6801: 1991 (the noise standard almost universally used by District Councils) noise that exhibts them must include a 5dB penalty because of the intrusive nature of the noise. (in fairness to Orchard Rite, acoustics experts appear to universally agree that all frost fans running at their efficient speeds exhibit these characteristics).

This means that of all these readings only ONE actually meets the requirements of the Marlborough District Councils noise limit of 55dBA L10 at 300 metres (this figure includes the 5dB penalty for special audible characteristics).
So I presume that if Mr McKean is operating one of these models of fan (and he is certainly operating the 3000D according to the resource consent in Hurunui) then he can only operate them at 1850rpm in order to be compliant with the District Plan (in Marlborough).
Unless he has a resource consent to exceed the limit of course. 

So how do the council ensure compliance with the District Plan? I believe we've established that they don't do any measuring at all. Not before installation, and not after
Mr Maclean seems to think it can be done and done easily.
And yet they've done nothing.
     Nothing.
          Nothing.
              Nothing.
At least they've done it consistently.

Meanwhile no doubt Mr Mckean is lawfully operating his fans at the lowest setting to avoid making too much noise.

Monday, 13 October 2008

What a tangled web II

Boy, this story about the Orchard Rite fans spreading up the Wairau Valley has simply gotten more interesting every day!

Firstly, Mr Mat Janes from Cape Mentelle has advised me that Mr Steve Meckiff has not worked for them for 18 months now.
He goes further to state that "Cape Mentelle, Cloudy Bay and LVMH have absolutely nothing to do with the vineyard development".  That is pleasing to know and I look forward to hearing that the Cloudy Bay are utilising responsible frost protection methods and sourcing their grapes from suppliers that are like minded. Go Cloudy Bay, I look forward to awarding some sort of Environmental Award for responsible practices or similar. I'm not joking here. If ANY vineyard can demonstrate that they have selected frost protection based on consideration of their neighbours (in respect of noise). I am ready to sing their praises.

HOWEVER, Further information has come to light with regard the story that appeared in the Marlborough Express and in stuff.co.nz 

It turns out that Mr Harry Fowler who said “he was not bothered by the spread of grapes up the valley and said the noise of the wind machines was not really an issue” was telling the truth.
The noise from the wind machines is not an issue for Harry. 
You see Harry lives 4.3km from the fans.
Yes that's right 4.3km.
In fact a few simple calculations will show that if you take the noise produced by an Orchard Rite  3000 model frost fan spinning at 2000rpm it will produce 67dBA L10 at 100m (according to testing carried out by Hegley Acoustics in 2006) and therefore it will be reduced to about 34dBA L10 at 4.3km.
However, if you put 46 of them together, the noise at 4.3km is actually 50.8dBA L10. Now that is interesting, because the World Health Organisation claims that the level that should be present in a persons bedroom to avoid serious health effects from sleep loss is 30dBA Leq. The attenuation of a modern home is approximately 20dB. That means that poor Harry will probably be subject to a noise that exceeds that recommended by the World Health Organisation even though he is 4.3km from the site.

And the news doesn't get any better either. You see the noise calculated doesn't include the penalty of 5dB that is required to be applied by the New Zealand Acoustic Measurement Standard 6801 (and the Marlborough District Council) for all noises that exhibit a special audible character.
I almost feel sorry for him.

Actually I feel a bit sorry for Blair Ensor who wrote the article. I think he might have been a bit misled there.
But you never know... Am I wrong about the 4.3km?

Councils duty to monitor and gather information

Section 35 of the Resource management act sets out the duties of District Councils to gather information, monitor and keep records.
It is this section that provides the requirement to monitor compliance with resource consents and to make that information available for the purposes of transparancy.
It has been established that the Marlborough District Council have been unable to monitor their frost fan requirements per the Plan and their imposed conditions of consent. However, it is useful to read the full section to be aware of the legal requirements and to know your rights when requesting infromation. Remember, they work for you, not the other way around.

35 Duty to gather information, monitor, and keep records

(1) Every local authority shall gather such information, and under ­ take or commission such research, as is necessary to carry out effectively its functions under this Act.

(2) Every local authority shall monitor—
(a) The state of the whole or any part of the environment of its region or district to the extent that is appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its
functions under this Act; and
(b) the efficiency and effectiveness of policies, rules, or other methods in its policy statement or its plan; and
(c) The exercise of any functions, powers, or duties delegated or transferred by it; and
(d) The exercise of the resource consents that have effect in its region or district, as the case may be; and
(e) in the case of a regional council, the exercise of a recog­nised customary activity in its region, including any controls imposed under Schedule 12 on that activity ,— and take appropriate action (having regard to the methods available to it under this Act) where this is shown to be necessary .
(2A) Every local authority must, at intervals of not more than 5 years, compile and make available to the public a review of the results of its monitoring under subsection (2)(b) .

(3) Every local authority shall keep reasonably available at its principal office, information which is relevant to the administration of policy statements and plans, the monitoring of resource consents, and current issues relating to the environment of the area, to enable the public—
(a) To be better informed of their duties and of the functions, powers, and duties of the local authority; and
(b) T o participate effectively under this Act.

(4) Every local authority shall keep reasonably available at each of the offices in its region or district such of the information referred to in subsection (3) as relates to that part of the region or district.

(5) The information to be kept by a local authority under subsection (3) shall include—
(a) Copies of its operative and any proposed policy statements and plans including all requirements for designations and heritage orders, and all operative and proposed changes to those policy statements and plans; and
(aa) copies of all material incorporated by reference in any plan or proposed plan under Part 3 of Schedule 1; and
(b) All its decisions relating to submissions on any proposed policy statements and plans which have not yet become operative; and
(c) In the case of a territorial authority, copies of every operative and proposed regional policy statement and regional plan for the region of which its district forms
part; and
(d) In the case of a regional council, copies of every operative and proposed district plan for every territorial authority in its region; and
(e) In the case of a regional council, a copy of every Order in Council served on it under section 154(a) ; and
(f) Copies of any national policy statement or New Zealand coastal policy statement; and
(g) records of all applications for resource consents received by it; and
(ga) records of all decisions under any of sections 93 to 94C ; and
(gb) records of all resource consents granted within the local authority’ s region or district; and
(gc) records of the transfer of any resource consent; and
(h) Records of all extensions of time periods and waivers granted by it under section 37 in relation to applications under section 10 (which relates to existing uses), section
125 (which relates to lapsing of consents), and section 184 (which relates to lapsing of designations) during the preceding 5 years; and
(i) A summary of all written complaints received by it during the preceding 5 years concerning alleged breaches of the Act or a plan, and information on how it dealt
with each such complaint; and
(j) Records of natural hazards to the extent that the local authority considers appropriate for the effective discharge of its functions; and
(ja) In the case of a territorial authority, the location and area of all esplanade reserves, esplanade strips, and access strips in the district; and
(jb) in the case of a regional council, records of every customary rights order relating to its region; and
(k) Any other information gathered under subsections (1) and (2).

Friday, 10 October 2008

What a tangled web.

Interesting article in stuff.co.nz on the development of an ‘estate’ (whatever that means) with 240 hectares of vineyards in the Wairau Valley.

The development is being carried out by McKean Estates. McKean Estates being owned by Royce and Susan McKean. Royce (and I’m picking it was Royce and not Susan (don’t get me wrong Susan, you’ve got blood on your hands, but Royce is holding the gun)) is a notorious absentee landlord that is responsible for the blot on the acoustic landscape that is the Waiata vineyard in the Hurunui district
The Waiata vineyard planted 53 frost fans using a dodgy resource consent that even the Hurunui District Council is ashamed of granting. 
Now he’s the proud owner of 46 more in the Wairau Valley in Marlborough. This is one of the most scenic and peaceful parts of the country. Well it used to be.

You might think that Royce McKean lives in Marlborough or the Hurunui, but actually he lives in Sumner, Christchurch. Let me tell you, it can get pretty rowdy there on a frosty morning!

Now it can get a bit confusing, but stay with me dear reader. 
You see, there have been reports of gang tensions on the Waiata Vineyard as a result of the workers that Mr McKean has brought in to look after his grapes there. Likewise he and his wife are directors of Wairau Contract Labour Services and I would hate to think that an increase in the gang tensions that has occurred in Blenheim over the past year has a connection with this company that started operating in 2007.

Now Steve Meckiff, who appears in the story in stuff.co.nz as the chief viticulturist in the Wairau Valley is something of an oddity.
He has been linked with an involvement in the frost fan dispute in the Hurunui. Likewise, the internet pegs him as viticulturist and vineyard manager for Cape Mentelle. (errata: see addendum below)
Now the astute reader will realise that Cape Mentelle is in Australia and is famous for its wines, but did you know that they are the %100 shareholder of Cloudy Bay Wines?
Yes, Cloudy Bay Wines, the company that put Sauvignon on the map in Marlborough, owned by an Australian firm. In a link that is slightly disturbing Cape Mentelle was established by entrepreneur Mark Hohnen who also made his mark looting African countries for Uranium.
It gets stranger still, as Cape Mentelle was purchased in 2003 by LVMH.
LVMH is of course the French Holding Company  Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton.
In short and in the worst case scenario, we are having our environment polluted by someone who is farming the profits off to the French. Nice. That gives me a warm glow.

The article quotes one of the development's neighbours, Upper Wairau farmer Harry Fowler as saying “he was not bothered by the spread of grapes up the valley and said the noise of the wind machines was not really an issue”. This would be the same Harry Fowler that is trying to piggy back on the Trust Power scheme to divert the Wairau river so that he can irrigate vast tracts of land. But that’s another kettle of fish. Get it? Fish! Not that they get much of a look in with the power scheme right Harry?

Moral of the story. If your land isn’t suitable you can screw the environment in order to make it profitable. Good job.

Addendum:  An astute reader will note from the comments section below that Mr Meckiff has not worked for Cape Mentelle for 18 months. In fact Cape Mentelle, Cloudy Bay and LVMH have absolutely nothing to do with the vineyard development according to Mat Janes the Public Relations honcho for Cape Metelle. I would like to pass comment on the record of Cloudy Bay in relations to noise pollution from frost fans. If Mr Janes is willing, I will sing their praises on reciept of information that they practice responsible placemnent (or no placement) of frost fans.

Thursday, 9 October 2008

How to measure frost fan rotation.

I would like to take a quick moment to recap my previous two posts;

Firstly, there is a method of setting noise limits for frost fans that preserve the ability for a person to sleep. It is based on guidelines from the World Health Organisation, creates an environment where each frost fan operator has an unambiguous noise level to meet and takes into account cumulative effects of multiple frost fans.

Secondly, once an acceptable noise level is set for a frost fan (either via the above process or via an experts test results) compliance with this level can be verified by measuring the speed of rotation of the fan without needing to measure the level of noise.

So… If the speed of rotation of the fan is accepted as the measure of compliance with conditions of consent, then in order to confirm compliance all that is required is a suitable means of carrying out the measurement of the rotation.

I can think of at least four methods that could be used with depending on the level of access to the fans and the will to carry out trials to provide suitable accuracy. 

(1) Tachometer
A tachometer is used for the study of rotating, reciprocating, oscillating or vibrating machine parts. There are various examples available, and in the case of measuring frost fans an optical variant would be required.
It’s principle of operation involves shining a light on a rotating object. As the object rotates light will either be reflected back or not depending on what part of the machine the light is shone at. 
To measure a frost fan a light would be shone on an area that the blade passes through so that when it does pass, the tachometer starts a time measurement. When the next blade passes in front of the beam of light the time that is taken between the reflections is used to calculate the speed of rotation.
Adjustments would need to be made depending on whether a two or four bladed machine was being measured. And for measurement from a respectable distance some form of lens may be required to allow the light source and measuring device to ‘reach’ out to the fan.
In theory, a modest laser could provide a focussed source of light and a garden variety tachometer coupled to a low power telescope could provide the ability to measure rotation at a considerable distance (hundreds of metres).
If access to the fan was available, commercial devices exist that should be able to make the measurement without modification.

(2) Stroboscope
A stroboscope, also known as a strobe, is an instrument used to make a cyclically moving object appear to be slow-moving, or stationary. The principle is used for the study of rotating, reciprocating, oscillating or vibrating objects. 
A stroboscope works by using a lamp capable of emitting brief and rapid flashes of light. The frequency of the flash is adjusted so that it is equal to, or a unit fraction below or above the object's cyclic speed, at which point the object is seen to be either stationary or moving backward or forward, depending on the flash frequency.
The frequency can then be directly converted to the rotational speed of the fan.
Given direct access to a frost fan, this method would be the simplest to achieve quick, accurate results. Machines to do this task are available commercially.
If measurement via this method was desired at a significant distance (hundreds of metres), some form of optical coupling would again be required for the light source (low power laser) or a suitable light source would need to me modified to provide a focussed, modulated beam.

(3) Timing the rotation
By timing the rotation of a frost fan about its vertical axis and knowing the gear ratios for the coupling between the main mast and the blade, a value for rotation of the blade can be determined. This will depend on the availability of data on the frost fans being measured.
It does have the benefit of being able to be carried out simply using a video camera that can perform sufficiently well in the low light conditions that exist when frost fans are operating. Again, illumination by a sufficiently focussed light source will aid measurement.

(4) Adaptive frame rate.
Film and video cameras capture pictures at specific rates. i.e A certain number of frames per second.
By using a camera that can adapt the frame rate at which it captures the images, a video can be produced of a frost fan that operates in the same way as a stroboscope, except without the need to provide a flashing light.
If the frame rate of the camera is adjusted to the rate of rotation of the fan, it will appear to be ‘standing still’. Above or below the speed of rotation the fan will appear to be turning forwards or backwards slowly. A steady form of illumination from a focussed light would aid the capturing of the image especially in low light and since a relatively fast shutter speed would be required.
Research would be required to establish the practicality of carrying out measurements using this technique. In theory it would work well from a distance with a focussed light source if a suitable camera was available.

There is no doubt that there will be other methods that would be suitable. Including the most simple of all which is to have the data recorded by the fan itself and transmitted as part of the information that is captured at many frost fan installations.

Given the lack of any measurements being carried out by the Marlborough District and no doubt other Councils, the idea of measuring rotation appears logical and there are avenues for carrying it out that are practical and can be bought off the shelf.
Why are they not being pursued?

Wednesday, 8 October 2008

Cartoon of the Day: Profit and Loss

Thank heavens the ratepayer can come to the rescue. Where could they have found the money otherwise to go on to make bigger profits next year.

Click on the cartoon to see a readable version or click here to see all the cartoons.


More here on the same topic.

Tuesday, 7 October 2008

You cannot be SERIOUS!

Not nice to read an interesting article in stuff.co.nz on a potential disaster about to befall the wine industry in Marlborough if the ratepayers don't cough up some reddies to loan to the local vineyards.

Snapshot:
The massive harvest last year almost caused parts of the industrial effluent treatment system to fail.
A fix must be fast tracked through the Council or the grape growers stand to lose $18 million next year.
The fix will also include a loan to the primary producers of the effluent concerned from the Riverlands and Cloudy bay areas. That will be $8 million thank you.

Upshot:
The Council (read, you the ratepayer) will loan the wine industry $8 million to ensure that they make $18 million more than they did from last years MASSIVE harvest.
We loan them money so that we can treat their effluent. What a deal.

"The Council's assets and services committee is expected on Thursday to back plans for a special council meeting to be held a week later to sign off upgrade recommendations".
That comittee would consist of;
  • Clr Francis Maher (Chairperson)
  • Clr Nigel Weetman (Deputy)
  • Clr Warwick Brice
  • Clr Gerald Hope
  • Clr Pat O'Sullivan
  • Mayor - ex officio
  • Iwi representative (R Hunter)
Crikey, let's hope that any recomendation to the Council will include any refrences to potential conflicts of interests that could be percieved. If I review my previous list that would include;
  • holding another public office;
  • being an employee, advisor, director, or partner of another business or organisation;
  • pursuing a business opportunity;
  • being a member of a club, society, or association;
  • having a professional or legal obligation to someone else (such as being a trustee);
  • owning a beneficial interest in a trust;
  • owning or occupying a piece of land;
  • owning shares or some other investment or asset;
  • having received a gift, hospitality, or other benefit from someone; owing a debt to someone;
  • holding or expressing strong political or personal views that may indicate prejudice or predetermination for or against a person or issue;
  • or being a relative or close friend of someone who has one of these interests (or who could otherwise be personally affected by a decision of the public entity).
Anyone willing to put their hand up or cast the first stone?

Hello Napa Valley

Funny old thing...

The good folks at Google provide a few statistics on the traffic that the blog experiences. One of the neat tricks is that it can show the region that viewers come from (it is extremely broad, but vaguely interesting).

So I can see that the majority of viewers are from New Zealand, but the second most are from the USA.
I took the opportunity to check out the viewers from the US to see if they came from Washington State, As I thought they might with Orchard-Rite having their headquarters there.
But no.
The majority were from California. So I checked out California and low and behold Napa Valley was the area with the most viewers!
I am reliably informed that the area is a fantastic area for wine in the States and that they produce superb wines. So hello to all.

I also presume that they encounter noise from frost fans which a quick check of Google confirms;
"thought that Napa Valley was being attacked by lots of low flying planes"
"Any signs of frost and the wind machines may have to be turned on"
"slowly drift off to sleep to the rhythmic, predictable whir of frost fans in the vineyard" (I can only presume a few night caps help this guy)
"The infernal noise"
"I awoke to the sound of wind machines"
"The fans create a constant noise and drown out the Harley motorcycles"
"I'm about 1.2 miles from the nearest one, and those wind machines have been waking me up in the morning for the last couple weeks"
"vineyard fans rotating at night causing sounds like living near an airport"
"the nearby vineyard wind machines and the deafening noise of their engines"

Hmm... (or should that be Humm...)

Sunday, 5 October 2008

What needs to be monitored to ensure compliance?

In a follow up to my previous post on what the ideal allowable noise level is for frost fan installations, here is the promised information on what needs to be monitored in order to ensure that frost fans are complying with the District Plan (or conditions of consent).

I’ll be frank. District Councils are paying less than lip service to conditions of consent that are imposed on frost fan installations.
This is truer than ever in regards issues related to noise.

Why is this?

Two reasons.
(1) They need to impose conditions in order to ensure that the population is provided some protection from unreasonable noise (per the Resource Management Act) and nuisance (per the Health Act). So it’s not like they can just allow open slather for vineyards to install them wherever and whenever they want.
(2) They haven’t worked out how to do it.

“What?” I hear you say.
“They impose conditions and don’t check them?”
Yes.

Why do they not check for compliance?
Because they can’t figure out how to carry out a noise check on a fan quickly and without a large number of other factors affecting the measurement.

Let me introduce a short exchange from an Environment Court Hearing 16/05/2008 between myself and a Mr Heather from the Marlborough District Council;

MR MACLEAN: Do you know how the council enforces the standards in rule 1.4.2.3 for those frost fans, to make sure that they’re compliant?

MR HEATHER: You’re talking noise limits here?

MR MACLEAN: Yes.

MR HEATHER: Currently it’s my understanding – and again this is handled by our compliance section rather than our consent section – that we monitor by complaint. But I’m also aware that council is discussing a strategy to monitor frost fans, but I can’t say any more than that.

MR MACLEAN: No. So there’s nothing in place that you’re aware of?

MR HEATHER: No.

MR MACLEAN: They don’t test them before or after that you’re aware of?

MR HEATHER: No.

So then the Marlborough District Council (and by extension the residents in Marlborough) have a problem.
They have granted consents to operate frost fans under certain conditions and they can’t monitor those conditions.

If it’s one thing I’ve learned in life, it’s no good complaining that something’s broken unless you have a solution for fixing it.

So here is a tidy summary of the situation and in my next post I will provide several solutions to the problem.

What generates the noise from a frost fan?
There are two major components to the noise
(1) The motor.
(2) The rotation of the fan.

In all instances that I have encountered while researching frost fan noise issues, the major source of noise is always the fan.
Why?
Because the fan has to operate at a high speed in order to become aerodynamically efficient enough to do its job of drawing down the warmer air from the inversion layer to blow across the crop below.
When the fan operates at that high speed, a major side effect is noise as it thrashes the air.
A motor can always be silenced. An acoustic shroud installed, a muffler attached and/or the exhaust directed into a pit. But the blade will always have to turn quickly.

It’s that simple. The rotation of the fan creates the majority of the noise.
So if you know how much noise a frost fan makes at a certain value of revolutions per minute you can set that value as the limit that an individual fan can operate at.

For example;

(1) A common condition of consent is that a frost fan does not produce more than 55dBA L10 at 300 metres.
If the installer provides documentation that a fan produces 55dBA L10 while it is rotating at 2000rpm, then measure the rpm of the fan. Don’t bother trying to measure the noise.

(2) If a land owner has met the noise conditions that I outlined in my previous post on finding the ideal noise levels, then the amount of noise produced does not have to be re-measured to confirm compliance. Just the confirm the rpms of the fans when they were first installed and set.

So why is it easier to measure fan rpm rather than noise level?

Stay tuned for my next post.

Nuisance and the Health Act

A vast majority of the complaints about frost fans are centered around the local district plans and the Environment Court.
However there are other avenues to pursue.

Firstly there is the Department of Labour (or OSH if you like). They will be focused on the safely aspects of the devices and with respect to the prevention of accident and injury due to improper use or aspects of use that are dangerous. Significant angles with this approach involve the running of the machines in windy conditions. 

Secondly, there is the Health Act (1956). Specifically the section on Nuisance (sections 29-35).
This is a significant piece of legislation that provides for the protection of an individuals health.
A (slightly) abridged version follows;

29. Nuisances defined for purposes of this Act-

                        Without limiting the meaning of the term ``nuisance'', a nuisance shall be deemed to be created in any of the following cases, that is to say:

                         (ka) Where any noise or vibration occurs in or is emitted from any building, premises, or land to a degree that is likely to be injurious to health:]

30. Penalties for permitting or causing nuisances-

                        (1). Every person by whose act, default, or sufferance a nuisance arises or continues, whether that person is or is not the owner or occupier of the premises in respect of which the nuisance exists, commits an offence against this Act.

                        (2). Whenever, after any conviction of any offence under this section, the person convicted can lawfully abate the nuisance and fails or neglects, or continues to fail or neglect, to do so, he shall be deemed to have committed a further offence and shall be liable therefor under subsection (1) of this section.

33. Proceedings in respect of nuisances-

                        (1). All proceedings under this Act in respect of nuisances shall be heard and determined by a [District Court] presided over by a [District Court Judge] alone.

                        (2). The Court, if satisfied that a nuisance exists on the premises, or that, though abated, it is likely to recur, may by order-

                        (a) Require the owner and the occupier to abate the nuisance effectively:

                        (b) Prohibit the recurrence of the nuisance:

                        (c) Both require the abatement and prohibit the recurrence of the nuisance:

                        (d) Specify the works to be done in order to abate the nuisance or prevent its recurrence, and the time within which they shall be done.

                        (3). If the Court is of opinion that by reason of the nuisance any dwelling or other building is unfit for human occupation, it may, by the same or any subsequent order, prohibit the use thereof for that purpose until the nuisance has been effectively abated to its satisfaction, or until provision has been made to its satisfaction to prevent the recurrence of the nuisance.

                        (4). Any order made under subsection (3) of this section may be rescinded by the Court when it is satisfied that the nuisance has been effectively abated, or, as the case may be, that due provision has been made to prevent its recurrence; but until the order is rescinded it shall not be lawful to let or occupy the house or building to which the order relates.

                        (5). Every person commits an offence against this Act who makes default in duly complying with any order made under the foregoing provisions of this section.

                        (6). If the default consists of not doing the works necessary in order to abate the nuisance effectively, or to prevent its recurrence, the local authority, or the Medical Officer of Health on behalf of the local authority, shall cause the works to be done at the expense in all things of the owner and the occupier, who shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of the works.

                         (8). All expenses incurred by or on behalf of the local authority under this section, together with reasonable costs in respect of the services of the local authority, shall be recoverable from the owner or the occupier of the premises in respect of which they are incurred as a debt due to the local authority, and until paid they shall by virtue of this Act be deemed to be a charge on the land on which the premises are situated.

                         (10). In any proceedings under this section the [District Court Judge] may himself examine the premises or authorise any other person to do so, and may direct the owner and the occupier of any other premises to be summoned in respect of the nuisance, and join them as parties to the proceedings.