Yes they went up. Quite a bit according to this article in the Marlborough Express.
So I suppose the Chairman of the New Zealand Winegrowers had good reason to wonder what was going on.
Now I don't know a lot about what makes a Council tick financially. But I do know that in order to properly monitor the rules and regulations of a District plan it will cost a bit of money.
So I suppose you would ask yourself just what are they monitoring and how are the Council maintaining compliance and who are breaking the rules?
Well good questions and good news. Because for a little taste of the evil doings that are going on around the District, the MDC released excerpts from "Environment Action 2008" last year.
Let's have a look....
Prosecution action:
Highfield Terrace Downs Limited for Unauthorised works in a wetland.
Infringement Notices:
Wither Hills Vineyards Marlborough Limited for Discharge of winery wastewater
Foxes Island Wines Limited for Discharge of grapes and wash water to the stormwater system which enters the Co-op Drain.
Spy Valley Wines for Discharge of winery wastewater to land.
Gareth Lynn for Discharge of RDV to wastewater system which enters the Co-op Drain.
Indevin Limited for Discharge of RDV to wastewater system which enters the Co-op Drain.
Robyn Tiller for Discharge to air from burning plastic and treated wood.
Michael Tiller for Discharge to air from burning plastic and treated wood.
Isabel Estate Limited for Discharge to air from burning plastic and treated wood.
Ashmore Vineyards Limited for Discharge of smoke from burning green vegetation.
Lynford Vineyards Limited for Unauthorised filling of a waterway.
Bronwyn Grant for Discharge of smoke from burning plastic vine guards.
Weta Estate Limited for Discharge of smoke to air by burning green vegetation.
Boundary Bay Vineyards Limited for Removal of trees from floodway.
Vines Development Company for Discharge of stormwater from earthworks without sediment traps.
McKean Estates Limited for Disturbing bed of a river.
McKean Estates Limited for Diverting water.
McKean Estates Limited for Tree removal in a riverbed.
McKean Estates Limited for Discharge of sediment from earthworks without sediment traps.
Matakana Estate for Discharge of smoke to air from burning green vegetation.
Weta Estates Limited for Discharge of smoke to air from burning green vegetation.
Saint Claire Estate Wines Limited for Discharge of smoke to air from burning treated timber and plastic.
Odyssey Vineyards Limited for Discharge of smoke to air from burning treated timber and plastic.
Delegats Wine Estate for Discharge of smoke from burning green vegetation.
Abatement Notices:
Alistair Shave for The take and use of water to irrigate a vineyard
Indevin Limited for Discharge of contaminates to a waterway, via the stormwater system.
Wither Hills Vineyards Limited for Discharge of winery wastewater to land in excess of 10mm/day.
Indevin Limited for Discharge of winery wastewater to a waterway via the Council stormwater system.
Indevin Limited for Dumping of grape marc to land.
Richard Campbell for Dumping of grape marc to land
Wairau River Wines Limited for Discharge of winery wastewater to land in excess of 10 mm/day
Anthony Moore for Discharge of grape marc to land
Boundary Bay Vineyards for Removal of trees in floodway
Weta Estates Limited for Burning of unauthorised materials.
Matakana Estate Limited for Unauthorised excavation and vegetation removal in a floodway
Matakana Estate Limited for Burning of unauthorised materials.
M & M Wairau Investments Limited for Taking of water for irrigation of vineyard.
Daniel Watson for Taking of water for irrigation of vineyard
Weta Estates Limited for Taking of water for irrigation of vineyard
Vines Development Company Limited for Taking of water for irrigation of vineyard.
McKean Estate Marlborough Limited for Taking water.
So I suppose the cost of monitoring and enforcing compliance has to cover the efforts of chasing the offenders mentioned above?
So I agree with the New Zealand Winegrowers. The fees have gone up a lot.
But I can sort of see why...
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Fourth night in a row for fans.
Fourth times the charm?
Not as many running last night. Quite a bit of on again, off again noise.
No wine can taste that good.
Not as many running last night. Quite a bit of on again, off again noise.
No wine can taste that good.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
3rd night in a row. Whew!
Feeling really good now.
3 nights in a row with fans operating. A good nights sleep is only a hazy semi-hallucinatory memory.
But I am only one person. Around the district there are hundreds like me. Semi awake, but driving on the roads anyway.
Great.
3 nights in a row with fans operating. A good nights sleep is only a hazy semi-hallucinatory memory.
But I am only one person. Around the district there are hundreds like me. Semi awake, but driving on the roads anyway.
Great.
Frost Fan debate: The age of reason?
I like the idea of the debate page in the Marlborough Express.
So I suppose it would have only been a matter of time before frost fans featured.
Young Malcolm took the 'reason' slant. And why not? It's kind of obvious when you boil the issue down. Frost fan operators should be just as responsible for producing a reasonable of noise as defined in the RMA as any other industry. Why should they be special? Perhaps the Chairman of the New Zealand Winegrowers has a reason? Let's take a look....
There is apparently a significant cost in running a frost machine. Frankly a few hundreds of dollars of diesel is pittance beside the potential earnings of the crop, so let's not mince words here. An operator will ALWAYS err on the side of caution when deciding whether or not to operate his fans. Some operators won't even take as much care as young Stuart. I mean why bother to wake up at 3am when you can simply tell your vineyard manager to turn them on at the first sniff of cool weather and turn them off at sunrise. Small price to pay (especially when you live in another part of the country).
Clearly every time he ran his machines he was faced with no other alternative. This is WAR! (have you noticed how the effort is described as frost fighting? This is genuinely how some growers approach the business of frost protection, no matter what technique is used. And as we know, in war, not everyone's following the Geneva convention (I mean history is written by winners isn't it?)).
I see that "landowners have a responsibility to ensure that the adverse effects of their viticultural practices are mitigated as far as practically possible" So there are adverse effects of viticultural practices, but if you've chosen to grow your crop in an unsuitable area, never fear, you only have to make an effort to mitigate adverse effects, not actually mitigate them.
All the hot air over national standards and complicated rules hides the fact that the New Zealand Winegrowers have not made any practical attempt to limit noise pollution. This includes their code of practice which doesn't even pretend to be enforceable. What Stuart is really saying is let's forget about this petty local squabbling and elevate the issue to a national level so that no affected individual will be inclined to participate and we can either write our own rules or simply drag the process out for longer.
Other Councils are less combative? How much less combative can they get. For crying out loud, they don't even monitor the noise, just the complaints!!
So I suppose it would have only been a matter of time before frost fans featured.
Young Malcolm took the 'reason' slant. And why not? It's kind of obvious when you boil the issue down. Frost fan operators should be just as responsible for producing a reasonable of noise as defined in the RMA as any other industry. Why should they be special? Perhaps the Chairman of the New Zealand Winegrowers has a reason? Let's take a look....
There is apparently a significant cost in running a frost machine. Frankly a few hundreds of dollars of diesel is pittance beside the potential earnings of the crop, so let's not mince words here. An operator will ALWAYS err on the side of caution when deciding whether or not to operate his fans. Some operators won't even take as much care as young Stuart. I mean why bother to wake up at 3am when you can simply tell your vineyard manager to turn them on at the first sniff of cool weather and turn them off at sunrise. Small price to pay (especially when you live in another part of the country).
Clearly every time he ran his machines he was faced with no other alternative. This is WAR! (have you noticed how the effort is described as frost fighting? This is genuinely how some growers approach the business of frost protection, no matter what technique is used. And as we know, in war, not everyone's following the Geneva convention (I mean history is written by winners isn't it?)).
I see that "landowners have a responsibility to ensure that the adverse effects of their viticultural practices are mitigated as far as practically possible" So there are adverse effects of viticultural practices, but if you've chosen to grow your crop in an unsuitable area, never fear, you only have to make an effort to mitigate adverse effects, not actually mitigate them.
All the hot air over national standards and complicated rules hides the fact that the New Zealand Winegrowers have not made any practical attempt to limit noise pollution. This includes their code of practice which doesn't even pretend to be enforceable. What Stuart is really saying is let's forget about this petty local squabbling and elevate the issue to a national level so that no affected individual will be inclined to participate and we can either write our own rules or simply drag the process out for longer.
Other Councils are less combative? How much less combative can they get. For crying out loud, they don't even monitor the noise, just the complaints!!
Friday, 9 April 2010
2nd night of fans. You've got to love it.
So, second night of bing kept awake by fan noise. Lets hope I'm not the person operating the truck on the road that goes past you. Let's hope I'm not the person dispensing your medicines. Lets hope I'm not putting a filling in your child's mouth. Lets hope I'm not flying an airplane. Let's hope I'm not your accountant. Let's hope I'm not your lawyer. Lets hope I'm not your doctor. Let's hope I'm not trying to fix the XT network. Let's hope I'm not a fireman. Let's hope I'm not a police officer. Let's hope I'm not driving your kids to school.
Lets hope I'm not one of the myriad of people who need a good nights sleep to do their job well.
Because that's the second night in a row.
Lets hope I'm not one of the myriad of people who need a good nights sleep to do their job well.
Because that's the second night in a row.
Frost Fan Hearing Tidbits
A recent article in the Marlborough Sun newspaper, has shone a bit of light on some interesting aspects from the recent frost fan plan change hearing.
Actually there are some curious observations.
Complaints have increased as the number of fans has increased (that kind of makes sense).
Why Murray Hunt would be telling the world that the blades on the Defender frost fans were coming apart is a little beyond me, but he's a lawyer, so I presume that it's pretty much public knowledge (or at least Murray thought it was).
Could the Council end up ignoring cumulative effects in the plan change? Frankly that would be ludicrous. To pretend that the noise problem from frost fans is only due to single fans flies in the face of reason.
Is that right? A vineyard owner and an affected resident are both annoyed that a noise report has dodgy data in it? That would be worth seeing (still waiting for those documents).
And of course Councillor Hope appearing for the NZ Winegrowers. A Councillor representing a company with a vested interest in the outcome of the hearing appearing before the committee who are deciding on a district plan. I suppose this would mean he will need to declare a conflict of interest if the plan change has to be voted on.
Actually there are some curious observations.
Complaints have increased as the number of fans has increased (that kind of makes sense).
Why Murray Hunt would be telling the world that the blades on the Defender frost fans were coming apart is a little beyond me, but he's a lawyer, so I presume that it's pretty much public knowledge (or at least Murray thought it was).
Could the Council end up ignoring cumulative effects in the plan change? Frankly that would be ludicrous. To pretend that the noise problem from frost fans is only due to single fans flies in the face of reason.
Is that right? A vineyard owner and an affected resident are both annoyed that a noise report has dodgy data in it? That would be worth seeing (still waiting for those documents).
And of course Councillor Hope appearing for the NZ Winegrowers. A Councillor representing a company with a vested interest in the outcome of the hearing appearing before the committee who are deciding on a district plan. I suppose this would mean he will need to declare a conflict of interest if the plan change has to be voted on.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Fans have a bit of a crack
No, not an actual crack. Just trying to get a way of saying that there were a few fans running last night (not that I can see a frost).
You've got to think that some operators must feel that if they have a fan, they should run it. Irrespective of whether there is a serious risk of frost or not. Plonkers.
You've got to think that some operators must feel that if they have a fan, they should run it. Irrespective of whether there is a serious risk of frost or not. Plonkers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)