Annoy your neighbors and move on

Is it some sort of sport?

1. Set up a vineyard complete with frost fans just outside your neighbors houses.
2. Don't actually live on the property (who would want to with all that noise).
3. When you get one bad year, sell up and move on.

If readers want to peruse the list of vineyards for sale in Marlborough, I can recommend a quick trip to the Bayleys web site will give them a pretty accurate impression of the state of the wine industry in Marlborough.

If I was a betting man, and from looking at the properties for sale, I would presume to think that investors who thought "I'll but in 20 acres of grapes and rake in the profits" have been sadly let down.

The big players who used to buy of the little boys have now got their own vineyards producing, so why would they be buying grapes off the small fry who want a larger slice of the almighty grape dollar. So they simply give their contracts the flick and leave them twisting in the wind and forced to sell at a low rate on the spot market or to let the crop fall to the ground.

So take a good look at the Bayleys site and even check out the two properties here and here(pretty pictures attached).

Both these properties do not have the owners living on them and both have installed multiple frost fans ridiculously close to their neighbors.

Funnily enough both these sets of neighbors are mightily annoyed and are actively engaged in discussions with the Marlborough District Council whose Current rules allowed the installations.

Products of greed, arrogance and the poor planning that resulted in a crop being planted in a frost prone location without appropriate protection.

I almost feel sorry for them.

Almost.

It's time to have your say

The proposed changes to the Wairau Awatere District plan are now able to be commented on.

This is your opportunity to tell the Marlborough District Council what's right and what's wrong about the proposed changes and to make suggestions yourself if you don't think everything's been included.

This is king of a big deal since if you have an opinion on the noise generated by frost fans then now is the time for you to speak up.

You can get hold of a primer on the changes from here (beware 552kB). Just be aware that this is not the sum total of information on frost fans and the noise they generate. Your opinion and thoughts are important.

The submission form for putting forward your case can be found here. This is one of those silly electronic forms that people who think they are clever make up. If you want, just print it out, write on it and attach your comments to separate sheets.

You may rest assured that the NZ Winegrowers Chairman Stuart Smith has already had talks with the Council and indicated that they will be opposing the changes. So it's not enough to simply think that the proposed changes are good and then leave the Council to it. The need to hear from you that you support the changes (if you do) or that you may think that the changes don't go far enough.

Remember that the District plan need to be a robust document to allow the implementation of both the Resource Management Act and the Health Act for the community so that they are protected. The plan cannot be in contradiction with the Acts. If you think that being kept awake at night constitutes a nuisance, then the Council should make sure that this is reflected in the District Plan (nuisance is a specific term in the Health Act). Likewise if you believe that the volume of noise is unreasonable then the Council should make sure that this is reflected in the District Plan (The Resource Management Act states there is a duty on land owners to avoid unreasonable noise).

The final date for submission (must be received by the council) is the 23rd of October.

There is plenty of information on the form to assist in knowing the sort of thing to write, but feel free to place a comment on the blog if I can help.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Further to the previous post on the unusual funding of projects by Council, the attached letter to the editor also appeared earlier in the month in the Marlborough Express;

The good news is that the local knowledge gained by residents of Marlborough over many years of living on the land has some fantastic suggestions for the type of wood that would be suitable for vineyard posts.

The bad news is that the vineyards cut down the trees and burned them to make room for more grapes.

The good news is that the rate payers pockets are deep enough to fund an initiative to discover something we already know for an industry who's involvement is most notable for the fact that they have destroyed the evidence.

Don't fence me in

Further to the previous post (yes, that is a deliberate pun) on the request to the Marlborough District Council for funding to support research into the growth of eucalyptus for fence posts, the attached letter appeared(click on it to enlarge) in the Marlborough Express on the 10th of September and it raised some pertinent questions.

Questions along the lines of;

If the wine industry isn't supporting the effort why should the ratepayers of Marlborough?

If this is the development of a commercial product (it's project spokesman / developer is the owner of at least two timber companies), is the Council right to fund it?

Have the Councillors involved in the grape industry recused themselves from the debate?

All good questions. The MDC declined to comment. Luckily a rate payer thought it was a good idea to comment.

The MDC shows intestinal fortitude

In the Marlborough express today is a report of the good folks from Mount Riley Vineyards having a bit of a squeal about being found in breach of the noise rules for frost fans.

It would appear that not only is it ridiculously difficult to get any testing done on a frost fan, but when it is carried out and doesn't go the way the winery wants, they want to carry on with business as usual anyway.

Per the suggestion from an earlier commentator, here's some info from Mount Riley Vineyards website.

They own seven vineyards. The offending vineyard in this case appears to be the Waihopai Vineyard. There is a picture of it on their website, but the frost fans do not feature. Pity, since any publicity is good publicity right?

The winery is owned by John and Lyn Buchanan and their daughter Amy. Amy's husband (Matt Murphy is the wine-maker). Possibly one of the reasons that they are keen to explore legal proceedings is that Amy is also a solicitor. Very handy when faced with unreasonable neighbors that seem to go on and on about trifling things like being kept awake at night.

It can be assumed that the quote from their website "At Mt Riley we believe in winemaking by minimal intervention" should be taken in context that minimal intervention can take the form of multiple twirling blades of metal operating throughout the night and keeping our neighbours awake.

If you want to find out more about their wines you should go to this page.

And don't miss an opportunity to read their vintage reports here. True to form for winegrowers, it would appear that every year is special.

Thank you Mount Riley for your compassion in dealing with this matter in a responsible manner. In fact could this be the industry/individual discussions alluded to in the Council meeting on the 24th of August? Or could it be the actions of persons that were described by Councillor Maher at the same meeting?

Irrespective, there is kudos to be handed out to the Marlborough District Council for recognising the situation for what it is. Simply a case of a landowner breaching the rules. Are they special?

The real pity of the entire episode is that even if Mount Riley did the right thing and set their fans to a responsible noise level they would still breach the noise level set by the World Health Organisation for healthy living.

Who's right? Defender Advertising or Defender Testing data?

Further to the information in the Defender testing document, I note that there is an inconsistency in the technical data supplied.

In the University of Canterbury document the nominal engine speed is given as approximately 2000rpm and the fan speed as approximately 360rpm.

In the Defender/FMR advertising the gear drives that are reported for the upper and lower gears are UD105 and W85 respectively.

So here's the deal. The ratios specified for the gears on the Amarillo web page are 1.64:1 for the UD105 and 2.25:1 for the W85.

And so in theory 2000/(1.64x2.25) should equal 360 if both the UoC and FMR Advertising were talking about the same product.

But it doesn't.

FMR are either still peddling the same specifications for the Amarillo in the Defender advertising or the University of Canterbury are having problems with an equation that a 9 year old could get right. I'm picking that the FMR advertising bureau have covered themselves in glory once again.

This wouldn't be too bad, but as part of checking compliance of these machines, one of the methods is to measure the speed of the engine with a tachometer and to calculate the fan speed from the supplied gear ratios. It's not going to be a pretty sight if the calculation for a Defender fan shows it to be turning at 542rpm. Not pretty at all.

But wait!!

It get's more interesting.

On the same web page that provides the gear ratios, is a small note near the bottom that talks about the electric powered wind machines. A UD105E, of which there is a variant that is exported for use on 50 Hz systems, has a ratio of 2.47:1.

And guess what?

2000/(2.47x2.25) equals 360. Which would be correct according to the UoC figures. So I'm going to presume that in spite of what the Defender advertising says, the University of Canterbury figures are correct and that the model of upper gear used in the Defender is the export model UD105E.

Now this might all seem like nit picking at the expense of a company that is more interested in a glossy brochure than the accuracy of the figures in it, but there is a slightly more worrying side.

The Amarillo gear company are justifiably proud of their sturdy gears. So much so that they specify their mechanical rating for both the UD105 and the W85. And both of these units are used in the Amarillo frost fan which is rated at 125HP at the fan.

But the electric powered fans are a different kettle of fish. They are rated at either 100, 75 or 50hp at the fan. And as a result the mechanical rating of the gears can afford to be less.

So what would happen to a gear that is rated for a light load on a frost fan designed to run electrically when it is used in a diesel powered fan which runs at a heavier load? What is the subsequent load when the thrust of the fan is increased when a larger fan is put on the tower?

I'm sure all these trifling mechanical matters have been carefully considered by the manufacturer and that they have sought the advice of the parts suppliers in making sure that the device is safe for use. I mean, that would be the responsible thing wouldn't it?

Fans operate for second night in a row

The fans were operating again lats night / this morning. More interestingly, there was a fair breeze blowing from about 1am, so these would have been operating in conditions that were outside those considered safe by manufacturers and the Department of Labour. Of course, most fans are too primitive to know if the wind was blowing and one day in a good sou-wester, there will be widespread carnage as fans disintegrate.

First fan operation of Spring.

Early morning of the 20th of September was the first confirmed operation of frost fans in Marlborough for the spring season.

Good times are here again.

Good news. Some testing data on the Defender fan has arrived

Well we finally have some information from the boffins at University of Canterbury. Specifically a K. Shaw and Dr John Pearse.

The testing report can be downloaded from here.

The first thing I would like to say is that is appears to be a quieter machine than the Amarillo. This would not be difficult of course, but credit where it is due, any improvement is not to be sneezed at.

The second thing of note is that it appears that FMR has been publishing incorrect data on the machine in its advertising. In the latest brochure (here (~500kB)) they state that "At full operating rpm the new Defender fan is producing less than 50dba(L10) at 300mt". I could be nit picky and poke the borax at the advertising wienie's understanding of basic physical measurements (that should be 50dBA (L10) and 300m (there is no 't' in the metres abbreviation, clowns)). However, an astute reader will note that I would seldom stoop to such a thing. Instead I will quietly point out that no test shows that the Defender ever produced less than 50dBA (L10) at 300m. In fact the testing states that the only test carried out at 300m produced 52.0dBA (L10). Almost twice as much as claimed. (on the basis that a 3dB increase is a doubling of noise energy).

There are several other tests at various distances, (100m and 200m) but only one at 300m.

The last point and the most interesting is that the claim of "less than 50dba(L10) at 300mt" was most likely derived from a predicted value for noise from the fan. Not measured.

More interesting still was the method of prediction. You see the 300m test wasn't done in frosty, inversion layer conditions. Instead they were done in 11 degrees centigrade and a cross-wind. There is a prediction method that allows for compensating for differing climatic conditions when measuring noise. This is the CONCAWE method (1MB) (there are infact several different methods).

Sadly this method does not allow for the presence of an inversion layer with it's associated noise refraction properties and worst of all it is not designed for the noise from frost fans. Instead it is designed to be applied to petrochemical installations. Now I would be happy to say that the prediction methods for frost fan noise using the CONCAWE method were valid, but that has never been demonstrated, and quite frankly when the testing presumes to predict that noise from a frost fan will be quieter when an inversion is in place on a calm frosty night, I have my doubts.

By the way, what frequency ranges were being considered in the noise report? I couldn't see any stated, yet it appears to be a big deal when doing the CONCAWE calculations. I suppose the frequencies most likely to be associated with a frost fan?

I'm sorry Dr Pearse, some testing to validate the CONCAWE model against the noise characteristics of a frost fan in frost conditions would be required. Otherwise any predicted values are assumptions, not conclusions.

We come in peace. Give me your water.

When they couldn't get it legitimately, they just took it.

This article in stuff.co.nz is the sort of activity that simply puts a bad face on the wine industry in general and some of the rat bag, out of town financiers that are infesting Marlborough and other parts of New Zealand (Hello Waiata vineyard in Hurunui).

A classic case of absentee owners (hello Auckland) trying to invest into the 'glamour industry' that wine is being marketed as. High rolling, great investment, know all the right people, you know the score.

Well let's throw a little bit of poor planning and bad management into the mix.

Que the failure to secure sufficient water for the vineyard.

"Never mind the water, lets plant the vines!"

"Oh, hang on, you mean they need water??!?"

"Don't worry about getting permission, just take the water. It's easier to pay the fine than to let our poor planning cause loss of revenue."

Nice. Really nice.

So. The wine industry. Turning wannabe viticulturist investors into law breakers who committed an environmental incident labelled as "reckless, irresponsible and deliberate".

I know this story is not about frost fans, but the mind set is just the same. Loot and pillage.

What they said in the Council Meeting on the 24th of August

Although it has already been reported that there was universal support for the proposed changes to the frost fan rules in the recent Council meeting, please find a selection of quotations from that meeting here;

Councillor Bowers;
“I’m pleased that they’re called frost fans now, not wind machines, because in actual fact they’re being used for a lot of variety of things when there’s no frost.”

Pere Hawes;
“The existing wind machines (or frost fans as we’re now calling them) are covered by existing use rights, that is, if they comply with the existing permitted activity standard, they can continue to operate in accordance with that permitted activity standard.”

Councillor Bunting;
“Councillors, you will be aware that this is an attempt to put council on the front foot with this one, because it’s made it very difficult for Council staff members to achieve compliance, and this way any new frost fans will have to prove that they comply, rather than as it currently stands whereby members of public need to prove they don’t comply, which is a difficult, difficult thing for people to do."

Councillor Taylor;
"That’s a concern that I’ve got one on the graph here that shows nearly a thousand already in place, and that is a concern regarding the existing ones which are of course the problem”

Councillor Jerram;
“As you will note, I am a rural person and I am traditionally in favour of… ahhh I’m sympathetic to rural causes, but I support this motion on the grounds that this is not traditional rural noise, it is new rural noise. It’s something that we haven’t seen before. It’s not headers at night or weaned calves, or whatever noises that have always been accepted in this country, it’s something quite new, and it’s significantly worse than anything we’ve seen before.”
"Where these are used, it’s a need to grow grapes in areas which are either marginally environmentally correct, or right outside their natural environment. So I think it’s not reasonable to then, say to anyone who lives in the area, “oh and you’ve go to put up with this noise as well, we’ve moved into your area to grow a crop for which we have to significantly alter the environment”. So I’m supporting it on those grounds. Really Madam chair I think we should have done this a long time ago, and also for gas guns”.

Councillor Bunting;
“The industry has taken on board concerns and are starting to make moves to discuss it with the affected parties, discuss their individual issues, because quite a lot of them are quite subjective issues due to the climatic conditions that the situation of the buildings nearby to hills or with echo effect on hills and also cumulative effect of a number of machines. So industry did indicate at our last meeting that they were interested in discussing with individuals and I believe that some of those discussions have started.”

Councillor Bunting;
“Can you say why we’ve referred to the 100m?”
Pere Hawes;
"The 100 metres has been removed really on the basis that it didn’t relate to any noise management provisions at all. In fact the genesis of that standard was very unclear.”

Councillor Maher;
“It’s great that we have actually got to this stage where we are able to deal with some of the rogues that there have been, as most of these machines have not affected people. Mostly good will has been used, and common sense has been used. Unfortunately it hasn’t in some cases and some of those people that have been aware of the usual rural rules have tried to hide behind the right to farm and the fact that this is a farming environment. What they’ve got to learn (and some of these people are not locals) is that there are standards that have been, over a long time, have been built up, and they’ve been built up on reasonableness and consideration for others and whatever industry you’re in, if you move away from those, Council will be required to legislate as in this particular case. And I as a rural person find it a real pity that this good will is actually being milked and probably abused by people without blatant consideration for others and I think that’s a great pity that Councillors have to go through this process and those few people have caused this and they’ve cause considerable hardship to a number of individuals too and it’s a great pity that we aren’t able to do something retrospectively but I think with the new regulations and once we do get our forensic stuff done, that we can actually quantify and qualify these things more accurately than we’ve been able to do in the past. So overall I think this is unfortunate but it will have a positive effect on people living in the rural environment.”
“I’ve been rural environment for a long time myself, but these things ,when they start springing up near me, I actually start to question, and actually, aren’t tolerances actually stretched when it comes to these machines being installed incorrectly and abusing the good will that there has been.”
Councillor Bunting;
“Thank you, the deputy chair, I certainly would echo your sentiments and that has been motivation for driving this item along. As you know it has been driven fairly rapidly, and I think the Industry does have a belief now that they do need to discuss with the affected people, the most affected people, what their concerns are and perhaps even experience it themselves for a little while.”

There's a new Boss in town. Frost Boss

Yes indeedy, a couple of the new C49 four bladed Frost Boss fans have apparently touched down in the Waihopai valley.

To my knowledge this would be the first sighting in the wild and how about the timing? A few nights of frost coming up (although it may be a bit early for most vines).

Some will have noticed only a couple of fans running last night.

So will these be noticeably quieter? They certainly look the part. Time will tell if they sound the part.

Is it going to be frosty?

You betcha!

See the latest on the weather here at metvuw.com

It's a mixed up confusing world.

I really don't know what to think about this particular issue, so please accept that I have no opinion and am really only interested in providing information.

My attention was grabbed by the article in stuff.co.nz on the Marlborough District Council indicating funding being given to an organisation called the Dryland Forestry Initiative to investigate the use of eucalypts as posts in vineyards in preference to treated timber (seems like a great opportunity to decrie the vineyards poisoning of the ground (who can forget the arsenic in the ground water at Rarangi?)).

So well done on the part of the DFI. Right?

Even better, a quote in the article has the spokesperson for DFI reporting that he had approached the wine industry several times for funding, but was told that they were "in the business of growing grapes not trees". Golly those rat bag wine industry types. Right?

But a quick look at the DFI web site shows several wine industry types involved;

Colin Ross of Seresin Wines

Andrew (or) Ngaire Lawson (viticulturist)

And an interest from Organic Winegrowers New Zealand.

So it does kind of look like there is an interest and support from the wine industry. So it seems like a strange comment from Paul Millen (the project manager for DFI).

So, cue a bit of quick Googling;

The story does not appear to be entirely accurate. While it reports that "Last year the Marlborough District Council agreed to fund the project for three years with $10,000 per year, conditional on a review being carried out at the end of the first year.", what it fails to mention is that waaay back in 2005 the Marlborough District Council approved funding of $10,000 per year to support a Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF) research proposal into the potential use of eucalyptus timber for vineyard posts.

Does that sound familiar? It should do it was from the same Paul Millen. Now I don't want to appear to detract from Paul's outstanding efforts in investigations into forestry and wood use. It is to be commended. This is of course driven (I assume) from his consultancy firm Millen associates. (Also known for their work in the Kaikora area on consulting in biodiversity areas for the Council down that way).

It would also complement his work with the other companies he is a director of (Vineyard Timbers Limited and Marlborough Timber Limited).

So in total it would appear to be receiving funding from the Marlborough District Council to the tune of $10,000 per year from 2005/06? I'm not entirely sure that is the case however, since it would appear from the meeting of the Community and Financial Planning Committee on 12 June 2008 that MAF actually declined the project support from the Sustainable Farming Fund on the grounds that they were not perceived as "Value for money".

I would have thought that was obvious as they are trying to provide a more sustainable means of providing fence posts. Not a cheaper way.

So, what I think has occurred is that no money has changed hands yet, but that now the Council is considering handing out rate payers dollars to fund research into solving the problem created by the vineyards which they refuse to acknowledge. Now it sounds familiar.

But wait, there has to be a twist. And sure enough there is.

Enter stage left the;

Executive Officer of the Marlborough Research Centre Trust;

Member of the Marlborough Wine Research Centre Board,

Wine Marlborough Executive Officer,

Environmental Policy Committee Member,

Marlborough District Councillor,

Former Mayor

Gerald Hope.

Never a man to let an opportunity pass by, he is also the Financial Officer for Drylands Forrest Initiative (DFI).

I would say if there was a man that could organise funding from either the Marlborough District Council (he sits on both the Council proper and the Environment Committee) or the Wine industry, he would be the man.

I would assume that funding for research into Eucalyptus tree growing is assured Paul. So long as Councillor Hope is recusing himself from a multitude of meeting agenda items.