Thought I would start this under a different topic so we can keep this alive. Just so you all know, the proposed plan had mining pretty much at controlled or discretionary status, and then along comes forest and bird folks whoi wanted to prohibit mining within the water margins, the end result is that mining within the bed of Lake or Rivers has become a non-complying activity, so any proposed new claims, and this may affect recent claims that did not exist prior to the proposed plan being advertised, now have an up hill battle to gain consent, and depending on the scale of the proposed activity may be subject to public notification of the proposed activity.
Now we may have a chance of getting an appeal heard with respect to the new rules if we can piggy back in on an existing applicants appeal, so if this turns out to be the case, how many folks would be prepared to help out in any way, financial, or giving evidence. My claim has existing use rights under the old rules so I’m not really affected, but I see this as an important issue and will help support any appeal, but i wont do this on my own, so if your interested in supporting an appeal if we can still manage to get one lodged, then reply here or message me.
I would personally be a little wary of the lay-mans interpretation of existing use rights. As I posted earlier,
The RMA states:
Existing use rights for land use - s10 of the RMA
Section 10(1) of the RMA addresses existing use rights for land use. Under this section, land may be used in a manner that contravenes a rule in a district plan or proposed district plan if both:
the use was lawfully established before the rule became operative or the proposed plan was notified
the effects of the use are the same or similar in character, intensity and scale.
Section 10 of the RMA does not apply to activities that have been discontinued for a continuous period of more than 12 months after the new rule became operative or the proposed plan was notified.
the effects of the activity are the same or similar in character, intensity and scale
the person carrying on the activity applies for a resource consent within six months of the rule in the plan becoming operative.
Where an application for resource consent has been lodged, the activity can continue until such time as a final decision on it is made.
Take a close look at the paragraph that features the word ‘six months’…this means you can operate for up to six months after the decision as been adopted under the same provisions and then you need to either cease or obtain resource consent.
so the council in effect is going to have apply for consent for the fossicking areas as these will also become a problem under table 8. I will approach them and perhaps they can appeal their own planning hearings decision.
and what about taking shingle out of the river for roading???
forest and bird have influenced the status quo unneccesarily! . what are they actually worried about ? seems like they think noone is allowed to have any fun searching for a nugget. turbidity of water is unaffected after a small distance downstream . how is a forest or a bird affected! seems to me they should focus on reducing and eradicating pests like wasps rats and possums ,for the forest! there are many worse activites that council turns a blind eye to and even indulges in !
It is all about control and the gradual erosion of individual rights. Picking on minority groups means that few complain and other groups do not recognize that they WILL be next and consequently they either do not support you or they support the actions against you. It needs a ‘miners union’ to be formed by subscription so that funds are available to get media exposure to promote panning and small scale dredging as a harmless hobby/occupation with minimal/no environmental impact.
People need to see via the media that gold fossicking has NO imoact compared with even the most minor flood. I wonder if gold dredging actually ENHANCES the healthy development of the fish in the river by disturbing insects upon which the trout further downstream can feed on…I used to have many eels hovering around feeding when I was dredging all those years ago.
Then again I guess some arsehole will see that as negative but it does need media coverage to show up gold fossicking as positive, fun, a family activity, healthy, not harmful to the environment and it needs to be shown the even small freshes in the river have ten thousand times more effect.
As I said it’s all about control. If the council want to ruin the landscape then they smartly do it…a f***in property developer or Rich scum sucker can easily get a consent to DESTROY ten acres of beautiful pristine native tussock land to build because the council crawls up the rectal orifices of those with money. They ruin the land forever but gold panners and hobby dredges do not ruin it at all.
Bastards!
Thanks LL, bang on as usual, yes we do need to organise our selves. We have to realise that the forest and bird folks are going to influence every district plan that is under review, and its not hard to imagigine that central Otago could be next. We all need to unite and fight as one and a miner federation or similar would be a good start, so come on every body lets stop dreaming on like has been done in the past with respect to a shared claim, lets get organised.
"First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew…
…Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
A quote by Martin Niemoeller
bang on goldsborough, and in 10 years time, the hobbyist miners will wander why they have no rights to go mine anywhere at all, with goldenboy singing ballads about the old days when he could go out and find some gold.
Hi GoldenEel and all,
I’m not living in or close to Queenstown, so can’t go in and visit council during business hours. I emailed one of their planners and she came back with this, which echoes what Mangrove suggested we do:
"Hello
General information on the appeals process can be found via the following links:
Please find below a link to the Commissioners Decision Report for the Rural Chapter, which provides details of Rule 21.11.1.2:
Here is a link to the submissions, where you area able to look up the details of each submitter:
http://submissions.qldc.govt.nz/Consult24Prod/Consult24Ols/PublicSubmissionSearch.aspx
If you were not an original submitter then you will need to join up with another submitter or join as a s274 party. I suggest you seek legal advice on the matter "
So the next step forward is to find out who has submitted against this proposal , and piggy back on their submission.
I have spent around an hour trying to find who (if anyone) has submitted against it, but came up with nothing. Has anyone else found a submitter who opposed it?
I will ring council on Tuesday and see if they can provide me specific names for who opposed this. I will report back.
Cheers all.
I doubt they will give you names. they will hide behind the privacy act on that one.
I have found the names of the submitters already, and have tried contact. Not hard to find on the QLDC webbsite if you think like a planner, but impossible to find if you thinkthe QLDC is going to make it easy for you to track down public information.
To find you have to read through the Council Hearings report on section 21, once there on pages 126 to 128 from memory you will to hearing minutes relating to the hearing. at the bottom of the page you will see the submitters number, but without an identifier as to who they are. You can then search the submission by putting the number in the search window.
Bottom line is Straterra were a submitter and NZ tungsten mining. Straterra’s phones are now disconnected and I wouldnt be surprised if their office in wellington is now closed, my paranoid mind tells me that it was an interest group working on behalf of someone else. I have contacted the solicitor for the Tungsten group and hopefully will hear back today.
Daniel, I presume your article above is with respect to California, is that correct?
I have never read through or accessed these submissions before and at the moment am tied down with a lot of things so do not want to spend time reading how and how not to, what and what not etc BUT if some one wants to send me the submisison papers relating to it and simply gives me the address to send it then I will put in a very forceful submission which will be well considered and to which no arguement to negate my submission can bemade. I do not have time to access websites and do not have a printer to print papers off but I am mor ethan happy to spend a few hours preparing a very professional submission.
The reason that I am prepared to do this is that I am for the wee guy - and loathe arsehole bastards who think they can run the country for their wealthy mates who want to ruin this land with f***ing huge lifestyle blocks and commercial enterprises…they all piss in each others pockets and **** each others *********!
In relation to another matter of in which a great many submissions were submitted I was informed that my submisison actually swayed the decision to support the project.
Some times I can be more than just an ugly mug…but only occasionally.
just email me alsqtn@xtra.co.nz
Sent message - a bit garbled andwaffly like me but I sent it none the less.
Stuff up I doubt it this is exactly what they want I see miss sage is a life member of F&B as well & a key speaker at there events, I can see I have a lot of catching up todo had no idea this has come about till now , I have a claim in Otago but with a consent , will these changes affect me with my existing claim & consent ?
or is it the guys that have a claim but operate under the permitted activity rules that will be most effected ?
If im reading correctly I can see iv missed out on the cut off date to submit but can still apply for some sort of form to put a submission together ?
were did they even advertise they were taking submissions ? , if was in the ODT I don’t get it.
So after a readup I can see the confliction page 124 , Mining activity’s , rule 21.4.30 b
states mining by means of hand held non motorised equipment & suction dredging were the total motive power of any dredge does not exceed 10Hp 7.5Kw “are permitted”
Then down at page 126 , Table 8 , standards of mining:
The activity will not be undertaken in the bed of a lake or river
Wow that pretty much tidy’s up everyone , even the fossicking areas .
Will be on the phone today.
iCraig barr the policy planner at QLDC is the person we need to bombard. If the two submitters to the plan are not going to appeal then we have an issue for future claims, A current claim would have existing use rights.
s10 of the RMA states existing use rights allows for a time period, where the person carrying on the activity must then apply for a resource consent within six months of the rule in the plan becoming operative.
Thanks for that , Iv rung a couple of times today seemly a lot of the office is still empty due to snow , iv been trying to contact Craig Barr or Ian Bayliss both senior planners .Will e mail them both .