I’m waiting on NZ tungsten mining solicitor to get back to me, the other group cannot be reached.
Given that we may get some joy on the appeal, what part of the rules are we going to seek a change for, ie should we simply go for hand tools and 10 hp suction dredges be a complying activity and get the refernce to table 8 removed, provided the miner is in a ML area, or something like that.
I managed to contact Straterra , spoke to there policy and communications manager , had a good conversation he has asked for an e mail highlighting the problem and has indicated they may be able to help , so dave what joy can we get from an appeal I though that time had passed ?
Il pm you my phone number .
Hi sooty
we have to have an appeal lodged by the 17th June, Mangrove is on the case with respect to stuff, we just have to sort out as an interested party, what we need to have changed, perhaps have the reference to table 8 removed from the permitted activity status might be the appropriate action, or have table eight acknowledge the scale of what is permited. Mangrove has looked through Stratera application b4 and it may not align with our desires, but he may ahve better ideas at this juncture of how to proceed with an appeal with straterra, I guess the first thing to identify is whether they are amking an appeal, or can we make an appeal on their ticket without them actually lodging an appeal them selves?
Ok , il save the e mail , iv lost track of who,s who on here mangrove Darryl ?
I don’t no if straterra are making an appeal I didn’t get that far basically explained the situation , surprising what similarities we have even though we are small they are big , definitely some common ground there face value seemed a decent bloke he,s asked for more info .
So they have changed the wording in the permitted activity section no mention of nozzle size just a Hp rating which is fine but the the Hp rating of 10 needs to be higher 13 minimum to run a 6" dredge but hey if they are going to play with wording why not go for 18-20Hp to accommodate those out there with a couple of 9,s on there rig
Hi Sooty,
I thought the hp rating part was a bit odd also, as it’s generally the nozzle size, not engine size that limits a dredge’s throughput. Perhaps we could submit that they change that to 6" and do away with the engine size part, which would also line up nicely with ORC rules.
As for rule 21.11.1.2, which proposes banning mining activities from the beds of lakes and rivers, maybe it would be best to ask for it to be thrown out altogether. It contradicts the earlier rule 21.4.29.
GoldenEel / Sooty, can you please let me know how you get on with Stratera - I am keen to join if possible for the s274.
Please let me know if there is any other way I can help
Cheers
Bligh
madgoldnz@ gmail.com
Hi Bligh , yes im thinking along the same lines , definitely need to remove 21.11.1.2 else that’s potentially the end of dredging for a lot of keen beans or potentially a big battle , been there done that I wouldn’t wish it on anyone both mentally & monetary I shudder at the thought of doing it again with the current govt so id like to hear from mangrove on whats going on behind the scene ? , purely going from what I have read on here sounds like there is really only 1 option s274 im keen to get on board with that if that’s what has to be done but likely a bit of a long shot , thinking the multi nationals will need to lift there wing & let us come along on a ride for that to happen ?
I haven’t received any reply from craig barr but the count down is certainly on if we only have 15 days from the 28th may to get things happening.
as we no it two 6.5 -9Hp Hondas are about were its at to operate a 6" dredge so mayswell throw that in there.
So,
this is hopefully an up to date list of the appellants.
Its not looking good at the time of writing this that there is scope to join as a s274 party
https://www.qldc.govt.nz/planning/district-plan/proposed-district-plan-stage-1/appeals/
Just spoke to Tungston Mining solicitor, she will get back to me late tomorrow with whether they are proceeding to appeal, two other interested parties have aproached her about whether a section 274 could be done. We can still lodge an appeal our selves under the Tunsten Mining banner, which would be TM lodging the appeal on our behalf. So do we have any planners solicitors in our corner here that want to get involved, how does any interested parties here want to proceed? questions are do we want to employ a planner, solicitor etc, cos I will quotations for this. For Any one who wants to get involved and contribute, I am willing to reward you with a week on my claim, so that you have every chance of getting your doe ray me back if it comes to that. Some fellas in my community in Gibbston presented at a hearing to stop a 10 lot subdivision, they employed a solicitor at 10K and presented there submissions. There were 20 of them so it worked out at 500 bucks each plus gst.
firstly yo need TM to confirm they will appeal. that appeal needs to be within scope of their submission.
Then all miners in the district with an existing claim should have sufficient scope to then lodge s274 notices.
If you can get either tungsten or stratera to appeal, I will draft you all the notices. I am a planner, a member of the nz planning institute and chairman of the Otago planning institute so that should cover it.
So you guys get your part in order, and I will put you right from there…
Spoke to straterra today , the bloke was very genuine they are willing to help but are not interested if it’s going to end up in the environment court , said it would cost to much I’m unfamiliar with whole process so couldn’t confirm or deny that’s we’re it ends up after signing up with a s274 ?
Point of contact for NZ Tungsten Mining submission is maree.baker-galloway@andersonlloyd.co.nz for anyone who cares
1 Like
I will chase Maree up to tomorrow,
Find it almost amusing the lack of support this thread created , not sure how many members this form has but think roughly 9 have commented on the travesty of justice which could unfold , could be out of the loop , but the other surprise is that the main instigators that actually made some sort of effort even just an e mail was ones that were already sorted & more so sticking up for others rather than them self’s , just my personal opinion but im thinking there isn’t really much unity amongst form members .but any way that’s my rant over .
i think you might be right but a lot of members could be like me and don’t really understand the extent of what is happening. a lot of section 10 paragraph 2 subsection … type of thing mentioned. doesn’t mean a lot to members other than to those who have dredge claims and no doubt are more familiar with whats going on.
Yep I agree , I had some other posts way back on the subject about no more mining on Doc land potentially ranging from big company’s to us my belief was & still is that there needed to be some unity mite sound a little silly seen as how all we want to do is dig in a river dredge , spade , sluice , pan ,detecting what have you , no disturbing the bed of a lake or river is pretty straight forward , the metal detectorest that wants to dig some random sight deemed over 100 years probably isn’t so far removed from us especially if one were to try & obtain some “official permission” , any mention of mining & the greens manage to rise from the swamp . take my hat off to our American counter parts who actually no how to put up a fight. ok that’s my rant over …again 
Just had a quick read through this report…it initially looks quite balanced…but also seems to contradict itself some what…firstly under
4.15 (new Mining objectives and policies) it reads…
"b. Identify the location and extent of existing or pre-existing mineral resources in the region
and encourage future mining activity to be carried out in these locations "
then carries onto say under 6.27 “Mining Activites”…
“21.2.5.2 Recognise prospecting and small scale recreational gold mining as activities with
limited environmental impact.”…but then contradicts these policies by the insertion of “Table 8”
“The activity will not be undertaken in the bed of a lake or river.”…this line is to broad and needs to go!!
They are obviously referring to larger scale “mining” of course but try to define this as anything apart from
"b. Mining by means of hand-held, non-motorised equipment and suction dredging, where the
total motive power of any dredge does not exceed 10 horsepower (7.5 kilowatt); " in my opinion this line needs to be altered to include spec’s to include 6 inch dredge also as previously mentioned by sootypete.
I think a softly softy approach to changing these proposed policies is in order…lobbying can take many forms and jumping up and down beating a loud drum in the name of prospectors everywhere will only see to awaken the attention of environmental/treehuggin groups who wont desern between hobby propecting and large scale mining operators so please tread carefully…under the radar!! Good luck gentle men.
Its been a while since I have said anything, Just so you all know an appeal has to be lodged tomorrow at the latest by one of the parties, then a s274 has a time period of 3 weeks to be lodged. I will be in contact to day with the solicitor.
OK,
I have found a legal option in the RMA for existing claim holders in the district only to join the appeal process. I will submit on here a draft s274 application for you to copy and edit for your particulars.
My advice for anyone (and I truely believe this can be fixed during mediation and it will not go to court) is to costs share a solicitor or planner. it would be a couple of days maximum as the matters are very narrow.
For you existing claim holders in the QL distrcit, stay tuned for a s274 notice and instructions…
I think its now time for miners with an interest in this to get organised, any suggestions?, for starters I think we should share emails, message me with you emails, contact details so that we can make a start. In the mean time I have contact with TM solicitors.