Queenstown Lakes District Plan

I will PM you with my email…would like to review these to determine if there is scope for a s274 notice.
If so, I will advice the community and put a draft one out for people to amend as they wish before the deadline.

I think the bottom line is we simple want to get rid of Table 8, and referernces to it, as it simply is a stupid clause.

Thanks LD for your comment, the QLDC are not preventing suction dredge mining, there just raised the bar of compliance that much higher, in my opinion, making the activity non complying in riverbed is adverse to the policies and objectives, I am contemplating making an application on my claim just to see how this process is going to work, as 6" suction dredge mining will tick most the boxes of there objectives anyway, at least I have the safety of existing use rights. Your right tho, QLDC have rolled over with respect to forest and bird, as F & B have produced very little evidence to support their position, just said they wanted a rule change, and like magic QLDC said OK. However, the QLDC has 4 x fossicking areas that are very popular, these cannot be used under the new rules, except as an existing use right. I will be discussing this with the policy planner concerned on the 5th June, and see if they can support an appeal to there own rules, maybe getting non-complying removed and replaced with a controlled or discretionary activety is the way forward. For all those reading this and potentially affected, some feed back on what should be done, if anything, would be appreciated. I dont want to be the only person dealing with QLDC, only to be shot down by you all at a later date because a) i went to far, said to much or b) didnt do enuf.

1 Like

to date very little feed back from a lot of view, so due to lack of interest…

I don’t have a lot of time to be able contribute but happy to make a donation if it pays for some time from advisors to help address this issue?

Did anyone from the forum eventually appeal the QLDC District Plan on how it will impact all mining in waterbodies in the district? Environment Court mediation will be from 3-6 and 10-13 December. I will be there in a different capacity but keen to say gidday to the three blokes I helped out with advice and drafting appeal notices.

My advice to you is, the issues for hobby miners are narrow (and include a drafting oversight by QLDC planners), and if you do your homework, you can attend the mediation without engaging any professional experts and save a bucket load of cash. There is tension between the policies and rules, and the ORC rules/consent/RPS. It should be able to be wrapped up pretty quick for you all going well without the need to go to Court. Do your reading, wear a suit, and play nice, and keep your comments on-topic and brief highlighting the contradictions in the rules.

good luck

1 Like

Good news for dredgers in the QLDC district, i have had a chance to talk with Craig Barr senior policy planner for QLDC. He has prepared a document on behalf of Council confirming they are agreeable to accepting the appeals against dredging being a non-complying activity as it is currently drafted. Good work to those four who lodged appeals on this point. On that note, i will see you in court mediation on the first week of Dec to finalise the amendment.


that is good news its always funny how everyone jumps on the complain train but don’t do anything about it. good on you for doing it.


So a final update for those with dredging claims in queenstown lakes.

Environment court signed off. Dredging will not require a consent, even in the outstanding natural area. In fact the new rule is more permissive than before. The only issue not resolved the use of dredges larger than 6inch in the shotover, arrow and upper clutha.

A piss poor contribution by the dredging community. Not a single miner was there. credit to dave for having a lawyer speaking on your behalf. Between dave and i we have saved every dredger in queenstown lakes at least 5k and some stress…


no surprises there Jonesy. its the old saying “everone wants to go to heaven but no body wants to die”

yeah bit sad , well Done Mangrove and Dave


Mangrove and Dave I think its not just dredgers in Queenstown Lakes that owe you gratitude its all of us especially in Otago/Southland as the ramifications of this could have steered other councils in the same direction.

Much appreciated


Well done! Sadly The Marlborough Council where I have my claim requires all dredging to have Resource Consent. Its considered to come under their ‘Extractive Industries’ guide lines however I am grateful for what you have achieved and hopefully I can quote these guidelines at Queenstown Lakes District Plan

Well at the end of the day, the QLDC is relying pretty heavily on what I consider to be a bad EC hearing to have any say on river beds at all. I believe that the RMA is quite clear that Regional Councils are the authority when it comes to Riverbeds and waterways, particularly those that have a marginal strips, as these are definitely not under private land ownership.

In my case the river bed/hydro is owned by LINZ but a strip up the banks, similar to a Queens chain is owned by council and then private ownership from there. I guess at the end of the day it doesn’t matter who owns what because anyone can make submissions or objections to a Resource Consent application. My issue is the word ‘Extractive’ as the gravel is not removed, just shifted. So you are saying that LINZ may own the stream bed but Regional Council are the authority?

that would be correct, Council have control on water and earthmoving etc, and will have rules in their plans.