A Dangerous Precedent
A proposal by the Timaru District Council (TDC) to extend setbacks in rural areas is raising eyebrows.
The proposal seeks to increase the size of setbacks from roads, boundaries and neighbouring houses for dairy sheds, stock yards and “intensively farmed animals” in its draft district plan.
As proposed, the TDC district plan would mean any cattle or deer grazed on irrigated land, or break-fed on winter crops – as well as any pigs, dairy cattle (cows, calves, bulls, dry or in milk) – would all need to be set back 100m from a road, 100m from an internal property boundary, 400m from houses on adjoining sites or 100m from named zones.
It’s significantly more restrictive than any government Essential Freshwater regulation rule; in fact it’s worse, as it doesn’t relate to intensity or environmental effects.
There’s no logical connection between district plan considerations and grazing animals or feeding animals on winter crops or irrigated land as matters that relate to environmental impacts on waterways etc. are dealt with through regional council plans.
This would mean that farmers would lose a massive amount of productive land for no environmental reason, yet it will have a major impact on farmers and growers’ bottom lines.
One example I have been given is of a 240 Hectare farm that would lose the right to farm on approximately 120 Hectares due to the rules contained in this proposal.
How do you physically keep the ‘intensively farmed stock’ 100m back from boundaries? Do farmers retire a paddock, put in new fencing or change farming type? Surely this would devalue rural land in the district if it came into effect.
So, this really does fall under the ‘bizarre’ category.
It’s effectively the Timaru District Council saying that the very sight of cows or deer in the countryside, within 100m of a road or 400m of a house is repugnant and unacceptable.
There is no cost-benefit evaluation that could substantiate taking out this massive area of productive land just to ensure ‘passers-by’ didn’t have to look at animals in the country.
Timaru District Council is, I believe, considerably overstepping the bounds of district plan considerations and in fact this is just another example of the looney left trying to enforce their ideas on social engineering onto the rural landowners without the slightest scrap of scientific justification.
If they don’t want to see farm animals on the land I have a simple, free and very easy suggestion of how they can achieve that wish:
Stay in the city and don’t go out into rural areas.
If in fact the proposal for this level of setback was not so ludicrous, I would actually be worried. As it currently stands I believe that the authors of this proposal should be disciplined for an extreme waste of council salaried time at the very least.
Should the Timaru District Council actually seriously consider going forward with this proposal then I would respectfully advise the councillors to prepare for another occupation as they won’t survive the next election and also the ratepayers of the Timaru District should start putting aside large sums to cover the massive increase in rates that will occur as a result of this proposal.
Firstly there will be the costs of going through the public consultation process then the hearings process and then the challenges to the courts and at the end of this process should the council actually enact this proposal the claims for compensation will be far in excess of anything seen to date.
Should something this ridiculous actually become law then there are other very important questions that would need to be addressed.
Once we have stolen this area of land from the owners without any real justification, who is going to maintain it? Who will keep it free from noxious weeds and vermin? I seriously doubt that the landowner will be prepared, want to, or in fact able to maintain it at his expense.
So we will end up with a large strip of stolen land along every rural property boundary that cannot be grazed, which will most likely become a much larger drain on ratepayer funds, to maintain it, than anything that has gone before.
Just another example of the perverse outcomes that occur as a result of idiotic proposals being put forward based on social engineering considerations without scientific justification and without any cost benefit analysis being carried out.
This type of proposal not only has the potential to cause major increases in the stress levels suffered by rural landowners and major costs for them to fight these ridiculous ideas, but will also have the potential to make many farming operations financially non-viable meaning that we could see many farmers going bankrupt as a result.
Is this what most council employees truly believe, that the ratepayers who fund them, require them to be doing?
I seriously doubt that. My belief is that this proposal has been put forward by somebody who has no idea of how farming works and has no real attachment to the reality of having to make a living and support ourselves, but who has a zealot’s vision of how rural land should look.
What an absolute waste of council time and resources.
Andy Loader
Co-Chairman P.L.U.G.