Foresters’ cost no bar to vineyards

Press, 11 July 1979, Page 7

Foresters’ cost no bar to vineyards

Increased costs in chemical spraying of' forests caused by the establishment of • new vineyards nearby, are not sufficient reason to prohibit the vineyards, the Planning Tribunal has ruled.

This is part of a decision by the Number Three Division of the tribunal which rejected appeals by the Minister of works and Development (Mr W. L. Young) and the Marlborough Forest Owners’ Association against a decision by the Marlborough County Council to allow vineyards as a predominant use south of the Wairau River and between the river and the Wairau diversion.

The Forest Service, members of the association, and the Marlborough Catchment Board all have commerical or erosion protection forests on the north side of the Wairau River, much of them within 8 km of the south bank. The Forest Service also plans an additional 11,000 hectares of forest within an 8 km range of the river.

The 8 km range is important to the foresters because under agricultural chemical regulations, oildiluted, oil-based, or emulsifiable herbicides cannot be sprayed from the air within eight kilometres of a vineyard. New vineyards on the south bank of the Wairau River would automatically put seveal thousand hectares of forest and planned forest within 8 km of a vineyard and therefore under the spray-

ing restriction. This was the basis of the appeals. Evidence was given to the tribunal that the cheapest and most effective way of preparing land for new afforestation was the aerial spraying of the herbicide 2,4,5-T and diesel oil to kill and dessicate gorse for burning off. This practice has also been followed after the milling of existing forests and before new planting. The trfcunal accepted that the next most effective and cheapest method would involve an additional cost of $2B a hectare.

“One thing is clear from the evidence and that is that if the Forest Service and other foresters are not permitted to ■ use 2,4,5-T--mixed with diesel, their costs will substantially increase,” the tribunal said in its decision.

. “Forestry is an activity of considerable importance to the economy of New Zealand, both because of its income potential and also because of its worth, as demonstrated in this area, as a protective measure.

“However, it is also important to bear in mind the evidence that was given before us concerning the growth of the winemaking industry in New Zealand and the potential for export which is now appearing,’’ the decision said.

A suggestion by the Minister that the Council’s decision be amended to exclude that part of the south ,-bank within Bkm

from existing .or planned forests from the zone inwhich vineyards are a pre’. dominant .use was rejected.. by the tribunal.

“If we -did that, a significant area oFHand whichn is suitable for the gfwjjig’ of grapes would probably be lost,” .the tribunal said.

“A forester can so man-, age his affairs, although it may cost him more, so as to avoid coming intb flict with the (agrlcultjrfkr chemical, regulatiop-" and we are. satisfiej-' on the evidence is so. If he chooses to use a spray which is prohibited in* terms of the: regulation, that is his choice. J;

"We see no warrant for limiting other legitimate and suitable land uses because of the existence of that regulation and, if the predictions of the Forest Service are anywhere near accurate as to the consequences of allowing vineyards in this area, then its proper course is to seek an amendment to the provisons of the regulation.

“We have reached the conclusion that it would be wrong land-use planning to allow the Minister’s appeal and the appeal by the Marlborough Forest Owners’ Association. Both land uses can exist harmoniously in the areas defined for them in the district scheme. Both land uses are, as we have already said, important to the economy of the distrct anti indeed to the economy of the nation, and both should be encouraged,” the tribunal said.