Mid Canterbury arable farmer David Clark has accused Environment Canterbury (ECan) of a “bullying” approach to farm consents, saying the process threatens not only his own family’s future but also the viability of cropping across the region.

Clark and his wife Jayne recently returned from Europe to find a seven-page letter from ECan requesting further information on their Farming Land Use Consent application. The Clark family farm, a mixed arable, seed, and livestock operation near Ashburton, has held a consent since 2017 and was awarded an A-grade environmental audit in 2024.

What should have been a routine renewal has turned into what Clark describes as an “overwhelming” ordeal.

“It was just an overwhelming request for minute detail that trolled through the application and Overseer to a ridiculous level, including going back and re-litigating the baseline from 2009 to 2013,” he said.

On Facebook, in a widely shared post, he was even blunter: “I shudder to think how many countless hours are going to [be] charged to us by ECan for them to dissect our Overseer and Farm Environment Plan line by line in minute, pointless detail.”

ECan’s consents planning manager Henry Winchester said there is no such thing as a “consent renewal” under the Resource Management Act (RMA).

“Every application to undertake an activity requiring consent must be processed in accordance with the processes in the RMA. Applications, even for existing activities, must be considered against the current state of the environment and relevant legislation.”

The Clarks’ property is one land title, but because of how ECan has drawn its nutrient management zones, the farm is split between the Ashburton River Zone (Plan Change 5) and the Lower Hinds Zone (Plan Change 2).

“The farm is one land title, one block, but it falls under two separate sets of rules,” Clark said. “We went to them and said, let’s just consent it as one, observing the more stringent rules, but they said no.

“That makes it very hard for crop rotations to work across the whole farm. It’s for no gain, other than an imaginary line on a map.”

ECan stated that in some cases farmers may need to revisit their 2009–13 baseline data.

“Applicants need to revisit their baseline data if the farm has not been previously consented, or if minor updates to previous modelling are required to ensure soil and climate data are consistent,” Winchester said.

“We will re-audit a previously consented baseline if the applicant advises they have made changes that may materially affect the modelling.”

Overseer, the computer model used to estimate nutrient losses, is at the centre of the dispute.

“Overseer was never designed to line up two farm systems against each other,” Clark said. “It’s relatively accurate for pastoral farms like dairy, but in arable it tends to produce absolute numbers that are much higher and arguably wrong.”

In his Facebook post he added that the easiest way to get consent would be to “withdraw our current application and lodge a consent application for conversion to dairying. This is because Overseer gives lower results to dairying, and loud and noisy results to arable.”

ECan acknowledged Overseer is more challenging for complex farm systems.

“Following a government review of Overseer, we moved away from solely relying on Overseer numbers in 2021 in favour of specifying what farm systems are authorised,” Winchester said. “Overseer remains a requirement of our plan, however, and this cannot be changed without a plan change.”

Clark has described the approach from ECan as “bullying.”

“The most confronting part was the bullying,” he said. “They said: ‘You have 15 working days. If you don’t comply, we will notify you, call for public submissions, hold a hearing, and we may decline your consent.’ Honestly, it’s bullying. Nothing more than low-down nasty bullying.”

On Facebook he questioned what “declined” would even look like: “Do they come and confiscate my sheep? Do they remove the fuses from our irrigators? Or do they just arrest me and drag me from my farm?”

ECan rejected the suggestion of bullying.

“We process consent applications in accordance with the requirements of the RMA,” Winchester said. “The RMA imposes specific requirements on councils related to requests for further information, including the requirement for us to publicly notify an application if a response is not received within 15 working days, unless an extension is requested.

“We understand notification can impose significant costs on applicants, so we clearly outline these requirements and highlight that we can grant more time if requested.”

For Clark, the uncertainty has already had real consequences.

“It doesn’t give you any confidence to reinvest. We simply cancelled all plant replacements for the winter and said, well, we don’t know where this is heading, so let’s not spend money we don’t have to. That impacts the community too.”

He is adamant that his story is not unique and says he has been “inundated” with messages from farmers in a similar situation.

“This is not about David Clark or the Clark family or Valletta Farm. This is about a systemic breakdown within the consenting process at ECan and other regional councils.”

He also believes external pressure is shaping ECan’s approach.

“I’m aware Greenpeace has threatened to take judicial reviews on every consent ECan issues. I think that’s playing out in the background of all this.”

Winchester said he was not aware of any pressure on ECan from Greenpeace.

“If it were true, it would not influence our approach, because all consent applications, even for existing activities, must be considered against the current state of the environment and current legislation.”

Clark maintains the solution is straightforward.

“We need a clear set of regional and zone rules. Then we operate as a permitted activity with a Farm Environment Plan and just get on with it. We need to move away from this adversarial consenting process.”

By Claire Inkson