Fish farm submissions ‘disappear’ from site

A conservationist is concerned that a third of submissions on an open ocean salmon farm managed to ‘‘disappear’’ from a council website.

New Zealand King Salmon lodged a resource consent for New Zealand’s first open ocean farm, in Cook Strait, in July last year.

The Marlborough District Council received 56 submissions on the application, 54 of which were uploaded to the council’s website before mid-december, a spokesman said. Two submissions came in late, and were uploaded earlier this month.

But after a Stuff story summarising 38 submissions, Sea Shepherd managing director Michael Lawry realised that his and several other submissions were not visible on the council website.

Lawry said he was concerned that the missing submissions made it look like NZ King Salmon did not have much opposition to its plans.

Other submissions not visible came from Forest & Bird, the Kenepuru and Central Sounds Residents Association, the New Zealand Sport Fishing Council, and a combined submission from Southern Inshore Fisheries

Management Company (Southern Inshore) and Challenger Scallop Enhancement Company (CSEC).

However, council consents and compliance group manager Gina Ferguson said making submissions visible to the public did not affect the resource consent process.

‘‘There is no requirement for [the] council to make submissions available online to the public. We provide this service in an effort to increase the ease of public accessibility to resource consent information.’’

NZ King Salmon hopes to build the farm within a 1792-hectare site in the ocean. The company said the farming operation would take up a small fraction of the site.

Of the missing submissions, all of which are now visible on the council website, nine supported and 10 opposed the application. One submitter, a trade competitor to NZ King Salmon, was neutral.

Lawry said his experience in information technology made him doubt that the disappearing submissions were an IT issue.

‘‘By now, people have got the wrong impression of the process, and think that King Salmon have few in opposition to the consent. It really brings into question how impartial the council is.’’

Sea Shepherd opposed the application because it felt the proposed activities could cause ‘‘significant adverse effects’’ to the marine environment.

‘‘[New Zealand] King Salmon don’t have the record to give us confidence that they can do the right thing offshore, when they’ve already made a hash of their inshore farms,’’ Lawry said.

A total of 41 submitters supported the application. Of these, seven said they had a business connection to NZ King Salmon.