Environment award-winning farmers fined for creating ponds without consent

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

An environment award-winning farming family created two ponds and wetlands that would support native species.

But they didn’t get resource consent, despite being told they would need it for the earthworks.

The company pleaded guilty to a breach of the Resource Management Act and has been fined $26,000.

A farming family which won an award for commitment to environmental sustainability, has been fined for failing to get resource consent to create wetlands and ponds.

The McErlean family has farmed near Foxton since 1939. For decades, their 1719ha dairy and beef farm has been run by John McErlean, his wife Karen and his brother Peter.

They have spent many years creating and extending wetlands across the farm, as well as making a significant investment in the planting of native trees.

They’ve also taken on the responsibility of two native snail reserves, home to the endangered giant Powelliphanta, a carnivorous species that eats worms and slugs.

In 2023, the family won the supreme award in the Ballance Farm Environment Awards for the Horizons region, and in 2024 they were finalists for DairyNZ’s responsible dairying award.

According to an Environment Court judgment, in late 2023 John McErlean invited Horizons Regional Council staff to inspect the farm as he was interested in constructing ponds.

Council staff told McErlean that one of two possible sites he had identified would require resource consent because it was beside a drainage channel that fed a bush reserve.

McErlean did not believe he needed a consent and told the staff, “I’m just going to do it anyway”, the judgment said.

A few months later, in May 2024, the council became aware of earthworks being carried out so inspected the site. A few months later they returned with a search warrant and undertook ecological and hydrological assessments.

They found that 10,380m² had been excavated and used to fill drains and overland flow paths.

Moving that much earth required resource consent, which hadn’t been obtained, so the council charged the McErleans’ company, Poplar Partnership Ltd.

The company pleaded guilty and was sentenced in the Wellington District Court last month by Environment Court Judge Lauren Semple.

The court heard from an ecologist who said marshy ground had been converted into a shallow lake, and “in time, it is possible that the lake will offer useful habitat to vulnerable native water fowl, such as dabchick, that the former exotic-dominated marsh did not”.

The ecologist also said the conversion of exotic-dominated marsh and pasture into wetland habitat planted in native vegetation also had the potential to improve native biodiversity values.

He noted, however, that as this biodiversity trade-off was not yet realised, the conversion was at best “ecologically neutral”.

According to the judgment, he also said the pond’s outlet drain would need to be regraded to ensure the flow of water to the protected 51ha Omarupapako bush reserve wasn’t impacted.

The council told the court the unauthorised earthworks occurred in a highly sensitive and ecologically vulnerable receiving environment, and the nearby bush was “recognised as the best remaining example of a forest ecosystem type and a significant biodiversity site for the region”.

The council said the company’s actions, particularly John McErlean’s remark (“I’m just going to do it anyway”) demonstrated “a flagrant disregard for environmental obligations”.

The company’s lawyer said the work had been motivated by a desire for environmental conservation and while it may have been careless in regards to land disturbance limits, “the impact on the land was negligible”.

The work should not be categorised as a flagrant disregard for environmental obligations but rather seen as well-intentioned but misguided.

Judge Semple said the environmental effects of the earthworks had been low and should result in an enhanced environmental outcome.

However, there could have been a significant unintentional impact on the bush reserve. While it hadn’t, “this may be more a case of good luck than good management”, the judge said.

She also noted that the family met the local hapū at Motuiti marae and discussed the earthworks. Minutes from the meeting showed hapū acknowledged that the wrong process was followed but that there were visible positive environmental changes, including a net improvement to water quality and biodiversity.

The judge accepted that the intention had been good but there had been a disregard for following the correct process.

She said John McErlean was aware of the council’s view about the status of the wetland areas on his property, but did not agree with it.

“In this instance, the defendant is an experienced wetland developer motivated by a desire to enhance the environment but deliberately deciding not to pursue a resource consent. That is a matter than cannot remain unremarked upon,” Judge Semple said.

“Controlling environmental effects via the resource consent process, and where necessary, the imposition of conditions, is a cornerstone of our environmental management system.

“Deciding to ‘do the work anyway’ was not an option open to [the company] and must be denounced even if the intent was to promote environmental restoration rather than degradation and even if the environmental effects turned out to be low,” she said.

The company sought a conviction and discharge on the basis that a conviction alongside an enforcement order issued by the council was sufficient penalty.

Judge Semple said that would not be a sufficient penalty given the deliberate nature of the offending, and imposed a fine of $26,000.

The McErleans declined to comment.