BEFORE THE MANAWATU-WANGANUI (HORIZONS) REGIONAL COUNCIL, THE TARARUA DISTRICT
COUNCIL, AND PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER OF
The Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
an application by Mighty River Power Limited
for resource consents to construct, operate and
maintain a wind farm consisting of up to 53
wind turbines and an associated transmission
line as part of the Puketoi Wind Farm Proposal
REPORT AND DECISION OF HEARING COMMISSIONERS
PAUL ROGERS, DEAN CHRYSTAL AND JEFF JONES
Dated at Christchurch on 22nd June 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3
2
PLANNING INSTRUMENTS............................................................................................. 11
3
STATUS OF THE ACTIVITY ............................................................................................ 11
4
NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................ 15
5
THE SECTION 42A REPORTS ......................................................................................... 21
6
MRP‘S CASE ............................................................................................................... 41
7
SUBMITTERS .............................................................................................................. 75
8
UPDATES TO THE SECTION 42A REPORTS ....................................................................... 84
9
APPLICANT‘S RIGHT OF REPLY ...................................................................................... 93
10
STATUTORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 99
11
EVALUATION OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................ 103
12
EVALUATION OF RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS ...................................................... 121
13
EVALAUTION OF OTHER RELEVANT S104 MATTERS .......................................................... 125
14
SECTIONS 105 AND 107 RMA ....................................................................................... 126
15
PART 2 RMA ............................................................................................................... 126
16
CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................. 131
17
DECISION ................................................................................................................. 133
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 2/194
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
We, Paul Rogers, Dean Chrystal, and Jeff Jones (the Commissioners), have been appointed by
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Horizons) (the Regional Council), the Tararua District
Council (the District Council), and the Palmerston North City Council (the City Council) to hear
and decide resource consent applications fully described below filed under the Resource
Management Act 1991 (the RMA) by Mighty River Power Limited (MRP) to the above-described
Councils.
The proposal
1.2
The Regional Council, the District Council, and the City Council have received an application
from MRP seeking all necessary resource consents for the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the Puketoi Wind Farm, transmission line and associated infrastructure (the
PWFP) on privately owned rural land, public land and public roads in the Tararua District, and
on public land in respect of a small section of the transmission line in Palmerston North.
1.3
In summary, the PWFP involves:
(a)
The construction, operation and maintenance of a wind farm on the Puketoi Range
consisting of up to 53 turbines, substation and switchyard and internal 33 kV
transmission lines, with a proposed generating capacity of 326 MW, providing enough
electricity to power over 160,000 New Zealand households.
(b)
The construction, operation and maintenance of a 220 kV transmission line connecting
the PWFP to the Turitea Wind Farm (TWF) within the Turitea Reserve on the Tararua
Ranges.
(c)
Land disturbance, vegetation clearance and civil works for the construction or
upgrading of access roads, the construction of turbine platforms, platforms for the
substation, switchyard, transmission support structures, lay down areas, temporary
water storage facilities and cable trenching.
(d)
Total earthworks of up to 2,784,000 m3 and disposal of excess fill to various areas
within the site.
(e)
The construction and use of two temporary concrete batching Plants.
(f)
The construction, use and maintenance of up to four permanent wind monitoring
masts of up to 100 m in height.
(g)
The construction and use of lay down areas, and a contractors‘ area, including
temporary site offices, ablutions, car parking and storage areas for fuel.
(h)
The minor upgrading of public roads between Pahiatua and the site.
(i)
The construction and use of three temporary bridge crossings during construction and
various culverts.
(j)
Site reinstatement and revegetation within the site.
1.4
The resource consents seek to enable 53 turbines with a defined maximum size to be
constructed within defined sites but with some flexibility as to the exact type of turbine to be
used. The turbines will be no more than 160 metres high (as measured from the ground to the
rotor tip) and only one size and type of turbine will be utilised.
1.5
The PWFP is based on design parameters that define approximate locations and maximum
dimensions for various wind farm components. This is to allow for some flexibility in the final
selection of wind turbines and components that have not been confirmed at this stage and to
allow for some flexibility in the actual location of each turbine. Whilst the PWFP is made on this
basis, MRP has defined the PWFP somewhat, with a 50 metre radius defined for the turbine
locations and maximum turbine design specifications as follows:

Maximum tip height of up to 160 metres;
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 3/194

Maximum hub height of up to 100 metres;

Maximum rotor diameter of up to 130 metres.
1.6
The turbines will have an installed capacity of between 159 MW and 326 MW depending on the
turbine selected for the development. MRP states that the PWFP will generate up to 1,272 GW
per year, based on current technology and expected yield, which will provide enough electricity
for 160,000 homes. The application for resource consent does not specify a limit on the
generation capacity to be installed at the site as doing so would preclude the possibility of
technological advances enabling greater electrical output in the future to be realised.
1.7
The 220 kV transmission line will make use of monopole towers where possible, with double
poles on bends or other points of strain. The use of lattice towers is to be kept to those areas
where it is more difficult to install poles, e.g. the steeper hill country. The poles are proposed
to be a maximum height of 49 metres and the lattice towers up to 52 metres.
1.8
A general overview of the various components and their locations can be found on the following
drawings:
Map Title
Drawing Number
Proposal Overview – Wind Farm and 220 kV Transmission
MRP-PKT-0801-A
Wind Farm Turbine Layout
MRP-PKT-0201-A
220 kV transmission line Route
MRP-PKT-0601-A
Transport Route from Port of Napier
MRP-PKT-6600-A
Wind Farm Site: General infrastructure layout and on-transportation
MRP-PKT-0402-A
33 kV Reticulation Overview
MRP-PKT-0621
1.9
A more detailed overview of the PWFP site, including natural features, property boundaries,
proposed access roads, fill sites, turbines, wind monitoring masts, transmission lines,
substation, concrete batching Plants, laydown areas and contractors‘ areas can be seen on
Drawings MRP-PKT-3306 to MRP-PKT-3315. A more detailed overview of the 220 kV
transmission line, including access tracks and the various tower types, can be viewed on
Drawings MRP-PKT-3221 to MRP-PKT-3230.
1.10
Because the PWFP straddles regional and district jurisdictions, the s42A reporting officers have,
in the main, reported on that part of the PWFP that falls within the jurisdiction of the respective
council. We will adopt that approach.
The Regional Council
1.11
The following resource consent applications were lodged with the Regional Council, in
conjunction with the District Council and the City Council.
(a)
105960 Land-use Consent for land disturbance, earthworks, and vegetation clearance,
including works in a Hill Country Erosion Management Area.
(b)
105961 Discharge Permit (discharge to land) for the discharge of stormwater to land,
including stormwater from the substation, switchyard, workshop, staff ablutions
building and fuel storage area.
(c)
105962 Discharge Permit (discharge to land) for the discharge of water from the
concrete batching Plants.
(d)
105963 Land-use consent (land disturbance) for works and disturbance within the
beds or waterways associated with the construction or bridges, fords, and culverts.
(e)
105964 Discharge permit (discharge to land) for the discharge of wastewater
associated with the Operation and Maintenance Facility.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 4/194
(f)
105965 Land-use consent (construct) for the works and disturbance within the beds of
waterbodies for bridges, fords and culverts.
(g)
105966 Discharge Permit (discharge to land) from the surplus clean fill from
earthworks activities.
(h)
105984 Discharge Permit (discharge to water) for the discharge of sediment laden
stormwater to the limestone drainage network, and from the limestone drainage
network to ‗down-slope‘ surface watercourses.
(i)
105985 Water permit – for the diversion of water and sediment laden stormwater
from the limestone drainage networks and from other environments.
1.12
The applications were lodged with the Regional Council on 3 August 2011.
1.13
A further information request under Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (The Act)
was made on 22 August 2011. An initial response to this information request was made on 12
September 2011, with further information being supplied subsequently.
1.14
AEE amendments and further information updates have been provided by MRP since lodgement.
We consider this information does not affect the scope of the application. We discuss
modifications after notification subsequently.
1.15
The key elements of relevance to the consents lodged with the Regional Council are:
1.16
(a)
Earthworks involving a volume of 2,784,000 m³ (Table 10, Page 24 Civil Design
Report, Section M, AEE Volume 2, Part 2 of 2). This material will be either re-used
throughout the construction process, or disposed of in designated fill sites. These fill
sites are located throughout the site, but are typically located adjoining proposed onsite access roads.
(b)
The proposed transmission line will also require a further 116,000m³ of earthworks for
the construction of an access road along the proposed transmission corridor.
(c)
Construction of internal access roads and tracks (approximately 40 km of 7-10 m
width)
(d)
Approximately 154 hectares of vegetation will be removed or disturbed within PWFP
site. Of this vegetation being cleared, the majority is pasture grasses, with
approximately 8 hectares being described in the PWFP as ‗predominantly indigenous
vegetation‘ and 6.68 hectares are considered to be of high ecological value.
(e)
Damming and diverting of water (including surface and groundwater) during
construction and operation activities.
(f)
Works that require works to be undertaken within the beds of waterbodies contained
within the site. This specifically requires two temporary bridges over the Makuri River,
one temporary bridge in the Pahiatua–Pongarora Gorge, a culverted ford over an
unnamed stream (detailed further in the application), and conventional culverts
crossing multiple unnamed watercourses (13 culverts, lengths ranging 12m-20m max
– total length 168m).
(g)
Two temporary concrete batching plants are proposed within the PWFP to supply the
construction requirements for the proposed development. The concrete batching
plants will be located at the northern and southern ends of the site, adjoining the
southern and northern access roads leading into the site. This concrete batching
process will result in discharges of dust to air, and the discharge of concrete wash
water to land where it may enter waterways.
(h)
Water extraction is proposed at a rate that complies with permitted activity standards
contained within the regional plans. This water will be stored in ponds adjacent to the
proposed ponds, and in the event of additional water being required, this will be
transported to the site via water carrier trucks.
The PWFP also includes a proposed mitigation package, which has been prepared to offset some
of the adverse effects of the proposed development.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 5/194
Lapsing period
1.17
MRP has requested a 15 year duration from all Councils for construction related consents. An
unlimited duration of consent is sought for all District Council land-use consents and a 35 year
consent duration is sought for all operational and maintenance consents from the Regional
Council.
The District Council
1.18
MRP seeks resource consents to construct, operate and maintain a wind farm on the Puketoi
Range and a transmission line to convey electricity to the National Grid via the Plantation
Substation within the TWF.
1.19
Resource consents were sought from the District Council to construct, operate and maintain a
wind farm containing up to 53 wind turbines and transmission line (the PWFP) as more fully
discussed and described within the Assessment of Environmental Effects (‗AEE‘) for the
following:
1.20
(a)
Land-use Consent – for the establishment, operation and maintenance of a renewable
electricity generation facility (wind farm) and associated infrastructure;
(b)
Land-use Consent - for the establishment, operations and maintenance of a double
circuit electricity transmission line at a voltage up to 220 kV (per circuit);
(c)
Land-use Consent – for the establishment, operation and maintenance of equipment
for meteorological data collection exceeding the permitted height limit;
(d)
Land-use Consent – for the modification, damage or destruction of Category B ONFs
and ONLs (being the skyline of the Puketoi Ranges, skyline of the Tararua Ranges, the
Makuri River and Gorge, and the Mangatainoka River);
(e)
Land-use Consent – for land disturbance and earthworks associated with access roads,
turbine and transmission tower foundations, and other ancillary buildings and
activities;
(f)
Land-use Consent – for buildings and structures, including culverts, fords and bridges,
within 20 m of rivers and streams;
(g)
Land-use Consent – for construction of buildings exceeding 10 m height and that
protrude into the required recession Plane in the Rural Management Area (including
wind turbines, meteorological masts, and substations);
(h)
Land-use Consent – for the removal of indigenous vegetation.
(i)
Any other resource consents necessary to enable MRP to construct, operate and
maintain the PWFP.
The applications were lodged with the District Council on 3 August 2011. These applications
were publicly notified and there were a number of submissions that are referred to later in this
decision.
Lapsing period
1.21
MRP has requested a ten year lapse period be stipulated for any and all consents granted for
the PWFP and has requested an unlimited duration for any consent issued to it by the District
Council for activities restricted by Section 9 RMA.
The City Council
1.22
MRP has applied for land-use consent to construct, operate and maintain a double circuit
electricity line with voltage up to 220 kV (per circuit) and a design capacity up to 1330 MVA,
and associated earthworks within the Turitea Reserve. Within the City Council‘s jurisdiction the
proposed works involve nine transmission towers ranging from 37.2 to 52 metres in height.
1.23
The majority of the towers within the City Council‘s boundary are 42.9 metres or less in height,
with only one tower (No.111) being 52 metres in height. The application to the City Council for
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 6/194
resource consent is associated with the proposed 220 kV transmission line from the Puketoi
Range to the consented TWF transmission line, which is intended to convey electricity from both
wind farms into the Linton Substation.
1.24
1.25
Resource consents were sought from the City Council to construct, operate and maintain a
transmission line for the following:
(a)
Land-use Consent for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 220 kV
electricity transmission line, and
(b)
Land-use Consent for earthworks associated with the construction of the foundations
for the transmission line‘s support structures.
(c)
Any other resource consents necessary to enable MRP to construct, operate and
maintain the PWFP.
The application was lodged with the City Council on 3 August 201.
Lapsing period
1.26
MRP has requested a 10 year lapse period be stipulated for any and all consents granted for the
PWFP and has requested an unlimited duration for any consent to it by the District Council for
activities restricted by Section 9 RMA.
Modifications after notification
1.27
After notification, the Councils received further information from MRP, some of which resulted in
modification of the PWFP. In addition, during the course of the hearing MRP made various
modifications primarily in response to submitter concerns. We will address the latter point
when we discuss the submitter evidence, submitter issues, and also conditions.
1.28
The modifications after notification are principally contained in the following reports and/or
documents:

Information provided to THE DISTRICT COUNCIL on 21 September 2011;

Information provided to the Regional Council on 23 September 2011;

Additional information on ecological effects dated 23 September 2011;

AEE amendments and further information provided on 26 September; and

Information provided to the Regional Council on 30 September 2011.
1.29
In our view, these modifications do not affect the scope of the PWFP. They are, we think,
largely additions of information, which probably should have been included at the time of
lodgement. Some of the material is a refinement and provides better explanation of the PWFP.
1.30
The general principle for modifications after notification is that amendments are allowed
provided they do not increase the scale or intensity of the activity or significantly alter the
character or effects of the PWPF. The key consideration is prejudice to other parties by allowing
the change. In this case, we are satisfied that the change does not significant alter the
intensity or effects of the PWFP and that no party would be adversely affected by allowing the
change.
Related consents and applications
1.31
We recognize the relationship or linkage between the 39 kilometre 220 kV transmission line and
the TWF.
1.32
MRP lodged consent applications for its proposed TWF (in the Tararua Ranges) in August 2008.
The application included an associated 220 kV transmission line connecting the TWF to the
Linton Substation.
1.33
The applications were ‗called in‘ by the Minister for the Environment and were referred to a
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 7/194
Board of Inquiry (BOI). A decision on the applications was released by the BOI on 6 September
2011, with 60 turbines and an associated 220 kV transmission line corridor being consented.
1.34
The TWF consents within the City Council‘s jurisdiction have a 10 year lapse period, with a 35
year period to complete construction activities.
1.35
MRP has been granted resource consent for a 220 kV transmission line through the Turitea
Reserve as part of the Turitea decision of which the proposed Puketoi transmission line will
connect into. The western-most end of the Puketoi 220 kV transmission line with the City
Council‘s Turitea Reserve will allow for renewable electricity to be conveyed to the consented
TWF Plantation Substation and, eventually, to the Linton Substation. The transmission line and
associated towers are proposed to be established on the Tararua Range, which is listed as an
ONL (ONL) within the operative and proposed Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Policy Statements.
1.36
The Puketoi 220 kV transmission line is situated within the Rural Zone of the Palmerston North
City District Plan (the City Plan), but is also designated for the ‗Turitea Water Treatment Plant
and Water Supply Reservoir‘ (Designation No.40) within the Tararua District Plan (District Plan).
MRP is currently seeking the appropriate approvals from the City Council (as landowner) for
those transmission towers that will be situated within the Turitea Reserve area. Because these
transmission towers are situated within designated land, MRP will, prior to construction
commencing, seek approval from the City Council, as Requiring Authority, for the proposed
works in accordance with Section 176 of the RMA.
1.37
No decision has yet been made by the City Council to allow MRP to have an easement through
the Turitea Reserve.
1.38
On a project of this scale it is not surprising—and we think acceptable—that these related
consents and applications wait to be actioned by MRP. We do not think the lack of these related
applications before us raises any material issues that may impact on our understanding either
of the PWFP or of the effects of the PWFP would give rise to.
1.39
Mr Kirkpatrick acknowledged this issue in his opening. He noted that the PWFP, particularly the
transmission line, will affect a number of existing designations and MRP, he said, understands
that it will need to obtain the prior written consent of acquiring authorities pursuant to Section
176(1)(b) RMA. This was referred to directly by Mr Jackson in his evidence on behalf of MRP.
Mr Kirkpatrick submitted, and we agree with him, that these subsequent consents may properly
be obtained subsequent to the outcome of this consenting process so that any discussions with
the acquiring authorities would be on the basis of granted consents rather than applications,
presumably leading to the position where the designating authorities can better understand
MRP‘s PWFP.
Description of the environment
1.40
In the same manner as above, we have separated out descriptions of the environment as to
how they relate to the three council boundary areas.
Regional Council
1.41
The PWFP site is made up of approximately 21 individually owned properties and has a
combined area of approximately 4,890 hectares. A further 28 landowners own sites through
which the transmission lines cross.
1.42
The PWFP site is located in the northern Wairarapa approximately 20 kilometres east of
Pahiatua, 23 kilometres south-east of Woodville, 30 kilometres north-east of Eketahuna, and 12
kilometres west of Pongarora.
1.43
The proposed site is located entirely on the western side of the Puketoi Range, which consists of
moderately steep hill country. The eastern side of the Puketoi Range falls steeply towards the
east, and is mostly covered by native vegetation.
1.44
The site also contains a unique ‗karst‘ landform, a geological feature whereby sink holes are
formed and result in water draining into them, seeping through the ground, and exiting at lower
topography in the form of a spring.
1.45
The site has been identified in the Ecology Overview Report as containing mostly pasture
grasses, which is consistent with the predominant land use. This report identifies that
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 8/194
approximately 7.88 hectares of the site contain indigenous vegetation, and of this, 6.86
hectares is considered to have significant ecological values. This report also identifies the level
of terrestrial and aquatic ecology on the site, and the presence of avifauna (birds and bats)
within the site.
1.46
The site contains a number of smaller stream and creeks that ultimately form tributaries of the
Makuri Stream. The Aquatic Ecology Report further details the location and health of this
watercourse.
1.47
The PWFP site is dissected by the Pahiatua-Pongarora Road, which runs through a natural Gorge
in the Puketoi Range. Coonoor Road runs parallel to the site along the western boundary, and
will provide the majority of the access points off the site.
1.48
The wider area, including the PWFP site, is largely occupied by pastoral farming. Exceptions to
this include land occupied by exotic forestry Plantations or areas of indigenous vegetation.
1.49
Ngati Kahungunu and Rangitãne both hold mana whenua over the PWFP site and the wider
Wairarapa Area. A cultural impact and values assessment prepared by Rangitãne o Tamaki Nui
a Rua was presented to us at the hearing.
1.50
There are no items registered by the New Zealand Archaeological Association within the PWFP
site. However, the proposed transmission line does cross the Mangaone Bridge, which is
classed B under this register. With the exception of old fence lines believed to be constructed in
the 20th century, there were no historic features found on the site during the Archaeological
Assessment undertaken by Opus Consultants.
1.51
The PWFP is considered to be within the skyline of the Puketoi Ranges, which is considered an
‗outstanding and regionally significant landscape‘ under the operative Regional Policy Statement
(RPS), and a ‗regionally ONF or ONL‘ under the proposed One Plan. The PWFP is also within the
Tararua Ranges and Mangatainoka River areas of landscape significance.
1.52
The PWFP includes a transmission line that runs in a westerly direction from the wind farm that
bisects SH1 approximately 3 km south of Pahiatua. The landform that the line traverses ranges
from steep hilly country to alluvial flats. The land-use is pastoral farming with some exotic
forestry.
District Council
1.53
The PWFP is located along much of the length of the Puketoi Range which is located east of
Pahiatua. The proposed transmission line will begin from near the centre of the PWFP and pass
south of Kaitawa and Pahiatua before joining to the ‗Plantation Substation‘ that was consented
as part of the TWF on the Tararua Ranges in Palmerston North. A good overview of the PWFP‘S
location is presented on Drawing MRP-PKT-0801 in the application.
1.54
The PWFP includes 47 privately owned properties and some public land, including an unformed
road that runs the length of the Puketoi Range and the City Council owned Turitea Reserve, on
which wind farm or transmission infrastructure will be located.
1.55
MRP has defined the PWFP site on Drawing MRP-PKT-0101. This area will include the access
tracks, laydown areas, internal transmission lines, monitoring masts, wind turbines, substation
and any other necessary equipment for the construction, operation and maintenance of the
PWFP.
1.56
The majority of the turbines (WT1 to WT43) are proposed to be located along the top of the
range from Towai Road to the Pahiatua-Pongarora Road, with another 10 turbines (WT44 to
WT53) located south of the Pahiatua-Pongarora Road on a secondary ridge to the west of the
main Puketoi ridgeline. Drawing MRP-PKT-0201 clearly shows the proposed turbine layout.
1.57
A detailed overview of the proposed transmission line route is provided on Drawing MRP-PKT0601 and on drawings MRP-PKT-5121 to MRP-PKT-5126.
1.58
The Puketoi Range is a distinctive linear landform within the eastern Tararua District lying in a
southwest to northeast direction. It is a cuesta formation with an escarpment facing towards
the east and the gentler dip slope to the west. Much of the eastern escarpment contains
remnant indigenous vegetation that gets more substantial as one moves south along the range,
culminating in the Puketoi Forest. The western slopes are characterised by pastoral farming
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 9/194
with the vegetation being dominated by pasture grasses but also containing small patches of
scrubby vegetation and dispersed scrub throughout. The skyline of the Range is identified as a
significant natural landscape/feature in the District Plan.
1.59
MRP states that the wind resource on the Puketoi Range is considered to be outstanding on a
national and international basis. Wind monitoring equipment on the range has provided MRP
with data that confirms an average wind speed, at hub height, in the order of 11 to 12 m/s,
making the PWFP site extremely productive.
1.60
The nearest settlements of note to the PWFP site are Makuri and Pongarora. Makuri is located
at the base of the Puketoi Range on the western side and is just over 2 km from the nearest
turbine. Pongarora lies to the east of the Range and is approximately 9 km distant.
1.61
Travelling from the Puketoi Range to the Tararua Range the transmission line route traverses
over farmland and generally avoids townships and communities. The line will pass over the
Makuri, Tiraumea, Mangaone, Mangatainoka and Mangahao Rivers and will also cross over the
Pahiatua-Pongarora Road, Kaitawa Road, State Highway Two, Makomako Road and the
Wairarapa Railway Line.
1.62
Components for the PWFP are proposed to be transported to the site from the Port of Napier.
Use will be made of the State Highway network (SH50, SH50A and SH2) and of local bypasses
through Waipukourau, Norsewood and Woodville. The Pahiatua-Pongarora Road and Coonoor
Road (local roads) will be used to transport components to the site at the Puketoi Range from
State Highway 2.
City Council
1.63
MRP defines the ―Transmission Corridor‖ in the glossary of the application as ―the 200m wide
strip of land in which the 200 kV transmission line is proposed to be built on‖. The
―Transmission Line Footprint‖ is described as ―the area of land physically disturbed and/or built
upon with the transmission line‖. These definitions have been adopted for the purposes of this
report.
1.64
The site is situated within the northern end of the Turitea Reserve on the western side of South
Range Road. The area where the transmission line is proposed contains a mixture of Plantation
forestry and indigenous scrub. The southernmost proposed transmission towers are situated on
the ridgeline above City Council‘s water supply catchment and dams in the Turitea Reserve.
The area surrounding the water supply dam contains indigenous vegetation.
1.65
The wider environment surrounding the Tararua Range is predominantly used for rural purposes
within both the Tararua District and outside of the Turitea Reserve on the western foothills of
the Tararua Range in Palmerston North, but there are also numerous rural residential/lifestyle
properties situated off Pahiatua-Aokautere Road (Pahiatua Track), and further afield on Polson
Hill Drive, Moonshine Valley, and the Kahuterawa and Greens Roads on the western foothills of
the Tararua Range. The transmission towers are proposed to be located on the top of the
Tararua Ridgeline, and here are undulating hills in the foreground of the Turitea Reserve when
viewed from the west.
Site visit
1.66
Before the commencement of the hearing we undertook a comprehensive site visit. We
established an itinerary after receiving from MRP, submitters and s42A reporting officers their
views as to points of interest.
1.67
The site visit took us the bulk of two full days to complete. We did not undertake an extensive
site visit for the 220 kV transmission line, primarily because we considered we had sufficient
information to understand the relevant environment although we did visit some specific sites.
1.68
On our first day we focused on the Puketoi Range and spent considerable time traversing the
range in a specially adapted vehicle. We had with us relevant application documentation, which
enabled us to pinpoint the location of particular turbines, road access to PWFP site, roading
within the PWFP site, concrete batching Plants, substations, and lay-down areas.
1.69
On the second day we travelled to more distant eastern areas such as Pongarora and Makuri.
We also visited a number of submitter sites where there were points of interest to us raised
within the submitters‘ submissions. We also familiarized ourselves with the location of the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 10/194
Waitahora Wind Farm (WWF) and the Castle Hill Wind Farm (CHWF).
1.70
During the course of our site visit, we utilized photo montages that had been supplied to us,
primarily by MRP. We also had other photographic material supplied by submitters. Where we
considered it appropriate we stopped at defined viewing points, took a view, and assessed the
accuracy and usefulness of the photo montages.
1.71
We did note that in many instances the photo montages provided to us primarily by MRP did
not, we think, provide a realistic representation of the views that we actually observed. We
raise this matter with MRP during the course of the hearing and we will return to this point
later.
2
PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
2.1
There is a wide range of planning instruments that are relevant under the RMA. This includes
national and regional Policy documents, along with regional, district and city Plans. The key
planning instruments we considered of most relevance to the PWFP are as follows:
(a)
Operative RPS
(b)
Proposed One Plan
(c)
Regional Plans:
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i)
The Land And Water Regional Plan
(ii)
The Regional Plan For Beds And Rivers Of Lakes
(iii)
The Manawatu Catchment Water Quality Regional Plan
District Plans:
(i)
Operative and Proposed District Plans
(ii)
Palmerston North City District Plan (the City Plan)
National Policy Statements:
(i)
Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPSREG)
(ii)
Freshwater Management 2011 (NPSFM)
National Environmental Standards:
(i)
Source of human drinking water
2.2
The provisions of these planning instruments critically inform our overall assessment of the
applications under s104(1)(b) RMA, as discussed below. In addition, the rules within the
relevant planning instruments determine the status of the activities, as set out below.
3
STATUS OF THE ACTIVITY
3.1
Under the RMA, we are required to determine the status of the activity in order to ensure that
the correct statutory tests are applied.
3.2
In summary, the status of a particular activity will depend on the following key issues, each of
which is discussed further below:
3.3

The nature of the activity;

The date on which the application was lodged; and

The status of other applications that form part of the same proposal.
In accordance with s88A of the RMA, the usual approach for determining the status of the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 11/194
activity is that it is based on the relevant Rules that existed at the time that the applications
were lodged. This applies even if those Rules have since changed.
3.4
The final step to consider is whether there are any other applications that form part of the same
proposal and that should be ―bundled‖ together for the purpose of determining the status of the
activity.
3.5
Where multiple applications make up a single proposal, the starting point for determining the
overall status of the PWFP is that stated in Southpark Corporation Limited and Anor v Auckland
the City Council 1:
―... it has been established and accepted that in general there is no scope for hybrid
planning status for a proposal, and the more stringent classification applies to the whole .‖
3.6
The Court in Darby then considered a range of other case law that has discussed the issue of
bundling consents, mainly in the context of notification, and summarises the position on this
issue as follows:2 at paragraph 33:
―In many cases it will be appropriate for a consent authority to consider a proposal in the
round, because failure to do so would mean artificially splitting it up without considering
the interrelating issue that relate to the overall judgment requiring to be made in the
circumstances, and to determining whether or not the Act's purpose will be suitably
served. However, if a particular consent that is sought is plainly limited in its scope and
nature, and the effects of exercising the consent would not overlap or have consequential
or flow on effects in relation to effects stemming from the exercise of any other consent
required for the proposal, then the application for that consent may be adjudged
individually on its merits.‖
3.7
The principle emerging from the above is that where multiple consents for one proposal overlap
to such an extent that they cannot be realistically or properly separated, the consent authority
should adopt a holistic approach and assess the PWFP on the basis of the most stringent
classification. The intended purpose of bundling consents in this manner is to ensure that an
overall judgment can be brought to bear as to whether the PWFP is in accordance with the
purpose of the RMA.
3.8
Whether it is appropriate to bundle consents in a particular case will depend on the relationship
and linkage between the activities for which consent is being sought. Where separate
applications are clearly part of the same proposal and the effects of the activities overlap, all
applications should be assessed against the more stringent classification.
3.9
The activity status for the PWFP has been summarised in the following table and accords with
that provided by MRP in a letter dated 31 August 2011 to the Councils.
3.10
However, we note that Regional Council‘s operative Manawatu Catchment Water Quality
Regional Plan appears to cover the area within which the application has been made, rather
than that part of the region which is covered by the operative Land and Water Regional Plan.
Nonetheless, we have included both Plans in the table below to show that this does not alter the
overall activity status.
Regional Council
1
2
A111/00 at paragraph 8.
C069/07 at paragraph 33.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 12/194
3.11
Overall, in terms of the relevant regional plans, the PWFP is a Discretionary Activity. This is
consistent with the principle of consent bundling (Tairua Marine Limited v Waikato Regional
Council, High Court CIV-2005-485-1409) which provides for the assessment of the PWFP on the
basis of the most restrictive activity. We also consider this approach appropriate in terms of
Policy 11A-7 of the proposed One Plan.
District Council
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 13/194
3.12
Since the PWFP application was lodged, the appeals to the Proposed District Plan have been
resolved and consent orders approved by the Environment Court. Therefore, all of the
provisions of the Proposed District Plan as amended by Consent Order that are relevant to the
PWFP can now be given full weight in the assessment and consideration of the application.
3.13
The Operative District Plan does not include specific provisions relating to wind farms. Rather,
applications for resource consent for wind farms in the Rural Management Area are considered
as ‗default‘ Discretionary Activities under Rule 4.1.5.1(a) of that Plan.
3.14
Rule 5.3.7.2(b), of the Proposed District Plan, as amended by consent order, provides for the
construction, operation and maintenance of electricity generation facilities, including wind
farms, as a Discretionary Activity in all management areas.
3.15
The application encompasses a number of different, but closely related, activities. It is
appropriate to apply the ‗bundling‘ approach to the activities and to treat the entire application
to the District Council as a Discretionary Activity. This is in accordance with the application as
made under the Proposed and Operative District Plans with the description of the type of
activity remaining the same, thereby meeting the requirements of Section 88A.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 14/194
City Council
3.16
The Palmerston North District City Plan (the City Plan) is the relevant planning document in
relation to the transmission line on the Tararua Range. This District Plan zones the subject land
and the surrounding land as Rural Zone.
3.17
Section 6 of the City Plan contains performance standards for earthworks within the Rural Zone.
The activity is unable to comply with Rule 6.3.6.1(a)(i) and (ii) due to the quantity of
earthworks involved being greater than 1000 m3 in any 12 month period and the earthworks
will result in the existing ground level being altered by more than 1.5 metres. Therefore,
resource consent is required for a Restricted Discretionary Activity under Rule 6.3.7.1 and the
relevant assessment criteria are found within this Rule.
3.18
Section 23.10.1(i) of the City Plan provides that the construction, alteration or addition to
transformers and lines for conveying electricity at a voltage exceeding 110 kV and a design
capacity exceeding 100 MVA per circuit are Unrestricted Discretionary Activities. Relevant
assessment criteria are contained within Rule 23.10.1.
3.19
As one of the resource consents required from the City Council is for an Unrestricted
Discretionary Activity, the applications to the City Council will be assessed as an Unrestricted
Discretionary Activity as per the ‗bundling principle‘.
Overall status of the PWFP
3.20
Based on the above, we have assessed the entire PWFP as a Discretionary Activity.
4
NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS
4.1
The applications were publicly notified in accordance with Section 93 of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (the Act) on 29 August 2011. 581 parties were directly served notice of
the resource consent applications. Submissions closed on 17 October 2011.
4.2
A total of 153 submissions were received in respect of the proposed development, which
included 136 received within the statutory submission period and 16 late submissions.
Submission 70 was subsequently withdrawn, leaving a total of 152 live submissions.
4.3
The following table outlines view of the submissions received:
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 15/194
The Regional Council
4.4
The summary below provides a brief outline of the issues raised in submissions that considered
relevant to the Regional Council.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Positive Effects
(i)
Suitability of site for the PWFP
(ii)
Benefits of renewable electricity
(iii)
Employment and district economic benefits, including jobs and road
improvements
(iv)
Maintains electricity supply and costs
(v)
Suitability of wind resource
(vi)
Consistency with government Policy
Environmental Effects
(i)
Cultural effects
(ii)
Effects on water quality
(iii)
Earthworks effects
(iv)
Ecological effects (including aquatic, birds & bats, and loss of indigenous
vegetation)
(v)
Effects on the unique karst landform
(vi)
Proposed lapse period and consent duration
Other Matters
(i)
Property values
(ii)
The consultation/notification process
Property Values
4.5
The potential for property values to fall was raised in many of the submissions opposing the
proposed development.
4.6
We will not comment on the likelihood of property values being affected. The matter of
property values is something that case law has identified as not necessarily being an adverse
effect in itself rather it is the adverse effects that cause a reduction in property values. In
Waine Enterprises v Tasman District Council, (A196/2003, 5 November 2003), the Environment
Court considered an application to establish a commercial operation in a rural area. In regard
to submissions claiming that property prices would be drop as a result of the development, the
court stated:
―In our opinion, any depreciation in property values attributable to the operation would
reflect the market perception of adverse effects generated by the activity there. In
considering the application, we have to take into account any such adverse effects
directly. To consider as well market response to its perception of such effects would be
to take them into account indirectly as well as directly. So we decline to allow the
possibility of depreciation of property values to influence our decision.‖
4.7
The direct effects of the proposed development will be considered by us in respect of this
development. However, considering devaluation of property is essentially considering a
secondary effect (being an effect resulting from an effect).
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 16/194
The consultation and notification process
4.8
Inadequate consultation and/or notification were raised in many of the submissions in
opposition to the development.
4.9
The obligations of MRP are stated in Schedule 4 of The Act, which states:
―To avoid doubt, clause 1(h) obliges an applicant to report as to the persons identified as
being affected by the proposal, but does not:
a) Oblige MRP to consult with any person; or
b) Create any ground for expecting that MRP will consult with any person.‖
4.10
Therefore, while there can be advantages in MRP undertaking consultation prior to lodging an
application, there is absolutely no requirement to do so.
4.11
For completeness, the application was publically notified in accordance with the public
notification process of the Act. We are satisfied that this process, and the level of information
made publically available, provided adequate scope for interested parties to determine what
was applied for and determine the adverse effects.
The District Council
4.12
Submissions that focused on the District Council issues are summarised in Tables 3 and 4 and
paragraphs 64-66 of Mr Bashford‘s report.
4.13
In a very general way, reasons for support included the following:

Good for the environment;

Renewable, sustainable, eco-friendly;

Supportive of wind energy;

Economic benefits;

Increased supply of electricity;

4.14
a productive site of wind energy;

Visual impacts: not adverse.

Transmission: may provide for other wind farms and central government policy.
Reasons for opposition included:

Visual and environmental effects;

Night-time aviation lighting;

ONL feature;

public health;

Cumulative effects;

Effects on amenity;

Effects on tourism and recreation;

Social and economic effects;

Transmission lines; and
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 17/194

General opposition.
4.15
The details are fully set out within Mr Bashford‘s report.
4.16
He also detailed a range of submissions that were neutral or where the position of the submitter
was not set out.
Submissions to the City Council
4.17
Of those submissions received, 17 submissions were specifically relevant to the consents sought
within the City Council‘s jurisdiction, with 2 in support of the transmission line, 10 opposing the
transmission line and 5 neutral/not stated submissions.
4.18
Two of the submissions relevant to the City Council were late.
4.19
Those matters raised within submissions in support of the transmission line include:
4.20
4.21
4.22

Supportive of Wind Energy Generation;

Excellent Wind Resource;

Responsible Developer.
The matters raised in submissions opposed to the transmission line include:

Landscape and Visual Effects;

Cumulative Effects/Effects on Amenity;

Effects on Property Values;

Traffic and Roading Effects;

Oppose Transmission Route;

Contrast to Turitea Decision;

Effect on consented Turitea transmission line;

Lack of Consideration of Alternatives;

Quality of Application;

Cultural Values;

Ecology;

Lapse Date Period.
The matters raised by neutral submissions to the proposed transmission line with the City
Council are summarised below:
(a)
Submitter 54 notes that the PWFP seems to be in contrast to the Turitea decision and
seeks additional information regarding the route of the transmission line through the
Turitea Reserve. The submitter also requests a study of landscape effects from the
eastern and western sides [of the Tararua Ranges] including visual montages from
popular viewing locations.
(b)
Submitter 81 notes that there are no archaeological sites recorded within the area by
the NZ Archaeological Associated but that does not mean they are not present. The
submitter seeks that an advice note be included in any consent granted in relation to
earthworks.
Submitter 98 endorses the PWFP as a useful addition to New Zealand renewable energy supply
but considers that the transmission lines passing through the TWF as totally unacceptable and
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 18/194
irresponsible. The Submitter raises effects on views of the City and the Manawatu plains,
effects on human health and terms of the existing agreement between MRP and stakeholders in
relation to the TWF as reasons for this view. The submitter seeks that the transmission lines be
placed underground where located within the TWF.
4.23
One submission was received that did not state whether it supported, opposed or was neutral to
the PWFP and is summarised below:
(a)
Submission 110 is from Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated and states that further
time and consultation is required to determine which consents and activities impact on
the Rangitaane o Manawatu rohe. It is noted that the activities within the City Council
District have greatest potential to impact natural and physical resources of importance
within the Rangitaane o Manawatu rohe. It is further notes that a protocol for
management of cultural impacts was provided to MRP for its TWF, and that the
protocol will need to be extended to address the current activity and be recognised by
the City Council.
Late submissions
4.24
Mr Andrew Bashford for the District Council detailed the circumstances of a number of late
submissions.
4.25
Seventeen of the submissions were late and are numbered LS1 to LS6 and MLS1 to MLS11.
Submissions MLS1 to MLS11 were received by MRP within the statutory time but were not
received by the Council until 27 October 2011, when MRP realised that the Council had not
received them.
4.26
Section 96(6)(a) RMA states that a submission must be served on the consent authority (The
District Council) within the time allowed by Section 97 (being by the 20th working day). As
these submissions were not served on the Council until 27 October 2011 they can only be
considered as late submissions. Submissions LS1 to LS4 were not excessively late and were
received by the Council within a few days of the close of submissions.
4.27
Submission LS5 (received 1 November 2011) is a second submission from this submitter. The
submission does not add anything to the original submission (Sub 84) except to confirm that
the submitter would like to be heard.
4.28
Submission LS6 is from the Abraham Family Trust and was received by the Council on 4
November 2011, some 11 working days after the close of submissions. The submitter states
that they did not receive the notification documents and were not aware that the application
had been notified. The District Council publicly notified the application and served notice of the
application to the submitters address (10A Hardie Street, Palmerston North) as held in its rating
database at the same time as notice was served on other parties.
4.29
After consultation with MRP, the time period for accepting submission was extended by 8 days
to 27 October 2011, which provided for Submissions MLS1 to MLS11 and LS1 to LS4.
4.30
MRP initially indicated that it would not be happy with the acceptance of Submission LS6.
Ultimately, after various exchanges at the hearing with MRP and after hearing from the
Abraham Family Trust, MRP accepted that the Abraham Family Trust should be heard. We
proceeded on that basis.
Trade completion
4.31
This relates to Genesis Energy‘s (Genesis) submissions on MRP‘s application for resource
consents to construct, operate and maintain the PWFP of up to 53 wind turbines and an
associated transmission line. Genesis was proposing a wind farm known as the Castle Hill
(CHWF) to the south of the proposed PWFP.
The issue
4.32
MRP submitted that Genesis Energy is a trade competitor and therefore should not be allowed
to make a submission on their application under the trade competition clauses in Part 11A of
the Act.
4.33
Genesis submitted that although it is a trade competitor of MRP, it falls under the requirements
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 19/194
of s308B(2), which allow it to submit on this application.
4.34
The issue in contention is whether Genesis is ―directly affected‖ as required by s308B(2) in
order to provide a submission on this application.
Legislation
4.35
Section 135 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009
introduced:
―308B Limit on making submissions
(1) SubSection (2) applies when person A wants to make a submission under Section 96
about an application by person B.
(2) Person A may make the submission only if directly affected by an effect of the activity
to which the application relates, that—
(a) adversely affects the environment; and
(b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.
(3) Failure to comply with the limits on submissions set in Section 149E or 149O or clause
6(4) or 29(1B) of Schedule 1 is a contravention of this Part.‖
4.36
These amendments were introduced as a way to reduce the number of vexatious and frivolous
appeals motivated or backed by trade completion. This was done by limiting participation in
objection and appeal processes, unless they are directly affected by an adverse effect of the
activity on the environment.
―Directly affected‖
4.37
The term ―directly affected‖ is discussed in case law but not defined in relation to trade
competition. We think it is sensible then in these circumstances to look at the plain and
ordinary meaning of the words.
4.38
The plain and ordinary meaning of ―directly‖ is:
4.39
(a)
In a direct line or manner; straight;
(b)
Without anyone or anything intervening;
(c)
Exactly or totally;
(d)
At once; instantly;
(e)
Candidly; frankly; or
(f)
In a little while; shortly.
The plain and ordinary meaning of ―affected‖ is:
(a)
Acted upon, influenced, or changed;
(b)
Emotionally stirred or moved; or
(c)
Infected or attacked, as by disease.
Case law
General Distributors Ltd3
4.40
3
This is the most recent decision regarding trade competitor‘s submissions. Foodstuffs argued
General Distributors Ltd v Foodstuff Properties (Wellington) Ltd [2011] NZEnvC 212
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 20/194
that its submission in opposition to the PWFP was concerned with Plan integrity in that this new
proposal would attract customers away from its existing supermarket. The Court found that
even if this was accepted to relate to adverse effects on the environment, that it was common
sense that it also related to an effect of trade competition under s308B(2).
4.41
The Court stated that the strength of the new provision lay in requiring a would-be submitter, if
challenged, to demonstrate that it was directly affected by an adverse effect on the
environment created by the PWFP, and that such an adverse effect did not relate to trade
competition or its effects.4
4.42
In this situation, Genesis has been challenged by MRP to demonstrate that they are directly
affected by the application and their submission is not related to trade competition.
Genesis‘s position
4.43
Legal counsel for Genesis submitted that applying Section 308(B)(2) Genesis was directly
affected by an adverse effect on the environment created by the PWFP. In support of his
submissions, he led evidence from two experts, one dealing with noise, the other dealing with
landscape and visual amenity effects.
Noise
4.44
The evidence presented by Mr Halstead focused on pre-installation noise measurements.
4.45
Mr Halstead raised a concern to prevent background noise measurements from being affected
by noise from another wind farm is stringent, as a wind farm contribution of as low as 25 dBA
could constitute a material contamination. His concern fell to the several dwellings at the
northwest corner of the Genesis Wind Farm where it may be necessary for Genesis to
demonstrate compliance, which would require some consideration of MRP‘s PWFP noise
emissions should its wind farm be built first.
4.46
Pre-installation noise measurement is a timing issue. Neither wind farm is yet built; both
Genesis and MRP could carry out their measurements now to get their baselines. If both farms
were operating and creating high levels of noise, they can use these baselines to establish if
their noise is in breach of the NZS6808:2010. However, this is unlikely to be an issue as
Genesis‘ own expert has stated that it did not appear that there would be any material
cumulative effects from MRP‘s PWFP on any dwellings.
4.47
This background noise monitoring is a requirement that would have had to be satisfied
regardless of whether the MRP PWFP was established. Genesis cannot say that having to satisfy
this criterion is a direct effect of MRP‘s PWFP.
Visual Effects
4.48
Mr Boffa provided evidence in this regard; he focused on the cumulative visual effect that the
three wind farms (Castle Hill, Puketoi, and Waitahora) would have on the rural area to the east
of the Puketoi Range.
4.49
Mr Boffa‘s evidence was focused on the impact that the PWFP would have on the residents in
the area. This evidence does not directly affect Genesis Energy.
Conclusion
4.50
We conclude that Genesis openly admit it is a trade competitor of MRP and that it fails to
establish that the adverse effects its expert witnesses identified (noise and visual effects) would
cause Genesis to be directly affected by the PWFP. Accordingly, under s96(2) their submissions
should not be allowed, as Genesis have failed to satisfy the exception criteria in s308B(2), and
we so direct.
5
THE SECTION 42A REPORTS
5.1
We received primary Section 42A reports from Mr Mark St Clair for the Regional Council, from
Mr Andrew Bashford on behalf of the District Council, and from Mr David Forrest on behalf of
the City Council.
4
General Distributors Ltd v Foodstuff Properties (Wellington) Ltd [2011] NZEnvC 212 at [20]
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 21/194
5.2
5.3
Mr St Clair‘s primary report was supported by a number of specialist s42A reports, which he
attached as annexures to his primary report. Those reports were from:
(a)
Mr Mike Lake (Kessels Associates). Mr Lake reported on freshwater ecology issues.
(b)
Mr Steve Bryant and Mr Kerry Pearce (Bryant Environmental Solutions Limited)
reported erosion and sediment control issues.
(c)
Mr Gerry Kessels (Kessels Associates) also reported on terrestrial ecology and
biodiversity.
Mr Bashford‘s primary report was also supported by a number of specialist s42A reports, which
he attached as annexures to his primary report. Those reports were from:
(a)
Mr Shannon Bray (Shannon Bray Landscape Architects Limited) provided an
assessment of landscape and visual amenity effects.
(b)
Mr Nigel Lloyd (Acousafe Noise Control Solutions) reported on noise.
(c)
Mr Ray Cannon (The District Council‘s Engineering Services Manager) provided an
assessment of impacts on roading.
5.4
Mr Forrest‘s primary report did not contain other specialist reports.
5.5
All reports were pre-circulated in advance of the hearing. We have read and considered the
content of the reports and refer to them as relevant throughout this decision. Specific points
noted from the s42A report are summarised below.
Mr Mark St Clair – Regional Council
5.6
His report covered the following matters:
(a)
a brief outline of the resource consents applied for and the notification process;
(b)
a summary of the matters raised in submissions lodged to the resource consent
applications;
(c)
a summary of the environmental effects associated with the activities proposed in the
resource consent applications;
(d)
an assessment of the relevant Regional Plans and the RPS as they relate to the
resource consent applications;
(e)
an analysis of Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it relates to the
resource consent applications; and
(f)
an assessment of the activities associated with the resource consent applications in
terms of Section 104 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
5.7
His report was extensive and comprehensive and provided a very thorough overview for us.
Where appropriate in the remainder of this decision we will refer specifically to his report.
5.8
Mr St Clair‘s conclusions were:
5.9
(a)
The proposed development does have the potential to result in adverse effects in
terms of aquatic habitats and species, terrestrial ecology, indigenous biodiversity, air
quality and cultural impacts.
(b)
There is a level of uncertainly of the effects of the proposed development. This level
of uncertainty is considered acceptable, and with the imposition of recommended
consent conditions, it is considered this level of uncertainty can be further reduced.
Overall, we recommend that consent should be granted with the recommended conditions
imposed.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 22/194
5.10
He considered that the term of the consents sought in the original application is appropriate
with the imposition of recommended conditions. These terms are as follows:
(a)
10 year term for the construction related consents; and
(b)
35 year term for the discharge permits and Land-use Consent for works in the beds or
rivers.
Mr Mike Lake –freshwater ecology
5.11
Mr Lake undertook a peer review of the Capital Freshwater Ecological Values report prepared
Golder Associates (2011) and additional information provided by Golder Associates as part of a
S92 response (Boothroyd 2011).
5.12
After describing the aquatic ecology and water quality in the planning context, Mr Lake set out
the values of the Makuri Stream and its tributaries, the values of the whole Tiraumea Water
Management Zone, values of the Wahi Water Management Subzone, and values of the whole
Akitio Water Management Zone as provided in Schedules AA/AB and D.
5.13
Mr Lake addressed water quality targets for the Makuri Sub-zones, which encompasses the
majority of the proposed PWFP footprint, including water quality targets for catchments where
trout spawning values have been identified. He said a similar set of targets also exist for the
Waihi sub-zone, of which only a very small proportion would be affected by the PWFP.
5.14
Mr Lake also identified a Local Water Conservation Notice on the Makuri River that includes a
number of water quality standards.
5.15
Turning to the Golder assessments, he told us they were competently done and the data
collected provided a representative picture of the freshwater ecological values within the
development area and receiving environment.
5.16
He told us instream habitat quality while reasonably good was limited by a lack of a forest cover
and riparian vegetation. Water Quality was reasonably high although some water courses did
contain nutrient levels exceeding regional guidelines. He noted turbidity and suspended solids
also exceeded regional guidelines.
5.17
He noted benthic macro-invertebrate sampling showed that the quality of habitat was variable
but only infrequently classified as poor. Mr Lake was slightly critical of fish sampling methods
but concluded that those concerns would not affect his assessment of effects.
5.18
In terms of fish, he noted fish communities appear to be low in both species and diversity
abundance. He noted that of the fish species recorded only long fin eels have a conservation
status and are currently listed at risk.
5.19
It was his opinion that the tributary streams would support populations of North Island koura
and long fin eels. He noted koura were listed as chronically threatened. Mr Lake then turned to
discuss ecological effects, noting that the construction of road crossings will result in the loss of
stream habitats that will essentially become piped or reclaimed. He was also concerned about
excess fill disposal.
5.20
He agreed with the Golder report conclusions that the scale of habitat loss would be very small
relative to the length of available stream habitat that would remain unaffected. However, Mr
Lake considered that this loss should be mitigated and he considered an offset package, similar
to that proposed by MRP would more than offset that loss. MRP‘s proposed package will include
riparian planting and protection of approximately 2050 m off stream length which would more
than offset the estimated length of stream loss of 168 m and any associated loss of ecological
function.
5.21
Mr Lake wanted to see that culverts were not located at spring sites or directly downstream of
them. He wanted to ensure also that initial stream crossing had minimal impact on aquatic
values. To achieve this he supported the PWFP to relocated koura prior to culvert work
commencing. He also supported the inclusion of best practice guidelines within the CEMP. In
terms of dealing with potential adverse effects of fill he supported the Golder Report, in terms
of locating fill sites in shallow depressions on upper ridges so as to avoid both permanent and
ephemeral water courses.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 23/194
5.22
He recorded that fill sites were avoided in spring and seepage areas because those seepage
areas could impact on the capacity of the environment to process nutrients so he considered
seepage areas should be avoided for fill purposes.
5.23
He discussed the effects that an influx of sediment in water ways would have. He noted such
influx was a natural phenomenon and it caused a range of adverse or challenging effects on the
ecosystem.
5.24
He noted earthworks have a potential to contribute increased volumes of sediment to the water
course causing significant adverse effects on the receiving environment.
5.25
MRP proposed an adaptive management approach which will incorporate best practice sediment
control and associated monitoring to avoid increased volume of sediment reaching water
courses. Mr Lake supported such an approach.
5.26
He referred to the risk of ingress of sediment into sink holes. If this occurred groundwater flow
paths may be blocked, which would reduce water quality. He was concerned with MRP‘s
proposal to use geo-textile fabric to prevent fines entering sinkholes and groundwater flowpaths
because he did not see this as a long term solution.
5.27
He was satisfied about the Golder Associates approach for a solution to the risk of other
contaminants such as hydro-carbons.
5.28
Returning to fish passage, he considered it was important that providing fish passage over
existing man-made obstacles was to be preferred. He noted that the design stream crossings
were such to enable koura movement up and downstream.
5.29
In terms of ongoing operation of the PWFP, Mr Lake was of the view that provided adequate
stormwater treatment systems are in place and managed responsibly there would be no issues.
5.30
He agreed with the overall principles and intent of the proposed monitoring of water quality,
macro-invertebrates and sediment deposition. He tabulated a number of concerns about detail
relating to matters such as:
(a)
Number and location of impact and reference sites
(b)
Frequency of sampling
(c)
Suspended sediment monitoring
(d)
Duration of baseline monitoring
(e)
Inclusion of sampling following rain events
(f)
Development of implementation of triggers or thresholds
5.31
Mr Lake commented on matters raised in submissions. Many of these were specifically
concerned about sediment inputs to water courses. As noted earlier, Mr Lake considered that
these effects could be satisfactorily avoided or mitigated through the proposed adaptive
management approach.
5.32
In terms of other submissions, Mr Lake noted they raised concerns about potential effects on
fisheries some relating to trout, tuna (eels) and koura. Mr Lake was of the view that the PWFP
construction effects will be no more than minor provided that sediment loss is carefully
managed through an adaptive management approach that incorporates compliance triggers.
Potential effects on eels and koura would he thought be less than minor as long as any habitat
loss is offset and upstream/downstream passage is not obstructed.
5.33
He noted that the Department of Conservation (DOC) sought in its submission that the
mitigation package includes 18.9 ha of catchment protection containing 5.25 ha of riparian
planting, 2.5 ha of shrub land and wetland planting. He concluded that the proposed mitigation
package would meet those requirements/.
5.34
He also noted the submission of NZ Speleological Society (NZSS) and Waitahora-Puketoi
Guardians submission that highlighted the significance of cave and karst ecosystems in the
Puketoi area, and potential for construction activities associated with the PWFP to impact on
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 24/194
those values. After referring to the Golder Associates report, he concluded it would be helpful if
MRP provided more information on the local karst ecosystem and whether or not it would be
affected by the PWFP.
5.35
Finally, he referred to conditions and made recommendations to ensure that the potential
effects of the PWFP on freshwater ecology were adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
We discuss them in detail when we address conditions later in this decision.
Mr Steve Bryant and Mr Kerry Pearce – erosion and sediment control
5.36
Messrs Bryant and Pearce are well qualified and experienced to provide us with expert views in
relation to erosion and sediment issues and control methodologies proposed by MRP to deal
with those issues arising from the PWFP.
5.37
They discussed earthworks being the largest single activity associated with the construction of
the PWFP. They noted approximately 2,784,000 m3 of earthworks is required. They presented
roading earthwork volumes and estimate of total earthwork volumes respectively.
5.38
They also detailed the potential environmental effects associated with the discharge of sediment
into water courses.
5.39
They proceeded to critique the CEMPs that MRP advanced to address these potential sediment
risks.
5.40
They concluded that MRP has proposed that the CEMP and SEMP will be the planning
mechanism to determine environmental obligations for the PWFP. These plans provide an allencompassing suite of technical documents that have been prepared to assist in the consenting
and construction of the PWFP.
5.41
We accept that the concept of using management plans such as CEMPs and SEMPs is now
common practice for many large scale earthworks sites--particularly wind-farm development-as the process allows for environmental management practices to evolve and improve as the
project progresses. This flexible management system promotes the identification of
substandard environmental performance and allows modification of plans to be a relatively
seamless operation. It also enables a proactive management regime where all parties can
provide feedback to the process of refining best management practices.
5.42
Messrs Bryan and Pearce set out a number of issues on which they sought clarification. We will
address those when we review the evidence of Mr Breese for MPR, who responded to those
matters.
5.43
Messrs Bryant Pearce concluded:
―The Wellington Earthworks Guidelines and best practice principles appear to have been
followed in the preparation of the SEMP 3 document. However, these do not appear to
have been translated into the drawings for SEMP 3, MRP-PKT – 3511, 3501 and 3520 Rev
B. This apparent discrepancy should be clarified by MRP at the hearing. If the drawings
are amended to be in line with the SEMP 3 document, then in our view the effects would
be no more than minor.‖
In conclusion, we are of the view that MRP has generally proposed industry best
management practices and that the proposed suite of management and monitoring Plans,
is in general accordance with the Greater Wellington Regional Council‘s ―Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines, September 2002 (Reprinted June 2006)‖ – those Guidelines
being adopted by Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council. We have set out in our report
matters of detail that require clarification, particularly in regard to the draft CEMP.
Nonetheless, we are of the opinion that the effects of earthworks, specifically sediment
discharges, on the receiving environment can be managed to an acceptable level through
the monitoring and management Plans and consent conditions. We have made
recommendations on consent conditions that should be applied to the activity.‖
Mr Gerry Kessels – Terrestrial Ecology
5.44
Mr Kessels considered how the PWFP could affect terrestrial indigenous vegetation namely
scrub, forest and wetlands, and indigenous terrestrial animals in their habitats such as birds,
lizards, invertebrates and bats.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 25/194
5.45
He told us that the PWFP is wholly contained within the Puketoi Ecological District (ED) and that
within this ED, only approximately 4% of the land cover remained in indigenous forest and only
a tiny percentage, 0.004%, remained in freshwater wetland.
5.46
This meant that any further indigenous vegetation fragmentation within intact area could be
ecologically significant in terms of Section 6(c) RMA 1991.
5.47
After referring to the Blaschke report for MRP, which Mr Kessels considered provided a very
useful analysis of both the vegetation and fauna habitats, he adopted Blaschke‘s conclusion
that:
―In my opinion indigenous forest and scrub areas within Puketoi Wind Farm site that have
been classified as of high or moderate ecological value clearly have significance under
Section 6(c) RMA.‖
5.48
He referred to the Wildland‘s report, which formed part of MRP‘s AEE and noted it provided a
robust analysis of existing literature and data on terrestrial ecology and adequately documented
the location and core ecological values of the PWFP and the 220 kV transmission corridor. He
noted the report found that virtually the entire PWFP site is situated in nationally ―acutely
threatened or chronically threatened.‖ Mr Kessels pointed out for us that some of these
threatened environments may not be consistent with schedule E, One Plan and had no statutory
weight, as the National Policy Statement on Biodiversity is still only a proposed version.
5.49
Turning to protected natural areas, he advised us that a QEII covenant is within 30-50 m from
the proposed turbine sites and roads in several areas are directly adjacent to the site. The 220
kV transmission corridor crossed a DOC marginal strip. He told us that this meant that while no
indigenous vegetation would be directly affected, indigenous fauna within these areas may be
more susceptible to indirect effects such as disturbance during construction or turbine blade or
transmission line strike.
5.50
Mr Kessels then turned to the relevant district and regional Plans and MRP‘s AEE contained in
the Wildlands and Blaschke reports to determine how the PWFP sat against the Regional
Council‘s One Plan and the Proposed and Operative District Plans in terms of effects on
significant habitat. He recorded his understanding that all of the statutory plan constraints
would be avoided apart from 6.16 ha of largely highly modified limestone features. However,
he remained unclear if any of the access roads, turbine pads or fill sites would affect seep
zones, which are potentially significant under the One Plan. He sought further information from
MRP. He was also unclear if all Recommended Areas of Protection listed in the District Plan
would be avoided.
5.51
Overall, he was satisfied that all existing, and likely potential threatened flora and fauna which
could be affected by the construction and operation of PWFP had been correctly identified in
MRP‘s relevant AEEs. However, he was concerned that none of MRP‘s ecology reports
adequately described or mapped where threatened or at risk species are or may be present and
potential habitats for them. For example, he referred to the AVI FAUNA reports that states
there are New Zealand falcon on site but that reports does not specifically describe or map
where they are observed.
5.52
Mr Kessels therefore recommended that further detailed site specific surveys are conducted
prior to construction clearance within directly affected indigenous vegetation habitats once the
detailed design layout has been finalised to ensure that no threatened Plant species are
affected. He suggested that consent conditions be developed to provide for any threatened
Plant specimens found.
5.53
Mr Kessels then turned to discuss terrestrial fauna species and noted that the following species
are most at risk from, adverse risk of construction and operation of the PWFP:
(a)
New Zealand falcon;
(b)
New Zealand pippet;
(c)
Long Tailed bat;
(d)
Wellington green gecko;
(e)
Ornate skink.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 26/194
5.54
He was most concerned about potential effects of construction and operation of the proposed
PWFP on long tailed bats, the New Zealand falcon and their habitats. He was concerned that
there were deficiencies in the survey work to date in relation to these terrestrial fauna species.
5.55
He was satisfied that the PWFP through turbine blade strike did not pose a risk to species such
as kaka, long tailed cuckoo and the pippet.
5.56
However, even with concerns in relation to long tailed bats and falcons, Mr Kessels told us that
as long as statistically and scientifically robust carcass searches are undertaken around
operational turbines with suitable contingency feedbacks in place, if significant strike events are
found to occur then this risk can be quantified in the operational phase of the PWFP and
appropriate avoidance, mitigation a and remediation implemented.
5.57
Turning to lizards, while Mr Kessels was critical of the level of lizard surveys undertaken to date
he was satisfied that pre-disturbance searches for lizards are undertaken in likely habitats then
the effects of the PWFP on threatened lizard species such as the wellington green gecko will be
minor.
5.58
Overall, Mr Kessels was satisfied that the risk posed on threatened terrestrial invertebrates and
their habitats associated with the PWFP construction will be minor principally because very
careful sediment control measures were to be provided to prevent silt run-off into the cave
systems during construction, as cave dwelling species may be sensitive to excessive sediment
deposition.
5.59
In conclusion on the bats, this is what he told us:
―In the absence of sufficiently detailed information on bats being provided at this point
in time by MRP, a bat management plan is considered to be a suitable alternative
approach to minimising the risk of significant disruption, mortality and habitat
destruction occurring during both the construction and operational phases of the
PWFP. The bat management plan needs to be very detailed and specific in terms of
the objectives, outcomes and processes required to assess any site specific effects and
to ensure suitable avoidance, mitigation and monitoring measures are effectively
implemented. It is also essential that additional pre-construction and ongoing
monitoring on the utilisation of habitats by bats and risk the PWFP poses to them is
undertaken by a recognised bat expert, to provide a more accurate determination of
the level of suitable avoidance, remediation and mitigation measures required.
Further detailed information in any bat monitoring and management plan is also
required to addresses issues such as:
5.60
(i)
the number, location, timing (e.g. not in winter) and data analysis of ABM
detectors throughout suitable indigenous and exotic habitats over the entire
PWFP site;
(ii)
specific pre-clearance survey and roost occupancy contingency protocols;
(iii)
Detailed carcass search procedures including the use of models to determine
search areas, searcher efficiency, carcass removal rates by
predators/scavengers and the use of trained dogs; and
(iv)
specific avoidance, remediation and mitigation measures should significant
adverse effects on bats be shown to occur.‖
In respect of the New Zealand falcon he concluded as follows:
―Although the surveys sufficiently describe the presences of most species, targeted
surveys aimed at locating breeding falcons have not been undertaken. The generalised
bird surveys conducted to date could have overlooked falcons. Further pre-construction
surveys at potential falcon nesting habitats, during the breeding season, by a recognised
falcon expert are recommended. I understand that MRP has commissioned further
surveys by a falcon expert, will prepare an inventory of known falcon locations and
provide a more detailed assessment of potential falcon nesting habitat as part of that
survey, which will be presented as evidence before the hearing. Further analysis, ideally
using the Band model to calculate strike risk, and a suite of suitable avoidance,
remediation, mitigation and monitoring measures are also required before I can provide a
final recommendation on falcon.‖
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 27/194
Comments on submissions
5.61
Mr Kessels directly commented upon three submitters, namely the QEII National Trust (the QEII
Trust) which lodged a neutral submission, the New Zealand Speleological NZSS (the NZSS) who
opposes the PWFP, and DOC who both supports and opposes the PWFP.
5.62
In respect of the QEII Trust, it was Mr Kessels‘ opinion that MRP‘s proposed mitigation package
should satisfy the QEII Trust‘s desire for an area to be set aside as an offset mitigation package
to have ongoing weed and pest control funded by MRP for the life if the PWFP.
5.63
In terms of the NZSS, he noted that the NZSS wanted to ensure that damage to caves and
karst features were adequately avoided. Mr Kessels did not fully understand the NZSS‘s
concerns and wished to see the NZSS quantify the specific locations and provide a more
detailed explanation of where potential effects may occur. He considered MRP‘s AEE contained
within the Wildland‘s report while recording that the limestone areas that would be disturbed by
the activities were of low or low to moderate ecological value, Mr Kessels was not entirely
satisfied that the ecological studies commissioned to date have targeted cave ecosystems
appropriately. He was also concerned that no onsite invertebrate studies had been undertaken
however he did acknowledge DR Blaschke‘s recommended conditions that seek to address this
issue.
5.64
In terms of the DOC submission, Mr Kessels told us these issues revolved essentially around
environmental monitoring, mitigation and the need to have conditions to avoid, mitigate or
remedy adverse effects. We discuss these issues in greater detail when we discuss conditions.
5.65
Mr Kessels then discussed MRP‘s proposed mitigation and monitoring noting that both the
mitigation and monitoring Objectives presented by MRP associated with indigenous vegetation
clearance and effects on non-threatened indigenous flora and fauna species were
comprehensive and he fully supported them.
5.66
In terms of MRP‘s proposed mitigation area (involving protection and enhancement of 21.4 ha
of rough pasture land, scrub land, wetland and stream/riparian margin habitats, including 5.34
ha of riparian planting and 1.84 ha of scrub planting) Mr Kessels considered this was both
adequate and he fully supported it.
5.67
At the time of writing his evidence he had not been fully involved in dialogue with MRP about
conditions. However as the hearing progressed that dialogue did occur and we capture Mr
Kessels‘ views when we discuss conditions subsequently. We do record that Mr Kessels was
well satisfied that his issues of concern in relation to both fauna and flora were capable of being
addressed by way of conditions. As we already noted, he considered that MRP‘s mitigation
measures, which included the offset, were supported by him.
Mr Andrew Bashford – The District Council
5.68
Mr Bashford, a Planner, provided a planning and overview Section 42A report. He detailed the
PWFP and described the site and locality in the early part of his report.
5.69
He provided details of land owner agreements and affected person approvals. We note that at
the time of writing his report all of the landowners whose land is to be used for the PWFP or
transmission line purposes had provided affected person‘s approvals. He listed six exceptions.
He noted that the RMA does not require affected persons approvals from land owners but if they
are not provided the consenting authority is required to consider any potential or actual adverse
effects of the PWFP on these affected persons. However, the converse also applies.
5.70
He provided his views on the relevant rules of the District Plan and RMA as they apply. We
discuss these matters in detail later.
5.71
Mr Bashford then turned to discuss the permitted baseline noting that MRP within its application
had undertaken a comparison of the PWFP against what it considered to be the permitted
baseline. He reminded us that the use of the permitted baseline principle is dependent on the
effects of an activity and not the activity itself. It was his view that except for a few minor
parts of the application, the permitted baseline as set out in the District Plan standards is
largely irrelevant to the PWFP. He referred to farm tracking, access tracking, and related
earthworks required for the access and wind farm tracks, which he considered were generally
incomparable. Similarly, in terms of the proposed workshop and electrical control building and
accessory buildings he noted that there was no permitted baseline provided in the proposed
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 28/194
District Plan in relation to substations. We agree with this view for reasons we set out
subsequently.
5.72
In relation to the transmission line, he told us the District Plan allows for transmission lines to
convey electricity at a voltage up to 110 kV. He noted the proposed internal transmission lines
being part of the energy generation facility were Discretionary Activities under Rule 5.3.7.2 (b).
However, he said the 33 kV lines are within the permitted baseline and he considered the
effects of the lines on their own are no more than a permitted transmission line in the same
location.
5.73
However, in terms of the 220 kV transmission line, he took issue with MRP‘s landscape and
visual impact assessment, which suggested that the transmission line was comparable in terms
of the effects arising from a complying 110 kV system.
5.74
Mr Bashford was uncomfortable with this comparison and the application of the permitted
baseline principle to the 220 kV transmission line, mainly because the 110 kV system was, he
thought, a somewhat fanciful proposition because it simply would not have the capacity
required. He reminded us that we have discretion in relation to permitted baselines and he
thought there were too many uncertainties to apply our discretion effectively in this instance.
For reasons we set out later we agree with Mr Bashford.
The application
5.75
In reviewing MRP‘s AEE and supporting technical reports Mr Bashford told us that he accepted
that the AEE was comprehensive and thorough, which in turn enabled an assessment of the
PWFP under the assessment criteria for wind farms as set out in the Proposed District Plan.
5.76
He also agreed with MRP‘s assessment of the existing environment although he did note there
were some issues in identifying the Puketoi Range as an ONL. We will return to that matter
later.
5.77
In terms of effects he suggested the effects can be categorised to those related to construction
of the PWFP and transmission line and ongoing effects that would arise when the PWFP and
transmission line were operational. In terms of construction effects he referred us to the
application, noting that indicative construction timetable shows that the entire PWFP will take
up to 22 months to construct, including a 6 month commissioning period. The transmission line
is indicated to take 10 months to construct.
Visual and landscape effects
5.78
In respect of these effects Mr Bashford referred to Mr Stephen Brown‘s and Mr Shannon Bray‘s
evidence.
5.79
In reference to both Mr Brown‘s and Mr Bray‘s assessment of the visual and landscape effects
from the construction and earthworks, Mr Bashford said this5:
―Overall I agree with the landscape architects in that the earthworks, although
significant, can be rehabilitated and re-vegetated to a level where the effects are likely to
be insignificant. There may be some challenges in achieving this due to the windy
conditions at the site, however, as Mr Bray has pointed out, other wind farm sites have
successfully re-vegetated after significant earthworks and in windy conditions. We are
also of the opinion that the karst features can be avoided or that effects on them can be
mitigated through the methods as outlined in the CEMP and geotechnical investigation
report. The karst and cave features of the area are discussed further under the
‗Recreation and Tourism‘ Section of this report.‖
5.80
Mr Bashford notes that the ongoing effects of the PWFP once operational are more challenging
and, in some instances, significant. Mr Bashford says:6
―I accept the conclusions of Mr Brown and Mr Bray in that the significant effects of the
wind farm will be mostly limited to the east of the Puketoi Range. With a few exceptions,
both Landscape Architects agree that the landscape effects to the west of the range
would be low.‖
5
6
Page 20, paragraph 105.
Page 21, paragraph 111.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 29/194
5.81
Mr Bashford refers to locations identified by Mr Bray where both visual and amenity effects are,
or could be, of concern. He references 2654 Pahiatua-Pongarora Road (Submitter 91) and
Submitter 38 located 1554 Towai Road (The Marshalls) as being arguably the most significantly
affected properties of the PWFP. Mr Bashford also refers to Mr Bray‘s assessment of
submissions 45, 79, 120 and LS2, which concern views from Makauri Gorge, Pori Road and
Waitahora Valley; we will return to these matters when we discuss Mr Brown‘s and Mr Bray‘s
evidence.
5.82
In conclusion on landscape effects and effects on visual amenity, Mr Bashford recorded:7
―Overall I agree with Mr Bray where he states that the effects on the aesthetic qualities
of the Range will be significant. This is especially so for the length of the Range between
the Pahiatua-Pongarora Road and Towai Road, i.e. that part of the Range occupied by
Turbines WT1 to WT43.
Further east of the immediate foothills the effects diminish with distance and with
visibility being further obscured by intervening topography. It is noted that Route 52
largely follows valleys and views of the Range from the road are not significant. Mr Bray
notes that there are large tracts of private land beyond the road corridor from where
there will be views of the proposed turbines, and that it is from these locations where one
can get a full appreciation of the range. Overall there is agreement that the landscape
and visual amenity effects are moderate to low depending on the distance of the viewer.‖
Shadow Flicker
5.83
Mr Bashford noted four submitters (38, 75, 91, 116) raised shadow flicker effects as a concern.
He noted that submitter 38 (The Marshalls at 1554 Towai Road) contended that shadow flicker
will adversely affect them to a level that is significantly more than minor.
5.84
Mr Bashford noted that MRP used the Australian draft ―National Wind Farm Development
Guidelines‖, which recommended that a residential exposure limit of 30 hours per year up to a
distance of 235 times the blade width was an appropriate guideline to apply. Using the largest
turbine proposed by MRP, the Repower 6N Turbine blade, this gives a distance of 1450 m, after
which the effects are considered reasonable under the guidelines.
5.85
The result of applying this approach shows that only eight residences are likely to experience
shadow flicker effects and of these only the Marshalls would experience more than 30 hours
shadow flicker a year caused by turbines WT2 – WT5 inclusive. The Marshall property could
experience up to 48 hours shadow flicker a year.
5.86
Mr Bashford noted MRP‘s shadow flicker report and Mr Brown‘s evidence said that the modelling
is theoretical and based on a worst case scenario. It does not he said allow for cloud cover and
it assumes that dwellings have no solid walls or roofs.
5.87
Mr Bashford noted that MRP did propose a mitigation measure to deal with shadow flicker
effects on the Marshall dwelling. This involves stopping the relevant turbine at the time of day
when the effect is most likely or is occurring. This is achieved by the use of a light sensor so
that the turbine is only stopped at those times known to be an issue and when the turbine is in
direct sunlight.
5.88
As for blade glint, Mr Bashford referred to Mr Brown‘s evidence where he suggested blade glint
is likely limited to land around Towai Makuari-Ongha Roads and to the Waewaepa Range. This
effect would, according to Mr Brown, be mitigated by the proposed coating of all turbine blades
to limit reflectivity values to less than 20%.
Night-time effects
5.89
7
Aviation lighting will be placed on the top of the turbine nacelle. Mr Bashford noted that Mr
Brown concluded that the aviation lights would have an appreciable effect in relation to the
Puketoi‘s night-time landscape but would not cause nuisance effects to local residents. Mr Bray
considered that the aviation lighting would not have an appreciable impact on the night view of
the landscape.
Pages 22 and 23, paragraphs 122 and 123.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 30/194
Transmission lines
5.90
Mr Bashford considered both Mr Brown and Mr Bray‘s evidence relating to landscape, view and
amenity effects of the transmission line. He noted Mr Bray discussed the merits of monopoles
over pylons, noting his preference for poles because they have a more sculptural, cleaner
character and tend to reduce effects on the landscape.
5.91
Mr Bashford recorded Mr Bray‘s view that tower 99L be changed to a mono or even a double
poled structure and located further away from the dwelling at 933 Makomako Road. Mr Bray
considered that the landscape and visual amenity effects in this area would be reduced as a
result and that the effects on submitters in this area would be low.
5.92
In terms of the Pahiatua basin catchment area, Mr Bashford noted that Mr Bray largely agreed
with Mr Brown‘s description of effects of the transmission line within this area.
5.93
In respect of the final catchment area, the rolling hill country, Mr Bashford referred to the
McGhies and their property. He noted Mr Bray outline the views of the transmission line and
towers are likely from the dwelling and certainly from the curtilege area. Mr Bashford noted
that MRP still needed to provide confirmation of the final location of the line in this locality.
5.94
Mr Bashford appeared to be in agreement with Mr Bray that, while there are few people that
enjoy seeing transmission lines traversing the countryside, they are often tolerated given that
they are a necessity of modern day energy needs and provided that they do not obstruct key
views of the landscape. Mr Bashford noted that Mr Bray considered that MRP had achieved this
with the transmission line proposal.
Cumulative effects
5.95
A number of submitters raised concerns regarding cumulative effects.
5.96
Essentially this issue arises because of the existence of the WWF, consented in 2010 for a five
year term but has not yet been constructed. It is located on the western side of the Puketoi
Range north of Towai Road and consists of 65 turbines, up to a maximum height of 150 m.
Also there is the Genesis CHWF proposed on land generally located from the Puketoi Ranges to
Bideford in the Wairarapa. Mr Bashford noted that at the time of writing his report that while
the Genesis hearing had commenced it had not closed and that the CHWF could not be said to
be part of the existing environment.
5.97
In considering cumulative effects Mr Bashford said this:8
―Effects can be considered cumulative when they arise over time, or when an effect is
added to another effect and it results in something else, e.g. ―the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts‖. In regard to those submissions that have raised concerns about
driving from Pongarora to Pahiatua or Palmerston North and experiencing sequential wind
farms, I consider that the proposed wind farm is sufficiently distant from the wind farms
on the Tararua Ranges so that cumulative effects do not arise. It is my opinion that
these wind farms affect different landscapes and areas and while each wind farm has its
set of effects, they are quite definable from each other and do not add to anything more
than the sum of the parts.
In the Puketoi area, it is acknowledged that there will be a significant change to the
landscape from the construction and operation of the Waitahora, Puketoi and possibly the
wind farms. However, as stated The Waitahora and Puketoi Wind Farms affect quite
different catchment areas and it is not anticipated that a cumulative visual effect will
arise from any dwellings. In fact it is noted that most dwellings to the east of the Puketoi
Ranges are orientated away from the Range and often have wind rows of trees or fore
hills blocking any views of the Ranges.‖
5.98
In contrast, Mr Bashford recorded Mr Bray‘s conclusion on cumulative effects at his paragraph
[258], recording:
―Mr Bray considers that the three wind farms, if all granted and constructed, will create a
dramatic change to the landscape over the next five to ten years. The District Plan
8
Page 27, paragraphs 152 and 153.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 31/194
anticipates wind farms in the Rural Management Zone and given the wind resource in the
area I do not find this too unusual. The pattern of similar land uses in certain areas is
noted over New Zealand with, for example, market gardens around Pukekohe, dairy
farming in the Waikato, forestry on the central plateau and corn and maize crops around
Gisborne. For an electricity generation example, it is noted that hydro generation is
concentrated along the Waikato River and the rivers of Central Otago (Clutha and
Waitaki), geothermal generation is located near Taupo, gas fired stations in Taranaki and
coal fired stations near Huntly. The land uses are efficiently located where the most
suitable resources are situated and it is of little surprise that wind generation would find
itself in the Manawatu and Tararua Districts.‖
Noise
5.99
Mr Bashford noted that potential noise from this proposal could arise during construction
primarily from machinery, heavy vehicles, concrete manufacture, aggregate crushing and from
the operation of wind turbines, transmission lines and other electrical equipment.
5.100
Mr Bashford reviewed the noise investigation report prepared by Mr Neville Hegley for MRP.
That report considers noise form construction and operation of the PWFP and also cumulative
effects in conjunction with the WWF and potential noise effects on neighbours.
5.101
Mr Nigel Lloyd, engaged by the District Council, undertook a peer review of the assessment of
noise effects of the PWFP. The issue of noise was raised as a concern by a number of
submitters.
5.102
In terms of construction noise, Mr Bashford noted agreement between Mr Hegley and Mr Lloyd
that construction noise will be well within the limits of NZS6803:99 Acoustics – Construction
noise. Both experts accepted that the application of the standard was appropriate and that the
activity would meet the standards. However, Mr Lloyd did recommend conditions to mitigate
construction noise, particularly to limit the use of the southern concrete batching plant and
crushing plant if utilised.
5.103
In terms of the ongoing operational noise of the PWFP, Mr Bashford referred to Mr Hegley‘s
summary, which provided that:
―Once operational, the noise from the wind farm will be within the noise requirements of
NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise of 40dB or the background sound (L90) +
5dB, whichever is the greater.‖
5.104
In contrast however Mr Bashford noted that Mr Lloyd considered that:
―Only one dwelling has been predicted to be within the 35 dBA contour and that the
predicted data shows a maximum level of 40dB at this dwelling (Site M4, Mr & Mrs
Marshall). Mr Lloyd states that the accuracy stated within the noise assessment is ± 2dB
and therefore compliance with NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise cannot be
certain at this property.‖
5.105
Mr Bashford noted that the noise issue was the most significant at the Marshall property. Also
there was debate between the noise experts as to whether or not the Marshall property was a
high amenity area. This was important because if the Marshall property were a high amenity
then it is entitled to a higher degree of noise protection. Mr Lloyd noted classification as a high
amenity area depends on the predicted wind farm noise level combined with low background
sound levels however the high floor on the sound monitoring equipment made it impossible to
determine if the background levels are particularly low at this location.
5.106
Mr Bashford recorded his conclusions on PWFP noise as:9
―The Marshall property is the only area where there is some uncertainty as to the level of
compliance. Mr Lloyd states that there is greater certainty that the wind farm will comply
at all other locations. That said, Mr Lloyd also recommends, should consent be granted,
further background monitoring be undertaken prior to the installation of turbines,
including at the Site M1 [the Marshall property] on Pori Road where the recording
instruments failed in the first round of monitoring thereby leaving a gap in the
background data. Mr Lloyd also recommends that background monitoring be undertaken
9
Paragraphs 169 and 170.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 32/194
at the site at 2200 Waitahora Road. This will ensure that a comprehensive, and up to
date, level of baseline data is available for when compliance testing occurs.
With regard to the transmission line, some noise will occur during the construction period
and once operational there can be wind noise and some noise from corona discharge.
There is agreement from both Mr Hegley and Mr Lloyd that any noise generated from any
of these is not likely to cause a nuisance to neighbours.‖
Traffic effects
5.107
Mr Bashford considered the transportation assessment completed for MRP. That assessment
noted that some roads would need to be widened and sealed and some temporary bridges
would need to be constructed to accommodate PWFP equipment components being transported
to the site from the Port of Napier using the State Highway network until the transporters reach
the Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road where that road would then be used for transportation to the site.
5.108
Mr Bashford noted that MRP‘s assessment had been reviewed by Mr Tom Dodd design manager
and MR Ray Cannon engineering services manager for the District Council. While
acknowledging that conditions were appropriate overall Mr Bashford concluded that the safety
and disruption effects associated with transportation issues can be appropriately managed by
conditions of consent and management Plans.
Radio and Telecommunication
5.109
Mr Bashford referred to MRP‘s AEE which included its assessment of the potential effects of the
PWFP on radio communication services he noted that there are three radio sites in the vicinity
of the PWFP at the northern end of the Puketoi Range and one at Mount Butters. No
submissions were received on effects on radio communication services. Mr Bashford noted that
the AEE showed consultation had occurred with all parties whose radio communication facilities
may be affected but in all cases potential effects can be mitigated without the need to relocate
turbines.
Effects on Archaeological and Cultural sites arising from the proposed earthworks
5.110
Mr Bashford noted that:10
―The New Zealand Historic Places Trust made a neutral submission on the application
which states that whilst there are no recorded archaeological sites of significance within
the site the proposed earthworks have the potential to affect unrecorded archaeological
sites. The Historic Places Trust seeks that an advice note be included on any grant of
consent. I consider this to be an appropriate way to manage the potential risk to
unrecorded archaeological sites and have included the advice note in the Section of this
report which sets out recommended conditions should the consent be granted.‖
Cultural effects
5.111
Mr Bashford detailed four submitters, Ngai Hapu o Himitangi Ngati Te Au, Ngati Turanga, Ngati
Rakau, and Rangitãne o Tamaki Nui a Rua. These submitters raised cultural issues with
Rangitãne noting the area as being ancestral land and regarded as taonga. Mr Bashford
identified cultural issues as requiring response from MRP.
Recreation and Tourism
5.112
Mr Rob Greenaway had completed an assessment of recreation and tourism effects for MRP. Mr
Bashford noted a submission from the NZSS expressing concerns about possible damage to
cave and karst features. The submission states that the Puketoi area is one of the most
actively used in the southern North Island for recreation caving opportunities. Wellington Fish
& Game Council (Fish & Game) submitted that the Makauri River provides good trout habitat
and very good angling opportunity. That submitter was concerned about the effects of potential
sediment releases, and construction of bridges and culverts on the river.
5.113
Mr Greenaway‘s report noted that there will be a reduction in the ―natural quiet‖ in the Coonoor
stewardship area and the Puketoi Reserve; however this stewardship area has little or no
recreational use and hunting is the main use of the Puketoi area.
10
Page 32, paragraph 189.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 33/194
5.114
Mr Bashford concluded that effects on recreation did not need to be considered further and he
did not proposed any further mitigation matters.
Aviation effects
5.115
Mr Bashford referred to submitters‘ concerns about the transmission line affecting the air strip
at Aviary Road because it is directly in line with the only available flight path for fully laden
aircraft. Its presence would mean that it would be unsafe for the aircraft to take off from the
airstrip when loaded. The air strip is sealed and, as such, is one of the few that can be used in
the wetter months of the year.
5.116
Mr Bashford said at the time of writing this report discussions were ongoing between submitters
and MRP and he was awaiting an update from MRP.
Turbulence effects
5.117
Mr Bashford noted the issue of wind turbulence was raised as a concern and that as a result,
Contact Energy was opposed to the turbines at the northern end of the project site. Mr
Bashford said these turbines have the potential to affect the wind resource which would be
utilised by the consented WWF. He said this could lead to a reduced output from the affected
WWF turbines and increased wear and tear on those turbines.
5.118
Mr Bashford referred to MRP‘s technical report by Garrad Hassan Pacific Ltd that describes wind
characteristics for wind farms and briefly discusses turbulence. The report recognises that
turbulence can affect the life of wind turbines, and turbines operating in the wake of another
have a reduced output. The report mentions that minimum spacing between turbines would
generally be three rotor diameters across a prevailing wind and five rotor diameters down wind.
Mr Bashford said it is not made clear whether this spacing is acceptable to minimise effects
between wind farms competing for a wind resource or if it is an acceptable distance for turbines
within the same wind farm.
5.119
Mr Bashford noted that Contact Energy states in its submission that constructive discussions
have commenced between itself and MRP in relation to this effect and that it expects that its
concerns are likely to be adequately mitigated through consent conditions. Mr Bashford
considered it would be helpful if MRP and Submitter could provide confirmation to the Hearings
Panel as to whether an agreement has been reached, or failing that, information as to the level
of effect and which of the proposed turbines will cause the effect.
Public Health
5.120
Mr Bashford advised several submitters have raised concerns about the health risks of the
PWFP, including those associated with electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and noise. Of these he
said, all but two are concerned with the proposed transmission line.
5.121
Mr Bashford referred to MRP‘s assessment of the potential public health effects from EMFs
undertaken by Dr David Black of Enviromedix Limited. Dr Black states that compliance with the
limits set in the 2010 International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection Guidelines
is expected. He states that provided the guideline is adhered to, there will be no risks to the
health of the public as a result of EMF from the PWFP.
5.122
Mr Bashford noted there are no particular mitigation measures required in regards to EMF.
However, it is noted that Dr Black has recommended a condition to ensure compliance with the
2010 International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection Guidelines.
5.123
With regards to noise, Mr Bashford quoted directly from Dr Black‘s findings as follows:11
―The modelling in the Noise Investigation Report suggests that the levels recommended
by the WHO guidelines or NZS 6808:2010 will not be exceeded. Noise at the predicted
levels is therefore a less than minor effect from a public health point of view and thus is,
in the context provided by the Resource Management Act 1991, an acceptable effect.
Thus, there are no physiological public health risks which could result from auditory
effects of the Puketoi Wind Farm. Strict compliance with the New Zealand Standard, as
is proposed in this case, will protect against any genuine physiological health risks
11
Page 35, paragraph 216.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 34/194
associated with the effects of noise on wellbeing, including potential sleep disturbance. ‖
5.124
Mr Bashford concluded in terms of Submitter 90 that noise is unlikely to cause adverse effects
on their health. However, Dr Black‘s paragraph 5.11 does raise a question in relation to the
Marshall property, where there is uncertainty that the PWFP will comply with the limits under
NZS 6808:2010 and as such, whether adverse effects to the submitter‘s health may arise as a
result. He noted that this issue needs to be resolved and he considered it would be useful if
MRP could provide further assessment as to potential health effects on the Marshalls.
Social and economic effects
5.125
Mr Bashford identified that some submitters had raised concerns about social and economic
effects. In reference to the Dialogue Consultants Limited report, he noted that it concludes the
PWFP will have limited adverse social effects.
Effects on water supplies
5.126
Mr Bashford noted that Submitters 90 and 91 had concerns about effects on water supplies,
particularly impacts on the Pongaroa Water Scheme and that dust will contaminate water
supplies.
5.127
Mr Bashford noted the Pongarora Water Scheme sources its water from the eastern side of the
Range and, as such, is not within the PWFP site. The AEE states that the risk to waterways on
the eastern slopes is low. MRP has suggested conditions that require a replacement water
supply to be provided should the proposed activities prevent the use of an existing water
supply.
5.128
In Mr Bashford‘s opinion, the mitigation measures proposed within the CEMPs and SEMPs, along
with conditions, will avoid effects on local water supplies. He also noted in the event a water
supply is disrupted, conditions shall ensure that an alternative supply is provided, and that a
process is established for the resolution of any disputes.
Lapse Period
5.129
Mr Bashford told us a number of submitters have raised a concern that a ten year lapse period
is too long to provide certainty for their own business and personal planning and that it will
cause general uncertainty for the community.
5.130
Mr Bashford noted that MRP seeks a ten year lapse period to provide the flexibility needed to
optimise the design and configuration of the PWFP and to ensure the availability of wind farm
components at an acceptable cost. MRP also notes that a ten year lapse period would be
consistent with that for the TWF and that this proposal is dependent on the TWF to provide a
connection point to the National Grid.
5.131
Mr Bashford was of the opinion overall that for large infrastructural projects where an applicant
may be reliant on a number of factors (such as component purchase from overseas, favourable
exchange rates, and negotiations with third parties) that a ten year lapse date is warranted.
The TWF has now been decided and a ten year lapse period has been granted for the project.
This proposal includes a transmission line that will require the necessary infrastructure at the
TWF so that it can connect to the National Grid. He was supportive of a ten year lapse period.
Decommission
5.132
The application, Mr Bashford noted has not addressed decommissioning of the wind farm and
transmission line should this become necessary in the future. The deterioration of unused wind
farm turbines, transmission towers, poles and other equipment gives rise to potential adverse
visual and safety effects.
5.133
He considered that these potential effects can be appropriately managed via conditions
requiring that MRP undertake all decommissioning works at its cost, should this be necessary.
It is noted that MRP has suggested such conditions in the draft set provided.
Submissions in support of the application
5.134
Mr Bashford noted for us the high number of submissions in support of the application; we have
set those out earlier within this decision in tabular form.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 35/194
5.135
He considered that there will be significant positive effects associated with the proposed wind
farm. Such benefits include reducing New Zealand‘s carbon emissions and increasing the
supply of electricity. While these benefits are primarily accrued at a national and regional level,
in this instance a number of benefits will also be felt at the local level with the PWFP including a
high number of local landowners who will receive direct financial benefits from rental payments
that will flow on through the local economy.
Summary and conclusion regarding actual and potential effects
5.136
In summarising his conclusions, Mr Bashford said first and foremost it is accepted that the
Puketoi Range is an ONL or Feature. The most significant part of this landscape is the ridge
crest and the eastern escarpment.
5.137
He said that his assessment has identified a number of matters that require further attention or
discussion between MRP and various submitters. These matters had been raised in various
discussions with MRP since the close of submissions and he was aware that MRP had continued
discussions with the relevant submitters. He said it would be helpful for MRP and relevant
submitters to provide information to the Hearing Panel as to any agreements reached, or to
provide further information by way of evidence/submissions at the hearing to accurately
describe the scale and nature of the effect on the submitter and how such effects can be
mitigated or avoided. Such matters include:
5.138
1554 Towai Road: This property, owned by Wayne and Christine Marshall, will experience
significant adverse effects as a result of the wind farm proposal. Several of the wind turbines
will be visually dominating over this dwelling, there are doubts as to whether the wind farm will
comply with the noise limits as specified in NZS6808:2010, and the property will experience,
theoretically at least, up to 48 hours of shadow flicker per year. Mr Bashford said it is
understood that MRP had been in discussions with the Marshalls with a view to reaching
agreement as to an appropriate mitigation package for the property.
5.139
Avery Road Airstrip: A submission from Rural Aerial Co-operative Ltd indicates that the
transmission line will prevent the safe take-off of fully laden planes from the airstrip. Again, he
said it was understood that MRP had been in discussions with this submitter with a view to
reaching an agreement.
5.140
Contact Energy‘s WWF: A submission from Contact Energy indicates that the proposed wind
farm will affect the wind resource and thereby diminish output from the consented WWF and
create more wear and tear of turbine components. He said it is understood from MRP and
Contact Energy that discussions are continuing between the two parties.
5.141
Caves and karst features: The NZSS has submitted stating that the proposed earthworks will
damage or fill in a known sinkhole with a cave system. The submitter does not identify what fill
site or sink hole will be damaged/filled in. It was understood that MRP has been in discussions
with the NZSS and has perhaps amended the fill site to avoid the sink hole.
5.142
Notwithstanding the above matters, Mr Bashford was of the opinion that effects associated with
the construction of the PWFP could be adequately mitigated or avoided by the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
5.143
With regard to the ongoing effects of the PWFP, Mr Bashford considered that the primary effect
would be on the landscape. In particular, the effects on the crest of the Puketoi Range between
Pahiatua-Pongarora Road and Towai Road, as viewed from the east, would be significant. He
said as one moves further away from the Range the landscape and visual amenity effects
decrease and beyond 15 kilometres they become relatively minor. He referred to turbine WT50
being out of context with the Puketoi Range and the other turbines within the PWFP.
5.144
With regard to the on-going effects of the transmission line, he considered that the primary
effect will be on landscape and visual amenity values, especially as the line crosses the Pahiatua
basin. He considered that little more could be done to achieve further mitigation of these
effects with the exception of perhaps changing Tower 99/L for a mono or double pole.
5.145
In terms of effects on persons, Mr Bashford said there will be significant effects experienced by
the Marshalls. Such effects will include those on amenity from a dominant presence of turbines,
noise and potential associated health effects, and from potential shadow flicker. He said it
would appear that the effects on the Marshall property could be avoided, or at least mitigated,
by the deletion of some of the northern turbines; however, how these effects are mitigated is
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 36/194
for MRP to propose.
Statutory assessment
5.146
Mr Bashford discussed central government policy, national policies statements and plans, and
regional and district planning documents. We discuss such matters later in this decision. For
now, we record that Mr Bashford was in agreement with MRP‘s assessment that granting
consent to the PWFP would be consistent with the objectives and policies of national policy
statements and plans, and regional and district plan instruments.
RMA Part II Matters
Section 6 – matters of national importance
5.147
Considering Sections 6 to 8 Mr Bashford said the critical point emerging revolved around
Section 6 and whether or not the PWFP is considered to be an inappropriate use or development
since it would occur on an ONL. His view was that the PWFP is not an inappropriate
development.
5.148
Mr Bashford did not consider that any Section 6(b) matters arose in relation to the transmission
line. He also reported on Section 6(c), (e) and (f) matters, concluding that the PWFP was in
accordance with these.
Section 7 – Other matters
5.149
Mr Bashford‘s view was that all of the other matters set out in Section 7 were potentially
relevant although Sections 7(c), (f) and (j) were of particular relevance. In his opinion, there
are significant benefits to be derived from the PWFP on a national scale in terms of increased
supply of electricity and the environmental benefits of renewable energy generation on a
regional, national and global scale. He noted that the PWFP will have localised effects on
amenity values and quality of the environment which, with the exception of one property, can
be remedied and mitigated to a point that is considered reasonable within the context of the
benefits of the PWFP.
5.150
In respect of the property at 1554 Towai Road, he considered that the effects of the PWFP to be
significant, and did not consider that the benefits of the PWFP outweighed the costs to the
residents of this property. He also considered that MRP could mitigate or avoid the effects on
the property, possibly through deletion of some of the northern turbines. However, at this
stage, no mitigation or avoidance measures have been proposed.
Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi
5.151
Mr Bashford was satisfied that MRP had taken into account the treaty of Waitangi as reflected
by the consultation it had undertaken. He reminded us that additional measures may be
required to meet any issues identified in the cultural impact assessment,
Section 5- Purpose
5.152
In terms of his Section 5 assessment Mr Bashford said that the establishment and operation of
the PWFP could be deemed to promoted sustainable management of natural and physical
resources.
5.153
His major reservation related to the significant effects on amenity in respect of 1554 Towai
Road, the Marshall property. In his view provided these effects are avoided, remedied or
mitigated then he concluded that the proposed activity can be considered as coming within the
statutory purpose of promoting sustainable management.
Mr Shannon Bray – landscape and visual amenity effects
5.154
Mr Bray is a well experienced landscape architect. He detailed his experience in paragraphs
[25] – [32] of his written s42A report. His report is effectively styled as a peer review of Mr
Brown‘s PWFP landscape and visual assessment and also MRP‘s AEE and other external reports
relating to landscape and visual amenity.
5.155
His report is very comprehensive and well considered. In summary, he usefully set out an
executive summary along with final conclusions, which recorded:
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 37/194
[1]
MRP (MRP) are looking for Resource Consent to construct a 53 turbine wind farm
on the central and southern end of the Puketoi Ranges, approximately 20 km
southeast of Pahiatua. Together with the Resource Consent application, MRP have
submitted an Assessment of Environmental Effects of the proposal that includes a
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by Brown NZ Ltd.
[2]
This report provides a peer review of the Assessment of Landscape and Visual
Amenity Effects as has been provided by MRP in the AEE.
[3]
The report finds that the Puketoi Range is an ONF, to be considered under s6(b) of
the RMA. The key landscape values are its aesthetic qualities when viewed from the
eastern side, to include a high degree of perceived natural value (or naturalness).
It is a dramatic and memorable feature, elevated above and distinctive from the
lowland rolling hill country. It provides a point of reference, immediately
dominating when visible, and a focal point of the view.
[4]
However the Range is not well known. The Waewaepa Range screens it from the
view of most of the population, who live to the west in the Pahiatua Basin (and
beyond) and who travel along SH2. Where it is visible from these locations, it
appears as ‗just another‘ ridgeline in a long series of hills and ridges that form the
eastern hinterland of the Tararua and Wairarapa districts.
[5]
The proposed wind farm is likely to affect four key catchment areas. It will be
visible from as far away as the Tararua Ranges, and locations around Pahiatua and
north of Woodville, however from these locations it will be a distant feature with
minimal effects on the landscape.
[6]
Within the eastern rolling hills, but west of the proposal, the Range is generally
unremarkable, with little contrast to the pastoral rolling hill country in which they
are set. It contributes to a wider, pleasant rural aesthetic and the turbines are
unlikely to be intrusive elements. From many locations only a handful of turbines
are visible at any one time, and would appear in proportion and subordinate to the
landform.
[7]
There are some views from this western side, however, where more elongated
views of the Range is visible. From such locations, the combined effects of the
turbines together (rather than individually) take on a different form – an elongated
regular pattern of structures. In my view, such a pattern is undesirable and causes
the wind farm to have a more dominating effect that is somewhat relentless.
Immediately east of the Ranges, the potential effects are most significant. In
comparison to the neighbouring WWF, the collection of turbines will be dominant
elements (not subordinate), and not recessed in the landscape but proudly
displayed on top of it. Whilst each turbine individually is unlikely to be dominant,
the presence of the extended array of turbines will diminish the perceived natural
values of the Range, which contrast so strongly with the more monotonous pastoral
rolling hill country below. In my opinion, the Range will lose some of its distinctive
memorability as a dominating natural feature, and instead the turbines will become
the repetitive distinction.
[8]
[9]
Further afield in this eastern landscape, the effects are the same, although
diminished somewhat by the distance.
[10]
It is considered that the other wind farm components, such as the internal 33 kV
line, access roads and ancillary components will be generally incidental to the wind
turbines themselves. Their effects have been discussed in this report, but are
considered to be minor.
[11]
A few local properties will experience a shadow flicker effect, with one property
potentially experiencing up to 48 hours. The occupier of this property has
submitted in opposition to the proposal, and it is considered that the effects of both
the shadow flicker, and presence of turbines in the view from this property will
have significant effects on the visual amenity enjoyed by these residents.
[12]
There will be some night-time effects from the required aviation lighting, but they
are unlikely to have an appreciable effect on the night view of the landscape.
[13]
The proposed wind farm will have direct and measurable cumulative effects with
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 38/194
the neighbouring WWF, which has been consented but is yet to be constructed. In
particular, there are likely to be some cumulative amenity effects on some local
residences whose occupants will be able to see turbines both to the north and
south of their properties if this proposal is consented. There will also be sequential
effects, caused by viewers repetitively seeing turbines from the different proposals
as they travel through the landscape. This is also likely to happen with the
proposed (but not consented) Castle Hill Wind Farm, southeast of the proposal.
[14]
The increase in wind farm activity in this part of the district is likely to have an
appreciable effect on the identity of this landscape. Without doubt, the landscape
will be transformed into wind farming country, and the local community will need to
become accustomed to living with turbines. Seeing them is likely to be a daily
occurrence.
[15]
Concluding these findings, this report finds that generally the Puketoi Range is
considered an acceptable location for a wind farm. However, the proposal that has
been put forward is one where the arrangement of turbines collectively will
dominate the Range, with significant effects on the aesthetic quality and perceived
natural quality. The sheer extent of the proposal, and the string line arrangement
of turbines will dramatically alter how people experience, enjoy and remember this
ONF.
[16]
However, it is considered that there may be opportunities to revise the proposed
design to address these effects. MRP provided, as background information only, a
series of simulations which show the development of the project through a number
of design iterations, and it is thought that a way to reduce the impact on the Range
may lie in a combination of these scenarios. However, whether this is something
MRP wants to consider will be a matter for them, and the Commissioners, to
decide.
[17]
It is also noted that, despite the Range being an ONF, and a key part of the identity
of the eastern Tararua countryside, there are remarkably few submitters in
opposition to the proposal. Whilst determination of effects is not a numbers game
(the Range was considered outstanding independent of the submissions), this may
be a consideration in the overall determination of effects under s5 of the RMA.
However, granting the proposal as it stands would, in my opinion, still create
significant effects on the qualities of the Range that make it outstanding.
[18]
With regard to the transmission line, it is considered that this would be read as a
necessary network utility – a necessity of our modern, electricity dependent lives.
It is probably safe to say that there are few people in the world that enjoy looking
at transmission lines crossing a landscape, the structures are somewhat tolerated.
[19]
Nevertheless, the transmission line will have effects on the landscape, and on
visual amenity that will be moderate, perhaps significant in places. With this in
mind, MRP has made considerable effort to design the line to avoid effects as much
as possible.
[20]
Final conclusions:
 The Puketoi Range is an ONF;
 In general terms, the Range can accommodate a wind farm;
 The proposed layout, in my opinion, will have significant effects on the
escarpment features, and is not the best arrangement for this landscape;
 The proposal will have moderate to significant visual amenity effects on a small
number of local residential properties;
 A project redesign (still potentially accommodating the required 53 turbines)
may address some of the effects;
 The proposed transmission line will have moderate effects, but is likely to be
tolerated and in-time accepted, as a necessary activity.
Mr Nigel Lloyd – Peer review of noise investigation report and AEE prepared by Hegley acoustic
consultants.
5.156
Mr Lloyd completed a peer review of the noise investigation report forming part of the AEE
prepared by Hegley acoustic consultants.
5.157
Mr Lloyd noted that Mr Hegley had reached the conclusion that noise emissions from the PWFP
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 39/194
would be made to comply with the noise limits set out in NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics-Wind Farm
Noise.
5.158
He told us the noise predictions are based on a sound power level of 109 dBA for indicative
wind turbines that may be used on the site, such as Vestas V90 or Repower 6.15 MW wind
turbines.
5.159
He told us that the final turbine type and location will not been decided until the detailed design
stage of the project. In all cases but one the noise predictions show that compliance can be
achieved with the noise limits in NZS 6808:2010 with a significant margin for safety. However,
at Site 81, the Marshall dwelling, the predicted noise level is 40 dBA and this is with a stated
accuracy of ± 2 dBA. The noise criterion at this location is 40 dBA LA90 and, as such, he told us
there is doubt whether compliance can be achieved for this location with the stated layout.
5.160
Mr Hegley noted for us that it is important that the turbines do not exhibit special audible
characteristics. If this was to occur, then the measured noise level would be penalised when
assessed using the Standard, and compliance issues would more likely arise. He also noted
residents would be less likely to accept the PWFP noise if the PWFP exhibited adverse sound
qualities. He noted a separate condition had been proposed that would measure a sample of
the turbines as they are installed so as to check that the special audible characteristics are not
present.
5.161
Mr Hegley noted a set of recommended draft conditions had been produced and those
conditions are based on NZS 6808:2010 Recommended Criteria.
5.162
Mr Lloyd noted the permitted noise standard for the District Plan is the least stringent that could
be reasonably imposed and, in that respect, the area does not qualify for special protection in
terms of that part of NZS 6808:2010, which would trigger the high amenity area criteria.
5.163
Mr Lloyd noted it is unlikely that the high amenity area limits should be adopted for PWFP
although, he said, some doubt remains about its application at the dwelling of the Marshalls.
This is, he said, because the background sound monitoring would not demonstrate whether the
levels are particularly quiet at this location. He said this is the only site where the predicted
PWFP noise levels are high enough that the test in Clause 5.3.1 of NZS 6808:2010 could justify
the high amenity area noise limit. He noted that the response to request for further information
put to MRP regarding the sound monitoring equipment indicates the equipment used at this
location could not measure to levels below/about 26 dBA.
5.164
He noted the noise effects assessment report describes the representative noise monitoring that
had been undertaken of background sound levels in the vicinity of the site and all but one of the
locations are outside of the 35 dBA predicted noise contour. He noted that technically these
sites would not need to be measured in accordance with NZS 6808:2010 because they are
outside the contour. Further monitoring will be undertaken, he said, should consent be granted
for all or part of the PWFP, and those results, he said, should be analysed to ensure that
compliance with the noise limits is achieved.
5.165
Mr Lloyd noted that PWFP sounds will be quite audible at times at dwellings closer to the PWFP
and will be distantly audible further afield, depending upon the meteorological conditions. He
said that there may be some significant noise impacts on occasions. These will be particularly
noticeable to residents downwind of the PWFP and when local wind conditions remain light when
the PWFP is in operation. However, he noted that the closest dwelling to the PWFP is located
upwind during the predominant north-west wind conditions.
5.166
Mr Lloyd referred to the draft conditions and he noted they require sound emission data to be
provided to the Council for individual turbines (once these have been decided upon) and for a
pre-construction sound emission report to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced
person that shows that the PWFP will comply with these noise limits. He noted it would be
expected that uncertainties in a manufacturer‘s data and noise prediction techniques would be
factored into these reports and adequate safety margins provided.
5.167
He also noted that noise monitoring is recommended after the installation of the PWFP so as to
demonstrate compliance. He noted the prepared conditions provided for any non-compliant
turbines to be de-rated, such that they do comply or for them to cease to operate.
5.168
Mr Lloyd noted that a number of submitters in or near the Makuri settlement have identified
construction traffic as a likely noise nuisance to them. He noted that it is recommended that
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 40/194
construction traffic not use local roads at night. The road through Makuri will be used by traffic
for the construction of 10 wind turbines in the southern sector of the PWFP; it is estimated to
take about four months. The concrete batching (or crushing) plant, will not service the
construction of any part of the northern sector of the PWFP, thus it will only operate for a
limited period of time.
5.169
He noted that construction noise is to be controlled using NZS 6803:1999. However, Mr Lloyd
recommended that on-site crusher noise and concrete batching be made to comply with
permitted noise standards in the District Plan (or equivalent). This may impact on the site
selection for these activities, he said.
5.170
Overall, Mr Lloyd told us that, with the exception of the Marshall property, the noise levels from
the construction and operation of the PWFP are predicted to readily comply with the relevant
noise activity standards and additional noise conditions aimed at giving confidence that air noise
issues are properly managed and adequately mitigated.
Mr Ray Cannon – peer review of transportation effects
5.171
Mr Cannon, the engineering services manager for the District Council, noted that there will be
improvements required to Tararua District roads, including bridges, to accommodate not only
increased traffic volumes but also oversize and overweight loads.
5.172
It was Mr Cannon‘s view that roads, bridges and other improvements should be left at the end
of the construction period in a condition acceptable to the District Council. He suggested
conditions require all roads, bridges and improvements to be maintained during the
construction period.
5.173
Mr Cannon did note some or all of the bridges to be used may require strengthening upgrades
before overweight permits can be issued for construction loads. He noted that in some
instances total replacements may be necessary. This has the potential, he said, to add to both
project costs and time. He noted MRP should be responsible to meet all costs of technical
investigation, structural modification, and any other costs before any traffic related permits are
issued.
5.174
Overall, we took from Mr Cannon‘s materials that the roading network, subject to these
upgrades being completed, could cope with the construction traffic, both in terms of overweight
and over-sized loads.
Mr David Forrest – Section 42A report for the City Council
5.175
Mr Forrest‘s report dealt with that part of the PWFP, namely a portion of the 220 kV
transmission line within the City Council jurisdiction. After assessing effects he was satisfied if
MRP complies with recommended condition, then effects will be mitigated. He also assessed
the PWFP against the relevant objectives and policies of the national policy statement for
electricity generation, regional policy statements and the City Plan.
5.176
He considered the PWFP to be consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of those
plans. It was his conclusion that granting consent for the transmission line was in accord with
Part II of the RMA and promotes the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources.
6
6.1
MRP‘S CASE
Legal counsel for MRP, Mr David Kirkpatrick, presented opening submissions and called eighteen
witnesses as follows:
1) Mr Mark Trigg – MRP overview
2) Mr John Worth – Project management and design
3) Mr Philip Wong Too - wind resource (expertise / subject of report)
4) Mr Stephen Brown & Ms Mary Buckland – landscape/visual/lights
5) Mr Peter Clough – economics
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 41/194
6) Mr Morris Mills – civil engineering
7) Mr Bruce Symmans – geotechnical
8) Mr Ed Breese – CEMP and SEMP
9) Dr Paul Blaschke – ecological – terrestrial
10) Dr Ian Boothroyd – ecological – aquatic
11) Mr John Craig – ecological – avian
12) Mr Nevil Hegley – noise and vibration
13) Mr Jim Schwaderer – transmission line
14) Mr Phillip Brown – traffic and transport
15) Mr David Black – environmental health/shadow flicker
16) Dr Peter Phillips – recreation/social impact
17) Mr Mason Jackson – consultation and conditions
18) Mr Gavin Kemble – planning assessment
Opening legal submissions
Introductory comments
6.2
Mr Kirkpatrick‘s submissions were comprehensive. In introducing the PWFP he stressed the
wind resource on the site, describing it as being exceptional in both national and international
terms.
6.3
He detailed the years of consultation undertaken by MRP and referred to the large number of
written approvals for both the PWFP and the transmission line. He referred us to the numerous
submissions in support.
6.4
Turning to Policy issues he emphasised that the PWFP is supported by the National Policy
Statement on Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission. He noted it also supported
relevant strategies and was consistent with the NPS on Freshwater Management and the draft
NPS on Indigenous Biodiversity.
6.5
He stressed that the PWFP is consistent with the objective and policy framework of all of the
relevant plans. He noted that all three reporting officers recommended the granting of consent
subject to the granting of conditions.
6.6
He noted that MRP had considered other wind farm development proposals in the region and so
it developed its transmission line proposal to facilitate more than just its own PWFP.
Part II RMA
6.7
In addressing us on Part 2 Matters he honed in on one of the key issues, namely that the PWFP
is intended to be established on an ONF, namely the Puketoi Range. This brought him to focus
on a detailed consideration of Section 6(a) RMA and discussion of the question whether or not
the development he had proposed was appropriate or inappropriate in terms of Section 6(a).
6.8
He referred us to a number of helpful planning Tribunal, Environment Court and High Court
decisions and dwelt in particular on the landmark decision in New Zealand Rail v Marlborough
District Council12, referring us to the Judgement Grieg J as it addressed the question of
inappropriateness.
6.9
His base submission was that MRP acknowledges that there are competing considerations of
12
[1994] NZRMA 70 at p85-86
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 42/194
landscape recognised as having district significance and the opportunity to provide for
renewable energy generation. It was his submission that national significance of the latter
outweighs the former with the result that this proposal cannot be said to be ―inappropriate‖
development in this context.
6.10
He also contended these applications will enable an exceptional energy resource to be utilised
for the benefit of the whole country using methods that will appropriately recognise and
respond to the local environment and to manage the adverse effects that naturally accompany
any such project in an appropriate and acceptable manner.
Other topics
6.11
He traversed the scope of consents sought, the statutory consenting requirements which will
not repeat here. He turned to address assessment of the applications stressing that in terms of
our assessment of effects on the environment that assessment is an assessment in terms of the
environment as it exists. He referred us to Court of Appeal decision in Queenstown Lakes
District Council v Hawthorn13 in that regard.
6.12
Of particular relevance in terms of the existing environment, he referred us to the existing
consent for a new wind farm on the Tararua Ranges, including a substation (Turitea, held by
MRP); an existing consent for a wind farm to the north of the PWFP site (WFF, held by Contact
Energy Limited); and a proposal for a wind farm to the south east of the PWFP site (CHFW,
applied for by Genesis Energy Limited). The key point in relation to Turitea was, he said, that
the existence of a consent for wind turbines results in the likely effects of that part of the
transmission line that is located within the Turitea as being appropriate in the circumstances.
6.13
In respect of the WFF, he noted that MRP‘s assessment had taken this consent into account and
assessed the effects of the PWFP as if the WWF existed. This registers in cumulative landscape
effects, noise, potential cumulative traffic and social effects. This also takes into account
potential wake effects by the proposed Puketoi turbines on the Waitahora turbines.
6.14
In respect of the CHWF, Mr Kirkpatrick contended because the CHWF had not yet obtained
consent it does not come into the existing environment as defined by Hawthorn in the Court of
Appeal. He also contended that Genesis and another submitter, Wind Farm Developments,
were trade competitors and could not make submissions on the MRP application pursuant to
Section 308B(2) of the RMA. We agree with him for the reasons earlier set out.
Key issues
6.15
6.16
Mr Kirkpatrick identified the key issues arising as being
(a)
Landscape and visual effects
(b)
Noise;
(c)
Ecological impacts
He drew particular attention to the Marshall property at 1554 Towai Road (Rockhaven) and the
claimed effects in respect of the same. In particular, he drew attention to MRP‘s proposed
screening of the wind turbines from the Marshall property. He discussed noise effects on the
Marshalls contending that the relevant and applicable criteria for assessment were contained in
NZS 6808:2010 and it was not appropriate to characterise the Marshall property as requiring a
higher degree of protection of amenity. He described for us the negotiations undertaken with
the Marshalls and told us no agreement had been reached. He submitted that there should be
no changes to the PWFP as a result of the Marshall submission.
Lapse period and terms of consents
6.17
13
14
Mr Kirkpatrick submitted that reasonable provision should be allowed for implementation for
consent of this scale and unnecessary applications for extension should be avoided. He
acknowledged the decision of the Environment Court in Contact Energy Limited v ManawatuWanganui Council14 and the reasoning there why the ten year lapse period was not appropriate
in that case. Noting that in his submission that the reasoning does not establish a Rule. He
[2006] NZRMA 424 (CA)
[2011] NZRMA 155
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 43/194
referred to other recent cases that demonstrated in differing circumstances a longer lapse
period may be appropriate.
6.18
Relying on Mr Worth‘s evidence ([4.8]-[4.9] and [10.6]) and Mr Kemble‘s evidence ([4.2][4.10]), he submitted that a lapse period of ten years in respect to all consents and fourteen
years for the construction consent was appropriate.
Conditions
6.19
Mr Kirkpatrick told us that discussion in respect of a set of conditions was well advanced
between MRP and the reporting officers and where appropriate submitters.
Mr Mark Trigg
6.20
Mr Trigg provided us with a broad overview of MRP, its business, corporate values and
responsibilities. He outlined changes within the electricity generation industry that showed a
move away from a previously heavy reliance on hydro and gas generation to an emphasis now
on geothermal and wind generation opportunities. He considered that this project represents a
significant and positive step forward for New Zealand to securing a more robust and sustainable
energy future.
6.21
He did note that current weak electricity demand growth conditions impacted on consented
projects by delaying their entry to the market however this did not mean such projects should
not be pursued. He advocated that consideration of long run average electricity demand which
had been consistent between 1.5 -2% per annum was more appropriate than placing weight on
the current weak demand. When the long run average was considered then there was he said
ample support and need to progress proposals such as the PWFP.
6.22
Specifically commenting on this proposal he noted for us MRP‘s community involvement in
building long term relationships. He gave us a number of examples.
6.23
He considered the PWFP will utilise a significant world class energy resource while achieving
sustainable management through it significant economic, social and environmental
contributions at a local, national and regional level.
Mr John Worth
6.24
Mr Worth leads the project for MRP and provided detailed evidence covering the conceptual
approach to the PWFP, site identification and overview of key components of the PWFP and the
transmission route. He gave us details about wind resource monitoring, the turbine layout
design process. He provided details around the selection of turbines contrasting the economic
merits of various turbine sizes. He also provided a detailed assessment of the transmission
route including tower sites, tower foundations and traffic impacts. He noted that community
consultation had been an integral part of the Puketoi project resulting in a number of positive
submissions and affected party approvals.
6.25
There were a number of annexures to his evidence including maps and Plans of the PWFP site
and a range of technical reports dealing with the transmission line and wind resources.
Mr Mason Jackson
6.26
Mr Jackson described the consultation MRP had undertaken in relation to the PWFP and he
presented a set of proposed draft conditions should the resource consent be granted.
6.27
He set out details of consultation with particular parties who had an interest in the PWFP he
provided location maps for submitters and affected parties detailing their locations relative to
the PWFP and transmission line.
Supplementary evidence
6.28
Mr Jackson also presented a supplementary statement of evidence updating us in respect of
consultation with key submitters in particular he updated us in terms of the Marshalls. His
advice was that the mitigation offer had not been accepted and that MRP now proposed to
mitigate visual and landscape effects through plantings. He also told us that Mr Stephen Brown
would update us in terms of those mitigation measures via a supplementary statement of
evidence.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 44/194
6.29
He informed us that the QEII Trust issues had been resolved. Similarly he advised us that the
NZSS had also been resolved as a result of the inclusion of conditions and protocols for
accidental cave discovery and karst management. Similarly, the Rural Area Co-operative, DOC,
and Fish & Game had had their concerns satisfied.
6.30
He noted that discussions were still continuing with Contact Energy.
6.31
He also updated us about written approvals providing details of further written approvals that
had been obtained since evidence exchange these details are contained in his paragraph [2.3]
to [2.5] of his supplementary evidence.
6.32
He also updated us in relation to Iwi consultation noting that MRP was now in receipt of a
cultural values assessment (CVA) and that it would be presented to us in full during the course
of the hearing. He noted MRP were still in discussion Rangitãne about the form of a
memorandum of partnership for the Puketoi proposal. He noted in terms of Tanenuiarangi –
Manawatu Incorporated that agreement had been reached that any concerns could be dealt
with under the framework of the existing Turitea MOU. He recorded that there had been no
recent dialogue with both Ngati Kahungunu and Nga hapu o Himitangi.
6.33
He provided us with an update on consent conditions and also an update on caucusing around
conditions which had been occurring directly between MRP and the Section 42A reporting
officers. That update was helpful both for us and submitters who were able during the course of
the hearing to comment upon conditions and their further development.
6.34
He specifically drew attention to a new condition proposed by MRP in line with the
recommendations that Mr Stephen Brown made in his supplementary statement in relation to
mitigating the visual and landscape effects on the Marshalls.
Mr Philip Wong Too
6.35
Mr Wong Too is a chartered professional engineer with over fifteen years experience in the wind
energy industry and is familiar with prospecting for wind farm sites.
6.36
He told us the productivity of a wind farm is primarily determined by the mean hub height wind
speed. Other parameters, such as extreme wind, turbulence, wind shear etc., are also
important. However, the loads on the wind turbines need to be evaluated, he said, so that the
turbines can operate within the conditions on the site.
6.37
He told us the wind monitoring programme at Puketoi had confirmed that there are high mean
wind speeds at the site and in his opinion the wind resource on this site is exceptional in both
national and international terms. He expected the PWFP to be generating 85% of the time.
6.38
He noted that MRP had applied for turbine tip heights of up to 160 m allowing the use of a
turbine RE power 6N. These turbines he told us produced approximately twice the energy per
turbine than the most common installed turbine installed in New Zealand recently. This size he
said will allow MRP to maximise the utilisation of the excellence wind resource on the site.
6.39
He told us the ridge top is the most favourable location for wind turbines on the Puketoi site. It
has he said the highest wind speeds, low inflow angles, low wind shear, turbulence that is
within allowable limits and the risk of flow separation is likely to be manageable. He told us if
the turbines are moved off the ridge this will decrease the energy production from the site and
make flow separation issues more difficult to deal with particularly in easterly winds.
6.40
He discussed in detail the impact the PWFP may have on the Contact Energy WWF. For reasons
which will become clear later we do not now need to consider that matter in detail.
Ms Mary Buckland
6.41
Mary Buckland is a registered landscape architect and has been working in the field in New
Zealand for 37 years.
6.42
In her evidence she provided us with a critique of the project without reference to Stephen
Brown‘s landscape and visual assessment. She also commented upon the adequacy of the
photo montages.
6.43
She discussed with us statutory considerations from a landscape perspective noting that in
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 45/194
terms of the Tararua Proposed District Plan the skyline of the Puketoi Range is identified as a
significant natural feature because of its scenic value particularly when viewed from the
adjacent plains. This feature has a B classification which means that it requires a moderate
level of protection. In contrast an A classification requires the highest level of protection. We
observe that no landscapes are classified A. She told us in terms of the One Plan the skyline of
the Puketoi Range is identified as a regionally ONF and landscape. She is ―skyline‖ is described
as the boundary between the land and the sky as viewed at sufficient distance from the foothills
so as to see the contrast between the sky and the solid nature of the land at the crest of the
highest points along the ridge. She told us that the particular characteristics and values of this
feature identified in the One Plan are:
(a)
Visual and scenic characteristics, particularly the visual prominence of the skyline in
the eastern part of the region; and
(b)
Geological features particularly the asymmetrical landform termed a cuesta ridge
(Gently dipping layers of alternately softer and harder rock in an eroding
landscape. This results in cuesta ridges capped on one side by dip slopes, and
steep escarpments on the other. The Puketoi Range is supported by a ridge of
limestone, along a tilted block).
6.44
She placed the Puketoi Range within a broader landscape context, comparing it with the
Tararua and Ruahine Ranges. She considered the significant mountain range within this area
was the Ruahine Range which she told us was very high, majestic and could be seen from miles
around. The Tararua range was less dramatic though still forms a strong backdrop to
Palmerston North. She identified the Waewaepa Range for us as well.
6.45
She told us the Puketoi Range is very difficult to see when approaching from the north and west
because of intervening landforms. She noted it was only as one rises across the range or
approaches it from the east that the full bush cover escarpment can be seen. The PahiatuaPongaroa road cuts through the range linking Makuri in the west to Pongaroa in the east. She
noted land uses on the range comprise a mix of large areas of pasture and regenerating
indigenous vegetation and small groups of shelterbelts of exotic trees. The area east of Puketoi
Range is quite sparsely populated, with the settlement of Pongaroa being relatively small with
scattered farmhouses and dwellings throughout this eastern area.
6.46
She proceeded then to rank the Puketoi Range landscape noting while it was identified as an
ONF and landscape in both the One Plan and the Proposed District Plan it was her opinion that
the Puketoi Range was of less magnitude and of less visual significance on a regional level than
the Ruahine or Tararua Ranges. Nevertheless, she was of the view that the Puketoi Range is an
ONF and a landscape of district significance.
6.47
She told us she had assessed a number of options for turbines on the PWFP site and preferred
an option 3 that had a rota diameter of 130 m and a notional spacing of 365 m. She said this
option allowed for wider spacing of the turbines which in turn allowed the shape and
prominence of the landform that is the various peaks and hollows to retain their dominance and
character. She was also of the view that the height of the rotas and turbines elevates them
high above the landform and there were a lesser number of turbines in this option compared to
others. This was the option that was finally chosen by MRP.
6.48
She then carried out an assessment of the potential visual and landscape effects of the PWFP.
To do this, she used as a reference point the existing wind farms on the Tararua Range;
concluding that tall widely spaced turbines would have the least visual and landscape impact on
the landform beneath because they appear as a very thin vertical element on top of a strong
landform and do not dominate the landscape. In contrast, smaller turbines clustered together
had, she said, a greater visual impact.
6.49
She then moved to address whether the PWFP on the Puketoi Range would be an appropriate or
an inappropriate development in terms of Section 6(b) RMA. Her conclusion on this point was
that provided the PWFP was designed and laid out as proposed by the current applications, it
would not be inappropriate.
6.50
The second part of her evidence detailed a peer review and audit of the methodology used and
applied by Mr Stephen Brown. It was her view that Mr Brown‘s assessment and evidence
reflected a very detailed analysis and findings. She noted the analysis identified and discussed
and in some cases resolved public concerns about the PWFP. She did note it would be very rare
to have all visual landscape issues resolved; and considered that the assessment and evidence
drew logical conclusions from the circumstances and specifics of the project. She agreed with
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 46/194
Mr Brown that the prime way to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects is through the design
and layout of the PWFP and that potential effects have been avoided by removing turbines from
highly sensitive locations and reducing the number of turbines. She noted that in terms of the
transmission route careful selection of that route had resulted in avoidance of significant
adverse effects from a visual/landscape point of view.
Photo montages
6.51
As we noted earlier when discussing our site visit we did have some concerns with the photo
montages. Our primary concern was whether or not the photo montages accurately depicted
the actual scene. Ms Buckland discussed this point with us and told us that she considered that
the photo montages that were the most valuable to use on site were those that provided 90°
horizontal, 35° vertical. She thought these photo montages were the most ―accurate‖. She did
explain that our point of concern had arisen because the photo montages were produced at an
A3 size resulting in ―reduction‖ in visual effects of the Wind Farm. This was because the
backdrop of the hills on which the PWFP would be located was in fact ―in the field‖ located much
closer than the photo montage showed. This accorded with our view as well.
6.52
To overcome this issue she presented a ―build media‖ Visual Simulation (# 14) at an A1 size. If
A1 is held at a distance of 350 mm from the eye, then this is the size and scale that the PWRP
would look like at that location.
6.53
Despite the challenges with both the ―build media‖ and to a lesser extent the ―truescape
montages‖, she was well-satisfied that the methodology utilised to prepare the photo montages
was robust and accorded with best practice. Finally, she noted that photo montages should
primarily be used as a guide on site visits; she repeated her evidence that photographs cannot
recreate actual experience.
Mr Stephen Brown
Experience
6.54
Mr Stephen Brown is a well qualified and highly experienced landscape architect. He provided a
very fulsome landscape and visual impact assessment. His evidence updated issues that had
arisen since the lodging of the original landscape and visual AEE and his evidence also
responded to the peer review of his AEE undertaken by Mr Bray.
The PWFP and its setting
6.55
After describing the PWFP in detail he set about describing the PWFP‘s landscape setting. In
doing so he noted the Puketoi Range is 35 km long along north-east to south-west axis and
displays a classic flat-topped ―cuesta‖. He noted it is exceptionally elongated, relatively even,
and it is its ridge-top profile that exemplifies cuesta landforms. He noted cuesta landforms are
notable for their asymmetrical profile. They have a steep escarpment face in this case aligned
towards the east and a more gradual and spatially expansive back slope in this instance falling
towards the Makuri stream. He noted the existence of limestone beds and landforms such as
tomos, which were common features across the range. He noted the back slopes of the Puketoi
Range were almost entirely covered in the open grasslands of local farms. He told us the
steeper scarp face of the Range-- in particular, those parts within the DOC estate south of
Pahiatua–Pongarora Road--retain a broad sweep of residual Podocarp/broad leaf forest. This
contains a broad mix of climbing and canopy species, including: Matai, Rimu, Kahikatea, Haniu,
Maire, and Tawa. While the native species thins out to the north and becomes fragmented and
mottled he considered this vegetation remains significant in its own right and helps define the
distinctive profile of the Puketoi Range.
6.56
He considered that the eastern scarp face provided the more dramatic and dynamic profile and
was much more significant as a landscape feature than its western back slopes. It was his view
that these western back slopes largely merged with the complex matrix of broken hill country
within and south of the Waewaepa Range.
Landscape status of the Puketoi Range
6.57
After reviewing the District Plan and the Proposed One Plan and considering the wider landscape
setting that the Puketoi Range is located within, Mr Brown agreed that the Puketoi Range has
been appropriately categorised as a significant natural feature/landscape within both Plans. His
only qualification was that he regarded the range‘s crest and eastern scarp face to be the key
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 47/194
element supporting that categorisation. He also considered that the Puketoi Range was
significant at the district level as opposed to the regional level.
Landscape effects
6.58
Mr Stephen Brown proceeded to assess the effects of the single file alignment of the turbines
across the Puketoi Range. He considered this alignment imparts a sculptural quality to some of
the views of the PWFP. He did note that the turbines would erode some of the naturalness
inherent in the skyline of the Puketoi Range but that they would also impart a sense of
aesthetic regularity/continuity, dynamism and drama to that horizon. He assessed the impacts
of the turbines from a range of viewing catchments and quadrants after noting the contrasting
profiles and varied visibility of the Puketoi Range from those catchments and quadrants.
6.59
He also assessed the landscape effects of the other components of the PWFP such as the
internal transmission line, substation, the more elevated access ways, earthworks and access
points. It was his opinion that the internal transmission line, substation and access ways while
visible from close at hand would in the main not present as visual detractions. In terms of the
access ways he noted many would be at prominent specific locations but nevertheless they
would be confined to quite discrete visually contained parts of the Makuri Valley corridor and
Puketoi Gorge and would have the same appearance as existing roads and local farm tracks
often following the alignment of existing routes across local farms.
6.60
He noted that where there were to be deep cuts into the bedrock and overburden (MC40 and
MC80) these sites would be almost entirely screened from the public domain apart from
elevated parts of the Waewaepa Range.
6.61
He considered the internal transmission line crossing part of the Puketoi Range Gorge would, in
the main, display much the same profile as existing power lines and was, he thought, unlikely
to generate a significant level of effect.
6.62
He thought that the main laydown area near MC30 would be significant in the short term
because of its high level of exposure to Coonoor Road, but would fade as soon as the PWFP was
constructed. The concrete batching plants, particularly the plant near MC40, is effectively
screened from public viewing and, in any event, both plants will be temporary structures so that
they would have little impact on local landscape values.
6.63
Overall, it was his opinion that the landscape would be very marked and significant. This is in
spite of the mitigation derived from the turbines configuration.
6.64
He considered the PWFP given that it sits atop the ridge would clearly transform the ONL.
However, he stressed that the landscape is already physically dominated by farming activities
and should in the wider sense be seen as a working rural landscape. The landscape, he told us,
was substantially devoid of major urban centres and areas of significant population
concentration. So, given the landscape setting is both physically quite remote and more
sensitive than most other rural areas, he considered the PWFP to be acceptable despite the
scale of its anticipated landscape effects.
Amenity effects
6.65
After assessing amenity effects and taking into account the available mitigation measures, Mr
Brown concluded that the PWFP would have an adverse impact on local occupants‘ enjoyment of
the Puketoi landscape. He did note in light of the shelter/screening afforded around most
homesteads in close proximity to the Puketoi Range there would be a number of properties
directly exposed to the PWFP. It was his overall view that amenity effects would nevertheless
be acceptable.
6.66
We note that on our site visit we saw for ourselves that many farm residences are built with
views not back towards the range, but looking east. Additionally, because of the prevailing
wind direction and the turbulence of the wind ‗coming off‘ the ridge, many of the farm dwellings
and the immediate curtilage areas were protected with heavy dense wind breaks, which, while
providing wind protection, prevented views of the ridge line.
Night time effects
6.67
After discussing the ten aviation hazard lights Mr Brown concluded that even though the
aviation hazard lights would have an appreciable impact on Puketoi‘s night time landscape he
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 48/194
did not consider that such lighting would generate an excessive or unacceptable level of effects
in relation to Puketoi‘s rural inhabitants.
Cumulative effects
6.68
Mr Brown addressed cumulative effects arising from the PWFP, the consented WWF and the
proposed CHWF. For the sake of clarity, we note the submissions by Mr Kirkpatrick relating to
our ability to take into account the CHWF.
6.69
It was Mr Brown‘s view that the PWFP would, subject to viewing points, frequently appear to
merge almost seamlessly with the consented WWF and thus stretch out the combined sequence
of turbines down the spine of most of the Puketoi Range. However, he thought that the
proposed CHWF would appear quite different and, in part, be separate from the PWFP. This was
due, he said, to its much lower elevation to the CHWF, its clustered layout and the fact that the
Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road runs between them and views from that road would contribute to this
differentiation.
6.70
After noting the relatively few locations where all three wind farms could be seen and that views
were ―sporadic‖, Mr Brown did acknowledge that those travelling through the Tararua and
northern Wairarapa Districts via local roads are likely to be exposed to all three wind farms in
succession--either in the course of one journey or over time--and the introduction of a line of
successive wind farms through the centre of this landscape would dramatically alter the
character of the landscape between Bideford and Waitahora. He said the PWFP would act as the
―lynch pin‖ between the WWF and the CHWF.
6.71
Whilst acknowledging these sequential effects, he compared that circumstance with the already
established wind farms on the Ruahine and Tararua Ranges. He registered a range of multiple
wind farms with different configurations and ―architecture‖ being co-located and visually
juxtaposed. In contrast, the PWFP would retain a linear profile that is largely unadulterated by
intermixing with the main clusters of the adjoining projects. The PWFP would, he said, be the
smallest and the most physically remote of the wind farms in surrounding areas. After noting
the sparse population within the PWFP viewing area as a further distinguishing feature, he
concluded the project would generate a moderate level of cumulative effect overall.
Planning instruments and national policy statements
6.72
On the basis of the assessments we have already referred to, Mr Brown considered the relevant
planning instruments and national policy statements, concluding that the PWFP was not
inappropriate and was consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of such documents.
Puketoi transmission corridor
6.73
In similar fashion Mr Brown discussed the landscape status of: the route, landscape effects,
amenity effects, natural character effects, and cumulative effects. Overall, concentrating on the
transmission poles and lattice towers, it was his opinion that the landscape effects associated
with the proposed transmission corridor would generally be limited to a moderate level of
impact.
6.74
As to amenity effects, he concluded the proposed corridor would generate a moderate level of
amenity effects that were, in his opinion, acceptable. Similarly, with natural character effects,
he concluded they would be kept to a moderate level consistent with the character and current
values near the existing Makuri stream.
6.75
As for cumulative effects he considered the transmission line would generate a moderate level
of effect for project ―non-participants‖ and road users in the vicinity of Makomako, Eisings and
Ingles Roads.
6.76
He also considered the permitted baseline, noting that a 110 kV transmission line is a permitted
activity within rural management areas in the Proposed District Plan. Consequently, he
considered the effects generated by the transmission line would be consistent with those that
might realistically arise in relation to a complying dual circuit 110 kV alternative. We note Mr
Bashford did not agree with this approach.
Statutory planning documents – transmission corridor
6.77
On the basis of the assessments we have already referred to, Mr Brown considered the relevant
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 49/194
planning instruments and national policy statements concluding that the proposed development
was not inappropriate and it was consistent with the relevant Objectives and policies of such
documents.
Conclusion on transmission corridor
6.78
Mr Brown acknowledged that transmission corridor proposal would alter the landscape character
in close proximity to it and would exacerbate the more utilitarian qualities of the landscape.
However, those effects would be limited in relation to most nearby residential properties
because of the physical buffer created by owner-participant properties around the proposed
corridor. He did note that in respect of the higher natural landscape character areas (such as
Mangahao and the Mangatainoka River Valleys) there would be a higher level of effect.
6.79
Taking into account the integration of the proposed transmission line with the consented TWF;
the manner in which the corridor had been routed to maximise its screening among foothills
between Pahiatua/SH2 and the Makuri Valley; localised screening afforded by shelterbelts and
ridgelines; and the similarities between the profiles of the proposed transmission line and a
permitted 110 kV corridor, Mr Brown said these matters supported the conclusion that the
transmission line was acceptable from a landscape, amenity and natural character perspective.
Supplementary statement
6.80
Mr Brown‘s supplementary statement presented his view on potential mitigation of the PWFP‘s
effects on the Marshall property. This essentially involved planting to screen four of the
turbines (T04 – T07) from the Marshalls‘ dwelling. He said that planting could largely screen
the turbines closest to the Marshall property and, at the very least, would establish a buffer that
helps to partially obscure the turbines and create a sense of separation from them. He
accepted that such screening would not entirely remove the turbines from sight but would
significantly reduce their visual presence and intrusiveness.
6.81
However, he went on to say that planting would not achieve this level of buffering instantly,
considering it would take at least 10 years to start to have a beneficial effect and 15 to 20 years
before it was fully effective. He also noted that such planting could also have a greater impact
on morning sunlight and outlook relative to the Marshall dwelling.
Mr Peter Clough
6.82
Mr Clough is a senior economist with over 20 years experience; specialising in applying
economics to the natural environment and appraising projects and policies in fields such as biosecurity, environmental regulation, energy, transport, public health and safety.
6.83
Mr Clough told us that despite reduction in electricity growth forecasts the New Zealand
electricity system needs new generations plants to cater for growth, replace old plants, and to
reduce older plants with higher cost characteristics.
6.84
The economic benefits from the PWFP will result in benefits to the local economy, arising
primarily from the construction activity when supplies and services from that local economy will
be required. However, he considered greater economic consequence over time is in creating
value from the wind and its subsequent effects on the electricity system.
6.85
The PWFP would, he said, create a stream of economic benefits for the owners and the
community for years to come. The source of those benefits were, he said:
(a)
Enhanced profitability to those connected with the production of electricity;
(b)
Benefits for those who received rental income from occupation of the Wind Farm;
(c)
Substantial value benefits from the displacement of thermal generation and avoidance
of greenhouse gas emissions;
(d)
Benefits for power consumers through restraint on price rises over time because of
less recourse for use of higher cost generation;
(e)
Benefits to other aspects of the electricity system such as reducing transmission
losses, reducing the probability of power shortages;
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 50/194
(f)
Positive stimulus to economic activity in the district particularly during the construction
stage;
(g)
Against these benefits he balanced third party effects such as disruptions to site use,
displacement of some recreation activity, and potential impacts on visual amenity.
6.86
Mr Clough considered the net economic benefit, having regard to the expert assessment of
these third party effects, would still result in a net economic benefit.
6.87
He noted the PWFP would improve resource use efficiency consistent with Section 7(b) and
clearly aligns with the intent of Section 7(j). It also contributes, he said, to various strands of
current Government policy in making a contribution towards New Zealand reaching, or
exceeding, Kyoto targets and provide diversity in sources and locations of electricity generation
in New Zealand.
Mr Morris Mills
6.88
Mr Mills is a senior civil engineer with over 25 years experience working on the design and
construction management of civil engineering projects within New Zealand. In particular, he
has undertaken civil engineering investigations and design ranging from site assessments
through to consent design for some six wind farms in New Zealand.
6.89
His evidence described in detail the civil engineering aspects of the PWFP and described the
development of the civil engineering design through to its current form. His evidence related
primarily to the wind farm part of the PWFP. He described the component parts of the wind
farm, including turbines, substations, internal transmission lines and the roading network.
6.90
He provided information concerning the temporary components of the PWFP, namely water
storage, concrete batching plants, and laydown and contractor administration areas.
6.91
He provided us with detailed information relating to the PWFP roading network, including: road
width, horizontal curvature, vertical alignment, longitudinal gradient, and batter slopes. He also
provided us with details about the cuts required and filling for the construction for the
roadways. He provided us with the assessment of total earthworks volumes.
6.92
He also provided us with a construction sequence and programme covering steps from site
establishment to commissioning. He also discussed decommissioning of the PWFP and
associated transmission infrastructure, expressing the view from a civil engineering perspective
that decommissioning was practical and relatively straightforward.
6.93
He helpfully identified for us post-AEE changes to the civil engineering design. He also provided
responses to those submitters that raised concerns relating to civil engineering matters covered
in his evidence.
6.94
He discussed the Section 42A reports, providing explanations and comments on the times
within various activities were to be completed.
6.95
He concluded the proposed PWFP site is suitable for the construction and operation of a wind
farm from a civil engineering perspective.
Mr Bruce Symmans
6.96
Mr Symmans is a consulting engineer with 17 years experience in geotechnical assessment and
civil design with extensive experience in wind farms.
6.97
His evidence describes the geological and geotechnical conditions and constraints for the PWFP,
and the earthworks and foundation design philosophies for the PWFP. He responded to the
geotechnical related submissions and matters relevant to his expertise raised within the Section
42A officer reports.
6.98
Mr Symmans provided detail around site visits, noting the evolution and design refinement
process that occurred as a consequence of geotechnical and other investigations. Particularly in
relation to geotechnical constraints he told us that roads had been realigned, and turbines and
transmission lines relocated to avoid areas of higher landslip risk. He told us many turbines,
roads and fill disposal areas had been moved to avoid sinkholes, caves and surface karst
features; and many roads and fill disposal areas had been relocated to avoid springs and wet
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 51/194
soft ground.
Site Geology
6.99
He described the cuesta landform telling us it forms where there are interbeds of contrasting
weak and strong rocks, mudstones and limestones. The stronger limestone form the prominent
ridges, while the weaker rocks the mudstones are eroded down more quickly and form the
lower lying areas surrounding the ridge.
6.100
He told us the Puketoi cuesta is classified in the New Zealand Geo-Preservation NZSS inventory
as a C3 landform, which is regionally important from a geological perspective and has a
vulnerability classification of 3, which means it is unlikely to be damaged by humans. He told us
that the Puketoi Range is not the only cuesta landform in the region, with the most well known
in the North Island, Te Mata Peak (near Havelock North). Interestingly, he noted there are
consented wind farms on a number of cuesta landforms.
6.101
He then proceeded to describe the limestone or karst features found on PWFP site, noting that
suffusion and drop-out sinkholes are the most common in the PWFP development area. He
described and identified for us a number of other features such as dry valleys, blind valleys,
case hardening, karren caves and cavities.
6.102
He noted the caves and larger sinkholes can contain paleo-biological materials as they have
created traps that now preserve evidence of extinct fauna such as moa. He noted that scientific
expeditions in 1952 and 1953 discovered a large number of bones in limestone caves, including
bones from moa, kakapo, kiwi, weka and the blue-wattled crow. He told us the design
philosophy has been to avoid caves or large sinkholes therefore the potential of encountering
paleo-biological material is low. However, if such sites cannot be completely avoided they will
be investigated to determine the paleo-biological value prior to any site works.
6.103
In relation to avoiding or minimising effects on karst he noted the first approach was that the
current layout would avoid or minimise adverse effects on karst features where avoidance was
not practicable then the specific minimisation or migration actions would be deployed.
6.104
It was Mr Symmans view that the likelihood of encountering unexpected caves, significant
cavities or significant paleo-biology within the earthworks or within foundation influences is low.
However, it cannot be discounted. To address this matter, Mr Symmans recommended the
development of a protocol for accidental discovery of caves and sinkholes in karst terrain to
direct MRP in the event this unlikely situation occurs. He provided an accidental discovery
protocol draft in his Annexure D.
6.105
He did note that prior to construction more detailed assessments and investigations will be
completed to confirm areas of geotechnical risk and karst value. Ground penetrating radar
(GPR) will be utilised where necessary or appropriate combined with test pits and boreholes to
confirm and correlate geophysical results. These geotechnical investigations will focus on
confirming the presence, size and depth of underground caves and cavities he said. If issues do
emerge he was confident that a range of engineering solutions such as bridging underlying cave
systems, using geo-grid reinforcement under fill and raising road levels could all be deployed.
Geo-Hydrology
6.106
Mr Symmans provided his view on surface water flow for the PWFP area. It was his opinion that
the PWFP would have no noticeable or significant adverse effects on surface-water flow.
6.107
Next he assessed groundwater and sediment movement, telling us that the geology and
typography of the site make it highly improbable that any earthwork activity in the western
catchment could have any adverse effect on the groundwater systems on the eastern slopes of
the range. As to sediment movement, this is a natural and ongoing process he told us.
However, sediment is also generated by farming and quarrying activities, which are undertaken
on the site. The generation of sediment from the PWFP and potential adverse effects will be
minimised, he said, because the earthworks will be managed by protocols defined in the CEMPs
and SEMPs.
Slope stability
6.108
Mr Symmans told us that an avoidance methodology is applied to locate towers on ridges, spurs
or shallow slopes so as to reduce landslip risk. This approach, combined with detailed
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 52/194
investigations prior to construction to confirm foundation situations, would ensure landscape
risks were minimised.
6.109
He was satisfied that the current tower layout was feasible and the effects of slope instability
could be mitigated through minor positional adjustments and specific foundation design.
Foundation solutions
6.110
He told us the transmission line towers will have a range of different types of foundations with
access constraints being an important consideration. Piling is however likely to be their
preferred foundation solution for most of the transmission tower foundations. Alternative
foundation solutions such as pads and anchors will only be used where access or environmental
constraints prevent a piling rig from accessing particular sites.
Access Tracks
6.111
6.112
Mr Symmans told us that considerations that impacted upon location of access tracks servicing
each transmission structure site included:
(a)
The proposed transmission structure;
(b)
Minimising earthworks;
(c)
Minimising vegetation clearance; and
(d)
The gradients of the terrain.
The proposed access track design is based heavily upon using existing tracks. Some 78% of the
total access track length will utilise existing access tracks. Most tracks will be formed or
widened to provide a 4.5 m wide track; this allows access for foundations and transportation of
monopoles.
Response to submissions
6.113
Mr Symmans responded to a number of submissions. Of particular interest was his response to
the Waitahora-Puketoi Guardians‘ concerns relating to cave and karst features. It was his view
the Guardians‘ concerns had been recognised in the development of the project. He said further
design and construction stages will be undertaken in accordance with protocol management of
adverse effects on karst terrain and the protocol of accidental discovery of caves and sinkholes
in karst terrain. Also, he noted these approaches have been carried through to the draft CEMP
and SEMP documents.
6.114
He also referred to the submission from the NZSS raising concerns in respect of karst features.
He referred to discussions between the NZSS, Dr Blaschke and MRP noting that as a result of
these discussions significant changes had been made to the documents in relation to karst
management.
Officer reports
6.115
The main issue that arose here related to concerns expressed by Mr Lake to ensure that the
filling avoided seepage areas. Mr Symmans told us because the vast majority of the project is
located high on the range; seepage should not be an issue. Where seepage is an issue, the first
approach is to avoid locations of significant groundwater seepage. The next approach is to
divert seeps and springs after intercepting the same. This is a common issue with common
engineering solutions.
6.116
Sediment discharge into sinkholes was another issue and Mr Symmans recommended that geotextiles or filter fabrics along with Geo-grid devices be used so as to prevent sediment discharge
into sinkholes. Mr Symmans told us these devices and structures have an effective life in excess
of 60 years with geo-grid being effective for at least 100 years.
6.117
In conclusion, it was Mr Symmans‘ opinion that the residual risk to the project as a result of the
geotechnical constraints was assessed to be very low. It was also his opinion that any potential
adverse effects arising from geotechnical, geological or hydrological matters would be less than
minor.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 53/194
Mr Edryd Breese
6.118
Mr Breese holds a number of professional qualifications relevant to his expertise and has over
20 years experience working in the fields of environmental impact assessment and
environmental management on a broad range of projects, including wind farms.
6.119
He prepared and presented to us a draft CEMP and SEMP.
6.120
He specifically addressed us on environmental management with particular focus on erosion and
sediment control, management of hazardous substances and dust.
6.121
He told us that the key objective of the environmental management for the PWFP is the
avoidance of adverse environmental effects. He noted the most significant construction activity
on site will be the earthworks to provide access and form turbine pads; therefore erosion and
sediment control is a major focus. The primary objective for erosion and sediment control is to
avoid causing or accelerating erosion and subsequent generation of sediment. Where this is not
possible the secondary objectives are the effective and efficient treatment of sediment
discharges and limiting the extent and duration of any erosion or sediment generation.
6.122
His evidence set out the issues, process, and content of both the CEMP and SEMP. Helpfully, he
included a number of graphics that detailed and demonstrated the various processes and
devices he referred to. We understood from his evidence that overall there would be 10 SEMPs
dealing with all of the components of the PWFP.
6.123
As well as the plans, he discussed with us the proposed monitoring, which was directed at
streams and the like to determine if any adverse effects are occurring from the discharge of
sediment. He also detailed the proposed inspection, auditing, and monitoring regime that will
allow for the performance of the environmental management measures to be observed and, if
necessary, improved as site conditions may vary.
Hazardous substances
6.124
He told us that the management of hazardous substances is provided for and outlined in the
draft CEMP. He also advised that the use and storage of hazardous substances is a permitted
activity if the storage can meet the permitted activity standards. He was of the view that it
could.
6.125
The main hazardous substance activities related to the storage of fuel and refuelling of vehicles
undertaking construction activities, the bulk storage of cement for concrete making, and oils
used in the transformers at the substations.
6.126
It was his view if managed in accordance with the CEMP and given the proposed activities met
the permitted activity standards in the District Plan, there would be no adverse environmental
effects from the storage and use of hazardous substances on site.
Dust
6.127
Dust could result from construction activities and actions would be taken to avoid the
circumstance that leads to generation of a dust nuisance, he said.
6.128
Key preventive measures included:
6.129
(a)
Dampening down of potential dust generation areas with water spray;
(b)
Grassing down stock piles where practicable;
(c)
Ensuring that surfaces are constructed to their final design requirement as quickly as
practicable;
(d)
Controlling vehicle speeds.
If these measures were employed and appropriately managed, then it was his opinion nuisance
emissions of dust from the project site would be avoided. He did discuss dust from mobile
crusher plants, noting that such plants will be operated so that they comply with the permitted
activity standards in the Regional Air Plan for Manawatu-Wanganui and the proposed One Plan.
He provided an assessment of how the relevant standards would be met.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 54/194
Response to issues in submissions
6.130
Mr Breese commented upon submissions from the NZSS, Fish & Game and DOC. His matters in
response are largely reflected within the proposed conditions, which seek to address sediment,
dust and hazardous substances issues.
Section 42A reports
6.131
Mr Breese had little issue with the reports but did comment directly on the Regional Council
report in relation to effects on aquatic habitats. The key point was that he challenged the
assumption within that report that there will be discharges of sediment and other contaminants
to the aquatic environment as a matter of course. It was his view that if the ‗avoidance first‘
approach were taken, along with implementation of the CEMPs and SEMPs, then it would not
follow as a matter of course that there would be discharge of sediments and other contaminants
to the aquatic environment.
Conclusion
6.132
It was his opinion the proposed construction of the PWFP would not result in any significant or
otherwise unacceptable adverse effects on the environment if the proposed management
processes and actions outlined in the draft CEMP and SEMP are adopted. He considered these
processes allowed for the clear identification of potential adverse effects, the use of best
practice methods and ongoing inspections, monitoring and auditing to confirm effectiveness. He
also confirmed the proposed conditions of consent reinforced this approach.
Supplementary evidence
6.133
Mr Breese‘s supplementary statement provided response to the Bryant report. Mr Breese‘s
comments were mostly technical in nature. He provided engineering drawings as requested by
Mr Bryant to allow a more fulsome evaluation of the draft SEMP, and he made amendments to
the draft CEMP for water table armour and flocculation, bench testing and decanting earth
bunds.
6.134
It was his view that the raised points of clarification were minor and would have been resolved
as a matter of course during the further preparation and certification of the final CEMPs and
final SEMPs.
Mr James Schwaderer
6.135
Mr Schwaderer is an experienced electrical engineer working on the design and construction
management of a wide range of projects within in New Zealand including wind farms. He has
relevant and extensive experience on transmission line projects.
6.136
He discussed with us the electrical components of the Wind Farm and of a wind turbine
generator. He also provided us information on the 33 kV internal reticulation transmission line.
He detailed from an electrical point of view, the role of the substation, and he provided us with
electrical details relating to the 220 kV transmission line. He also discussed earth potential rise
(EPR) and electro-magnetic field strength (EMF). He noted that it is assessed that EPR will be
below 430 V for all collection system structures and turbines. There is a concern he said when
the EPR rises above 430 V. In respect of the EMF he noted that as shown in the PWFP technical
report at Section 6 the EMF is predicted to be 4.95 kV per metre which is below the 5 kV per
metre reference for public exposure. He also noted that the highest Magnetic Flux Density 32
ut with the line fully loaded whereas an acceptable level is 200 ut.
6.137
He then discussed submitter concerns and how MRP had responded to them. We will return to
these points later in our decision.
6.138
He confirmed full support for the draft set of conditions presented by Mr Jackson and moved to
respond to the officer‘s report, noting the following for us:
6.139
(a)
To reduce the impact on Submitters 94, 100 and 114, Tower 17 has been removed
and Towers 16, 18 and 19 relocated; and
(b)
Tower 99/L is to be changed to a mono or double pole structure.
In conclusion, he told us that it was his opinion that the electrical components of the PWFP had
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 55/194
been appropriately designed and will be appropriately managed to adequately address any
potential electrical engineering issues. It was his opinion that the proposed 220 kV line has
been designed to provide a potential transmission solution for other wind farm projects in the
area.
Dr Ian Boothroyd
6.140
Dr Boothroyd is an environmental scientist of some 25 years experience in aquatic ecology and
resource management issues. His evidence provided us with a description of the aquatic
ecological characteristics and values of the Makuri stream and its tributaries based on results of
a recent survey. He commented upon the trout fishery of the Makuri stream and its significance
and provided a description of the water quality of the Makuri stream and its tributaries. He also
provided a description of the aquatic and ecological characteristics and values of water courses
along the transmission route. He also provided an assessment of the potential for, and
recommended management of, aquatic ecological effects from the construction and operation of
the PWFP, transmission route and transport route.
6.141
He told us the springs and spring fed tributaries meet the criteria for a significant habitat for
indigenous fauna because of the presence of the freshwater crayfish (or koura) as crayfish are
classified as threatened or in gradual decline nationally. He was also of the view that the main
stem of the Makuri stream meets the criteria of a significant habitat for indigenous fauna
because of the presence of both koura and long fin eels.
6.142
Turning to the trout fishery of the Makuri stream, he noted that it is a unique fishery, being
relatively small and isolated with a predominately limestone catchment. It is very scenic, easily
accessible, and has an impressive population of both rainbow and brown trout--some of trophy
status. Surveys of anglers have shown that the respondents rate the river as highly important.
6.143
In terms of water quality of the Makuri stream after comparing data from the stream and its
tributaries against what he considered to be appropriate local and national guidelines, trigger
values and classifications, his opinion was that the water quality was high and generally
reflected the geology, with elevated water hardness dominated by calcium.
6.144
Turning to the water courses along the transmission route, Mr Boothroyd noted that some of
the pole locations will require access tracks to cross streams, resulting in the need for culverts
of bridges.
6.145
Turning to potential effects of the construction and operation of the PWFP, Mr Boothroyd
identified the key activities with potential to impact on waterways as being:
(a)
Stream crossings, culverts and fords for the access route and internal transmission
cables;
(b)
Earthworks that may lead to sediment addition to waterways;
(c)
Fill sites that infill gulley areas;
(d)
Contaminant run-off from access roads, vehicle movements, concrete batching and
other infrastructure;
(e)
Sourcing of water for construction activities;
(f)
Construction of three temporary bridges.
6.146
It was his view that with the correct implementation of the plans and protocols, coupled with
the further recommendations of Mr Breese and Mr Symmans regarding management of
sediment and contaminants in and around water courses, the construction and operation of the
PWFP will not detrimentally affect the freshwater values of the Makuri stream and its tributaries.
6.147
He then discussed the proposed transmission route, reaching a similar conclusion—namely, that
if sediment and contaminants are controlled in line with the plans and protocols there will be no
detrimental effect of the PWFP transmission line on aquatic biodiversity values and water quality
within the transmission line area.
6.148
He then turned to consider the construction and operation of the proposed transport route.
Importantly, two new bridge crossings will be required and he discussed the impact of these
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 56/194
activities on the environment. He noted that earthworks for instream bridge construction
activities have the potential to add fine sediments to the Makuri River, directly disturb the
stream bed, and damage the riparian vegetation. These activities have the potential to
detrimentally affect the trout fishery and trout spawning. However, given activity within the
stream bed will be avoided during the trout spawning season and minimised at all other times,
the effects of the construction of bridges across the Makuri River on freshwater values and
water quality will be minimal.
6.149
Mr Boothroyd discussed Dr Blaschke‘s evidence as it addressed mitigation principally fencing,
riparian and wetland fringe planting. Mr Boothroyd considered that this proposed mitigation
would more than adequately compensate for the proposed loss of permanent and ephemeral
habitat from the construction of culverts and any unexpected sedimentation of waterways that
may arise during stream events.
6.150
Dr Boothroyd then discussed proposed monitoring, advising us that its aim is to assess and
confirm the effectiveness of the plans and protocols to be adopted for the management of
sediment and contaminants in and around water courses.
6.151
He also drew our attention to a proposed condition to provide for the preparation of an adaptive
management response plan to address any responses required to the findings of the baseline
aquatic monitoring of construction works on the Makuri stream and tributaries.
6.152
He then provided a response to Council officers saying that many of the issues concerning preconstruction baseline monitoring and its duration have been resolved and provided for within
conditions. He also responded with agreement that there needs to be the development and
implementation of triggers or thresholds for a mitigation response.
6.153
He then turned to provide us with a response to submitters, noting that many of the matters
raised by Fish & Game and other submitters with similar issues had already been sufficiently
considered and appropriately addressed, particularly in conditions.
6.154
In conclusion, Dr Boothroyd was well satisfied that the construction and operation of the PWFP
would not detrimentally affect the freshwater values or water quality of the Makuri stream and
its tributaries, and that the project potential aquatic ecological effects will be appropriately
managed to an acceptable level.
Dr John Craig
6.155
Dr Craig holds qualifications in ecology to PHD level and has 42 years experience of working in
his area of expertise, which is research and teaching within environmental management,
biodiversity conservation, restoration ecology, birds, and sustainability.
6.156
He told us he had visited the site on a number of occasions, was generally familiar with the
surrounding area, and had undertaken bird counts and observations of bird flying behaviour.
6.157
His evidence involved an analysis of the field data overlaid with the application of international
understandings of the effect of wind turbines on birds.
6.158
His evaluation concentrated on indigenous species, particularly those species that were at risk
such as the New Zealand falcon.
6.159
He told us that international experience of birds and wind farms showed that the wind farm
industry had progressively moved from marked effects on some bird species (in terms of strike
mortality) to an industry that typically has minimal effects on most species. However, he did
note that those birds that appear especially prone to collision mortality include raptors, a
grouping of birds that includes hawks and falcons.
6.160
He noted the majority of birds at Puketoi are introduced open country birds, which are not
protected. Silvereyes are the most common native bird that is affected. Pippets and New
Zealand falcons are the only threatened species at the site. Most bird flights, he told us, were
observed as being below the turbine strike area. Pippets never fly high enough to be at risk of
turbine strikes, but Falcons do, and are known to breed in the vicinity of the PWFP. He told us
risk analysis shows that the risk for all species is less than minor. In the case of the falcon, use
of the Band Model suggests that even one death of a falcon in the life of the PWFP is unlikely.
6.161
Turning to the transmission lines, he told us that international data shows that transmission
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 57/194
lines do not result in bird deaths. He did note that endangered birds such as falcons are prone
to electrocution; however, he told us that the proposed transmission lines have been designed
so as to avoid most risks, including electrocution.
6.162
Overall, it was his view the design of the proposed PWFP and associated transmission lines
avoids the majority of the risks to birds. Small numbers of some birds that are not protected or
only partly protected will be killed, as will a few silvereyes. However, there will be no effect on
the viability of the local population. He told us mitigation to compensate for the unlikely death
of a falcon is proposed.
6.163
Within his evidence were a number of very helpful figures and tables that provided information
on bird sightings, bird flights at differing heights, and risk flights.
6.164
He also considered the effect of the PWFP on habitat loss and said that this was not an issue of
any significance at Puketoi. This was primarily because the vast majority of the roads, turbine
foundations and substations are planned for areas currently covered with pasture, which do not
provide bird habitats. The only exception was the pippet, but he considered that this bird would
benefit greatly from the provision of roads and cleared spaces as long as there is an appropriate
level of pest control. He told us that roads and cleared spaces provide predator protection and
also food supply through insects and the like for the pippet.
6.165
Similarly with the transmission line, he did not consider that there was any threat to loss of
habitat. He did discuss collisions with lines but noted that deaths of birds from striking
windows, being killed by cars or poison are each in the order of 10,000 times greater than
deaths from either power lines or turbines.
6.166
He then discussed biodiversity offsetting, referring directly to MRP‘s Mitigation Offset Area. We
have attached to Condition 61.1 a plan that appropriately identifies the Mitigation Offset Area.
He said the proposed offset site will greatly enhance landscape and habitat connections, which
he considered would be a real advantage.
6.167
The proposed monitoring and conditions include a number that deal with avian and bat
utilisation surveys and also include an avifauna and bat management plan, which will ensure
that the needs of birds, especially falcons, will be met.
6.168
Turning specifically to falcons, he told us about a particular condition that will provide for staged
contributions to Wingspan Rotorua for the rearing and release of three falcons into a suitable
area as determined by Wingspan Rotorua in consultation with DOC. He told us that this has a
dollar value of approximately $20,000 per bird.
Dr Paul Blaschke
6.169
Dr Blaschke holds a BSC (Honours) from Auckland University and a PHD in Ecology from
Victoria University. He has been a practising ecologist and an environmental management
advisor for more than 30 years.
6.170
He presented an overview of all ecological aspects of the PWFP, its ecological effects, and
recommended measures to minimise, remedy, mitigate and offset those effects. He described
and assessed the terrestrial environment of the PWFP, transmission line and transport routes.
He also undertook a peer review of the aquatic and avian environments as detailed Drs
Boothroyd and Craig.
6.171
He detailed the ecological investigations that had been carried out to support the PWFP. He told
us the methods used for the ecological assessment of terrestrial, avian and freshwater
environments were wide-ranging including:
(a)
Background and desktop research;
(b)
Detailed field-based description of the site and the avian and freshwater habitats
within it;
(c)
Vegetation mapping;
(d)
Observations and recording of presence of bats, birds and lizards;
(e)
Sapling and measurement of water quality and other freshwater habitat parameters;
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 58/194
(f)
Sampling and observation of freshwater, invertebrates and fish populations.
6.172
Matters of focus included bat detection (with automated digital bat recorders being deployed),
lizard detection, and avian surveys.
6.173
Dr Blaschke described the physical and biological environment of the PWFP, noting the climate
is generally cool and wet, with very heavy rains at times.
6.174
Turning to vegetation and habitats, he told us the PWFP site is heavily dominated by pasture
and only relatively small areas of indigenous vegetation. He noted there was one wetland area
within the PWFP site and that no threatened plant species have been located within the PWFP
site.
6.175
Similarly, the 220 kV external transmission line is dominated by pasture grassland, exotic
forest, exotic scrub and shrubland.
6.176
Dr Blaschke noted caves and typical limestone features occur within the PWFP site. He told us
important fossil bird deposits had been found in nearby caves, including one well-known cave-known locally as 80 Acre Cave--in the vicinity of a proposed access road near the PahiatuaPongaroa road.
6.177
Turning to fauna, he detailed field survey results of birds; with most observations confirming
the birds were predominately open country birds associated with pasture, the vast majority of
which were introduced.
6.178
He did note the presence of the New Zealand falcon, which has the threat status of Threatened
– Nationally Vulnerable.
6.179
He referred to bats and noted the presence of the long tailed bat, which is classified as
Threatened- Nationally Vulnerable. He acknowledged uncertainty of the type and level of use by
bats of areas adjacent to and on the edges of the PWFP site. He noted the overall rate of bat
detection was low at 1%, but remained confident that some of the bats known to be present on
the eastern escarpment of the Puketoi Range crossed the ridge into the PWFP site from time to
time.
6.180
Dr Blaschke referred to bat monitoring at the PWFP where that monitoring had been occurring
for over a year. Having regard to those monitoring results, Dr Blaschke told us that he thought
that the level of bat use of habitat within the PWFP site was considerably lower than that at the
PWFP. He noted the need for further monitoring to provide more certainty over possible bat
populations.
6.181
In terms of lizards and frogs, he noted that surveys were not successful in finding lizards and
he acknowledged the survey occurred outside the accepted lizard season. But comparing the
PWFP lizards surveys, he considered it likely that lizards were present at the PWFP site but at
low densities.
6.182
He noted for us that after the AEE was produced, a finding of an unusual trogloblite (cave
dwelling) carabid beetle had been brought to this attention. This beetle was recorded from Nitty
Gritty Cave, whose entrance is about 250 m downslope from the eastern escarpment edge
between proposed turbines WT23 and WT24. The species is endemic to New Zealand and found
in a number of North Island karst areas.
6.183
He identified legally protected areas for us, noting there is one such area within the PWFP site,
a Queen Elizabeth II Open Spaced Covenant (QEII Covenant) (5/07/414) near the Flax Tree,
south of turbine WT36.
6.184
He pointed out that there were a number of other protected areas that are contiguous with or
close to the PWFP site. These are described in the terrestrial ecological ecology report forming
part of MRP‘s AEE.
6.185
Dr Blaschke then undertook a Section 6(c) assessment of the vegetation habitats. He noted that
the terrestrial ecology report identified indigenous forest and scrub areas within the PWFP site
as having high or moderate ecological value and fulfil the criteria in the proposed One Plan for
being recognised as an area of significant vegetation. Therefore, he thought these areas were of
significance for the purposes of Section 6(c) RMA.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 59/194
6.186
He agreed with Dr Craig that a wind farm envelope is not a significant habitat from an avifauna
perspective. However, in the light of the potential habitat offered by indigenous vegetation for
other types of native wildlife (such as long tailed bats and lizards), he assessed those areas as
being of limited significance for the purposes of Section 6(c). Overall, it was his view that there
are relatively small areas of indigenous vegetation that have high ecological value and having
particular significance.
6.187
He agreed with Dr Boothroyd that the Makuri stream and tributaries within the PWFP are
significant habitats of indigenous fauna under Section 6(c). He also noted the Makuri Stream is
a regionally significant trout fishery, a matter to which particular regard must be given under
Section 7(h) RMA.
6.188
The extensive areas of limestone outcrops within the pasture have, he said, very little
indigenous vegetation associated with them and relatively few biodiversity values. The
limestone karst features do have recognition and regional statutory protection as nationally rare
habitats within the proposed One Plan.
6.189
After noting the skyline of the Puketoi Range is recognised within the relevant plans as a
Regionally ONF/ONL, Dr Blaschke addressed the values of the forested eastern escarpment of
the Puketoi Range. However, he did not consider this indigenous vegetation qualified as an ONF
because it was fragmented and scrubby. It does not contain full trees and is unlikely to from a
significant fauna habitat and would inevitably be subject to significant edge effects, therefore it
would not, he said, have significance in terms of Section 6(c) RMA.
6.190
He did note the Makuri gorge is an area of high natural character and is identified as a
regionally significant ONF/ONL within the RPS. It is recognised for its scenic and recreational
values and its importance as a fisheries and wildlife habitat.
Potential effects of Wind Farm construction and operation on ecological values
6.191
6.192
Taking account of Dr Boothroyd‘s and Dr Craig‘s findings, it was Dr Blaschke‘s opinion that the
principal ecological effects of the PWFP are:
(a)
Loss of 7.88 ha of indigenous vegetation and 0.68 ha of limestone habitat on the PWFP
site through clearance for fill sites and other project infrastructure;
(b)
Likely overlap of New Zealand falcon habitat with some wind turbine locations leading
to a minor risk of falcon collision with turbine blades;
(c)
Potential residual sedimentation into the Makuri stream and its tributaries within the
PWFP site arising from extreme water events;
(d)
Potential loss or decrease in quality of trout spawning habitat in the Makuri stream.
Overall, Dr Blaschke considered that all other adverse effects of the PWFP are minor. He
considered that effects on native fauna are all minor, with the possible of exception of the
potential effects on long tailed bats. He noted MRP offers mitigation for all of these actual and
potential effects.
Avoidance, remediation and mitigation on ecological values
6.193
Firstly, Dr Blaschke discussed MRP‘s approach of avoidance and minimisation. That is, during
project design and in response to submissions, MRP has avoided adverse ecological effects by
avoiding most medium to high volume habitats on the PWFP site. Examples included re-siting of
sill sites, turbine pads, re-routing of access roads, internal transmission lines and the like.
6.194
In similar fashion, MRP has promoted pre-construction surveys that may lead to further redesign or other measures aimed at avoiding or minimising ecological effects. For example,
preconstruction surveys of native bird and bat populations in the vicinity of the PWFP site; these
matters are reflected in conditions.
6.195
He also noted the CEMP proposes a package of mitigation measures designed to minimise
construction effects, especially those that have the potential to contribute sediment to ground
or surface waters on the PWFP site. It also proposes measures to manage potentially hazardous
substances on site.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 60/194
6.196
Some effects he noted are unavoidable and require remedy, mitigation or offset. Remediation
measures provided for in the proposed CEMP include re-vegetation, development of wind
deflection bunds to help encourage re-vegetation and replacement of limestone boulders moved
during construction where practicable.
6.197
After describing some ecological adverse effects that will remain, even after potential effects
have been avoided or reduced to the greatest possible extent, Dr Blaschke said that mitigation
or offsets should be provided for these. The unavoidable effects included loss of vegetation,
limestone habitat and some freshwater habitat due to impoundment or culverting. Other
unavoidable effects include potential native bat collision and potential New Zealand falcon
collision with turbines.
Integrated catchment – mitigation package
6.198
In order to further mitigate or offset any unavoidable effects that cannot be fully remedied an
integrated catchment-based mitigation package has been developed.
6.199
The central feature of the proposed mitigation package is setting aside with legal protections
21.4 ha of land located of the central part of the north-west facing slopes of the Puketoi Range
roughly in the centre of the PWFP site. The area proposed to be protected comprises part of the
lower catchment of the Pipinui Stream, a tributary of the Makuri stream immediately north of
the proposed MC40 access road. The land concerned lies on the farm of Mr Richard Perry, one
of the participating land owners in the PWFP. The proposed Perry Mitigation Area is identified
and/or defined by reference to a MRP plan, no. MRP-PKT-6471-A. That plan is found on page 6
of the Wildlands report dated 15 February 2012, which is attached and marked Attachment 4 to
Dr Blaschke‘s evidence.
6.200
The proposed form of legal protection of the land parcel is a QEII Open Spaced Covenant, for
which an application has been prepared by QEII Trust staff for consideration by the QEII Trust
Board, which Dr Blaschke told us was due to occur in March 2012.
6.201
The mitigation areas include both terrestrial and freshwater environments with three broad
landform units: an area of upper slopes (9.53 ha), a wetland basis (4.69 ha), and a portion of
valley floor on the lower part of the catchment (7.18 ha)--specifically the riparian area of either
side of the Pipinui Stream.
6.202
There are a number of indigenous vegetation species within this area. Dr Blaschke noted that
wetlands of significance size with natural character are very uncommon in the Puketoi Range
and within the Puketoi ED. He also noted that the proposed One Plan identifies components of
wetlands, namely fens and marshes, as Threatened while riparian margins are At-Risk.
6.203
In addition to legal protection of the mitigation area, a range of conservation and restoration
measures have been proposed all directed at continued improvement of this area in terms of
quality of the native fauna and quality of the habitat.
6.204
Dr Blaschke noted that this mitigation area would include benefits to the wetland and bush,
native bird species, including the New Zealand falcon, and also benefit arboreal lizards.
6.205
In comparing indigenous vegetation loss by area with the mitigation package, Dr Blaschke
noted the area lost and that offered as partial mitigation in terms of indigenous vegetation are
broadly equivalent.
6.206
However, as well as the area to be planted, he noted a further 14.2 ha will be protected from
grazing; all which he said should regenerate eventually into high ecological value vegetation. As
well, a length of approximately 1600 m of permanent stream will be protected from grazing and
replanted with resulting riparian vegetation reducing the amount of nutrient enrichment and
sediment entering the tributary in the Makuri stream. Dr Blaschke noted that this is more than
6 times the maximum length of instream habitat likely to be lost due to be placement of
culverts and culvert fords.
6.207
It was Dr Blaschke‘s overall opinion that the whole protected area has the potential to be
eventually vegetated by high ecological value habitat. His view in terms of the areas proposed
for management compared to areas and stream lengths lost under the PWFP construction and
its catchment context, is that it represents a ―like-for-better‖ approach to biodiversity
offsetting, meaning no net loss and potentially resulting in additional conservation outcomes.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 61/194
6.208
Dr Blaschke then considered whether the PWFP will achieve the Anticipated Environment
Results (AERs) set out in the proposed One Plan and District Plan. In his view on a strict reading
of all three AERs for native biodiversity in the proposed One Plan, one is not met, one is met,
and one is not applicable. However, he said when considering the set of AERs from a regional or
district level perspective, the PWFP as a whole is not cutting across of the outcomes sought
through the AERs, given the very minor nature of the loss and extent of the remediation and
mitigation proposed.
6.209
He was of the view that the AERs in the Proposed District Plan would be clearly achieved.
6.210
Overall, he considered with all the avoidance, minimisation, remediation and mitigation
measures any ecological effects of the PWFP will be acceptable and all habitats and species will
be afforded an appropriate level of protection. He said the avoidance first strategy has been
successfully applied so that the residual non-protection is more than offset by the
mitigation/offset package. It was his view that with the mitigation proposed the PWFP is likely
to enhance biodiversity and overall environmental outcomes at a catchment scale, thereby
providing a potential ecological gain.
Transmission and Transportation routes
6.211
Dr Blaschke again noted the avoidance first approach had been applied to the proposed
transmission route, principally by relocating towers away from vegetation of moderate
ecological value.
6.212
He noted sedimentation effects could result from the construction of pylons, towers or poles for
the 220 kV transmission line but overall the effects of the same would be appropriately
mitigated.
6.213
In terms of the transportation route, some trimming of roadway vegetation to allow the larger
loads to pass will be required, but Dr Blaschke agreed with Mr Brown that trimming, particularly
through the Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road in the Makuri Gorge, would not affect the significant forest
vegetation above the road.
6.214
He concluded that the transmission infrastructure and transportation route would not cause
unacceptable ecological effects.
Response to Section 42A reports
6.215
Dr Blaschke‘s response comments focussed upon the ecological assessment for the Regional
Council undertaken by Mr Kessels. Mr Kessels had raised a number of concerns, most of which,
Dr Blaschke told us, would be addressed in conditions. Mr Kessels primary concern related to
the effect of the PWFP on bats; in acknowledging this, Dr Blaschke agreed there was some
uncertainty over the type and level of use by bats of areas in an around the site and the level of
risk. To address this, Dr Blaschke reminded us that extensive pre-construction survey of bat
use and habitat, concentrating on locating potential roosting habitat, would be undertaken.
6.216
In the round, Dr Blaschke considered Mr Kessels‘ concerns and issues would be dealt with by
conditions.
Response to Submitters
6.217
Dr Blaschke provided a detailed response to submitters such as the Queen Elizabeth II Trust,
the NZSS and DOC. Mr Mason Jackson had earlier in his supplementary evidence informed us
the named submitters were satisfied that their issues had been addressed and would no longer
be appearing in support of their submissions.
Conclusions
6.218
Dr Blaschke concluded that with all of the avoidance, minimisation, remediation and mitigation
measures discussed in his evidence, any ecological effects of the PWFP will be acceptable and
that the ecological values of habitats and species will be afforded an appropriate level of
protection. In his view, the PWFP is likely to enhance biodiversity and overall ecological
outcomes at a catchment scale, thereby providing a potential ecological gain. He considered the
PWFP adequately and appropriately addresses the ecological provisions of Sections 6 and 7
RMA.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 62/194
Supplementary evidence
6.219
The purpose of this evidence was to update the results of monitoring of bats and lizards. Dr
Blaschke noted that the new records for both bats and lizards did not alter his original
conclusions.
6.220
He confirmed that he had considered from an ecological point of view impacts on native
vegetations and surface karst features caused by the proposed relocation of WT50, and had no
concerns.
6.221
He set out for us a record of caucusing discussions he had held with Mr Kessels, recording that
agreement had been reached on the location and targets of pest control, pre-construction bat
monitoring, and post construction collision monitoring. All of these changes were now
incorporated into the set of proposed condition as presented to us by Mr Jackson within his
supplementary evidence.
6.222
Finally, he commented on the QEII Trust‘s submission, noting that the QEII Trust had now
approved the establishment of an open spaced covenant over the proposed mitigation area and
also that the QEII Trust was in agreement with the proposed conditions of consent as attached
to Mr Jackson‘s supplementary evidence.
6.223
Dr Blaschke drew our attention to the QEII Trust‘s concerns about the extent of pest control,
recording his agreement with Mr Kessels that an appropriate intensity and location of pest
control would concentrate effort on the mitigation area and catchment in which the mitigation
area is located rather than along all internal PWFP roads. This outcome is reflected in
conditions.
Mr Phillip Brown
6.224
Mr Phillip Brown is a chartered professional engineer and specialises in traffic related aspects of
proposals. He told us he has considerable experience in the assessment of routes to be used by
heavy vehicles and heavy vehicle off-tracking. His evidence covered: the route of
transportation for PWFP components, site access requirements, road upgrading, onsite parking
and loading, traffic generation, construction of the transmission line, visitor observation areas, a
Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), cumulative effects, and proposed conditions. He
also commented upon submissions received.
Submissions
6.225
In the main submissions concerned traffic safety, the ability of the roading network to cope with
oversized and overweight vehicles, and traffic congestion and delays.
6.226
In response, Mr Brown made the point that while there will be some overweight and overdimensioned vehicles they are, in the main, more the exception than the Rule. Many vehicles
involved will be no different to the sizes, types and weights of the vehicles using the present
roads in the local and wider area.
6.227
It was his overall view that traffic related effects of the PWFP are predominately confined to
short-term effects due to material and component haulage to the site by heavy vehicles during
construction.
6.228
It was his view that, with the imposition of appropriate conditions, any potential traffic related
effects can be effectively and appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. He said once
construction was completed he expected the traffic effects of the PWFP would be no more than
minor on the surrounding traffic environment.
6.229
One of the key mitigation measures was a comprehensive CTMP. This document was partly
developed but would be further developed as result of consultation, particularly with the
community liaison group--being a group charged with that purpose. He told us before the CTMP
could be acted upon it would have to be certified by the Council. The CTMP, he said, would
include details such as the timing of significant loads to avoid the start and end of the school
day when school buses and associated students will be present in the area. He also described a
communications system between the site and school buses and also with farmers who may be
stock droving on the roads. It was his view that the CTMP is expected to incorporate all
necessary provisions to address matters raised by submitters. The CTMP will, he said, allow the
traffic associated with the construction of the PWFP to be accommodated in the surrounding
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 63/194
traffic and roading environment without creating safety or operational problems.
6.230
He saw the CTMP as being a living document to manage and control the traffic related aspects
as the construction progresses and will provide he said an invaluable mechanism for proposed
measures to be updated when required.
6.231
He told us that the transportation of the most demanding pieces of equipment will require overweight and/or over-dimension permits. The approval process for these permits will ensure that
they are transported at appropriate times and in an appropriate manner.
6.232
He noted that the officer reports confirmed that the Councils‘ roading officers were supportive of
the CTMP process and also asked us to note the lack of a submission from NZTA, which he
suggested signalled no concern from that body.
6.233
While acknowledging construction related vehicles are expected to be legal vehicles operating
on public roads and thus entitled use them, he considered that the proposed traffic conditions of
consent would allow the construction traffic routes to better accommodate the anticipated
volumes.
6.234
Because there are some permanent works required to the roading network (such as the
widening of Coonoor Road, sealing unsealed sections of Coonoor Road, increasing the width of
some of the main roads and the section of the Pahiatua–Pongaroa Road through the Makuri
Village) there will in fact be positive effects.
6.235
Overall, Mr Brown was well satisfied that the traffic related effects of the PWFP, including the
transmission line, would be acceptable from a traffic engineering perspective, provided the
CTMP forms an integral part of the traffic conditions and the proposed conditions of consent are
adopted.
6.236
Accompanying his evidence were many useful photographs detailing for us tower transporters,
blade transporters, nacelle transporters, which all demonstrated how such large loads could be
managed.
Mr Nevil Hegley
6.237
Mr Hegley is a very experienced and qualified noise expert and has specialised in acoustic for
some 33 years. He has also been closely connected with both the 1984 and 1999 versions of
the Construction Noise Standard NZS6803:99 and Acoustics Construction Noise NZS6803. He
has also been closely associated with the development of NZS 6808:1998 Acoustics – The
Assessment and Measure of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators. He set out his extensive
experience with wind farms for us.
6.238
Mr Hegley assessed potential noise from the PWFP based on the following assumptions and
design parameters:
(a)
The maximum turbine height (Tip height) to be installed on the site will be 160 m;
(b)
The maximum rota diameter will be 130 m;
(c)
The maximum hub height will be 100 m;
(d)
The maximum number of turbines to be installed on the site will be 53; and
(e)
The maximum power rating of the turbines will not exceed 6.15 MW.
6.239
Mr Hegley also assessed cumulative effects of the WWF and the CHWF. He modelled WWF as
having 52 3MW turbines with a hub height of 100 m and CHWF as having up to 286 3MW
turbines with a hub height of 100 m.
6.240
He told us the above assumptions represent the maximum possible development scenario for
each proposed wind farm so as to ensure, he said, conservative assessments of the maximum
noise level that could be experienced by residents living in the area.
6.241
The exact make of wind turbine for each of the wind farms has not been selected. Therefore,
he said he modelled the characteristics of the largest, and hence the noisiest, turbines for each
development. For the PWFP he used a 6.15 MW turbine, for both WWF and CHWF he used a
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 64/194
Vesters V90 3MW turbine. He said by demonstrating compliance with these turbines noise
compliance with all other potential turbines would also be achieved.
Design Criteria
6.242
He discussed with us the Proposed District Plan and, in particular, Rule 5.3.7.2 which provided
that:
―the construction, operation and maintenance of energy generation facilities, including
wind farms, not otherwise provided for as permitted activities, shall be considered as
discretionary activities in all Management Areas.‖
6.243
He then referred us to Rule 5.3.7.4 (g) that sets out the criteria for assessment as being;
―The expected noise effects arising from the construction, maintenance and operation of
the facility, with particular regard to the impacts of noise on existing dwellings and the
ability of the proposal to meet any relevant standards such as NZS6808:1998 (Acoustics
– the assessment and measurement of sound from wind turbine generators) and the
NZS6803:1998 (Construction noise) or any subsequent versions of these standards.‖
6.244
Mr Hegley did note for us that reference to the 1998 Standard is under appeal with the use of
the 2010 Standard being sought as relief. He did note however that the Rule itself does in fact
refer to any subsequent versions of these standards, which clearly means the 1998 Standard
and/or the 2010 Standard.
6.245
He then discussed in detail the 2010 Standard, noting that the Standard covers the prediction,
measurement and assessment of the received sound from wind farms with the intention to
avoid adverse noise effects on people caused by the operation of wind farms, while enabling
sustainable management of natural wind resources.
6.246
He noted Clause 5.2 of the 2010 Standard recommends noise limits for wind farms at noise
sensitive locations; at any wind speed the wind farm sound level should not exceed the
background level by more than 5dB or a level of 4dB L A90 (10 min), whichever is the greater.
6.247
He then referred to Rule 5.3.1 of the Standard provides for a high amenity area. In a high
amenity area, a more stringent noise limit may be justified to afford a higher degree of
protection of amenity during evening and night-time. The Rule provides a high amenity noise
limit should be considered where a plan promotes a higher degree of protection of amenity
related to the sound environment of a particular area, for example, where evening and nighttime noise limits in the plan for general sound sources are more stringent. However, the Rule
notes a high amenity noise limit should not be applied in any location where background sound
levels are already affected by other specific sources such as road traffic sound.
6.248
The Rule also provides guidance on whether a higher amenity noise limit may be justified. Mr
Hegley noted that the Proposed District Plan does not promote a higher degree of amenity
protection for any particular area. He also considered when taking into account the existing
noise environment there is no reason to adopt the high amenity area criteria for this project.
6.249
In considering the existing noise environment, Mr Hegley pointed out that under NZS 6808
background sound level measurements and subsequent analysis to define the relative noise
limits are to be carried out where the wind farm sound level of 35 dB L A90 (10 min) or higher
is predicted for noise sensitive locations when the wind turbines are at 95% or greater rated
power. If there are no noise sensitive locations within in the 35 dB L A90 (10 min) predicted
wind farm sound level contour, then background sound level measurements are not required.
6.250
Mr Hegley told us based on this criteria, field measurements are required at only one location,
namely the Marshall Property, where the predicted noise level is 37 dB L A90 (10 min). He said
all other noise sensitive locations are below, with the next highest level being 32 dB L A90 (10
min).
6.251
So to determine an acceptable noise level for the PWFP in accordance with NZS 2010, the
measured background sound at the closest house to the PWFP was plotted against the wind
speed at the PWFP site; this graph was shown as Figure 5 within Mr Hegley‘s evidence. The
graph showed that the predicted noise level was below the typical background noise level, it
was well below the design level and well below the measured level.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 65/194
6.252
Mr Hegley reminded us that the design level of noise for a wind farm to provide a satisfactory
level of protection against sleep disturbance at noise sensitive locations outdoors is 40 dB.
Therefore, he said the scatter of the noise levels for a given wind speed is only of potential
concern where the predicted noise level exceeds 40 dB. He told us there are no sites where the
PWFP noise level exceeds 40 dB.
6.253
While no specific noise surveys had been undertaken along the transmission corridor, Mr Hegley
had no concerns in respect of noise along the transmission corridor.
Construction noise
6.254
After considering various construction activities (such as excavators working, the concrete
batching plants in operation, cranes lifting towers and blades, and bolting activities occurring)
he was confident of his assessment, namely that noise levels from all construction activities will
be well within the requirements of the construction noise standard (NZS6803) at all times.
Wind Farm operational noise
6.255
Mr Hegley told us that wind farm operational noise is based on a worst case scenario of the
wind blowing from all wind turbines towards the receiver at the same time, that is, the receiver
experiencing noise effects downwind from all 53 wind turbines simultaneously. This technique
of modelling, which would not occur in practice, allows the worst case noise effects to be
calculated and shown on a single figure. Figure 9 of his evidence showed the predicted noise
contours. Table 3 accompanied Figure 9 and collected all of the sites where the predicted noise
level is at or above 30 dB L A90 (10 min), including the cumulative noise effects of the
proposed PWFP.
6.256
He pointed out that the prevailing wind is a north-westerly which is not towards the closer
houses in the area. Mr Hegley noted that when the wind is not blowing towards the receiver
position being considered the noise would be below the levels as predicted for downwind
conditions.
6.257
On table 3 only the Marshall property is shown at 40 dB. Mr Hegley noted that when
considering the downwind predicted noise the levels at the houses shown in his Appendix B
which are he said representative of the houses around the PWFP the predictions are within the
requirements of the 2010 Standard. That is the predicted noise levels do not exceed the
background sound level by more than 5 dB or a level of 40 dB L A90 (10 min) whichever is the
greater. He noted if the area is a high amenity area then the Wind Farm sound levels during
evening and night-time should not exceed the background sound level of more than 5 dB or a
level of 35 dB L A90 (10 min) whichever is the greater. Again he noted while amenity is a
relevant consideration under the District Plans and under the Act neither District Plan nor the
Environmental noise monitoring undertaken suggests this locality should be considered a high
amenity area.
Low Frequency noise
6.258
After noting that low frequency noise is addressed in NZS6808:2010 Clause 5.5, Mr Hegley
advised us that a range of wind turbines that may be selected had been evaluated and none of
them have high levels of low frequency noise. He also said that there is no substantiated
evidence that indicates that modern turbines generate high levels of low frequency noise, and
that there was no reason to anticipate the PWFP would generate high levels of low frequency
noise.
6.259
Mr Hegley also addressed vibration effects, again referring us to NZS6808:2010, noting that the
standard had no recommendation for assessing vibration effects, primarily because groundborne vibrations are not perceptible beyond the boundary of a wind farm.
Traffic noise
6.260
Mr Hegley noted that there are no specific controls of traffic noise in the District Plan, the City
Plan, the RMA or any other current legislation. He suggested the only guideline available is NZS
6806:2010, which sets a guideline of 57 dB measured as a 24 hour L AEQ. It was Mr Hegley‘s
view that while truck movements will be audible, taking into account even the closest house to
the road, noise levels will be within the guide provided in the standard. He noted that
construction traffic will be of limited duration and that ongoing traffic conveying operational
staff to and from the site will be negligible.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 66/194
Other noise
6.261
Mr Hegley assessed substation noise, noise from the transmission line construction and
operation, reaching a conclusion in each circumstance that noise outputs are acceptable.
Submissions
6.262
Mr Hegley provided responses to a number of submitter concerns; those that we think are more
relevant than others were the submissions of Edwards, Boswell and Cunningham, which
concerned construction noise and also concerns about noise predictions for the turbines. Mr
Hegley assessed noise from large machinery to be used during construction and concluded that
such noise is akin to that which a permitted activity in this area under the District Plan may
generate.
6.263
As to accuracy of noise predictions about turbine noise, Mr Hegley noted that other wind farms
were assessed on the basis of noise predictions then reassessed after construction. The
subsequent field testing showed the predictions were accurate and Mr Hegley was of the view
that this project should not be any different.
6.264
These submitters also had issues with the use of engine brakes when trucks passed close to
houses in Makuri Village, Mr Hegley suggested a condition preventing use of engine brakes.
6.265
He also discussed the submission of the Connells. Their circumstances are a little unusual in
that their home, which was previously a post office, has been constructed partly on roadway
reserve. Consequently, their now living room is quite close to the roadway and they had
concerns about truck noise. Mr Hegley undertook monitoring of the existing noise environment
and he was satisfied that construction traffic will not exceed any guidelines or standards at the
Connell dwelling. Nevertheless, he did recommend double-glazing of some of the windows of
the dwelling.
6.266
He then turned to address the Marshall submission, telling us that his analysis demonstrated
that noise at their dwelling will comply with the requirements of the Standard NZS6808 at all
times. He reminded us that his noise analysis was undertaken on the assumption that the wind
was blowing from every turbine toward the Marshall dwelling. This, he said, is obviously not a
realistic assumption and does provide a factor of safety with the analysis.
6.267
Turning to Section 42A reports, Mr Hegley noted that a question arose as to accuracy of +/- 2
dBA. He explained that this is the expected accuracy of the computer model. He emphasised
that modelling had assumed that the wind is blowing from each wind turbine toward the
receiver position, which will never occur in practice. He said separate modelling with the wind
blowing in one direction, which is representative of the actual conditions, shows wind farm noise
is typically 1.5 - 2 dBA over-predicted when based on modelling techniques. It was his view the
predictions are conservative and the likelihood of noise being above the predicted 40 d BA at
the Marshall property is unlikely. This, he said, addresses the concerns about uncertainty.
Mr David Black
6.268
Among other things Mr Black is a practising specialist physician. He told us he is regarded by
his peers as an expert in electro-magnetic safety. He told us he has considerable experience in
health and safety aspects of the electricity generation, distribution and supply. He is a
published author on such topics and he has assessed a number of proposed wind farms on such
matters.
6.269
He told us potential health related effects of the PWFP include Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF)
effects, effects on air quality, effects on water quality, noise and vibration effects, visual effects
such as shadow flicker and blade glint and electrical safety effects. He noted potential health
related effects of the transmission line mainly involve EMF.
6.270
He noted that EMF at high enough levels does have the potential to have effects on public
health. He told us that internationally recognised standards and guidelines such as
International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guideline are designed
to prevent all established health effects from EMF by restricting permissible exposure.
6.271
He said the EMF assessment for the transmission lines has been undertaken on the basis for
providing for the theoretical maximum loads which the proposed transmission line may carry.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 67/194
6.272
He noted that all electric and magnetic fields from the turbines, transformers, internal overhead
and underground 33 kV transmission lines, 33 kV/ 220 kV substation and 220 kV external
transmission line will comply with the limits for general public and occupational exposure
recommended in the 2010 ICNIRP guideline endorsed by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.
Compliance with this guideline will he said ensure there will be no risk to public health and
safety from electric or magnetic fields associated with this proposal.
6.273
He assessed effects on air quality and effects on water quality noting that there was negligible
risk to public health from either.
6.274
He then discussed noise and vibration concluding that the PWFP turbines will not generate
significant levels of ground vibrations beyond the boundary of the PWFP. Thus, there was no
possibility vibration related diseases such as vibro-acoustic disease (VAD). Also any airborne
vibration namely infrasound would be below the frequencies of which the ear can detect
(subsonic) and will be of such a low effect as to be insignificant, with no possibility of any public
health effects.
6.275
He did note that at times persons living near wind farms sometimes claim poor sleep as a result
of the facility. He said this is not a direct physiological health effect of the turbines or any noise
from them. If it does occur, he said it usually due to psychological sensitisation to the presence
of the wind farm.
6.276
He discussed visual effects, such as shadow flicker, noting that the calculations show that flicker
effects from the PWFP on any dwellings, work places or schools will be minimal. He noted that
the frequency range of the potential flicker will not have any physiological or epileptogenic
effects. He observed that blade glint will be minimal due to the angles of viewing and because
the turbines will have low reflectivity coatings.
6.277
Turning to electrical safety effects, he noted the overhead transmission lines will comply with
the NZ electrical code of practice for electrical safe distances and that the substation will be
fully fenced. He considered that there would be no risk to lawful public activity from any
electrical conductor.
Submitters
6.278
Several submissions raised concerns over potential health effects from the 220 kV transmission
line and/or in EMFs. In response, Mr Black again referred to the point that the PWFP will all
comply with both international and national guidelines for EMF and transmission line type
effects.
6.279
Mr Black did respond to some submitters such as Mr Nicholls from Top Up Ventures, who was
concerned with EMF effects. Mr Nicholls referred to a Professor Henshaw‘s work. Professor
Henshaw is a professor of physics at Bristol University. His research suggested an increase in
the rates of depression, childhood leukaemia and other health issues were linked to exposure of
power lines.
6.280
Mr Black referred directly to Professor Henshaw‘s work, noting that it has not been widely
accepted nor progressed and does not carry weight in the recent relevant publications—indeed,
the most recent relevant publication (Environmental Health Criteria Monograph No 238
published by WHO) suggests that ―it seems unlikely that corona ions will have more than small
effect on long term health risks even in the individuals who are most exposed ‖. Professor
Henshaw‘s theories relied on corona ions transporting charged particles, which may then be
inhaled and cause allergic responses.
6.281
Mr Black also referred to Mr and Mrs McGhie‘s concerns regarding the potential effects of the
transmission line and Wind Farm on their daughter who has Rhett syndrome. Mr Black observed
that there is no evidence that electric or magnetic fields are involved as a casual factor of Rhett
syndrome.
6.282
Mr Black noted submissions from the Connells, which raised the health effects of stress from the
PWFP. He said that symptoms such as anxiety or even Reactive Affective Disorder have been
associated with wind turbines. However, he said these effects are a consequence of the
interaction between the individuals‘ attitude to, or perception of, the perceived offending
stimulus and perhaps their underlying psychological state. He said these effects occur when an
individual becomes distressed by a noise or sensation, which triggers their awareness of the
presence of the facility and escalates concern about harm. Anxiety then builds and a cue to the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 68/194
presence of the facility, such as a visual or audible stimulus, becomes sufficient to trigger
anxiety and stress.
6.283
Mr Black was of the view that neither anxiety or Reactive Affective Disorder can be directly
taken into account in deciding whether an effects based decision in a resource consents hearing
is appropriate; although he agreed a decision does have to be made as to whether such
perceived concerns are reasonable or not. If the concern is unreasonable, not withstanding
distressing to the individual and not within their control, Mr Black said the best mitigation for
this effect is correction of the misinformation and misapprehension about direct psychological
effects, which are often the true cause for distress.
6.284
Mr Black specifically addressed the Marshall submission; in particular, whether the noise levels
at their dwelling would cause adverse health effects. After discussing the standard in detail and
noting that the standard does incorporate a safety margin and also noting a 5 dBA safety
margin between NZS6808:2010 and the WHO‘s recommended limit of 30 dBA Leq, he said that
health effects caused by noise would not be an issue at the Marshall property.
6.285
It was his overall conclusion that there were no aspects of the construction or presence of the
PWFP that would give rise to cause for concern from a public health point of view.
Dr Peter Phillips
6.286
Dr Phillips is a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Southampton and also holds a BSC
with first class Honours. He has been involved with the energy sector for over 30 years and
since 1983 has undertaken a wide range of social research, planning and communication
projects.
6.287
The purpose of his evidence was to present the findings of his assessment of the social impacts
of the proposed PWF. Social impacts, he told us, are defined as consequences to human
populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play,
relate to one another, organise to meet their needs and generally cope as members of NZSS.
He told us social impacts are relevant to assessing the PWFP given Section 5 RMA.
6.288
In assessing social effects he used a framework developed for the United Nations Environment
Programme, which covers five types of effects, namely:
(a)
Lifestyle effects;
(b)
Cultural effects;
(c)
Community effects;
(d)
Amenity quality of life effects; and
(e)
Health effects.
6.289
His evidence discussed all of the above effects as well as considering issues and effects in the
social context raised by submitters.
6.290
In his assessments he took into account community engagement undertaken and achieved by
MRP. He also considered the impact of agreements with non-participating landowners. He
comprehensively considered mitigation measures specifically for social effects noting that they
were to date relatively modest.
6.291
It was Dr Phillip‘s view that as part of the ongoing development of the project, MRP establishes
a community liaison group (CLG) to assist in understanding effects that might be avoided,
remedied or mitigated as the PWFP proceeds and to maintain two-way communications with the
community at large. He also noted his expectation that MRP would continue to liaise one-on-one
with individual landowners as it has done from the start.
6.292
It was his opinion that MRP should continue the support it has given to community initiatives in
Makuri, Pahiatua, and Pongaroa in the planning stage and into the construction phase. He
expressed the view that the monetary funding provided by MRP has made a useful contribution
to a range of projects and has supported a number of worthwhile initiatives. He considered that
the sum of $20,000 each for Makuri, Pongaroa, and Pahiatua communities was at the correct
level to make a significant difference to these communities. He considered the same level of
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 69/194
funding of $60,000 allocated equally to the three communities would be appropriate during the
construction phase and that specific initiatives have been offered to the small number of people
who may be more affected than others by the project.
6.293
Regarding the operation of the PWFP, he noted that it will create a number of benefits for the
local community through contracts with farm owners, which will enhance the viability of local
farms and will create need for ongoing services. He considered this circumstance minimises any
requirement for ongoing funding during the operation phase.
Dr Phillip‘s conclusions
6.294
6.295
The main findings of Dr Phillip‘s assessment were:
(a)
The low and declining population in the project area means that relatively few people
are directly adversely affected by the project;
(b)
The consultative approach to the PWFP planning has minimised the planning period
social effects. The PWFP represents an unexpected bonus source of income for
participating landowners which provides for their needs and has potentially positive
impacts for the local community;
(c)
The location of turbines on the ridge provides significant separation from almost all
dwellings eliminating effects that may occur close to the turbines;
(d)
Community infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities and halls are not impacted
upon by the PWFP;
(e)
Construction period social effects will be managed through a CEMP and a CTMP and a
community liaison group;
(f)
There is significant support for the project in the local community, a high level of local
involvement, and 131 written approvals covering an extensive area.
Finally, Dr Phillips noted the assessment involves balancing competing considerations. In social
terms he said there will be a loss of rural amenity experienced by a small number of local
residents as an individual response to the presence of the turbines. It was his opinion that
despite some adverse effects on amenity values the balance of social effects is positive for most
individuals and positive for the local communities and the national interest. He noted specific
mitigation measures have been offered and accepted in some cases that will neutralise the
negative effects for the small number of parties more affected than others. He said a
continuation of community funding from the planning phase into the construction phase will
appropriately acknowledge and offset any effects on the wider community at that stage, while
the on-funding for Pongaroa and Makuri will acknowledge the potential for some residual visual
effects during operation.
Mr Gavin Kemble
6.296
Mr Kemble is a qualified and experienced environmental Planner with a Bachelor of Planning
from the University of Auckland. Mr Kemble confirmed he had visited the site and then
discussed with us the existing environment, including identified environmental values,
unimplemented resource consents, zoning and permitted baseline.
6.297
After considering these matters he concluded that the environment in which the PWFP is
intended and those within the general vicinity of it support a range of values that, in his
opinion, require careful treatment. The planning instruments he referred to, including the
District Plan, the City Plan, and the Regional Plan, afford particular reference to:
6.298
(a)
The landscape and ―natural feature‖ values associated with the Puketoi and Tararua
Ranges, Mangatainoka river the Makuri river and gorge;
(b)
The ecological and fisheries values supported both within the PWFP site and in the
Makuri river and its tributaries; and
(c)
The cultural importance of the area of interest.
He noted the presence of these values do not preclude resource use or prevent further
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 70/194
modification or development from occurring.
6.299
He also considered it important not to lose sight of the recognition of the wind resource that
exists within the Tararua District.
6.300
When considering the permitted baseline and unimplemented consents he concluded that there
is typically little tangible difference between the environmental baseline with or without the
permitted activities overlaying.
6.301
The exceptions to this approach related to the electricity transmission line and transformers,
the construction and operation of hazardous facilities, and the emission of noise from all aspects
of the PWFP. He considered it entirely appropriate that the permitted baseline was taken into
account in these considerations so as to inform the environmental effects that arise from the
corresponding aspects of the PWFP. He did note that Mr Bashford questions the ability of
applying the permitted baseline to the construction and operation of the 220 kV transmission
line.
6.302
Mr Kemble then considered the statutory planning framework, touching on the resource
consents required and noting agreement between him and the Section 42A officers that all
necessary consents had been applied for, and noting agreement with the Section 42A Officers
about the Discretionary Activity status of the entire PWFP.
6.303
He then traversed the policy framework, considering National Policy Statements and
Environmental Standards. It was his opinion that the broad direction established by the National
Policy Statements is one of careful and considered development; where the needs of the NZSS
are not lost or made secondary considerations to local environmental effect considerations. Mr
Kemble was satisfied, given the evidence in support of the PWFP that the PWFP appropriately
recognises and responds to the environmental values that exist, while also making a nationally
significant contribution to the wider needs of NZSS. Thus he was of the opinion that the PWFP
was broadly consistent with the policy framework that applies at a national level.
6.304
Next he considered the District Plan, identifying ten broad subject areas, which discussed under
the headings: reserves and recreational facilities, amenity and environmental quality,
infrastructure, and hazardous substances.
6.305
He considered the relevant objectives and policies in respect of each of those ten broad subject
areas.
6.306
The first such area was related to the efficiency and sustainable use of rural land and resources.
6.307
Mr Kemble noted that the two key themes that arise from the relevant objectives and policies
were to ensure that rural land and resources are used in an efficient and sustainable manner
and secondly, that there is a high level of environmental quality and amenity in the rural area,
and that vitality and character of the area is to be maintained.
6.308
Mr Kemble noted that no Class 1 or Class 2 land would be affected by the wind farm itself
although the transmission line does cross land with Class 1 or Class 2 classification. Mr Kemble
noted that many of the submissions record that the proposal would assist farms that are located
upon or in close proximity to the PWFP. Thus, it appeared, from the submissions at least, that
the PWFP was broadly compatible with agricultural endeavours and provided an array of
associated benefits to the community.
6.309
He said that the simple fact of the matter is that the PWFP requires a rural location because of
the location of the wind resource.
6.310
The high level of environmental quality and amenity in the rural area and the vitality of the
character of the area would be maintained, in Mr Kemble‘s view, because of the adoption of the
avoidance first strategy by MRP. Mr Kemble said this had limited potential for adversely
affecting the rural environs in which the farm is located. He noted where such effects cannot be
avoided measures are proposed or available to remedy or mitigate them to a level that is
deemed to be acceptable by a number of experts.
6.311
He referred to expert evidence on ecological quality and in relation to the catchment-based
mitigation solution advanced by MRP. He further noted where effects cannot be avoided or
remedied and where that is not practicable, offsetting and/or compensatory measures are
proposed.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 71/194
6.312
He noted Mr Stephen Brown‘s conclusions that the proposal will result in adverse visual and
landscape effects that cannot be fully avoided, remedied or mitigated; that there will be a loss
of: rural character, aesthetic coherence and (for some people) a sense of place currently
associated with the Puketoi Range and wider rural environment.
6.313
Mr Kemble then pointed to the positive evidence or assessments undertaken by Mr Clough, Mr
Phillip Brown, and Dr Phillips.
6.314
Mr Kemble was of the view that the proposal can be advanced so as to broadly accord with the
applicable objectives and policies in relation to the efficient and sustainable use of rural land
and resources. But he did acknowledge that it was not possible to fully avoid, remedy or
mitigate some of the anticipated adverse effects and that there will be a consequential change
in the rural character that is experienced.
6.315
Turning to reserves and recreational facilities and relying on the report prepared by Rob
Greenaway & Associates, Mr Kemble supported the outcome that the PWFP would not cause the
quality of reserves and recreational facilities adjoining the PWFP to become unacceptable and/or
inadequate.
6.316
Discussing amenity and environmental quality, Mr Kemble was satisfied that the PWFP can,
when considered in the round, be advanced so as to ensure that most variables that contribute
to amenity levels and environmental quality are maintained at an acceptable level. He did
acknowledge the impact on visual amenity, which cannot be fully avoided, remedied or
mitigated. However, he relied on the evidence of Dr Phillips and Mr Stephen Brown to the effect
that the resulting environment with a wind farm intact would, in the round, still be acceptable.
This led him to the conclusion that the PWFP can be advanced to respond appropriately to the
amenity values that exist.
6.317
In his evidence Mr Kemble recorded that visual and landscape issues were the areas of most
concern. He noted that the evidence of Mr Stephen Brown was, in his opinion, critical to the
consideration of the PWFP against Policy 2.6.4.2(c). He accepted and understood Mr Brown‘s
evidence to be that the PWFP would cause adverse landscape effects; even though those effects
have been reduced to the greatest extent practicable such effects cannot be fully avoided,
remedied or mitigated. It was his view that this conclusion does not cause the PWFP to offend
Policy 2.6.4.2(c). He noted that, in his view, the Policy does not impose an absolute
requirement to protect the resource. Rather, it requires that the landscapes and features in
question be protected from inappropriate development. This approach, he considered, brings
wider considerations into play. He considered that the determination of appropriateness must
be cognisant of factors such as the benefits the PWFP will bring, not just locally or regionally but
also nationally, the need for development and the ability to respond practically to the landscape
values that are present.
6.318
After considering the assessment criteria set out in Section 5.5.3.6(c) of the Proposed District
Plan, Mr Kemble expressed the opinion that the development is not inappropriate. He noted
that the Section 42A officers (Mr Forrest and Mr Bashford) reached a similar conclusion.
6.319
Mr Kemble‘s reasons for reaching this conclusion were:
(a)
There is a recognised and well-articulated need for additional electricity from
renewable resources;
(b)
The quality of the wind resource that is apparent on the Puketoi Range is outstanding;
(c)
The evidence of Mr Bray, Ms Buckland, and Mr Stephen Brown that the Puketoi Range
is of a district, rather than regional, significance. This is buttressed by Ms Buckland‘s
conclusion that the Puketoi Range is an appropriate site for a wind farm;
(d)
The considerable effort that has been taken to integrate the PWFP and the associated
transmission line with the environs in which they are located;
(e)
That the skyline of the Puketoi Range will persist albeit in a modified form;
(f)
The vegetation that is an important feature of the ridgeline, when viewed from the
east, will not be adversely affected by the PWFP;
(g)
The evidence of Mr Stephen Brown that the landscape effects on the Puketoi and
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 72/194
Tararua Ranges are acceptable; and the corresponding view of Ms Buckland that the
PWFP is not ―inappropriate‖;
(h)
That the effects of the wind farm on the skyline of the Puketoi and Tararua Ranges are
reversible, in that the PWFP can be decommissioned and the site rehabilitated;
(i)
The PWFP will result in a number of beneficial effects, which will be felt locally,
regionally and nationally;
(j)
Community funds proposed to compensate for, amongst other things, the residual
visual effects;
(k)
The vegetation apparent on the site will be suitably managed and, in the case of an
important catchment on the dip-slope, enhanced. This will include pest and weed
control;
(l)
The known cultural and heritage elements of the site have been avoided, while
mechanisms are proposed to ensure that the PWFP will respond appropriately to
unknown sites. The ongoing involvement of tangata whenua in the PWFP as it is
constructed and operated is also enshrined within the proposed conditions of consent.
6.320
Mr Kemble referred to the terrestrial ecology values that have been identified by Dr Blaschke as
being of significance and noted his conclusion that the majority of effects are being avoided,
minimised or remedied. He further noted Dr Blaschke‘s assessment that the mitigation package
is likely to provide an ecological gain.
6.321
Mr Kemble then considered and evaluated the infrastructure objectives and policies of the
Proposed District Plan. He identified Objective 2.8.4.1 as being of importance. He noted that
that Objective recognises the potential of the district‘s rural management area for renewable
energy generation and wind farms in particular. It is a policy, he said, to recognise the local,
regional and national benefits derived from development of renewable energy sources. He
noted that Policy 2.8.4.2(b) states that adverse effects associated with wind farms and other
renewable electricity generation activities are to be avoided, remedied and mitigated where
possible. He said this highlights that such activities may be inappropriate in some locations as
a consequence of the adverse effects they may generate. It was his view that it comes as no
surprise that the Policy anticipates development of additional renewable electricity generation
facilities in appropriate locations.
6.322
He further elaborated his view that Objective 2.8.4.1 is an acknowledgement that the wind
resource exists within parts of the Tararua District and that such activities are not, in principle,
incompatible with land uses. However, he did note that the effects of particular proposals are
highlighted as key considerations when determining what is appropriate and what is not.
6.323
It was his view that the adverse environmental effects of the PWFP are minor or can be
remedied or mitigated; however, there are some effects where this is not possible. These are
principally landscape and amenity effects. However, Mr Kemble was of the view that the
existence of such effects does no cause the PWFP to become inappropriate. Rather, he
understood the relevant test to be whether the effects are ―acceptable‖. The expert evidence,
he said, in support of the resource consent applications is that the effects associated with this
proposal are acceptable once regard is given to the proposed remediation, mitigation, offsetting
and compensation measures.
6.324
It was on this basis then that he was able to reach the view that the PWFP is not an
inappropriate use or development. It follows from this finding, he said, that the PWFP was
aligned with the outcomes sought in the policy framework associated with renewable electricity
generation facilities.
6.325
Mr Kemble then turned in similar fashion to consider the City Plan, considering tangata whenua
considerations, earthworks, rural land-use and development, and network utilities.
6.326
It was his view, bearing in mind he was largely assessing the impacts and effects the
construction and operation of the transmission line would give rise to, that the grant of consent
would be acceptable or alternatively, capable of being appropriately avoided, remedied or
mitigated. Then, in his view, this part of the PWFP was broadly aligned with the relevant
aspects of the policy framework as contained within the City Plan.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 73/194
6.327
Mr Kemble then moved to consider the regional planning instruments, noting there are five
planning instruments that apply at the regional level. He explained the inter-relationship
between these five plans and noted that there was considerable duplication between the
regional planning instruments and the matters also addressed in the territorial plans.
6.328
He highlighted themes for consideration and discussed them in detail. A key theme that was of
interest to us was the protection of ONFs/ONLs, and natural character from inappropriate
subdivision use and development.
6.329
In discussing and considering these themes, Mr Kemble concluded that the grant of consent
was consistent and supportive of the relevant policy and objective framework of the regional
planning instruments. This was the case for matters dealing with land management and
erosion, indigenous biodiversity, surface-water quality, Maori cultural considerations, and the
like.
6.330
In dealing with the key issue of significant landscape and natural feature and character in the
context of the regional planning instruments, Mr Kemble again referred extensively to the
evidence of Mr Stephen Brown.
6.331
Mr Kemble identified Policy 7.7 of the proposed One Plan, which directs that significant
cumulative adverse effects on the characteristics and values of ONLs and features are to be
avoided. All other adverse effects are to be avoided as far as reasonably practicable. Where
this is not practicable, adverse effects on the character and values of ONFs/ONLs are to be
remedied or mitigated.
6.332
Mr Kemble noted that Mr Brown‘s evidence in relation to cumulative effects was that the PWFP
on the Puketoi and Tararua Ranges cannot be fully avoided, but that the key characteristics that
define the Puketoi Range will remain, while any effect on the Tararua Range will be secondary
to those associated with the TWF. He also noted Mr Brown‘s evidence that the development of
the three proposed wind farms (namely, Waitahora, Castle Hill and Puketoi) will cause a
dramatic change in the landscape. However, he noted that Mr Bray and Mr Brown agreed that
all three wind farms can sit in harmony together. He noted the evidence of Mr Brown that the
PWFP is expected to also result in other landscape and visual effects that cannot be avoided
while full remediation and mitigation is not possible. This bought into focus the appropriateness
of the PWFP.
6.333
Mr Kemble noted that Policy 8.2 of the operative RPS reinforces the direction provided by the
objectives of both the One Plan and the RPS when it speaks of protecting regionally significant
ONFs/ONLs from inappropriate subdivision use and development. The Policy provides direction,
he said, that the following matters are to be taken into account whilst ensuring that adverse
effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Policy provides:
(a)
The degree to which activities would adversely affect the values specified in Policy 8.3
so far as those values provide a significant contribution, ONFs/ONLs; and
(b)
The degree to which the activity provides for the social or economic wellbeing of
people, communities, including the provision of essential services to the public.
6.334
To respond to the appropriateness question, Mr Kemble considered that his analysis already
carried out in terms of the District Plans was relevant to Policy 8.2 and the RPS. He considered
that analysis resulted, when applied to the RPS, in the same conclusion, namely that the PWFP
was not inappropriate.
6.335
Overall, Mr Kemble said that while the PWFP will not fully accord with aspects of Policy 7.7 of
the proposed One Plan, the broad outcomes sought by landscape, natural features and natural
character provisions would be achieved. In his view, that conclusion is reinforced with the
PWFP‘s general alignment with the policy framework promoted by the RPS, the One Plan, and
the operative Regional Plan for Beds of Rivers and Lakes and Associated Activities.
6.336
He then turned to address electricity generation infrastructure and network utilities, identified
the relevant Objectives and policies, concentrating his review on Objectives 28 and 29. He
noted that the corresponding Policy framework within the RPS required us to recognise the
PWFP as being of regional or national importance, and that we must have regard to the benefits
to be derived from electricity generation and transmission activities.
6.337
In terms of managing adverse effects associated with the PWFP, he noted that we must allow
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 74/194
minor effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate more than minor adverse effects whilst
recognising:
(a)
The need for the infrastructure;
(b)
The functional, operational and technical constraints that require the PWFP to be
located or designed in the manner proposed;
(c)
Were there are any reasonable practicable alternative locations;
(d)
Were there any more than minor adverse effects that cannot be adequately avoided,
remedied or mitigated can be offset, including the use of financial contributions.
6.338
It was his conclusion in terms of his review of the territorial and regional planning instruments
and after a careful and balanced assessment of those instruments that it is significant that the
need to provide for renewable electricity generation is specifically acknowledged in the regional
and territorial Policy frameworks.
6.339
He also considered it significant that the PWFP can be advanced so as to achieve the majority of
the outcomes sought within the statutory planning framework. He agreed that the PWFP does
not fully accord with all components of the Policy framework. However, Mr Kemble believed that
the PWFP needed to be considered in the light of the direction advanced by the relevant
planning instruments when viewed as a whole. In that regard, he did not believe that it would
be appropriate to afford a particular provision or collection of provisions undue weight because
to do so would run the risk of establishing a veto.
6.340
Mr Kemble favoured an approach where the instruments must be read as a whole. When this is
done, he said the conclusion that they promote is that the establishment of additional
renewable electricity generation facilities, where they provide the correct balance of beneficial
and adverse effects, is appropriate. Put another way, he said he believed the instruments seek
appropriate development with the key requirement being that a proposal must respond
appropriately to the environs in which it is located. He was satisfied that this application did so.
6.341
Mr Kemble then addressed us on lapse periods and consent duration, which we will return to
subsequently.
6.342
Mr Kemble undertook a review of the Section 42A reports. In doing so he traversed the issue of
amenity considerations, particularly as they related to the Marshalls. Here his evidence focused
on whether or not a reduction in the number of turbines was merited. He believed that regard
needed to be had to the consequences of such an action and whether it would justify such a
modification. He referred us to the evidence of Mr Wong Too, which was to the effect that the
loss of two turbines would come at a cost of 46 gigawatt hours of output from the PWFP. This
would come at a consequential reduction in the benefits generated by the PWFP and would
represent a less efficient use of what Mr Wong Too describes as an exceptional wind resource.
In broad picture, Mr Kemble questioned if the benefits of the PWFP to individual landowners
need outweigh the costs. He accepted that the appropriate test is whether the environment as
a whole and on balance would be better served by the PWFP. He suggested that the evidence in
support of the PWFP led him to the conclusion that it would be.
6.343
He then set out his overall assessment under Part 2 RMA. It was Mr Kemble‘s overall
conclusion that the evidence presented in support of the PWFP achieves the direction and
outcomes sought by the applicable national, regional, district and city planning instruments in
accord with Part 2 RMA.
7
SUBMITTERS
7.1
Set out below is the summary of the issues raised by submitters who appeared before us. We
emphasise that we have read and considered all submissions made, both in support and in
opposition to the application, as well as reviewing and carefully considering evidence advanced
before us.
Genesis Energy
Mr Majurey
7.2
We have already concluded Genesis Energy is a trade competitor and does not satisfy the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 75/194
requirements of Section 308B(2) RMA. Nevertheless, we record the evidence received because
we consider that in terms of Section 104(1)(c) RMA we have a wide discretion enabling us to
take into account any other matter that we consider relevant and reasonably necessary to
determine the application. It is in the context of assessing cumulative effects that we think that
the material we record below is both relevant and useful.
Mr Matthews
7.3
Mr Matthews, on behalf of Genesis Energy, outlined the CHWF, which consisted of up to 286
wind turbines in clusters with a nominal generating capacity of up to 860MW. He said that
Genesis Energy had recently signed an agreement with Transpower involving the development
of an External Transmission Line (ETL) to connect the CHWF to the national grid and that
accordingly RMA approvals for the ETL are not part of the CHWF applications.
Mr Halstead
7.4
Mr Halstead, on behalf of Genesis Energy, said that on the basis of his own noise predictions for
CHWF and those of Mr Hegley for PWFP, there would not appear to be any material cumulative
effects from Puketoi on any dwellings, nor would any dwellings move inside a 35 dBA noise
contour as a result of cumulative effects from Puketoi. However he said the requirement to
prevent background noise measurements from being affected by noise from another wind farm
is stringent, as a wind farm contribution of as low as 25 dBA could constitute a material
contamination. On this basis he said there were several dwellings at the northwest corner of
the CHWF where it may be necessary for Genesis Energy to demonstrate compliance, which
would require some consideration of PWFP noise emissions should Puketoi be built first. The
most practical means of making this consideration would be the sharing of compliance test
results for dwellings near to those being considered. He suggested a consent condition which
would ensure that this information was provided.
7.5
In answer to questions Mr Halstead did not consider high amenity areas should be considered
outside of those special areas identified in a District Plan.
Mr Boffa
7.6
Mr Boffa, on behalf of Genesis Energy, said that while the WWF and the CHWF both tend to ―sit
within‖ the rural working landscape, the PWFP on the other hand is sited on a visually
prominent landscape feature and as such it appears to sit ―on‖ the landscape. In this regard, he
considered Mr Bray‘s reference to ―the straw that broke the camel‘s back‖ to be a key factor in
the consideration of the combined cumulative effects of the three wind farm proposals. He
went assess cumulative effects from a number of viewpoints. He concluded by saying that he
considered Mr Brown‘s assessment of cumulative effects had tended to understate the level and
extent of cumulative effects between the CHWF and the PWFP and indeed the combined
cumulative effects of the three wind farm proposals in their wider northern Wairarapa landscape
setting. In his opinion, the cumulative effects of the PWFP and CHWF are more than minor, i.e.
moderate, and with all three wind farms they are likely to be significant, particularly from the
rural area to the east of the Puketoi Range. In answer to questions he considered that
cumulative effects went beyond the tipping point and were significant.
7.7
Mr Boffa was also somewhat critical of the visual simulations use and said that in his opinion, to
adequately assess and evaluate cumulative visual effects using visual simulations, it is
necessary, despite the large print sizes involved, to produce images that have a realistic
viewing distance. The 124 degree field of view simulations in an A3 format which have been
provided for the PWFP have a reading distance of 52 mm (6 inches) which was in his view both
unrealistic and inappropriate.
Contact Energy
7.8
We did receive submissions from legal counsel, Mr Robinson. Also evidence from Mr Prince, Mr
Faulkner and Ms Kidd-Smith on behalf of Contact Energy.
7.9
However, because the issues Contact Energy raised as a submitter were ultimately resolved
directly with MRP, there is little value in recording summaries of the evidence received.
Mr & Mrs Connell
7.10
Mr and Mrs Connell (the Connells) opposed the wind farm development and had particular
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 76/194
concerns about the impact of traffic associated with the construction of the wind farm on their
amenity given the location of their house to the road in Makuri. They were concerns about
potential noise, dust and traffic increases as a result of the Wind Farm, especially from the
positioning of the turbines at the southern end of the construction site
7.11
Further, the Connells considered the PWFP would significantly impact upon the small settlement
of Makuri. They considered it would be seen from the north-eastern and southern horizons on
the Puketoi ridge and as such intrude terribly on our lifestyle. They also felt the proposed
development would have a negative impact on real estate values and were concerned that the
peaceful living environment and scenic attractions which bought them to Makuri in first place
would be lost.
7.12
The Connells said that the PWFP had left the community divided, especially as a result of the
mitigation process. This had led to many people becoming ostracised in the community, and
had had effects on their health. They indicated they wanted to be brought out.
Mr & Mrs Thorneycroft
7.13
Mr and Mrs Thorneycroft said that the PWFP would have a significant detrimental visual impact
on the surrounding landscape, and would cause unacceptable visual pollution on the northern
Wairarapa range and ONF of the Puketoi Range. They considered that the cumulative effects of
the PWFP and CHWF would mean that their property (located on Waitawhiti Road) would be
surrounded for almost 360 degrees by turbines and considered this to be unacceptable. The
Thorneycrofts also felt that the introduction of night-time aviation hazard lights would have an
enormous negative impact on the night-time landscape. Their strong preference was for the
project not to continue, however considered that should the development precede they would
request that the number of turbines be reduced and the maximum height be lowered.
Mr Woodhouse
7.14
Mr Woodhouse addressed the Panel on behalf of his family and a number of others in the
Pongaroa area. He said that the Puketoi Escarpment is an iconic and treasured feature and
should not be dominated by turbines and that the protection of sensitive sites should be
assessed on a comprehensive basis, not merely on the viability of cherry picked sites.
7.15
Mr Woodhouse was critical of the evidence of Dr Phillips in relation to Pongaroa and that
contrary to his finding most Pongaroa community leaders and the people of vision have not
supported this project. He said that due to the unusual social stratum of Pongaroa, the formal
consent process was not a valid forum to represent their views and that there was a danger to a
community such as Pongaroa of this project being division within the community itself which
can take many years to heal. He referred to Pongaroa as one of the few truly isolated
communities in New Zealand
7.16
Mr Woodhouse agreed that the district had a substantial wind resource and there are places the
turbines could be appropriately placed and the resource harvested for good of New Zealand.
However he considered sites on the ridgeline was not appropriate and that the turbines should
be moved back down the slope. Mr Woodhouse also expressed concern about the consent
should lapse period.
Waitahora-Puketoi Guardians Incorporated
7.17
Mr Brown, on behalf of the Waitahora – Puketoi Guardians Inc, discussed the WWF and how
some turbines had been removed and others setback so to avoid impacts on the Puketoi
ridgeline. He was concerned about the dominate nature of the turbines and their impact on this
prominent ridgeline. In this regard he referred to a prior assessment undertaken by landscape
architect Anne Stephen which indicated that there would be significant challenges for any
development to retain or protect existing values. Mr Brown also raised concerns about the 10
year lapse period as would leave the community with a significant degree of uncertainty.
Mr & Mrs Kingston
7.18
Mr and Mrs Kingston were concerned about the visual and amenity effects of the PWFP
particularly with regards views from their house on Waitahora Road. They were also concerned
about the difference in size and rotation speed between then WWF and the PWFP and the
difficulty of adjusting to this. They also referred to the cumulative effects of being able to see
both wind farms: shadow flicker, construction noise and noise from the actual wind turbines and
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 77/194
aviation lights. They said that at the very least turbine one should be removed from the
proposed wind farm plan to minimise effects on their home environment.
7.19
The Kingston‘s referred to the 10 year lapse period for the implementation of the resource
consent and considered this was an unreasonable burden to place on landowners and
community as a whole. They felt that the default period of 5 years as stated by the RMA was a
fair and appropriate period and would be consistent with the neighbouring WWF which granted
a 5 year lapse period.
Mr & Mrs McGhie
7.20
Shannon and Harley McGhie (the McGhies) considered the Puketoi Range to be a pristine
landscape in a sparsely populated area and that the wind turbine proposal would have a
damaging visual impact on the landscape and dominate the area.
7.21
The McGhies‘ primary concerns however were with the visual and health impacts of the
transmission line, which they said ran down the length of their boundary fence, approximately
550 m – 600 m from their house. They both felt that MRP had been uncooperative during the
whole process and had not been unforthcoming with information and that this had put undue
stress on their family. They wanted to see the transmission towers moved to a safer distance
from their boundary fence. Harley McGhie referred in particular to concerns about the health of
their family from electromagnetic radiation and transmission line hum. He said that this could
especially affect his daughter who has the neurological disorder Rett Syndrome.
7.22
The McGhies also expressed concern at the ten year lapse period. They said that public
opinions on wind farms / ownership / capital investment etc. may have changed in this time
and it was unfair to put families in limbo over whether or not it will be built.
7.23
In response to questions the McGhies considered planting could be an option to limit views of
the transmission line but still considered they needed to be moved an additional 200 – 300 m.
Rangitāne o Tamaki Nui a Rua
Parsons
7.24
Mr Parsons, on behalf of Rangitāne o Tamaki Nui a Rua (Rangitāne), discussed the cultural
significance of the Puketoi Range, referring to a Cultural Values Assessment he had prepared.
He said that the Puketoi Range was located between the two principal settlements of Rangitāne
located on the Manawatu River and the coast and that occupation of the Puketoi‘s was seasonal
for food gathering and that there is little or no evidence of permanent settlements in the vicinity
although there is evidence of Maori camping sites along the Makuri River. He also said that
little archaeological evidence had been found in the wind farm belt. He went on to outline the
history of the Rangitāne people.
7.25
The Cultural Values Assessment contains recommendations and protocols in relation to the wind
farm development in the event that Maori archaeological material is unearthed during
excavations for the turbine sites, and construction works. These included:
7.26
(a)
Should any remains be uncovered during excavations, then the provisions of the
Historic Places Act 1993 apply and activities should cease to allow the situation to be
evaluated and the appropriate protocols undertaken. Depending on the degree of
significance some roading or turbines may need to be relocated.
(b)
If any archaeological sites are identified prior to constriction, then an application must
be made to the Historic Places Trust.
Mr Parsons said it was important for Rangitāne to establish a relationship with Mighty River in
acknowledgement of their heritage links to the land, and as such Rangitāne would like to be
consulted on matters where they have something to contribute.
Carberry
7.27
Ms Carberry also spoke on behalf of Rangitāne. She said that that the Puketoi ridgeline was of
great significance to the Rangitāne people and quoted the legend to the huge totora tree
growing on the slopes of the Puketoi Range and its roles in creating the Manawatu Gorge and
River bed.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 78/194
7.28
Ms Carberry went on to discuss Rangitāne‘s involvement in the WWF development and their
request to remove turbines from identified sites. She said that the setting back of turbines
from the ridgeline and away from important peaks on the ridge in the WWF was an important
precedent for MRP‘s current proposal. She indicated that it was imperative that Rangitāne and
MRP establish an on-going formal relationship through a Memorandum of Partnership; that the
two parties prepare an Accidental Discovery Protocol which includes reference to Rangitāne
providing training or debriefing sessions to contractors and consultants prior to construction
commencing; that any remnant native forest within the project area be protected from
construction impacts; and that a respectful buffer distance be left along the ridgeline. With
regards this latter point Ms Carberry said that whilst not opposing the project per se the tihi or
peaks of maunga are significantly important to Rangitāne and that Puketoi was a skyline of
importance. She said that the placement of turbines at such a height will affect the
visual/aesthetic value of the range and would have a detrimental effect on our cultural wellbeing as tangata whenua.
Mr Gillespie
7.29
Mr Gillespie considered the PWFP should be declined. He expressed concerns about the visual
impact of the PWFP and said that it would diminish the importance of the landscape. He also
noted that all ONLs/ONFs within the District Plan were listed under Category B.
Mr Stitchbury
7.30
Mr Stichbury expressed concerns over the historic seismic activity in the area and the potential
for the turbines to be rendered useless if any movement in their foundations occurs. He also
had concerns over the proposed transmission lines and how quickly they emerged.
Mr Kirk
7.31
Mr Kirk opposed the proximity of the transmission line to his home on Ridge Road. He
expressed concerns about potential health and visual effects and wanted either the lines
undergrounded or the route changed.
Mrs Adams
7.32
Mrs Adams who lives on the other side of the Tararua Range raised concerns about grid
management, the transmission lines and considered the PWFP to be speculative. She
considered that the noise standard was difficult to monitor and referred to the continued
complaints about the Te Rere Hau and West Wind wind farms.
Mrs Darby
7.33
Mrs Darby representing the Abraham Family expressed concerns about the visual appearance of
the transmission line and its proximity to their forestry block (Makomako Road) and their
former homestead and garden area (Borderlands) which contained her father‘s headstone. She
indicated that there were potential options for the forestry block in terms of lifestyle
subdivisions and that the transmission lines might deter potential purchasers.
Mr Bent
7.34
Mr Bent opposed the PWFP referring to the cumulative effects of the three concurrent
windfarms and those of the Tararua Range. He referred to the Puketoi proposal as being the
―straw that will break the camel‘s back‖. He suggested that if consent were to be granted then
turbines should be grouped so that the entire length of the wind farm was shortened to reduce
the cumulative effects.
Up Top Adventure
7.35
Mr Nicholls from Up Top Adventure, located on South Range Road, supported the PWFP but had
concerns with the health and visual impacts of the transmission lines. He provided photographs
of the area to emphasis his concerns. He considered the transmission lines should be
undergrounded through the area near his property or the pylons realigned.
Submitters in support
7.36
A number of submitters at the hearing supported the wind farm and these are summarised
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 79/194
below.
7.37
Mr Brown said its most important benefit was the increase of energy available for the industry
in New Zealand. He also considered there would be associated on-going economic benefits
stemming from the project to the Tararua District.
7.38
Mr Poff said that the PWFP supported the use of renewal energy and created jobs. He did not
consider windfarms destroyed of irreversibly effect landscapes.
7.39
Mr & Mrs Wheeler had the transmission line running through their property and considered the
wind farm important for the community.
7.40
Similarly, Mr Bissett was affected by the transmission line but considered the PWFP to be of
huge benefit to the community and important from a sustainable perspective.
7.41
Mr J Wheeler considered the wind farm was a very tangible gain for the Tararua District and
would increase the land values on which it was placed.
7.42
Mr Champion said the wind farm would help farm ownership and succession plans in terms of
financial support.
7.43
Mr Cass said he supported renewable energy and that the alternatives were far worse. He said
that the Puketoi area was visually remote.
7.44
Mr Davey indicated that he had been involved in the Tararua scheme noted that concerns over
noise, blade flicker, visual intrusion and so forth have been of little consequence. He noted that
the Tararua Wind Farm has had a positive societal impact on the communities of Pahiatua and
Woodville and that there were many benefits to business as a result of wind farms such as a
marketing tool.
7.45
Mr Hewitt indicated that the transmission line cross his property. He said that MRP was offering
another type of land-use and that the extra income was attractive. He made the point that
there will always be a cost and that it was easy to say ‗put it somewhere else‘.
7.46
Similarly, Mr Read had proposed turbines on his farm and considered the PWFP would improve
farm incomes and create employment opportunities. He said that the ridgeline was isolated and
under cloud 35% of the time.
7.47
Mrs Poulton, the Board Chairperson of Makuri School Board of Trustees, said that the wind farm
created the potential for more children to attend the school through the construction and
commissioning of the wind farm and increased farm profits. In response to questions she said
that the school currently had a role of just six children; however that it was not under threat
and the community wanted to keep it going.
7.48
Mr Poulton estimated that the Puketoi Range was under cloud cover 30% of the time. He
considered that the turbines would make the landform appear bolder.
7.49
Mr Ross said the wind farm presented an opportunity for greater employment and income and
he considered MRP had made a genuine effort to work with the local people. He did express
some concerns about the proximity of pylon 20 being too close to farm building.
7.50
Mr Moar supported the PWFP and gave an account of his experience as a farmer and landowner
within the Te Apiti wind farm. He said that while construction had started with them living o n
the property it did not work out and became too stressful and they had had to move.
Nevertheless, he said that in the end everything has been put back in place better than before.
He indicated that they had five turbines within 500 m for their house and that while there was a
noise it was below the Council limit.
The Marshall Property
7.51
The Marshall property is located on Towai Road and is one of the most significantly affected
properties of the PWFP. The Marshall‘s dwelling is approximately 940 – 950m from the closest
turbine.
7.52
Mr Gilmour, legal Counsel on behalf of Mr & Mrs Marshall (the Marshalls), began by saying that
MRP had downplayed the obvious adverse landscape (and other) effects both on a general, or
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 80/194
regional, level but certainly more so when considering specific effects on the Marshalls. He
referred to Mr Bray‘s report in which he said that the Marshall‘s property:
―...is arguably one of the most significantly affected properties of this proposal‖ and that
―several turbines will be visible from the front yard of the property, and from internal
rooms within the dwelling including a sun-room and some bedrooms. These turbines will
be significantly elevated above the property on top of the ridgeline, and as such
(especially due to the extremely close proximity) are likely to appear very dominating ....‖
7.53
Mr Gilmour pointed out that Mr Bray had said that he would rate the effects on this property as
being significant and clearly adverse for these residents.
7.54
Mr Gilmour went on to say that while the Marshalls have concerns about the PWFP of a general
nature relating to the effect on the range, the visual and amenity effects alone of the PWFP on
them would be severe and that if consent were granted to this proposal as proposed the
Marshalls would be the closest residence to any wind farm, where the occupants have no
financial interest that he was aware of in New Zealand. He said that when other adverse effects
such as shadow flicker and noise issues are added to the mix it becomes clear that this proposal
cannot be consented as currently proposed. He that what was absolutely plain was that no less
than seven turbines stand like sentries above the dwelling dominating the house, the garden as
well as the adjacent paddocks and road. Quite simply, it appears as if the proposed wind farm
is in their front yard. In his submission the effects on the Marshalls are as severe or ―as bad as
it gets‖ and it was not overstating matters to describe the effects as severe or extreme.
7.55
Mr Gilmour said that the approach taken by MRP to concentrate on effects on neighbours
residences rather than the totality of effects on them was to gloss over the clearly adverse
amenity effects of this proposal. In his submission, at the very least, the turbines that
dominate his clients‘ property must be removed as this was the only way to avoid, remedy or
mitigate the significantly adverse visual and amenity effects on the Marshalls.
7.56
Mr Gilmour addressed other affects on the Marshalls including red flashing navigation lights on
the turbines, noise and shadow flicker.
7.57
In terms of noise Mr Gilmour submitted that the modelling puts the Marshall dwelling right on
the 40 dB contour line. He said that with a degree of accuracy described as +/-2 dB the likely
noise effects of a number of turbines in close proximity to the Marshalls home is that it is
unlikely the upper limits specified in NZS6808:2010 will be met. While technically correct that
the limit in NZS6808:2010 is not exceeded, it is more accurate to say that the maximum noise
limit specified is reached at the Marshall residence.
7.58
Mr Gilmour said that what the reality shows is that, irrespective of whether the standard has
been met, noise generated by wind farms is a constant source of irritation, and complaint, to
neighbouring properties, especially in an area as quiet as the area around the Marshalls‘ home.
He pointed to the approach taken by the Hearing Committee during the CHWF hearing, of
exploring the application of stricter noise limits where neighbours were predicted to be exposed
to the maximum noise level envisaged by the standard. In his submission, the noise effects on
the Marshalls are going to be more than minor irrespective of whether the maximum levels set
in the standard are met.
7.59
Mr Gilmour noted that Mr Lloyd had identified the Marshall property as one where a High
Amenity Area noise limit could be applicable. He went onto say that proper evidence of the
actual background noise levels at the Marshalls‘ property was not available and, if the
background noise is particularly low then it may well be appropriate to impose the High Amenity
Area noise limit specified in NZS6808 which would more than likely mean the predicted noise
generated by the turbines adjacent to the Marshalls‘ property would not comply with NZS6808.
He said that in those circumstances the noise effects on the Marshalls would clearly be
significant such as to warrant declining consent, or at the least, removing the seven turbines
over the top of their house.
7.60
Mr Gilmour‘s submission was that there were simply too many unanswered questions when it
comes to the likely noise effects on the Marshalls. He made the point that not only must the
Marshalls suffer a loss of amenity due to the proximity of the turbines but also suffer a
significant increase in noise of a man made nature essentially ―for the national (and corporate)
good‖. In his submission, even with the proposed conditions of consent, the Commissioners are
being asked to ―take a punt: on the extent of the effects on the Marshalls. He said that this
was not the appropriate approach and referred to the Motorimu Wind Farm Limited v the City
Council and HDC case (―Motorimu‖) where the court said:
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 81/194
―We accept in this case, that if after considering the evidence in its totality, we conclude
that there is scientific uncertainty as to whether or not exercise of the consent is likely to
cause serious or irreversible harm to the environment then it could be appropriate for the
Court to apply a precautionary approach‖.
7.61
In terms of the potential shadow flicker effects on the Marshalls‘ dwelling Mr Gilmour said they
would be exposed to 48 hours per year, some one and a half times the Australian guideline. He
submitted that Mr Brown attempts to minimise the adverse effects on the Marshalls by saying it
is a ―theoretical situation‖ and that ―more realistic climatic conditions‖ will mean that shadow
flicker at the Marshall dwelling ―would meet the relevant guidelines and standards‖ and further
that such effects are acceptable from an amenity standpoint. He said this was a classic
situation of an applicant seeking to rely on a draft guideline in another jurisdiction, being
concerned about the results it produces and then attempting to discredit the results as being
the ―worst case scenario‖. He said that the Marshalls dwelling had a sunroom and at least
seven windows facing the proposed turbines. In his submission, there was no question that
they will be adversely affected by shadow flicker and again referred to the Motorimu case15
where the Court noted:
―... parties to resource consent proceedings are not bound to accept that compliance
with a New Zealand standard would avoid adverse effects on the environment that should
be taken into account in deciding whether resource consent should be granted or
refused.‖
7.62
Mr Gilmour went on to referred to the discussions between MRP and the Marshalls to purchase
their farm. He said that as part of that process the Marshalls had viewed other farm properties
which had only served to show them how well suited the present property is to their operations
and how difficult it would be to replicate those features elsewhere.
7.63
With respect mitigation measures proposed, Mr Gilmour‘s submission was that the planting of
vegetative screening was not an acceptable form of mitigation for a number of reasons. Firstly,
gum trees are not a suitable tree to Plant as the Marshalls do not believe they will survive.
Secondly, it is obvious any planting would take years to even begin to screen the turbines
towering over the Marshalls‘ house. Thirdly, such plantings would need to be on the
neighbour‘s property and as such would be owned by a supporter of the wind farm with no
incentive or enthusiasm to ensure the survival or effectiveness of the trees as a screen.
Fourthly, to be effective the planting would need to be very dense. Fifthly, to Plant trees
between the turbines and the Marshall‘s house would block out their rural outlook and shade
them from the morning sun which is so important in winter months. Finally, such proposed
planting, even if effective as a visual screen does nothing about noise effects and would likely
provide worse amenity effects whereby the source of noise is hidden from view.
7.64
Mr Gilmour submitted that all of the points raised above are highlighted by Mr Bray as issues
that suggest plantings as a mitigation technique are generally not appropriate when dealing
with wind farms. He said that Mr and Mrs Marshall were absolutely certain, despite the
―desktop‖ opinion provided by Scion, that Eucalyptus trees would not survive and that any pine
plantings, which may provide suitable screening, would take such a long time to be effective
such a condition would be meaningless.
7.65
Mr Gilmour submitted that when looking at the general landscape issues raised by the
Marshalls, when the Objectives and policies of the District Plan and the clearly considerable
adverse effects are weighed, the balance must favour protection of the local environmental
quality and amenity must outweigh the national benefits. Further, as the adverse effects affect
the Marshalls personally, we submit Mr Bashford‘s conclusion that the national benefits of the
PWFP do not outweigh the adverse amenity effects on them is clearly correct. He said that in
his submission, to grant this proposal as currently proposed would not meet the purpose of the
Act as the PWFP does not avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the PWFP on the
Marshalls. The adverse effects are such that the PWFP does not meet the purpose of the Act
and, as Mr Bashford says, actually hinder the Marshalls from providing for their own social,
economic and cultural well being and for their health and safety.
7.66
Mr Gilmour further referred to the relevance of the Motorimu case16 in that the Court noted
that:
Even taking a very cautious approach to the various Rules of thumb which the landscape
15
16
Environment Court W067/2008.
Paragrah 222 Motorimu decision.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 82/194
witnesses have applied it is apparent from the landscape evidence that, for those living
within 2 kilometres of the proposed wind farm, there is real potential for the additional
turbines to become a visually dominant feature of the environment and to have a high
degree of adverse effect on visual amenity. We would go further and say that the
evidence satisfied us that for many of the properties within that radius such adverse
effects are inevitable.2
7.67
Mr Gilmour said that the Court then turned to consideration of Part 2 and found that there was
a significant adverse effect on the landscape and on the amenity of the neighbours to the wind
farm. The Court said:17
Ultimately we consider that the adverse effects of the additional turbines on the
Motorimu landscape combined with the adverse effects on the nearby community‘s
amenity go too far in this case and impose an unreasonable burden on neighbours of the
Motorimu site. We return to the factors of proximity of the turbines to their neighbours,
elevation of the turbines above the nearby properties and numbers of turbines along the
ridgeline in that close and elevated situation which lead us to that conclusion.
7.68
It was Mr Gilmour‘s submission that this proposal also goes too far and imposes an
unreasonable burden on the Marshalls.
7.69
Mr Gilmour concluded by saying that the adverse effects on the Marshalls would be significant
or even severe, and that given the acknowledged adverse effects on the environmental quality
and amenity values of the local area, including specifically the Marshalls the PWFP is contrary to
the objectives and policies of the District Plan. He said that accordingly the PWFP as it is
presently proposed should be declined in total. However notwithstanding the significant
adverse effects, and issues with the objectives and policies of the District Plan, if we were
minded to grant consent to part of the PWFP, he submitted that all seven wind turbines
proposed to sit above the Marshall residence should be removed.
7.70
In response to questions we asked Mr Gilmour, he did accept that said in terms of blade flicker
that an appropriate response to blade flicker was to turn off the offending turbine. Also, we
took from our conversation with him that in terms of blade glint he accepted that painting the
blades in a non-reflective paint would address that issue. Accordingly, we took those two
concerns, i.e. blade flicker and blade glint, no further.
7.71
Mrs Marshall then read a statement on behalf of her and her husband outlining their farming
background and that they had been living at the property since 2002. She then addressed their
concerns about the project and the process they had followed since hearing about the PWFP.
She said that they had been troubled by the photomontages they had received from MRP
considering that they under estimated the size of the turbines.
7.72
Mrs Marshall went onto say that if approved the PWFP will have us looking at no less than seven
turbines from the house itself and more from around the garden, road frontage and adjoining
paddocks with a total of ten being visible at any one time. She said that in combination with
the consented WWF on their northern boundary they would fell fenced in and dominated by
turbines. She also described the landscape and visual effects on them as being extreme.
7.73
In terms of the proposed screening mitigation by eucalyptus trees Mrs Marshall said they did
not believe the PWFP was feasible. She described their own experience with such trees in
planting a shelter belt where only 6 out of 29 trees had survived. Of the surviving trees the
tallest was now no more than 4m high. She referred to the slow growth rates they had
experienced with pine trees. She considered that any trees Planted as suggested by MRP
would, if they grew at all, have an equally adverse landscape, visual and amenity effect on
them, blocking morning sun, creating shadows and making it cold and damp.
7.74
Mr Marshall also raised concerns about noise effects and referred to a survey undertaken by Dr
Phipps of Massey University which indicated that high numbers of people located significantly
further from wind farms than the Marshalls could hear them. She also raised concerns about
dust and water contamination.
7.75
Mrs Marshall concluded by asking that the PWFP be declined or at the very least the five most
dominant turbines be removed.
17
Paragraph 362 Motorimu decision.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 83/194
8
UPDATES TO THE SECTION 42A REPORTS
Mr Andrew Bashford
8.1
By way of supplementary evidence Mr Bashford said in his view the key issues that relate to the
District Council include effects on the landscape, in particular on the ONL of the Puketoi Range,
amenity effects and noise.
8.2
He refined his understanding of the extent of the ONL of the Puketoi Range, noting that it
extends beyond that as outlined in the District Plan, which defines only the skyline as being a
significant natural feature.
8.3
He noted that MRP had during the course of its presentation responded to requests with
relevant information being provided.
8.4
Mr Bashford reminded us that he concluded in his principle report that there will be adverse
effects on the Puketoi Range that are unable to be fully mitigated. He also concluded that there
will be significant amenity effects on the property at 1554 Towai Road. He went onto note that
subject to several discrete matters being resolved he considered that the purpose of the Act
would best be served by granting the application. He went onto note that almost all of these
matters have now been resolved.
8.5
In relation to new information as to the scale and nature of the effects Mr Bashford noted that
there had been several amendments to the PWFP either in response to the Section 42A reports
or in response to concerns from neighbours or submitters. The responses were as follows:
(a)
Turbine WT50 has been relocated approximately 250 m to the North-West to mitigate
visual effects to the South-East.
(b)
Transmission tower 17 has been deleted and neighbouring towers relocated so that
the transmission line is further distanced from the McGhie Property boundary and
dwelling.
(c)
Transmission Tower 99 has been changed from a lattice tower to a monopole to
mitigate visual effects in that location.
(d)
Transmission Tower 107 has been deleted with consequential adjustments to Towers
106 and 108, to move the transmission line further from the property of Up Top
Adventures Limited.
8.6
Mr Bashford noted that only amendments B and D had been documented on any Plan (Drawings
MRP-PKT-3222-B and MRP-PKT-5505-A). He asked that further Plans to reflect Amendments A
and C be provided.
8.7
At his paragraph [10] on page 2 of his supplementary materials Mr Bashford set out a table
updating of the withdrawal of several opposing submissions and the provision of a number of
written approvals in terms of Section 95E RMA. Included within those withdrawals was
withdrawal by Rural Area Cooperative Limited. That submitter had concerns about utilising an
aerial strip in furtherance of their topdressing business. The airstrip is one of the few sealed
strips available in the locality, thus it is one of the few that can be used in the wetter months of
the year. Given the update by Mr Bashford relating to the submitter‘s concerns being resolved
we do not need to take this matter any further.
8.8
At his paragraph [11] he provided a listing of additional written approvals that had been
provided since the writing of his original Section 42A report.
Submitters
Genesis Energy
8.9
Mr Bashford gave us his view that, after hearing the legal submissions and evidence on behalf
of Genesis Energy, no evidence had been provided demonstrating that there are effects on the
environment that directly affect Genesis Energy.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 84/194
Marshalls
8.10
Mr Bashford commented upon the landscape and mitigation package proposed by MRP noting
that tree selection and ongoing viability given trees could suffer from wind blow are the main
issues. It was his view that the mitigation package would be effective if suitable tree species
were selected and in planted at a suitable density with enough bulk and are maintained for the
life of the PWFP. However, he noted it could take a number of years before such a package is
effective and there is a risk that an event will occur that damages the trees exposing the
Marshalls.
Commissioner Questions
8.11
During the course of the hearing we raised a number of questions, some of which remained
relevant at the time of Mr Bashford‘s updates. We asked if, in the preparation of the District
Plan, consideration was given to identify and providing for high amenity areas as referred to in
NZS6808:2010. Mr Bashford‘s answer was no.
8.12
Much discussion occurred during the hearing about the ten year lapse period. Mr Bashford
supported a ten year lapse period because the lapse period provided in the Act did not, he
thought, provide sufficient time to plan, optimise designs, negotiate, purchase and wait for
manufacture of turbine components and shipping to give effect to the consent.
8.13
He also noted the PWFP provides for a connection into the plantation substation within the TWF.
That has a ten year lapse period, so for reasons of consistency this consent should also have a
lapse period of ten years, he said.
8.14
As to the issue of members of the local community having their lives put on hold he did not
consider that was an issue because a good proportion of community members had provided
consent. Also he thought if a 5 year term were allowed to lapse given the excellent wind
resource another energy company would he thought come forward with a proposal.
8.15
He did not see a ten year lapse period as tying up the resource for an unreasonably long period
of time noting that MRP had been investigating this site for close on 6 years.
8.16
Turning to the ease or difficultly of gaining an extension to a lapse period he concluded having
regard to Section 125(1A) (b) that there appear to be few impediments to gaining an extension
to a lapse period at a Council level.
8.17
We discussed throughout the course of the hearing, given that the Puketoi Range is classed in
the District Plan as a Category B significant natural feature and/or landscape, whether this B
classification enables the destruction of the landscape. Mr Bashford noted that A and B
categories are used to determine the status of activities on significant features and/or
landscapes. On a Category A feature damage or destruction is non-complying, but for a
Category B feature it is discretionary. In his view this does not make it more acceptable to
destroy or damage a Category B over a Category A, there is just simply a different test.
Mr Shannon Bray
8.18
Mr Bray presented in his supplementary evidence his responses to particular questions we had
asked during the course of the hearing.
8.19
He responded to our queries on photo simulations where we raised question about the
―accuracy‖ of the Built Media and Truescape photo simulations. His answer was that at A3 size
neither option are perfect, both resulting in trade-offs either in context or scale. The only way in
which to get an accurate photo simulation was to use an A1 size image, and Mr Bray considered
it beneficial to us if MRP provided full size images of the simulations. We note here that in the
course of Mr Kirkpatrick‘s reply he provided us with some full-sized images of the simulations.
8.20
He had no concern that potential submitters may be mislead about the photo simulations. He
noted most submitters were residents in the area and ―locals‖. Locals he said have a good
understanding of the landscape so that they can recognise how ―real‖ or otherwise a photo
simulation is.
8.21
Next he addressed us on the status of the Puketoi Range as an ONL or an ONF. Basically he said
there was no difference between and ONF or an ONL as both require the same protection under
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 85/194
section 6(b) RMA.
8.22
We were interested in better understanding what the specific features are that make the
Puketoi Range outstanding. The district plan, the RPS and the proposed One Plan as Mr Bray
noted, all simply refer to ―skyline‖ but in terms of both managing and assessing effects under
section 6(b) this lack of guidance is unhelpful.
8.23
Given his familiarity with the District Plan Mr Bray told us he was confident that the descriptions
of the Puketoi Range such as they are had not resulted from a robust expert assessment but
rather as a default or a continual rollover of the then existing circumstance.
8.24
To give this position some credence he pointed out that there are only three sites classified with
an A classification and they are all buildings. Also he noted that a Japanese Maple Tree in
Trafalgar Street, Dannevirke shares the B class category alongside the entire Tararua and
Ruahine State Forest Parks and Ranges.
8.25
In any event, irrespective of what the plans provide for, Mr Bray reminded us that applying the
High Court decision in Unison v Hawkes Bay District Council18 we could make our own
assessment under Part 2 (but we think more correctly under section 104) based on the
evidence we have received from the respective landscape experts. He noted for us that this is
what occurred in the Waitahora case and he referred us to Paragraph [123] of the Environment
Court‘s decision.19
8.26
He then sought to answer our question as to how we should interpret the provision of Section
5.3.3.3 of the District Plan. This is the provision that provides modification or damage to, or
destruction of, or within, any category item is a Discretionary Activity. We were interested as to
how such a wide spectrum--from ‗modification‘ to ‗damage‘ to the extreme of ‗destruction‘-could be available. Mr Bray‘s response was to place emphasis on the word ―discretionary‖,
reminding us that while the wording of the provision contemplated the outcomes there
mentioned the existence of those words did not imply effects on the environment, including
landscape, should be overlooked. He told us discretionary does not mean automatically
permitted. We took from these comments that we must exercise a discretionary judgement as
to whether or not modification, damage or destruction, subject to how we assess the effects of
the PWFP, best meets the purpose of the RMA.
8.27
He then moved to update his views of effects of the PWFP dealing firstly with the PWFP itself. Mr
Bray noted for us that Mr Brown considers the effects of the PWFP on the ONF/ONL will be
significant. He noted in his view Ms Buckland was a little more accepting but she did note that it
will still affect the profile of the range but the landform and vegetation will be protected.
8.28
In terms of amenity, Mr Bray pointed out that Mr Brown had found that the vegetation around
residential dwellings provides significant mitigation against any potential adverse effects, but Mr
Brown accepted that from private farmland the effects would be significant. Ms Buckland, he
said, was of a similar view. Mr Bray accepted Mr Brown‘s assertion that the ONF/ONL features
will remain intact and he made the point that wind turbine effects are largely reversible and the
earthworks do not affect the integrity of the cuesta feature when viewed from the east.
8.29
When considering effects on amenity, he said he tended to agree with the findings of Mr Brown
in that many of the residential dwellings in the shadow of this range that might be considered
effected parties are in fact largely surrounded by vegetation, no doubt reflecting the exposed
nature of the wider landscape. The screening, he said, provides a high degree of mitigation. Mr
Bray also agreed that emphasis should be placed on views of the windfarm from residential
dwellings and curtilage and perhaps also key places of work such as woolsheds rather than
views from farmland. This is because views from farmland can be varied and locations visited
irregularly and for most people home is the most important place.
Specific residential amenity 1554 Towai Road - Marshall
8.30
18
19
Mr Bray firstly thought the plant screening proposal was a plausible solution particularly having
regard to the expert proposals advanced by MRP. However as against that he noted the
Marshalls‘ own experience with difficulties in establishing shelterbelts of a similar nature. He
thought that should be given significant weight. That left him he said in a position of having
doubts as to whether MRP‘s proposed screening would be effective.
CIV-2007-485-896
ENV[2009] WLG 000487
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 86/194
8.31
Nevertheless he did work with MRP and promoted a condition in the event that we found the
effects on the Marshalls could be mitigated by planting.
8.32
In relation to shadow flicker it was his view that this could be managed by switching the
offending turbine off when such conditions arise.
Connell – Submitter 131
8.33
Mr Bray referred to the Connell presentation in which they said there existed a ―world
recommendation‖ of a setback of 3 km of any dwelling from turbines. He was unaware of such a
recommendation. Mr Bray told us of conversations where 2 km setbacks in Australian states
were being considered. He noted there were some policies in Scotland and the USA that require
a 2 km setback. In contrast, however he told us he had visited villages in Germany where
turbines are located less than 400m from several dwellings. He did not support a standard
setback considering it was better to allow an assessment of effects irrespective of distance.
Thorneycroft – Submitter 125
8.34
This issue concerned the level of visibility of the CHWF. Mr Bray referred us to page 9 of his
graphical attachment which shows a simulation of the proposed CHWF from Waitawhiti Road,
near the Thorneycroft property. We saw from this simulation that Thorneycroft property had
many turbines of the CHWF visible. In contrast, there was only one PWFP turbine visible. We
thought this was significant.
Mrs Kingston – Submitter 45
8.35
After listening and considering Mrs Kingston‘s evidence, Mr Bray saw no reason to change his
primary report. He did raise a question for MRP as to whether or not there is an opportunity to
move WT 01 slightly further out so that it drops below the ridgeline as seen from the Kingston
residence and disappears from view.
Turbine WT 50
8.36
Mr Bray noted the evidence of Mr Symmans that confirmed the relocation of turbine WT 50,
which resolved his concerns about the individual effects of this turbine.
Transmission line
8.37
Mr Bray signalled he was in general agreement with the findings and/or conclusion that Mr
Brown reached in relation to the effects of the transmission line although he was a little at odds
with Mr Brown placing weight on the apparent similarity of a permitted 110 kV line in contrast
to the proposed 220 kV line.
8.38
Mr Bray pointed out as a scale of reference the proposed 220 kV line with poles up to 49 metres
are nearly three times the size of existing 110 kV Mangamarie line, which has poles up to 17
metres.
8.39
In any event, Mr Bray remained of the opinion, despite this issue, that the transmission line will
be largely tolerated.
8.40
He referred to Mr Schwaderer confirming the replacement of Pole 99/L with a mono-pole or
double structure. He suggested that MRP supply an aerial plan of the PWFP showing that and
other changes.
8.41
Mr Bray referred to Submitter 98 (Up Top Adventures) and in the light of their evidence Mr Bray
did not change any of his evidence. He noted that the submitter‘s property will be immersed by
the Turitea wind turbines, many of which will be visible in the photographs displayed by the
submitter. He did note that the removal of 107/L would be beneficial in reducing the effects on
the property, but does not meet the submitter‘s submission to have the transmission line
underground.
8.42
He then referred to the submission of Submitter 94 (McGhie). He noted he had visited this
property and reviewed the updated simulation showing the transmission line around the McGhie
property. From a landscape perspective it was Mr Bray‘s view that the line is indeed an
undesirable feature. However, a redesigned arrangement had, he said, dramatically reduced
the potential impacts on the amenity enjoyed from the dwelling on this property. It was Mr
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 87/194
Bray‘s view the more buffer that could be achieved, the more beneficial the outcome and
encouraged MRP to consider this matter.
Cumulative effects
8.43
Mr Bray reminded us that despite legal submissions from Mr Kirkpatrick, MRP have through
their evidence consciously and deliberately assessed the potential cumulative effects of this
proposal alongside WWF and the CHWF.
8.44
To assist us further, Mr Bray addressed the physical differences between the PWFP site and the
WWF site. He took us through topographical site plans and the Isthmus Group photomontage
simulations.
8.45
The essential point was that the WWF is located on a lower landform than the proposed Puketoi
turbines. The other point he made was that the slope on the WWF site was a relatively easy
slope compared to that on Puketoi. Therefore, he said, despite it being a single range in the
named sense, the reality is that around Waitahora, particularly the bulk of that wind farm, the
range flattens out considerably in the way that it does at the southern end beyond the extent of
the Puketoi proposal.
8.46
He then addressed an issue that concerned us, which was how was it that that consented WWF
turbines were setback from the main ridgeline?
8.47
To answer that question Mr Bray referred us to evidence he had considered provided by Mr
Lister. According to Mr Bray, Mr Lister was keen to see a setback of turbines from the skyline.
He referred us to the WWF‘s Assessment of Environmental Effects report in that regard. He
highlighted a section of that AEE, which read:
―Care has been taken so that the proposed layout avoids the elements that are
considered more ‗outstanding‘, namely the cuesta edge and steep eastern escarpment.
It also avoids the prominent peak of Oporae.‖
8.48
Mr Bray then referred in the first instance to the Commissioners‘ decision on the WFF, noting
that they declined WWF for a range of reasons. He pointed us to one conclusion, where the
Commissioners recorded the following:
―In the end, we need only record our conclusions that this wind farm would significantly
detract from the landscape because of its size and elevation. The consideration of
Sections 6(b) and (e) weigh against this proposal.
... A reconfigured proposal, particularly if it involved shorter turbines or turbines placed
lower on the range may have a lesser impact.‖
8.49
Mr Bray then went on to tell us that in preparation for the Environment Court, he understood
that Mr Lister in his evidence to the Court explained that he had recommended a setback of the
turbines from the ridgeline of the Puketoi Range. Five of the most prominent turbines were
removed and in relation to the main ridgeline, there was a relocation of six turbines away from
Oporae (a prominent peak) by approximately 400 metres in distance and 50 metres in
elevation.
8.50
The Environment Court granted consent, noting:
―While the turbines will be partially visible above the eastern escarpment they will be
recessive and subordinate.‖
8.51
Thus Mr Bray explained that the position arrived out with the WWF was a compromise. He
wondered if that was still the right outcome. He observed that he was keen and still is that no
turbines be visible from the eastern side. He observed that it was fair to say that the consented
WWF allows for the landform to remain the most dominant feature with the turbines clearly
recessive. However, he did observe the downside is that the turbines that do remain are only
partially visible in the skyline, an effect he discussed with us subsequently.
8.52
He then turned to address the questions, will there be cumulative effects with the proposed
CHWF and, if so, what is the nature of those effects?
8.53
Mr Bray referred to the evidence of Mr Brown and Ms Buckland where they discussed the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 88/194
differences between the PWFP and CHWF. Mr Bray agreed with them that the underlying
topography, the differences in the inherent landscape features, and the resulting differences in
layout, means that the two proposals will remain individually distinctive.
8.54
He was of the view that the CHWF in itself may well be read by some viewers as a series of
mini-wind farms.
8.55
He was also of the view that in many of the available views where both proposals are visible,
the CHWF is likely to be the dominant foreground activity, making the PWFP a somewhat
distant feature.
8.56
It was Mr Bray‘s view that the key cumulative effect will come about as a result of the
sequential viewing of potentially up to 397 wind turbines in this landscape, none of which had
been constructed to date.
8.57
Mr Bray agreed with Mr Brown that the PWFP will be a ―lynchpin that extends wind farm activity
in the landscape between and Waitahora. The area up to about 10 kilometres or so east of the
Puketoi Range will become part of a wider wind energy landscape.‖ Mr Bray observed for local
people this means living with turbines on a daily basis. For some, this will be very undesirable;
for others, they will derive positive effects from the activity.
8.58
Next Mr Bray turned his attention to the successive and cumulative developments of wind farms
on the Tararua Range. We were interested as we considered that what occurred on the Tararua
Range may provide some guide for us in terms of the PWFP before us and the issue of
cumulative effects.
8.59
Mr Bray was clear in his view that what happened in terms of wind farm development on the
Tararua Range is, according to him, one of the best examples in the world of what not to do.
He believes that the current circumstance on the Tararua Range is that the situation is now past
the tipping point and wind farms have diminished the landscape to a point where its
outstanding status is indeed marginal.
8.60
It was Mr Bray‘s view that the key mistake was that development had been incredibly ad hoc.
He is of the view that best practice from abroad strongly suggests that within a confined
landscape unit wind farm design should be consistent. That is, the turbine should respond to
the landform appropriately and the turbines themselves should be of a similar design. This has
not happened on the Tararua Range, with a potpourri of different heights, different blade
configurations, different colouring, some cluster layouts, some picket fence layouts. Applying
that approach to this application, Mr Bray commented upon the degree of ―certainty of design‖
that Mr Brown asserted would be available from this proposal.
8.61
Mr Bray noted that the proposed turbines for PWFP will be similar to those in the WWF and the
height differences of anything up to 30 metres will be, in his view, largely imperceptible in the
wider landscape. He considered this consistency of turbine was of critical importance. He said
he would be very troubled if this application included two-bladed machines or other such
design.
8.62
Mr Bray was also of the view that he saw the current proposal as the ―final solution to the
development on Puketoi Range‖. He could not foresee any likelihood of additional turbines
being weaved among the fabric of the proposed wind farm in the same way as Tararua Three
(T3) was constructed amongst T1 and T2.
8.63
In terms of design, Mr Bray told us he was relaxed about the differences between the three
wind farms in terms of their lineal or clustered arrangements. He considered that all three
sites, even though in close proximity, are quite different and, as a result, require quite a
different treatment. He considered that a multi row clustered arrangement on the Puketoi site
would be considerably more adverse than the current proposal.
8.64
In conclusion then, he considered that the lessons from Tararua wind farms had been properly
applied in the Puketoi circumstance. It was his view that the Puketoi proposal does represent a
―best practice‖ approach to a development as might be possible given information currently
available. Whether or not, he said, we had passed a tipping point in this landscape is more a
question of appropriateness, which he then turned to consider.
8.65
The issue of appropriateness in terms of the form of development, particularly given that it is
occurring on this ONL, was a key critical issue for us. Thus, we were interested to know from
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 89/194
Mr Bray what his view was as to what or where is the tipping point where a wind farm might
significantly diminish the features that make this landscape an ONL?
8.66
A further supplementary question we had was, what makes this proposed design acceptable or
appropriate?
8.67
Firstly in response, Mr Bray noted that the level of appropriateness is based on factors that are
beyond the landscape discipline.
8.68
He pointed out that we had a range of diametrically opposed and competing submissions.
There were those submissions that Mr Bray described as ―heartfelt submissions‖ from people
who claimed adverse effects. There were other submitters who welcomed the PWFP because of
the potential benefits it brings.
8.69
He noted helpfully for us that the appropriateness of a proposal on an ONF/ONL can only ever
be determined when undertaking a holistic Section 5 analysis of a proposal taking into account
all evidence of effects, both positive and adverse.
8.70
Mr Bray then proceeded to comment on mitigating factors that he thought might inform this
Section 5 assessment.
8.71
Mr Bray agreed with the evidence of Mr Brown and Ms Buckland that the design of the wind
farm can dramatically alter the level of potential effects. Ms Buckland, he noted, strongly
asserted that turbines on the top of the ridgeline are better than partially screened turbines that
might ―interfere‖ with the skyline. The elevation of the turbines above the skyline ridge helps,
she said, to separate them from this feature so that the dynamic rotation does not cut across
the strongly lineal feature. A so-called ‗windscreen wiper‘ effect can occur, she said, when
turbines are located lower down on the ridgeline; an effect that can polarise with the rotational
motion.
8.72
Mr Bray said some people view this effect as good because it helps reinforce the point that the
turbines are recessed from the landscape, almost hidden behind it. The blades themselves, he
said, can be harder to distinguish in the sky than the nacelle. For others, Mr Bray noted, it is
disturbing because the sculptural quality of the turbine is lost or the coherence of the skyline is
interrupted. He noted there remains divided opinion about whether the WWF effects will be
worsened because all of the turbines visible will be cut off in this manner. In other words, they
will have the ‗windscreen wiper‘ effect. Mr Bray‘s view was that for the PWFP and taking into
account the WWF experience, if it were not possible to completely screen the turbines from
view, then to keep the blades clear of the horizon is, somewhat regrettably he said, the right
design outcome.
8.73
Mr Bray accepted Mr Brown‘s evidence that there is a key relationship between the height and
spacing of turbines that helps decrease their perceived dominance on the ridgeline, whilst at the
same time keeps them together as a single wind farm entity. Mr Bray, having reviewed over
100 of the pre-application simulations referred to by Mr Brown, agreed that the height spacing
ratio of the proposed wind farm appears about right.
8.74
Mr Bray told us also that he was of the opinion that a single row of turbines is the right
approach for this particular site. He acknowledged some might say this creates a ‗picket fence‘
type arrangement, however the layout strongly follows the natural contours and features of the
site in the same manner as clustered rows of turbines might be desirable on a rounder, flatter
hillside--such as Meridian‘s Te Apiti wind farm. Mr Bray considered that a double row of
turbines, or more, on this site would add significant clutter whereas the single row layout
prevents a cross-over effect, which would be discordant to the simple linearity of the landform
feature.
8.75
Mr Bray did have a refinement on the layout supported by Mr Brown and Ms Buckland. Mr Bray
was of the view that there are a number of localised features that provide some natural breaks
in the ridgeline. He was of the view that some gaps would allow the ridge to retain a dominant
integrity.
8.76
However, having said that, Mr Bray accepted that such a redesign does not significantly reduce
the effects of the PWFP on the ONL. This was, he said, primarily because he considered the
mere presence of the turbines on the skyline ridgeline creates effects that are so significant that
rearranging them cannot ultimately be a defining mitigation.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 90/194
8.77
Also, Mr Bray noted that he did not consider that we or he had the mandate to alter an
applicant‘s proposal; rather it must simply be assessed in the way it is presented or voluntarily
refined by MRP during the course of the process. It was his opinion therefore that the Council
(i.e., this Commissioner Panel) can only grant the PWFP consent as it stands or, if it does not
meet the policies and objectives of the RMA, decline the PWFP as a whole, he said.
8.78
In his conclusion, Mr Bray addressed our question, ―given the strong opinions provided that the
8.79
Firstly, Mr Bray referred to Mr Brown‘s opinion that appropriateness comes down to a strategic
analysis of landscape from a wider somewhat national context. Mr Brown asked the question,
whether it is better to concentrate wind farm activity in an area that is somewhat remote and
where there is known resource, or scatter activity across several landscapes? Mr Brown clearly
supports extensive development of wind turbines in this part of the wider landscape.
8.80
After considering all of the evidence and submissions Mr Bray noted that he tended to agree.
Mr Bray noted he had considerable empathy for those local people who might have to live with
the turbines to such extent it will become part of their local identity. However, it was his view it
makes sense to efficiently use the natural resource, i.e. the wind that is available. Mr Bray
noted that he considers the remoteness of the site is an important mitigating factor. However,
he noted it does not avoid nor remedy any effects on the ONL/ONF and it does not appease the
concerns of those who reside in the area. However, he noted that granting consent to this
proposal does limit the number of people who are exposed to the effects in a wider region or
national context.
8.81
Mr Bray also noted the PWFP provides that the transmission line has inbuilt capacity for
additional proposals, such as WFF, assuming that both applicants can work together to have a
combined transmission solution. This does have potential benefits, namely to ultimately reduce
at a strategic landscape level the potential effects of other transmission lines in other parts of
this landscape.
8.82
It was Mr Bray‘s overall opinion that he did not consider the PWFP is appropriate solely from a
landscape perspective. He said that the effects on the ONF/ONL and the cumulative amenity
effects of this sudden and dramatic introduction of wind energy into this community will clearly
be significant. It was only in terms of a Section 5 analysis of the whole proposal did he
consider an answer would become available in terms of the key question as to whether or not
the development here proposed was appropriate. That overall analysis would involve taking
into account the outlined mitigating factors and any positive effects outlined by experts in other
disciplines, he said.
effects of the proposal on the ONL/ONF will be significant, how can it be said that the proposal
is appropriate from a landscape perspective?‖
Mr Mark St Clair
8.83
Mr St Clair‘s updates related to providing answers to questions we had raised on appeals to
Schedule F of the proposed One Plan.
8.84
He noted that MRP has a live appeal against Schedule F, which includes the Puketoi Range as
being determined to be a regionally ONF and ONL. MRP had lodged an appeal to the
Environment Court challenging that particular part of the One Plan.
8.85
He also provided us updates on the Water Conservation Order in relation to the Makuri River.
He told us this was a local Water Conservation Order that predated the RMA. The Water
Conservation Order, given its status, effectively was taken up by the Transitional Regional Plan
and became a Rule within that Plan.
8.86
Ultimately, the rules from the Transitional Regional Plan were transferred into particular Rules
in the Regional Plan and he referred us to the Land and Water Plan at page 152, principally
Policy 3 and Rule 2.
8.87
Mr St Clair provided us with some updates in submissions, which are recorded and covered
elsewhere.
Mr Nigel Lloyd
8.88
Mr Lloyd updated us on a number of points. Firstly, he recorded for us agreement on the form
and content of conditions. He told us that there would be background monitoring at 12 sites
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 91/194
before installation and there would be compliance testing at 7 locations after construction. He
referred us to the West Wind Farm circumstance, where it was able to be shown by compliance
monitoring that noise levels were met.
8.89
In terms of cumulative effects arising from the CHWF, Mr Lloyd noted that the noise contour he
had examined for the CHWF showed no overlap with the PWFP. He noted also that there was
no residential activity between the two farms, i.e. Puketoi and Castle Hill.
8.90
Mr Lloyd turned to discuss road traffic, particularly the effects on the Connells. He noted that
their concerns related to road traffic, which would occur during daytime hours and it was not
proposed that activities would occur on Sundays or statutory holidays. The usual periods of
operation would be 7.00 am to 7.00 pm although there was a longer period, through to 9.00
pm, available for overweight loads.
8.91
Overall, Mr Lloyd took the view that the noise level caused by this was a concern. He was of
the view that it did trigger a consideration of Section 16 RMA, placing a duty on MRP to avoid
unreasonable noise. He considered this would occur by utilising the best practical option, which
in this circumstance he thought was the double-glazing /acoustic glazing offer that had been
made to the Connells.
8.92
Next he turned attention to the Marshall property. He said he was concerned about the
predicted noise levels at the Marshall property and considered the matter carefully.
8.93
He noted Mr Hegley‘s conclusion that the background noise level was 40 dBA downwind of all
turbines. He agreed with Mr Hegley that that was a very conservative assessment but noted
that the real-life scenario would show that that assessment had a fluctuation of +/- 2 dBA.
8.94
He noted that there was a level of uncertainty about the prediction. He considered that overall
the noise level would be marginal at the Marshall dwelling. Mr Lloyd was of the view in
response to questions we had asked him, that Standard 608 was the effective and relevant
standard to apply. However, he said that experience at West Wind was that people were still
upset despite levels below 40 dBA.
8.95
Mr Lloyd referred us to the high amenity test within NZS 6808:2010 at paragraph C5.3.1.
8.96
He noted that the Marshall property is not recognised as a high amenity area under the District
Plan.
8.97
He referred to the impact of removing turbines. As we understood his point, removing three
turbines resulted in a 3 dBA reduction; removing up to 10 turbines resulted in a 10 dBA
reduction. He told us the noise came from the top of a sweep of the turbine blade. Again, in
relation to the Marshall property, he told us that the proposed tree screening would make no
difference to noise. He intimated that taking out turbines would make a big difference to noise
levels.
Mr David Forrest
8.98
Mr Forrest referred to Mr Mason Jackson‘s updated consultation with Tanenuiarangi Manawatu
Incorporated, confirming they had reached agreement to update the existing memorandum of
understanding for the TWF to deal with issues. Mr Forrest was of the view that this outcome
recognised tangata whenua issues and concerns.
8.99
He then turned to submitter evidence, which concerned the Up Top Adventure Limited
submission on the transmission line, particularly in relation to Transmission Tower 107. We
were told by Up Top Adventures that they proposed to build a new dwelling in close proximity to
Tower 107. We asked Mr Forrest to investigate the status of the activity of building and
occupying such a dwelling. He confirmed that provided the landowner could meet permitted
activity environmental standards, which related to onsite effluent treatment and disposal, then
the dwelling could be established as a permitted activity. In any event, MRP intimated that it
would remove Tower 107 and they revised their relevant plan (MRP-PKT-5505A dated 3 April
2012), which indicates the removal of Tower 107. Mr Forrest told us he considered that the
potential visual effects on the submitter had been addressed.
8.100
Mr Forrest then turned to his conclusions, noting that he considered that the 220 kV
transmission line and associated nine towers proposed by MRP within the City Council‘s
jurisdiction is not an inappropriate land-use within the Turitea Reserve. His view was and
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 92/194
remained consistent with his earlier report that granting consent to the PWFP is consistent with
the provisions of the relevant planning instruments and Part 2 RMA.
9
APPLICANT‘S RIGHT OF REPLY
9.1
Mr Kirkpatrick‘s reply covered the following matters:

Identified matters established in evidence that are not disputed;

Provided a particular reply in relation to key issues of concern:
o noise;
o visual amenity and landscape;

Addressed issues raised during the hearing by submitters or by the hearings panel;

Responded in relation to relevant Part 2 Matters; and

Responded in relation to appropriate lapse periods.
9.2
The first matter that Mr Kirkpatrick submitted, which was not contested, was the quality of the
wind resource. Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us that both as a matter of expert opinion and by way
of anecdotal evidence by people who live on this land and are thus familiar with the
environment, the wind at the top of the ridge is a significant resource. Mr Wong Too‘s and Mr
Clough‘s expert analysis were not contested, he said.
9.3
The proposed civil engineering activities and works, that is, the evidence presented to us by Mr
Mills, Mr Symons, Mr Schwaderer, and Mr Brees was all uncontested, he said. This included
how the work would be undertaken subject to appropriate conditions, particularly conditions
that would safeguard the quality of the environment with particular regard being had to the
karst landscape and water quality.
9.4
Next was the relevant ecological evidence and issues addressed by Dr Blaschke, Dr Boothroyd
and Dr Craig whom, Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us, had reached agreement with their peers on
both matters of assessment and appropriate conditions to maintain and enhance the
environment.
9.5
Next the evidence of Mr Philip Brown in relation to traffic and transport effects and how they
could be appropriately managed was not contested other than the issues raised by the Connells.
9.6
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us that the PWFP had been significantly modified through the design
process and he submitted the evidence of Mr Worth and Mr Brown demonstrates appropriate
consideration of alternatives by MRP. He also reminded us that further amendments had been
made in response to the process of consultation and submissions reviewed by Council officers
and consultants through the course of the hearing. Those changes involved:
9.7
9.8

The relocation of Turbine 50 to mitigate visual effects;

The change of Tower 99 to mono-pole to mitigate visual effects;

The removal of Tower 107 and realignment of the transmission line away from Up To
Adventures; and

The removal of Tower 17 and the further shifting of the transmission line as it passes the
McGhie property.
Turning to benefits of the PWFP, Mr Kirkpatrick submitted that benefits include:

Economic benefits, both in a national and local context;

Ecological benefits, including pest management and the creation of a protected ecological
area.
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us that the adverse effects of the wind farm on the environment had
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 93/194
been fully identified and assessed and had not been disregarded or glossed over. He also noted
while reference had been made to the existence of a permitted baseline and the character of
the existing environment, witnesses called for MRP did present full assessments to demonstrate
that the effects of the PWFP on the environment had been fully assessed.
9.9
He noted again that MRP did engage with the community. He referred to the large wall-hung
map that showed the entire area and location of properties where written approvals had been
obtained from numerous local landowners, both those who would have turbines or pylons on
their properties and others living nearby, pursuant to Section 104(3)(a)(ii) RMA. He submitted
that the number and extent of written approvals and submissions of support together with the
clear evidence of many of those submitters who appeared before us and the evidence of Dr
Philip, on behalf of MRP, shows that MRP did engage, he said, with this community and that
there is a strong measure of public support in this area for the project.
9.10
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us of the positions of entities with interests wider than those who have
an interest in a particular property. In that grouping he placed the following:

DOC;

The Queen Elizabeth II Trust;

Fish & Game; and

The NZSS.
9.11
As well, Mr Kirkpatrick noted that the New Zealand Transport Agency did not lodge a
submission nor did the Civil Aviation Authority.
9.12
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us a significant amount of work had been completed in terms of the
condition sets, which were proposed to be included under Section 108 RMA.
9.13
Mr Kirkpatrick confirmed for us again that MRP‘s appeal in relation to Schedule 1 of the One
Plan did not challenge the inclusion of the skyline in that Schedule. So the extent of the MRP
challenge was resolved for us.
Key issues
9.14
In his submission, the key issues arising from the PWFP were only two. These are:

Landscape and visual effects; and

Noise.
9.15
Turning to landscape and visual effects, Mr Kirkpatrick submitted the requirement to recognise
and provide for the protection of ONFs (ONF) and ONLs (ONL) from inappropriate subdivision
use and development has been a key issue in this application.
9.16
He noted that the policy framework does raise some points of disagreement, but it was his
submission that when that framework is considered as a whole, it seeks outcomes that are
aligned with those that will be achieved should the PWFP be granted consent and constructed.
He noted that there are no provisions that would prohibit wind turbines on the ridgeline. He
further submitted that the relevant statutory plan provisions should not be interpreted as
amounting to a veto.
9.17
Mr Kirkpatrick framed the key question as being this: Can the outstanding nature of the Puketoi
Range be retained if this development occurs? He contended that the answer is that it could,
and this is based upon expert evidence we had received and also upon a reasonable response in
terms of the statutory guidelines of appropriateness when considered in context, both in terms
of the immediate Puketoi area and also in the wider context of the Tararua District and the
Manawatu-Wanganui Region.
9.18
It was his core submission that the design and layout of the wind farm will not detract from
what makes Puketoi outstanding: its height, linearity, and relationship to the wind that gives
the area a particular character.
9.19
He reminded us that invisibility of wind turbines is not a sustainable objective; ―they must be
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 94/194
tall and in clear air to serve their purpose.‖20
9.20
While he acknowledged that there was some debate about the status of the skyline of the
Puketoi Range as identified in the district and regional plans, he confirmed for us that MRP‘s
appeal in relation to the Schedule of the One Plan does not challenge the inclusion of the skyline
in the Schedule. He reminded us again that all of the landscape experts who appeared before
us confirmed that turbines standing on the ridgeline was a better response to this landscape
context than turbines setback so their apparent height—when seen from the east—might be
reduced such that just the blades may be visible in terms of maintaining the integrity of the
skyline.
9.21
In terms of Mr Gavin Lister‘s materials and the WWF, Mr Kirkpatrick noted while there is
material available that demonstrates that Mr Lister favoured a setback at WWF o achieve
reduction in the skyline, he reminded us we do not have any direct evidence from him; and he
also reminded us that it appears that in fact the WWF will still be visible from the east. Mr
Kirkpatrick also noted that Mr Symmans, the geotechnical expert, had also worked on the WWF
and he gave us supplementary evidence about the different geotechnical and topographical
considerations affecting the layout at WWF. Thus it was not only visual issues that impacted on
site placement of turbines at WWF.
9.22
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that Rangitãne o Tamaki Nui a Rua had concerns about the location of
turbines on the ridgeline. He said that this concern was not to do with cultural impacts but
rather was one of visual impact.
9.23
Mr Kirkpatrick submitted that we should not apply the WWF approach--in terms of turbines not
being placed on the ridgeline--on the basis that there is no ‗one size fits all‘ approach to
resource management matters. Moreover, he submitted that the evidence in this case is that
setting the turbines back from the ridgeline is not an appropriate response to any visual or
landscape concerns.
9.24
He reminded us that we would need to recognise other adverse effects that a setback off the
ridgeline would have and pin-pointed the evidence supporting those issues. They are:

A loss of efficiency in harnessing the wind (Mr Wong Too);

More geotechnical issues and possibly greater adverse effects on the karst (Mr
Symmans);

The likelihood that relocation would require more excavation leading to greater issues
around dust and sedimentation (Mr Mills);

The likely increased danger to birds (Dr Craig); and

Less benefit being obtained from otherwise low-use land (wind turbine farm owners).
9.25
Next, Mr Kirkpatrick turned to the opinion of Mr Bray, namely that some shifting of the turbines
along the ridge might create a greater sense of space and breathing. He asked us to consider
the evidence of Stephen Brown, which was very clear on this, and the retrospective benefits of
groups versus a more regular approach.
9.26
Indeed, Mr Kirkpatrick noted that if we were to closely look at the proposed layout we would
see that regularity does in fact pay attention to landform, so the actual location of each turbine
is attuned to the detail in the ridgeline. Mr Kirkpatrick noted that in any event, Mr Bray did
recognise his approach would result in at least some reduction in the number of turbines but he
did not make any attempt to evaluate the relative value of the loss. Mr Clough‘s evidence is
available for us to do so.
9.27
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us that in Mr Bray‘s supplementary evidence, he frankly acknowledges
that such a redesign does not significantly reduce the effects of the PWFP on the ONF/ONL.
9.28
Mr Kirkpatrick also submitted that the marginal difference between turbine heights should not
be a significant factor when assessing the effects of the turbines. In a similar way, the
transmission tower height should not be a decisive factor in assessing the landscape or visual
effects of a transmission line. This was because the relevant viewing distances of both turbines
20
Paragraph 21 of Mr Kirkpatrick‘s reply.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 95/194
and transmission towers is generally a range of hundreds of metres or even several kilometres;
consequentially, the ability to judge absolute height depends on context and available reference
points.
Visual amenity
9.29
Mr Kirkpatrick submitted that the topography provides a clear divide between the western and
eastern sides of the Puketoi Range. He noted from the west, with one exception, little can be
seen of the turbines from relatively close distances; while from the east, turbines will clearly
stand atop of the ridgeline and be visible for some distances where viewpoints allow. He noted
on sides, east and west, many property owners and occupiers have given written approval but
there are some who have not.
9.30
Accordingly, MRP relies on the assessment of Mr Brown, Ms Buckland and Mr Bray that the
effects on amenity are appropriate in overall terms given the relatively low population, the
character of the area as a working environment, and the design and layout that complements
the Puketoi landform rather than competing with it.
9.31
Mr Kirkpatrick then referred to the Marshall property as being an exception. He noted MRP had
recognised the likely effects on them and their property and had proposed screening for the
house and its curtilege and had also made an offer of compensation.
9.32
In relation to other landscape experts that had been referred to and material produced by them
provided to us, Mr Kirkpatrick cautioned us in terms of the weight we could place on this
material. In this regard he was referring to Mr Gavin Lister‘s material and similarly, Ms Anne
Stephens‘ material. It was his submission that very little, if any, weight could be placed on
these materials.
Noise
9.33
Mr Kirkpatrick addressed us carefully on the issue of a high amenity area in terms of NZS 68082010.
9.34
He referred us to Clause 5.3.1 that indicates that the issue of a high amenity area may be
considered in special circumstances. He referred to the commentary found in C5.3.1 that
follows from the provision in Standard 5.3.1. Mr Kirkpatrick referred to Mr Lloyd‘s observation,
noting that the monitoring undertaken near the Marshall property appeared to have a high
noise floor, making the calculation described in the commentary problematic. In Mr
Kirkpatrick‘s submission the real issue is the primary one raised by the Standard itself rather
than the commentary, being whether it could properly be said that the Marshall property could
ever be within a high amenity area given the absence of any promotion in the Plan of higher
protection from noise.
9.35
During the course of the hearing we raised the issue as to whether or not the Plan provisions
were drafted with or without knowledge of, or reference to, this approach and Standard. Mr
Kirkpatrick reminded us it is a proposed Plan and there has been no suggestion that it may be
varied as a consequence of the Standard. He said then, on that basis, it is reasonable to infer
that the Plan does accurately reflect at least the Council‘s view of the amenity of the area.
9.36
Mr Kirkpatrick further submitted that the Standard is clear that the basis, or the application, of
stricter control arises simply where the Plan promotes a higher level of amenity, regardless of
any standard.
9.37
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us about Mr Hegley‘s evidence in answer to questions in relation to the
West Wind proposal. That was a proposal that Mr Hegley referred us to where a high amenity
area had been identified within the Plan. In that case, the Wellington District Plan did set a
night-time noise time in the Rural zone of 35 dBA so that it was clearly different from the
standard level of 40 dBA. That made that particular area a high amenity noise area.
Submitter issues
Thorneycroft
9.38
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us that while the Thorneycroft submission claimed high visual and
amenity effects, the MRP assessment was that while on clear days they may be able to see the
PWFP, the effect on them would be low given the distance. He also noted that they are located
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 96/194
in the area of Cluster A of the CHWF; should that cluster ultimately gain consent, the presence
of some or all of those wind turbines will result in significant effects on them.
Up Top Adventures
9.39
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that the removal of Tower 107 and the resulting relocation of the
transmission line had met the submitter‘s concerns.
The Connells
9.40
Mr Kirkpatrick addressed us on the Connells‘ concern, which was primarily construction vehicles
passing close to their property at the side entrance on Route MCAO. He noted this would be a
temporary effect. Once the turbines were built the effects on the Connells will be the same or
similar to that of other houses in the village. He reminded us that MRP has offered and has
continued to offer the Connells compensation of $20,000 with $5,000 payable on the grant of
consent and $15,000 payable prior to commencing construction, which sums have been
calculated on the basis of obtaining temporary accommodation elsewhere. However, the sums
would be paid in cash so the Connells may use that as they see fit.
9.41
He volunteered an Augier-based condition covering that issue. We will return to that point
when we discuss conditions subsequently.
The McGhies
9.42
Mr Kirkpatrick noted the McGhies raised matters of visual amenity and also of health effects.
He noted MRP had already shifted the transmission line so that it was located some 550 metres
away from them and removed a pylon in order to reduce the degree of visual effects. Mr
Kirkpatrick reminded us that shifting the transmission line further away raises issues with the
neighbouring landowner, Mr Ross, and the effect on his property and the operation of his farm.
It was Mr Kirkpatrick‘s submission that the distance now proposed for the transmission line is
sufficiently far away that the visual effects are moderate and appropriate. He reminded us of
the evidence of Dr Black that there was no impact caused by the proposed lines.
Kirk
9.43
Mr Kirk raised issues about health effects of electricity infrastructure. Mr Kirkpatrick submitted
that those concerns were fully addressed by the evidence of Dr Black.
Adams & Stitchbury
9.44
Mr Kirkpatrick submitted this submitter was endeavouring to relitigate the consented Turitea
project and that the submitters failed to demonstrate any manner in which they are, or could
be, directly affected by the Puketoi project.
The Kingstons
9.45
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that the Kingstons will be able to see the nacelle of Turbine 1 above the
ridge to the south-east of their house. He noted in terms of the existing environment that they
will see, to a much greater extent, several of the WWF turbines and their evidence
acknowledged that they had already reached an agreement with Contact that includes possible
acquisition of their property. He noted that MRP cannot rely upon Contact‘s arrangements with
the Kingstons. Mr Kirkpatrick noted that even if WWF does not proceed, the degree of effect of
one turbine would be moderate and appropriate.
Rangitãne o Tamaki Nui a Rua
9.46
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that Rangitãne o Tamaki Nui a Rua sought an accidental discovery
protocol, which is agreed to by MRP; and the consent authorities have now included same in the
draft conditions. He noted that they seek to develop their existing relationship with MRP, which
MRP is happy to pursue and which need not be part of any decision on these applications.
Abraham Family Trust
9.47
Mr Kirkpatrick‘s base submission was that the evidence does not show any direct effect on the
Trust nor their land and, in his submission, there was no basis for saying that future options for
the Abraham Family Trust land would be foreclosed.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 97/194
Bent
9.48
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that Mr Bent presented legal submissions that attempted to suggest that
MRP‘s case was based on issues of viability or profit. Mr Kirkpatrick responded that MRP
accepts that they are matters for the consent holder and not the consent authorities, but that
no part of the MRP case relied on the viability of the project in the sense of business
profitability. He pointed out that we should be concerned with the efficient use of natural and
physical resources and that is a relevant matter pursuant to Section 7 RMA, and thus making
the most appropriate sustainable use of relevant resources is clearly the issue before us. He
submitted that MRP had put before us cogent and clear evidence that supports the grant of the
PWFP in Section 7 terms.
9.49
Mr Kirkpatrick also submitted that the RMA does not require avoidance or minimisation of all
effects and therefore compromise should not be required simply as part of a minimisation
process. The overarching question is, he said, whether the grant of consent represents
sustainable management of natural and physical resources encompassing the enabling of
people to provide for their wellbeing while addressing the effects of their activities
appropriately.
The Marshalls
9.50
Mr Kirkpatrick noted the Marshalls, in their submissions, raised issues about water quality,
noise, landscape and visual amenity. The Marshalls accepted that water quality issues could be
dealt with by way of conditions.
9.51
Mr Kirkpatrick submitted that the noise expert evidence showed that compliance with NZS 6808
can be achieved, which would be stricter than the existing noise controls in the District Plan.
9.52
Mr Kirkpatrick contended the landscape and visual amenity effects can be mitigated by
screening. He noted that notwithstanding the evidence from the Marshalls about their own
shelterbelt efforts, MRP‘s advisors remain confident--based on similar examples in this area-that adequate screening is feasible. He reminded us that further correspondence from Howard
Management and photographs of existing shelterbelt trees had been provided to us.
9.53
Mr Kirkpatrick reminded us that the copy of the paper ―Visual and Noise Effects Reported by
Residents Living Close to Manawatu Wind Farms: Preliminary Survey Results by Dr Robyn
Phipps and Others‖ had been the subject of a thorough review by other experts. That review
demonstrated that the paper was seriously flawed and that the conclusions of the review had
been judiciously accepted, notably by the Board of Inquiry into the TWF proposal.
9.54
He reminded us again that MRP had offered a compensation package to the Marshalls to acquire
their property at market value plus 15%, plus a further $50,000 as a solatium payment. He
noted that the Marshalls acknowledged that such a package had been offered, but they said it
assumed they would retire on taking up the offer and that the particular circumstances of their
property meant that such compensation would not enable them to replace what they have on
that property. Mr Kirkpatrick told us that there is no such assumption behind the offer; it is
simply an offer of compensation. He submitted an offer based on market value should mean
that a comparable property can be acquired: that is the essence of ‗market value‘. He noted
the additional amounts in the offer are intended to ensure that the Marshalls are fully
compensated beyond simple land value. He further submitted that there is no evidence before
us of any unusual quality that makes the Marshall property irreplaceable. Mr Kirkpatrick noted
that although this offer has now expired, he was instructed to advise us that MRP remains
committed to seeking to mitigate effects on an agreed basis and would be willing to discuss this
matter further should the Marshalls also wish to do so.
9.55
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that the Marshall submission ultimately was not that the PWFP should be
declined in its entirety, but that some varying number of turbines should be deleted. He noted
that MRP does not accept that this is a reasonable method of mitigation and he submitted that
it should not be imposed.
9.56
While acknowledging, he said, that the Marshalls are affected the degree of effect was within
the bounds of what may be the subject of control by conditions. He noted MRP proposes
appropriate screening, but if the Marshalls consider that unacceptable, then the offer of
compensation should be a complete means of remedying the effects on them. He noted that
while they are entitled to refuse that, their refusal should not be allowed to become a veto. He
submitted that numerous cases may it clear that a party relying on a Section 6, 7 or 8 RMA
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 98/194
Matter cannot rely on that as the basis of a veto. He submitted that to enable the Marshalls to
use a Section 6 or Section 7 RMA Matter in such a way would have the result of turning the
consent process into a commercial negotiation and would undermine the purpose of the RMA.
Contact Energy
9.57
Mr Kirkpatrick acknowledged the potential for interference effects on downwind turbines and
that acknowledgement had occurred at a relatively early stage, and did not challenge Contact
Energy‘s status to advance their submission.
9.58
Ultimately, an agreement has been reached between Contact Energy and MRP over this matter,
which agreement is now embodied in conditions.
Genesis Energy
9.59
Mr Kirkpatrick returned to his core submissions that Genesis Energy is a trade competitor that is
not directly affected, that the CHWF is not part of the existing environment, and that the
Genesis Energy submission should be disregarded. We have already made our position clear on
that point. Although we acknowledge that the Commissioners hearing the CHWF application
have issued their decision, the timing of the release of that decision means that the CHWF
decision is still subject to rights of appeal and thus in terms of the RMA, as we have noted
elsewhere in this decision, consent has not yet been obtained for the CHWF.
10
STATUTORY CONTEXT
10.1
The relevant statutory context for Discretionary Activity is set out in sections 104 and 104(b)
RMA. In accordance with those requirements, we have structured this evaluation Section of our
report as follows:

Evaluation of effects

Evaluation of relevant planning instruments

Evaluation of other relevant s104 matters

Part 2 RMA

Overall evaluation
Sections 9, 13, 14 and 15 – duties and responsibilities
10.2
10.3
Part 3 RMA sets out duties and restrictions of activities, including the following sections that are
particularly relevant to these applications:
(a)
Section 9 – restrictions on land-use;
(b)
Section 13 – restrictions on the use of beds of rivers and streams;
(c)
Section 14(2) – diversion of water;
(d)
Section 15 – restrictions on the discharge of contaminants into the environment.
The general principle under all of the above sections is that consent is required for these
activities unless the activity is expressly permitted by a relevant regional plan or district plan or
a valid resource consent. The activities that are subject to these applications do not meet these
exceptions and therefore resource consent is required pursuant to Sections 9, 13, 14(2) and 15.
Sections 104, 104B RMA– consideration of applications
10.4
Section 104(1) RMA sets the matters we must have regard to in our consideration of the
applications. The relevant statutory context, which we set out below, for a Discretionary
Activity is primarily set out in Sections 104 and 104B. We have however referred to other
relevant sections of the RMA that we need to consider.
―(a)
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and
Page 99/194
(b)
any relevant provisions of –
(i)
a national environmental standard:
(ii)
other regulations:
(iii)
a national policy statement:
(ii)
a New Zealand coastal policy statement:
(iii)
a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:
(iv)
a plan or proposed plan; and
(c)
any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably
necessary to determine the application.
10.5
We agree with Mr Kirkpatrick that there is no threshold consent requirement under Section
104(b) and there is therefore no need to determine whether the effects of the PWFP are more
than minor.
10.6
In that regard, he referred us to the Environment Court decision in Upland Protection NZSS v
Clutha District Council21, which also dealt with a wind farm. There, the Court noted that the
Section 104(d) ―less than minor‖ test is irrelevant to the substantive evaluation that must be
undertaken under Section 104(1)(a) and under Part 2 RMA. Also, in that same decision, the
Court noted that a consent authority is entitled to disregard effects that might be described as
minimal or de minimis, but it must properly have regard to all other effects.
10.7
The Court continued, noting that case law clearly establishes that activities with very significant
effects may be granted consent, while others without such significant effects may be refused
consent.
10.8
The Court went on to note that the scale of the effect is clearly a matter that will go into the
evaluation necessary under Part 2 RMA, but is not determinative of it. Any effects that are more
than minimal must be given regard in the overall evaluation, which must occur under Part 2
RMA, and Section 5 in particular.
10.9
The balance of s104 contains a range of other matters that may also be relevant to our
consideration, including the following (among others).
(a)
Section 104(2) – Provides us with the discretion to disregard an adverse effect on the
environment if the plan permits and activity with that effect (the permitted baseline).
10.10
We note section 104(1) provides that the matters therein listed are subject to Part 2 RMA,
which includes sections 5 through to 8 inclusive. We consider Part 2 Matters subsequently.
10.11
the PWFP before us is a Discretionary Activity. In accordance with s104B, after considering such
applications, we may grant or decline consent. We must exercise that discretion having proper
regard to the purpose of the RMA, which requires a balancing exercise of the various elements
identified in the course of the hearing – particularly under Section 104 and Part 2. If we grant
the application, we may impose conditions under Section 108.
10.12
It is clear from the above that all relevant issues must be considered when deciding whether or
not grant consent. This includes all potential effects on the environment and consideration of
the relevant provisions of the various planning instruments discussed further below. Our
consideration is not limited by the reason why consent is required (i.e. the particular rule which
triggers consent). However, this may be of some relevance in evaluating the significance of the
different issues arising from a particular proposal.
Section 105 – Discharges
10.13
21
In addition to the matters specified in s104, for applications for a discharge permit (of which
there are several before us) we must also have regard to the following matters under s105(1):
Decision 85/08.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 100/194
(a)
The nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse
effects;
(b)
MRP‘s reasons for the proposed choice; and
(c)
Any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other
receiving environments.
Section 107 – Restrictions on grant of certain discharge permits
10.14
In addition to the matters specified in Section 104, for applications for a discharge permit we
must also consider Section 107 RMA.
10.15
Section 107 is framed in such a way as to provide statutory minimums for water quality
standards in subsection (1). Subsection (2) allows the grant of a discharge permit if those
standards are not to be met or would otherwise contravene Section 15. We note that higher
standards may be imposed by way of water quality rules pursuant to Section 69 within regional
plans or by way of resource consent conditions. Lower standards are only permissible if the
consent is granted under the exceptions set out in subsection (2) of Section 107.
Part 2 matters RMA
10.16
Mr Kirkpatrick concentrated on addressing the key issue, which revolves around matters of
national importance.
10.17
He submitted that Section 6 RMA matters do not amount to a potential veto although obviously
a proposal that is in conflict with one or more matters of national importance must demonstrate
how the granting of consent can nonetheless be in accordance with the purpose of the RMA
overall. He noted that Part 2 RMA does not turn simply on a landscape or visual issue under
Section 6(b). He contended this case also raises a number of Section 7 matters, including the
efficient use and development of natural and physical resources under Section 7(b). These
matters all go toward the overarching assessment required in terms of the purpose of the RMA
in Section 5.
10.18
Helpfully, Mr Kirkpatrick referred us to the planning tribunal decision in the New Zealand Rail
case at pages 465-466. That citation put Section 6(a) in context. The tribunal held that the
development there being considered for the purposes of s6(a) RMA would have to be nationally
suitable or fitting before preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment could
justifiably be set aside.
10.19
He also then referred to the judgment by Gregg J in the High Court in the same case, in
particular pages 85-86. This citation considered the word ―inappropriate‖ in a broader, overall
scale; holding the that the word has a wider connotation in the sense that in the overall scale
there is likely to be a broader range of things, including developments, that can be said to be
inappropriate compared to those that are said to be necessary.
10.20
Putting the key question in context, the Court considered that ―inappropriate‖ is to be viewed
from the point of view of the preservation of natural character in order to achieve the promotion
of sustainable management as a matter of national importance. The Court noted that it is only
one of the matters of national importance. Indeed, other matters have to be taken into
account. The Court noted that it is certainly not the case that preservation of natural character
is to be achieved at all costs. The achievement that is to be promoted is sustainable
management and questions of national importance, national value and benefit, and national
needs must all play their part in the overall consideration and decision.
10.21
Mr Kirkpatrick referred us to other authorities that had a similar thrust in terms of decisions and
how those decisions were arrived at.
10.22
He referred at length to the case involving the expansion of the Ferguson container terminal in
the Port of Auckland – Judges Bay Residents Association v Auckland Regional Council A72/98,
24/6/1998.
10.23
Mr Kirkpatrick also referred to the Environment Court decision, Mainpower v Hurunui District
Council22, which considered a wind farm application on the Mount Cass Range. Referring to this
22
2011 Env C 384.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 101/194
decision, Mr Kirkpatrick after reference to key findings of the Court, set out for us his view
about the correct approach to be taken in addressing an application where there are two
significantly distinct levels at which the issues must be addressed. These levels are, he said:
10.24

The effects on the local environment; and

The effects on the wider environment, which are also the subject of national policy.
For that purpose Mr Kirkpatrick told us, it is important to acknowledge what all the landscape
experts who actually assessed the PWFP agree on, that is:
―That the Puketoi Range is an appropriate place for a wind farm;
That the outstanding character of the Puketoi Range is at a district level rather than a
national one;
That however they are arranged, these turbines will be visible to anybody who can see
the Puketoi Range.‖
10.25
He also noted it is relevant to bear in mind that here there are competing considerations of the
landscape recognised as having district significance and the opportunity to provide for
renewable electricity generation, which has national significance in terms of the NPSREG. He
submitted that in the sense used in s6(b) RMA, the appropriateness or acceptability of the PWFP
is to be assessed where the ONL/ONF status does not amount to a kind of veto, the competing
matters are of the first degree, but within Part 2 it is accepted that the RMA envisages that a
proposal can have a significant effect and still remain appropriate. Here, of course, Mr
Kirkpatrick contended that the RMA does not impose a ‗no more than minor effects‘ test on the
consideration of applications under s104(b) and in that regard he referred to the Environment
Court decision of Upland Protection NZSS v Clutha District Council (Decision C85/08).
Lapse periods in terms of consents
10.26
Finally, Mr Kirkpatrick addressed us on lapse periods in terms of consents.
10.27
He addressed us primarily on the issue of whether a longer lapse period might amount to a ‗lock
up‘ of the resource and the creation of uncertainty among affected persons and the wider
community.
10.28
He contended there was not lock up of wind resource because in relation to the wind, land
access is, and will remain, the critical factor but upwind or downwind opportunities remain,
subject to managing interference effects.
10.29
In relation to uncertainty, he agreed that while consideration must be given to the statutory
default period, consideration must also be given to the scale of the particular project and
factors that affect the lead time for them as explained to us by Mr Worth. He did not accept
that an application to extend is free of any element of uncertainty. He also noted that no
evidence had been advanced to show that these periods would be inappropriate.
10.30
Section 104(1) states that our consideration of the applications is subject to Part 2 of the RMA,
which covers section 5 through section 8 inclusive. We record that our approach is that
sections 6, 7 and 8 RMA contribute to and will inform our evaluation under section 5 RMA.
Section 6
10.31
Sections 6 identifies the following matters of national importance that we must ―recognise and
provide for‖ when making our decision::
―(a)
The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the
coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the
protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.
(b)
The protection of ONFs/ONLs from inappropriate subdivision, use and development;
(c)
The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats
of indigenous fauna;
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 102/194
(d)
The maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal
marine area, lakes and rivers;
(e)
The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands,
water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga;
(f)
The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and
development.
Section 7
10.32
Section 7 list the following other matters that we shall ―have particular regard to‖:
(a)
Kaitiakitanga:
(aa) The ethic of stewardship:
(b)
The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources:
(ba) The efficiency of the end use of energy:
(c)
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:
(d)
Intrinsic values of ecosystems:
(e)
Repealed.
(f)
Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:
(g)
Any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources:
(h)
The protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:
(i)
The effects of climate change:
(j)
The benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.
11
EVALUATION OF EFFECTS
11.1
Drawing on our review of the PWFP documents, the submissions, the Officers‘ Reports, the
evidence presented at the hearing and our site inspection, we have concluded that the effects
we should have regard to are:

Permitted baseline – written approvals – trade competitors

Visual and landscape effects

Noise effects

Effects on ecological values

Cultural effects

Economic effects

Cumulative effects

Effects on karst limestone

Traffic and transportation effects

Social effects

Health effects
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 103/194

Positive effects
Permitted baseline – written approvals – trade competition
11.2
Section 104(2), which provides us with discretion to disregard adverse effects where the
relevant plan permits an activity with that effect. Mr Kirkpatrick submitted that Section 104(2)
was relevant in terms of the transmission lines, proposed hazardous facilities, and noise.
(a)
Following Section 104(3)(a)(ii), we must disregard effects on persons who have given
their written approval to the applications.
(b)
Following Section 104(3)(a)(i), we must disregard the effects of trade competition or the
effects of trade competition; and
(c)
Following Section 308B(2), we are not to consider any submission made a trade
competitor unless it relates to a direct effect on that person and does not relate to trade
competition or the effects of trade completion.
11.3
We observe that in relation to the paragraph immediately above, we have already made a
finding that we have recorded in relation to the Genesis Energy submission.
11.4
Finally, in terms of our assessment of effects, we must undertake that assessment in terms of
the environment as it exists.23
11.5
In context of this application then we must and do take account of the existing consent for a
new wind farm on the Tararua Range, including a substation—namely Turitea, held by MRP—
and an existing consent for a wind farm to the north—WWF, held by Contact Energy.
11.6
The Turitea project allows for the erection of turbines and the location where the western end of
the transmission line for Puketoi is intended to be located. The existence of a consent for such
turbines results in the likely effects of the transmission line being appropriate in the
circumstances. This view was put forward by witnesses for MRP and also within the context of
Section 42A Reports.
11.7
We note that MRP has fully and properly assessed effects of their proposal on the WWF. This
relates to potential cumulative effects on landscape and noise, and also potential cumulative
traffic and social effects. Wake effects were also considered and discussed, and have now been
resolved by conditions.
11.8
A clear contrast was made with the CHWF. This is the matter where MRP took the position that
the CHWF applicant, Genesis Energy, is a trade competitor and that there were no effects other
than trade effects and therefore the submission should be excluded pursuant to Section
308B(2) and likewise their evidence adduced in support of that submission.
11.9
Returning to the need to undertake assessment of effects in terms of the environment as it
exists, at the time of our hearing the CHWF was simply a proposal and no Commissioner
decision had issued. The Commissioners hearing the CHWF issued their decision in the course
of our deliberations. We return to discuss this matter subsequently when we consider our
cumulative effects assessment as that is the appropriate point for consideration of this matter.
11.10
Before moving to assess the actual effects, we record that in doing so we have disregarded
effects on persons who have given their written approval to the PWFP and we have disregarded
the effects of trade competition on a trade competitor.
11.11
In respect of the permitted baseline, for reasons that will become clear, we do not accept MRP‘s
position on the application of the permitted baseline in relation to the 220 kV transmission line
nor the access tracking. We do accept MRP‘s permitted baseline position in relation to the
proposed hazardous substances storage facility.
11.12
In terms of noise effects, we see noise as an assessment issue, but we acknowledge the District
Plan provisions in relation to noise limits.
23
Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorne 2006 NZRMA 424 (CA).
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 104/194
Visual and landscape effects
11.13
In commencing our assessment of visual and landscape effects, we record at the outset that we
accept what Mr Kirkpatrick says, namely that ―invisibility of wind turbines is not a sustainable
objective. They must be tall and in clear air to serve their purpose‖.24 It was a core tenant of
MRP‘s proposal that the wind turbines need to be arrayed along in ‗picket fence‘ fashion on the
skyline of the Puketoi Range so as to maximise the use of the wind resource. We have
described the Puketoi Range in detail elsewhere in this decision. Suffice to say that the Puketoi
Range is identified in both district and regional plans as being an ONL and/or ONF. This then
provides the context for the visual and landscape effects.
11.14
As we understood the evidence from the three landscape experts, they took a similar approach
to their assessments; however, they appeared to reach similar outcomes but for slightly
different reasons in terms of their visual landscape effects assessment. We also observe that in
terms of the assessments from time to time they bundled together a visual landscape impact
and an amenity impact. We acknowledge dividing these types of impacts in that manner can be
both problematic and a little artificial. In terms of approaches, there was a focus on the
ridgeline and its values. That focus primarily revolved around assessing the impact of the wind
turbines on the ridgeline.
11.15
The ridgeline assessment also concerned a comparison of location of the turbines on the
ridgeline or further down the slope, with the landscape experts giving their reasoning for their
preference.
11.16
We also received an assessment of the balance parts of the proposal, those located on the
Puketoi Range and then the transmission line itself.
11.17
All of the landscape experts after undertaking this primary assessment of effects then
undertook what they variously described as a strategic assessment or what we describe as an
assessment from a broader stance and also a balancing type assessment before reaching
overall conclusions about the visual and landscape effects.
11.18
In considering the evidence we received we have endeavoured to follow the approaches we
have just described.
The ridgeline
11.19
Mr Brown for MRP when assessing effects of the turbines on the ridgeline concluded that the
turbines would erode some of the naturalness inherent in the skyline of the Puketoi Range. It
was his opinion that the landscape impacts would be very marked and significant. He
considered that the turbines atop the ridge would clearly transform the ONL, which is certainly
distinctive at the local level.
11.20
In trying to understand the effects that placement of the turbines would have on the landscape
values of the Puketoi Range we considered we needed to better understand what are the
specific features of the Range that make it outstanding.
11.21
The starting point is consideration of the planning instruments. All refer to the skyline, but
provide little else in terms of specific features.
11.22
Mr Bray in his supplementary evidence by reference to other assessments of the Range,
primarily from the WWF, put forward the view that there appeared to be an agreement among
the landscape experts that it is the escarpment feature of the Range that is most significant,
both in terms of its geological significance as a cuesta landform and its aesthetic value as part
of the wider landscape. He also noted that there is some value or recognition in terms of the
limestone karst features, particularly around Waitahora, and that iwi value some specific peaks
in the north, such as Oporae; also Rangitãne submitted in this hearing that Mount Puketoi is of
significance.
11.23
Thus, if we understand the specific features that make the landscape outstanding it helps us in
the understanding of what the real effects of the PWFP might be on the valued features of the
ONF/ONL.
24
Paragraph 21 of Mr Kirkpatrick‘s reply.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 105/194
11.24
Mr Brown identifies those elements as the profile of the Puketoi Range in particular, its
signature east-facing scarp-face and skyline, and the actual landform of, and the native
vegetation cover, across the Puketoi Range.
11.25
Ms Buckland seems to agree and support this assessment of what are the valued features of the
ONL of the Puketoi Range.
11.26
However, what Ms Buckland and Mr Bray seem to say is that turbine towers placed on the top
of the east-facing scarp face and skyline on the tallest towers proposed best complements and,
in a way, protects the valued features of the ONL. This is particularly so when they compare
other options such as placing the turbines away from the ridgeline and down the slope.
11.27
In assessing the visual and landscape effects, the landscape experts—particularly, Ms Buckland
and Mr Bray—spent time discussing and explaining their preferences for tall turbines spaced
along the ridgeline, which allowed the shape and prominence of the landform, i.e. the various
peaks and hollows, to retain their dominance and character. Also the preference was expressed
to have turbines of considerable height so that the rotors were elevated above landform so that
they would have the least visual and landscape impact on the landform beneath. This was
explained in that the towers would appear as a very thin vertical element on the top of a strong
landform and consequently would not dominate the landscape.
11.28
In contrast, smaller turbines, i.e. with shorter towers, clustered together would, we were told,
create a greater visual impact.
11.29
Mr Bray accepted Mr Brown and Ms Buckland‘s evidence on the point that there is a key
relationship between height and spacing of the turbines that helps decrease their perceived
dominance on the ridgeline. Mr Bray was also of the clear opinion that a single row of turbines
is the right approach for this particular site. He agreed with the evidence of Mr Brown and Ms
Buckland that the design of a wind farm can dramatically alter the level of potential effects. He
seemed to accept Ms Buckland‘s core point that the elevation of the turbines above the ridgeline
helps separate them from the feature so that the dynamic rotation does not cut across the
strong lineal feature.
Ridgeline versus slope
11.30
Of course, we observe that in the WWF, that appeared to be, or was, the preferred option
supported by the landscape experts in that case because this was the manner in which the
layout avoided the elements that are considered more outstanding, namely the cuesta edge and
a steep eastern escarpment. This view appeared to be accepted by the Environment Court,
with the Court noting at its paragraph 12:
―While the turbines will be partially visible above the eastern escarpment, they will be
recessive and subordinate‖.
11.31
Mr Bray, for his part, told us that the consented WWF allows the ridgeline landform to remain
the most dominant feature with the turbines clearly recessive. However, he pointed out the
downside that the turbines do remain only partially visible on the skyline; he had a concern
about that effect.
11.32
He also noted the Court in that case, as we have to, had to make a judgement as to the tradeoff of efficiency loss versus landscape effects.
11.33
Mr Bray‘s concern mentioned above is the so-called ‗windscreen wiper effect‘. This occurs when
turbines are located lower down on the skyline, but the turbines can still be seen rotating above
the skyline from viewpoints; thus, the full turbine is not available for view. Critically for us,
having regard to his WWF experience, Mr Bray told us his now preferred position if it is not
possible to completely screen the turbines from view, is to keep the blades clear of the horizon
is. He said, somewhat regrettably, that is the right design outcome.
11.34
He said this because he agreed with Ms Buckland‘s assertion that turbines on top of the
ridgeline are better than partially screened turbines that might ―interfere‖ with the skyline. The
elevation of the turbine above the skyline ridge helps, she said, to separate them from the
feature so that the dynamic rotation does not cut across the strong lineal feature. Mr Bray also
agreed with Mr Brown that there is a key relationship between the height and spacing of
turbines that helps to decrease their perceived dominance on the ridgeline. It was for these
reasons that Mr Bray was of the opinion that a single row of turbines is the right approach for
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 106/194
this particular site. He said this type of arrangement or layout strongly follows the natural
contours and features of the site.
11.35
We know that Mr Bray had a disagreement with both Mr Brown and Ms Buckland about how
uniform the spacing between the turbines should be. However, in the end he acknowledged
that the type of redesign he was discussing did not significantly reduce the effects of the PWFP
on the ONL/ONF.
11.36
Thus, in this way Mr Bray and Ms Buckland having first identified the valued features of the
ONF/ONL could then more fully, or perhaps accurately, determine the effects of the PWFP on
the landscape.
11.37
As we understood their evidence, they were able to say ultimately with turbines placed on top
of the ridgeline in the pattern or form proposed by MRP that best or (probably more accurately)
least affected the valued features of the ONL.
11.38
We also agree with Mr Kirkpatrick that there would be other adverse effects that setting the
turbines back from the ridgeline would likely cause. They are:
 a loss of efficiency in harnessing the wind;
 further geotechnical issues;
 possibly greater adverse effects on the karst landforms;
 greater excavation leading to greater issues around dust and sedimentation;
 likely increased danger to birds; and
 less benefit being obtained from otherwise low use land.
Balancing approach
11.39
It seemed to us that Mr Brown‘s assessment was to the effect that even with this mitigation
measure of layout and height of the turbines, this part of the PWFP would still have a very
appreciable impact on the landscape. It was Mr Brown‘s view that it would adversely affect the
profile of the ONL; in particular, its signature east-facing scarp face and skyline.
11.40
However, Mr Brown‘s approach was, in a way, to ―offset‖ those effects before he arrived at his
overall conclusion. He said as proposed, the actual landform of and the native vegetation across
the Range would remain fundamentally intact. Secondly, the PWFP would have much less of an
impact on most residential properties, including those found at Makoura and Pongaroa. Finally,
in a strategic regional context, the rural area surrounding the Puketoi Range is notably less
sensitive either in terms of its current landscape values or the scale and/or intensity of
audiences exposed to it.
11.41
In terms of the final point, we took Mr Brown to be saying that the landscape is of district
importance, and the scale and intensity of audiences exposed to the windfarm are relatively
limited.
11.42
Mr Brown, as Mr Bray pointed out for us, appears to undertake some level of strategic analysis
of landscape from a wider, somewhat national, context. He seems to be motivated by
answering the question, whether or not it is better to concentrate wind farm activity in an area
that is somewhat remote and where there is a known high wind resource or should wind farms
be scattered across several landscapes?
11.43
Mr Brown‘s view is that sites that have an obvious high wind resource should be used, and all
the better that they are remote and sparsely populated, even if those sites are ONL at a district
level.
11.44
Mr Bray for his part agreed that remoteness of the site is an important factor. It does not avoid
or remedy any effects on the ONL nor does it appease the concerns of those who reside in the
area, but its single virtue is that it does limit the number of people that are exposed to the
effects in a wider regional or national context.
11.45
However, in his overall opinion, Mr Bray was of the view that the PWFP is not appropriate solely
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 107/194
from a landscape perspective. It was his view the effects on the ONL/ONF and the cumulative
amenity effects of the sudden and dramatic introduction of wind energy into this community will
be clearly significant. He did acknowledge that in terms of the Section 5 analysis the overall
appropriateness question is better answered during the course of that analysis.
11.46
In the end, we took from Mr Brown, Mr Bray and Ms Buckland that, overall, the visual and
landscape impacts of that part of the PWFP on the Puketoi Range were significant.
Balance components
11.47
All of the landscape experts agreed that the balance components other than the transmission
line—and here we include the internal transmission line, substation accessway, earthworks
access point, concrete batching plants and the like—although located on the Puketoi Range
were unlikely to generate significant levels of effects.
The transmission line
11.48
We accept the opinions of the landscape experts that the transmission line will be considered
acceptable across these landscapes. We prefer the view expressed by Mr Bray in his principal
report in support of this finding. We accept that transmission lines, in the main, are not
attractive to persons viewing them; although there is recognition that in our modern electricity
dependent lives, transmission lines are a necessity. We agree with Mr Bray that against this
backdrop such transmission line structures are often tolerated on the proviso that they avoid
the most significant visual and landscape features and do not obstruct key views of the
landscape.
11.49
We agree with him that MRP have achieved this with their transmission proposal. We also
agree that some of the poles and in some cases, the pylons, will be by themselves prominent
visual elements. However, they are located within a significantly modified landscape cluttered
with an arrangement of intensive farming use and associated structures. Again, we agree with
Mr Bray‘s assessment that even those poles and pylons that are located on the more visible hill
country landforms are, and will be, absorbed by the complexity of landform shapes and landuse activities, which are, in the main, farming activities.
11.50
We take account and rely on MRP‘s amendment to the application, namely the replacement of
Pole 99/L with a mono-pole or double-pole structure, which will reduce the potential visual and
amenity effects within its location. Also, we are conscious of the other change, which is the
removal of Pole 107/L as it impacts on Submitter 98 (Up To Adventures). We are also mindful
of the beneficial impact of the movement of the transmission line to provide Submitter 94
(McGhie) with a much more beneficial outcome from a landscape and visual amenity
perspective of the repositioning of the transmission line.
11.51
We specifically reject Mr Stephen Brown‘s permitted baseline analysis in respect of the 220 kV
transmission line. We support the analysis of Mr Bashford‘s permitted baseline assessment in
relation to the transmission line set out in his principal report between paragraphs 78 and 90.
We agree with him that we should exercise our discretion under Section 104(2) RMA not to
apply the permitted baseline as proposed by Mr Brown because we agree that a 110 kV
transmission line would be a somewhat fanciful proposition and that there would be no reason
for such a line in this locality. Also, the basis for utilising the permitted baseline is this
nebulous ―feeling of association‖ between the proposed 220 kV transmission line and the 110
kV transmission line, which is a permitted activity. We agree with Mr Bashford that this is a
very vague description or application of the permitted baseline. Overall, we also agree with Mr
Bashford that there are too many uncertainties to effectively apply the permitted baseline
approach as advanced by Mr Brown.
Key findings
Ridgeline
11.52
The turbines are ―better placed‖ on the ridgeline in preference to the slope.
11.53
The values that support the ridgeline being an ONL/ONF are best preserved and supported by
placing the turbines on the ridgeline.
11.54
The balance of the proposal and/or activities occurring on the Puketoi Range will not give rise to
significant visual and landscape effects.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 108/194
11.55
The visual and landscape effects of the transmission line are acceptable.
Specific site visual landscape effects
11.56
We agree that there is little doubt that the effects on the Marshall property have been correctly
assessed by the landscape experts as significant and/or high. The turbines will dominate the
view from this dwelling and immediate curtilege area, both being critical viewpoints and critical
assessment points for amenity values as well.
11.57
Left with no mitigation measure there is a very real concern that the turbines will dramatically
alter and dominate the view and amenity from the Marshall property.
11.58
We think that screen planting proposed by MRP is a rational response to this effect. However,
we have the first-hand evidence from the Marshalls themselves detailing to us their experience
in terms of growing shelter trees on their site. This raises the very real prospect that
vegetative screening may not be effective.
11.59
We are also conscious as Mr Stephen Brown pointed out in his supplementary evidence to us
that placement of the vegetation screening on the neighbouring property also could in itself
result in detrimental effects caused by shading and obstruction of view for the Marshalls.
11.60
However, in that regard we make the observation, as we understand it, there are no controls in
the District Plan that would prevent the planting of trees on the site as a permitted activity.
11.61
Also, as we understand the proposition put forward by MRP, it is to the effect that they will
obtain necessary consents of the landowner to plant and maintain vegetative screening to deal
with the visual landscape and amenity effects of the visual dominance of the turbines.
11.62
While we address this point subsequently, we have ultimately decided to deal with this issue by
requiring MRP to ensure the screening is in place before nominated turbines can be constructed.
There are a range of turbines, namely WT 4, 5, 6, and 7 that are visually dominant and, in our
assessment, require screening before they can be constructed and operated.
11.63
We do acknowledge the matters raised by the Marshalls in terms of whether such screening is
possible and the effects of screening on them. However, we do have competing evidence from
MRP on that point. Our approach to resolving this matter is to require that the screening be in
place before the turbines can be erected. We say this because this is the only realistic way we
think that adequate mitigation can be provided. We record that MRP was confident screening
would be effective.
11.64
We also did consider removing certain turbines. However, when we considered the evidence of
Mr Won Too and Mr Clough about the impacts on the efficiency of the PWFP and the generation
loss and, as we saw it, the need to efficiently and effectively utilise the wind resource, we
decided against that course.
11.65
The other balancing factor we have decided to include is that for turbines WT 4, 5, 6, and 7 the
actual height of the turbines will be reduced by 30 m. On our assessment of the information we
have been provided reducing the height of the turbine towers will help the screening to be more
effective.
11.66
Of course, the screening will need to be sufficient in terms of both height and depth to provide
adequate screening of the wind turbines. The vegetative buffer will also need to be maintained
over time.
11.67
We have included a condition that requires screening for the reduced height turbines WT 4, 5,
6, and 7, with that screening to reach a nominated height and be maintained before the
turbines can be erected. In assessing what is a suitable height for the screening, we examined
the drawings and the assessments that we have been provided with. We have reached the
view that it is possible to provide vegetative screening to certain heights. Those heights will be
measured from natural ground level and the various heights (as detailed below and in
conditions) achieved before installation of the turbines can occur.
11.68
For WT 4 the screening needs to reach a minimum height of 10 metres before installation.
Similarly, for WT 5. For WT 6, the minimum height required of screening is 20 metres. We
accept even with the reduction of turbine height for WT 6 it will not be completely screened, but
only partially screened when views are had from the Marshall property. In terms of WT 7, the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 109/194
minimum height of vegetative screening before installation is 15 metres.
11.69
We have taken into account projected growth rates. We have also taken into account the
construction period and also, to a degree, the lapse period. If the planting is put in place
immediately this consent is available, then we consider that there is a realistic and reasonable
opportunity for screening to occur.
11.70
We acknowledge that this approach will create some construction and logistical difficulties for
MRP. However, we have endeavoured to obtain some kind of balance on the issue.
11.71
We do not think that the reduction in turbine heights of WT 4, 5, 6 and 7 will cause visual issues
when the turbines are viewed from a distance. Given that the topography is already undulating
we think that reduction in the height of these turbines will not cause any appreciable difference.
However, for the Marshalls we think a reduction by some 30 metres will be a significant benefit.
11.72
As part of this balancing (or compromise) approach we think we have acknowledged and
provided for the benefits of renewable energy generation and also recognised and provided for
the efficient use of the wind resource.
11.73
On balance, while it is not without difficulty, and we acknowledge that, we prefer the position
we have reached over and above that advanced by MRP, which was to screen the relevant
turbines. We prefer our position to that advanced by the Marshalls, which was to remove the
―offending turbines‖.
11.74
We reach the view then that only with the condition we propose will the effects on the Marshalls
be deemed to be both reasonable and acceptable. Without reducing turbine height and
requiring screening be in place before turbines WT 4, 5, 6, and 7 are erected, we reach the view
that the only other option we had was to require the deletion of turbines. On balance, while it
is not without difficulty and we acknowledge that, we prefer the position we have reached. We
record we have given very careful consideration to the points raised by Mr Gilmour before we
have reached the view that we have. We think our response satisfies the issues raised by Mr
Gilmour.
11.75
We were conscious that the Marshalls and MRP had been in dialogue and negotiations to try and
resolve this issue, but had been unsuccessful by the time that the hearing closed. We are
therefore conscious of the need to bring whatever finality we can bring to bear to the issue.
11.76
The Thorneycroft submission raised concerns primarily in relation to visual and amenity impacts
of the wind turbines. The submitters are over 10 kilometres away from the nearest wind
turbine and based on the evidence presented to us we have concluded because they will be
within the area of Cluster A of the CHWF--should that cluster ultimately gain consent—the wind
turbines within that farm will be much more dominant than the distant view of Puketoi. To that
extent we think that the amenity effects and visual effects will be minimal for this submitter.
11.77
In terms of the Connells, the primary amenity effect relates to construction vehicles. We agree
that this will be a temporary effect and once the turbines are built the effect on the Connells will
be the same or similar to that of other houses in the village.
11.78
We also note that MRP has offered and continues to offer compensation to the Connells, and we
also note the volunteer of an Augier based condition promoted by Mr Kirkpatrick in his closing.
11.79
Having regard primarily to the point that the effects will be temporary, combined with the
Augier based condition volunteered in relation to compensation, then we conclude that the
overall effects on the Connells will be acceptable.
11.80
In relation to McGhies, we have already commented on that earlier. We have noted that MRP
has shifted the transmission line so it is now located some 550 metres away and removed a
pylon in order to reduce the degree of visual effects. Taking into account these changes, it is
our view that the visual and amenity effects are now moderate. In relation to health effects we
will return to the same subsequently.
11.81
In relation to Adams and Stitchbury, we do accept the points made by Mr Kirkpatrick in his
closing that these matters really related to the Turitea project, which has been consented.
Their evidence, as we read and understood it, did not directly demonstrate to us how they could
be or were affected by the Puketoi project.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 110/194
11.82
Regarding the Kingstons, we accept that the Kingstons would be able to see the nacelle of
Turbine 1 above the ridge to the south-east of their house. However, we also accept that they
will see to a much greater extent several WWF turbines. This is confirmed in their evidence and
they also detailed for us that they had reached an agreement with Contact, which includes
possible acquisition of their property. We acknowledge that MRP cannot rely on Contact‘s
arrangements with the Kingstons. However, it is different for the Kingstons in that they can do
so. In any event, even in the instance that the WWF does not proceed, we accept on the basis
of evidence that we have received that the degree of effect of one turbine on the Kingstons
would be, as Mr Kirkpatrick contends, both moderate and appropriate.
11.83
As we earlier noted, Rangitãne o Tamaki Nui a Rua had concerns around visual effects of the
turbine, which as we understand them, are not in way different from other submitters. By this
we mean we have not understood the submission and evidence from Rangitãne as giving rise to
cultural effects. Cultural effects, such as they are, will be discussed subsequently. Given our
conclusions in terms of visual effects as referred to earlier, we are satisfied that visual and
amenity effects on this submitter will also be moderate and appropriate.
11.84
We agree with MRP that the evidence does not show any direct on the Abraham Family Trust
and its land, nor do we accept the submissions on behalf of the Trust that future options for use
of their land will be foreclosed.
Noise effects
11.85
Noise effects again focused primarily on the Marshall property. Our consideration of the noise
issue revolved around evaluating the expert evidence of Mr Hegley and Mr Lloyd. We have
discounted the evidence of Mr Helstead for two reasons. Firstly, and fundamentally, we do not
think it should be allowed or admitted. Secondly, in any event, we do not think that it adds
anything of assistance.
11.86
The key issue for us to evaluate in terms of noise effects is whether or not we conclude that the
Marshall property should be treated as a high amenity area in the context of Clause 5.3 of
NZ6808, primarily because of the proximity of the Marshall property to the predicted 40 dBA
noise contour of the wind farm.
11.87
MRP proposed that the Marshall property should not be considered to be within a high amenity
area because of the absence of any promotion to that effect within the District Plan of higher
protection from noise.
11.88
Of course, as we noted during the course of the hearing, the District Plan provisions we are now
grappling with may very well have been drafted without knowledge and/or of reference to the
approach set out in the Standard in respect of high amenity areas. Indeed, as we understood
it, this was the view put forward by the Section 42A Reporting Officers, namely that the District
Plan , in particular, had not really seriously or at all considered the high amenity issue raised by
the Standard.
11.89
Mr Kirkpatrick, on the other hand, was of the view that given we are here dealing with a
Proposed District Plan there was a reasonable basis to infer that that Plan does accurately
reflect, at least, the Council‘s view on the amenity level of the area.
11.90
He went on to elaborate, noting that it is not necessary for the Plan itself to contain any
reference to the Standard because if the Plan concludes that there should be stricter controls in
terms of noise, then that is what the Plan itself should provide for. Thus, in this way, any
cross-link or cross-reference to the Standard itself is unnecessary.
11.91
Mr Kirkpatrick noted that the District Plan itself, even absent any reference or consideration of
the Standard, has not resolved to treat the Marshall property in any way different in terms of
noise standards.
11.92
The contrast was made for us by Mr Hegley when he referred to the Wellington District Plan
setting a night-time noise level in its Rural Zone of some 35 dBA. Clearly, this signal set within
the Wellington District Plan means that the Standards level of 40 dBA does not apply therefore
the Rural Zone within the Wellington District Plan would become a high amenity noise area.
11.93
It is a fact that the District Plan does not promote a higher level of noise standard for the
Marshall property. So we do think there is significant weight in Mr Kirkpatrick‘s submission that
we must read and apply the Plan as we find it, and assume that the noise levels within the Plan
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 111/194
have been purposefully and deliberately chosen. Put another way, the District Council quite
independently of the Noise Standard could have made a decision to provide a different noise
level or treatment for this Rural Zone; it has not done so. We should give that factual
circumstance significant weight.
11.94
That leads us, we think, to the conclusion that the authors of the plan do not see anything in
terms of noise treatment that sets the Marshall property aside from any other properties in the
Rural Zone or, indeed, within the Rural Zone of the Tararua District itself.
11.95
Therefore the issue in terms of noise for us revolves around whether or not the predicted noise
levels from the wind farm will breach the Standard‘s level of 40 dBA.
11.96
This then turns our attention to assess, as a first point, what level of reliance should we put on
NZS6808:2010? There was no debate among the noise experts that NZS6808:2010 was the
appropriate Standard we should utilise. We do note that we did receive some submissions to
the effect that NZS6808:2010 was simply a standard and we did not have to be bound by that
standard. However, we note that NZS6808 and various editions of it have been frequently
utilised by other Commissioners and the Environment Court when assessing noise effects. We
are not aware of any circumstance when the Standard has been dispensed with and something
put in its place to enable such assessments.
11.97
We now address the issue that arose in terms of monitoring background noise at the Marshall
property. There appeared to a problem with the noise monitoring device, in that it was not
capable of readings below a certain floor level. Therefore we did not receive data measuring
the actual background sounds levels at the Marshall site so as to determine whether or not they
were particularly low.
11.98
However, Mr Lloyd told us that in no instance does the PWFP noise limit depend on the
background sound levels being greater than 35 dBA.
11.99
The key issue for us was whether or not the 40 dBA noise limit would be exceeded at the
Marshall property. On the basis of the evidence we have received, on balance, we have
accepted that it is more likely than not that the 40 dBA will not be exceeded.
11.100
However, we agree with Mr Lloyd it is still necessary to undertake background sound monitoring
if consent is granted so as to establish a baseline for future compliance testing to be
undertaken, if that is required.
11.101
Because we think the noise impacts on the Marshall property are finely balanced, we think that
all south-facing windows--through which views of the turbines can be seen—should have
acoustic treatment. We have included this outcome in conditions. With this acoustic treatment
included we think that the Marshalls‘ amenity will be better protected.
Conclusions on noise
11.102
In short, we do accept the evidence of Mr Hegley, which we understand was not contradicted by
Mr Lloyd that the wind farm can be operated and maintained in compliance with the relevant
limits from NZS6808:2010, being 40 dBA or the background sound (L90 plus 5 dBA), whichever
is the greater. In doing so it will also comply with the relevant noise limits from the Proposed
District Plan. However, we accept that there are issues in relation to the Marshall property
about whether or not the relevant noise limits within the proposed District Plan will be met.
11.103
We also observe and accept that the assessment of operational noise from the proposed wind
farm has been predicted at each of the closer houses to the site based on the wind blowing
directly to the receiver position from each turbine, which we accept is a very conservative
approach. We are also strengthened in our conclusions by the results of the ground contour
model utilised by Mr Hegley. This model allows the noise effects from each wind turbine to be
assessed. Mr Hegley noted a cross-check was made on information collected at existing wind
farms, including those in the Tararua Ranges, to check the reliability of the modelling results.
He told us this information shows that wind farm noise levels predicted using this computer
model are expected to be within plus or minus 2 dBA of those actually experienced. Which he
told us is within the degree of accuracy expected when predicting noise levels.
11.104
Also, we do observe that, as we understood the evidence, both Mr Hegley and Mr Lloyd
appeared to be satisfied that the proposed conditions would ensure that any noise effects
generated by the wind farm were acceptable.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 112/194
11.105
We accept and agree with the expert evaluation that construction noise will be appropriately
controlled using NZS 6803:1999 and we agree with Mr Lloyd‘s recommendation that on-site
crusher noise and concrete batching be made to comply with the Permitted Noise Standards in
the District Plan, noting that this may impact on the site selection for these activities.
11.106
Insofar as road traffic noise is concerned we note that transportation of turbines for the
southern sector of the PWFP impacting on the Connell property is estimated to take about four
months. We acknowledge that from time to time this construction traffic noise is likely to cause
concern or nuisance, to the Connells in particular. However, we think that MRP‘s offer to
double-glaze the appropriate windows in the Connell property combined with the mitigation
condition more than provides mitigation, if not remedies, to this issue.
Effects on ecological values
11.107
The ecological issues concerned primarily terrestrial, aquatic, and avian ecological issues. On
behalf of MRP we received detailed evidence from Dr Paul Blaschke on terrestrial issues, Mr Ian
Boothroyd on aquatic issues, and Mr John Craig on avian issues.
11.108
The Section 42A Reports included specialist freshwater ecology advice from Mr Mike Lake and
advice on terrestrial ecology and biodiversity from Mr Gerry Kessels.
Mr Mike Lake
11.109
As we noted earlier, Mr Lake (who dealt with freshwater ecology) had concerns that while the
range and diversity of species in the relevant waterways were limited, he wished to ensure that
the activities proposed by MRP did not result in the loss of stream habitat. His cores concerns
related to the construction of road crossings, and disposal of fill.
11.110
Mr Lake agreed with MRP that the scale of habitat loss would be very small relative to the
length of available stream habitat that would remain unaffected. In addition, Mr Lake was
favourably impressed by MRP‘s offset proposed package, particularly given it would include
riparian planting and protection of approximately 2,050 metres of stream length, which would
more than offset the estimated length of stream loss of 168 metres and any associated loss of
ecological function.
11.111
The key activity that would impact on fish species was construction and placement of culverts.
To this end, Mr Lake fully supported the proposal to relocate koura prior to culvert work
commencing. He also supported the inclusion of best practice guidelines with the CEMPs.
11.112
In terms of issues relating to disposal of fill and the potential adverse effects of the same, he
was fully supportive of MRP‘s approach in terms of locating fill sites in shallow depressions on
upper ridges so as to avoid both permanent and ephemeral water courses.
11.113
He also had concerns about the ingress of sediment into sink holes and he wanted to be
satisfied that MRP‘s proposal to use geotech-style fabric to prevent fines from entering sink
holes and thus groundwater flow pathways was adequate and also a long-term solution.
11.114
Mr Lake had no concerns in relation to the risk of contaminants such as hydro-carbons, fuel, oil
and the like, and/or contaminants from the batching plant and sediment retention ponds
causing issues.
11.115
He considered it important that there is fish passage available over existing man-made
obstacles and he did note that the design of stream crossings was such to enable koura passage
up- and down-stream.
11.116
Mr Lake was also satisfied about the intent and principles in relation to the proposed monitoring
of water quality, macro-invertebrates, and sedimentation deposition. As we noted earlier, he
also commented upon the DOC submission, that of the NZSS, and the Waitahora-Puketoi
Guardian submission. In that regard, he had concerns about the manner in which MRP would
provide for the local karst ecosystem.
Mr Gerry Kessels
11.117
Mr Kessels, as we referred to earlier, addressed us on terrestrial ecology. The matters he saw
as being outstanding were the need for MRP to adequately describe or map where threatened or
at risk species may be present and the potential habitats for the same.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 113/194
11.118
He also wished to see detailed site-specific surveys conducted prior to construction clearance
within directly affected indigenous vegetation habitats and to have his concerns in relation to
the long-tail bat and the New Zealand falcon addressed. He was particularly critical about the
lack of detailed information on bats within the subject site. He had similar concerns in relation
to the New Zealand falcon.
11.119
In relation to cave ecosystems he also had a concern that the ecological studies commissioned
by MRP to date had not fully canvassed cave systems.
11.120
Mr Kessels told us he was fully supportive of the proposed mitigation area and he considered
that to be both adequate and reasonable. He also told us that dialogue was occurring around
conditions and he was hopeful at the time of presentation of his s42A Report, that the
remaining issues he had, which he described above, were capable of being met by conditions.
Dr Ian Boothroyd
11.121
Dr Boothroyd, for MRP, addressed us in relation to aquatic ecology and resource management
issues. There was agreement between Dr Boothroyd and the Section 42A Reporting Officers in
relation to the existence on the PWFP site of significant habitat flora and fauna, namely crayfish
(or koura), and an acknowledgement that the trout fishery of the Makuri Stream was a unique
fishery. Water quality was also accepted between the experts as being an important issue.
11.122
It was also agreed that the potential effects impacting upon the freshwater ecology and water
quality related to the potential effects of construction and operation of the PWFP, namely
stream crossings, culverts, and the like.
11.123
There was agreement that provided there was the correct implementation of plans and
protocols coupled with implementation of the sediment controls recommended by Mr Breese
and Mr Symmans, then the freshwater values of water courses and the Makuri Stream and its
tributaries would not be detrimentally affected.
11.124
Like other experts, Dr Boothroyd addressed us in terms of the proposed ecological offset. He
was in agreement with others that the proposed area and the way in which it was to be
managed were appropriate.
11.125
Dr Boothroyd addressed the core concern of the reporting officers, which related to whether or
not there had been adequate pre-construction monitoring. He referred us to conditions that
would provide for pre-construction monitoring and monitoring that would both asses and
confirm the effectiveness of the various plans, like the SEMP and CEMP.
11.126
Overall, Dr Boothroyd was well satisfied that the construction and operation of the PWFP
provided that there was the correct implementation of plans and protocols identified earlier
would not detrimentally affect the freshwater values or water quality of the Makuri Stream or its
tributaries, and the project‘s potential aquatic ecological effects will be appropriately managed
to an acceptable level.
Dr John Craig
11.127
Dr Craig addressed us primarily in relation to avian ecology. He addressed the concerns of Mr
Kessels relating to pre-construction surveys for bats and falcons and noted that proposed
monitoring and conditions requiring pre-construction surveys had been included in the condition
set. He referred us specifically to conditions relating to falcons, noting that MRP had agreed to
provide staged monetary contributions to Wingspan Rotorua for the rearing and release of three
falcons to offset any risk to that particular bird species as a result of the operation of the wind
farm.
Conclusions on effects on ecological values
11.128
The key effects or potential effects on ecological values that we identified through a
consideration of all of the relevant expert evidence and that of other submitters tabled before
us related to:
 Water quality effects;
 Potential adverse effects on freshwater species, such as koura and trout;
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 114/194
 Vegetation clearance; and
 Avian fauna, primarily bats and falcons.
11.129
As the hearing evolved a very strong signal was sent to the effect that MRP would address the
Section 42A Reporting Officers‘ concerns by more pre-construction monitoring and preconstruction mapping of vegetative areas so as to ensure there was a higher level of
understanding of potential impacts.
11.130
In addition, a suite of conditions were proposed which dealt with the risk to both the freshwater
species and also the avian fauna we have referred to.
11.131
The principal risk to water quality and freshwater species related to appropriate sediment
controls. We are satisfied having regard to the evidence that there will be, by virtue of the
conditions imposed, adequate safeguards in terms of sediment controls, particularly having
regard to freshwater risks.
11.132
On the issue of sediment controls we note there was a concern expressed around sediment
entering the various sink holes and assurance that the mitigation measures proposed by MRP
were durable to ensure that, over time, sediment did not pass to groundwater via the sink
holes. We are well satisfied that that issue has been well addressed in conditions.
11.133
In relation to bats and falcons, we believe we now better understand the level of risk to this
avian fauna. We do see that risk as being low to very low. Against that background we think
that pre-construction surveys will still be useful to enable assessment as to the quantity of
species and the discrete locations of their habitat. We think the conditions that deal with bird
strike and bat strike are adequate to address potential effects on the bats and falcons.
11.134
We are also well satisfied that MRP‘s condition dealing with falcons, in particular, that provide
for staged contributions to wing span for rearing and release of falcons is a more than adequate
response to the risk of falcons being struck by the circulating turbine blades.
11.135
Of course, the offset proposed by MRP received a good deal of attention during the course of
the hearing. All of the experts were well satisfied that the location of the area and the way in
which MRP proposed to enhance the ecology of the offset area and maintain the same through
conditions would more than offset any potential effects on ecological values arising from the
construction and operation of the wind farm. We agreed with that assessment.
11.136
Thus we conclude in terms of effects on ecological values for the reasons set out above that
those effects, such as they are, will be acceptable.
Cultural effects
11.137
Our understanding of the cultural impact assessment presented by Mr Patrick Parsons on behalf
of Rangitãne did not draw attention to specific cultural issues.
11.138
We took this primarily from the conclusions of the cultural impact assessment. Mr Parsons
pointed out that by comparison with the WWF location there was a marked lack of traditional
history covering the Puketoi District. We accept that this does not mean it does not exist, but
we took that the association between tangata whenua and the Puketoi Range was transient at
best. This view is supported by the fact that the site is considered to be exceptional for a wind
farm; with the result that it is an extremely windy and exposed area. Thus, linkages and
activities would not have been established and/or occurred on the Range itself.
11.139
Any linkage or activity is more likely to have occurred, perhaps on a seasonal basis, driven by
food gathering activities centring around the streams and flatter areas, focusing on the capture
of eels and birds. Mr Parsons notes importantly for us it is unlikely that tangata whenua had
dwelling places or burial places along the summit or, indeed, along the sloping land leading to
the summit.
11.140
Thus the focus of the cultural impact assessment revolved around the establishment of
protocols to follow in the unlikely event that any Maori archaeological material was unearthed
during excavations for turbine sites, road construction, and other earthworks.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 115/194
Conclusions on cultural effects
11.141
We accept the assessment made, given that it was undertaken by a specialist in the area and
promoted by the submitter. We are able to conclude then that cultural issues are unlikely to
arise and, in any event, the archaeological accidental discovery protocol will, we think, deal with
any cultural issues that may arise.
11.142
The other point is that while it is acknowledged that Rangitãne may not possess title to the
Puketoi Range, it is accepted that it remains part of their ancestral heritage and does retain
some spiritual significance to them. To properly respect that position MRP have agreed, as a
form of acknowledgement of these heritage links, to continue to consult with Rangitãne to
enable them to make appropriate contribution. We are well satisfied both in terms of the
assessment and outcome in respect of potential cultural effects.
Economic effects
11.143
Earlier within this report we have set out MRP‘s view of economic benefits that would arise from
the grant of consent for the PWFP. Those benefits were national, regional and local economic
benefits. The key economic benefit was the creation of value from wind over time and its
subsequent beneficial effects on the electricity system through providing additional generation
capacity, satisfying the growth in demand. Another benefit was providing the ability to replace
old plants, and reduce plants that have both a higher cost characteristic and may have an
adverse effect on the environment. For example, coal-fired plants.
11.144
Mr Clough identified real economic benefits for landowners who had entered into contractual
arrangements with MRP. In the main, the landowners were farmers. We heard many
submitters describe that benefit for us. The submitters were clear that the ability to have a
continuous and consistent stream of income, given the variability in income from their farming
activities, was of great value to them. There are other substantial benefits, arising from
construction of the wind farm and transmission line. There will be demands for provision of
services and goods for the local community.
11.145
Apart from some matters raised by Mr Faulkner in terms of challenging the impacts of wind
interference effects on the WWF, Mr Clough‘s evidence was unchallenged.
Conclusion on economic benefits
11.146
We accept and recognise that the economic benefits he described arising from the grant of
consent were both realistic and reasonable.
Cumulative effects
11.147
A consideration of cumulative effects relates to effects on landscape and generation of noise
arising from an assessment of effects of PWFP as though WWF exists.
11.148
WWF is consented but that consent has not yet been implemented.
11.149
Thus, the potential cumulative effects we should have regard to are those relating to landscape,
noise, traffic, and social effects.
11.150
At the time of our hearing the Genesis CHWF proposal was simply an application. However,
during the course of our deliberation the Commissioners‘ decision in relation to the CHWF
application was released on Monday, 11 June 2012.
11.151
Accordingly, the preliminary questions we need to determine is whether or not, in terms of
Hawthorne,25 the CHWF Commissioners‘ decision amounts to a resource consent that has been
granted at the time that this application was being considered? And, is that resource consent
likely to be implemented?
11.152
We note that s116 RMA provides that a resource consent commences when the time for lodging
appeals against the grant of consent expires and no appeals have been lodged; alternatively,
when the Environment Court determines the appeals or the appellants withdraw their appeals,
unless the resource consent states a later date or a determination of the Environment Court
25
Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorne (2006) NZRMA 424 (CA).
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 116/194
states otherwise.
11.153
Accordingly then, until the lapse of the appeal period available under the RMA, the CHWF
consent does not form part of the environment in the sense that word is defined in the
Hawthorne decision. That would only occur as from, on our calculation, 2 July 2012, being the
lapsing of the 15-working day appeal period.
11.154
We have considered whether or not the CHWF could be considered under s104(1)c) RMA, being
any other matter that we consider relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the
application.
11.155
We do think that the fact that there is a proposal and then an application with a Commissioners‘
decision issued in relation to the CHWF is a relevant matter. It is probably, we think, not
reasonably necessary to have regard to that application to determine the MRP application
before us.
11.156
We observe also that given the outcome we have reached in terms of s116 RMA, the weight we
can put upon this 104(1)(c) RMA consideration is extremely limited.
11.157
In the context then of the relevant cumulative effects (such as noise, visual, traffic and,
perhaps, social effects) because we do not know the final shape or outcome of the CHWF
proposal, then we think we can place very limited weight on those issues although we think we
should have some regard to them.
Cumulative visual effects
11.158
As we understood it, there was commonality between the landscape experts on the point of
cumulative visual effects. We thought that Mr Bray, in any event, best captured the issue as we
saw it.
11.159
We acknowledge what we have just immediately stated above, that MRP did in fact undertake a
cumulative effects assessment of this proposal alongside the WWF and CHWF proposals. We
took this to be a ‗belt and braces‘ approach.
11.160
In terms of cumulative visual effects we accept the landscape evidence articulated clearly by Mr
Bray that there is a distinction between the proposed PWFP site and the WWF site, essentially
because of the differing topography of the two sites. Fundamentally, north of Towai Road, the
Puketoi Range begins to flatten out. This is graphically illustrated in Mr Bray‘s Figure 2 of the
WWF topographical site plan prepared by the Isthmus Group. This flattening out of the ridge
has an impact in terms of visual effects in that the turbines on the WWF site are not as visible
as those that would be placed on the Puketoi Range if consent is granted to the PWFP. Also,
the turbines on the Waitahora Range present a different visual picture in that they are clustered
as opposed to being ―picket fence‖ layout. The turbines on the WWF are not particularly visible
from the east side of the Range because they are setback off the ridgeline and down the slope.
Thus, the WWF site does not read as an addition to the PWFP site. It reads as a distinct and
separate wind farm. From the western side of the Range it is only at the top of Towai Road and
from private farmland that a sense of the proximity of the two wind farms is obtained.
11.161
In much the same way, the CHWF proposal presents a different topography and these
differences translate into differing inherent landscape features. There are also fundamental
differences in the layout and, as Mr Bray told us and we agree, these two proposals remain
individually distinctive. As Mr Bray said and we accept, the CHWF proposal in itself may be read
by some as a series of mini wind farms.
11.162
In the visual context we accept that there will be sequential and successive viewing of wind
turbines if a traveller covers Route 52 from Weber through Pongaroa and onto Masterton.
However, it is the CHWF proposal—because of its proximity to roadways—that is likely to be the
dominant foreground activity, making the PWFP and, for that matter on the WFF, a backdrop
and also a somewhat distant and/or far removed backdrop.
11.163
On this basis then we are comfortable in concluding that the cumulative visual effects do not
give us cause for concern.
Cumulative noise effects
11.164
As we understood the evidence from the noise experts there do not appear to be any material
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 117/194
cumulative effects on any dwellings based upon the CHWF and the PWFP. We also note that the
evidence before us was to the effect that there would not be any dwellings inside a 35 dBA
noise contour as a result of cumulative effects from either the PWFP and/or the CHWF.
11.165
We are strengthened in this view by the material provided to us by Mr Nigel Lloyd. He informed
us that there were no dwellings in the ―overlapping‖ noise area between the two wind farms.
We asked questions about the likelihood of settlement of rural residential type activities in this
area. While it could occur, we received no further information on that point. Thus we conclude
that the cumulative noise effects between the PWFP and the CHWF were not significant.
11.166
For the purpose of assessing cumulative effects Mr Hegley modelled the WWF as having 52
3MW turbines with a hub height of 100 metres and the CHWF as having 286 3MW turbines with
a hub height of up to 100 metres.
11.167
He told us these assumptions represent the maximum possible development scenario for each
proposed wind farm. He did this so as to ensure he conservatively assessed the maximum
noise level that could be experienced by residents living within the area.
11.168
He also modelled, he told us, the characteristics of the largest and hence noisiest turbine for
each proposed development. Thus by demonstrating compliance with these turbines, noise
compliance with all other potential turbines would also be achieved.
11.169
Mr Hegley was of the view that the additional effect of the CHWF had been checked and shown
to have a negligible effect on the houses influenced by the PWFP.
11.170
His Table 3 included the cumulative noise effects of the proposed WWF to the north and the
CHWF to the south, east of the PWFP site. His Table 3 demonstrated that the predicted noise
levels do not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dBA or a level of 40 dBA,
whichever is the greater. It was for these reasons he concluded that the cumulative noise
effects from the WWF, CHWF and the PWFP, if consented, still met NZS6808:2010.
Conclusion on cumulative effects
11.171
We accept these views and find that the cumulative noise effects, such as they are, not to be an
issue.
Effects on karst limestone
11.172
As we recorded earlier, the cause of effects on karst limestone will be the positioning of the
access roadway to the turbines. In addition, there is a potential effect in terms of sediment
deposition into the sinkholes and other limestone landforms.
11.173
Concerns around those possible effects were raised by the NZSS and to a lesser extent the DOC
and Fish & Game. Those parties did not ultimately appear in front of us, but we were provided
with information to the effect that confirmed that issues raised by each of them within their
submissions had been addressed by conditions; they all withdrew their request to be heard.
Conclusion on effects on karst limestone
11.174
Thus, we are satisfied that the layout chosen by MRP best limits roading impacts on the karst
landforms. The conditions of consent, particularly as they relate to sediment and erosion
control will, we think, avoid, remedy and/or mitigate any possible significant effects on the
karst landforms.
Traffic and transportation effects
11.175
Clearly, the traffic and transportation effects revolve around the construction activity. Those
effects will be for a limited duration. We accept that many of the transportation effects on the
efficiency of the roading network will be more than adequately addressed by traffic
management plans and the processes and systems in place that deal with oversized loads.
11.176
One of the key traffic effects will be noise. This is particularly centred on the Connell property.
Again, this effect will be limited in terms of duration.
11.177
We have taken into account the mitigation measure proposed by MRP. In our view, this
mitigation measure, given the duration of the effect, is more than adequate to deal with the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 118/194
issues raised by the Connells.
Conclusion on traffic and transportation effects
11.178
Overall, we are able to conclude that traffic and transportation effects are minimal and they can
be appropriately handled by mitigation measures.
Social effects
11.179
Evidence in terms of social effects was provided to us by MRP, principally in the evidence of Dr
Peter Phillips. We also note that submitters, both for and against the proposal, provided us
with material that could be described as linked to social effects.
11.180
Dr Phillips‘ opinion was to the effect that the social effects of the planning phase had been
minimal, in part because of the high level of engagement between MRP and members of the
community. We note that this point was debated from time to time by the submitters.
However, overall we conclude that MRP has undertaken extensive consultation with the
community and we agree with Dr Phillips that social effects of the planning phase were minimal.
11.181
In terms of the construction phase impacts, Dr Phillips was of the view that the construction
management plan, the construction traffic management plan, and the SEMP would address any
of the social effects arising from the construction phase. In our view, these management plans
are both appropriate and comprehensive. We think they go a long way toward addressing any
of the social effects that might arise during the construction phase.
11.182
Finally, Dr Phillips referred us to specific mitigation measures proposed for social effects,
including some targeted measures for a small number of participating landowners. For
example, the Connells. We think that these targeted measures, in the main, are appropriate
and they do provide specific mitigation for social effects that may impact on individuals.
11.183
We note that MRP had set up a community liaison group and we consider this to be a very
important means by which the voice of the community could be expressed to MRP, through all
stages of this project. Also, we noted that MRP had provided direct monetary support for a
range of community initiatives and this was to be continued during the construction and
operating phase of the project.
Conclusion on social effects
11.184
Overall, primarily based upon the evidence of Dr Phillips, we consider the social effects of the
entire project, particularly with regard to specific individual tailored mitigation measures along
with the proposed conditions of consent, could be appropriately described as being minimal.
Health effects
11.185
As we have recorded earlier, a range of submitters had concerns about what we loosely
described as health related concerns.
11.186
In response to those concerns Dr Black provided us with a comprehensive brief of evidence. He
assessed health related effects of the PWFP, including electric and magnetic fields (EMF), effects
on air quality, effects on water quality, effects of noise and vibration, visual effects (such as
blade flicker and blade flint) and electrical safety effects.
11.187
Based upon his expertise and the content of his brief we found that the PWFP, including the
proposed turbines, substation and transmission line works, could be constructed and operated
with no, or at most, minimal health effects on the environment around it. We consider that Dr
Black‘s assessment of effects in consideration of whether or not there would be compliance with
the relevant guidelines to be complete and compelling, and supported his outcome that there
would be no health effects in relation to discharges to air or water.
11.188
We also found his view that from time to time fears or concerns about the operation of a wind
farm and health effects arising from the same were commonly based upon misunderstandings
or misinformation. This did not mean to say that the concerns expressed by various submitters
were not real in their own minds. However, the basis of those fears or concerns, as he told us,
commonly arose as a consequence of misunderstanding or misinformation.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 119/194
Conclusion on health effects
11.189
We agreed with his conclusion that the measures proposed by MRP, including its usual health
and safety obligations and compliance with the resource consents, including conditions, were
appropriate to safeguard against any potential health effect issues that he discussed with us.
Positive effects
11.190
We were told that the wind resource on the PWFP site is exceptional in both national and
international terms, with the potential energy production of up to 1267 GWh, with a capacity in
the order of 44-50% and an expectation that it could generate energy at least 85% of the time.
Thus, a grant of consent to the PWFP was seen as providing for the efficient and effective
development of an exceptional renewable energy resource. That was seen as a positive factor
by MRP.
11.191
The utilisation of this exceptional energy resource for the benefit of the whole country while
utilising methods that will appropriately recognise and respond to the local environment and
manage the adverse effects that accompany a project of this size, was also promoted as
positive effect.
11.192
The economic benefits to the contracted parties we have already commented upon. This, too,
was put forward as a positive effect. Economic gains that Mr Clough referred to were also put
forward as positive effects.
11.193
Other positive effects were the ecological enhancements and gains for the environment inherent
in MRP‘s proposal to provide a mitigation offset area. As earlier described in detail, this offset
area was seen by the ecological experts as a significant positive effect of the proposal.
Key conclusions on effects
11.194
In relation to the actual and potential effects of the PWFP, our key conclusions are as follows.
11.195
We agree with MRP that ultimately the key effects issues revolve around landscape and visual
effects and noise.
11.196
In respect of all other effects arising from the likes of construction activities and transport
activities and effects on ecological issues we are well-satisfied those matters are capable of
being appropriately being dealt with by way of conditions.
11.197
In relation to the visual effects, it is our key conclusion that the visual effects on the Puketoi
Range of the wind turbines will be significant.
11.198
In terms of visual effects, we do accept that the topography, because of its structure, does
present a clear divide between the western and eastern sides of the Puketoi Range. We also
agree with the assessment of the landscape experts that from the west, with one exception-which we will refer to below — little, can be seen of the turbines from relatively close distances.
There are some distant views from the west, they will represent a change to the visual amenity
and landscape but overall, for the reasons advanced by the landscape experts, we think that
landscape on the western side of the Range is capable of accommodating and/or absorbing
these landscape effects.
11.199
We also note and have considered the point that many property owners and occupiers have
given written approvals in respect of the two key elements of the PWFP, namely the
transmission lines and the wind turbines located on the Range.
11.200
Overall, in terms of visual and landscape effects we conclude given that the critical element of
the Puketoi landform, which is the skyline, will, based on the expert evidence we have received,
remain intact and the point that the design and layout complements the Puketoi landform
rather than compete with it, and having regard to the low population generally and the
character of the area as a working environment, we have concluded that overall visual and
landscape effects are significant.
11.201
In relation to the Marshall property without mitigation measures we agree with the Marshalls
that the effect of the relevant turbines on their visual amenity will be very significant. However,
we have concluded that the imposition of conditions we think that the impact on their visual
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 120/194
amenity will be acceptable.
11.202
In terms of noise effects, we have carefully reviewed the specialist expert evidence and we note
a high level of agreement between those experts, including agreement on appropriate
conditions for standards, monitoring, and compliance. We conclude that with the exception of
the Marshall property, the noise from both construction and operation of the PWFP will readily
comply with the relevant Noise Standards. We also accept that the proposed additional noise
conditions will provide confidence that any noise issues are properly managed and adequately
mitigated. We are also of the view that traffic noise issues, particularly as they impact upon
the Connells, are capable of being mitigated by the proposed conditions.
11.203
We also accept Mr Kirkpatrick‘s submissions in relation to the high amenity issue. Our view is
irrespective of NZS 6808:2010, given that the District Council has not identified the Marshall
property as being within a high noise amenity area, we should not now create one for it. Thus
we are able to conclude based on this high level of agreement between the experts and based
on the conditions proffered by those experts that noise effects, such as they are, are
acceptable.
11.204
We have detailed responses to individual submitter issues earlier and we do not propose to
repeat them.
12
EVALUATION OF RELEVANT PLANNING INSTRUMENTS
12.1
Under s104(1(b) RMA, we are required to have regard to the relevant provisions of a range of
different planning instruments. The following section details those instruments and our
conclusions in relation to them.
12.2
The instruments and provisions thereof we have considered are of most relevance are as
follows:
National Policy Statements
12.3
There are two operative National Policy Statements (NPS) of particular relevance to this
proposal. These are the NPS for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) (gazetted 12 May 2011),
and the NPS for Renewable Energy Generation (NPSREG) (gazetted 14 April 2011). While some
witnesses did refer to the NPS for Electricity Transmission we agree with Mr Bashford that it
applies only to the National Grid and is therefore not relevant to this application.
NPS for Freshwater Management
12.4
The NPSFM contains objectives and policies in regard to water quality, and water quantity. Of
particular relevance is Objective A1, which seeks to safeguard the life-supporting capacity,
ecosystem processes and indigenous species, including their associated ecosystems of fresh
water, in sustainably managing the use and development of land, and of discharges of
contaminants.
12.5
We acknowledge that the PWFP constitutes the ―use and development of land‖, namely the
construction of a wind farm and associated infrastructure. While we noted Mr St Clair said that:
―given the proposed volume and affected area by the proposed earthworks, it is
inevitable that some soil erosion will occur, and that discharges into aquatic
environments will occur‖.
12.6
However, Mr St Clair then concluded that:
―significant adverse effects resulting from the proposed stream works can be avoided,
remedied or mitigated provided the activities are undertaken in strict accordance with the
recommended conditions‖.
12.7
Having reviewed the evidence and proposed mitigation measures, we consider that, subject to
appropriate conditions during the construction phase and ongoing monitoring and maintenance,
the PWFP will not result in the discharge of contaminants, chemicals or nitrates into the various
streams and the Makuri River that would result in any significant long term reduction in water
quality. We note that mechanisms are proposed to deal with unlikely situations such as the
contamination of a water supply. We also do not consider that the PWFP would adversely affect
the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes, and indigenous species within the streams
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 121/194
and river.
12.8
Objective A2 seeks that the overall quality of fresh water within a region is maintained or
improved while ―protecting the quality of outstanding freshwater bodies‖. The evidence
acknowledges that the Makuri River and Stream are highly regarded as a trout fishery and trout
spawning area, and for their aesthetics and significance to Maori along with and recreational
attributes. We therefore accept that these reach the threshold of ‗outstanding‘ and that their
quality is to be protected. We accepted that a range of comprehensive mechanisms and
mitigation measures have been proposed which would ensure an appropriate level of protection
is afforded the Makuri River and Stream to retain its outstanding values. We also consider the
protection of wetland areas on the wind farm site itself aligns with this objective.
12.9
Overall, we consider the PWFP is reasonably consistent with the NPSFM. The recommended
conditions would, in our view, ensure that the PWFP is carried out in a manner that would not
be inconsistent with the outcomes sought by the NPSFMs objectives and policies.
NPS for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPSREG)
12.10
The NPSREG has a single objective: To recognise the national significance of renewable
electricity generation activities by providing for the development, operation, maintenance and
upgrading of new and existing renewable electricity generation activities, such that the
proportion of New Zealand‘s electricity generated from renewable energy sources increases to a
level that meets or exceeds the New Zealand Government‘s national target for renewable
electricity generation.
12.11
The NPSREG reaffirms the Government‘s goal of 90% of electricity generation being from
renewable resources by 2025. We note that the NPS acknowledges that the benefits of
renewable energy can compete with Section 6 and Section 7 RMA matters and can potentially
also be in conflict with the relationship of Maori with their taonga and the role of kaitiaki.
12.12
We accept that the NPSREG provides a very clear policy direction at a national level that
renewable energy is to be provided; although we acknowledge it is subordinate legislation and
does not amend the Act. Given the status of an NPSREG and its position in the hierarchy of
planning documents, we consider this a very significant policy direction, to which a great deal of
weight should be afforded. To this end it requires us as decision makers: to recognise the
benefits of renewable electricity generation; acknowledge the practical implications of achieving
renewable energy generation targets; acknowledge the practical constraints associated with the
development, operation, maintenance of renewable electricity generation; and manage reverse
sensitivity effects on renewable electricity generation activities to the degree that is consistent
with the RMA‘s purpose.
12.13
We acknowledge that the evidence shows that the wind resource in this location is exceptional
and that the proposed development would, if made operational, represent a significant
contribution to renewable electricity generation targets. As is more than often the case, the
best wind resource is in elevated locations where turbines will be prominent within the
landscape and the effects difficult to avoid, remedy or mitigate; and this site is no different. We
also accept the evidence of Mr Wong Too that the wind resource drops away with the
topography of the site; thus removing turbines from the skyline of the Puketoi Range would
reduce generation levels, which could affect the viability of the PWFP and thus the utilisation of
the wind resource. We also acknowledge the landscape evidence to be that moving the
turbines down the slope but with them remaining visible would not reduce, in a substantive
way, the landscape and visual effects of the PWFP.
12.14
We also acknowledge the proposed transmission lines‘ ability to accommodate the capacity of
more than just the PWFP. Mr Kemble in the context of the NPSREG considered this to be a
―notable consideration‖ and ―a practicable response‖, which had the potential to aid in the
development of other wind farms in the general vicinity by providing for their connection to the
National Grid and was preferable, from an environmental perspective, to multiple lines. While
we did not disagree with such sentiments, without any commitment from other parties to utilise
the proposed transmission line we have not afforded this ability much weight.
12.15
We also note the possibility of a wind farm being decommissioned (indeed conditions were
proposed by the parties to that effect) and that the key visual and noise impacts are in this
situation reversible.
12.16
Policy C2 requires us in situations where there are residual environmental effects that cannot be
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 122/194
avoided, remedied or mitigated to have regard to offsetting measures or environmental
compensation, including measures or compensation that benefit the local environment and
affected community. In this regard we note that MRP has proposed a package of mitigation and
compensation, including community funding, a contribution to ‗Wingspan Rotorua ‘, and an
ecological enhancement. We accept however that this package does not offset in a ‗like for like‘
manner the key effects of the scheme, and acknowledge therefore that there will remain
residual environmental effects.
12.17
Overall, we consider the PWFP is consistent with the direction of the NPSRE and will assist in
achieving the outcomes sought in the NPSREG, at least at a regional level, the evidence being
that it provides a regionally significant quantum of renewable energy generation. Whether or
not that quantum could be more efficiently provided in the Region from schemes that have less
of an environmental impact remains perhaps debatable, but is not relevant in terms of a
judgement under these provisions.
Plan Provisions
Regional Policy Statement and Plans
12.18
The RPS became operative in August 1998, while the Proposed One Plan was notified in May
2007, and Council decisions were released in August 2010. Part One of the Proposed One Plan
contains the RPS. We accept that the objectives and policies of the proposed One Plan
represent the Council‘s most recent strategic direction for the Manawatu-Wanganui Region.
However, we are mindful that the Plan is still subject to Environment Court proceedings and
therefore the weighting we can afford it is constrained to that extent.
District Plans
12.19
There are two relevant district plans, the District Plan and the City Plan. We noted that since
the PWFP was lodged that the appeals to the Proposed District Plan have been resolved and
consent orders approved. As we understand it, the amendments to the plan provisions have not
changed the general intent of those provisions but rather have provided clarity to them.
12.20
The key provisions we consider of relevance in relation to the PWFP are discussed under the
relevant heading below.
Landscape
12.21
Provisions from the RPSs and the District Plans relating to landscape focus on protecting natural
features and landscapes of significance from inappropriate development (Objective 8 and
Policies 8.2 and 8.3 of the RPS; Objective 7-2 and Policies 7-7 and 7.7A of the One Plan and
Objective 2.6.4.1 and Policy 2.6.4.1(c) of the District Plan). We noted that the skyline of the
Puketoi and Tararua Ranges, and the Mangatainoka and Makuri Rivers are specifically referred
to in some form or another as features that are both outstanding and regionally significant.
12.22
We noted that the reference to the Puketoi Range refers to ―its scenic qualities provided by its
visual prominence in the eastern part of the Region‖, while the One Plan also refers to
―geological features, particularly the asymmetrical landform termed a cuesta‖.
12.23
The landscape evidence indicated that the impact on the Puketoi Range of the wind farm would
be significant. However, Mr Brown and Ms Buckland both considered that while the Puketoi
Range was an ONF and landscape within the context of the region, the layout of the wind farm
proposed constituted appropriate development on the Puketoi Range. Mr Bray, on the other
hand, in his supplementary evidence said he ―did not consider that the wind farm proposal is
‗appropriate‘ solely from a landscape perspective‖.
12.24
These provisions clearly related purely to the impact on ONLs and their wording does raise the
question as to what an inappropriate development might be in a circumstance such as this
where the visual aspect of the outstanding landscape, particularly from the east, is of such
importance. We note that the District Plan reasoning refers to the Council‘s aim not being to
restrict all development, or any modification, of significant features but to provide a means for
assessment of proposals in a consistent manner. Further, we accept that different turbine
configurations and positioning could well have a greater impact than that proposed.
Nevertheless, we have some sympathy with the conclusions of Mr Bray given the extent and
prominence of the wind farm along the range and its inevitable disturbance of the skyline. In
the context of these particular provisions we find it difficult not to conclude that the wind farm
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 123/194
itself located on the Puketoi Range is not to a reasonable degree inconsistent with their intent.
12.25
The Makuri River and Gorge are listed for their recreational and scenic qualities and importance
as a fisheries and wildlife habitat. We do not consider that the minor impacts on the river and
gorge are inconsistent with their ONFL status.
12.26
In terms of the Mangatainoka River, which is listed in the RPS specifically for its recreational
and ecological values as an important trout fishery, we find that the proposed crossing of the
river by the transmission lines is not inconsistent with the provisions.
12.27
With respect to the Tararua Range, which is identified as an ONFL for a number of reasons,
including its visual and scenic qualities, we note that the transmission towers will sit amongst
the consented Turitea wind farm turbines and will be significantly dwarf by them. We find that
in these circumstances the towers will not be overly dominated or impact upon those significant
values of the range to the extent that it could be said to be inconsistent with the above
provisions.
Amenity Effects
12.28
Objective 2.6.2.1 of the District Plan aims to maintain and/or enhance amenity values and
environmental quality in the District, for present and future generations, while Policy 2.6.2.2(a)
seeks to manage the effects of activities through environmental standards. Objective 2 of
Chapter 23 of the City Plan seeks to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse environmental
effects arising from the establishment and maintenance of network utilities.
12.29
A number of witnesses said that the wind farm was likely to significantly degrade the amenity
values and environmental qualities currently experienced by the Marshall property on Towai
Road. Reference was also made to a likely degrading of visual amenity to varying degrees to
the east of the Puketoi Ranges and that the transmission line was also likely to degrade visual
amenity to some extent, especially as it crosses over the Pahiatua basin. In addition to these
concerns, submitters raised concerns about effects associated with construction, in particular
traffic.
12.30
In general, we do not consider the PWFP is particularly inconsistent with these provisions.
Extensive mitigation measures accompanied by the isolation of the site mean that amenity
values and environmental qualities are generally maintained with the exception of visual
amenity values associated with the turbines along the ridgeline. In the case of the Marshall
property, we now consider that, with the mitigation measures proposed, the majority of these
provisions could be said to be now met. It is perhaps just in the maintaining and/or enhancing
of amenity values where there remains a small degree of inconsistency, given that as
acknowledged by Mr Brown, any attempt to screen the turbines through planting ―could also
have a greater impact on morning sunlight and outlook relative to Rockhaven‖ (the Marshall
property). We also accept that despite compliance being likely, and the acoustic mitigation
proposed, the noise environment for the curtilage of the Marshall property may well deteriorate
to some degree thus reducing their amenity.
Energy
12.31
A number of provisions from the two RPSs and the Proposed District Plan focus on energy
generation. They seek to have regard to its benefits and increase the use of renewable energy
(Objective 28 and Policy 28.2 of the RPS; Objectives 3.1 and 3.1A and associated policies of the
One Plan; and Objective 2.8.4.1 and Policy 2.8.4.2 (a) of the District Plan); and avoid, remedy
or mitigate the adverse effects (Objective 29 and Policy 29.1 of the RPS and Policy 2.8.4.2 (b)
of the District Plan).
12.32
We consider that the PWFP meets the intent of the first series of provisions above in that it
provides a substantial renewable energy project. Objective 2.8.4.1 of the District Plan in
particular clearly recognises the potential of the Tararua District‘s Rural Management Area for
renewable electricity generation without qualification, and notes wind farms in particular. The
subsequent policy recognises the local, regional and national benefits derived from the
development of renewable energy resources.
12.33
The second series deals with effects. Policy 2.8.4.2(b) in particular refers to potential adverse
effects and that some locations may be inappropriate, particularly in respect to amenity values,
landscape ecology, noise and traffic. We have already touched on these issues above.
However, we accept here that an inappropriate location assessment is not simply about
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 124/194
landscape values and that, for example, the site‘s isolation--the Marshall property aside--makes
it a good location from a noise and amenity perspective and that there are few other significant
impacts. While we consider there remains some degree of inconsistency with particular
provisions, when considered overall the PWFP meets their intent.
Indigenous Vegetation
12.34
Various provisions seek to protect areas of indigenous vegetation and the habitats of indigenous
fauna (Objective 9 of the RPS; Objective 7-1 of the One Plan; and Objective 2.6.4.1 of the
District Plan). In assessing these provisions we have considered the proposed conditions
associated with enhancing biodiversity and ensuring bird and fish species are protected. While
we acknowledge there is some loss of indigenous vegetation it is relatively minor and, on the
basis of the mitigation measures proposed, we consider the intent of these provisions is met.
Water Quality
12.35
The RPS; Land and Water Regional Plan; Regional Plan for Beds of Rivers and Lakes and
Associated Activities; Manawatu Catchment Water Quality Regional Plan; and the One Plan all
seek to maintain and enhance water quality and preserve the character and values of the
regions rivers, while the District Plan (Objective 2.6.6.1) looks to protect the values of the
District‘s rivers. We acknowledge that while most proposed discharges will be to land, there
remains a potential for discharge to occur into waterways. We except that the conditions
proposed will ensure mitigation measures are put in place prior to works commencing, ensuring
that the level of contaminants reaching the water is minimised. We also note the measures
proposed to ensure that the impact of structures within the various stream and the temporary
bridge across the Makuri River are minimised. On this basis we consider the PWFP is consistent
with the various provisions relating to water quality and the maintenance of the character and
values of rivers.
Cultural
12.36
Provisions in the RPS and the District Plan all require the recognition of, and provision for, Maori
values (Objective 3 of the RPS; Objective 2.10.3.1 of the District Plan). We note that
submissions from Iwi raised concerns regarding the effects of the wind farm development on
the cultural values of areas. We heard from Rangitāne o Tamaki Nui a Rua (Rangitāne) with
regards the cultural significance of the Puketoi Range and Makuri River and their expressed
concerns about the visual impact of the turbines.
12.37
We acknowledge that Rangitāne consider the Puketoi Range as being culturally significant and
that the location of the wind farm on the ridgeline is of some concern. We note however that
the effects could be reversible and that protocols are proposed to deal with any archaeological
finds during construction. In terms of effects on waterbodies and indigenous fauna and flora,
we consider that the proposed conditions of consent would ensure that any cultural impacts are
mitigated.
12.38
Overall, we consider that this proposal is not inconsistent with these provisions although we
accept there is a degree of discomfort with the visual impacts.
Key Conclusions on Planning Instruments
12.39
Having reviewed the various planning instruments we conclude that there is an element of
inconsistency with those regional and district provisions relating to landscape and, to a lesser
extent, amenity.
12.40
We also conclude that the PWFP meets the intent of the two NPSs and that with the imposition
of conditions the remaining provisions of the Regional and District Plan are able to be achieved.
13
EVALAUTION OF OTHER RELEVANT S104 MATTERS
13.1
Under s104(1)(c) RMA, we are required to have regard to any other matters that we consider to
be relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.
13.2
In this regard, we acknowledge that the New Zealand Energy Strategy and the New Zealand
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy have a preference for renewable energy generation
within the national policy framework.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 125/194
13.3
We also note that the National Environmental Standard for Sources of Human Drinking Water
establishes a number of regulations that relate to activities occurring upstream of registered
drinking water supplies. In this regard, we accept that the proposed conditions put in place are
sufficient to ensure that if any supplies were to be contaminated, then measures are activated
to maintain water supplies to the affect community and remedy the contamination issue.
13.4
As we have already noted, we have considered the PWFP under this part of Section 104,
particularly in relation to possible cumulative effects.
14
SECTIONS 105 AND 107 RMA
14.1
We have earlier set out Sections 105 and 107 in full. We record that in our assessment of
effects for the discharge permits we have had regard to the nature of the discharge and the
sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects, and MRP‘s reasons for the proposed
choice of discharge. We have accepted that all possible alternatives, limited though they are,
have been considered. Overall, when we consider the conditions proposed we are well-satisfied
that the effects arising from all discharges are acceptable.
14.2
Section 107 relates to the discharge of contaminants and/or water into water. We are satisfied
that this activity will not give rise to any of the effects set out in subparagraphs (c) through (g)
of subsection (1). We are also satisfied that with the imposition of the conditions we have
included that the level of effects arising from the discharges would be acceptable.
15
PART 2 RMA
15.1
Section 104(1) states that the matters which we have discussed above are subject to Part 2,
which covers Section 5 through Section 8 inclusive.
Section 6 – Matters of National Importance
15.2
Sections 6 identifies matters of national importance that we must ―recognise and provide for‖
when making our decision, including in particular as relevant to the PWFP, protecting
ONFs/ONLs (Section 6(b) RMA).
15.3
As acknowledged by MRP, the requirement to recognise and provide for the protection of
ONFs/ONLs from inappropriate subdivision, use and development has been a key issue in this
application.
15.4
We agree with MRP that one of the key questions that this hearing has given rise to is whether
or not the outstanding nature of the Puketoi Range can be retained if the development here
proposed occurs.
15.5
While the landscape evidence from some experts was to the effect that the visual and landscape
impacts will be significant, they still contended primarily as a result of the positioning of the
turbines on the ridgeline; the height of the turbine tower allowing the rotor blades to be well
above the ridgeline; and the layout of the turbines (being in a ‗picket fence‘ layout as opposed
to a cluster) resulted in the outcome that the key values that made the landscape an ONL,
namely its skyline, could be retained. We accept that evidence. In reaching that finding we
agreed with Mr Kirkpatrick that we must clearly bear in mind that the invisibility of wind
turbines is not a sustainable objective. They must be tall and in clear air to serve their
purpose. This point was also referred to in MainPower v Hurunui DC (2011) (the Mount Cass
case) NZ ENVC at page 384, in particular at paragraph 363 of the decision, where the Court
noted:
―A wind farm must be located in an exposed area. The Mount Cass turbines will be
clearly visible over a wide area and there will inevitably be mixed perceptions of their
effect on visual amenity. While these views are not, in the main, from private dwelling
houses, for many persons, particularly those working and living in the lee of the
mountain, the change to the landscape will be adverse and very likely negatively impact
on their appreciation of the landscape. These effects are not determinative but rather
matters to be taken into account for consideration under Part 2 of the Act.‖
15.6
In this particular case, based on the landscape assessments we have received and accepted, we
find that the ONL that is the skyline would, according to the landscape evidence we have
received, remain an ONF.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 126/194
15.7
However, we acknowledge that the impacts on the visual amenity and landscape of the PWFP
will be significant. We received in evidence a range of views and mixed perceptions about these
effects. However, we are mindful of the fact that the landscape is sparsely populated. From
the east, we considered that, in the main, views from private dwelling houses will not be unduly
negatively impacted upon. We say this because the evidence clearly showed that with the
prevailing wind direction many of the private dwelling houses located on farms were surrounded
by substantial shelter belts, which blocked the view of the ridgeline.
15.8
We accept that there were many available views of the turbines from people‘s working
environment. However, we considered that the most sensitive viewing points or those points
that were more deserving of protection, in contrast with the working landscape, were views
from dwelling houses and their immediate curtilages.
15.9
In terms of Section 6 we find there will be undeniable and significant visual adverse effects on
the landscape and local amenity. Overall, from a landscape and visual amenity point of view we
reach the conclusion in terms of Section 6(b), given that the effects on the ONF/ONL are high or
significant, that the PWFP is not an appropriate development.
15.10
Section 6(a) provides for the preservation of the natural character of rivers and their margins,
and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision use and development.
15.11
In this context, the local rivers, their margins and the natural character of the same may be
affected, primarily by the construction activity on the site. However, we are well-satisfied that
the CEMP, SEMP, and conditions of consent as proposed in relation to the construction activity
will lead to the outcome that s6(a) RMA seeks.
15.12
Section 6(c) provides for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and
significant habitats of indigenous fauna. In the context of the PWFP, we are not here dealing
with areas of significant indigenous vegetation. Any indigenous vegetation is sparse and is
generally located below the ridgeline on the scarp face. None of the proposed intended
activities will take place within that area. In terms of the significant habitats of indigenous
fauna, the focus has been on the long-tail bat, the New Zealand falcon, and lizards. We are
well-satisfied that the pre-activity surveying and monitoring coupled with the monitoring
conditions in relation to both bats, falcons, and lizards will ensure that there will be protection
of significant habitats of indigenous fauna.
15.13
Section 6(d) provides for the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the
coastal marine areas, lakes, and rivers. We have concluded that the grant of consent of the
PWFP will not in any way impede public access to rivers. Indeed, it may very well be the case
that public access is enhanced, particularly to the ecological offset area.
15.14
Section 6(e) provides for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu, and other taonga. In this particular case, primarily as
a result of the cultural impact assessment, we have considered the level of relationship of Maori
and their culture to the PWFP site. The relationship will be enhanced, primarily because of
MRP‘s commitment to continue consultation and dialogue with Rangitãne as the PWFP develops.
Conclusions on Section 6
15.15
In conclusion in terms of s6, while we have found that this PWFP is an inappropriate
development in terms of s6(b), other sub-sections of s6 are well-supported by the PWFP,
particularly when the proposed conditions inclusive of mitigation measures are considered.
15.16
Notwithstanding the finding we make in terms of s6(b), we accept that in the sense used in
s6(b), the appropriateness or acceptability of a proposal is to be assessed where the ONL does
not amount to a kind of veto.
Section 7 – Other Matters
15.17
Section 7 lists ―other‖ matters that we shall ―have particular regard to‖. We make the following
observations in relation to each of those matters as they are relevant to this application,
referring to the sub paragraph numbers of s7.
15.18
Sections 7(a) and (aa) require us to have particular regard to Maori views regarding the way in
which the land is to be used. However, we note that this does not confer a right of veto on
tangata whenua. We accept that there is sufficient flexibility under the RMA to enable
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 127/194
kaitiakitangā to be exercised in a number of ways. Kaitiakitangā needs to be provided with the
opportunity to exercise guardianship of the natural and physical resources of the area in
accordance with tikanga Maori. We noted from the evidence received, particularly from
Rangitane, that the ethic or practice of kaitiakitangā was not prevalent, let alone consistent,
within the PWFP area. Nor did we consider, based on the evidence, that the kaitiakitangā
function related to the need or practice of caring for something that was of great value for the
relevant tribe or hapu.
15.19
Nevertheless, we recognise that MRP in seeking to meet its obligations under Section 7(a) has
chosen to do so by undertaking, to date, full consultation with tangata whenua during the
planning stage of the PWFP. MRP also seeks to extend that consultation and conversation
through to implementation of the activity and has provided, as a consequence of conditions, an
opportunity to hear and understand the views of tangata whenua and to let those views
influence the decision-making.
15.20
The Section 7(a) provision extends to the ethic of stewardship, something that we understand
to be different from, though related to, the concept of kaitiakitangā. This involves consideration
of the role of other parties, relevantly in this case, DOC, Fish & Game, QEII Trust, and perhaps
also the NZSS. All of these groups, to a level, have exercised stewardship over parts of the
PWFP site. We also note the existence of the community liaison group mechanism that MRP has
proposed. All of these elements, we agree, provide for the role that other parties have to play
within the PWFP site. The willingness of MRP to undertake consultation and continue with
consultation through the implementation phase we think meets the purpose of Section 7(aa)
RMA.
15.21
Section 7(b) considers efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. In that
regard, the evidence of Mr Clough and Mr Wong Too is of high relevance.
15.22
We were told much about the outstanding wind resource on the PWFP site and how harnessing
that wind resource represents an efficient use of it. Also, in terms of the transmission line, we
were told it would have sufficient capacity to provide transmission for Puketoi, but also
potentially for WWF and the CHWF. In this way efficiencies would be gained.
15.23
In terms of the wind resource itself, we also noted that there was no issue given it is a
‖renewable resource about the finite characteristic of the resource‖. We are also alive to the
point that notwithstanding the evidence about the high value of the wind resource we do not
need to be satisfied that this proposal is the ―best‖ project in terms of net benefit to satisfy the
efficiency criterion within Section 7(b) RMA. We note and accept that the evidence, opinions
and views put forward to us by Mr Clough and Mr Wong Too were unchallenged. In respect of
our approach to the issues raised on the Marshall property we have endeavoured to have
particular regard to s7(b) in terms of our decision to reduce the turbine height for WT 4, 5, 6
and 7.
15.24
Section 7(ba) requires that particular regard be had to the efficiency of the end use of energy.
We did not receive a great deal of evidence in respect of this particular point, but the efficiency
issue we think has been addressed in terms of s7(ba) RMA.
15.25
Section 7(c) states that the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values must be given
particular regard in the consideration of resource consent applications. Here, the evidence of
Mr Hegley, Dr Phillips, Mr Stephen Brown, Ms Buckland, and Mr Philip Brown are all relevant.
We largely accept that when all this evidence is taken into account and that of submitters in
support of the PWFP then s7(c) is, in the majority of instances, achieved.
15.26
In relation to the Marshall property, even with the screening proposed by MRP, we were of the
view that s7(c) would not be met. However, provided screening is put in place before turbines
are erected, and the screening maintained throughout the life of the PWFP, coupled with the
reduction in height of those turbines results, we think, in s7(c) being satsifed.
15.27
However, we do note that in the Rangitikei Guardians case26 the Court noted that the costs and
benefits under s7(b), (c) and (j) must be taken into consideration with no sub-section carrying
greater than any other. In that particular case, the Court concluded that although construction
of a wind farm would create localised adverse effects on visual amenity values (s7(c) RMA),
effects were not widespread and they were outweighed by the wider benefit of efficient use and
development of a renewable energy resource, namely s7(b) and (j) RMA.
26
INSERT reference.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 128/194
15.28
Given the approach we have brought to bear in relation to the Marshall property we think that
that outcome is also available to us in this particular case. In other words, while there are
amenity effects, we are of the view that the benefits of efficient use and development of a
renewable energy resource outweighs those adverse effects on visual amenity values.
15.29
Section 7(d) highlights the importance of intrinsic values of ecosystems.
15.30
In that regard we have referred to the evidence of Dr Blaschke. His evidence and that of others
utilises an ―avoidance first‖ approach in relation to actual and potential ecological effects
associated with the PWFP. Where this outcome is not available, then MRP has demonstrated
that remediation, minimisation, compensation, and measures to offset effects are proposed. In
regard to minimisation there are the CEMP, the SEMP, the traffic management plans, and
matters of that sort available. Compensation has been offered and has been paid, in certain
circumstances, to affected parties. Offsets are available in terms of the ecological mitigation
area provided by MRP. We think that all of these matters satisfies and are in accord with s7(d)
RMA.
15.31
Section 7(f) is concerned with the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the
environment. We note the broad definition of the term ―environment‖ under the RMA. We
think that s7(f) requires an overall broad assessment. Taking into account all of the expert
evidence we have heard impacting on the quality of the environment and how that quality will
be maintained, as well as evidence from lay submitters, we are satisfied that after considering
the PWFP from a broad standpoint that overall, the quality of the environment will be
maintained. We acknowledge that visual amenity and environmental quality, in some
instances, will not be maintained should the PWFP be constructed. However, we note that the
quality of the environment is not a matter of national importance under the RMA, but is a
matter for sustainable management under Section 5(2) RMA.
15.32
Section 7(g) seeks particular regard to be had to the finite characteristics of the natural and
physical resources. In this instance we have an outstanding wind resource. We also have
consideration of the finite nature of the ONL and features, significant habitats (such as the
limestone habitat) and habitats for threatened indigenous fauna (such as New Zealand falcons
and long-tail bats). A balance is required, we think, under s7(g). On the one hand, MRP is able
to maximise the electricity that is generated from the wind resource. On the other hand, we
think that MRP has more than adequately responded to the habitat values and, to a lesser
extent, the landscape values that the subject site for the wind turbines impacts upon; so that
overall, MRP is acting in accordance with s7(g).
15.33
Section 7(h) concerns itself with the protection of trout and salmon. Dr Boothroyd covered this
fully in his evidence. There was a level of issue concerning adverse effects on trout spawning
habitat in the Makuri Stream. The solution to the risk was to avoid bed disturbance during the
trout spawning season and by otherwise minimising such disturbances. Sediment discharge
was another issue that could impact upon trout and other freshwater species. Based on the
evidence we have heard, in terms of both bed disturbance activities and also provisions relating
to sediment discharge, we are satisfied that s7(h) can be achieved.
15.34
Sections 7(i) and (j) require particular regard be had to the effects of climate change and the
benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. In this case, we
were told of the positive effects of this proposal in terms of climate change and use of
renewable energy. These are matters that we need to take into account as part of the overall
balancing exercise. We understand, particularly from the evidence of Mr Clough, that there is a
likely contribution of the PWFP to reduce greenhouse emissions, due to this form of energy
generation being utilised over more expensive forms of energy generation. It also enables
retirement of older energy generation plants and provides flexibility to the generator to make
choices in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We understand that this particular
issue, while clearly relevant in relation to this proposal, is not a ‗trump card‘; rather, a
balancing exercise is required against other competing circumstances, such as—relevantly in
this case—adverse effects on an ONL/ONF and amenity values.
Conclusions on s(7)
15.35
We can make a finding that in terms of all Section 7 RMA matters with the possible exception of
s7(c) for the reasons already advanced that the grant of consent would be in accordance with
s7 RMA. In terms of s7(c) matters, we think that while there are still risks and concerns with
the Marshall property, we are satisfied that the changes we have brought about through
conditions move the circumstance closer to s7(c) being satisfied. We record that other than in
relation to the Marshall property we have no reservation that the grant of consent would result
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 129/194
in the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values in all other respects.
Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi
15.36
Section 8 RMA requires we take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o
Waitangi). As we see it, we understand the relevant principles referred to by Section 8 RMA to
be:
(a)
Partnership;
(b)
Active protection and rangatiratanga; and
(c)
Mutual benefit.
15.37
We have reached the view the principle of partnership has been addressed and supported by
the consultation that has occurred by MRP. Also, we think that the commissioning of a cultural
impact assessment is important in that it demonstrated the value MRP placed on it. Further,
the response of MRP to that cultural impact assessment also demonstrates that the principle of
partnership has been addressed.
15.38
We conclude rangatiratanga has also been recognised by MRP. This has occurred through
acknowledging that the manawhenua status of a range of hapu iwi and Runanga who are in
some way connected to the PWFP site. Also, the liaison with Rangitãne is evident of this
recognition. The proposed conditions of consent, which seek to protect the environment and
also provide for important matters such as accidental discovery protocols, are also
demonstrations of this act of protection.
15.39
In relation to the final principle of mutual benefit in the context of Treaty principles we see
there is to be ongoing engagement with Rangitane, and this is embodied in the conditions of
consent. This will allow for mutual benefits in terms of decisions that need to be made about
implementation of the consents, if granted. We think this will be of mutual benefit, both to iwi
and MRP.
Section 5 – Purpose of the RMA
15.40
Before addressing Section 5 directly, we record that we agree with the submissions in reply by
Mr Kirkpatrick when he discussed the relationship between Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 RMA. We
accept that none of the issues under either Sections 6-8 amount to, as he described it, a veto.
Rather, the outcome of our considerations under Sections 6-8 all go towards informing the
overarching assessment required in terms of the purpose of the RMA, as provided for in Section
5. Expressed another way, Sections 6-8 qualify or inform the Section 5 purpose.
15.41
We also agree that the weight to be given to various elements of Sections 6-8 and other
provisions of Section 104 depend critically upon the evidence and the weight to be given to
each element will contribute to the integrated assessment required under Section 5.
15.42
We also accept that the assessment of matters under Part 2 RMA, whether as to matters of
effects or the application of objectives and policies in statutory planning documents, is to be
undertaken in terms of a judgement as to what is appropriate or inappropriate, and not simply
in terms of degrees of effect.
15.43
MRP has well-recognised that here the competing considerations are landscape, recognised as
having district significance, mapped against the opportunity to provide for renewable energy
generation. MRP has also recognised that the grant of consent will give rise to significant visual
amenity and landscape effects. In some instances, for some individuals, the PWFP as originally
promoted would lead to significant adverse effects on visual amenity and amenity in general.
We have further altered the proposal in a minor way we think to address concerns, particularly
as they relate to the Marshall property, to provide what we think is a better balance in terms of
the competing considerations.
15.44
It was MRP‘s submission that the national significance of provision of renewable energy
outweighs any landscape or visual amenity or noise effect that may arise as a consequence of a
grant of the PWFP. The outcome or result of this analysis was, MRP said, that the proposal
cannot be an inappropriate development in the context of Section 5 RMA. We generally agree
with that assessment. This is particularly so after the amendments we have made in relation to
the Marshall property we have referred to above.
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 130/194
Overall evaluation
15.45
Under s104B RMA, we have discretion as to whether or not to grant consent. This requires an
overall judgment to achieve the purpose of the Act and is arrived at by:
(a)
Taking into account all the relevant matters identified under s 104;
(b)
Avoiding consideration of any irrelevant matters;
(c)
Giving different weight to the matters identified under s 104 — depending on our opinion
as to how they are affected by the application of s 5(2)(a), (b), and (c) and ss 6-8 — to
the particular facts of the case; and then in light of the above; and
(d)
Allowing for comparison of conflicting considerations, the scale or degree of conflict, and
their relative significance or proportion in the final outcome.
15.46
Like other decisions on wind farms, this decision comes down to weighing up the national level
benefits and the adverse effects, particularly on landscape at the local level. In this case there
are undeniably adverse effects on landscape, visual character, and local amenity. However, as
we have identified in our Section 6 analysis there are some benefits to the environment. Local
ecosystems are better protected an enhanced. The ecological offset area is a certain gain.
There are gains and benefits as we have identified in our Section 7 assessment.
15.47
The key countervailing benefit, as we see it, is the addition to the regional, national and global
positives in terms of renewable energy generation. In essence, the national level benefits in
terms of energy generation and use of renewalable resources, in our view, outweigh the
adverse effects at the local level, primarily in terms of adverse visual and amenity effects.
15.48
We acknowledge that the PWFP will be highly visible, by definition it will be exposed to views; it
must be placed in a position where it can utilise the available high quality wind resource. This
will unavoidably involve the loss of visual amenity, and there will be landscape effects.
However, we are satisfied based on the expert landscape evidence that we have seen that the
underpinning values and characteristics of the ONL, namely the ridgeline, will be maintained,
even with the grant of consent for the PWFP.
15.49
We accept that with the intended changes in this locality, the nature of the overall landscape
will change markedly if all three wind farm proposals are consented and constructed.
Nevertheless, we take some comfort from the fact that the objective and policy base—both of
the district and regional plans—contemplate that outcome, albeit by way of Discretionary
Activity status. We think this is why, when we have considered the various policy and planning
instruments, we have been able to conclude in an overall sense that the grant of consent does
not involve a direct conflict with them.
15.50
Overall, we conclude that the loss of amenity generally, the loss of visual and landscape
qualities—to the extent that it is unavoidable—should yield to the managing the resources for
the development and use of the Puketoi Range as a wind farm, inclusive of the transmission line
and compliance with the proposed conditions promoted by MRP, including the offset area as
proposed. Thus, we conclude that the purpose of the RMA would be better served by granting
the consents sought as we have amended them and by attaching the proposed conditions,
rather than refusing them.
15.51
Having reviewed the PWFP documents, all the submissions, taking into account the evidence to
the hearing and taking into account all relevant provisions of the RMA and other relevant
statutory instruments, we have concluded that the outcome that best achieves the purpose of
the RMA is to GRANT IN PART consent.
16
CONDITIONS
16.1
Given our decision to grant consent, we have given careful consideration to the conditions that
are necessary to avoid, remedy and mitigate the potential adverse effects of the PWFP. As a
starting point we have used the final set of conditions agreed upon by the Councils and MRP
provided to us at the end of the hearing.
16.2
During the course of reviewing the evidence received from all participants we have identified
various issues, which needed to be, or were intended to be, covered and provided for within the
condition sets. We are satisfied after a detailed review of the condition sets that all matters
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 131/194
that we have raised as issues in the course of our review of the evidence (set out above) have
been provided for within the conditions.
16.3
In the course of the decision we have referred to the various parts of the PWFP that were
amended by MRP, largely in response to submitter concerns. Again, with the help of s42A
report officers, we have worked to ensure that, where relevant, the most up to date plans,
which provide for those amendments, are appropriately referenced in the condition sets.
16.4
The set of conditions provided to us was broken into component parts and included a number of
comments on discrete issues from Council officers. We have retained the component parts of
the conditions as provided to us and addressed, where necessary, various comments. Further,
we have made modifications and additions to the conditions and addressed the crossreferencing. Also provided at the front of the conditions are a series of definitions, which are
designed to provide clarity and reduce the scale of the document.
16.5
A substantial component of the conditions related to the establishment of the various
Management Plans. These include a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP),
Supplementary Environmental Management Plan (SEMP), Avian and Bat Species Management
Plan, Pre-Instalment Assessment and Noise Management Plan (NMP), and Construction Traffic
Management Plan. In addition, a Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation
Plan, and a Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan are required. These plans all address various
components of the development and set in place mechanisms to ensure that any potential
adverse effects are minimised. The plans address potential effects associated with construction,
such as operating hours and traffic movements, include measures for identifying and protecting
native birds and bats, and deal with potential impacts on waterways, streams, and rivers.
16.6
Series of conditions are included that are designed to address specific adverse noise effects,
including construction noise, operational noise, a NMP (as referred to above), the assessment of
special audible characteristics, and ongoing noise monitoring. Conditions are also included to
address the impact of lighting and shadow flicker, and to deal with potential effects such as
erosion, sedimentation control and dust, along with conditions requiring post construction
monitoring.
16.7
Conditions agreed by both parties (MRP and Contact) have been imposed to deal with the
potential for the PWFP to interfere with turbines on the adjacent WWF in terms of turbulence.
16.8
Aquatic ecology has been addressed through monitoring and an Adaptive Aquatic Management
Response Plan, and there are a suite of conditions associated with the construction of bridges,
fords and culverts.
16.9
Cultural and archaeological matters have been addressed through conditions relating to an
archaeological and cultural site protocol, an accidental discovery protocols, and excavation of
koiwi tangata remains. Further, ongoing consultation has been dealt through contact and
complaints procedures, conditions requiring and ongoing relationship with tangata whenua and
the establishment of a Community Liaison Group (CLG). A condition establishing community
funds has also been included.
16.10
A series of conditions around have been placed on the establishment, legal protection and
ongoing maintenance of the ecological mitigation / offset package to ensure its success into the
future.
16.11
To ensure that drinking water standards are maintained, a condition on potable water supplies
has been included, which requires that in the event that a water supply is prevented from being
used, an emergency supply is put in place and a timetable for remediation is established.
16.12
A series of conditions on the decommissioning of the concrete batching plants after construction
and the wind farm and transmission line themselves on their discontinuation for a continuous
period of 36 months have been incorporated to ensure that all sites are appropriately remedied
in that event.
16.13
In addition to the noise monitoring and blade flicker conditions, we have also developed specific
amenity conditions in relation to the Marshall property. These involve acoustic glazing of part
of the house and requiring the height of four turbines to be reduced, coupled with landscape
screening, which is required to reach a specific height prior to the turbines being installed.
16.14
Finally, a compensation condition associated with adverse effects of the construction of the
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 132/194
PWFP on the Connells.
16.15
Overall, we consider that the conditions proposed will address the potential adverse effects
associated with the construction and operation of the PWFP.
Lapse periods and terms of consents
16.16
We record that all of the Section 42A Report Officers favoured the lapse period and terms of the
resource consents as sought by MRP.
16.17
We have taken into account whether or not there may be a ‗lock up‘ of resource and the
creation of uncertainty among affected persons in the wider community in respect of terms of
consents and lapse periods. In the end, we accept the submissions made by Mr Kirkpatrick that
there will be no lock up in terms of the wind resource.
16.18
Given the scale of the PWFP and the range of factors that affect the lead time for
implementation as detailed by Mr Worth. We have also taken into account the evidence from
Mr Worth about the scale of the PWFP and the range of factors that may affect the lead time for
implementation. We have also taken into account the degree of uncertainty that would exist for
MRP if had to seek an extension of time.
16.19
Thus, having considered all of the evidence and taking into account the competing
considerations, we have concluded that the lapse period and term of consents sought by MRP
are appropriate.
16.20
Accordingly, the duration of these consents and lapse periods shall be as follows:
(a)
a lapse period of 10 years in respect of all consents;
(b)
a term of 14 years for those consents that relate to construction;
(c)
unlimited terms for all consents relating to the ongoing existence and operation of the
wind farm and transmission line; and
(d)
a term of 35 years for all consents within the scope of Section 123A(a), (b), (c) and (d)
RMA.
17
DECISION
17.1
Pursuant to the powers delegated to us by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, the
Tararua District Council, and the Palmerston North City Council; and
17.2
For all of the above reasons and pursuant to Sections 104 and 104B of the Resource
Management Act 1991, we GRANT applications sought from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council by Mighty River Power Limited, namely:
105960 – Land Use Consent – for vegetation clearance and soil disturbance, including
earthworks in a Hill Country Erosion Management Area;
105961 – Discharge Permit (discharge to land) – for the discharge of stormwater to land,
including stormwater from the substation, switchyard, workshop, staff ablutions building,
and fuel storage areas;
105962 – Discharge Permit (discharge to land) – for discharge of water from the concrete
batching plants.
105963 – Land Use Consent (land disturbance) – for works and disturbance within beds
of rivers associated with the construction of bridges, fords, and culverts;
105964 – Discharge Permit (discharge to land) – for the discharge of wastewater
associated with the Operation and Maintenance Facility;
105965 – Land Use Consent (construct) – for works and disturbance within the beds of
rivers for bridges, fords, and culverts;
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 133/194
105966 – Discharge Permit (discharge to land) – from the surplus cleanfill from
earthwork activities;
105984 – Discharge Permit (discharge to water) – for the discharge of sediment laden
stormwater to the limestone drainage network, and from the limestone drainage network
to ‗down-slope‘ surface watercourses; and
105985 – Water Permit – for the diversion of water and sediment laden stormwater from
the limestone drainage network and from other environments.
17.3
For all of the above reasons and pursuant to Sections 104 and 104B of the Resource
Management Act 1991, we GRANT IN PART land use consent 202-2011-53 sought from the
Tararua District Council by Mighty River Power Limited for:
the construction, operation and maintenance of the Puketoi Wind Farm and associated
infrastructure and activities, including:
17.4

53 turbines;

a double circuit transmission line (voltage up to 220 kV per circuit);

equipment for meteorological data collection;

modification, damage or destruction of Category B natural features or landscape (being
the skylines of the Puketoi and Tararua Ranges, the Makuri River and Gorge, and the
Mangatainoka River);

removal of indigenous vegetation, land disturbances and earthworks;

construction of buildings and structures within 20 metres of rivers and streams; and

buildings exceeding the height limit and recession plane requirements in the Rural
Management Area.
For all of the above reasons and pursuant to Sections 104 and 104B of the Resource
Management Act 1991, we GRANT land use consent LU1336 sought from the Palmerston North
City Council by Mighty River Power Limited for:
the construction, operation and maintenance of a double circuit electricity line with a
voltage up to 220 kV (per circuit) and a design capacity of up to 1,330 MVA, and
associated earthworks. Within Palmerston North City, the transmission line will comprise
nine transmission towers ranging in height from 37.2 metres to 52 metres.
17.5
Pursuant to Section 108 RMA, the grant of the above-described consents is subject to the
conditions specified and included in the conditions schedule, which conditions form part of this
decision and consent.
17.6
The duration of the consents shall be as earlier described within this decision.
DECISION DATED AT CHRISTCHURCH THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2012
Signed by:
Paul Rogers
Dean Chrystal
Jeff Jones
PGR-122080-1-44-V1
Page 134/194
Consent Conditions
PART A:
Definitions
PART B:
Tararua District Council Consent 202-2011-53
PART C:
Palmerston North City Council Consent LU1336
PART D:
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council Consents, 105960, 105961,
105962, 105963, 105964, 105965, 105966, 105984 and 105985
SCHEDULE 1: Conditions relevant to Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council,
Tararua District Council and Palmerston North City Council
Consents
SCHEDULE 2: Conditions relevant to Tararua District Council and Palmerston
North City Council Consents
SCHEDULE 3: Conditions relevant to Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
Consents
PART A: Definitions
In these consents, unless the context requires otherwise:
The
Act means
amendments)
the
Resource
Management
Act
1991
(including
all
subsequent
AEP means annual exceedence probability
Bulk Earthworks means the cut and fill earthworks required to re-grade an area. It also
includes larger scale earthworks such as for building excavation.
CAA means the Civil Aviation Authority.
Cave means a subterranean (underground) opening in rock that has been formed by
dissolution of the limestone rock by water, and is greater than 500 mm in diameter. A
cave may have one or more of the following speleological values: significant karst feature;
recreational caving value; contain paleobiological material, and/or subterranean fauna or
flora.
Cave and Karst expert means a person suitably qualified and experienced to recognise and
assess cave and karst geology and other speleological values, and also able to determine
when further expert opinion (e.g. paleobiological or entomological) may be required to
make an appropriate assessment of such values. Selection of this expert is to be done in
consultation with the NZ Speleological Society and the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council.
CEMP means the Construction Environmental Management Plan prepared in accordance
with condition 8 of Schedule 1 of the consents.
CLG means the Community Liaison Group established in accordance with condition 80 of
Schedule 1 of the consents.
CNMP means the Construction Noise Management Plan prepared in accordance with
condition 10 of Schedule 2 of the consents.
Conduit and/or cavity means an opening or void within the limestone less than 500 mm in
diameter.
CTMP means the Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared in accordance with
condition 25 of Schedule 2 of the consents.
Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) means a vehicle comprising 4 or more axles
Paleobiological means pertaining to the preserved prehistoric remains of biological material
which have fallen or have been washed into caves or sinkholes.
PNCC means Palmerston North City Council
Puketoi Wind Farm External Footprint: Those areas to be disturbed that are outside the
Puketoi Wind Farm site on which specific elements of the project infrastructure are to be
sited, including (but not necessarily limited to); 220kV transmission line foundations and
associated tracking and sites along the external road transport route where physical
alterations are made.
Puketoi Wind Farm Internal Footprint:
Those areas to be disturbed that are within or
immediately adjacent to the Puketoi Wind Farm site on which specific elements of the
project infrastructure are to be sited, including (but not necessarily limited to); on site
access roads, fill sites, earthwork areas, turbine foundations, sub-stations, batching plants
and 33kV transmission line.
Relevant Council(s) means the Tararua District Council, Palmerston North City Council or
Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council as the context requires.
NMP means the Noise Management Plan prepared in accordance with condition 16 of
Schedule 2 of the consents.
NZS6801 means New Zealand Standard 6801:2008 Measurement of environmental sound.
NZS6802 means New Zealand Standard 6802:2008 Acoustics – Environmental Noise.
NZS6803 means New Zealand Standard 6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise.
NZS6808 means New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise.
Threatened avifauna species means those avifauna species identified as threatened by
Miskelly et al 2008 [Conservation status of New Zealand Birds, 2008, Miskelly C.M.,
Dowding J.E., Elliot G.P., Hitchmough R.A., Powlesland R.G., Roberston H.A., Sagar P.M.,
Scofield R.P., and Taylor G.A, 2008. Notornis 55: 117-135.], or its subsequent equivalent.
Threatened bat species means those bat species identified as threatened by Hitchmough et
al. 2007 [New Zealand Threat Classification System Lists - 2005, Rod Hitchmough, Leigh
Bull and Pam Cromarty (comp), January 2007, Department of Conservation, 194p (ISBN
0-478-14128-9)], or its subsequent equivalent.
Threatened herpetofauna species means those herpetofauna species identified as
threatened by Hitchmough et al. 2007 [New Zealand Threat Classification System Lists 2005, Rod Hitchmough, Leigh Bull and Pam Cromarty (comp), January 2007, Department
of Conservation, 194p (ISBN 0-478-14128-9)], or its subsequent equivalent.
SAM means Sediment Assessment Method from ―Clapcott, J.E., Young, R.G., Harding, J.S.,
Matthaei, C.D., Quinn, J.M. and Death, R.G. (2011) Sediment Assessment Methods:
Protocols and guidelines for assessing the effects of deposited fine sediment on in-stream
values. Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.‖
SEMP means the Supplementary Environmental Management Plan prepared in accordance
with condition 10 of Schedule 1 of the consents.
Sinkhole refers to a hole or depression in the ground surface formed by the dissolution of
the underlying limestone. There are a number of types of sinkholes, which are defined by
the specific geology and geological processes occurring at the site of the sinkhole.
Sinkholes also may contain paleobiological material, beetles and other subterranean fauna
or flora.
Speleological means of or relating to caves.
Swallow Holes otherwise known as ―stream sinks‖ are locations where water disappears
into the ground to follow a subterranean flow path often reappearing again a few tens of
metres further down slope.
Truck means a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass exceeding 3,500kg.
Wind Farm Site means all land parcels illustrated in MRP-PKT-7001 as included in the
application for these resource consents dated 2 August 2011.
Working days means ―working day‖ as defined in the Act, unless specifically provided
otherwise in the consent conditions.
Void means any naturally occurring cave, conduit or cavity.
PART B: Tararua District Council Land Use Consent 202-2011-53
General
1.
Resource Consent 202-2011-53 is subject to compliance with Schedules 1 and 2
attached.
Review Conditions
2.
3.
Pursuant to section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Tararua
District Council may serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to review
any or all of the conditions of this consent at one yearly intervals during
construction of the Puketoi Wind Farm and Transmission Line and, after the
commissioning of the Puketoi Wind Farm as authorised by this consent, during the
month of July 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040, for any of the following
purposes:
a.
To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the
exercise of the consent which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage; or
b.
For the purpose of requiring reasonable steps to be taken to avoid, remedy or
mitigate any adverse effect on the environment that may arise from the
exercise of this consent and that was not anticipated at the time of
commencement granting of the consent; or
c.
To review the adequacy of, and necessity for, any of the monitoring
programmes or management plans that are part of the conditions of this
consent.
In accordance with section 128 of the Act, the Tararua District Council may within
twelve months of the Crown settling any relevant claim under the provisions of the
Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to
review the conditions of this consent for the purpose of ensuring that this consent
is consistent with the provisions of any such settled claim.
PART C: Palmerston North City Council Land Use Consent LU1336
General
1.
Resource Consent LU1336 is subject to compliance with Schedules 1 and 2
attached.
Review Condition
2.
3.
Pursuant to section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Palmerston
North City Council may serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to
review any or all of the conditions of this consent at one yearly intervals during
construction of the Transmission Line and, after the commissioning of the
Transmission Line as authorised by this consent, during the month of July 2015,
2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 for any of the following purposes:
a.
To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the
exercise of the consent which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage; or
b.
For the purpose of requiring reasonable steps to be taken to avoid, remedy or
mitigate any adverse effect on the environment that may arise from the
exercise of this consent and that was not anticipated at the time of
commencement granting of the consent; or
c.
To review the adequacy of, and necessity for, any of the monitoring
programmes or management plans that are part of the conditions of this
consent.
In accordance with section 128 of the Act, the PNCC may within twelve months of the
Crown settling any relevant claim under the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi Act
1975, serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to review the conditions of
this consent for the purpose of ensuring that this consent is consistent with the
provisions of any such settled claim.
.
PART D: Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
Land Use Consent 105960: For vegetation clearance and soil disturbance, including
earthworks in a Hill Country Erosion Management Area,
Discharge Permit 105961: For the discharge of stormwater to land, including stormwater
from the substation, switchyard, workshop, staff ablutions building, fuel storage areas,
Discharge Permit 105962: For the discharge of water from concrete batching plants to
land,
Land Use Consent 105963: For works and disturbance within the beds of rivers associated
with the construction of bridges, fords and culverts,
Discharge Permit 105964: For the discharge of wastewater to land associated with the
Operations and Maintenance Facility,
Land Use Consent 105965: For works and disturbance within the beds of rivers associated
with the ongoing use of bridges, fords and culverts,
Discharge Permit 105966: For the discharge of surplus cleanfill from earthworks to land,
Discharge Permit 105984: For the discharge of water and sediment laden stormwater to
the limestone drainage network and from the limestone drainage network to ‗down-slope‘
surface watercourses, and
Water Permit 105985: For the diversion of water and sediment laden stormwater from the
limestone drainage network and from other environments.
General
1.
Consents 105960, 105961, 105962, 105963, 105964, 105965, 105966, 105984 and
105985 are subject to compliance with Schedules 1 and 3 attached.
Review Conditions
2.
Pursuant to section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council may serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to
review any or all of the conditions of this consent at one yearly intervals during
construction of the Puketoi Wind Farm and Transmission Line and, after the
commissioning of the Puketoi Wind Farm as authorised by this consent, during the
month of July 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035 and 2040 for any of the following
purposes:
a.
To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the
exercise of the consent which it is appropriate to deal with at a later stage; or
b.
For the purpose of requiring reasonable steps to be taken to avoid, remedy or
mitigate any adverse effect on the environment that may arise from the exercise
of this consent and that was not anticipated at the time of commencement
granting of the consent; or
c.
To review the adequacy of, and necessity for, any of the monitoring programmes
or management plans that are part of the conditions of this consent.
d.
To review the effectiveness of the conditions of this resource consent in avoiding,
remedying, or mitigating, any adverse effect on the environment that may arise
from the exercise of this resource consent (in particular the potential adverse
environmental effects in relation to ecology, archaeology, vegetation removal or
earthworks effects);
e.
3.
Reviewing the conditions of consent at the same time of other resource consents
within the Makuri Water Management Sub-zone.
In accordance with section 128 of the Act, the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
may within twelve months of the Crown settling any relevant claim under the
provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, serve notice on the Consent Holder of
its intention to review the conditions of this consent for the purpose of ensuring that
this consent is consistent with the provisions of any such settled claim.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
SCHEDULE 1: General conditions relevant to Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council, Tararua District Council and Palmerston North City Council Consents
General Conditions
Authorised Works, Lapse Date and Term
1.
The development shall be undertaken in general accordance with the plans and
information submitted with Mighty River Power‘s resource consent applications dated
2 August 2011, as modified by:
1.1
1.2
Mighty River Power‘s responses to requests from Manawatu-Wanganui
Regional Council for further information under section 92 of the Act dated:
o
12 September 2011;
o
23 September 2011;
o
30 September 2011; and
o
7 February 2012.
Mighty River Power‘s responses to requests from Tararua District Council for
further information under section 92 of the Act dated;
o
24 August 2011,
o
21 September 2011;
o
13 February 2012; and
o
15 February 2012.
1.3
Mighty River Power‘s response to PNCCs return of an incomplete application
under section 88 of the Act, dated 8 September 2011;
1.4
Any other documentation submitted by Mighty River Power relevant to the
applications.
1.5
The Commissioner‘s Final Decision on Mighty River Power‘s applications.
1.6
For the avoidance of doubt, the development shall be undertaken such that;
1.6.1
The Wind Farm has no more than 53 turbines to be constructed
within 50m of the locations specified in drawing number MRP-PKT2201-B;
1.6.2
The turbines are no more than 160m in height (as measured from
the existing ground level to the vertically extended blade tip),
expect that turbines WT 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall be not more than
130m in height (as measured from the existing ground level to the
vertically extended blade tip);
1.6.3
The rotor diameter on turbines do not exceed 130m;
1.6.4
The hub positions on turbines do not exceed 100m above the
original ground level, expect that for turbines WT 4, 5, 6, and 7 the
hub position shall be not more than 70m in height; and
1.6.5
External transmission towers or poles do not exceed 52 metres in
height and are moved laterally no more than 30 metres and are
moved along the alignment no more than 30 metres from the sites
indicated on plans MRP-PKT 5101-D, MRP-PKT 5121-C, 5122-B,
5123-C, 5124-C, 5125-C, 5126-D, and MRP-PKT 5209-D , MRP-PKT
5210 Sheet 1Rev B, MRP-PKT 5210 Sheet 2 Rev B, MRP-PKT 5210
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Sheet 3 Rev C, MRP-PKT 5210 Sheet 4 Rev B and MRP-PKT 5210
Sheet 5 Rev C.
2.
For the purposes of section 125(1) of the Act, these consents shall lapse if not given
effect to within 10 years after the date of commencement of the consents.
3.
The terms for consents 105960 (vegetation clearance and soil disturbance), 105962
(discharges from concrete batching plants) and 105963 (bed disturbance associated
with construction of bridges, fords and culverts) shall be for a period of 14 years
from the date of commencement of the consents. The terms for other land use
consents (under section 13 of the Act), discharge permits and the water permit shall
be for a period of 35 years from the date of commencement of the consents.
4.
The construction activities shall be limited to a period of no longer than 54 months
from the commencement of Bulk Earthworks.
5.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that any operator or contractor undertaking works
authorised by these consents, shall have access to these conditions, on a need to
know basis, prior to the works commencing.
6.
A copy of these resource consents shall be kept onsite at all times that physical
works authorised by these resource consents are being undertaken and shall be
produced without unreasonable delay upon request from an employee, servant or
agent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council.
7.
The consent holder shall be responsible for all contracted operations related to the
exercise of these resource consents, and shall ensure contractors are made aware of
the conditions of these resource consents and ensure compliance with those
consents.
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
8.
At least 60 working days prior to the commencement of any construction works, the
Consent Holder shall submit a detailed CEMP to the relevant Council(s) for
certification. The CEMP shall be prepared with the assistance of a suitably qualified
environmental management specialist(s), and in accordance with the Wellington
Regional Council‘s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington
Region dated September 2002 (Reprinted June 2006). The CEMP shall include the
following:
8.1
Objectives of the environmental management process;
8.2
Outline of the relevant statutory and contractual requirements;
8.3
Proposed construction methodology and timetable for all construction works;
8.4
A process for reviewing the CEMP, including the process for developing and
advising the Council of revisions;
8.5
Roles and responsibilities, including
Manager who is:
appointment
of an Environmental
a) contactable for the duration of the construction works;
b) responsible for compliance with the CEMP, SEMPs and these conditions;
c) contractually authorised by the Consent Holder to issue instructions to any
contractor working on site as required to ensure compliance with these
conditions; and
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
d) available to meet with the respective Council‘s compliance staff as required
to review issues relating to these conditions.
8.6
Training to ensure all contractors are made aware of the conditions of these
consents and of the need to comply with them at all times;
8.7
Procedures for keeping records of public complaints and any action taken in
response to such complaints;
8.8
A list of specific construction areas and construction activities to be covered
by separate Site Environmental Management Plans (SEMP), and
methodologies for preparing them;
8.9
An outline of the key potential environmental effects and measures to be
adopted to avoid, remedy or mitigate these including but not limited to:
a) Minimising sediment discharges to surface and groundwater
b) Monitoring
discharges
and/or
the
receiving
environment
implementation of trigger levels and associated response mechanisms
and
c) Avoiding, to the extent practicable, the importation and use of any water or
gravel source containing or likely to contain invasive organisms.
d) Avoiding all known and recorded caves and cave entrances
e) Avoiding, to the extent practicable, exposed surface limestone outcrops,
stream sinks, sinkholes, karst features without surface expression, seepage
zones dominated by indigenous vegetation, springs and other perennial
water, and if avoidance is not practicable, measures to minimise or
mitigate effects on these features.
f) Avoiding, wherever practicable, the alteration of ground or surface water
flow paths through the addition of sediment or covering of sink holes and
infiltration zones.
8.10
A requirement to limit construction activities to the hours of 7:00AM to
7:00PM on weekdays and Saturdays with no construction activities on
Sundays or statutory holidays, except for the following activities which are
allowed to occur outside these hours:
a) Construction activities associated with emergency works or to respond to a
health and safety matter or to respond to other unforeseen events that risk
compromising the integrity of the construction which cannot reasonably
wait; and
b) Nacelle and Blade lifting.
8.11 A requirement to engage a suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical
Engineer to ensure adequate investigations are completed and geotechnical
constraints are effectively managed through detailed design and construction.
8.12 A requirement to engage a suitably qualified landscape architect to advise on
the following landscape aspects, such that as far as practicable, they are
incorporated in the final design:
a) All cuts, fills and embankments for the access roads to the wind farm and
along the top of the ridge, are graded and formed so that they appear as
natural extensions of the adjacent landforms and landscape patterns;
b) All disturbed areas are grassed or replanted and maintained to appear as
an integral part of the adjacent rural landscape;
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
c) Disposal areas for surplus excavation material are contoured so they
visually integrate with the rural setting;
d) Placement of surplus material will seek to enhance the use of the land; and
e) The colour of any operations buildings are in keeping with the Puketoi
landscape.
8.13 Accidental Discovery Protocols in relation to cultural and archaeological sites,
and caves and palaeobiological deposits, in accordance with conditions 18 to
20, and 21 to 25 of this Schedule. The Accidental Discovery Protocol for caves
and sinkholes shall also include methods to be followed when constructing
over caves once the requirements outlined in conditions 21 to 25 of this
Schedule have been fulfilled;
8.14 Emergency responses for managing hazardous substances and any spills;
8.15 Procedures for inspections, monitoring and reporting; and
8.16 General methods the consent holder will implement to ensure construction
contractors comply with the CEMP and conditions of this consent.
9.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed CEMP has been obtained from the relevant Council(s).
In the event the relevant Council(s) does not provide a response within 20 working
days of receiving the CEMP, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the
construction in accordance with the submitted CEMP plan and the conditions of
consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the CEMP by the relevant
Council(s) shall be based on the Relevant Council(s) assessment as to whether the CEMP
adequately addresses those matters contained in conditions 8.1 to 8.16 of this schedule.
Where the relevant Council(s) considers the CEMP cannot be certified, their response
should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
Supplementary Environmental Management Plan (SEMP)
10.
For each area that requires a SEMP (as listed in the certified CEMP), the Consent
Holder shall submit an SEMP to the relevant Council(s) for certification at least 30
working days prior to the commencement of any construction works within the
relevant SEMP area. The purpose of the SEMPs is to indicate how the CEMP will be
applied on a site specific basis. Each SEMP shall be prepared by a group of suitably
qualified experts (including input as appropriate from the consent holder, contractor,
designer, ecologist, erosion and sediment control specialist, and Karst expert). The
preparation of the SEMP shall include, but not be limited to, an on-site meeting and
walk-over by this group of experts and a representative from the relevant Council(s)
of the area or activity location for each SEMP submitted. Each SEMP shall, as a
minimum be based upon and incorporate those specific principles and practices
contained within the Greater Wellington Regional Council document titled ―Erosion
and Sediment Control – Guidelines for the Wellington Region, dated September
2002 (Reprinted June 2006). Each SEMP shall include at least the following:
10.1
A location plan;
10.2
A description of the work to be undertaken;
10.3
Contact details for the contractor(s) undertaking the work;
10.4
A work programme;
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
10.5 A method statement covering construction method, monitoring, all weather
access to erosion and sediment controls and contingencies;
10.6 Results of flocculation bench testing;
10.7 Provision that sediment retention ponds and decanting earth bunds are to be
chemically treated in accordance with the Flocculation Management Plan
required under Condition 17 of Schedule 3.
10.8 Design drawings for the works covered by the SEMP, showing:
a) The extent of soil disturbance and vegetation removal
b) The location of waterways
c) Any ―no go‖ and/or buffer areas to be maintained undisturbed adjacent to
watercourses;
d) Vegetation clearance methods and vegetation stockpiling;
e) Cut and Fill areas;
f) Spoil stockpile and disposal areas;
g) Culverts and associated works in watercourses;
h) Erosion and sediment control measures;
i) Stormwater management
permanent measures;
measures;
including
both
temporary
and
j) The boundaries and areas of catchments contributing to all sediment
impoundment structures; and
k) The locations of all specific points of discharge to the environment.
10.9 Schedules covering:
a) Construction timetable for the erosion and sediment control works and the
bulk earthworks proposed;
b) Re-vegetation and rehabilitation (identification of re-vegetation to be
undertaken, re-vegetation methods to be used and any maintenance to be
carried out, shall as a minimum, include all matters contained in the
Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan (required pursuant to condition 68 of
this Schedule) as and where relevant);
c) Inspection and reporting schedule in particular in response to adverse
weather conditions, including a requirement that all erosion and sediment
control structures are inspected on a weekly basis and within 24 hours of
each rainstorm event that is likely to impair the function or performance of
the control structures;
d) The inspection and reporting schedule shall include:
i. The date, time and results of the monitoring undertaken; and
ii. The erosion and sediment controls that required maintenance; and
iii. The date and time when maintenance was completed.
iv. The records shall be provided to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council at all reasonable times and within 72 hours of a written request
to do so.
e) Rainfall response and contingency measures to minimise adverse effects in
the event of extreme rainfall events and/or the failure of any key erosion
and sediment control structures.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
f) Details of maintenance and monitoring activities;
g) Procedures and timing for decommissioning and re-stabilising of sediment
ponds, and other erosion and sediment control measures, at the
completion of construction; and
h) Procedures and timing for the review and/or amendment to the certified
SEMP.
11.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed SEMP has been obtained from the relevant Council(s).
In the event the relevant Council(s) does not provide a response within 20 working
days of receiving the SEMP, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the
construction in accordance with the submitted SEMP plan and the conditions of
consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the SEMP by the
relevant Council(s) shall be based on the Relevant Council(s) assessment as to
whether the SEMP adequately addresses those matters contained in conditions 10.1
to 10.9 of this schedule. Where the relevant Council(s) considers the CEMP cannot
be certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent
Holder.
12.
A SEMP to undertake a construction activity within the jurisdiction of the PNCC shall
either be consistent with the principles and methods contained in the certified
Turitea Wind Farm CEMP (as required pursuant to condition 6 of Schedule 1 of the
Turitea Wind Farm Consents); or if a certified Turitea Wind Farm CEMP does not
exist, the SEMP shall be consistent with the principles and methods contained in the
certified Puketoi Wind Farm CEMP required pursuant to condition 8 of this Schedule
1 of this consent. In either case, the SEMP shall take particular account of potential
adverse effects on the Turitea Reserve Water Supply Catchment.
13.
Any changes proposed to the SEMP shall be confirmed in writing by the consent
holder and certified in writing by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council acting in
a technical certification capacity, prior to the implementation of any changes
proposed.
14.
The consent holder shall ensure that copies of all certified SEMP‘s, including any
certified amendments, is kept on site and these copies are updated within 5 working
days of any amendments being certified.
15.
The consent holder shall ensure that appropriate management practices and
measures are implemented to exclude stock from all areas of the works authorised
by these resource consents where grazing, trampling or physical damage by stock
may reduce the effectiveness of erosion and sediment controls.
16.
The consent holder shall ensure that sediment losses to natural water arising from
the exercise of these resource consents are minimised during the term of this
consent and particularly during the duration of the works. In this regard, erosion
and sediment control measures shall be established and maintained in accordance
with the document titled ―Erosion and Sediment Control – Guidelines for the
Wellington Region, dated September 2002 (Reprint June 2006), and the certified
SEMP‘s.
17.
The CEMP shall detail the measures to be implemented to suppress dust caused by
the movement of construction vehicles on Coonoor Rd, Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road,
Domain Road and South Range Road during the construction period.
Advice Note: There is a hierarchy of environmental management plans, with specific
management techniques to address each type of activity.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is an
umbrella document, providing the framework under which the
Supplementary Environmental Management Plans (SEMPs) are to be
prepared.
The SEMPs are a site specific application of the CEMP, providing
sufficient detail about the specific design for that part of the works to
ensure there is certainty of environmental outcomes.
Cultural and Archaeological Matters
Archaeological and Cultural Site Protocol
18.
The Consent Holder shall, in consultation with Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a Rua and
Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Inc., develop an Accidental Discovery Protocol, which is to
form part of the CEMP to manage and protect the integrity of known and any
discovered archaeological and cultural sites (including Taonga) from damage or loss.
The protocol shall clearly set out:
18.1 The steps to taken should any prehistoric or historic archaeological site or
sub-surface deposits be found, including (but not necessarily limited to) those
matters outlined in conditions 19 and 20 of this Schedule.
18.2 The arrangements between the consent holder and Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a
Rua for the training of the consent holder‘s contractors and consultants in the
procedures of the Accidental Discovery Protocol.
Accidental Discovery Protocols
19.
If Taonga (treasured or prized possessions, including Maori artefacts) or
archaeological sites are discovered in any area being earth-worked, the Consent
Holder shall cease work within a 100m radius of the discovery immediately and
contact relevant iwi, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and the relevant
Council(s). Works shall not recommence in that area until; a site inspection is
carried out by relevant iwi representatives, relevant Council(s) staff and staff of the
Historic Places Trust (if they consider it necessary); the appropriate action has been
carried out to remove the Taonga and record the site, or alternative action has been
taken; and approval to continue work is given by the relevant Council(s). The site
inspection shall occur within three working days of the discovery being made.
Excavation of Koiwi Tangata Remains
20.
If during construction activities, any Koiwi (human skeletal remains) or similar
materials are uncovered, works are to cease within a 100m radius of the discovery
immediately, and the Consent Holder shall notify the New Zealand Police, relevant
iwi, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and the Relevant Council(s). Works shall
not recommence in that area until a site inspection is carried out by relevant iwi
representatives, relevant Council staff, and staff from the Historic Places Trust and
the New Zealand Police (if they consider it necessary); the appropriate ceremony
has been conducted by relevant iwi (if necessary); and if appropriate, the materials
discovered have been removed by the iwi responsible for the tikanga appropriate to
their removal and preservation or re-interment, or alternative action (e.g. works are
relocated) has been taken; and approval to continue work is given by the Relevant
Council(s).
Advice Note: It is possible that archaeological sites exist within the area of works.
Evidence of archaeological sites may include burnt and fire cracked stones, charcoal,
rubbish heaps including shell, bone and/or glass and crockery, ditches, banks, pits,
old building foundations, artefacts of Maori and European origin of human burials.
The consent holder is advised that in addition to any other notification requirements
of this consent, it should contact the Historic Places Trust if the presence of an
archaeological site is suspected. Work affecting archaeological sites is subject to a
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
consent process under the Historic Places Act 1993. If any activity associated with
the Puketoi Wind Farm or Transmission Line, such as earthworks, fencing or
landscaping, may modify, damage or destroy any archaeological site(s), an authority
(consent) from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust must be obtained for the work
to proceed lawfully. The Historic Places Act 1993 contains penalties for unauthorised
damage.
Cave and Karst Matters
21.
The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced Cave and
Karst expert to advise on the final detailed design for siting of the wind farm
infrastructure, including the final placement of turbines and associated
infrastructure, and transmission, roading, erosion and sediment control and other
infrastructure. The Consent Holder shall engage such an expert to:
21.1
Survey all areas to be disturbed by the construction of the wind farm; and
21.2
Prepare a report that:
a) Identifies any features or items of significance that have regional value,
including surface karst features, and potential cave systems that may
hold significant speleological value, and will be affected or potentially
affected by the construction of the wind farm; and
b) Recommends options to avoid or minimise any adverse effects on those
values identified.
22.
The Consent Holder shall provide a copy of the report required pursuant to condition
21 to the Relevant Council and the New Zealand Speleological Society within 20
working days of the report being completed. Where appropriate and practical, the
Consent Holder shall also include recommendations provided pursuant to condition
21.2 (b) into the final earthworks design, the CEMP and any relevant SEMPs.
23.
If during construction activities, any unknown cave or large void is unintentionally
uncovered, all work within a 30m radius of the discovery is to cease immediately.
The Consent Holder shall then engage an appropriately experienced Cave and Karst
expert to investigate the void to determine whether or not it is of speleological
significance.
24.
If, following the investigations undertaken pursuant to conditions 23, the Cave and
Karst expert considers the uncovered void contains potentially significant
speleological values, the Consent Holder shall notify the Relevant Council and shall
not continue works within a 30m radius of the uncovered void (or a lesser radius if
approved in writing by the Relevant Council) until it has written approval to do so
from the Relevant Council. The Relevant Council can provide approval to continue
works once it is satisfied the Consent Holder has either:
24.1 Redesigned the relevant construction earthworks to protect or minimise any
adverse effects on the void including the speleological values uncovered; or
24.2 Arrange for the excavation, removal, preservation and documentation of the
palaeobiological material as appropriate and necessary to protect the material
from significant adverse effects; or
24.3 Taken such other steps that may be appropriate and practicable to avoid or
mitigate any adverse effects on the void including the speleological, values
uncovered.
25.
If, following the investigation undertaken pursuant to condition 23, the Cave and
Karst expert considers the uncovered void does not contain potentially significant
speleological values, the Consent Holder may continue works in accordance with the
certified CEMP and any relevant (and certified) SEMP.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Terrestrial Ecology Matters
General
26.
The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist to
advise on the final detailed design for siting of the wind farm infrastructure,
including the final placement of turbines and associated infrastructure, and
transmission, roading, erosion and sediment control and other infrastructure. In
undertaking the final detailed design, the Consent Holder shall, in addition to the
advice from the ecologist, also give effect to:
26.1 The Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan prepared in accordance with
conditions 28 and 29 of this Schedule;
26.2 All relevant recommendations arising from the pre-construction avian and bat
utilisation surveys or the Avian and Bat Species Management Plan undertaken
in accordance with conditions 33 and 45 of this Schedule respectively;
26.3 The Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan prepared in accordance with
condition 68 of this Schedule; and
26.4 All relevant Transpower Regulations, including (but not limited to) Electricity
(Hazards from Trees) Regulations (2003) and the New Zealand Code of
Practice for Electrical Safe Distances.
27.
The trimming of vegetation by the consent holder post-construction shall be limited
to that required for mitigation of edge effects (as outlined in the Rehabilitation and
Landscaping Plan prepared in accordance with condition 68 of this Schedule), the
maintenance of clearance beneath transmission lines and the maintenance of road
access.
Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control
28.
The Consent Holder shall undertake the following:
28.1 Weed monitoring and control in all areas disturbed by construction and those
areas adjacent to the disturbed areas that may, as a result of construction, be
adversely affected by weeds
28.2 Weed monitoring and control within the Mitigation Package Area, as required
by the ecological mitigation/offset package
28.3 Trapping, termination and disposal of wild cats, rats, possums and mustelids
within the Mitigation Area required pursuant to Condition 61 of this Schedule
and along the length of internal wind farm road MC40 at a frequency to be
specified in a Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan.
28.4 Control of wild cats, possums, rats and mustelids within all herpetofauna
translocation areas both prior to and after translocating any herpetofauna.
29.
For the purposes of condition 28, at least 60 working days prior to the
commencement of any construction works, the Consent Holder shall submit the
Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council for certification. The Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan shall be
prepared in consultation with the Department of Conservation, and with the
assistance of suitably qualified and experienced ecologist, and shall address of the
following matters:
29.1 The aims of the Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
29.2 The areas to be monitored and controlled including, as a minimum, the
Puketoi Wind Farm Internal and External Footprints and the Mitigation
Package Area required pursuant to Condition 61 of this Schedule.
29.3 The species to be monitored and controlled (by reference to their status in
relevant plans such as the Regional Plant Pest Management Strategy and
Regional Animal Pest Management Strategy), including provision to review
those species should a new species be identified after construction has
commenced. The list of weeds to be monitored is to include ecologicallythreatening species and shall also take account of weeds of concern to the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional, Palmerston North City and Tararua District
Councils, and that are listed in the National Pest Plant Accord.
29.4 The frequency of weed monitoring inspections within areas proposed to be
disturbed to be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced person or
persons. For the Puketoi Wind Farm Footprint, these shall occur at 3-monthly
intervals from the start of construction until one year after the completion of
construction.
From the one year post construction anniversary, weed
monitoring shall be undertaken at least annually.
29.5 The specification of control intensity and measures for particular types of
animal and plant pests for each of the areas covered by the Plan, including:
a) Targets for animal and plant pest control;
b) Spacing of traps;
c) Frequency of trap checks;
d) Methods for controlling animal pests; and
e) Methods for controlling plant pests.
29.6 Control details of weed hygiene controls, including equipment wash-down
sites and facilities, the sources and hygiene requirements for quarried
material, and inspection and preventative measures to prevent terrestrial and
freshwater weeds being transported to and from the Puketoi Wind Farm and
Internal and External Footprints from and to other locations
29.7 Methodologies and timing for reviewing the frequency of weed and pest
monitoring and control activities.
30.
The Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan shall be consistent with the
Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan where both plans relate to the same areas.
31.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan has been
obtained from the relevant Council(s). In the event the relevant Council(s) does not
provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the SEMP, the consent
holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in accordance with the
submitted Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Weed and Pest
Monitoring and Control Plan by the relevant Council(s) shall be based on the
Relevant Council(s) assessment as to whether the Weed and Pest Monitoring and
Control Plan adequately addresses those matters contained in conditions 29.1 to
29.7 of this schedule. Where the relevant Council(s) considers the Weed and Pest
Monitoring and Control Plan cannot be certified, their response should outline these
inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
32.
The Consent Holder shall undertake the weed and animal pest monitoring and
control in accordance with the certified Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
and shall submit an annual report to the Relevant Council(s) and the Department of
Conservation by 1 July each year for 35 years following the commencement of
construction works. The annual report shall outline the results of the weed and pest
monitoring and control works and report on the Consent Holder‘s compliance with
the Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan
Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Surveys
33.
The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced avian and bat
expert(s) to undertake and complete a Pre-construction Avian Survey and Preconstruction Bat Utilisation Survey prior to the commencement of any construction
works.
34.
The Pre-construction Avian Survey and Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Surveys shall
be developed in consultation with the relevant Council(s) and the Department of
Conservation.
35.
As a minimum, the Pre-construction Avian Survey shall:
35.1 Be undertaken through one spring to late summer season (1 November to 30
April) including five minute bird counts and observations of bird flight heights
conducted monthly. Five minute bird count methodologies used shall be
those developed by Dawson and Bull, 1975 as described in ―Assessment of
Effects on Avifauna at the Proposed Puketoi Wind Farm‖ (John L Craig, May
2011). As a minimum, and as relevant, this shall be done at all locations
illustrated in MRP-PKT-6441-B, attached to this Schedule as Annexure 1A.
35.2
Document seasonal presence of Nationally At Risk and Threatened bird
species;
35.3
Document relative abundance, bird flight pathways and seasonal habitat use
patterns of bird species as indicated by results obtained pursuant to Condition
35.1 of this Schedule;
35.4
Record seasonal variation for indigenous species that the avian experts
determine are at particular risk from wind turbines as indicated by results
obtained pursuant to Condition 35.1 of this Schedule;
35.5
Analyse relative risk for bird species; and
35.6
In relation to New Zealand Falcon, include;
a) surveys during at least two breeding seasons (October – January) inclusive
of surveys conducted during 2011-2012 within the Puketoi Wind Farm
Internal Footprint and at any adjacent areas that contain suitable falcon
breeding habitat including, as a minimum, the eastern slopes of the
Waewaepa Range and the Makuri Gorge.
b) documentation on where within and adjacent to the Wind Farm falcons are
currently breeding, including results of any nest searches,
c) assessment of the potential for falcons to be present in the future (either
breeding or non-breeding),
d) assessment of the potential for falcons to be disturbed or displaced by the
construction and operation of the wind farm; and
e) assessment of the potential for falcons to fly within the Puketoi Wind Farm
Internal Footprint.
36.
As a minimum, the Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Survey shall be undertaken
through one full spring to late summer season (1 November to 30 April), additional
to surveys conducted during 2011-2012, and shall include:
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
36.1 Deployment and servicing of automatic bat detection boxes, including (but
not limited to) locations denoted in MRP-PKT-6436-C, attached to this
schedule as Annexure 1B, and
36.2
At least two fixed acoustic monitoring devices at each potential turbine site
where bat activity can be reasonably expected to occur, and also within the
following sites:
a) within 50m of both indigenous and exotic forested areas,
b) within 50m of linear landscape features, such as roads, and large
shelterbelts, and
c) within 100m distance of all ADBRs at which monitoring bat activity up to
March 2012 indicated likely bat activity.
37.
36.3
Identification of all actual and potential bat roost sites within the Puketoi Wind
Farm site (in both exotic and indigenous vegetation), including maternity
roosting sites (if found);
36.4
Climatic data during the acoustic monitoring, including temperature, rain,
wind speed and wind direction;
36.5
Qualifications
monitoring.
and
contact
details
for
those
people
carrying
out
the
The data from the Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Survey conducted in accordance
with condition 36 of this schedule shall be used for the following:
37.1 To analyse relative risk for bat species,
38.
37.2
To develop protocols to ensure no bats are injured or killed during vegetation
removal or construction, and
37.3
In the preparation of the Avian and Bat Species Management Plan and the
Post Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring Plan.
If bat activity levels at any turbine site prior to its commissioning exceeds two
passes in any one night the Consent Holder shall provide for bat strike monitoring in
the Post-Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring Plan required in accordance
with conditions 48 to 53 of this Schedule to identify and quantify any collision strike
mortality at those turbine sites.
Bat Roost Sites
39.
If any bat roosts (potential or likely as indicated by bat signs etc) are found during
the Pre-construction Avian Survey and Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Survey a Bat
Roost Report shall be submitted to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council for
certification, 30 working days prior to construction commencing which details:
39.1 the location of the surveyed area;
40.
39.2
any bat roost trees identified;
39.3
measures implemented to clearly identify and protect any bat roost trees; and
39.4
proposed avoidance measures where bat roost trees may be adversely
affected by the works
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed Bat Roost Report has been obtained from the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. In the event the Council does not provide a
response within 20 working days of receiving the Bat Roost Report, the consent
holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in accordance with the
submitted Bat Roost Report and the conditions of consent.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Bat Roost Report
by the relevant Council(s) shall be based on the Relevant Council(s) assessment as
to whether the Bat Roost Report adequately addresses those matters contained in
condition 39 of this schedule. Where the relevant Council(s) considers the Bat Roost
Report cannot be certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the
Consent Holder.
41.
The consent holder shall not remove or adversely affect any bat roost tree until such
time as the Bat Roost Report has been certified by the Manawatu-Wanganui
Regional Council.
42.
If active bat roosts are found, the Consent Holder shall either avoid such roost trees
or demonstrate how potential adverse effects on bat roost trees will be avoid,
remedied or mitigated to the satisfaction of the Manawatu Wanganui Regional
Council.
43.
The consent holder shall avoid disturbance of all bat maternity roosts while they are
in use.
Pre-commissioning Trials
44.
The consent holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced expert(s) to
undertake a species carcass search trial for avifauna and bats prior to the
submission of the Avian and Bat Species Management Plan (ABSMP) as required by
condition 45. This trial shall determine:
44.1
the rate of carcass removal by scavengers,
44.2
carcass decomposition rates,
44.3
searcher efficiency in order to be able to account for these factors when
determining the numbers of collisions, and
44.4
the efficacy of dogs in locating carcasses (if dogs are to be used).
The method and findings of the search trial shall be included in the ABSMP.
Avian and Bat Species Management Plan
45.
At least 90 working days prior to the commencement of any construction works, the
Consent Holder shall submit an Avian and Bat Species Management Plan for the
Wind Farm to the relevant Council(s) for certification. The Avian and Bat Species
Management Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the relevant Council(s) and
the Department of Conservation, and with the assistance of suitably qualified and
experienced avian and bat expert(s), and shall utilise the results of the Preconstruction Avian Survey and Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Surveys. As a
minimum, the Avian and Bat Species Management Plan shall include the following:
45.1 Identification of methods to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of
the wind farm on threatened avifauna species and/or threatened bat species;
45.2
If as a result of pre-construction monitoring specified in Condition 35.6 of this
Schedule, NZ Falcon nests are found within 200m of a turbine site(s):
a) Methodologies for monitoring for New Zealand Falcon during the Wind Farm
construction phase and avoidance measures to minimise any disturbance
risks identified pursuant to condition 35.6 (d) of this Schedule, and
b) Methodologies for falcon nest searching prior to and during the Wind Farm
construction phase and details regarding construction buffers to be adhered
to during the construction phase if any nests are found.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
45.3
In relation to other threatened avifauna species, identification of any
recommended post construction monitoring and identification of methods to
avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the Wind Farm and
Transmission Line;
45.4
In relation to Bats;
a) identification of methods to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects
of the Wind Farm on bats and to address any risks identified pursuant to
Condition 37.1 of this Schedule,
b) Documentation of bat species presence and location of roosts and potential
roosting trees as indicated by the Pre-Construction Bat Utilisation Survey
pursuant to condition 33 of this Schedule,
c) Development of protocols to ensure no bats are injured or killed during
vegetation removal or construction,
d) identification of any recommended post construction bat monitoring, and
e) contingency plans that will be implemented in response to any confirmed
bat fatalities occurring as a result of bat strike.
46.
45.5
Details of the Post Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring required in
accordance with Conditions 48 to 56 of this Schedule;
45.6
Management plan review procedures.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed Avian and Bat Species Management Plan has been
obtained from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. In the event the relevant
Council does not provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the Avian
and Bat Species Management Plan, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed
with the construction in accordance with the submitted Avian and Bat Species
Management Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Avian and Bat
Species Management Plan by the relevant Council(s) shall be based on the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council assessment as to whether the Avian and Bat
Species Management Plan adequately addresses those matters contained in
condition 45 of this schedule. Where the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
considers the Avian and Bat Species Management Plan cannot be certified, their
response should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
47.
The Consent Holder shall comply with the certified Avian and Bat Species
Management Plan and shall submit an annual report to the relevant Council(s) and
the Department of Conservation by 1 July each year for 10 years following the
commencement of construction. The annual reports shall include the following:
47.1 The results of any Post Construction Avian and Bat Monitoring activities and
results of all Post Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring activities
conducted in the period May through April preceding the annual reporting
date, and,
47.2
An analysis, conducted by suitably qualified and experienced expert(s) in
avian and bat species, of all monitoring data, including;
a) Recommendations as to any measures that should be undertaken to avoid,
remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the wind farm on threatened
avifauna species and/or threatened bat species, and
b) Any recommended amendments to the Avian and Bat Species Management
Plan.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Post Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring
48.
The purpose of the Post Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring Plan (ABSMP)
is to identify how the effects of the operation of the wind farm on avifauna and bat
species within the Puketoi Wind Farm site will be monitored for the life of the wind
farm and to identify management response measures that will be employed to
manage any adverse effects on Threatened or At Risk avifauna and bat species.
49.
Operation of turbines shall not commence until the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council has approved the ABSMP and the wind farm shall be operated in accordance
with the approved ABSMP.
50.
The Consent Holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced avian and bat
experts to undertake Post-Construction Avian and Bat Strike monitoring for a
minimum of 12 consecutive seasons after commissioning of the wind farm.
51.
The monitoring methodology and reporting mechanisms shall be developed in
consultation with the Department of Conservation and as a minimum set out:
51.1
the framework of the collision fatality monitoring;
51.2
the procedures for recording observed avoidance behaviour;
51.3
methods for undertaking searcher efficiency and scavenger trials; and
51.4
any other measures required to accurately assess the strike / collision effects
of the wind farm on avifauna and bats.
52.
The outcomes of the Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Surveys undertaken
in accordance with condition 33 of this Schedule shall be taken into account when
identifying which species, if any, require further post-construction monitoring.
53.
The ABSMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
53.1 Provisions for bat strike monitoring where pre-construction bat activity levels
at any turbine site exceeded two passes in any one night. In the event of bat
strike monitoring being required, it shall (as a minimum) be undertaken for
twenty four (24) months at each relevant turbine,
53.2
The results of the avifauna carcass trail as required under condition 44 of this
schedule,
53.3
A framework and process for searching for avifauna and bat collision fatalities
at a representative sample of turbines,
53.4
Details of the Avian and Bat Carcass Retrieval Team to be established to
undertake searches,
53.5
A monitoring schedule for avian and bat carcass searches and retrieval, based
on search efficiency and natural rates of carcass removal and decomposition
determined from the trial conducted under condition 44 of this schedule,
53.6
Procedures for assessing and recording observed avoidance behaviour,
53.7
Details of how and when weather conditions will be recorded,
53.8
Other relevant measures required to accurately assess the strike/collision
effects of turbines on avifauna and bats,
53.9
Requirement for carcasses to be aged, sexed and the cause of death
determined by a professional necropsy service (where the cause of death can
be determined), and
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
53.10 Content to be included in Annual Avifauna and Bat Monitoring Reports
required under condition 54 of this schedule.
Monitoring reports
54.
The consent holder shall submit Annual Avifauna and Bat Monitoring Reports to the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council by 1 October every year for the first 5 years
following the commissioning of the wind farm, and thereafter every 5 years for the
life of the wind farm. Incidental records shall be provided to Council on request.
55.
The annual monitoring reports shall include the results of monitoring undertaken in
accordance with the ABSMP, and identify actions to be taken to avoid or mitigate
further adverse effects, including, but not limited to:
55.1 Provisions of details on all fatalities of exotic and indigenous avifauna and bat
species, including the age, sex and cause of death for all bat fatalities where
this can be determined in accordance with the requirements of condition 53.9
of this schedule,
56.
55.2
For Threatened and At Risk avifauna and bat species only, an assessment, by
a suitably qualified and experienced expert, of whether the level of mortality is
significant at a population level either regionally or nationally. If the level of
mortality is deemed to be significant at a population level, the Consent Holder
shall provide a plan in the annual report which demonstrates how further
effects will be avoided or mitigated,
55.3
Details of how the consent holder has avoided impacts on Threatened and At
Risk avifauna and bat species and any proposals to avoid further losses, and.
55.4
Details of actions proposed to mitigate any losses of Threatened or At Risk
avifauna and bat species or habitat, and timeframes for implementing these.
The consent holder shall implement the mitigation/avoidance actions/measures
identified in the Annual Avifauna and Bat Monitoring Reports to Council‘s satisfaction
and within the timeframes specified by the Council.
Pre-construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan
57.
The Consent Holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced ecologist(s) to
develop a Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan within
herpetofauna habitat areas to be disturbed by construction activities, with particular
reference to threatened herpetofauna species. The Pre-Construction Herpetofauna
Surveying and Translocation Plan shall be developed in consultation with the
Department of Conservation and shall be submitted to the relevant Council(s) for
certification 60 working days prior to the commencement of construction of the Wind
Farm. The Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan shall
include:
57.1 The identification of all area(s) to be surveyed, including all habitat within the
Puketoi Wind Farm Internal Footprint ranked as moderate to high quality for
lizard in Table 2 of Ecogecko Consultant‘s report titled ―An Assessment of the
Potential Lizard Fauna Habitats of the Puketoi Range in Reference with Mighty
River Power‘s Wind Farm Proposal‖ (Bell and Herbert, June 2011);
57.2
Detailed survey methods including, as a minimum, methods for day
searching, night spotlighting, deployment of Artificial Cover Objects (ACOs)
and/or pitfall traps;
57.3
The identification of translocation methods for species protection and
enhancement, including;
a. Details of translocation sites and descriptions of the habitat in these sites,
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
b. Intensified pre-translocation pest control activities and ongoing pest control
within translocation sites, and
c. Details of post-translocation
translocation sites.
57.4
58.
herpetofauna
monitoring
within
the
Timing of all pre-construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation
activities.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying and
Translocation Plan has been obtained from the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council. In the event the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council does not provide a
response within 20 working days of receiving the Pre-Construction Herpetofauna
Surveying and Translocation Plan, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed
with the construction in accordance with the submitted Pre-Construction
Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Pre-Construction
Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan by the relevant Council(s) shall be
based on the Relevant Council(s) assessment as to whether the Pre-Construction
Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan adequately addresses those matters
contained in condition 57 of this schedule. Where the relevant Council(s) considers
the Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation Plan cannot be
certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
59.
The outcomes of the Pre-construction Herpetofauna Surveying and Translocation
Plan undertaken in accordance with condition 57 of this Schedule shall be taken into
account when identifying which species, if any, require further post-construction
monitoring.
60.
The Consent Holder shall comply with the Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying
and Translocation Plan and shall also submit an annual report to the relevant
Council(s) and the Department of Conservation by 1 July each year for 10 years
following the commencement of construction works. The annual report shall outline
the Consent Holder‘s compliance with the Pre-Construction Herpetofauna Surveying
and Translocation Plan.
Ecological Mitigation / Offset Package
61.
Prior to Bulk Earthworks commencing in the Puketoi Wind Farm Internal Footprint
(Drawing Numbers MRP-PKT-3306A, 3307A, 3308C, 3309A, 3310B, 3311B, 3312A
3313B, 3314A and 3315A), the consent holder shall, in consultation with the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, relevant land owner, the Department of
Conservation and the Wellington Region of Fish & Game New Zealand, implement a
Mitigation Package that shall, as a minimum, include the following:
61.1 Legal protection in the form of a Queen Elizabeth II Open Space covenant or
alternative covenanting mechanism over an area of at least 21 ha in the
Makuri Stream catchment, as generally presented in MRP-PKT-6472-B
attached to this Schedule as Annexure 1C, including both terrestrial and
freshwater environments;
61.2
Riparian planting of approximately 5.34 ha and improved farm access on
stream crossing(s) to improve water quality and decrease the potential for
sediment delivery from all sources in the catchment into the Makuri Stream to
achieve a minimum of 80% indigenous vegetation canopy cover after 5 years;
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
61.3
In-fill slope and enrichment planting of approximately 1.84 ha of current
shrub and grass areas to achieve a minimum of 80% indigenous vegetation
canopy cover after 5 years;
61.4
Stock-proof fencing of legally protected areas to allow further regeneration in
the absence of stock;
61.5
Eradication of Spanish heath (Erica lusitanica) within the Mitigation Package
Area;
61.6
Control targets for pests, such as less than 5% Residual Trap Catch (RTC) for
possums, less than 5% Tracking Index for rats, and Once implemented, shall
include trapping, termination and disposal of wild cats and mustelids within
the Mitigation Area (being the area depicted on Annexure 1C, and possums
and rats within the Mitigation Area, at a frequency to be specified in the Weed
and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan for the duration of this consent.
62.
The consent holder shall install the stock-proof fencing and all planting associated
with the Mitigation Package Area prior to commencing Bulk Earthworks.
63.
At least 90 working days prior to the commencement of any construction works, the
Consent Holder shall submit a Mitigation Package Area Management Plan to the
relevant Council(s) for certification. The Mitigation Area Management Plan shall be
prepared with the assistance of suitably qualified and experienced ecologist. As a
minimum, the Mitigation Area Management Plan shall include the following:
64.
63.1
Details and performance specifications for fencing of the Mitigation Package
Area required in accordance with condition 61 of this schedule,
63.2
Details on weed and pest animal control to be undertaken within the
Mitigation Package Area,
63.3
Methods and procedures to be implemented for re-vegetation and wetland
area management activities, and
63.4
Monitoring details.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed Mitigation Package Area Management Plan has been
obtained from the Relevant Council(s). In the event the Relevant Council(s) does not
provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the Mitigation Package Area
Management Plan, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the
construction in accordance with the submitted Mitigation Package Area Management
Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Mitigation Package
Area Management Plan by the relevant Council(s) shall be based on the Relevant
Council(s) assessment as to whether the Mitigation Package Area Management Plan
adequately addresses those matters contained in condition 63 of this schedule.
Where the relevant Council(s) considers the Mitigation Package Area Management
Plan cannot be certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the
Consent Holder.
65.
The consent holder shall make the following financial contributions to Wingspan
Rotorua to assist captive breeding of no less than three New Zealand Falcon for
release:
65.1 $20,000 prior to Bulk Earthworks commencing in the Puketoi Wind Farm
Internal Footprint;
65.2 $20,000 on the 10th anniversary of the operation of the wind farm;
65.3 $20,000 on the 20th anniversary of the operation of the wind farm; and
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
65.4 New Zealand Falcon shall be released in an area or areas(s) approved by
Wingspan Rotorua following consultation with the Department of
Conservation.
Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan
66.
Wind turbines WT 4, 5, 6 and 7 will not be constructed and operated until they are
screened with vegetative screening to the following minimum heights:
• Turbine 4: 10 metres
• Turbine 5: 10 metres
• Turbine 6: 20 metres
• Turbine 7: 15 metres.
The screening shall be located in the positions identified on MRP-PKT-0811-1, 08121, 0813-1, 0814-1, and 0815-1 and be measured from natural ground level to the
tip of the screening. The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and
experienced landscape architect to prepare a planting and maintenance plan in
consultation with the owners of 1554 Towai Road (referred to below as the Marshall
dwelling) and it shall be submitted to the Tararua District Council and the owners of
the dwelling within 6 months of the commencement of this consent.
Notwithstanding the heights above, the screening will be sufficient in all respects in
the instance of turbines WT 4, 5, and 7 to fully screen the turbines when viewed
from the Marshall dwelling and its immediate curtilege.
In respect of WT 6, the screening will provide partial screening to a minimum height
of 20 metres and of sufficient width to ensure that WT 6 will be screened when
viewed from the Marshall dwelling and its immediate curtilege.
Before any construction of the above-described turbines occurs, Mighty River Power
will provide the Tararua District Council with confirmation that the vegetative
screening has reached the above-described heights. The confirmation shall be
provided to the Council by an appropriately qualified expert capable of providing
accurate measures of the screening.
The intent and purpose of this condition is to provide screening of turbines WT 4, 5,
and 7. The screening shall be of sufficient depth and density to provide that
outcome.
67.
Mighty River Power will be responsible for the planting and maintenance of the
screening required pursuant to condition 66 over the life of the operation of the
Puketoi Wind Farm and will be responsible to ensure that screening remains in place
on a continuous basis over the life of the Puketoi Wind Farm.
68.
At least 60 working days prior to the commencement of any construction works, the
Consent Holder shall submit a Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan to the relevant
Council(s) for certification. The Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan shall be prepared
with the assistance of suitably qualified and experienced landscape architect and
ecologist, and shall include the following:
68.1
The aims of the Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan;
68.2
The areas to be rehabilitated;
68.3
The types of rehabilitation and landscaping techniques to be used and the
locations they will be used;
Schedule 1:
69.
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
68.4
Details of the proposed re-vegetation plantings;
68.5
A requirement for indigenous species selection and eco-sourcing (i.e. sourcing
local seeds/plants for local use) for all re-vegetation;
68.6
The integration of cut and fill earthworks with the surrounding landform
where practicable;
68.7
Details of the proposed colours, materials and landscaping of the substation
buildings, maintenance building and associated areas;and
68.8
Details of the monitoring and maintenance techniques to be adopted,
including weed control, pest control, planting, and operational timing.
The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written
certification for the detailed Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan has been obtained
from the Relevant Council(s). In the event the Relevant Council(s) does not provide
a response within 20 working days of receiving the Rehabilitation and Landscape
Plan, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in
accordance with the submitted Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan and the conditions
of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Rehabilitation and
Landscape Plan by the relevant Council(s) shall be based on the Relevant Council(s)
assessment as to whether the Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan adequately
addresses those matters contained in condition 68 of this schedule. Where the
relevant Council(s) considers the Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan cannot be
certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
70.
The Consent Holder shall undertake the rehabilitation and landscaping works in
accordance with the certified Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan.
71.
Any changes to the Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan shall be confirmed in writing
by the consent holder and certified in writing by the Relevant Council acting in a
technical certification capacity, prior to the implementation of any changes.
72.
The Consent holder shall submit an annual report to the relevant Council(s) by 1
July each year for 10 years following the commencement of construction works. The
annual report shall outline the results of the revegetation and landscaping works and
report on compliance with the Rehabilitation and Landscape Plan.
Fuel Storage and Plant
73.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that:
73.1 The onsite bulk diesel storage tank used during construction shall either be
double skinned or bunded with the bund sized to accommodate 110% of the
diesel storage volume, as well as a 1% Annual Event Probability (AEP) 24
hour rainfall depth on the bunded area;
73.2
All other onsite storage areas for fuel and lubricants shall be bunded or
contained to such an extent that any spill (whether it be accidental or
deliberate) does not result in any discharge of contaminants directly into
water or onto or into land where it may enter water;
73.3
All earthmoving machinery, pumps, generators and ancillary equipment shall
be operated in a manner, which ensures spillages of fuel, oil and similar
contaminants are prevented, particularly during refuelling and machinery
servicing and maintenance. Refuelling and lubrication activities shall be carried
out away from any water body, ephemeral water body, or overland flow path,
such that any spillage can be contained so that it does not enter surface
water;
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
73.4
All machinery and plant is regularly maintained in such a manner so as to
minimise the potential for leakage of fuels and lubricants;
73.5
No hazardous substances storage facility shall be placed within 20m of the
bed of a river, lake or wetland;
73.6
No refuelling activities will be carried out within 50m of an ephemeral or
permanently flowing watercourse;
73.7
No diesel storage tanks (other than those fitted to mobile plant) are to be
located within the Palmerston North Water Supply Catchment or the Pongoroa
Rural Water Supply Scheme Catchment.
Contact and Complaints Procedure
74.
The Consent Holder shall publish in the Bush Telegraph at least once per month over
the construction period of the wind farm and transmission lines a 24 hour ‗free call‘
telephone number so that members of the public have a specified point of contact
during construction, operation and maintenance of the wind farm.
75.
The Consent Holder shall establish prior to construction commencing and thereafter
maintain for the duration of the consents, a Complaints Register to record
complaints from the public that may arise during construction, operation and
maintenance of the wind farm and transmission lines. This Complaints Register is to
include the name and address of the complainant (if provided), the date and time of
the complaint, the nature of the complaint, wind and weather at the time, activity
occurring on the site at the time, details of whether the complaint was or was not
able to be verified along with any supportive photographic evidence, and any
remedial measures undertaken by the Consent Holder.
76.
A copy of the Complaints Register shall be held on site and made available within
five working days to each Council‘s Compliance Monitoring Staff upon request and
shall be made available to the Community Liaison Group at each of its meetings. The
Consent Holder shall also forward an annual summary of the Complaints Register
(for the year ending 31 December) to each Council by 30 January the following year.
Relationship with Tangata Whenua
77.
The consent holder shall, at least once per calendar year, convene a meeting with
representatives of the Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a Rua, Tanenuiarangi O Manawatu
and Kahungunu ki Tamaki Nui a Rua to discuss any matter relating to the exercise
and monitoring of this consent. These meetings can be held separately with the
individual Tangata Whenua groups if that is preferred by either the consent holder or
Tangata Whenua groups.
78.
The meeting(s) required by Condition 77 need not occur if either;
78.1 the relevant Tangata Whenua groups advise the Consent Holder that the
meeting is not required, or
79.
78.2
there is no response from Tangata Whenua within 4 weeks of the Consent
Holder issuing an invitation to meet.
78.3
the Consent Holder shall notify the relevant Councils if either condition 78.1
or 78.2 occurs.
The Consent Holder shall chair and keep minutes of the meetings held in accordance
with Condition 77 and shall forward them to all of the attendees.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Community Liaison Group (CLG)
80.
Prior to construction commencing, the Consent Holder shall, at its cost and in
consultation with the relevant Council(s), establish and chair a CLG. The
membership of the CLG may be reviewed at any time, as relevant, to best match the
interests of various stakeholders with specific project phases and/or specific
locations of activity. The Consent Holder shall invite the following stakeholders to
nominate at least one representative (unless otherwise specified in this condition) to
form the CLG, and may invite stakeholders to nominate further representatives at its
discretion:
80.1 Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council;
80.2 Tararua District Council;
80.3 The Palmerston North City Council;
80.4 Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a Rua, Tanenuiarangi O Manawatu and Kahungunu ki
Tamaki Nui a Rua;
80.5 Owners of private land on which turbines are to be located;
80.6 Local residents that are not part of the wind farm living within 5km of an
approved turbine (The Consent Holder shall invite nominations of at least four
representatives from this stakeholder group and shall, as far as practicable,
seek nominations from representatives that are spread both east and west of
the Puketoi Ridge);
80.7 Property owners and/or occupiers on local roads identified for use by
construction traffic (The Consent Holder shall invite nominations of at least
two private resident representatives and two commercial representatives
(e.g. livestock carriers, quarry operator) from this stakeholder group);
80.8 Makuri Primary School;
80.9 Makuri Domain Board;
80.10 Makuri Country Club;
80.11 Operators of the school bus routes in the area;
80.12 Emergency services providers (i.e. Police, Fire Service and Ambulance);
80.13 Rural post;
80.14 Department of Conservation;
80.15 Regional Representative from Queen Elizabeth II Trust;
80.16 NZ Transport Agency;
80.17 Wellington Fish and Game;
80.18 Pongaroa Rural Water Supply Scheme; and
80.19 New Zealand Speleological Society.
81.
The purpose of the Community Liaison Group is to be a body which provides a
forum:
81.1 For the consent holder to provide information on the operation and
environmental effects of the activities authorised by these resource consents
(including new information and studies relevant to effects);
81.2 To facilitate ongoing communication between the consent holder, the local
community and interested parties in relation to the construction or operation
of the wind farm including effects on the environment and any concerns
raised in relation to human health and safety;
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
81.3 To identify and discuss appropriate measures to address issues raised
including the provision of further information;
81.4 To discuss the performance of the Consent Holder against the conditions of its
resource consents (being those contained in Schedules 1 to 3 and any
monitoring undertaken pursuant to these;
81.5 Make recommendations to and receive feedback from the Consent Holder, in
respect of the above matters where considered necessary and appropriate;
81.6 Have input, as appropriate, via consultation with the Consent Holder with
regard to the implementation of the:
a. Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP);
b. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP);
c. Any relevant SEMP;
d. Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP); and
e. Weed and Pest Monitoring and Control Plan.
82.
The Consent Holder shall develop the CLG‘s Terms of Reference with each Council.
The Consent Holder may vary the functions of the CLG as it thinks fit from time to
time to enable it to liaise more effectively with the community, provided this is done
in consultation with the CLG and accepted in writing by the Relevant Councils.
83.
The first meeting of the CLG shall be convened prior to the commencement of any
construction works. Thereafter, the CLG shall meet at intervals of at least six
monthly (or at such other lesser frequency as the CLG decides), for the duration of
these resource consents. All CLG meetings shall be chaired by the Consent Holder.
Community Funds
84.
In recognition of actual or potential residual adverse effects on the local
communities during the construction phase, the consent holder shall make payments
of $20,000 each to the Makuri, Pongaroa and Pahiatua communities (Total
contribution of $60,000) on the date of the commencement of construction of the
wind farm. The payments shall be used to promote projects of benefit to these
communities or their local environments.
85.
In recognition of actual or potential residual adverse visual and landscape effects on
the Pongoroa community during the operation of the wind farm, the consent holder
shall make a payment of $10,000, which is to be adjusted annually and cumulatively
by reference to the Consumer Price Index, to the Pongaroa community on every
anniversary of the start of the operation of the wind farm for the duration of these
consents. The payments shall be used to promote projects of benefit to the
Pongoroa community or its local environment.
86.
In recognition of the on-going activity in the local area resulting from the operation
of the wind farm, the consent holder shall make a payment of $5,000, which is to be
adjusted annually and cumulatively by reference to the Consumer Price Index, to the
Makuri community on every anniversary of the start of the operation of the wind
farm for the duration of these consents. The payments shall be used to promote
projects of benefit to the Makuri community or its local environment.
87.
Prior to construction commencing, the Consent Holder shall consult with the Makuri,
Pongaroa and Pahiatua communities for the purpose of establishing a representative
or entity to receive and distribute funds required to be paid in accordance with
conditions 84, 85 and 86 on behalf of their respective communities.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Potable Water Supplies
88.
In the event that exercising these consents prevents the use of the Pongoroa Rural
Water Supply Scheme or any other lawfully established surface water supply or
groundwater bore in existence at the date of commencement of this consent, the
Consent Holder shall provide a replacement supply of water of generally similar
quality and quantity to that which existed prior to the exercise of these consents. In
such a circumstance, an emergency supply of limited amounts of potable water shall
be made available within 24 hours and any such replacement supply, including any
interim or temporary supply, shall be provided as soon as is practicable, but within 7
working days after the consent holder receives written advice from the water user(s)
as to the need for such replacement supply. The timetable for same shall be
supplied to the relevant Council(s) in writing.
89.
Any unresolved disagreement between the Consent Holder and any water user in
respect of Condition 88 shall be referred to an independent and suitably qualified
engineer or water quality specialist (the expert), to be appointed by the relevant
Council(s) following consultation with the water user and the Consent Holder, for
their consideration and to make recommendations to the relevant Council(s). The
costs of this are to be borne by the Consent Holder. Having considered the
recommendations of the expert, the relevant Council(s) shall advise the Consent
Holder of what it considers an appropriate replacement supply to be, and a timetable
for its establishment, with such advice to be binding on the Consent Holder.
Post Construction Inspection
90.
Within 60 working days of the completion of construction activities, the Consent
Holder will invite the relevant Council enforcement officers of the relevant Council(s)
to inspect the site with the Consent Holder and Contractor to demonstrate that all
earthworks and site remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the
conditions of these consents and relevant plans.
Decommissioning
91.
The concrete batching plant(s) and any aggregate crushing plant(s) shall be
removed within three months of completion of all construction works and the sites
remediated in accordance with the provisions of the Decommissioning Plan specified
in condition 92 below.
92.
If the wind farm or any wind turbine ceases operation for a continuous 36-month
period, or is decommissioned for any other reason, or if above ground 220kV
transmission line infrastructure is decommissioned, then unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Relevant Council(s), the turbine(s), 220kV transmission towers and
lines and other above ground structures, including substations shall be removed and
footings covered and re-vegetated in accordance with a Decommissioning Plan
prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer with the assistance of a
suitably qualified and experienced ecologist and a suitably qualified and experienced
landscape architect. Any Decommissioning Plan prepared in accordance with this
condition must be submitted to the relevant Council(s) for certification at least 40
working days prior to the consent holder commencing any decommissioning works
and shall include the following:
92.1 Procedures for dismantling and removing turbines and above ground electrical
infrastructure including substations (if relevant);
92.2 Methodologies for earthwork site rehabilitation and re-vegetation;
92.3 Traffic management for any overweight and/or over dimension vehicles;
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
92.4 Implementation of any appropriate or necessary noise control measures; and
92.5 Results of consultation with parties affected by the decommissioning.
93.
The consent holder shall not commence decommissioning activities until written
certification for the detailed Decommissioning Plan has been obtained from the
Relevant Council(s). In the event the Relevant Council(s) does not provide a
response within 20 working days of receiving the Decommissioning Plan, the consent
holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in accordance with the
submitted Decommissioning Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Decommissioning
Plan by the relevant Council(s) shall be based on the Relevant Council(s)
assessment as to whether the Decommissioning Plan adequately addresses those
matters contained in condition 92 of this schedule. Where the relevant Council(s)
considers the Decommissioning Plan cannot be certified, their response should
outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
94.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Consent Holder is not required to remove subsurface wind farm components, roads, turbine pads, spoil sites and associated
works.
95.
All decommissioning shall be at the consent holders cost.
96.
The consent holder shall ensure that decommissioning is undertaken in general
accordance with the Decommissioning Plan prepared and certified pursuant to
conditions 92 and 93.
97.
The Consent Holder shall provide written notice to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council, Tararua District Council and Palmerston North City Council that all
decommissioning has been completed and shall organise a site visit(s) for the
relevant Council enforcement officers to enable them to view the site. The written
notice shall be provided within 30 working days of the decommissioning works being
completed.
Charges
98.
The Consent Holder shall pay each Council all reasonable costs and charges fixed by
the Council pursuant to section 36 of the Act, in relation to any administration,
monitoring and inspection relating to these consents, and charges authorised by
regulations.
Advice Note: Nothing in these resource consents removes the need for the Consent
Holder to apply for any approvals required under the Wildlife Act 1953. For the
avoidance of doubt, this resource consent does not constitute lawful authority under
the Wildlife Act.
Compensation
99.
As compensation for adverse effects of the construction of the Puketoi Wind Farm,
the consent holder shall tender to Michael and Angela Connell (or their successors in
title, if any, at the time that the tender of funds is required pursuant to this
condition) of the property at 2649 Pahiatua - Pongaroa Road, Makuri, RD9 Pahiatua
4989, compensation in the sum of $20,000 inclusive of GST (if any) as follows:
1.
$5,000 within one month of the commencement of this consent; and
2.
$15,000 at least 6 months prior to the commencement of any construction of
wind turbines at the southern end of the Puketoi Wind Farm which uses
Pahiatua - Pongaroa Road for access.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
For the avoidance of doubt, the Connells (or their successors in title) may receive
and use these funds for any purpose they wish.
Schedule 1:
General Conditions relevant to all Councils
Annexure 1A: MRP-PKT-6441-B: Avifauna Monitoring Locations
Annexure 1B: MRP-PKT-6436-C: Bat Monitoring Locations
Annexure 1C: MRP-PKT-6472-B: Mitigation Package
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
SCHEDULE 2: General conditions relevant to Tararua District Council and
Palmerston North City Council Consents
General
1.
All external and visible parts of the turbines including towers, nacelles and turbine
rotor blades shall be finished in low reflectivity finishes as specified in drawing MRPPKT-0321-A, attached to this Schedule as Annexure 2A.
2.
The Consent Holder shall maintain the turbines in good condition at all times and
shall undertake appropriate regular servicing in accordance with industry practice.
3.
No part of any turbine shall be operated beyond the boundary of the Wind Farm
Site, except where the adjoining landowner has provided their written approval to do
so.
4.
The Consent Holder shall comply with the conditions set out by the CAA in the
―Determination of Hazard in Navigable Airspace‖ for the Puketoi Wind Farm (dated
28 July 2011, or any subsequent replacement).
5.
Upon commissioning of the wind farm the Consent Holder shall provide a set of ―as
built‖ plans to the Relevant Council(s), and the CAA, that identifies the final location
of each turbine, the substations, the operations and maintenance buildings, the
transmission lines, the permanent wind monitoring masts and other permanent
features of the wind farm that have been constructed in accordance with this
consent.
Acoustic Matters
Construction Noise
6.
The consent holder shall ensure that sound from construction and decommissioning
work does not exceed the noise limits in the following table.
Construction noise limits
Time of
Time
week
period
Weekdays
Saturdays
Sundays
and public
holidays
7.
Long term duration works
LAeq (1 h)
LAFmax
0630-0730
55 dB
75 dB
0730-1800
70 dB
85 dB
1800-2000
65 dB
80 dB
2000-0630
45 dB
75 dB
0630-0730
45 dB
75 dB
0730-1800
70 dB
85 dB
1800-0630
45 dB
75 dB
0630-0730
45 dB
75 dB
0730-1800
55 dB
85 dB
1800-0630
45 dB
75 dB
Construction noise shall be measured, assessed, managed and controlled using New
Zealand Standard NZS6803:1999 Acoustics - Construction Noise.
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
8.
The product of any concrete batching or aggregate crushing activity taking place in
the southern sector of the wind farm shall only be used in that sector. Concrete or
aggregate shall not be transported from the southern sector to the northern sector
through Makuri Settlement.
9.
Crushing operations shall not take place any closer than 320 metres from any
dwelling existing at the date of issue of the resource consent (excluding any
dwellings on the wind farm site) and shall only operate between the hours of
7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday.
10.
A Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) shall be prepared prior to the
commencement of any construction works (including the wind farm and transmission
line) and shall be implemented at all times. The CNMP shall be generally in
accordance with section 8 and the relevant annexures of NZS6803, which detail the
relevant types of construction to which the CNMP is to apply, and procedures that
will be carried out to ensure compliance with that Standard.
11.
The consent holder shall not commence construction works activities until written
certification for the detailed CNMP has been obtained from the Tararua District
Council and the Palmerston North City Council. In the event the Tararua District
Council and the Palmerston North City Council do not provide a response within 20
working days of receiving the CNMP, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed
with the construction in accordance with the submitted CNMP and the conditions of
consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the CNMP by the
Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City Council shall be based on the
Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City Council assessment as to
whether the CNMP adequately addresses those matters contained in condition 6 to
10 of this schedule. Where the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North
City Council considers the CNMP cannot be certified, their response should outline
these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
Operational Noise (Non Turbine Related)
12.
Noise from all other activities on the site including concrete manufacture and
aggregate crushing and excluding wind turbine generator operation, and
construction activities, shall not exceed the following:
7.00am to 7.00pm
55dB LAeq (15 min)
7.00pm to 7.00am
45dB LAeq (15 min)
7.00pm to 7.00am
75dB LAmax
when measured within the notional boundary(defined in NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics
- Measurement of Environmental Sound) of any site other than the wind farm site.
For the purpose of clarity, this condition does not apply to dwellings in respect of
which the Consent Holder has reached agreement with the landowner. The noise
shall be measured in accordance with the requirements of NZS 6801:2008
Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and assessed in accordance with
the requirements of NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental Noise.
Operational Noise (Turbines)
13.
The turbines shall be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so that wind
farm sound levels comply with the requirements of NZS6808. For the avoidance of
doubt, the consent holder shall ensure that, at the specified assessment positions,
wind farm sound levels comply with:
13.1
A noise limit of 40dB LA90(10 min), provided that the following noise limit
shall apply in the circumstances stated in 13.2;
Schedule 2:
13.2
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
When the background sound level is greater than 35dB LA90(10 min), the
noise limit shall be the background sound level LA90(10 min) plus 5dB.
14.
The specified assessment position is at any point within the notional boundary
(defined in NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound) of
any dwelling existing at the date of issue of the resource consent (excluding any
dwellings on the wind farm site or where written consent has been granted for the
wind farm).
15.
For the avoidance of doubt, and for the purposes of compliance with condition 13 of
this Schedule, the ―Reference Test Method‖ shall be adopted for testing whether the
wind farm has tonal special audible characteristics, in accordance with Appendix B of
NZS6808.
Pre-Instalment Assessment and Noise Management Plan (NMP)
16.
The Consent Holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced acoustic expert
to prepare the Pre-instalment assessment and NMP. The Pre-instalment assessment
and NMP shall be submitted to the Tararua District Council for certification at least
60 days prior to the commencement of operation of the wind farm, and shall, as a
minimum, include the following:
16.1
An acoustic emissions report to the Council for each of the selected wind
turbine generators in accordance with Section 6.2 of NZS6808 and shall
include the A-weighted sound power levels, spectra, and tonality at integer
wind speeds from 6 to 10 m/s and up to 95% of rated power for each type of
individual wind turbine to be installed. The sound power level for each turbine
selected shall not exceed 109dBA;
16.2
A report that details the assessment of background sound levels in
accordance with section 7.4 of NZS6808 and in sufficient detail that the
compliance limits are clearly stated. The monitoring will be undertaken at
representative locations for the following dwellings:
i) 289 Pori Road - Sec 6 Settlement Puketoi
ii) 2649 Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road - Part Sec 94 TN of Makuri
iii) 791 Coonoor Road - Part Sec 4 Block XI Makuri SD
iv) 1554 Towai Road - Sec 30 Block XII Mount Cerberus SD
v) 1321 Coonoor Road - Sec 15 Block VII Makuri SD
vi) 495 Towai Road - Sec 18 Block II Mount Cerberus SD
vii) 559 Korora Road - Part Sec 8 Block I Mount Cerberus SD
viii) 387 Range Road – Sec 16 Blk XI Makuri SD
ix) 4317 Pahiatua Pongoroa Road - Sec 18 Block VIII Mount Cerberus SD
x) 4088 Pahiatua Pongoroa Road - Sec 18 Block XV Makuri SD
xi) 418 Haunui Road - Sec 17 Block III Puketoi SD
xii) 2200 Waitahora Road -Sec 33 Block XII Mount Cerberus SD
Background sound monitoring shall be undertaken at representative locations
not more than 2 years before the initial turbines are commissioned.
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
16.3 A noise prediction report from a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic
consultant in accordance with section 6.1 of NZS6808. Modes of operation
and the type of turbine must be specified. Only wind turbines that can be
derated to reduce the noise levels shall be installed at the wind farm. The
noise prediction report shall reference the wind turbine selection, having
regard to the sound power level predictions obtained in accordance with
section 6.2, and the special audible characteristics in clause 5.4.1 of
NZS6808;
17.
16.4
Any further procedures necessary for ensuring compliance with the noise
conditions of these consents, including noise compliance testing, methods for
addressing non-compliance, and contacts and complaints procedures;
16.5
Procedures for addressing turbine malfunctions that cause material noise
effects beyond typical operational noise;
16.6
Requirements for post construction noise monitoring and assessment; and
16.7
Provisions regarding review and updating of the NMP.
The consent holder shall not commence operation of the wind farm until written
certification for the detailed NMP has been obtained from the Tararua District
Council. In the event the Tararua District Council does not provide a response within
20 working days of receiving the NMP, the consent holder shall be entitled to
proceed with the operation of the wind farm in accordance with the submitted NMP
and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the NMP by the
Tararua District Council shall be based on the Tararua District Council assessment as
to whether the NMP adequately addresses those matters contained in condition 16 of
this schedule. Where the Tararua District Council considers the NMP cannot be
certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
18.
The Consent Holder shall operate the wind farm and act in compliance with the NMP
at all times.
Post-Installation Acoustic Assessment for Special Audible Characteristics
19.
The operational sound from a minimum of three installed wind turbines shall be
measured during the commissioning stage to demonstrate that the installed wind
turbines do not exhibit special audible characteristics at any notional boundary
(defined in NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound) of
any dwelling noise sensitive locations. The monitoring shall be undertaken prior to
completion of the wind farm at locations that are selected to be generally represent
of the noise sensitive locations. These measurements shall be conducted at a single
meteorologically sheltered location between 800 and 1000 metres from the turbines.
A compliance assessment report for a minimum of the three turbines operating
individually and then together shall be submitted to the Compliance Monitoring
Officer in accordance with Section 8.4.1 of NZS 6808:2010. No further turbines shall
be operated within 3km of a dwelling (excluding any dwellings on the wind farm
site) until a report on this test has been submitted and it shows that no special
audible characteristics will be present within the notional boundary of the most
effected dwellings adjacent to the wind farm, when assessed in accordance with NZS
6808:2010.
20.
Compliance noise monitoring shall be undertaken at representative locations for
each of the dwellings as set out below:
i) 289 Pori Road
ii)
2649 Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road
iii)
1554 Towai Road
Schedule 2:
21.
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
iv)
1321 Coonoor Road
v)
559 Korora Road
vi)
387 Range Road
vii)
2200 Waitahora Road
The report shall be provided to Tararua District Council for certification in accordance
with Section 8.4.1 of NZS6808.
Where compliance is not achieved with these noise conditions then the consent
holder shall operate the wind turbine generators at a reduced noise output until
remedies are identified and implemented. If sound emissions cannot be reduced
such that they comply, then the consent holder shall cease to operate the offending
wind turbine generators until modifications are made to reduce the noise. Further
operation of the offending wind turbine generators shall only be for sound
measurement checks as specifically agreed with the Manager Environmental
Services Tararua District Council to demonstrate compliance. This condition shall not
limit or restrict any statutory right or power to take enforcement action that the
Councils may have under the provisions of the Act.
Noise Monitoring Costs
22.
The Consent Holder shall pay all actual and reasonable costs associated with the
compliance testing or assessment undertaken in accordance with these conditions.
23.
Should the Relevant Council(s) seek to undertake separate compliance testing of
part or all of the wind farm operation then;
The consent holder shall provide the consent authority with any wind data to allow it
to analyse its noise monitoring in accordance with the requirements of these
conditions.
Vehicle Noise
24.
The noise due to traffic on External Roads shall be minimised as follows:
24.1
That where it is safe to do so, engine braking restrictions be established on
External Roads through the CTMP development process. These restrictions
shall have particular regard for limiting noise at Makuri and also near stock
yards and residences in close proximity to the road;
24.2
For light vehicles and Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCV) entering or exiting
the site;
Time Period
Hours for light vehicle Hours for HCV flows to
flows to site
site
Weekdays and Saturdays No restrictions
7:00AM to 7:00PM
Sundays
holidays
No HCV access
and
statutory No vehicle access
a) Exceptions to these traffic flow restrictions include the following:
(i) Light vehicle access is allowed at any time associated with site security
activities or for staff directly associated with monitoring the site in
relation to health and safety and environmental effects or undertaking
other project administration duties;
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
(ii) Light vehicle and HCV access is allowed for maintenance or emergency
staff and vehicles to carry out emergency works or to respond to a
health and safety matter or to respond to other unforeseen events
that risk compromising the integrity of the construction and that that
cannot reasonably wait; or
(iii) Nacelle and blade lifting; or
(iv) HCV access for over-weight or over-dimension loads that may be
delivered to site more safely outside the hours of access.
b) Where it is necessary for HCV movements to occur pursuant to condition
24.2 (a) (ii) or (iii), the consent holder shall advise the Tararua District
Council, and the Community Liaison Group as soon as practicable; and
24.3
That Over-Weight and/or Over-Dimension vehicles may only travel on roads
defined as Local Roads in the relevant District Plan between the hours of
7:00am and 9:00pm.
Construction Traffic Management
Construction Traffic Management Plan
25.
The Consent Holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced Professional
Engineer in consultation with the CLG to prepare a Construction Traffic Management
Plan (CTMP). The purpose of the CTMP shall be to set out (in detail) matters relating
to the extent and timing of construction traffic activity, and the traffic management
provisions to be put in place during this time to achieve a safe and efficient road
network. The CTMP shall involve consultation with NZTA or other relevant Road
Controlling Authorities. The CTMP shall be submitted to the Roading Managers of the
Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City Council for certification at
least 60 days prior to the commencement of construction works, and shall, as a
minimum, cover at least the following matters:
25.1
Documentation of who has been consulted and involved in preparing the
CTMP and Project scheduling (i.e. NZTA or other Road Controlling Authorities),
25.2
Travel routes,
25.3
Access and parking details,
25.4
Roading and bridge upgrades,
25.5
Traffic flows,
25.6
Summary of bridge infrastructure to be used, results of bridges engineering
investigations, details of alterations or other mitigation required on bridges
and copies of any relevant bridge certification documentation,
25.7
Vehicle speeds,
25.8
Locations and construction of lay up areas on the Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road,
25.9
Signage,
25.10 Dust control,
25.11 Arrangements to provide
movements on the road,
advanced
warning
and
notification of stock
25.12 Site induction and driver education procedures,
25.13 Facilitation of public complaints, including the establishment and publishing of
a free call number for comments and complaints regarding vehicles
transporting goods associated with the construction of the wind farm and the
associated transmission infrastructure,
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
25.14 Operating hours for each access,
25.15 Measures to reduce the amount of commuter traffic by construction
personnel,
25.16 In respect of construction traffic movements on the State Highway Network;
a. Appropriate travel time restrictions on over-dimension and over-weight
loads to avoid commuter peak periods on busy urban sections of highway
and minimise pavement damage during periods of high pavement
temperature, and
b. Appropriate travel time restrictions, and where practicable, provision of
passing bays and/or lay-up areas to minimise vehicle queues forming.
25.17 Piloting arrangements and operating procedures for over-dimension loads,
25.18 Procedures to co-ordinate traffic movements with emergency services (Police,
Fire and Ambulance), stock drovers, school buses and rural delivery operators,
25.19 Disciplinary procedures to be followed in the event that any project drivers
breach the driver protocols or any other aspects of the CTMP,
25.20 Full details of the temporary traffic management plans to be used, including
the conditions under which each plan would operate,
25.21 Procedures for communication with the local community and other road users
regarding traffic management issues, including notification techniques such as
emails, text messages, roadside notice boards, and/or newspaper
advertisements, and
25.22 Project contacts including a driver comments free phone number as per
condition 25.13.
26.
The consent holder shall restrict the movement of over-weight and over-dimension
loads to the period between 9.00am and 3.00pm during school days on the roads
used in the Makuri area that form part of any local school bus route. This restriction
does not apply to school holidays or on weekends or on roads that are not used by
the school bus.
27.
The consent holder shall issue a high-visibility safety jacket to every student who
attends Makuri Primary School and also every child known to reside on Coonoor
Road and on Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road between Makuri and SH2.
28.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that no heavy vehicles enter or exit the wind farm
site via the northernmost access (Access MC50) on Towai Road.
29.
The consent holder shall not commence construction works activities until written
certification for the detailed CTMP has been obtained from the Roading Managers of
the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City Council. In the event the
Roading Manager of the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City
Council does not provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the CTMP,
the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in accordance
with the submitted CTMP and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the CTMP by the
Roading Managers of the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City
Council shall be based on the Roading Managers of the Tararua District Council and
the Palmerston North City Council assessment as to whether the CTMP adequately
addresses those matters contained in condition 25 to 28 of this schedule. Where the
Roading Managers of the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City
Council consider the CTMP cannot be certified, their response should outline these
inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
30.
The Consent Holder shall act in compliance with the CTMP at all times and shall
require all of its contractors and subcontractors to comply with the CTMP at all
times.
31.
The Consent Holder shall update the CTMP from time to time as reasonably required
by the Roading Managers of the Tararua District Council and Palmerston North City
Council to maintain safety and efficiency, taking into account matters raised by the
public or the CLG, or to reflect changes to the project. Before any update to the
CTMP can be implemented, they shall be certified in accordance with the process
prescribed in Condition 29 of this Schedule.
Roading Upgrades
32.
The Consent Holder shall, at its own cost, extend the seal on Coonoor Road towards
the north to the MC40 access point (if not already sealed at the time of
commencement of construction works). All such improvements shall be constructed
to the technical standards as used by the Tararua District Council at the time the
works are carried out.
33.
The Consent Holder shall, at its own cost, develop a new intersection of South Range
Road and Pahiatua-Aokautere Road before any use of South Range Road by
construction traffic (unless otherwise agreed by the Palmerston North City Council).
This does not preclude use of the existing intersection for investigation and design,
or as an adjunct to the roading upgrades (such as for spoil disposal or vehicle
storage). The development of the intersection is to include:
33.1
An intersection layout for the duration of construction to the standard of the
NZTA Planning Policy Manual (SP/M/001 August 2007) Diagram D layout, in
general accordance with either Traffic Design Group drawing 8488-3W1 Sheet
7, Revision B, or Traffic Design Group drawing 8488-3W1 Sheet 8, Revision A
attached as Annexure 2B to this Schedule,
33.2
A new length of road connecting the new intersection with the existing
alignment of South Range Road, to be vested to Palmerston North City
Council,
33.3
Physically closing the existing intersection once the new intersection and
alignment of South Range Road is constructed, but prior to commencement of
wind farm construction, subject to necessary approvals from Palmerston North
City Council and Tararua District Council.
34.
The Consent Holder shall, at its own cost and following approval by the relevant
Council undertake such investigations, road improvements or changes as are
necessary to facilitate the movement of over-dimension loads to the site.
35.
The Consent Holder shall undertake a pre-construction assessment of all roads
(including bridges) on the routes to be used for heavy vehicles to determine the
condition of such roads. A report that records the findings of the pre-construction
assessment shall be submitted to the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston
North City Council prior to any construction activities commencing.
36.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that all roads (including bridges and improvements)
are maintained during the construction period in a condition acceptable to the
Tararua District Council and the Palmerston North City Council.
37.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that all roads (including bridges and improvements)
are left in a condition acceptable to the Tararua District Council and the Palmerston
North City Council at the end of the construction period. An ‗acceptable‘ condition
means a condition at least as good as the condition the road was in prior to
construction activities commencing. Reference may be made to the report as
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
provided to the Tararua District Council under condition 35 of this schedule to
determine the pre-construction condition of the road.
38.
At least 30 working days prior to the commencement of any roading upgrades, the
Consent Holder shall submit for certification engineering plans prepared by a
Professional Engineer to the Relevant Council outlining details of the proposed
works. The construction of roading upgrade works must not commence until written
certification has been obtained. The Relevant Council shall certify the engineering
plans if it is satisfied that they adequately address the Relevant Council‘s standards.
The Consent Holder shall undertake all roading upgrades in accordance with the
certified engineering plans.
Advice Notes:
Under the Local Government Act, the written approval of Council‘s Roading Manager
is required prior to any changes being made to any public road. This applies to all
territorial authorities affected by the transport route(s) utilised during the
construction of the Wind Farm and Transmission Lines. This approval will include
requirements for temporary traffic management during the roading upgrade works.
Each new vehicle crossing created to South Range Road shall be located and
constructed to a suitable standard to ensure its safe operation. The location and
standard of access requires the prior approval of the Palmerston North City Council
Roading Manager.
Traffic Monitoring & Driver Comments
39.
The Consent Holder shall keep a record of all calls to the driver comments free call
telephone number established pursuant to the CTMP and provide a summary to the
Roading Managers of the Tararua District Council and Palmerston North City Council
within five working days of a request for this information.
Parking
40.
The consent holder shall ensure that no parking of Puketoi Wind Farm construction
and associated vehicles occurs on public roads other than areas certified by the
Tararua District Council and Palmerston North City Council through the CTMP.
41.
The design and construction of all formal parking areas serving the Wind Farm shall
comply with the requirements of the relevant Tararua District Plan(s).
Lighting
42.
No static night time illumination is permitted within the wind farm site, other than
for maintenance, construction and security purposes, or as required by the CAA.
43.
Permitted night time illumination shall be utilised in a manner than does not cause a
nuisance beyond the boundary of the wind farm site.
44.
Any lighting installed on turbines shall be installed in accordance with CAA
requirements and shall be shrouded (as appropriate and subject to CAA
requirements) to ensure there is no direct light spill when viewed from ground level.
Radio Interference
45.
The Consent Holder shall remedy any radio network interference that is a direct
result of the installation and operation of the wind turbines as soon as practicable
after receiving confirmation such interference is predicted to occur or has occurred.
The remedy will be restoration of reception radio frequencies at the Consent Holder's
cost. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to:
45.1
The relocation of the Rising Sun Puketoi Range radio site to mitigate potential
degradation of Land Mobile services signal by scatter effects;
Schedule 2:
45.2
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
The replacement of existing links located on Mt Butters with radio links and
location of antennae so that the links are unobstructed by turbines.
Electric and Magnetic Fields
46.
Electric and Magnetic Fields shall comply with guidelines for public exposure to
electric and magnetic fields as published in 2010 by the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (or its subsequent equivalent).
Electrical Safety
47.
All transmission lines shall be designed and constructed to comply with the New
Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34:2001).
48.
As far as practicable, all electrical infrastructure installed in the wind farm shall be
covered or insulated to prevent ready access by or electrocution of birds.
Shadow Flicker
49.
Prior to construction of the Wind Farm, the Consent Holder shall use the final Wind
Farm design to model potential shadow flicker effects on residence 81 (the Marshall
property) (as described in Shadow Flicker Technical Assessment For The Puketoi
Wind Farm, July 2011 provided as Appendix T of Volume 2 of the Application for this
consent) and provide the results of the modelling to the Tararua District Council. If
the modelling shows shadow flicker at residence 81 will exceed the Australian
―National Wind Farm Development Guidelines‖ (or any subsequent update, or any
similar New Zealand Guideline that may have been developed at the time of the
modelling, with the latter taking preference if it exists), the Consent Holder shall
modify its proposed operation of the wind farm to ensure the Guidelines are
complied with.
Advice Note: Reducing shadow flicker effects can be achieved by stopping the
relevant turbine and/or turbines at the time of day known to be an issue. In addition
each relevant turbine can be fitted with a light sensor so that the turbine would only
be stopped at these known times in the presence of direct sunlight.
Turbine Interference
50.
Unless the operator of the Waitahora Wind Farm confirms its agreement otherwise in
writing to Tararua District Council, the consent holder shall ensure that turbines 1, 2
and 3 at the northern end of the Puketoi wind farm shall not be operated when
upwind of either of turbines 61 and 63 forming part of the Waitahora Wind Farm (in
terms of the resource consent granted by the Environment Court in its decision
reported at (2022) NZ EnvC 76) that is in operation at the time.
51.
For the purposes of this condition, the wind sectors causing a Puketoi turbine to be
upwind of any turbine within the Waitahora Wind Farm shall be defined with
reference to a line drawn from the centre of the relevant Puketoi turbine through the
centre of the relevant Waitahora turbine as follows:
Relevant
Turbines
Puketoi Turbine 1 /
Waitahora Turbine 61
Puketoi Turbine 2 /
Waitahora Turbine 63
Puketoi Turbine 3 /
Waitahora Turbine 63
Wind
Sector
20 degrees either side
of the line
10.5 degrees either
side of the line
9 degrees either side
of the line
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
52.
For the avoidance of doubt any hysteresis to manage fluctuating wind directions
shall be undertaken by the consent holder outside the specified wind sectors.
53.
No other Puketoi wind turbine shall be located or moved within ten (10) times its
rotor diameter of any Waitahora wind turbine. For the avoidance of doubt, this
condition does not prevent a Puketoi wind turbine from being micro-sited within the
defined 50m radius shown on the consent plans attached to this consent.
Acoustic Glazing
54.
The applicant shall prior to the commissioning of the wind farm acoustically glaze
the southern windows of the Marshall property. For the avoidance of doubt the
southern winds are those facing the turbines
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
Annexure 2A:
MRP-PKT-0321-A: Turbine Colour Envelope
Annexure 2B:
Traffic Design Group drawing 8488-3W1 Sheet 7, Revision B, and Traffic
Design Group drawing 8488-3W1 Sheet 8, Revision A.
SCHEDULE 3: General conditions relevant to Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
Consents
Erosion and Sediment Control
1.
All erosion and sediment control measures shall remain the responsibility of the Consent
Holder, and be installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the following
hierarchy:
1.1
These consent conditions;
1.2
The certified CEMP;
1.3
The relevant certified SEMP; and
1.4
The Wellington Regional Council‘s Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the
Wellington Region (dated September 2002) Reprinted 2006 (or its subsequent
equivalent).
2.
The Consent Holder shall provide written notification to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council at least five working days prior to works commencing in each area for which a SEMP
has been certified.
3.
Prior to exercising these resource consents the consent holder shall establish a sediment
control team which is to be managed by a suitably qualified person experienced in erosion
and sediment control and associated environmental issues. The sediment control team shall
consist of personnel that have clearly defined roles and responsibilities to monitor
compliance with the consent conditions and will be available to meet with the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council monitoring personnel on a weekly basis during Bulk Earthwork
activities, or as otherwise agreed in writing, to review erosion and sediment control issues.
The person managing the sediment control team shall:
4.
3.1
Be experienced in erosion and sediment control implementation and monitoring;
3.2
Be recognised by his/her peers as having a high level of knowledge and skill as
appropriate for the role;
3.3
Have attended a recognised regional council erosion and sediment control workshop;
and
3.4
Be approved in writing by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
The consent holder shall arrange and conduct a pre-construction site meeting and invite,
with a minimum of 10 working days notice, representatives of the Manawatu-Wanganui
Regional Council, the site representative(s) nominated under condition 3 of this schedule,
the contractor, and any other party representing the consent holder prior to any work
authorised by this consent commencing on site.
Advice Note: In the case that any of the invited parties, other than the site representative
does not attend this meeting, the consent holder will have complied with this condition,
provided the invitation requirement is met.
5.
The consent holder shall prepare and forward a detailed schedule of construction activities to
the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council prior to the commencement of works authorised
by these resource consents, and updates at one month intervals (commencing the 10th day
of each month) during works. These shall include details of:
5.1
The commencement date and expected duration of the major cut and fill operations;
5.2
The location of the major cut and fill operations;
5.3
The location of topsoil stockpiles;
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
5.4
Confirmation of the volume of earthworks undertaken in the previous month and the
predicted volume of earthworks for the reporting month;
5.5
Confirmation of the area of vegetation clearance undertaken in the previous month
(as measured in hectares) and the predicted area of vegetation clearance for the
reporting month;
5.6
The commencement and completion dates for the implementation of erosion and
sediment controls; and
5.7
The proposed construction and methodology, including staging of earthworks.
6.
Prior to Bulk Earthworks commencing in a catchment located in a designated SEMP area the
consent holder shall ensure erosion and sediment control measures are installed in
accordance with the provisions of the relevant certified SEMP.
7.
The removal of any erosion and sediment control measure from any area where soil has
been disturbed as a result of the exercise of these resource consents shall only occur after
consultation and written certification has been obtained from the Manawatu-Wanganui
Regional Council acting in a technical certification capacity. In this respect, the main issues
that will be considered by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council include:
7.1
The effectiveness of the soil stabilisation and/or covering vegetation;
7.2
The quality of the water discharged from the rehabilitated land; and
7.3
The quality of the receiving water.
8.
Re-vegetation and/or stabilisation of all disturbed areas is to be completed in accordance
with the measures detailed in the document titled ―Erosion and Sediment Control –
Guidelines for the Wellington Region, dated September 2002, Reprinted June 2006 and the
certified SEMP.
9.
The consent holder shall ensure those areas of the site where earthworks have been
completed shall be stabilised against erosion as soon as practically possible and within a
period not exceeding 14 working days after completion of any works authorised by these
resource consents. Stabilisation shall be undertaken by providing adequate measures
(vegetative and/or structural) that will minimise sediment runoff and erosion to the
satisfaction of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council acting in a technical certification
capacity. The consent holder shall monitor and maintain the site until vegetation is
established to such an extent that it prevents erosion and prevents sediment from entering
any water body.
Advice Note: Where seeding or grassing is used on a surface that is no otherwise resistant
to erosion, the surface is considered stabilised once, on reasonable visual inspection by the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council an 80 percent vegetative cover has been established.
10.
The consent holder shall, within 5 days of completing the construction of any erosion and
sediment control structures, submit to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council a
statement signed by a suitably qualified and experienced professional certifying that the
erosion and sediment control structures have been constructed in accordance with the
certified SEMP. Erosion and sediment controls covered within the statement shall include,
but not necessarily be limited to all sediment retention ponds, decanting earth bunds,
diversion channels, contour drains, cleanwater diversions and/or bunds, silt fences and
super silt fences. The certification statement shall be supplied to the Manawatu-Wanganui
Regional Council within 5 working days of the completion of the construction of the
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 182
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
structures concerned. Information contained in the certification statement shall include at
least the following:
10.1 Confirmation of contributing catchment areas;
10.2 The location, capacity and design of each structure;
10.3 Position of inlets and outlets;
10.4 Stability of the structures;
10.5 Measures to control erosion; and
10.6 Any other relevant matter.
11. The consent holder shall ensure that the site is appropriately stabilised by 30 April of each
year unless otherwise certified in writing by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council.
Stabilisation shall be undertaken by providing adequate measures (vegetative and/or
structural and including, pavement, metalling, hydro-seeding, re-vegetation and mulching)
that will minimise erosion of exposed soil to the extent practicable.
12. Bulk Earthworks shall not be conducted during the period 1 May to 30 September inclusive,
apart from necessary maintenance works, unless certified in writing by the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council.
13. Requests to undertake Bulk Earthworks during the period 1 May to 30 September inclusive,
shall be submitted in writing to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council by 1 April and
shall be in the form of addendums to the relevant certified SEMP in accordance with
condition 10 of Schedule 1 of this consent.
Advice Note: In considering a request for the continuation of winter earthworks, the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council will consider a number of factors; including:

The nature of the site and the winter soil disturbance works proposed;

The quality of the existing/proposed erosion and sediment controls;

The compliance history of the site/operator;

Seasonal/local soil and weather conditions;

Sensitivity of the receiving environment; and

Any other relevant factor
14. Fill sites shall not be located in any permanently flowing stream.
15. The consent holder shall ensure that all sediment laden run-off from the site that is
associated with activities authorised by this consent is treated by sediment retention
structures. These structures are to be fully operational before Bulk Earthworks commence in
the contributing catchment or sub-catchment and shall be maintained to perform at least at
80% of their operational capacity.
16. Unless otherwise certified by Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council all sediment retention
ponds and decanting earth bunds shall be chemically treated in accordance with the
approved Flocculation Management Plan in the following circumstances:
-
Where the material in the spoil disposal areas comprises more than 30% Kumeroa
mudstone and silt stone;
-
Where the sediment control will be operative for less than 2 weeks before the
contributing catchment is stabilised and the bench testing shows that flocculation is
greater than 15% more effective than gravity separation;
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 183
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
-
Where the sediment control will be operative for between 2 and 4 weeks before the
contributing catchment is stabilised and the bench testing shows that flocculation is
greater than 10% more effective than gravity separation;
-
Where the sediment control will be operative for more than 4 weeks before the
contributing catchment is stabilised and the bench testing shows that flocculation is
greater than 5% more effective than gravity separation.
Advice Note: A review of the trigger levels for the use of flocculation may be undertaken by
the consent holder at any time following the first sediment control devices being
commissioned. The purpose of any review undertaken will be to confirm that the trigger
levels prescribed in condition 16 are appropriate, and if not, to identify any proposed
changes to trigger levels. Any changes to the flocculation trigger levels require certification
from Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council.
17. The consent holder shall provide the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council with a draft
Flocculation Management Plan, for certification prior to any works authorised by this consent
commencing in any catchment where flocculation is proposed. The Flocculation Management
Plan shall include as a minimum:
17.1
Specific design details of the flocculation system;
17.2
Monitoring, maintenance (including post-storm) and including a record system;
17.3
Details of optimum dosage (including assumptions);
17.4
Results of flocculation bench testing undertaken of representative material within
each area covered by an SEMP. The bench testing shall show settlement results
from gravity separation and the use of flocculation;
17.5
A spill contingency plan; and
17.6
Contact details of the person responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
flocculation treatment system and the organisational structure to which this person
shall report.
18. The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written certification for
the detailed Flocculation Management Plan has been obtained from the Manawatu-Wanganui
Regional Council. In the event the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council does not provide a
response within 20 working days of receiving the Flocculation Management Plan, the consent
holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in accordance with the submitted
Flocculation Management Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Flocculation Management
Plan by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council shall be based on the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council assessment as to whether the Flocculation Management Plan
adequately addresses those matters contained in condition 17 of this schedule. Where the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council considers the Flocculation Management Plan cannot
be certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
19. Any changes proposed to the Flocculation Management Plan shall be confirmed in writing by
the consent holder and certified in accordance with the process outlined in condition 18 of
this Schedule.
20. The consent holder shall ensure that any chemical flocculation system is designed and
operated by a person(s) suitably qualified and experienced in erosion and sediment
management and is managed in accordance Greater Wellington Regional Council document
titled ―Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the Wellington Region, dated September
2002 (Reprinted June 2006).
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 184
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
21. The consent holder shall ensure all chemical flocculation is undertaken in accordance with
the certified Flocculation Management Plan and any subsequent certified amendments to this
Plan.
22. Unless site specific analysis provides evidence to the contrary (e.g. existing baseline
information), as detailed in the certified Flocculation Management Plan (and any certified
amendments to this Plan), the consent holder shall ensure that the soluble aluminium
concentration of any discharge to the any watercourse shall not exceed 0.2 grams per cubic
metre and the pH of any discharge from any chemically treated structure to any watercourse
shall not be less than 5.5 or greater than 8.5 pH units.
Dust Control
23.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that the construction, operation and maintenance activities
are managed in a manner to ensure that there are no objectionable or offensive dust
emissions beyond the boundary of the site. Measures for control may include, but are not
limited to, the application of water to surfaces that are exposed or excessively dry, and
covering an exposed area with a coating of geotextile, grass and/or mulch.
24.
Notwithstanding Condition 23, if offensive or objectionable dust emissions do occur beyond
the site boundaries that cause an adverse effect, the dust-causing activity shall cease
immediately and shall not recommence until appropriate measures have been put in place to
prevent recurrence of a similar event.
25.
Should objectionable or offensive dust emissions occur, the Consent Holder shall provide a
written report to the Relevant Council within five working days of the Consent Holder being
made aware of such emissions. The report shall specify:
25.1
The severity of the event;
25.2
The cause or likely cause of the event and any factors that influenced its severity;
25.3
The nature and timing of any measures implemented by the Consent Holder to
avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects; and
25.4
The steps to be taken in future to prevent recurrence of similar events.
Aquatic Ecology
Monitoring
26.
27.
The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist and
environmental management specialist to prepare a Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Plan. The
objectives of the Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Plan are to:
26.1
Determine the pre-windfarm development/construction sediment loads within the
Makuri Stream catchment in the vicinity of the Wind Farm Site,
26.2
Confirm the aquatic ecology values within the Makuri Stream catchment in the
vicinity of the Wind Farm Site, and
26.3
Establish, as far as practicable, the baseline relationship between sediment, rainfall
and stream flow in this catchment.
The Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Wellington
Region of Fish and Game New Zealand and shall be submitted to the Council for certification
20 working days prior to any baseline monitoring commencing. The Baseline Aquatic
Monitoring Plan shall include the following matters:
27.1 A requirement to undertake baseline monitoring of sediment deposition (using SAM-2
and SAM-4), turbidity, and suspended sediment two times per year (summer and
winter sampling) for two years prior to construction commencing;
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 185
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
27.2 A requirement to undertake seasonal macroinvertebrate monitoring within the Makuri
Stream two times per year (summer and winter sampling) for two years prior to
construction commencing;
27.3 A requirement to identify trout spawning areas within the Makuri Stream catchment
upstream of the Makuri Gorge;
27.4 Details of the parameters to be monitored and monitoring locations; and
27.5 Details of monitoring frequencies and methodologies.
28. The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written certification for
the detailed Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Plan has been obtained from the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council. In the event the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council does not
provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Plan,
the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the construction in accordance with the
submitted Baseline Aquatic Monitoring Plan and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Baseline Aquatic
Monitoring Plan by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council shall be based on the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council assessment as to whether the Baseline Aquatic
Monitoring Plan adequately addresses those matters contained in condition 27 of this
schedule. Where the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council considers the Baseline Aquatic
Monitoring Plan cannot be certified, their response should outline these inconsistencies to
the Consent Holder.
29.
Within 2 months of completing the monitoring undertaken in accordance with the Baseline
Aquatic Monitoring Plan the Consent Holder shall provide a report to the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council and the Wellington Region Fish and Game New Zealand that
provides an assessment, analysis and summary of the results of the baseline aquatic
monitoring. This report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:
29.1
Results of baseline monitoring of sediment deposition (using SAM-2 and SAM-4),
turbidity, and suspended sediment two times per year (summer and winter
sampling) for two years prior to construction commencing;
29.2
Results of seasonal macroinvertebrate monitoring within the Makuri Stream
undertaken two times per year (summer and winter sampling) for two years prior
to construction commencing;
29.3
Identification of trout spawning areas within the Makuri Stream catchment
upstream of the Makuri Gorge;
29.4
Details of the parameters monitored and monitoring locations; and
29.5
Details of monitoring frequencies and methodologies.
Adaptive Aquatic Management Response Plan
30.
The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist(s) and
environmental management specialist to prepare an Adaptive Aquatic Management
Response Plan which specifies responses to the findings of the baseline aquatic monitoring
undertaken pursuant to conditions 26 and 27 of this Schedule. The responses shall be
designed to address any actual or potential effects of the construction works authorised by
these consents on the Makuri Stream and tributaries representative of the Wind Farm Site.
The Adaptive Aquatic Management Response Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the
Wellington Region of Fish and Game New Zealand and shall be submitted to the Council for
certification 60 working days prior to commencement of any construction works. As a
minimum, the Adaptive Aquatic Management Response Plan shall include the following:
30.1 A Construction Aquatic Monitoring Plan to be implemented during Wind Farm
construction activities. This Plan shall be prepared using the results contained in the
report required pursuant to condition 29 of this Schedule. As a minimum the
Construction Aquatic Monitoring Plan shall include:
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 186
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
a. Identification of monitoring sites to be used during construction;
b. Details of the parameters to be monitored during construction (including, but not
limited to; Total Suspended Solids, Turbidity, sediment deposition and in-stream
community structure e.g. macroinvertebrates, trout and koura); and
c. Details of monitoring frequencies and methodologies.
30.2 Nomination of threshold Trigger Levels for parameters that trigger an adaptive
management response by the Consent Holder, and the details of each response,
including:
a. Investigation methods to determine likely cause of the Trigger Levels being
reached;
b. Remediation measures available to avoid the Trigger Levels from being exceeded;
c. Additional monitoring; and
d. Mitigation and/or remediation measures available to address any adverse effects
that may arise.
30.3 Nomination of consent compliance threshold Limits for parameters that are not to be
exceeded at anytime and the details of measures available to address any adverse
effects that may arise if these Limits are exceeded, including the processes that will
be followed to determine the most appropriate way to mitigate or offset these effects
and to avoid re-occurrences;
30.4 Details of a weather station or stations that are to be utilised as part of this
monitoring programme; and
30.5 An outline of the monitoring strategy to be followed in response to specified
rainfall/meteorological events.
31. The consent holder shall not commence construction activities until written certification for
the detailed Adaptive Aquatic Management Response Plan has been obtained from the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. In the event the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council does not provide a response within 20 working days of receiving the Adaptive
Aquatic Management Response Plan, the consent holder shall be entitled to proceed with the
construction in accordance with the submitted Adaptive Aquatic Management Response Plan
and the conditions of consent.
Advice Note: The certification (or withholding certification) of the Adaptive Aquatic
Management Response Plan by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council shall be based on
the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council assessment as to whether the Adaptive Aquatic
Management Response Plan adequately addresses those matters contained in condition 30
of this schedule. Where the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council considers the Adaptive
Aquatic Management Response Plan cannot be certified, their response should outline these
inconsistencies to the Consent Holder.
32. The consent holder as soon as practical and within 12 hours of becoming aware of a trigger
level or levels(s) as identified in the certified Adaptive Management Response Plan being
exceeded as a result of the activities authorised by this consent shall:
32.1 Notify the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, in writing, of the exceedance or
exceedances and the possible cause(s) of the exceedance or exceedances; and
32.2 Ensure the investigation into the cause of the exceedances has commenced.
33. Within five days of becoming aware of the cause of the exceedance or exceedances the
consent holder shall provide a written report to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
that includes, but is not necessarily limited to:
33.1 An explanation as to the cause or causes of the exceedance or exceedances;
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 187
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
33.2 The investigation methods used to determine the cause of the exceedance or
exceedances;
33.3 Identification and assessment as to the environmental effects associated with the
exceedance or exceedances;
33.4 The remediation measures identified and timeframe for implementation to address
any adverse effects that has arisen as a result of the exceedance or exceedances; and
33.5 Details of any additional monitoring to be undertaken as a result of the exceedance or
exceedances.
34. The consent holder as soon as practical and within 12 hours of becoming aware of a consent
compliance threshold trigger level or levels(s) as identified in the certified Adaptive
Management Response Plan being exceeded as a result of the activities authorised by this
consent shall:
34.1 Notify the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, in writing, of the non-compliance;
and
34.2 Provide an explanation for the likely cause or causes of the non-compliance.
35. The consent holder shall ensure the activities authorised by these resource consents do not
result in any exceedance of a consent compliance threshold trigger level detailed in the
certified Adaptive Management Response Plan.
36. At the completion of all Wind Farm construction works, the Adaptive Management Response
Plan shall be reviewed by the Consent Holder. As part of its review, the Consent Holder
shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist to recommend the need to
continue the monitoring at that time. The ecologist shall make their recommendation after
having consulted with the Wellington Region of Fish and Game New Zealand and the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council. Any changes to the Adaptive Management Response
Plan shall be confirmed in writing by the consent holder and certified in writing by the
Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council acting in a technical certification capacity, prior to the
implementation of any changes.
Bridges, Fords and Culverts
37. The maximum works in watercourses shall be as follows:
37.1 Two temporary bridges over the Makuri River;
37.2 One temporary bridge in the Pahiatua–Pongarora Gorge;
37.3 One culverted ford over an unnamed stream – a total culverted length not exceeding
7m;
37.4 13 conventional culverts crossing multiple unnamed watercourses, at lengths ranging
12m–20m max and a total culverted length not exceeding 260m).
38.
The discharge from any temporary diversion channels shall be controlled so as to prevent
scour at the outlet of the channel. To this end the consent holder shall ensure that any
temporary diversion is constructed and controlled in accordance with the Wellington
Regional Council document titled ―Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for the
Wellington Region, dated September 2002 (Reprinted June 2006).
39.
The consent holder shall ensure that all bridges and culverts (including erosion protection
and stream control structures) are designed and constructed in accordance with the
Environment Bay of Plenty document titled ―Hydrological and Hydraulic Guidelines, Version
One, dated 16 July 2001.
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 188
Schedule 2:
40.
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
The consent holder shall 30 working days prior to commencing works authorised by these
resource consents, provide a report prepared by suitably qualified and experienced engineer
to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council for certification, that includes, but is not
necessarily limited to:
40.1 A map or maps of an appropriate scale showing the location of all culverts and
bridges;
40.2 Detailed design calculations and drawings for each bridge and culvert demonstrating
how these structures meet the design specifications detailed in the Environment Bay
of Plenty document titled ―Hydrological and Hydraulic Guidelines, Version One, dated
16 July 2001.
41.
The installation of culverts and fords shall be undertaken in a manner that provides for the
safe passage of fish both upstream and downstream of the structure and associated works
authorised by these resource consents. To this end the Consent Holder shall ensure that any
native fish or koura stranded during construction works are immediately placed in the
clearest flowing water adjacent to the stranding site.
42.
All equipment used on-site shall be operated in a manner, which ensures spillages of
contaminants (including fuel, oil, paints or solvents) are prevented. To this end all
maintenance and refuelling activities shall be carried out away from any water body,
ephemeral water body, or overland flow path, such that any spillage does not enter surface
water.
43.
Any construction debris or excess material from construction works shall be removed from
the bed of any watercourse disposed of in an appropriate manner and in a location where it
will not enter any ephemeral or permanent water body.
44.
The consent holder shall ensure that all practicable steps are taken to avoid the addition of
sediment to any flowing water course during the trout spawning and incubation period (May
to October inclusive).
45.
The consent holder shall ensure that direct disturbance of the bed of the Makuri Stream or
River, shall not take place during any time in May through to October inclusive.
46.
Bridge piles shall be driven from the edge of the stream, and the abutments shall be outside
the wetted area of stream bed.
47.
The consent holder shall ensure the banks of the Makuri River are as soon as practical and,
within 5 working days of the completion of the bridge construction and removal of the
bridges, stabilised. Stabilisation shall be undertaken by providing adequate measures
(structural and/or vegetative) that will minimise sediment runoff and erosion to the
satisfaction of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council, acting in a technical certification
capacity.
48.
Bridges constructed over the Makuri Stream / Makuri River shall be removed within 14 years
of the commencement of the consents.
49.
The installation of culverts and fords shall be undertaken in accordance with the certified
CEMP and relevant certified SEMP, and in general accordance with the DoC publication ―Fish
Passage at Culverts‖, December 1999. To protect the surface features of springs, wherever
practicable culverts or fords shall not be located within 50 metres of freshwater spring sites.
50.
The consent holder shall be responsible for the structural integrity and maintenance of the
bridge, fords and culvert structures authorised by this consent and for any erosion control
works that in the opinion of staff or agents of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 189
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
become necessary to preserve the integrity and stability of the structures and/or to control
or remediate erosion which occurs as a direct result of the exercise of this consent.
51.
The consent holder shall ensure that all materials and equipment required for the
construction of the structures authorised by these resource consents have been sourced
prior to works commencing.
52.
The consent holder shall contact the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council‘s Environmental
Protection Team at least two working days prior to the commencement of the construction
works authorised by this Consent and on completion of the construction works.
Advice Note: The Environmental Protection Team can be contacted at the following number
0508 800 800, or at [email protected].
53.
The works shall remain the responsibility of the consent holder and shall be maintained so
that any erosion, scour or instability of the stream bed or banks that is attributable to the
works carried out as part of this consent is remedied by the consent holder within 10
working days.
54.
The consent holder shall comply with all notices and guidelines issued by Biosecurity New
Zealand in relation to avoiding spreading the Pest Organism Didymosphenia geminata,
(Didymo), hornwort, lagarosiphon and other freshwater pest plants (refer to
www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo).
Advice Note: These guidelines have a specific decontamination procedures that should
followed.
55.
The consent holder shall take all measures to ensure that no uncured cement or cement
based products enter the flowing water in the watercourse during the construction of the
works or any maintenance authorised by this consent. Any uncured concrete placed in or
near the watercourse shall be undertaken in such a manner that no concrete or cement
leaches out and enters the watercourse. Such measures may include, but not be limited to
the following:
55.1 working during summer low flow conditions; or
55.2 containing the new concrete in a watertight form work.
56.
New concrete or mortar shall not be exposed to the flow of water before the concrete or
mortar has hardened to a strength of at least 10 mpa, or for at least 48 hours.
57.
The consent holder shall ensure that before any cement work commences there is at least
two days of dry weather forecast by the New Zealand Meteorological Service (MetService)
for the waterbody‘s catchment and during a low flow in the waterbody.
58.
The consent holder shall ensure that any materials, machinery or equipment from the
activities authorised by this consent (including any temporary structures), shall:
58.1 not be stored in or on the bed of the unnamed headwater tributary of the Makuri
Stream or any of its tributaries;
58.2 be removed after completion of the activity; and
58.3 be disposed of or relocated in an appropriate manner where it will not adversely affect
the stream channel or impede the flow of water.
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 190
Schedule 2:
59.
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
Advice Note: The term ‗Materials‘ includes, but is not necessarily limited to, stockpiles,
mounds, depressions, trees/vegetation, excavated material, holes or surplus materials
The consent holder shall ensure that the structures authorised by these resource consents,
once completed and during maintenance activities, shall not adversely affect the ability of
the subject watercourse to convey flood flows or floating or flood borne debris during floods
up to and including the design specifications certified by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council under condition 40 of this schedule.
60.
The consent holder shall only commence works in the bed of any ephemeral or perennial
watercourse if there is at least two days of dry weather forecasted by the New Zealand
Meteorological Service (MetService) for the subject watercourse‘s catchment and during a
low flow in the subject watercourse.
61.
The consent holder shall ensure that all culvert embankments are thoroughly compacted to
ensure there is no seepage and failure of the embankments. To this end:
61.1 The embankment material shall be free of humus, vegetation and other organic
material; and
61.2 Where the culvert embankments are 3m in height (or greater) and in any other
instances when specifically requested by the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council,
the Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced geo-technical
engineer to provide the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council with a statement
detailing the embankment construction methods used and the testing conducted to
ensure embankment stability.
62.
Within 5 working days of completing the construction of each structure authorised by these
resource consents the consent holder shall provide to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council, an ―as-built‖ plan and a certificate signed by a suitably qualified and experienced
engineer to certify that these structures have been constructed in accordance with the
conditions of this consent.
Advice Note: The Department of Conservation can provide advice and guidance, and must
be notified in accordance with Part 6 of the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983,
regarding structures that may impede or provide fish passage, so that any necessary
consent or dispensation as required by these Regulations may be obtained.
Stormwater Management – Wind Farm Operations Phase
63.
The CEMP shall include appropriate measures to avoid erosion and sedimentation as a result
of stormwater discharges from wind farm related work areas both at the discharge point and
in any downstream receiving water body.
64.
The substation transformer(s) shall be bunded, with the bund sized to accommodate 110%
of the oil storage volume, plus a 1% AEP 24 hour rainfall depth on the bunded area.
65.
The Consent Holder shall maintain all structures used for the collection, treatment and
disposal of stormwater on site in a serviceable condition at all times.
66.
The Consent Holder shall, at all times other than when a 10% AEP rainfall event is
exceeded, operate the stormwater collection and treatment system in a manner that will
avoid any of the following effects that may result from the indirect discharge of stormwater
to surface receiving waters (compared with that measured upstream of the discharge point
for waterways, or that measured in an unaffected but nearby point in a still water body):
a.
the production of any conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or
suspended materials;
b.
any conspicuous change in the colour or visual clarity;
c.
any emission of objectionable odour;
d.
the rendering of fresh water unsuitable for consumption by farm animals; and
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 191
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
e.
any significant adverse effects on aquatic life. To this end there shall be no more than
a 20 % reduction in the quantitative macroinvertebrate index (QMCI) score between
appropriately matched habitats upstream and downstream of the discharge or any
activities authorised by these resource consents. That all flows shall go over
designated stabilised flow paths;
f.
flows occurring over other than designated stabilised flow paths;
g.
any discharge containing concentrations of hazardous substances that may cause
toxicity to aquatic animals or render water unsuitable for human consumption after
treatment.
Wastewater Management – Wind Farm Operations Phase
67. The design of wastewater system (treatment plant and land application are) and the
discharge of primary treated effluent (septic tank treated) from ablution facilities at the
Operations and Maintenance Facility shall achieve the standards set out in Rule 13-12 of the
proposed One Plan and manual titled Manual for On-Site Wastewater Systems Design and
Management, dated 2010 (or its subsequent equivalent). The following criteria shall be
followed in the design and operation of the Wastewater Effluent Management System:
67.1 Daily occupancy and / or usage of the facilities (realistic maximum number of person);
67.2 Size and capacity of the treatment plant (4500L septic tank and outlet filter are
mandatory);
67.3 Design land application rate is to be suited to the soil type in the area.
68.
There shall be no ponding or run-off of wastewater beyond the designated land application
area or discharge of wastewater to any flowing watercourse or drainage ditch which contains
water, ephemeral drain, wetland or permanent pond.
69.
The consent holder shall, 10 working days prior to the exercise of activities authorised by
these resource consents, provide to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council a Wastewater
Management Plan, which as a minimum includes:
71.1 A Site Plan showing the locations of the wastewater treatment, the land application
area and reserve;
71.2 A programme for inspections and maintenance of the system;
71.3 Contingency procedures for malfunctions or overloads.
70.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that the effluent treatment and disposal system is installed
by a Registered Drain Layer and has a Certificate of Compliance issued by the relevant
Territorial Authority
71.
The consent holder shall provide a written statement signed by a Registered Drain Layer
certifying that the Wastewater Treatment System, including the land application area, has
being designed and installed in accordance with these resource consents. This certification
shall be provided to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council within five working days of
the installation of the Wastewater Treatment System being completed.
72.
The Consent Holder shall ensure that maintenance and inspections of the disposal field and
treatment system are undertaken in accordance with the manufacturer‘s guidelines and in
accordance with the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council‘s Manual for On-Site Wastewater
Systems Design and Management 2010 (Section 7), and that maintenance records are kept.
The Consent Holder shall make these records available to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional
Council within 10 working days of receiving a request for this information.
Discharges from Concrete Batching Plants
73.
No concrete batching plant shall be located within 50 metres of any watercourse.
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 192
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
74.
As far as practicable, all excess water from the concrete batching process shall be collected
and reused on site.
75.
Discharges from the concrete batching plant wash out pond and stormwater pond shall meet
the following standards:
• Turbidity 50 NTU; and
• pH between 6-9.
76.
Where the turbidity level is exceeded, or pH is greater than 9, further treatment shall be
required via chemical treatment and/or pH management prior to any discharge exiting the
concrete batching plant site.
The Consent Holder shall keep records of all concrete batching plant discharges including
estimated flows and test results required to demonstrate compliance with condition 75 of
this Schedule. The Consent Holder shall make these records available to the ManawatuWanganui Regional Council within 10 working days of receiving a request for this
information.
Diversion and discharge – limestone drainage network
77.
The bulk earthworks shall be located to avoid:
77.1 Cave entrances;
77.2 Swallow holes or permanent stream sinks.
78.
Where practicable the bulk earthworks shall located to avoid:
78.1 Large (or significant) sink holes;
78.2 Existing limestone surface outcrops;
78.3 Underlying caves, cavities or open joints in limestone.
79. Except as amended by resource consent conditions or amended as
certification process for the Final CEMP, all works shall be undertaken to
proposed mitigation, contained in Protocol for management of adverse
terrain and Protocol for accidental discovery of caves and sinkholes in
attached to this Schedule as Annexure 3A and Annexure 3B.
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
a result of the
comply with the
effects on karst
karst terrain as
Page 193
Schedule 2:
General Conditions relevant to TDC and PNCC
Annexure 3A: Protocol for Management of Adverse Effects on Karst Terrain
Annexure 3B: Protocol for Accidental Discovery of Caves & Sinkholes in Karst Terrain
PGR-122080-1-66-V1
Page 194