CASTLE HILL WIND FARM
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
DOCUMENT 1
July 2011
Castle Hill Wind Farm
Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment
Prepared for Genesis Energy
By Boffa Miskell Ltd
July 2011
CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT TERMINOLOGY & GLOSSARY 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
1. BACKGROUND ...... 12
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE WIND FARM ...... 14
3. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS ...... 23
4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ...... 24
5. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT ...... 26
6. STATUTORY LANDSCAPE PLANNING PROVISIONS ...... 32
7. WIND FARM VISIBILITY ...... 35
8. VISIBILITY FROM PUBLIC VIEWPOINTS ...... 42
9. VISIBILITY FROM RURAL DWELLINGS ...... 51
10. ASSESSMENT OF CHWF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS ...... 56
11. CONCLUSIONS ...... 71
LIST OF FIGURES 1. CHWF Location 13 2. CHWF Layout 16 3. CHWF Residences 52
LIST OF TABLES 1. Turbine Layout Parameters 18 2. Internal Road Parameters 19 3. Visibility Within 10km of Nearest Turbine 40 4. Public Viewpoint Locations 44 5. Public Viewpoint Visibility 46 6.Dwellings Within 5km of Nearest Turbine 51 7. Dwelling Visibility within 5km of Nearest Turbine 55 8. Potential Visual Effects 62
2 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Project Terminology and Glossary
AEE Assessment of Environmental Effects
Assessed Layout Turbine layout based on a tip height of 155m at a density of 242 turbines
Central Laydown Area(s) Areas On-site that may be used to store turbine components for a sub-set of turbine locations, or on which construction equipment and materials can be placed. This is an alternative option to storing components Off-site or at individual Turbine Platforms.
CHWF Castle Hill Wind Farm.
CHWF Landowners Owners of the land on which the wind farm will be built. CHWF Landowners have signed agreements with Genesis Energy.
CHWF Landowners Dwellings Dwellings within the CHWF Site.
External Dwellings Dwellings external to the CHWF Site.
CHWF Site or Site The area of land defined by the land titles covered by agreements.
Construction Traffic Routes External Roads used for non-OW/OD construction traffic.
Contractor Compound Centre for construction management and workshop based activities consisting of offices, workshops, storage, parking and amenities.
Electrical Balance of Plant (EBoP) All electrical structures and equipment related to the collection and reticulation of electrical power around CHWF and required to connect the CHWF to the External Transmission Line. Plant includes underground cables, overhead reticulation lines, transformers, substations and switchgear.
3 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Engineered Fill Excavated material (excluding top soil) that is incorporated into engineered earthworks such as road fills, Turbine Platforms and Central Laydown Areas. Placement and treatment of the Engineered Fill is designed to meet construction requirements for such aspects as drainage, strength and stability.
Excess Fill Soil removed from the ground which is either not suitable or not needed as Engineered Fill.
Excess Fill Areas Areas for disposal of Excess Fill.
External Landowners Owners of land external to the CHWF Site
External Roads Public roads that are planned to be used for traffic associated with the construction and operation of the CHWF and including roads used by Over-weight and Over-dimension Vehicles.
External Transmission Line The electricity transmission line which connects CHWF to the Transpower national grid.
Indicative Turbine Layouts Turbine layouts that have been created to represent the range of possible turbine layouts:
80M – a turbine layout consisting of 286 Medium Turbines based on a turbine with an 80m rotor diameter. 90M – a turbine layout consisting of 262 Medium Turbines based on a turbine with a 90m rotor diameter. 100L – a turbine layout consisting of 242 Large Turbines based on a turbine with a 100m rotor diameter. 110L – a turbine layout consisting of 186 Large Turbines based on a turbine with a 110m rotor diameter.
4 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Internal Roads Roads that will be constructed within the
CHWF Site for transporting wind farm components and materials within the Site and to allow access around the Site for construction and operational activities.
Internal Transmission Line The 220kV electricity transmission line that is On-site and connects the main substation to the satellite substation.
Internal Transmission Line Deviation The deviation of the Internal Transmission Line to connect it to the Switching Station.
Large Turbine Configuration Any turbine configuration that consists only of Large Turbines with a maximum quantity of 242 turbines.
Large Turbines Turbines that have a maximum tip height greater than 135m but no greater than 155m.
Lay-by A passing bay which provides a means for large vehicles to pass each other on Internal Roads.
Main Substation The larger of the two substations, located in the southern region of the wind farm.
Medium Turbine Configuration Any turbine configuration that consists only of Medium Turbines with a maximum quantity of 286 turbines.
Medium Turbines Turbines that have a maximum tip height of 135m.
Mixed Turbine Configuration Any turbine configuration that consists of a mixture of Large Turbines and Medium Turbines with a maximum quantity of turbines limited by the proportion of Medium and Large Turbines.
5 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Off-site Anywhere outside the CHWF Site.
On-site Anywhere within the CHWF Site.
Satellite Substation The smaller of the two substations, located in the northern region of the wind farm.
Study Area Northern Wairarapa Landscape
Switching Station Provides an optional connection point for the External Transmission Line to connect to the Internal Transmission Line as an alternative to connecting at the Main Substation.
Turbine Clusters Groupings of turbines for ease of reference.
Turbine Corridor The area of the CHWF Site in which Turbines can be located.
Turbine Foundations The underground foundation upon which each turbine is based and which keeps the Turbine upright and stable.
Turbine Platform An engineered flat area beside the turbine that will be used for laying out and assembling turbine components and as a hard standing area for construction equipment and vehicles, particularly the construction crane.
Turbines Wind turbine generators consisting of foundations, tower, nacelle and rotor and including all equipment for and associated with the generation of electricity from the wind.
ZTV Zone of Theoretical Visibility
6 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Genesis Energy is seeking the necessary resource consents to construct and operate a wind farm in the Northern Wairarapa, known as Castle Hill Wind Farm (CHWF). The CHWF Site, which covers an area of approximately 30,000ha, is located 20km east of Eketahuna and Pahiatua, 20km north-east of Masterton and 15km west of the Wairarapa Coast north of Castlepoint and is in part within both the Greater Wellington Region, the Manawatu – Wanganui Region, and the Masterton and Tararua Districts.
2. The generation capacity of the CHWF is to be in the order of 600MW. The maximum capacity will be dependent on the type of turbine eventually selected for the site. Development of the CHWF may progress in stages, with any first stage being in the order of 300MW to 350MW. The capacity selected will depend on the wind turbine model chosen, and other commercial and technical considerations.
3. In order to allow flexibility in turbine placement, Genesis Energy is seeking resource consent for a Turbine Corridor which will enable a range of turbines to be considered for installation. The Turbine Corridor covers an area of 3144ha and incorporates all areas within the CHWF Site that have been identified as most suitable for turbine placement. Four Indicative Turbine Layouts (two Medium Turbine Configurations and two Large Turbine Configurations) have been developed to represent the range of possible turbine sizes and layouts that could be used for CHWF. The Indicative Layouts are based on different rotor diameter sizes to show the different turbine spacing that could occur within the Turbine Corridor and to inform the assessment of environment effects. For the purpose of illustrating and assessing the most visible turbine layout, a Large Turbine Configuration based on a tip height of 155m at a density of 242 turbines was selected. This configuration is hereafter referred to as the assessed layout.
4. Relative to the resource Management Act (RMA) and in the context of the CHWF, the potential landscape and visual effects being addressed in this report relate to the following –
Section 6 (b)
The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development
7 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Section 7 (c)
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values
Section 7 (f)
Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment
5. In the context of the wider setting of the northern Wairarapa landscape, the CHWF has been well sited in that it is confined and contained exclusively within the inland hill country. In landscape and visual terms, the hill country landscape has a high visual absorption capacity relative to the more visible and visually sensitive ranges to the west, the coastal hills to the east and the more settled and adjacent lowland valleys.
6. The CHWF Site is not identified as being within or part of an outstanding natural feature or landscape in either of the regional or district plans, nor is it likely to be identified as such in landscape studies that are currently being carried out in the Wairarapa area and in particular within the Masterton District. The closest identified outstanding natural feature or landscape to the CHWF is the Puketoi Range in the Tararua District within which the skyline of the range, when viewed from the west, has been identified as the key visual/scenic characteristic. Tinui Taipos, which is some 7.5km to the south of the CHWF, is also identified as an outstanding natural feature in the Wairarapa Combined District Plan.
7. In the context of the scale and size of the CHWF, its overall visibility will largely be confined and contained within the central section of the inland hill country landscape character area. Based on landform screening only –
i) Public places and rural dwellings within the Northern Wairarapa area generally tend to be located within the hill country valley system and accordingly will be partially screened from the wind farm.
ii) The CHWF will not be visible from the Wairarapa coastline or from the near inshore waters.
iii) The Puketoi Range effectively screens the CHWF from viewpoints to the west and in particular from the urban settlements of Eketahuna and Pahiatua.
iv) No turbines will be visible from State Highway 2 or the rural settlements within the State Highway 2 corridor.
v) From Route 52, the visibility of the turbines will be limited and constrained by landform screening and existing vegetation.
8 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
vi) No turbines will be visible from 23% of the total area within 10 km of the CHWF.
vii) From 49% of the total area within 10 km of the CHWF, between 1 – 50 turbines, rotors or rotor blade tips of the 242 turbines in the Assessed Layout will be visible.
viii) Excluding land within the CHWF Site, no turbines will be visible from 29% of the area within 10 km of the nearest turbine within the wind farm.
ix) Based on field work, local vegetation screening is likely to significantly decrease the areas from where turbines or parts of them are visible.
x) The CHWF will not be visible from Woodville or Masterton, due to the screening effects of intervening vegetation.
8. From the 42 representative public viewpoints, the visibility of the CHWF can be summarised as follows –
i) There are no public viewpoints from where all seven Turbine Clusters are visible.
ii) From no public viewpoint are more than 54% of the 242 turbines visible.
iii) From the 42 public representative viewpoints selected, no turbines or rotor blade tips can be seen from 4 of the viewpoints due to the screening effect of intervening vegetation.
iv) Of the 38 viewpoints that have full or partial views of the CHWF; 1 cluster is visible from 25 viewpoints, 2 clusters are visible from 5 viewpoints, 3 clusters are visible from 3 viewpoints, 4 clusters are visible from 5 viewpoints and 5 clusters are visible from 1 viewpoint (VP14).
v) Other than Viewpoint 14 which is on the Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road on the Puketoi Range from where 54% if the CHWF is visible (ie turbines or rotor blade tips), the next most visible public viewpoint is VP 18 on Route 52 at Tiraumea from where 36% of the wind farm is visible.
vi) From public viewpoints the Internal Transmission line will not generally be visible. From viewpoints where it is visible, the lattice steel towers will not be visually prominent.
vii) The Main Substation will not be visible from public viewpoints.
viii) The Satellite Substation on Waihoki Valley Road will be partially visible from the several hundred metres on either side of the proposed development.
9 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
ix) The Internal Roads and their associated earthworks will not generally be visible from public viewpoints due to the topography, the location of the roads and distance from public viewpoints.
x) While some aspects of the earthworks including Quarry Sites and Excess Fill Areas may be partially visible during the construction phase of the wind farm, following rehabilitation these areas and sites will generally not be visible.
xi) Temporary installations and activities such as concrete batching plants, and Lay Down Areas will not generally be visible from public viewpoints.
9. While some of the rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbine are in elevated locations, most of the dwellings are located within the valley system and tend to be well planted within their dwelling curtilage areas. The visibility of the CHWF from rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest turbine are summarised as follows –
i) Of the 173 dwellings within 5 km of the CHWF, 64 or 37 % are fully screened from views of the turbines and other wind farm infrastructure by intervening landforms or existing vegetation.
ii) Of the 64 dwellings that are screened, 3 are CHWF Landowner Dwellings and 61 are External Dwellings. Given there are 111 External Dwellings within 5 km of the CHWF Site, 55% of these are fully screened by existing landforms or vegetation.
iii) Of the remaining 109 rural dwellings that are partially screened or have limited screening, 59 are CHWF Landowner Dwellings and 50 or 46% are External Dwellings. Of the 50 External Dwellings within 5 km of the nearest turbine, 41 or 82% have partial screening from existing vegetation while 9 or 18% have limited vegetation screening.
10. With respect to potential landscape and visual effects, the assessment conclusions are as follows –
i) From a landscape and visual perspective, the northern Wairarapa hill country is an appropriate location for the CHWF.
ii) The CHWF does not impinge upon or compromise any outstanding natural features or landscapes within the northern Wairarapa area.
10 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
iii) The inland hill country landscape of the northern Wairarapa can accommodate the proposed CHWF without adversely affecting or compromising its rural character or its associated rural activities. iv) From public roads and rural settlements within 30km of the CHWF, the visual effects will be minor. v) From the 111 External Dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbine there are no visual effects from 61 of these dwellings due to landform and/or vegetation screening (55%), or the potential visual effects are assessed as being low (34%). From 7 (6%) of the dwellings the potential visual effects have been assessed as being moderate and from 5 (5%) of the dwellings the potential visual effects have been assessed as being high. vi) Discussions on visual effects and possible landscape mitigation is continuing with respect to four dwellings on three External Landowner properties. vii) The landscape effects relative to earthworks associated with Internal Roads, Turbine Platform construction and other earthworks will not generally be visible from locations beyond the CHWF Site. Where visible these activities can be effectively managed and effects mitigated. viii) Following construction all disturbed areas will be rehabilitated and as appropriate recontoured and grassed. ix) Visual mitigation in the form of specific colour finishes on the turbines is not recommended other than having the turbines finished to a matt or low gloss off white colour. x) From public roads and rural dwellings in the northern Wairarapa area, the cumulative visual effects of the Tararua – Ruahine Range wind farms and the consented Waitahora Wind Farm will not generally be apparent due to the screening effects of intervening landforms and existing vegetation, as well as distance and orientation relative to potential viewpoints.
11 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Genesis Energy is seeking the necessary resource consents to construct and operate a wind farm in the Northern Wairarapa, known as Castle Hill Wind Farm (hereafter referred to as “CHWF”).
1.2 The CHWF Site (incorporating all land where Genesis Energy has agreements for investigation of the wind farm) is located 20km east of Eketahuna and Pahiatua, 20km north-east of Masterton and 15km west of the Wairarapa Coast north of Castlepoint (Figure 1). The CHWF Site covers an area of approximately 30,000ha and is in part within both the Greater Wellington Region and the Manawatu – Wanganui Region, and the Masterton and Tararua Districts.
1.3 The CHWF Site is characterised by undulating hills of predominantly grazed by sheep and cattle. Stands of native vegetation are located throughout the site, particularly in gullies, with several small forestry blocks scattered across the site. The topography is varied, with elevations ranging from 200m to 500m above sea level.
1.4 The CHWF Site is located in a remote area that is sparsely populated. There are six small rural settlements in or around the CHWF area including Tinui, Pongaroa, Alfredton, Makuri, Tiraumea and Bideford. These six settlements had a combined population in 2006 of around 500 people in 110 households1. Masterton (population 18,000), Pahiatua (population 2,600) and Eketahuna (population 460) are the larger townships located within 30kms of the CHWF Site2 (Figure 1).
1.5 The generation capacity of the CHWF is in the order of 600MW. The maximum capacity will be dependent on the type of turbine eventually selected for the site but current site and wind turbine analysis indicates a potential capacity of up to 860MW. Development of the CHWF may progress in stages, with any first stage being in the order of 300MW. This capacity depends on the wind turbine model selected, but will also depend on other commercial and technical factors.
1.6 In June 2009, Boffa Miskell was engaged by Genesis Energy to prepare a Landscape and Visual Assessment for their proposed CHWF in the northern Wairarapa. The scope of the assessment was to inform the wind farm feasibility study and in particular, to identify potential landscape and visual effects as well as any constraints that might influence and/or should be taken into account in progressing the more detailed layout and design of the wind farm. In April 2010, Boffa Miskell was commissioned to carry out the Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment for the proposed CHWF.
1 Statistics NZ 2006 Census 2 Statistics NZ 2006 Census
12 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
13 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
1.7 The Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment report covers the following –
A brief description of the CHWF;
The assessment methodology;
The landscape context of the CHWF;
Regional and District landscape provisions;
The potential visibility of the CHWF;
Visual simulations from representative public viewpoints;
Wind farm visibility from rural dwellings within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbine;
The assessment of landscape and visual effects of the CHWF;
Conclusions.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE WIND FARM
2.1 The following sections provide the details of the main project components of the CHWF that are relevant to this assessment.
Turbines 2.2 Regardless of the turbine model selected, each turbine will comprise several main components as described below.
2.3 Tower. The supporting structure of the turbine will be a steel or concrete tower fitted with an internal ladder or lift. The dimensions will be dependent on the turbine model selected. If a steel tower design is selected, there is expected to be up to five sections to transport and assemble on Site. Should concrete towers be used, the towers are likely to consist of approximately 16 sections which may be prefabricated and transported to Site in sections or fabricated On-site.
2.4 Foundation. The tower will be installed on a reinforced concrete foundation. The base of such a foundation will be below ground level. The foundation depth and diameter will be dependent on the turbine type and the specific characteristics of the site at which the turbine is to be installed, with each foundation pour expected to require several hundred cubic meters of concrete. The foundation surface will be backfilled with soil.
2.5 Rotor. The rotor consists of three turbine blades and a hub and it is attached to the shaft which drives the generator in the nacelle. . The blades are generally constructed
14 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
of fibreglass and the hub generally of steel. Motors within the nacelle are used to turn the rotor to face into the wind and to adjust the pitch of the turbine blades to maximise energy production.
2.6 Nacelle. The nacelle is the housing mounted on top of the tower that generally encloses a gearbox, generator, transformer, motors, brakes, electronic components, wiring and hydraulic and lubricating oil systems and to which the rotor is attached. The nacelle will be constructed of steel and fibreglass. Weather monitoring equipment located on the top of the nacelle will provide data on wind speed and direction for the automatic operation of the turbine.
2.7 Transformer: Turbine transformers are required to transform turbine generator voltage up to a suitable voltage for reticulation and may be located inside the turbine nacelle, tower base or adjacent to the turbine on separate foundations.
Turbine Corridor
2.8 Genesis Energy anticipates that a number of turbine models will be commercially available at the time of tendering for the CHWF. In order to allow for flexibility in turbine placement (for commercial, environmental and constructability reasons), Genesis Energy is seeking resource consent for a Turbine Corridor enabling a range of turbines to be considered. The Turbine Corridor covers an area of 3,144ha and incorporates all areas within the CHWF Site that have been identified as most suitable for turbine placement. The Turbine Corridor is shown in Figure 2.
Turbine Sizes
2.9 Genesis Energy has undertaken an assessment of available turbines and potential suppliers to identify a range of turbines suitable for installation at the CHWF. Two turbine sizes have been established to capture the range of sizes available:
Medium Turbines have a maximum tip height of 135m
Large Turbines have a maximum tip height great than 135m but not more than 155m
15 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
16 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Turbine Configurations
2.10 The size range of the suitable turbines has an effect on the number of turbines which can be installed. As the rotor diameter of the turbines increases, the space required between the turbines also increases to avoid energy loss from wake and other effects. This means the optimal quantity and positioning of turbines changes from one turbine model to the next.
2.11 Three different Turbine Configurations have assisted with the assessment of effects of the CHWF. These are:
Medium Turbine Configurations which comprise only Medium Turbines up to a maximum quantity of 286 turbines
Large Turbine Configurations which comprise only Large Turbines up to a maximum quantity of 242 turbines.
Mixed Turbine Configurations that may comprise a mixture of Medium and Large Turbines.
2.12 The Mixed Turbine configuration has been included as there is a potential for different types of turbines to be used within the Turbine Corridor. As the wind resource varies across the CHWF Site, different turbine types may be required to maximise the available resource. Additionally, there may be different turbines available for supply at different stages of development. However, the variation between turbines will be minimised where practicable, for example, while size may differ, very large turbines will not be utilised next to much smaller turbines. It is expected that the turbines will be off white in colour and will have 3 blades. Solid (not lattice) towers will be used.
Turbine Layouts
2.13 Four Indicative Turbine Layouts (two Medium Turbine Layouts and two Large Turbine Layouts) have been developed to represent the range of possible turbine sizes that could be developed at the CHWF Site and to allow environmental assessment where a specific layout is required. The layouts are based on different rotor diameter sizes to demonstrate the different turbine spacing that could occur within the Turbine Corridor. The parameters of the four indicative layouts are provided in Table 1 below.
17 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Table 1: Turbine Layout Parameters
Number of Rotor Height to Turbine Layout Turbines Diameter Blade Tip
Medium 286 80m Maximum 135m Medium 262 90m
Large 242 100m Maximum 155m Large 186 110m
2.14 For the purpose of illustrating by way of visual simulations, and assessing the most visible turbine layout, a Large Turbine Configuration based on a tip height of 155m at a density of 242 turbines was selected. This configuration, which is considered to be the most visible, is hereafter referred to as the Assessed Layout. The selection of the most visible turbine layout is discussed further in Section 7 of this report.
Electrical Balance of Plant
2.15 The Electrical Balance of Plant (EBoP) is comprised of the internal electrical reticulation for the wind farm and associated electrical collection, transformer, switching, protection, and control systems and equipment. Turbines will be connected together with 33kV underground cables, typically buried beneath Internal Roads. A combination of 33kV overhead lines and underground cables will be used to connect these circuits to centrally located substations.
2.16 Two substations are proposed for the CHWF. A Main Substation will be located in the southern region of the wind farm, connecting approximately two thirds of the turbine circuits directly. A Satellite Substation will be located in the northern region of the wind farm which will collect output from the turbine groups in this area. The Main and Satellite Substations will be connected together by a 220kV overhead line (Internal Transmission Line).
2.17 The combined output from both substations will be exported to the national grid via an External Transmission Line. The External Transmission Line may be connected to the CHWF in one of two ways; connected directly to the main substation or alternatively, connected to a Switching Station located approximately mid-way along 18 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
the Internal Transmission Line. There are two options for the EBoP design. The difference in the designs relates to the two location options for the Main Substation.
2.18 Main components of the EBoP are described as follows:
Main Substation (two options proposed) Satellite Substation 33kV overhead lines (double and single circuit) 33kV underground cables (double and single circuit) Internal Transmission Line Optional Switching Station and Internal Transmission Line Deviation Electrical switchgear huts Other components (e.g. earthing / communications).
Internal Roads
2.19 Internal Roads are required to enable the movement of wind farm components, construction materials, equipment and personnel as well as ongoing operational traffic within the Site. Internal Roads have been designed for each of the four Indicative Turbine Layouts to provide access to turbine locations. Further Internal Roads have been designed to give access to the Substations, optional Switching Station and the Internal Transmission Line towers. The width and length of these Internal Roads are given in Table 2. The Internal Roads will utilise existing farm roads where possible and are shown on Figure 2.
2.20 To enable passing, Lay-bys will be included approximately every 1km along the Internal Roads where roads are longer than 1km in length.
Table 2: Internal Road Parameters
Length of Internal Internal Road Width of Internal Road Road (km) 80M Turbine access 6m pavement + 1m for drainage 161 90M Turbine access 6m pavement + 1m for drainage 158 100L Turbine access 7m pavement + 1m for drainage 157 110L Turbine access 7m pavement + 1m for drainage 146 Main Substation access 6m pavement + 1m for drainage 1.6 Satellite Substation access 6m pavement + 1m for drainage 0.2 Switching Station access 6m pavement + 1m for drainage 2.1 Internal Transmission Line 3m width + 1m for drainage 49 tower access
19 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Earthworks and Excess Fill
2.21 The maximum earthworks volume (cut) will be between 6.1 and 8.2 million m3, depending on the selected turbine size and layout configuration. Some earthworks cut material will be used for Engineered Fill and the remainder will disposed of in Excess Fill Areas.
2.22 The maximum Excess Fill volumes are 6.9 million m3 and 9.5 million m3 for Medium and Large Turbine layouts respectively. Indicative Excess Fill Areas have been identified throughout the CHWF Site to provide for a volume of 8.8 million m³, but further sites could be identified if required during construction. It is considered that there is adequate Excess Fill disposal capacity on site.
Temporary Construction Infrastructure
2.23 Temporary construction facilities and activities that will be required for construction of the CHWF include:
Contractor Compound: the main centre for construction management. The application provides for ten Contractor Compounds across the Site to allow them to be located conveniently for current construction works. The locations will not be confirmed until final design of the CHWF after resource consent acquisition. The dimensions of the compounds will be approximately 6,000m2. A Contractor Compound is likely to include: Contractor and sub contractor offices and workshops Parking area Amenities block with pump out toilet facilities, or portable toilets Storage facilities Fuel storage Power, communications and potable water supply
Concrete Batching Plants: Up to four Concrete Batching Plant locations have been proposed. These are likely to be located next to water abstraction points and/or quarries both On-site and Off-site, or they will be located On- site closer to construction activities. The locations will be relocatable with only one or two locations concurrently operational at any one time. The locations will not be confirmed until final design of the CHWF after resource consent acquisition.
20 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
The Concrete Batching Plants comprise a concrete mixer, cement bins, sand and aggregate stockpiles, water storage tanks and storage areas for equipment and tools. The Concrete Batching Plants will require an area of approximately 6,000 m2.
Quarrying and crushing facilities: Eight potential quarry locations have been identified On-site that can provide aggregate for roading and other hard- standing areas. A further two potential quarry locations have been identified on private land Off-site. All ten of these quarry sites are included in the resource consent application. The quarrying and crushing facilities comprise the sites and equipment for extraction and processing of rock and soil from the ground, typically an excavated open pit or cut into a hill. Facilities are likely to include earth moving equipment, stockpiles, processing plant and amenities. Crushing facilities will be located around the Site, with an approximate footprint of 10m x 20m to allow aggregate to be broken down. An allowance for up to 30 areas is accounted for.
Central Laydown Areas: graded, compacted gravelled areas where turbine components can be temporarily stored or construction equipment and material can be placed. Sixteen indicative Central Laydown Area sites have been identified but only ten will be developed. The Central Laydown Areas will be up to 15,600 m2 in size.
Permanent Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Facilities
2.24 The O&M facilities are an important hub for the CHWF, generally acting as a central location for control, operation and maintenance, as well as an entrance to the Site for staff and visitors. Key purposes and functions of the O&M facilities include:
Main store of consumables and special tools Location and central hub of wind farm Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, the computer systems that monitor and control infrastructure and processes for the wind farm Staff amenities (e.g. office, kitchen, gear storage, etc) Workshop for repairs and maintenance that can't easily be done in situ
21 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Meeting point for visitors needing to meet staff or access the Site (contractors, consultants, etc) Official portal to Site (Health and Safety, induction, sign-in/out) Operator (local) and maintenance manager's base Maintenance staff will usually start and finish each day at this location.
2.25 It is anticipated that there will be one main O&M facility, and one or more O&M support facilities at other locations within the Site. The main O&M facility is likely to contain several buildings, including workshops, office space, amenities and a domestic sewage disposal system (septic tank). Permanent power and telecommunications will also be required. Sufficient parking will be provided to allow for the expected usage. The total footprint of the main O&M facility, including parking, building and land area bounded by a perimeter fence will be no greater than 135m x 135m and 15m in height.
2.26 Operation of the wind farm is likely to involve up to 40 full time equivalent personnel.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMME
Construction Activities
2.27 The likely sequence of construction works for the CHWF site is provided below. It is noted that several activities will take place in parallel and the actual order of construction may be subject to change in order to enable the individual steps to be completed in a coordinated manner.
Upgrade External Roads required for access to Site Install erosion and sediment control measures Establish temporary Contractor Compound Develop On-site quarries Construct water abstraction and storage facilities Construct or upgrade Internal Roads providing access within the Site Establish, utilise and rehabilitate the Excess Fill Areas Upgrade or construct appropriate stormwater management structures Establish the Central Laydown Areas Construct the Turbine Platforms Establish Concrete Batching Plants Excavate and construct reinforced concrete Turbine Foundations Construct the substation platforms Install EBoP components Staged delivery of turbine components Install and commission turbines
22 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Remove temporary services and site offices Rehabilitate Contractor Compound, Central Laydown Areas and general site reinstatement
2.28 Construction works will be completed progressively. Once the construction works in a particular area are completed, site rehabilitation will commence.
Construction Programme
2.29 Three indicative construction programmes have been developed, ranging from low to high intensity of development. The proposed construction programmes have the following time frames:
High intensity construction – 159 weeks Medium intensity construction – 247 weeks Low intensity construction – 354 weeks
2.30 The high intensity programme assumes two construction teams will work in parallel in different areas for earthworks, turbine foundations and roading activities. The other programmes assume one construction team in operation in one cluster at any one time. It is estimated that there will be up to 135 personnel on site on any one day under the low to medium intensity construction scenarios and up to 185 personnel under the high intensity construction programme.
3. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL EFFECTS
3.1 The landscape and visual effects of a wind farm development are primarily associated with the visibility and appearance of the turbines and to a lesser extent the supporting infrastructure such as substations and transmission poles, and the physical effects on the landscape of vegetation removal and the landscape modifications associated with earthworks activities. In combination, these activities have an effect on rural landscape character and visual amenity.
3.2 Relative to the resource Management Act (RMA) and in the context of the CHWF, the potential landscape and visual effects being addressed in this report relate to the following –
Section 6 (b)
The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development
23 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Section 7 (c)
The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values
Section 7 (f)
Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment
3.3 Achieving the purpose of the Act, namely the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, Section 5 (c) requires avoidance, remedying, or mitigation of any adverse effects of activities on the environment. In this regard, effects include temporary, permanent, past, present, future and any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects, regardless of the scale, intensity, duration or frequency of the effect.
3.4 Unlike many other major infrastructure projects, the visual effects of a wind farm are reversible in that the major visual elements such as turbines, transmission lines and substations can be removed. While the earthworked turbine platforms and access roads would remain and can be rehabilitated, the effects of these landscape modifications in the context of their landscape setting are relatively insignificant. The most visible elements of the CHWF are therefore largely ephemeral in that they primarily borrow space and time and do not create long term or permanent modifications to the landscape. Turbines and wind farms have also become a symbol of new technology and sustainable energy generation and as such are seen as clean and green energy generation opportunities.
4. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
4.1 Following completion of preliminary wind farm studies, a design layout was confirmed for assessment purposes. The approach adopted for the assessment of landscape and visual effects of the CHWF involved the following –
i) Review of the landscape context and setting of the wind farm with particular respect to its distinctive landscape characteristics, rural character and land use.
ii) Review of the regional and district plan provisions with reference to outstanding natural features and landscapes, public reserves, recreation and amenity areas.
iii) Determination of the visibility of the CHWF using the Zone of Theoretical Visibility technique (ZTV).
24 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
iv) Selection and photography from representative public viewpoints and the preparation of visual simulations of the wind farm and its associated infrastructure.
v) Mapping and identification of all rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbine.
vi) Visibility assessment from rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbines.
vii) Site and area inspections to confirm the visibility of the CHWF and its associated infrastructure.
viii) Assessment of landscape and visual effects focussing on effects from public places, effects from rural dwellings, and cumulative effects relative to other wind farms in the wider area.
ix) Review of landscape and visual mitigation measures in the context of the CHWF.
x) Consultation with landowners, stakeholders and the public at large by way of site visits, meetings, newsletters and public open days throughout the assessment process.
Assessment Criteria
4.2 In the context of studies carried out on other wind farm projects in New Zealand and overseas, and in recognition of the particular and distinctive characteristics of the northern Wairarapa landscape, the following assessment criteria were considered to be appropriate -
i) Will the CHWF compromise or degrade the scenic values of the rural northern Wairarapa landscape?
ii) Will the CHWF have an adverse effect on the rural character and rural amenity of the northern Wairarapa landscape?
iii) Will the views of residents who live in close proximity to the CHWF (i.e. within 5km of the Assessed Layout) be compromised or adversely affected by the proposed development?
iv) Will the CHWF intrude upon views to or from important landscape features, cultural/heritage landscapes or public reserves?
v) Is the CHWF development in conflict with public policy in terms of the relevant landscape planning provisions?
25 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
vi) Will physical modifications to the landscape be adverse and/or compromise the character of the northern Wairarapa landscape?
vii) Will the CHWF limit or restrict the ongoing rural use of the area within or near the Turbine Corridor?
viii) What forms of mitigation can be utilised to reduce and/or minimise potential landscape and visual effects?
ix) What is the potential for cumulative effects if consent was granted for the CHWF?
x) From a landscape and visual perspective, is the CHWF an appropriate activity in the northern Wairarapa landscape?
Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment Report
4.3 The landscape and Visual Effects Assessment report comprises the following three documents –
Document 1 – This report
Document 2 – Visibility Mapping and Viewpoint Simulations (Volume 5, Section 1)
Document 3 – Visibility Analysis from External Dwellings (Volume 5, Section 2)
Documents 2 and 3 are graphic supplements in an A3 format and largely consist of plans, analysis illustrations, photographs and visual simulations.
5. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
5.1 This section of the report describes the landscape of the northern Wairarapa in terms of the formative processes and cultural influences that have shaped its distinctive landscape character. The area is also reviewed in terms of its capability to visually accommodate a wind farm of the nature and scale of the proposed CHWF. Maps 1 and 2 in Volume 5 (Section 1) show the landscape context of the CHWF.
5.2 The extensively faulted, tilted and uplifted hill country, within which the CHWF is located, extends from the east coast of the lower North Island from Hawkes Bay in the north to Cape Palliser in the south. This hill country follows a pronounced north-east, south-west axis that parallels the Tararua and the Rimutaka Ranges to the west. The combination of rapid uplift of the underlying materials and softer rocks has resulted in a landscape characterised by shattered and often steep hills.
26 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
5.3 While the CHWF landscape extends over two regions, the rural nature and landscape character of the area is generally similar throughout, particularly in terms of its topographic and landuse patterns. Notwithstanding this, the formative processes that have shaped the distinctive landforms and landscape of the wider area are evident and generally enhance the rural character and visual amenity of the landscape. While the open and expansive character of the northern Wairarapa landscape creates the impression of a large and somewhat fractured landscape, the area contains a series of smaller and well defined landscapes, generally associated with the distinctive valley network that extends throughout the area. In rural character terms, the northern Wairarapa landscape is an attractive and well managed rural working landscape.
5.4 Recently, the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) completed a landscape character description for the Wairarapa covering the three district council areas3. The GWRC study is the first phase of a more detailed landscape assessment project for the three Wairarapa District Councils. While this study extended to the northern boundary of the Wellington Region and the Masterton District which incorporates approximately half of the CHWF site, the balance area which is within the Manawatu-Wanganui Region and the Tararua District was not considered in the GWRC study. In this regard, 4 of the 32 landscape character areas identified in the GWRC study nominally end at the Tararua/Masterton District boundary (see Map 2, Volume 5 – Section 1).
5.5 In order to place the CHWF in its wider landscape setting, landscape descriptions used in the Wairarapa Study were used to interpolate and extend the character areas into the adjoining Tararua District. In this context the character area definitions were largely based on topographic considerations rather than catchment or ridgeline boundaries given the position and the characteristics of the wind farm and its vertical elements.
5.6 In the context of its wider landscape setting, the CHWF is located within an area exhibiting four different and quite distinctive landscape types. These landscape types identified and outlined in Map 2 (Volume 5 – Section 1) include the following –
i) Ranges
ii) Hill country
iii) Lowlands and valleys
iv) Coastal hill country
3 Wairarapa Landscape Study; Landscape Character Description, August 2010. Prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council by Boffa Miskell Ltd. 27 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Ranges
5.7 The Tararua Range which is largely covered in native forest forms part of the North Island axial ranges. Together with the Puketoi and the Waewaepa Range to the east, these ranges are distinctive and prominent landforms within the Tararua District, due in part to their elevation and their position with the region. The Puketoi Range consists of a massive tilted block of limestone with a distinctive east facing dip slope escarpment. The undulating west facing slopes descend more gently down to the perched Makuri Stream valley which lies between the Puketoi and the Waewaepa Range to the west.
5.8 The Waewaepa Ranges are made up of softer rock than the Puketoi limestone. Consequently, the Waewaepu Range is highly dissected with broken ridge tops, discontinuous ridgelines and distinctive valley systems (unlike the Puketoi Range). Pastoral framing is the predominant landuse of the Puketoi and Waewaepa ranges. However, large areas of native forest remain on the steep eastern escarpment of the Puketoi Range and also the eastern side of the Waewaepa Range.
5.9 The key characteristics of the Ranges area include –
i) High elevations in the order of 700 to 900 metres
ii) Significant and visually prominent landform features at both regional and district levels
iii) Relatively undeveloped or settled and with substantial areas of indigenous vegetation.
Hill Country
5.10 The large block of hill country, within which the CHWF is located, is generally aligned northeast/southwest and extends 70km from the northern end of the Puketoi Range to near Bideford in the south. The hills form the foothills of the Puketoi Range for about half their extent to the north. The southern end of foothills separate the catchments of the Tararua and Masterton Districts. The Horizons/Wellington Regional boundary also traverses the southern part of the hill country. A further block of hill country to the west of the Alfredton catchment forms part of the foothills of the Tararua Ranges.
5.11 The hill country is higher in elevation than the adjoining valley and lowland hill systems to the north, west and east, ranging in height to between 200m and 500m. The hill country topography varies greatly from broad flat hilltops dissected by narrow steep gully systems, within which the CHWF is proposed, to very steep sharp ridges (razorback in the east) and more intermediate dissected steep and rolling hills (Puketoi
28 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
foothills). The central hill country area is adjoined to the west, south and east by valley and lowland landscapes. Unlike the surrounding areas with their broad river floodplain systems, the hill country is characterised by a network of narrow steep sided and gullies and valleys, often containing remnant or regenerating native vegetation.
5.12 While pastoral farming is the dominant land use in the elevated hill country. Large areas of exotic forest and smaller areas of regenerating native and exotic vegetation are evident in the southern area within the Masterton District. With the exception of farm buildings and other associated farming structures there is little evidence of built development within these areas. The hill tops and elevated plateaus that comprise the majority of the landscape type are not generally visible from low elevations in the valleys, due to the flatness of the elevated ground. It is only from elevated locations that the full extent and scale of the hill tops and ridges can be seen.
5.13 Key characterisations of the Hill Country area include –
i) Moderate elevations being in the order of 200 to 500 metres
ii) Extensive areas of steep, rolling and plateau like topography
iii) Visually prominent hills in a local context with widespread screening due to intervening landforms
iv) Extensive open grazed areas with local areas of bush remnants on steeper slopes. Woodlots and forest plantings are also evident throughout the area.
v) Little evidence of buildings or other rural infrastructure which tends to be within the more sheltered valley systems.
Lowlands and Valleys
5.14 This landscape type is largely catchment based and is characterised by flat valley floors enclosed by low hills. The elevation ranges from about 150m in the valley floors to 350m at the hill tops. The four catchments that adjoin the hill country include the following -
i) The ‘Alfredton’ catchment, which drains north to the Mangaone River;
ii) The ‘Pongaroa’ catchment, which drains east to the coast;
iii) The ‘Whangaehu/Bideford’ valleys which drain south to the Wairarapa Plains (this area comprises the northern part of the Whangaehu-Tauweru character area identified in the Wairarapa Landscape study);
29 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
iv) The ‘Tinui’ catchment, which drains south-east to the coast (this area comprises the northern part of the Tinui Whareama character area identified in the Wairarapa Landscape Study).
All four catchments have distinct similarities. They are working rural landscapes dominated by pastoral activity and limited forestry. The hills that enclose the valleys are typically rolling to steep landforms with sharp rounded ridge tops. Some of the steeper slopes are subject to erosion. The width of the valley floor varies from very narrow enclosed valleys to more open landscapes up to 1km wide.
5.15 Grazed pasture dominates the slopes and hill tops which are relatively bare of trees (with the exception of woodlot and production forest areas). The near flat valley floors and river flood plains provide access through the area. Most of the public roads are located in these areas including Route 52 that connects Masterton to Pongaroa and beyond. Similarly, most of the farm dwellings and small rural settlements are located in the valley floor. The rivers and streams draining the valleys are distinctive features of the valley floor and are often lined with trees such as willow or remnant and regenerating scrub. The valleys are generally well vegetated with trees established as farm shelter, amenity plantings associated with farmsteads and houses and erosion control plantings. The hills immediately defining these landscapes are lower, smaller in scale, more complex and dissected than higher hill country beyond. These landscapes are generally experienced from the valley floor, from where the hills, vegetation and built structures are strong textural elements providing a sense of enclosure. Compared to the adjacent and more expansive hill country landscapes, these landscapes are small in scale, intimate and settled.
5.16 Key characteristics of the Lowland and Valley area include –
i) Low elevations in the order of 150 to 300 metres
ii) Enclosed, well defined, small scale landscapes
iii) Predominantly open grazed areas with more intensive land use on river flats
iv) Relatively dense vegetation for shelter and amenity planting in association with rural homesteads and dwellings
v) Evidence of a more settled landscape with dwellings and small settlements closely associated with local roading
vi) Distant views confined by intervening lowland hills and more distant hill country.
30 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Coastal Hill Country
5.17 These steep, rugged, dissected hills are a continuation of the coastal hills to the south on the Wairarapa coast (identified as Whakataki Hills Character Area in the GWRC Wairarapa Landscape Study). The hills run parallel to the coast separating the inland valley systems from the coast. The peaks are not generally as high as the hill country further inland, with Mt Percy the highest peak at 472m and other peaks at around 280 to 370m. Several inland catchments drain to the coast, via steep sided winding river valleys with narrow river flood plains that sometimes cut through the hills, and provide road access to the coast.
5.18 Extensive grazing is the predominant land use of the coastal hills. However, south of the Tararua/Masterton territorial boundary, extensive areas of pine forest (Ngaumu Forest) cover large areas of the coastal hill country. North of the boundary large tracts of native scrub and fernland occupy the steepest land with smaller pockets of pine forest and remnants of native forest. The coastal hills are relatively isolated and have very low population and built infrastructure, with exception of the small coastal settlements of Akitio, Mataikona, Whakataki, Castlepoint and Riversdale. Experienced from the narrow coastal edge, the coastal hills have a significant presence with their steep slopes rising directly to approximately 300m from sea level to the often jagged sharp ridges.
5.19 Key characteristics of the Coastal Hill Country area include –
i) Moderate elevations in the order of 300 to 470m
ii) Steep, dissected coastal hills and valleys
iii) Visually prominent from coastal locations rather than inland areas
iv) Relatively remote from population centres
v) Public access limited and views constrained by intervening landforms
vi) Area predominantly grazed with extensive local areas of native/exotic scrubland and exotic forest
vii) Relatively little evidence of buildings and other infrastructure other than on the coast itself.
31 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Summary
5.20 In the context of the wider landscape setting of the northern Wairarapa, the CHWF has been well sited in that it is confined and contained exclusively within the inland hill country. In landscape and visual terms, the hill country landscape has a high visual absorption capacity relative to the more visible and visually sensitive ranges to the west, the coastal hills to the east and the more settled and adjacent lowland valleys.
6. STATUTORY LANDSCAPE PLANNING PROVISIONS
6.1 This section of the report reviews the relevant landscape provisions in the regional and district plans. In particular, the Resource Management Act provisions with respect to outstanding natural features and landscapes, the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and the maintenance and enhancement of the environment are considered in the context of the rural northern Wairarapa landscape.
6.2 The CHWF is located within two district and two regional authorities, namely the Masterton and Tararua Districts, and the Greater Wellington Region and the Horizons Manawatu-Wanganui Region. The relevant planning documents include the Combined Wairarapa District Plan, the Proposed Tararua District Plan, the Proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement and the Horizons Proposed One Plan.
Proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement
6.3 In May 2009, the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was notified with submissions being heard in November 2009 and the hearing decision released in May 2010. While appeals have not been heard, given the advanced stage of the Proposed RPS in the planning process, the Proposed RPS as opposed to the operative provisions (May 1995) have been reviewed in terms of their relevance to the CHWF development.
6.4 Within the Proposed RPS (as amended by decisions), the two relevant provisions with respect to landscape protection and management are Objective 17 which seeks to identify the regions outstanding natural features and landscapes and protection of their values from inappropriate subdivision, use and development, and Objective 17A which seeks to identify the region’s significant amenity landscapes and the maintenance and enhancement of their values. Currently the Landscape Evaluation phase of the Wairarapa Landscape Character Study is in the process of identifying outstanding natural features and landscapes, and significant amenity landscapes throughout the Wairarapa area. Preliminary results of this work indicate that there are no outstanding natural landscapes or significant amenity landscapes within the CHWF
32 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Site. The landscape study outcomes are to be made public and available for submissions during the latter part of 2011.
Horizons Proposed One Plan
6.5 The Regional Policy Statement for the Manawatu-Wanganui Region became operative in August 1998. In May 2007, Council notified the Proposed One Plan – the Consolidated Resource Policy Statement, Regional Plan and Regional Coastal Plan for the Manawatu-Wanganui Region. The Proposed One Plan is a single resource management plan combining the regional policy statement and regional plans. Decisions were publicly released in August 2010.
6.6 With regard to outstanding natural features and landscapes in the Manawatu- Wanganui Region, these are identified in Schedule F of the Proposed One Plan in the form of a schedule. Of particular interest is that the Proposed One Plan (as amended by decisions) removes maps which were included in the Proposed One Plan (as notified) identifying specific landscapes and features. Instead the areas and their characteristic features and values are now described in narrative form rather than being defined on plans.
6.7 The accompanying text to Schedule F of the Proposed One Plan provides that –
“… assessments will be required using the approach set out in Policy 7-7A and the criteria listed in Table 7.2 at the time that any use or development is proposed for those areas, so that the actual location of the feature or landscape can be defined in relation to the use or development proposal.”
6.8 While the CHWF Site is not within an identified outstanding landscape, it is in close proximity to the Puketoi Range and more specifically to the skyline of the ranges, which are listed in Schedule F as an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape. Schedule F (da) defines the skyline of the Puketoi Range as being -
“…the boundary between the land and sky as viewed at a 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 ridges.”
6.9 The characteristics and values of Puketoi Range are described in Schedule F (da) as –
“visual and scenic characteristics, particularly the visual prominence of the skyline in the eastern part of the region, and its geological features, particularly the asymmetrical landform termed a cuesta”.
6.10 While the CHWF Site is not within an identified or defined outstanding natural landscape, consideration must be given to the Proposed One Plan as areas within
33 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Schedule F are not clearly defined. In addition, Significant Resource Management Issue 7.2 specifically identifies wind farms as being a development with potential for the greatest impact on outstanding natural features, landscapes and natural character.
Combined Wairarapa District Plan
6.11 While the District Plan recognises a number of outstanding natural features and landscapes, these are based on previous listings, none of which include the CHWF Site. The nearest identified outstanding natural feature is Tinui Taipos (ONF m02) on the Masterton – Castlepoint Road, which is approximately 7.5km to the south of the CHWF. Based on the Landscape Character Study recently completed for Greater Wellington Regional Council, the Landscape Evaluation phase currently being carried out for the Wairarapa District is unlikely to identify additional sites or areas within the CHWF Site as being outstanding natural features or landscapes, or indeed significant amenity areas.
6.12 With respect to General Amenity Values Objective 19.3.1 seeks –
“To maintain and enhance those general amenity values which make the Wairarapa a pleasant place to live and work, or visit.”
In addition, the objectives and policies for the Rural Environment Area within which the CHWF is located, refer to landscape is in terms of amenity values and natural character. In this regard, Objective 4.3.1 seeks –
“To maintain and enhance the amenity values of the Rural Zone, including natural character, as appropriate to the predominant land use and consequential environmental quality of different rural character areas within the Wairarapa.”
Proposed Tararua District Plan
6.13 In 2008, the Tararua District Council notified its Proposed Plan. The provisions of the Operative and Proposed Plans in terms of outstanding natural features and landscapes are similar and are derived from the 1998 Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Policy Statement. Accordingly, the ridgeline of the Puketoi Range is listed as a ‘significant natural feature and landscape’, identified by a specific reference spot and brief description within the schedule.
6.14 While the CHWF Site is not within an identified landscape, Objective 2.6.4.1 seeks –
“To protect important natural features (including areas of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna) and landscapes in the District which are of local, regional or national significance.”
34 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Based on both the Horizons One Plan and the Tararua District Plan provisions, the Puketoi Range and more particularly the skyline of the range when viewed from the west is the only identified landscapes in close proximity to the CHWF Site.
6.15 Within the Rural Land Use Management section, there are no specific landscape references. There is, however, reference to amenity in Objective 2.3.4.1 which seeks –
“To ensure a high level of environmental quality and amenity throughout the rural areas of the District.”
Summary
6.16 The CHWF Site is not identified as being within or part of an outstanding natural feature or landscape in either of the regional or district plans, nor is it likely to be identified as such in landscape studies that are currently being carried out in the Wairarapa area and in particular within the Masterton District. The closest identified outstanding natural feature or landscape to the CHWF is the Puketoi Range in the Tararua District within which the skyline of the range when viewed from the west has been identified as the key visual/scenic characteristic. The Tinui Taipos, which is some 7.5km to the south of the CHWF, is also identified as an outstanding natural feature in the Wairarapa Combined District Plan.
6.17 Rural character and rural amenity considerations relative to both district plans have been carefully considered with respect to the rural community who reside and/or work within 5km of the CHWF. In addition, general effects on rural character and amenity have also been considered from locations beyond 5 km of the wind farm site and from public areas including public road viewpoints in the wider northern Wairarapa area.
7. WIND FARM VISIBILITY
7.1 This section of the report describes the visibility mapping, which extends some 40 kilometres from the nearest turbine, and has been carried out individually for each of the 7 Turbine Clusters to illustrate the overall visibility of the CHWF. The analysis also includes visibility maps based on the combined cluster visibility and the total number of turbines visible from locations within 30 km of the wind farm. This section of the report also confirms the Assessed Layout, being a 242 turbine layout with a maximum tip height of 155m, as being the most visible option and the basis for the visibility mapping.
35 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Most Visible Layout Option
7.2 In order to determine the potential visibility of the CHWF, the most visible turbine arrangement that could be constructed within the defined Turbine Corridor was established. Based on the Genesis Energy assessment of available turbines and potential suppliers, two Turbine Configurations that capture the size and range of turbines available were developed:
A Medium Turbine Configuration based on turbines up to 135 meters in height to a maximum density of 286 turbines, and the
A Large Turbine Configuration based on turbines up to 155 metres in height to a maximum density of 242 turbines.
7.3 Following field work and 3D modelling of the Medium and Large Turbine Configurations from a selection of public viewpoints, a layout of 242 turbines with a 110m rotor and a maximum tip height of 155m was selected as the most visually prominent layout option overall and was the basis for the visibility analysis and the visual effects assessment. This layout is hereafter referred to as the Assessed Layout. Maps 10, 11 and 12 in Volume 5 (Section 1) illustrate and compare the Medium Turbine Configuration and the Large Turbine Configuration from 6 representative public viewpoints.
7.4 Within the Turbine Corridor, variations to the placement, height and density have also been considered with respect to visual effects that could increase the visibility of the wind farm beyond that of the Assessed Layout. The analysis carried out confirms that variations within the Medium Turbine Configuration and the Large Turbine Configuration range within the Turbine Corridor are likely to be relatively minor in terms of consequent changes to the appearance and visual effects of the most visible layout assessed, namely the Assessed Layout.
Visibility Mapping
7.5 The technique used to determine the visibility of the Turbine Clusters and the turbines within each cluster was based on lines of sight within a digital terrain model of the area mapped. The visibility mapping for the CHWF Site used the Zone of Theoretical Visibility technique (ZTV) which is widely used for the visibility mapping of wind turbines. As the ZTV mapping is based entirely on ‘bare ground’ topographic data, it does not take into account the screening effects of intervening vegetation or structures in the landscape. Accordingly, the level of reliability of the contour information influences the accuracy of the mapping. The ZTV mapping for the CHWF utilised 2 36 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
metre contours for the area within 2 km of the turbines with 5 metre contours out to approximately 5 km from the turbines. Beyond this, 20 metre contours from the 1:50,000 NZMS Topomap Series were utilised. The ZTV mapping also takes into account factors relating to the curvature of the earth and light refraction. The visibility mapping extended some 40km in all directions from the CHWF Site. The visibility maps are illustrated in the Volume 5 (Section 1).
7.6 As the CHWF covers an area of some 30,000 ha and extends over a distance of 32 km from north-east to south-west and 25 km from east to west at its widest point, the Turbine Clusters were colour coded to assist with the identification of the clusters and turbines within clusters that are likely to be visible from particular viewpoints. Maps 3 and 4 in Volume 5 show the Assessed Layout within the CHWF Site and the Turbine Clusters identified and colour coded.
7.7 While ZTV maps do not show how a project will appear or the nature and magnitude of effects, ZTV maps graphically illustrate the pattern of visibility and in the case of the CHWF, the visibility of the individual clusters as well as the individual turbines within each cluster. The ZTV maps are therefore indicative of the most visible condition, as the intervening trees and structures in the landscape are not included in the mapping model. Notwithstanding this limitation, the ZTV maps provide a useful basis for the selection of a range of representative viewpoint locations and areas from where visual simulations and visual effects assessments of the CHWF in its wider landscape context can be carried out.
Turbine Visibility Analysis
7.8 Maps 5 to 8 in Volume 5 show the visibility mapping for each of the 7 Turbine Clusters. Map 9 shows the visibility of all seven Turbine Clusters combined with an accompanying illustration showing the number of turbines potentially visible from the area within 40km of the CHWF. In all cases, the visibility mapping extends to in excess of 40km from the wind farm site. While the turbines may be theoretically visible from viewpoints beyond 30km, in reality they would be difficult, if not impossible to see from most of these locations due to distance, variable atmospheric conditions and the effect of intervening vegetation and other structures within the landscape. The focus of the visual assessment has, therefore, been largely confined to locations and areas within 30km of the nearest turbine within the CHWF Site.
7.9 While the cluster visibility maps show a percentage/ colour gradation of visibility, the visibility of a single blade or blade tip is counted for visibility purposes, as being a full turbine. Thus, where a visibility of 21 to 50% of the turbines is indicated, this may
37 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
comprise a small group of blade tips seen above the landforms or it may be the same number of full turbines including all or part of the towers and rotor blades.
Cluster A – Purple (32 turbines)
7.10 Cluster A is the northern most cluster located to the east of the Puketoi Range and to the west of Route 52. The visibility of Cluster A is more apparent to the north and east out to around 15 to 20km. Generally, the visibility to the south and west in particular, is screened by the Puketoi Range and the associated foothills to the south-west. While Cluster A is visible from offshore locations beyond 5km, it is not visible from the coastline itself. Based on landform screening only, Cluster A is not visible from State Highway 2 or the rural towns and settlements to the west of Route 52.
Cluster B – Yellow (38 turbines)
7.11 While Cluster B is located to the east of Route 52, its visibility pattern is similar to Cluster A, given its location at the northern end of the wind farm. As with Cluster A, the higher levels of visibility are from more elevated locations generally where there are fewer public roads or rural dwellings. Cluster B is not visible from the coastline, State Highway 2 or the townships and settlements to the west of Route 52. Neither Clusters A or B are visible from the rural communities to the south such as Tinui, Bideford, Whangaehu or Whareama.
Cluster C – Dark Blue (19 turbines)
7.12 Cluster C, the smallest of the 7 clusters, is located in the centre of the CHWF. Based on the ZTV map, the main area of turbine visibility is in the eastern sector up to approximately 7.5km from the Turbine Cluster. While the high visibility pattern also extends along the eastern side of the Puketoi Range and the Tararua Ranges further to the west, in reality visibility would be severely restricted from the eastern side of the Puketoi Range by vegetation screening. Visibility from the western side of the Puketoi Range is completely screened by the Range which in turn fully screens the CHWF from the Woodville and Pahiatua townships and other rural settlements to the north of Alfredton. While the visibility mapping shows Cluster C being visible from the Tararua Ranges to the west, in reality visibility would be restricted due to these viewpoints being some 30km distant and in many cases screened by intervening vegetation. Cluster C is not visible from the Wairarapa coastline, State Highway 2 or the upper valley which the State Highway traverses.
Cluster D – Green (54 turbines)
7.13 Cluster D, the largest of the 7 Turbine Clusters, is also the most visible. Notwithstanding this, Cluster D is not visible from the Wairarapa coastline or State 38 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Highway 2. While the ZTV map shows some visibility in the Woodville and Masterton urban areas, in reality the turbines in this cluster would not be visible from these locations due to the screening effects of local and intervening vegetation and structures. Cluster D would not be visible from Pahiatua or Eketahuna. Also, being some 30km distant from the coast, views would not be readily apparent if indeed unobstructed views were available.
Cluster E – Orange (25 turbines)
7.14 While the ZTV mapping shows Cluster E, like most other clusters, as being visible from the Tararua Ranges some 35 km to the west, the main area of visibility of Cluster E is towards the east and within 7.5km of the cluster itself. Generally, the visibility of Cluster E is restricted from public viewpoints such as roads and settlements. Cluster E is not visible from the Wairarapa coast, State Highway 2 or Route 52.
Cluster F – Red (29 turbines)
7.15 Cluster F is the most easterly of the 7 Turbine Clusters. While this cluster is within 10km of the coast, it is not visible from the coastline of the near inshore waters. The main areas of Cluster F visibility are within the area immediately to the east and west and also to the south extending for some 20 to 30km. From the settlement of Tinui, some 8 km to the south, Cluster E is not visible, nor is it visible from other rural settlements further to the south and east. The ZTV map clearly shows the visibility pattern and density to be directly related to the elevated locations within the more immediate inland and coastal hill country areas.
Cluster G – Blue (45 turbines)
7.16 The blue cluster is located at the southern end of the CHWF Site. While the visibility pattern within 10 km of this cluster shows the surrounding hill country to be the area of highest visibility, Route 52 stands out as being relatively well screened due primarily to its valley alignment. Cluster G is not visible from the coastline, State Highway 2 or the main settlements between Masterton and Woodville. While the ZTV map shows the Cluster G turbines being visible from Masterton and Woodville, in reality this cluster will not be visible from these urban settlements due to intervening screening and distance.
Combined Cluster Visibility
7.17 Map 8 shows the combined visibility pattern for all 7 CHWF Turbine Clusters. As previously noted, turbine visibility can be represented by a single rotor or blade tip being visible or a full turbine combining both the tower and the rotor blades. In addition, the ZTV mapping is based on ‘bare land’ contour information only and does 39 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
not include the screening effects of existing vegetation or structures in the landscape. Notwithstanding this, the screening effect of the Puketoi Range to the west of the CHWF is particularly evident, as is the screening of views from State Highway 2 and to a lesser extent Route 52 to the south of the Puketoi Range. The combined visibility ZTV map also illustrates the effectiveness of the coastal hills in screening the wind farm from the Wairarapa coastline and the inshore waters.
7.18 Map 9 in Volume 5 (Section 1) shows the visibility pattern of the wind farm based on the total number of turbines visible irrespective of what cluster they are in. As with the other ZTV maps, turbine visibility is represented by a full turbine, part of a turbine, a rotor blade or a blade tip only being visible. Map 9 also contains a distance overlay where the intensity of colour has been graded according to viewing distance. In the context of the CHWF, views within 10km of the nearest turbine are generally considered to be near views with distances beyond 10km being generally considered to be distant views.
7.19 Areas of Turbine visibility based on ZTV mapping of landform screening within 10 km of the nearest turbine, including all elevated land from where turbines are most likely from, are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3 –Visibility Within 10km of Nearest Turbine
Turbines Visible Area/Hectare Area/Percentage
None 33,618 23%
0-20 37,357 25%
21-50 34,758 24%
51-100 24,494 16%
101-150 10,295 7%
151-242 6,758 5%
147,280ha 100%
7.20 Within the 147,280ha area, from approximately 23% of the area (33,618ha) no turbines are visible at all due to the local screening effect of topography. Given the extensive shelter and amenity planting generally found around rural dwellings, the additional screening effect of existing vegetation further increases the area from where no turbines and/or fewer turbines are visible. From a further 49% of the area (72,115 ha), up to 50 turbines or 21% of the total number of CHWF turbines would be visible. On the basis of these figures which are based on landform screening only, from 72% of the
40 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
area, no more than 50 turbines (or parts of them) would be visible. Of this total no turbines would be visible from 23% of the area, 1 to 20 turbines would be visible from 25% of the area, and 21 to 50 turbines would be visible from 24% of the area within 10 km of the CHWF.
7.21 Within the 10km distance zone, approximately 79% of the total area is outside the CHWF Site. Map 13 (Volume 5a – Section 1) shows the visibility pattern for the area both within the CHWF Site and the visibility pattern of the wind farm turbines beyond the CHWF Site extending out to the 10km distance boundary. Of particular interest is that while up to 20 turbines are visible from 25% of the area within the CHWF Site, no turbines are visible from 29% of the area beyond the CHWF Site. Map 14 shows a similar analysis of turbine visibility extending out to the 5km distance boundary.
Summary
7.22 Based on landform screening only the main conclusions that can be drawn from the individual cluster and the combined cluster ZTV maps are as follows –
i) The CHWF will not be visible from the Wairarapa coastline or from the near inshore waters.
ii) The Puketoi Range effectively screens the CHWF from viewpoints to the west and in particular from the urban settlements of Eketahuna and Pahiatua.
iii) No turbines will be visible from State Highway 2 or the rural settlements within the State Highway corridor.
iv) From Route 52, the visibility of the turbines will be limited and constrained by landform screening and existing vegetation.
v) While the ZTV combined cluster map shows the CHWF as being theoretically visible from Woodville and Masterton, in reality this would not be possible due to the screening effects of intervening vegetation.
vi) In the context of the scale and size of the CHWF, its overall visibility based on landform screening will be confined and largely contained to the central section of the inland hill country landscape character area.
vii) Public places and rural dwellings within the area generally tend to be located within the hill country valley system and accordingly will be partially screened from the wind farm.
viii) No turbines will be visible from 23% of the total area within 10 km of the CHWF.
41 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
ix) From 49% of the total area within 10 km of the CHWF, between 1-50 turbines, rotors or rotor blade tips of the 242 turbines in the Assessed Layout will be visible.
x) Excluding land within the CHWF Site, no turbines will be visible from 29% of the area within 10 km of the wind farm.
xi) Based on field work, local vegetation screening is likely to significantly decrease the areas from where turbines or parts of them are visible. This aspect is discussed further in Section 8.
8. VISIBILITY FROM PUBLIC VIEWPOINTS
8.1 This section of the report deals with the visibility of the CHWF from a selection of representative public viewpoints within 32km of the CHWF Site. From each of these viewpoints, a visual simulation in the form of a photo-montage has been prepared. These views, which are illustrated in Volume 5 (Section 1), incorporate the screening effects of intervening vegetation and other structures in the landscape.
8.2 While the ZTV mapping was carried out at a broad scale, the base data used and processed allowed for more detailed area and site specific analysis of visibility. In this regard two further applications utilising the ZTV mapping were carried out as a means of illustrating and informing the assessment of the CHWF visibility and potential visual effects. The two applications focussed on –
i) Public Viewpoints – the use of visual simulations from a representative selection of public viewpoints up to 32km from the CHWF.
ii) Rural Dwellings – the use of recent aerial photography overlaid with the ZTV mapping relative to each rural dwelling within 5km of the wind farm site (i.e. within 5km of the nearest turbine). Visibility from rural dwellings is discussed in Section 9.
Public Viewpoint Selection
8.3 Based on the ZTV mapping and subsequent field work, a representative range of public viewpoints that had clear and unobstructed foreground views to the CHWF were identified. The viewpoints were located on public roads and were selected on the basis of distance, elevation and orientation so as to provide a comprehensive and representative range of simulated views of the CHWF.
42 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
8.4 With respect to viewing distance, the viewpoints selected generally fall within the following distance categories –
Foreground – up to 5 km from the nearest turbine
Near middle ground – between 5 to 10 km to the nearest turbine
Distant middle ground – between 10 to 20 km to the nearest turbine
Background – beyond 20 km to the nearest turbine
8.5 Forty two public viewpoint locations were selected from where photographs were taken from each of the viewpoints between September 2009 and February 2011. As far as possible, clear days with favourable light and atmospheric conditions were sought for the viewpoint photography. The viewpoint locations, the distance to the nearest turbine and the elevation of the 42 viewpoints are listed in Table 4.
Visual Simulations
8.6 The primary purpose of a visual simulation is to accurately portray in an as realistic a manner and context as possible, a proposed activity, structure or landscape modification. Computer generated photographic simulations are not simply an ‘artists impression’ or an approximate representation of a proposed development. Visual simulations are accurate representations built up from detailed contour information incorporating the layout, position and size of elements accurately modelled for specific sites and localities, and replicated as photographic montages. The procedure used in the preparation of the CHWF visual simulations is outlined in Appendix A.
8.7 While there are wide variations in light and atmospheric conditions that can influence the appearance and visibility of turbines in the landscape, the simulation technique does provide an accurate representation of scale, location and general appearance, even though there may be variations in light and atmospheric conditions at various times of the day, differing seasons and varying weather conditions. Notwithstanding these constraints, the visual simulation technique is appropriate and assists in the depiction and assessment of visual effects. In recent years comparisons of the simulated views with the ‘as built’ or constructed outcomes, have shown that the simulations are technically accurate representations, and an acceptable and reliable assessment tool. The visual simulations prepared for the CHWF project utilised specialist ‘Windfarm’ software which is used extensively in both New Zealand and overseas.
43 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Table 4: CHWF Public Viewpoint Locations
VP Viewpoint Location Distance (km) Elevation (m) 1 Saddle Road 46 300 2 Troup Road, Woodville 32 80 3 Gladstone Road 32 95 4 Masterton (Langsdown) Golf Course 19 180 5 Whangaehu 5.5 155 6 Te Ore Ore (Masterton-Castlepoint Road) 18 110 7 Whareama 17.5 20 8 4km north of Tinui 5.5 45 9 Tinui 9 40 10 Pongaroa Domain 8 145 11 Route 52 – 300 m south of Rimu Road 2.5 160 12 Route 52 – 1 km north of Rakaunui Road 2 275 13 Route 52 – Junction with Rakaunui Road 1.5 335 14 Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road (Puketoi Range) 2.6 450 15 Waihoki Valley Road looking northwest 1.7 270 16 Waihoki Valley Road looking east 1.2 255 17 Route 52 – Tiraumea looking northeast 1.8 260 18 Route 52 – Tiraumea looking south 8.5 260 19 Waitawhiti Road looking south 3.3 290 20 Waitawhiti Road looking northeast 3.8 260 21 Castle Hill Road 5.2 165 22 Flat Bush Road looking east 3 175 23 Flat Bush Road looking south 2.7 175 24 Mangamahoe Central Road 11 270 25 West of Eketahuna 23 270 26 Pahiatua Track 37 370 27 Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road 1 355 28 Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road (near Mangatiti) 2.6 235 29 Alfredton-Tinui Road looking northeast 1 420 30 Alfredton-Tinui Road looking southeast 3.8 420 31 North of Bideford School 3.5 165 32 Near Bideford School 4.1 150 33 Bideford 4.5 150 34 Tanawa Road (near Rahui Gardens) 2.7 145 35 Wairiri Road 1.5 265 36 Settlement Road 4.6 180 37 Alfredton – Tinui Rd looking east to Summit 0.8 292 38 Alfredton – Tinui Rd looking west to Summit 1.4 324 39 Alfredton – Tinui Rd – Plateau 0.5 300 40 Alfredton – Tinui Rd looking east 2.9 122 41 Waitawhiti Rd looking east 2.7 246 42 Route 52 – Tiraumea School 1.9 210
44 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
8.8 The finished simulation graphic shows both the final rendered panorama plus the wireframe model superimposed over the same photographic image. The closest turbine to the viewpoint is also identified on each panorama. In addition, relevant viewpoint data, turbine details and wind direction data is provided on the graphic. The individual clusters and the number of turbines and rotor blades visible from each viewpoint are also provided.
8.9 In addition to showing the turbines in the visual simulations, all other wind farm infrastructure such as the Main Substation and Satellite Substation, the Internal Transmission Line, Internal Roads and other elements likely to be visible were included and are shown in the simulations where these are visible. Other than the turbines which are visible in all simulations and the transmission towers from a limited number of viewpoints, the other infrastructure is not generally visible from public viewpoints. In the case of the Internal Roads, where these are visible they have been shown in their unrehabilitated state. Were the Internal Roads to be shown in their reduced and rehabilitated form they would generally not be visible in the simulations. The simulations therefore show the maximum visibility of the Assessed Layout (namely 242 turbines to a tip height of 155m), Internal Roads in their unrehabilitated state, Substations and the Internal Transmission Line where these are visible from the simulated public viewpoints.
8.10 In all simulations, the orientation of the turbines are shown facing the viewer so that the three rotor blades are fully visible. In reality, depending on wind direction, sometimes the turbines would be oriented ‘side on’ whereby rotors would be less distinguishable and less visible. The turbines have also been shown in a pure white colour for clarity.
8.11 From a selection of viewpoints within 10 km of the nearest wind farm turbine, a single frame view has been produced in which the rotor blades have been oriented into the prevailing wind and the turbines have been shown in an off white/light grey colour as is typical for windfarms. The viewpoints which also have a single frame view in addition to the panoramic views are identified in Table 5.
8.12 As the Turbine Corridor extends over a wide area and the viewpoint locations vary in terms of distance between the viewpoint and the wind farm, the panoramic views are created using a series of photographs. Where photographs have been stitched together (matched), an overlap of 50% has been sought with the number of photographs at each viewpoint noted in the viewpoint data panels. Each of the panoramic simulations shows the full extent of the proposed CHWF visible from that particular viewpoint location.
45 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Table 5 – Public Viewpoint Visibility
Turbines & Viewpoint Rotors only Total Percentage Rotors 1 5 69 74 30% 2 - - - - 3 18 39 57 23% 4 - - - - 5 16 30 46 19% 6 2 2 4 2% 7 1 1 2 1% 8* 9 13 22 9% 9 - - - - 10 5 5 10 4% 11* 3 13 16 7% 12 5 7 12 5% 13 8 64 72 30%
14 * 21 110 131 54% 15 1 6 7 3% 16 3 9 12 5% 17* 7 25 32 13% 18 28 59 87 36% 19 - 18 18 7%
20 * 7 36 43 18% 21 5 24 29 12% 22 1 6 7 3%
23 * 7 20 27 11% 24 17 49 66 27% 25 - - - - 26 7 55 62 25%
27 * 2 8 10 4%
28 * 1 8 9 4%
29 * 10 62 72 30% 30 2 18 20 8% 31 6 15 21 8% 32 8 27 35 13% 33 13 17 30 12% 34 1 1 1 1% 35 1 10 11 4% 36 1 9 10 4% 37 - 3 3 1% 38 2 4 6 3%
39 * 1 11 12 5% 40 1 26 27 11% 41 - 7 7 3% 42 3 12 15 7%
*Viewpoints from where single frame views have also been prepared (see Volume 5 – Section 1)
46 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
8.13 The visual simulations have been prepared and illustrated at a scale whereby they can be viewed in the field as a ‘to scale and in context’ view of the wind farm. In this regard if the simulation, be it in a single frame size or as a panorama, is held a specific distance from the viewer, (this distance in cm is noted on each simulated view) the simulated scene will match the existing view from the particular viewpoint with the turbines being located in scale and as they would generally appear from that particular viewpoint.
Viewpoint Visibility
8.14 Accompanying each of the viewpoint simulations is a table illustrating the number of turbines and/or rotor blades that are visible from each viewpoint. The identification of the turbines and the rotor blades has been achieved using digital wire frame views incorporating the visible turbines or blades and identifying these by cluster colours. While the ZTV mapping (discussed in Section 7) was based solely on landforms and landform screening, the viewpoint simulations combine both the digital terrain data as well as taking into account the screening effects of intervening vegetation and structures captured by way of the viewpoint photography. The viewpoint simulations and the accompanying tables, therefore, provide a technically accurate representation of the clusters that are visible and a tabulation of the number of turbines within each cluster that would be visible from each of the simulated viewpoints.
8.15 Table 5 identifies the Turbine Clusters and the number of turbines and/or rotor blades visible from each of the simulated viewpoints. Table 5 also lists the total number of turbines visible and the corresponding percentage relative to the total number of turbines for the entire CHWF.
8.16 While visual simulations are an extremely useful means of illustrating the nature, scale and position of turbines and other wind farm infrastructure in the landscape, the existing wind farms in the Tararua Range were also reviewed from a range of viewpoints that had similar distance and orientation characteristics to the CHWF. In addition, simulated views of the Te Apiti Wind Farm were compared with “as built” views from these similar viewpoint locations. These reviews confirmed the validity of the visual simulation technique and have assisted in ‘ground truthing’ the landscape and visual effects assessments.
47 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Visibility Analysis
8.17 In the context of visibility of the CHWF from the simulated viewpoints and from public locations in general, it is apparent that the topography of the northern Wairarapa hill country combined with local shelter and amenity plantings, provides a large measure of local screening of both the turbines in the Assessed Layout and their associated infrastructure. The local topography and vegetation also confines views of and within the landscape such that from locations where turbines are visible, they tend to be seen as small groupings, particularly when viewed from the valley floor and the lower foothill areas from where most of the public road network and rural dwellings are located. From ridges and higher plateau areas, while more turbines are visible, the viewing distance is greater and the turbines are seen in a more expansive and open setting. In this regard, the northern Wairarapa landscape is made up of a series of localised ‘little landscapes’ set within a larger matrix of northern Wairarapa hill country landscapes. Accordingly, from public viewpoints the CHWF tends to be primarily experienced from within the smaller and more local landscapes rather than from the wider and more expansive hilltop and plateau areas.
8.18 Compared to many wind farms where turbines are on leading ridgelines with larger numbers of turbines being visible from the surrounding areas (such as the Tararua Range wind farms in relation to the plains to the east and west), the CHWF being more widely spread out within a topographically diverse landscape appears to be more integral with the character of the rural working landscape rather than appearing as a visually prominent single focal point of development in the rural landscape. In this regard, the CHWF appears to sit comfortably ‘within’ the landscape, rather than appearing to sit prominently ‘upon’ the landscape.
8.19 Based on the ZTV mapping, field observations and the preparation of a number of visual simulations from public viewpoints, the major visual elements of the CHWF, namely the turbines, appear to be well integrated with the local and wider northern Wairarapa landscape. The northern Wairarapa landscape, by its very nature and character, also has a high capability to visually absorb the number and scale of the turbines proposed within the identified Turbine Corridor relative to public views throughout the area.
8.20 The Internal Transmission Line follows an alignment that is largely out of public view and within the CHWF Site. Viewpoints that were in part selected to specifically illustrate the alignment and appearance of the Internal Transmission Line were Viewpoints 18, 19, 20, 29, 38 and 41. In the context of these public viewpoints, the Internal Transmission Line, where visible, appears as a relatively minor element in
48 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
comparison to the wind turbines. From a landscape and visual perspective, the alignment of the Internal Transmission Line has been carefully and sensitively sited within the CHWF Site.
8.21 While the Main Substation will not generally be visible from public viewpoints, the Satellite Substation site on Waihoki Valley Road will potentially be visible from the road over several hundred metres on either side of the proposed development. Viewpoint 16 shows a view of the indicative layout for the Satellite Substation. At this stage the visual simulation does not include any mitigation either in terms of the use of colour and/or perimeter planting, both of which will assist in reducing the visibility and potential visual effects.
8.22 Internal Roads and Central Laydown Areas within the CHWF Site are shown where visible on the visual simulations. The viewpoints that show the Internal Roads are Viewpoints 14, 19, 23, 27 and 29. In all visual simulations the access road construction formation is shown with all cuts and fills and road widths in their unrehabilitated form. In general, the Internal Roads and Laydown Areas will not be visible from public viewpoints due to the nature of the topography and landforms within the site. While some Excess Fill Areas may be visible from public viewpoints, these areas will be recontoured and rehabilitated to integrate with the adjacent landforms and/or to enhance pastoral production opportunities. Rehabilitation of earthworked areas is discussed further in Section 10 of this report.
8.23 Where visible, the cuts and fills and Excess Fill Areas do not have a significant visual effect.
Summary
8.24 Based on an analysis of views from the 42 representative public viewpoints, and assisted by extensive field work, along with a comparative review of the visibility of wind farms on the Tararua Range, the visibility of the CHWF can be summarised as follows –
There are no public viewpoints from where all seven Turbine Clusters are visible.
From no public viewpoint are more than 54% of the 242 turbines visible.
From the 42 public representative viewpoints selected, no turbines or rotor blade tips can be seen from 4 of the viewpoints due to the screening effects of intervening vegetation.
49 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Of the 38 viewpoints that have full or partial views of the CHWF –
1 cluster is visible from 25 viewpoints
2 clusters are visible from 5 viewpoints
3 clusters are visible from 3 viewpoints
4 clusters are visible from 5 viewpoints
5 clusters are visible from 1 viewpoint (VP 14)
Other than Viewpoint 14 which is on the Pahiatua-Pongaroa Road on the Puketoi Range from where 54% if the CHWF is visible (ie turbines or rotor blade tips), the next most visible public viewpoint is VP 18 on Route 52 at Tiraumea from where 36% of the wind farm is visible (ie turbines or rotor blade tips).
From 28 viewpoints between 1% to 15% of the turbines and/or rotor blade tips are visible.
From 7 viewpoints, 16% to 30% of the turbines and/or rotor blade tips are visible
From 3 viewpoints 31% to 54% of the turbines and/or rotor blade tips are visible.
From public viewpoints the Internal Transmission Line will not generally be visible. From viewpoints where it is visible, the lattice steel towers will not be visually prominent.
The Main Substation will not be visible from public viewpoints.
The Satellite Substation on Waihoki Valley Road will be partially visible from several hundred metres on either side of the proposed development.
The Internal Roads and their associated earthworks will not generally be visible from public viewpoints due to the topography, the location of the roads and distance from public viewpoints.
While some aspects of the earthworks including Quarry Sites and Excess Fill Areas may be partially visible during the construction phase of the wind farm, following rehabilitation these areas and sites will generally not be visible.
50 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Temporary installations and activities such as Concrete Batching Plants, and Central Lay Down Areas will not generally be visible from public viewpoints.
9. VISIBILITY FROM RURAL DWELLINGS
9.1 This section of the report reviews the visibility of the CHWF from all dwellings (including churches, public halls and schools) within 5 km of the nearest turbine based on the Assessed Layout, namely the 242 turbine to a maximum blade tip height of 155 metres. The review was based on the ZTV mapping, recent aerial photography, 3D digital terrain modelling and field checking. The 173 dwellings within 5km of the nearest turbine were then classified according to those being totally screened by landforms, those screened by vegetation, those partially screened by vegetation and those dwellings where there was limited or no screening at all.
9.2 Based on field observations, the ZTV visibility mapping and the visual simulations prepared from public viewpoints, a distance of 5km from the nearest turbine was considered to be the area within which, potential visual effects from rural dwellings and/or their immediate curtilage area could be significant. While the focus of the dwelling analysis has been on turbine visibility, the other infrastructure elements such as the Internal Transmission Line and the Internal Roads have all been considered in the analysis.
9.3 Using high resolution 2010 aerial photography, all dwellings, schools, public halls and churches within 5km of the nearest turbine were identified and mapped. In the context of this assessment; schools, halls and churches being places of congregation were included as dwellings4. Table 6 summarises the numbers of dwellings that are within 5 km of the nearest turbine, both within and outside the CHWF Site. The location of these dwellings is shown in Figure 3 and on Map 1 in Volume 5 (Section 2).
Table 6 – Dwellings Within 5km of the Nearest Turbine
Distance to Nearest Turbine Dwellings Less than 2km 2km – 5km Total External to the CHWF Site 20 91 111 Within CHWF Site 47 15 62 Total Dwellings 67 106 173
4 Within this area there are five non-residential buildings, namely 2 schools, 2 halls and 1 church that are included as dwellings 51 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
52 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
9.4 While the visibility analysis included the dwellings within the CHWF Site, the analysis from these dwellings is not reviewed in this report nor does the analysis appear in Volume 5 (Section 2). The visibility and potential visual effects assessment for these dwellings has been prepared and discussed with each of the CHWF Landowners. The results obtained from the CHWF Landowner dwelling analysis has, however, informed and assisted the assessment of visual and landscape effects overall and in particular with respect to visibility and rural character effects in general. The results obtained from the CHWF Landowner dwelling analysis are therefore included in the rural dwelling analysis. Non landowner dwellings where a Resource Consent Affected Party Approval Form has been provided are also included in the overall dwelling analysis.
9.5 All 173 rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest turbine were initially analysed as a desk top exercise with respect to their potential visibility of the wind farm. The methodology adopted for this phase of the assessment involved an analysis of turbine visibility relative to each dwelling based on the ZTV mapping. As previously noted, the 2 and 5 metre contour data enabled a relatively accurate visibility overlay to be produced, albeit based solely on landform data.
9.6 For each of the 111 dwellings external to the CHWF Site, two analysis sheets have been produced and are contained in Volume 5 (Section 2). Sheet 1 of the analysis identifies and locates each dwelling in relation to the nearest turbine cluster and the nearest turbines within the cluster. Sheet 1 also includes relevant property and site assessment data. In addition, Sheet 1 contains an aerial photograph showing each dwelling in relation to its wider farm setting being an area of approximately 85 hectares. While more detailed contours were used in the analysis and for the ZTV mapping, 20 metre contours are shown on the aerial photography to give a general indication of the nature of the terrain immediately surrounding each dwelling.
9.7 Sheet 2 of the analysis contains 7 enlarged aerial views of the dwelling including its immediate curtilage area, extending over an area of approximately 5ha centred on the dwelling itself. On each of the 7 enlarged aerial views, the ZTV visibility overlay is shown for each turbine cluster in its respective colour code. Where there is no colour overlay shown, this indicates there is no turbine visibility from that particular cluster of turbines. Where visibility is obtained, this is indicated by the particular turbine colour overlay on the affected area on the aerial photograph.
9.8 A wire frame topographic model of the view to the wind farm has also been prepared and is shown on Sheet 2. Based solely on landform considerations, the wire frame model includes the proposed turbines that are potentially visible from the immediate dwelling area. This visibility is based on landform screening only and does not take into
53 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
account the screening effects of existing vegetation. An accompanying table lists the number of turbines and rotor blades that are visible from each dwelling area. Where intervening vegetation and/or other screening is evident on the aerial photography, this was assessed and noted. In some instances, photographs from the dwelling have been matched with the 3D terrain models to illustrate the effects of local vegetation screening. Where the orientation of the dwelling is such that the main ‘living areas’ may not have direct line of sight to the turbines, this is also noted. Likewise, where the main dwelling views did not appear to be screened this was noted and was subsequently field checked.
9.9 Following completion of the desk top review, field checking was carried out. Where dwellings were completely screened by landforms (as indicated by the ZTV model and the digital terrain modelling) no field checks were made. Where dwellings were clearly visible from public roads, field verification was carried out from these locations. Where dwellings were sited away from public roads and/or where site inspection was considered necessary, a visit to the property was made.
9.10 Based on the desk top analysis and subsequent field inspections, all 173 dwellings within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbine were classified according to the following levels of visibility –
i) Screened by landforms. This analysis was primarily carried out using digital terrain modelling and ZTV techniques.
ii) Screened by vegetation. This analysis was largely carried out using high resolution aerial photography which showed the vegetation pattern and density relative to the potentially visible turbines. Where appropriate, tree heights were verified in the field.
iii) Partially screened by vegetation. Where dwellings appeared to be partially screened by intervening vegetation and/or there was some uncertainty as to how effective this screening might be, field inspections and/or site visits were carried out to verify the level of effectiveness of the vegetation screening.
iv) Limited or no screening. Where this situation was evident, field checks and site visits were carried out.
9.11 Table 7 summarises the visibility level from each of the CHWF Site landowner and non landowner dwellings.
9.12 Maps 3 to 7 in Volume 5 (Section 2) show the results of the visibility analysis from each of the 111 non landowner dwellings in both tabular form and spatially on the accompanying plans. While individual CHWF landowner data has not been included, 54 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
the outcome of this analysis is shown on Map 8 which combines both the landowner and non landowner analysis results.
Table 7 –Dwelling Visibility Within 5km of Nearest Turbine
Dwellings within 5 Screened by Screened by Partial Vegetation Limited Vegetation km landforms Vegetation Screening Screening
Within CHWF Site 1 2 46 13 (62 Dwellings)
External to the 15 46 41 9 5 CHWF Site (109 dwellings)
Total 171 16 48 87 22
Summary
9.13 While some of the rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbines are in elevated locations, most of the dwellings are located within the lower valley network and tend to be well planted with respect to shelter and amenity plantings within their dwelling curtilage areas. The visibility of the CHWF from rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest turbine is summarised as follows –
Of the 173 dwellings within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbines, 64 or 37 % are fully screened from views of the turbines and other wind farm infrastructure by intervening landforms or existing vegetation about each respective dwelling.
Of the 64 dwellings that are screened, three are CHWF Landowner Dwellings and 61 are External Dwellings. Given there are 111 External Dwellings within 5 km of the nearest turbine, 55% of these are fully screened by existing landforms or vegetation.
Of the remaining 109 rural dwellings that are partially screened or have limited screening, 59 are CHWF Landowner Dwellings and 50 or 46% are External Dwellings. Of the 50 External Dwellings within 5 km of the nearest turbine, 41 or 82% have partial screening from existing vegetation while 9 or 18% have limited vegetation screening.
9.14 The visual effects relative to the visibility levels from rural dwellings within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbines are assessed in Section 10.
5 The landowner of one of these dwellings has signed a written approval form. The dwelling has only been included to assist the assessment of visual and landscape effects overall and in particular with respect to visibility and rural character effects in general. 55 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
10. ASSESSMENT OF CHWF LANDSCAPE & VISUAL EFFECTS
10.1 This section of the report assesses the landscape and visual effects of the CHWF based on the assessment criteria identified in Section 4.2. In addition to this, an analysis of the constructed Te Apiti and other wind farms in the Manawatu has also been reviewed in terms of their “as built” effects on the landscape. While the turbines on these wind farms are approximately 50 metres lower in height compared to those proposed as a maximum height at the CHWF, which could be 155 metres to the tip of the rotor blade, they provide a useful basis for comparing the simulated effects with actual effects. In this regard, internal roading and the rehabilitation of these roads from 10 to 12 metres to 5 metres in width (in the Manawatu wind farm examples) are indicative of what is likely to occur at the CHWF, although the Internal Roads will not be as wide as this for the CHWF.
Criteria 1 – Will the CHWF compromise or degrade the scenic values of the rural northern Wairarapa Landscape?
10.2 As previously noted, the northern Wairarapa Landscape is an attractive and well managed rural working landscape with low levels of ‘built’ development. This landscape is also well defined and visually contained by local landforms, compared to the more open and expansive landscapes of the Wairarapa Plains to the south and the Manawatu Plains to the west. This visual containment within the northern Wairarapa landscape is a particular feature of the CHWF, particularly with regard to the CHWF being seen to be integral to the northern Wairarapa Landscape rather than as a prominent and highly visible focal point when viewed from the surrounding landscape. The visual simulations illustrate the confined and contained nature of the local area landscape relative to the visibility of the cluster groupings of turbines. The simulations also show the visual effects of the proposed wind farm development in the CHWF landscape, depicted as the most visible layout option (the Assessed Layout).
10.3 As is evident in the simulations, the wind farm may affect scenic values from some viewpoints particularly from those in close proximity (i.e. within 5 kilometres of the nearest turbine). In these instances the wind farm turbines may be seen as being visually prominent elements in the landscape particularly where there is little or no intervening landform or vegetation screening. However, from most public road locations the wind farm and the individual turbines are unlikely to appear visually dominant or intrusive from viewpoints within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbine. From
56 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
viewpoints within 10km of the nearest visible CHWF turbine, the effects will not degrade or compromise the scenic values of the northern Wairarapa landscape.
10.4 While there will be some viewpoints and locations from where the wind farm may be perceived as being visually prominent, the question remains as to whether this degrades the landscape or is it more a case of change in the composition, order and appearance of that landscape which will essentially continue to be an attractive rural working landscape, albeit different in appearance. In this regard, the effect is the difference in people’s perception of the change in the appearance of the landscape rather than a degradation of the landscape as such.
10.5 To some people, the clean sculptural forms of turbines are considered to be visually appealing, particularly with regard to their appearance, simplicity, repetition and their contrast within the rural landscape, while to others, wind farms and turbines are seen as an industrial-like activity and consider their scale and appearance to be out of character and a visual intrusion in the rural landscape. Those people who live and work in the rural area may also have different opinions to visitors with respect to views of turbines in the rural landscape or indeed any other change to the rural landscape.
10.6 While the CHWF may have a relatively local effect on the areas scenic values, when viewed from some locations, these scenic values as a whole are not likely to be degraded in a significant or adverse manner. While the change may be visually prominent from some viewpoints, the landscape, while different in appearance than without the wind farm, will not necessarily be degraded. As noted previously, the visual effects of the CHWF are reversible, in that the landscape can be returned to its near pre-existing condition following decommissioning of the wind farm if this occurs. The effect on views from rural dwellings is discussed under assessment Criteria 3.
10.7 The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) policy for the lighting and Marking of Wind Turbines (May 2006), states that structures up to 120 metres or higher are a hazard in navigable air apace and require aviation obstacle lighting. Generally obstacle lights, where required, are placed at strategic locations agreed with CAA in order to indicate to aircraft pilots the extent of the wind farm and the location of the highest turbines relative to ground height. Generally obstacle lights are placed at or above the top of the nacelle. From this position light spill can be managed and directed so as to avoid and/or minimise light effects relative to specific rural dwellings and the surrounding are in general. Given the nature of the CHWF Site and its relatively isolated location, obstacle lighting can be positioned to minimise any potential adverse effects.
57 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Criteria 2 – Will the CHWF have an adverse effect on the rural character and rural amenity of the northern Wairarapa landscape?
10.8 As is evident in the visual simulations, from some viewpoints the wind farm will be seen as a visually prominent feature in the landscape. The wind farm turbines will also introduce a new infrastructural element into a rural landscape displaying high levels of ‘naturalness’. While the rural character will remain the predominant characteristic in terms of the landscape’s overall appearance and land use, the form and appearance of the wind farm will be seen in contrast pastured to the hill country landforms.
10.9 The District Plans seek the protection, management and enhancement of the rural character and amenity of the northern Wairarapa landscape, however, rural areas are also acknowledged as potential candidate areas within which energy generation developments such as wind farms can be accommodated provided they do not adversely affect other resource users, ecosystem values or compromise the sustainability of rural land use and landscape character.
10.10 While from some locations the wind farm may be seen as being visually prominent and even dominant in the context of its rural landscape setting, the wind farm overall will also be seen to be an integral part of the working landscape. Accordingly, while the wind farm by its very nature will be visible and generally seen as small clusters of turbines from most rural viewpoints, natural elements and rural characteristics will continue to be dominant in the northern Wairarapa landscape. This is evident in the visual simulations.
10.11 The slender and elegant form of the turbines, coupled with the open and spread out nature of their siting within the expansive wind farm site, allows a degree of transparency which contributes to the appearance of a ‘high ratio of open space relative to the built environment’ (structures in this case). In visual terms the turbines and the associated wind farm infrastructure will be seen to sit within the rural landscape rather than simply occupying large continuous areas of space and consuming the landscape. Thus, the CHWF, while visually prominent, from some viewpoints has relatively transparent characteristics which will enable the landscape to continue to ‘flow through’ and between the turbines and the CHWF overall. This is evident in views from all of the simulated viewpoints.
10.12 The wind turbines, while not urban infrastructure as such, are industrial like in character relative to the more traditional rural activities. Notwithstanding this, urban infrastructure often tends to imply more intensive, complex and visually bulkier structures and developments. While the wind farm turbines have a strong and repetitious form, and are industrial like in nature, their elegance and the open nature of 58 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
their siting, along with their ability to sit within and/or step through the landscape is quite different. Compared to more traditional urban infrastructure, wind farms are more visually transparent and less visually intrusive in terms of their form, bulk and their physical modifications to the landscape and its rural use.
10.13 In general discussion with landowners within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbines, particularly those who are not CHWF landowners, the question of visual effects from ‘out on the farm’ as opposed to the area immediately about the dwelling was raised and is seen by some as a particular issue. While the view from one’s workplace environment is a factor to consider, the activities that occur on neighbouring properties can only be controlled in the context of what is appropriate and permissible under the District Plan. Notwithstanding this, there will be views of some turbines and other wind farm infrastructure from a range of locations within adjacent farm properties and in particular the open high points.
10.14 As previously noted, the contour data available has enabled relatively accurate digital terrain modelling to be used for the ZTV mapping. Map 9 (Volume 5 – Section 2) shows the turbine visibility from the 147,280ha area within 10km of the nearest CHWF turbines. Table 3 (Section 7) which provides a breakdown of the areas from where turbines are visible shows that from 23% of the area within 10km of the CHWF, no turbines are visible at all due to landform screening. Given the local effects of vegetation screening which are not incorporated in the ZTV mapping, it is likely that the area screened could increase to a figure of 30 to 35% of the total area if the screening effects of existing vegetation are taken into account.
10.15 Map 13 (Volume 5 – Section 2) shows the visibility pattern within the CHWF Site, and the visibility pattern external to the CHWF Site from within 10km of the nearest turbine. From beyond the CHWF Site, some 29% of the area within 10km, none of the CHWF turbines would be visible. As this visibility analysis does not include the screening effect of trees, the area from which no turbines would be visible could increase to 35-40% of the total area. In the context of the CHWF and its 10 km distance setting, this is a significant area from where no turbines would be potentially visible.
10.16 Map 14 shows a similar analysis carried out for the area within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbine. While this area of land is closer to the CHWF, from approximately 11% of the area immediately adjacent to the wind farm (excluding the CHWF Site) no turbines would be visible. On the basis that existing vegetation would likely increase the screening to 15 to 20%, this again represents a significant area from within which no turbines would be visible. The area from which 1 to 20 turbines and/or parts of
59 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
rotor blades would be visible is 29%, with 21 to 50 turbines being visible from a further 29% of the area.
10.17 While the above figures are theoretical, they are indicative and a conservative indication of the wider turbines visibility within 5km and 10km distance zones from the nearest turbine. It is also worth noting that where a large area of an adjacent rural property may have views of turbines, the actual land area regularly frequented would generally be confined to access tracks, stock yards and other site specific areas, with most of the rest of the property being traversed on a relatively irregular basis.
10.18 Some landowners may consider the visibility of turbines and/or other elements of the wind farm to be an effect which compromises their rural amenity and/or the enjoyment of their workplace environment. The turbines and elements of the wind farm will be seen from some work place locations throughout the area. This is unavoidable. Notwithstanding this and in the context of the wider inland hill country landscape, the CHWF is unlikely to have widespread adverse effects on the rural landscape character and rural amenity of the local or the wider northern Wairarapa landscape.
Criteria 3 - Will the views of residents who live in close proximity to the wind farm be compromised or adversely affected by the proposed development?
10.19 While some views from rural dwellings may be affected by the proposed wind farm, care has been taken in the siting of turbines to minimise potential adverse visual effects as far as possible. While views from some rural dwellings may be affected by the proposed wind farm, care has been taken to minimise the effects on private views. However, views from open farmland have not been assessed other than from representative public viewpoints as a basis to assess the wider matters of effects on rural character and scenic quality. In the context of views and visual amenity the effects from houses and their associated outdoor living areas has been the prime focus of the assessment rather than specific locations within the farm properties.
10.20 There will be people who consider the turbines and the wind farm in general will detract from and/or intrude upon their particular view and consequently degrade what they consider to be the landscape or views they know and have come to expect. These people may prefer to have no change to the appearance of their viewed landscape or outlook.
10.21 In this regard, views and outlook are not specifically protected or controlled in the District Plans. Likewise, views and their protection as such are not a Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) matter. With respect to maintaining rural amenity
60 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
values, the District Plans seek to manage the adverse effects of buildings and structures on adjoining properties and are not specific or directed towards private view protection as such.
10.22 As noted in Section 9, a comprehensive visibility analysis of all rural dwellings was carried out for the area within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbines. Based on field observations, the visual simulations from public viewpoints and the results of numerous site visits, a distance zone within 5km of the turbines was considered to be the area from within which potential visual effects of the turbines and other wind farm infrastructure would be most apparent. All habitable rural dwellings within the 5km zone were assessed. Table 7 (Section 9) summarises the visibility levels from each of the 173 dwellings within 5 km of the nearest CHWF turbine.
10.23 Of the 173 dwellings, 16 are completely screened from turbines by existing landforms and a further 48 are fully screened by intervening vegetation, primarily that contained within the dwelling curtilage area. Table 7 in Section 9.11 shows a breakdown of the Dwelling Visibility within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbines. The remaining 109 dwellings which were classified as being either partially screened by existing vegetation or had limited vegetation screening adjacent to the dwellings were subsequently assessed in terms of visual effects. This assessment was based on roadside and/or site inspections to each property.
10.24 The visual effects assessment took into account the following –
i) The number of turbines and/or rotor blades visible
ii) The distance between the dwelling and the nearest turbines
iii) The orientation and elevation of the dwelling in relation to the visible turbines
iv) The condition and the effectiveness of the existing vegetation relative to turbines views.
10.25 Table 6 summarises the results of the visual effects assessment from rural dwellings which have partial and/or limited existing vegetation screening. While the visibility and the visual effects within the CHWF Site have not been included in this report, the information has been made available and has been discussed with the respective landowners. Notwithstanding this, the results of the assessments have been incorporated in the Potential Visual Effects Table (Table 8) in order to provide a more comprehensive overall view of visual effects and any associated flow on effects on rural character and rural amenity in general within the CHWF 5 km nearest turbine distance zone.
61 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Table 8 – Potential Visual Effects
Dwellings Visibiilty Visual Effects None Low Moderate High Fully screened 61 - - - External CHWF Partially screened - 37 4 - Landowner Dwellings (111) Limited screening - 1 3 5 Sub total 61 38 7 5 6 Fully screened 3 - - - CHWF Landowner Partially screened - 29 16 1 Dwellings (62) Limited screening - 1 11 1 Sub total 3 30 27 2 All Dwellings (173) 64 68 34 7
10.26 Based on the results of the potential visual effects assessment from the 173 dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbines, from 132 or 76% of these dwellings there are no visual effects (37%), or the potential visual effects are assessed as being low (39%). By comparison, from the 111 External Dwellings beyond the CHWF Site, there are no visual effects from 61 of these dwellings (55%), or the potential visual effects are assessed as being low (34%), with 11% having a moderate (6%) or a potentially high visual effect (5%). The location of these dwellings and the levels of potential visual effect are shown on Map 8 in Volume 5 (Section 2).
10.27 The 5 dwellings external to the CHWF Site are located on 4 properties. Genesis Energy has approached those landowners with regard to visual effects and possible landscape mitigation measures. These discussions are continuing. The 5 identified dwellings are as follows –
Dwellings 396 & 407 – Pakowai, Waihoki Valley Road
Dwelling 397 – Pine Hills, 909 Rimu Road
Dwelling 400 – 161 Gandys Road (Rakanui Road)7
Dwelling 402 – Benmore, 107 Waitawhiti Road
10.28 Of the rural dwelling areas from where the visual effects have been assessed as being low, 30 are CHWF Landowner dwellings and 38 are from landowner dwellings external to the CHWF Site. Of the dwelling areas where the visual effects have been assessed as being moderate, 7 are from External Landowner dwellings and 27 are from CHWF Landowner dwellings. There are 5 dwellings external to the CHWF Site, and 2 dwellings within the CHWF Site from where the visual effects have been assessed as being high.
6 The landowner of one of these dwellings has signed a written approval form. The dwelling has only been included to assist the assessment of visual and landscape effects overall and in particular with respect to visibility and rural character effects in general. 7 The landowner of this dwelling has signed a written approval form. 62 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Criteria 4 – Will the wind farm intrude upon views to or from important landscape features, cultural/heritage landscapes, or public reserves?
10.29 Within the CHWF Site, there are no important landscape features, cultural/heritage landscapes or reserves that would be directly or indirectly affected by the wind farm or its associated infrastructure. As noted in Section 6, the CHWF Site is not identified as being within or part of an outstanding natural feature or landscape in either of the regional or district plans, nor is it likely to be identified in landscape studies that are currently being carried out in the Wairarapa area and in particular within the Masterton District. The closest identified outstanding natural feature or landscape to the CHWF is the Puketoi Range in the Tararua District within which the skyline of the range when viewed from the west has been identified as the key visual/scenic characteristic., Tinui Taipos, which is some 7.5km to the south of the CHWF, is also identified as an outstanding natural feature in the Combined Wairarapa District Plan.
10.30 The Anzac Cross (Tinui Memorial Cross), which is located on private land, is one of the first places in New Zealand where locals gathered to commemorate the first Anzac Day on April 25, 1916. While the site is not a public viewpoint, a visual simulation (VP51) and an assessment of visibility and potential visual effects from Maunsell Trig, which is immediately to the north of the Tinui Taipos site, was carried out with the permission of the landowners. From this particular viewpoint, the nearest visible turbines are those in Cluster F (red cluster) which is 7.1 km from the viewpoint. From this location, the visual effect is low and the wind farm which is partially visible in the distance does not intrude upon the wider view or the significance of the site.
10.31 The viewpoint simulated from Maunsell Trig provides greater visibility of the CHWF than would be the case from the Tinui Taipos site from where foreground vegetation tends to screen most of the site. From the site of the Anzac Cross which is to the south of Maunsell Trig, views of the CHWF are screened by foreground vegetation.
10.32 At the request of Rangitane o Wairarapa, a visual simulation was prepared from Rangitumau, a significant landscape feature to the north of Masterton and some 8.5km to the nearest CHWF turbine. Rangitumau, which is 604 metres above sea level, provides expansive views in all directions and is acknowledged by Rangitane o Wairarapa as being a site of cultural importance. While all 242 turbines are theoretically visible from this viewpoint (VP 52), the CHWF turbines extend from 8.5km (being the nearest turbine) to in excess of 40km to the most distant turbines. Potential visual effects from this viewpoint are assessed as being moderate for those turbines up to 15 km distant, low for those up to 30km distant and insignificant for those beyond 63 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
30km. In terms of overall visual effects from the Rangitumau viewpoint, these are assessed as being moderate/low.
10.33 While not apparent in the visual simulation, Rangitumau hosts a number of major telecommunications facilities which are particularly prominent from the viewpoint itself and from the surrounding area from where the landform is seen as a feature in the wider landscape. Notwithstanding this, the views from Rangitumau are not adversely affected or compromised by these facilities as there is sufficient opportunity to move around them in order to take advantage of clear and unobstructed views. Likewise the expansive views to the east are not compromised by the turbines which occur in a relatively narrow segment of the wider views from Rangitumau. In the context of the views to the east from Rangitumau, the turbines appear as a focal point of interest and are likely to be seen as a feature in the wider view rather than an intrusion in the view.
10.34 While the CHWF is not visible from State Highway 2 between Masterton and Woodville, it is visible in part from short sections at the northern end of Route 52 between Te Ore Ore and Pongaroa from where Clusters A and B (the blue and yellow clusters) are in close proximity to the highway. Notwithstanding this, the visibility of the wind farm from Route 52 is relatively well screened by the road alignment, the adjacent local landforms and the screening effect of the existing vegetation. A number of visual simulations from Route 52 were prepared. These views show the nature and extent of views from the most visible locations on this highway. The visual effects of the CHWF from Route 52, and other local roads in the area is low with most views being intermittent and fleeting.
10.35 Sites and areas of ecological significance and protected natural areas are identified and assessed in the Ecological Effects Assessment Report – Volume 4 (Section 3).
Criteria 5 – Is the CHWF development in conflict with public policy in terms of the relevant landscape planning provision?
10.36 The Regional Plans and the District Plans contain no specific landscape provisions with respect to wind farms. In many respects the plans are permissive in terms of major developments in the rural landscape provided they do not adversely affect the character and amenity of the rural landscape. From a visual and landscape perspective, the plans neither exclude nor encourage wind farms which, as a new rural based utility activity, are becoming a major consideration in many rural areas.
64 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
10.37 Given the need to accommodate appropriate energy infrastructure in the rural landscape and on the basis that utility activities such as wind farms can be accommodated and integrated into the rural landscape in a sensitive and sustainable manner, and where rural character and rural amenity is not compromised or adversely affected, the proposed CHWF meets the relevant planning provisions from a landscape and visual perspective.
Criteria 6 – Will the physical modifications to the landscape be adverse and/or compromise the character of the northern Wairarapa landscape?
10.38 The CHWF extends over an area of some 30,000 hectares, of which approximately 3,144 ha is within the Turbine Corridor. While the Turbine Platforms and much of the associated access roads will be located within the Turbine Corridor, other Internal Roads and Substation Sites will extend beyond this and onto the wider wind farm site itself.
10.39 While existing farm tracks will be used as far as possible, the total length of Internal Road access is likely to be in the order of 200 to 214 km. The access road formation width, including side drainage, will be up to 8 metres during the construction phase and then rehabilitated back to 5 metres and managed as farm access tracks following completion of construction. While the construction effects will be visible from some locations beyond the site, the post construction effects will not generally be apparent following rehabilitation. Based on preliminary earthworks design, it is anticipated that maximum cuts could be in the order of 8 metres in height with maximum fills in the order of 4 metres in depth. Within the identified Excess Fill Areas, the maximum height of fills will be in the order of 8 metres with a range of 4 to 8 metres being the depth generally adopted.
10.40 While the construction of the CHWF will necessitate significant earthworks over an extensive area, the progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas will reduce the extent of site disturbance at any one time. From most vantage points beyond the wind farm site, the visual effects of earthworks and landscape modification will not generally be apparent as the internal access roads follow ridges and spurs and wherever possible seek to follow easy gradients. Visual Simulations from Viewpoints 14, 19, 23, 27 and 29 show the Internal Roads in their unrehabilitated state. Following rehabilitation the roads and any associated road formation earthworks will not generally be apparent. All other earthworks associated with the wind farm infrastructure has been carefully and sensitively sited and planned so as to minimise potential landscape and visual effects.
65 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
10.41 The landscape and visual effects principles that have guided the alignment and formation of Internal Roads, Turbine Platforms, and other earthworks include the following –
i) ...... Siting and aligning Internal Roads on the flatter terrain and minimising significant cuts across the visible faces of slopes.
ii) ...... Avoiding locating turbines on landform features, rock, outcrops and watercourses. Excess Fill Areas have also been sited in areas where farming improvements and/or enhancements can be achieved.
iii) ...... Siting Excess Fill Areas so that they avoid natural features, significant areas of vegetation and/or waterways
iv) ...... Developing appropriate rehabilitation principles as part of the Environmental Management Plan during the detailed design phase for Excess Fill Areas, in order to ensure that the landscape character of the CHWF Site is not compromised.
v) ...... Ensuring that recontoured areas reflect and/or are appropriate to the existing scale and topography of the CHWF Site and are shaped so that they are integrated seamlessly into the surrounding landscape and landforms.
vi) ...... Ensuring surface compaction is suitable to establish and support regrassing or woody vegetation establishment as and where appropriate.
10.42 As previously noted, the earthworks associated with the construction of the CHWF have been incorporated in the public viewpoint visual simulations and were also considered in the visual effects assessment from rural dwellings. As the earthworks associated with the Internal Access Roads and the Turbine Platforms tend to be on ridge lines and within the flatter plateau areas of the site their visibility from public places and rural dwellings is limited. Likewise the earthworks associated with the Substations, Quarry Sites and Excess Fill Areas have also been discretely sited and are generally not readily visible from public viewpoints or rural dwellings.
10.43 While the quantities and extent of the earthworks associated with the CHWF are significant, the physical modifications to the landscape will not generally be visible or perceived as being significant or adverse when viewed from public roads or from rural dwellings in the local and wider area. Accordingly, the earthworks will not compromise the landscape character of the local northern Wairarapa landscape, nor will they appear as scars on the landscape particularly following landscape rehabilitation.
66 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Criteria 7 – Will the CHWF limit or restrict the ongoing rural use of the area within the Turbine Corridor?
10.44 Other than interruptions during construction, the rural use of the land within the Turbine Corridor and the CHWF Site in general can continue throughout the life of the project, as the actual wind farm elements and supporting infrastructure will occupy a relatively small combined footprint within the Turbine Corridor. It is estimated that the post construction and rehabilitation footprint of the turbines and Internal Roads will occupy approximately 170 ha or 5% of the Turbine Corridor area being some 3,144 ha and less than 1% of the CHWF Site overall. Site works within the CHWF Site can also potentially enhance rural productive areas and access, whereby any loss of productive area can be offset by other improvements. It is therefore likely productive values can be retained to levels which are currently achieved. Accordingly, there are likely to be little or no effects on the continued and productive rural use of the land.
10.45 In addition to grazing, some forestry also occurs within and adjacent to the Turbine Corridor. While it is anticipated that these trees may be felled prior to or during the construction of the Internal Roads and the installation of the turbines, it is possible that forestry could continue as a viable land use activity within the wind farm site and/or within defined areas of the Turbine Corridor. The rural use and rural character of the northern Wairarapa landscape can therefore be retained and will not be compromised by the CHWF.
Criteria 8 – What forms of mitigation can be utilised to reduce and/or minimise potential landscape and visual effects?
10.46 Given the size and extent of the turbines within the CHWF Site, mitigation opportunities and measures are limited. Notwithstanding this, the position and definition of the Turbine Clusters and Turbine Corridor has been a major consideration with respect to achieving an appropriate fit with the surrounding landscape and mitigating the overall effect of the development. In this regard, environmental considerations have assisted in determining the size and shape of the Turbine Corridor and the siting of other CHWF infrastructure.
10.47 Throughout the site planning and design phase of the CHWF project, an important landscape objective has been to achieve a high degree of visual and landscape integration and in doing so, avoiding and minimising potential landscape and visual effects. To disguise or attempt to hide the wind farm is not an option and would be impossible to achieve. Likewise, to highlight and make the CHWF the major focal point in the landscape was not sought. What has been achieved has been an integrated outcome where the visibility of the wind turbines and their associated infrastructure 67 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
have been carefully considered, as have the potential effects on views, rural character and visual amenity of the area in general and rural dwellings in particular. Minimising the effects of earthworks was discussed under Criteria 6.
10.48 While the wind farm will be clearly visible in the northern Wairarapa landscape, it will largely appear to be integrated with and be seen as part of the wider and diverse working rural landscape. As noted previously, the simulations show the most visible turbine layout in that the number, density and height of the turbines illustrate a worst case scenario (the Assessed Layout). The simulations also show the turbines as a pure white colour with the rotor blades facing the viewer so that the three rotor blades are fully visible. In the context of the particular simulation this creates a higher level of contrast than would in fact generally be the situation.
10.49 Turbine colour is one of the more effective means of minimising the visibility of turbines. However, given the variability of seasonal conditions experienced in the northern Wairarapa landscape, the range of viewpoint positions and elevations, and the varying background situation that the turbines would be silhouetted against, the selection of an appropriate all purpose colour poses difficulties. Viewer distance also affects the perception and effectiveness of colour mitigation in that colour is generally less apparent over greater distances.
10.50 The majority of research, including the 1995 New Zealand EECA Guidelines, recommends the use of white or off-white as a turbine colour. The argument for using these colours is an acknowledgement of the visibility of the turbines, avoiding the impression that the development is attempting to be hidden or blended into the landscape. Based on overseas examples and New Zealand experience, it is clear that the most effective colour will be in the off-white to light grey, non-gloss (low reflectivity) colour range. The use of the low reflectivity colours also reduces the potential for rotor blade glint. Genesis Energy proposes the use of a non-gloss off white colour for the CHWF turbines.
10.51 The visual effects assessment from public viewpoints did not identify any particular locations from where landscape mitigation in the form of off site or viewpoint based planting was necessary to screen the turbines or other wind farm infrastructure. The visual simulation from Viewpoint 16 on Waihoki Valley Road shows a view of the Satellite Substation without landscape rehabilitation. As part of the detail design of the Substation, Genesis plan to incorporate colour mitigation and planting as appropriate along the road frontage of the Satellite Substation site. These measures will seek to screen most of the substation elements from most Waihoki Valley Road viewpoints.
68 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
10.52 The visual effects assessment from rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest CHWF turbine identified 5 dwellings external to the CHWF Site that have the potential for high visual effects. These dwellings, which are reviewed in detail in Volume 3, Visibility Analysis from External Dwellings, are:
Dwelling 396 Pakowai, Waihoki Valley Road
Dwelling 397 Pine Hills, 909 Rimu Road
Dwelling 400 161 Gandys Road (Rakanui Road)8
Dwelling 402 Benmore, 107 Waitawhiti Road
Dwelling 407 Pakowai, Waihoki Valley Road
Genesis Energy has approached these landowners with regard to visual effects and possible landscape mitigation measures. These discussions are continuing.
Criteria 9 – What is the potential for cumulative effects if consent was granted for the CHWF?
10.53 Cumulative visual effects can occur as a result of additional effects from other existing or consented wind farms in the same view catchment, or the wider area and region in general. Cumulative effects can arise as a consequence of –
i) An increase in the number of wind farms visible in the landscape;
ii) A numerical increase in the turbines visible from a particular viewpoint or view;
iii) An increase in the number of wind farms or turbines visible or experienced sequentially when travelling through the landscape.
10.54 Wind farms that may potentially contribute to cumulative effects relative to the CHWF include the existing wind farms on the Tararua – Ruahine Ranges, the recently consented Turitea Wind Farm on the Tararua Range and the Waitahora Wind Farm on the western side of the Puketoi Range. Two other wind farms are in the feasibility planning phase, namely the Mt Munro Wind Farm near Mt Bruce and to the south of Eketahuna and the Puketoi Wind Farm immediately to the south of the Waitahora Wind Farm on the western side of the Puketoi Range.
10.55 The wind farms on the Tararua – Ruahine Ranges are quite distant being some 35 km from the CHWF. As is evident in the ZTV mapping which shows the potential visibility of the CHWF, views towards the Tararua – Ruahine Ranges are largely screened by the Puketoi Range to the east of the CHWF. While the screening effect of the Puketoi
8 The landowner of this dwelling has signed a written approval form. 69 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Range is less effective from the southern clusters of the CHWF, local landforms continue to provide a high level of screening to the west. Given the distance between the wind farms on the Tararua – Ruahine Ranges and the CHWF, cumulative visual effects will be low. The effect of distance on views of turbines is illustrated in the visual simulations of the CHWF from Saddle Hill (Viewpoint 1) and from the Pahiatua Track (Viewpoint 26).
10.56 The consented Waitahora Wind Farm, located on the western side of the Puketoi Range, is approximately 15 km to the north of the CHWF. While the Waitahora Wind Farm is within the CHWF distant middle ground area (10 to 20 km), the Puketoi Range separates and screens the two wind farms from each other. The effectiveness of this landform screening is evident when comparing the ZTV maps for each wind farm. The additional screening effect of vegetation, not included on the ZTV maps, confirms that the likelihood of cumulative effects will be minimal even though the two wind farms are within 15 km of each other.
10.57 While the CHWF is made up of seven clusters it has been planned and will be developed as one integrated wind farm development. This is evident and reinforced by the landscape setting of the CHWF which has been sited entirely within a distinctive and contiguous section of the inland hill country landscape character area. In this context, the CHWF will appear as a single wind farm development.
10.58 As information on turbine numbers, location, size and density is not currently available for the Mt Munro and the Puketoi wind farms, an assessment of potential cumulative effects cannot be made at this time.
10.59 With regard to the sequential effects experienced when travelling through the landscape, while views of the wind farms to the west on the Tararua – Ruahine Ranges are possible when travelling on State Highway 2, views of the CHWF to the east are not possible due to the screening effects of landforms. Likewise, when travelling on Route 52 between Masterton and Pongaroa views of the CHWF are not possible until north of Alfredton from where partial views of the CHWF are obtained. However, from these locations on Route 52 to the north of Alfredton, views of the wind farms on the Tararua – Ruahine Ranges are screened by the Puketoi Range.
10.60 From local roads and rural dwellings in the local and wider northern Wairarapa area, cumulative effects from the Tararua – Ruahine wind farms and the Waitahora Wind Farm will not generally be apparent due to the screening effects of intervening landforms and vegetation as well as distance and orientation relative to most potential viewpoints.
70 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Criteria 10 – From a landscape and visual perspective is the CHWF an appropriate activity in the northern Wairarapa landscape?
10.61 Based on the field work and assessments carried out for the AEE, the CHWF Site is an appropriate location for a wind farm of the scale and character proposed for the following reasons:
i) The CHWF has been sited within a landscape character area that can physically and visually accommodate the proposed development.
ii) The CHWF does not impinge upon, or compromise any outstanding natural landscapes, features or amenity landscapes within the local or wider areas, nor will it intrude upon views to or from important landscape features, cultural/heritage landscapes or public reserves.
iii) The visual effects of the CHWF are confined and well contained.
iv) Views from most rural dwellings who live in close proximity will not be compromised or adversely affected by the CHWF.
v) The physical effects of the CHWF relative to earthworks, will not generally be visible from locations beyond the site and where visible can be rehabilitated and effectively integrated with their particular landscape settings.
vi) The inland hill country landscape can accommodate the CHWF without adversely affecting, or compromising its rural character or its associated rural activities.
vii) While the CHWF will introduce an industrial-like element into the rural landscape, the landscape will still retain its rural use and rural character, albeit somewhat different in appearance.
viii) There will be no cumulative visual effects with other existing or consented wind farms in the wider area.
11. Conclusions
i) From a landscape and visual perspective, the northern Wairarapa hill country landscape is an appropriate location for the CHWF.
ii) The CHWF does not impinge upon or compromise any outstanding natural features or landscapes within the northern Wairarapa area.
71 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011 iii) The inland hill country landscape of the northern Wairarapa can accommodate the proposed CHWF without adversely affecting or compromising its rural character or its associated rural activities. iv) While the CHWF will introduce a new and significant industrial-like element into the rural landscape, the landscape will essentially retain its rural character, albeit somewhat different in appearance. v) From public roads and rural settlements within 30km of the CHWF, the visual effects will be minor. vi) Of the 111 rural dwellings within 5km of the nearest turbine and external to the CHWF Site, from 61w10016 of these dwellings there are no visual effects due to landform and/or vegetation screening (55%), or the potential visual effects are assessed as being low (34%). From 7 (6%) of the dwellings the potential visual effects have been assessed as being moderate and from 5 (5%) of the dwellings the potential visual effects have been assessed as being high. vii) The landscape effects of the CHWF relative to earthworks associated with Internal Roads, Turbine Platform construction and other earthworks will not generally be visible from locations beyond the CHWF Site. Where visible these activities can be effectively managed and mitigated. viii) Following construction all disturbed areas will be rehabilitated and as appropriate recontoured and grassed. ix) From public roads and rural dwellings in the northern Wairarapa area, the cumulative visual effects of the Tararua – Ruahine Range wind farms and the consented Waitahora Wind Farm will not generally be apparent due to the screening effects of intervening landforms and existing vegetation, as well as distance and orientation relative to potential viewpoints. x) Visual mitigation in the form of specific colour finishes on the turbines is not recommended other than having the turbines finished to a matt or low gloss off white colour. xi) Discussions on visual effects and possible landscape mitigation is continuing with respect to four dwellings on three External Landowner properties.
72 CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects, BML July 2011
Appendix A – Preparation of Visual Simulations
The preparation of the visual simulations involved the following procedure – i) The selection of a range of representative viewpoints from which photographs were taken using a high resolution digital camera with a 50mm focal length lens. Each photographic position was fixed using a hand held Geographic Positioning System (GPS) unit; ii) The photographs from each viewpoint were then digitally stitched together to create an 85 degree panorama (horizontal field of view). Single frame photographs were also taken from close in viewpoints and/or in locations where significant foreground landform screening reduced the horizontal field of vision. iii) A detailed 3D contour base was compiled using 2 and 5 metre contour data over the wind farm site with 20 metre LINZ contour information supplemented with geodetic survey heights beyond the wind farm site. From this data a 3D digital wireframe model of the terrain is created. iv) The 242 3D turbine models with 100 metre tall towers and 55 metre rotor blades were then positioned within the 3D digital terrain model at the turbine coordinate locations provided by Genesis Energy. v) Wireframe views from each of the selected viewpoints were then recreated in Windfarm software to match with the photographs taken from the same locations. The effects of earth curvature and refraction are taken into account in the preparation of all simulations. vi) Each wireframe are then superimposed over the corresponding photographs using known survey reference points and terrain features in order to accurately register the two images. vii) A fully rendered, photo realistic image was then produced capturing as far as possible the light and atmospheric conditions of the original photograph.
In depicting the turbines in the simulations, consideration was given to the position of the sun and other climatic influences particularly as they relate to reflections and shade. While movement of the rotor blades can not be depicted in the static simulations, the Windfarm software is animated and can produce the movement of the rotors on a computer screen.
73