Decision No. 2013 Nzenvc 59 of Resource Consent. Applications
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. 2013 NZEnvC 59 of resource consent. applications IN THE MATTER directly referred to the Court under Section 8.7C(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED BY (ENV -2011-CHC-000090) Applicant Hearing dates: 27, 28 August, 2012; 3-7, 10- 14, 24-28 September, 2012; 1-5, 15-17, 23 October, 2012. Site visits: 29 August, 19 September (Te Uku), 14 & 24 October, 2012 Court: Judge M Harland Commissioner MP Oliver Deputy Commissioner B Gollop Date: 15 Apri12013 INTERIM DECISION A. The applications for resource consent are granted subject to amended conditions. B. We record for the ·avoidance of doubt, that this decision is final in respect of the confirmation of the grant of the resource consents (on amended conditions) but is interim in respect of the precise wording of the conditions, and in particular the details relating to the Community Fund condition(s). C. We direct the Hurunui District Council and the Canterbury Regional Council to submit to the Court amended conditions of consent giving effect to this decision by 17 May 2013. In preparing the amended conditions the Councils are to consult with the other parties, particularly in relation to the condition(s) relating to the Community Fund. D. If any party wishes to make submissions in relation to the Community Fund conditions, these are to be filed by 17 May 2013. E. Costs are reserved. Hurunui District Council Respondent Canterbury Regional Council Respondent Appearances: Mr A Beatson, Ms N Garvan and Ms E Taffs for Meridian Energy Ltd Mr K Smith and Ms J Silcock for the Hurunui District Council Ms M Dysart for the Canterbury Regional Council Mr E Pyle for Wind Energy Association Mr H Turnbull for himself Mr M Wallace for Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines Incorporated Mr M Archbold for himself Mr A Baxter Mr J Carr for Tipapa Limited Mr G Higginson for himself Mrs K Fitzimmons for herself Mrs A Marr for herself Mrs K McLauchlan for herself Mr G and Mrs M McLean for themselves Ms B Meares for herself Mr D Meares for himself and Mrs V Meares Mrs E Messervy for herself Mr M Messervy for himself Mrs H Pankhurst for herself Mrs J Symonds for herself Mr G Thomas for himself Ms P Vincent for herself Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5 The proposal ........................................................................................................................ 6 What is proposed? ........................................................................................................ 6 Where is the wind farm to be situated? ........................................................................ 8 What is the extent of opposition to the proposal? .................................... ;................. 10 Legal framework ............................................................................................................... 14 Consents sought .......................................................................................................... 14 The RMA and relevant statutory instruments ............................................................ 15 The actual and potential effects of the proposal on the environment ............................... 23 What are the potentially positive effects on the environment? ...................................... 24 Renewable energy ..................................................................................... :................ 24 The demand for electricity and the need for security of supply ................................. 28 Economic benefits ...................................................................................................... 31 Conservation initiatives and other technologies ......................................................... 33 What are the potentially adverse effects on the environment? ...................................... 33 Landscape and visual amenity .................................................................................... 34 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 52 Health .......................................................................................................................... 69 Traffic and access ....................................................................................................... 85 Construction, Erosion, Sediment Control and Groundwater, and Fire ...................... 96 Ecology ..................................................................................................................... 100 Recreation and Tourism ........................................................................................... 122 Property values ......................................................................................................... 130 Proposed conditions of consent ...................................................................................... 139 Part 2 matters- Exercise of discretion ........................................................................... 146 Result .............................................................................................................................. 147 s INTRODUCTION [1] Centre Hill and its surrounding ridgelines in. the Hurunui District in North Canterbury are landmarks of some significance to those who live locally, particularly at Glenmark, Greta Valley, Omihi and Scargill. They also attract a world-class wind resource, which makes the area attractive for wind energy generation, a form of electricity generation favoured by national policy because it is renewable. Recognising this, and after a number of years of investigation, Meridian Energy Limited ("Meridian") has applied to construct, operate and maintain a 33 turbine wind farm in the area near to the recently consented (but not yet co:nstructed) Mt Cass wind farm, but to do so, it requires a number of resource consents from the Hurunui District Council ("the HDC") and the Canterbury Regional Council ("the CRC"). Meridian successfully applied to directly refer the applications for resource consent to the Environment Court for hearing. 1 Accordingly there were no first instance hearings before the HDC and CRC. As a result, there was a high level of direct local community and resident involvement at this hearing. Many of the parties were self-represented, and many issues were raised. [2] The local opposition to Meridian's proposal was largely coordinated through the Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines Incorporated ("the Society"). A number of the members of the Society, however, also appeared as individual submitters during the hearing to advance matters specific to their individual interests. The other main opposition came from Tipapa Limited ("Tipapa"), represented by Mr John Carr, its director and shareholder. As well as owning land which is grazed, Tipapa's renovated. homestead, gardens and woolshed at Greta Valley operate as a high-end tourist destination and functions centre, and it is increasingly popular as a wedding venue. All of those in opposition asked the Court to decline Meridian's applications for resource consent. [3] It was common ground that Meridian's proposal should be assessed as a discretionary activity under s104 of the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the RMA"). Broadly speaking, we are required to consider any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity and any relevant provisions of a number of listed statutory planning documents. Overall we must assess whether the proposal will meet the purpose of the Act, which is to promote the sustainable management of natural and .,..,.. .... ~---..,~.,)2hysical resources. ~/cx_!\L OF ).~ · ( '~~~~~~~~rs ant to s87C (1)ofthe Resource Management Act 1991 . i I ~~·~~ 1·~~kl/.!.~fJ ~ o ' rr, \ /-•·J ~: (\ ... ,·'' r···• ~~ .. ...,.,, ,-..,.c; s;, f., I .,..• .,. ~ " •.. ~~,~·t_~'·.' 1:'~ 1 ~ ?. .J .':\\1Afti\r1iMetid~anJ-Interim Decision \ ..-'1J ..... }.,,&·":.(· 1'-i •.-'J.I'r-, ~'· l_\ (:? \ ·-.::r~';{tl~'·~~--.s:~~;w;;i'' 1 , ~J ,_~ ~t-:-~ '-... '"'7fH:_:_:J.:,.l-''' ·• / \,. ,. ~ "· ·/l~~ '-. /<"' ··~:-~ tl '\.. '<(~)/- ____.. _ '<;_~·'/ . -....,:... ~7 CO\J?.\ ~/ ·~"'-"-'l•~• ., . ....,....,...-r# . I 6 [4] Those opposed to the wind farm referred to it as an industrial activity that did not fit within the local rural environment, which they described as tranquil, peaceful and quiet. They were concerned that their amenity values would be adversely affected and their property values diminished should the wind farm proceed. Specifically, they were concerned that the wind farm would generate adverse effects relating to landscape and visual amenity, noise, health, traffic and ecological values. Tipapa was concerned that its business activities would be adversely affected and others were concerned that recreation and tourism activities nearby would also be adversely affected. The cumulative effect of having two wind farms (Hurunui and Mt Cass) nearby was a particular focus for some. It was contended that these potentially adv_erse effects would all be unable to be avoided, remedied or properly mitigated. [5] Meridian highlighted the positive benefits to the local, regional and national economies arising from the proposal, including the fact that the energy sought to be generated is from a renewable source. Whilst aclmowledging there might be some adverse effects,