Skip to main content.

Chapter 10: Landscape and visual effects

Introduction

888.     Landscape and visual amenity effects were a major reason for submitters’ opposition to the Transpower proposal. Localised effects of the proposal on visual amenity were a greater issue to submitters than the wider landscape effects of the proposal.

889.     Transpower conceded there would be adverse landscape and visual effects, and that amenity values (in some instances) would not be maintained. The landscape effects of the proposal were addressed through the ACRE route selection process that included assessing landscapes in relation to their attributes of ‘natural character’, ‘landscape quality’ and ‘landscape absorption capability’.

890.     Transpower asserted that the ACRE route selection process had been the primary method of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse visual and landscape effects. This process included avoiding the highest-quality natural landscapes, the re-use of the existing ARI-PAK A line alignment for much of the route, the use of an underground cable through the urban Auckland section, and the selection of substation sites to reduce visual amenity effects.

891.     Transpower conceded that the visual effects of the proposed overhead line were the most pervasive of the numerous effects of the line. Transpower’s landscape evidence was that:

  • a) there was universal antipathy towards transmission lines
  • b) there would be unavoidable visual amenity effects from a line of the nature proposed
  • c) effects would be experienced by directly affected landowners and by the wider community.

892.     This chapter addresses the two broad topics of landscape effects and visual effects. Although Transpower attempted to differentiate between landscape effects and visual effects, most submitters did not. Submitters used a range of expressions in an interchangeable manner, to explain their concerns about landscape and visual effects. This chapter is structured to accommodate this and to ensure consideration of the range of landscape and visual effects that were raised.

893.     This chapter begins with the consideration of some general landscape and visual aspects. The rest of the chapter is structured into sub-sections that break the consideration of landscape and visual effects into geographical sections following the proposed route from north to south.

Landscape effects

894.     The nature of landscapes and how they can be assessed was not in contention. This section provides a summary of what was agreed about this topic.

895.     Landscape effects can be defined as the effect of the proposal on the landscape as a whole.

896.     In the first Queenstown-Lakes landscape decision1 the Environment Court said “[a] precise definition of ‘landscape’ cannot be given…”

897.     The Court considered ‘landscape’:

  • as a large subset of the ‘environment’
  • as involving both natural and physical resources themselves and also various factors relating to the viewer and their perception of the resources
  • as a link between individual (natural and physical) resources and the environment as a whole.

898.     That decision included the following list of aspects or criteria referred to as the “corrected Pigeon Bay criteria” to be considered when assessing landscapes:

  • a) the natural science factors – the geological, topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape
    b) its aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness
    c) its expressiveness (legibility): how obviously the landscape demonstrates the formative processes leading to it
    d) transient values: occasional presence of wildlife; or its values at certain times of the day or of the year
    e) whether the values are shared and recognised
    f)  its value to tāngata whenua
    g) its historical associations.

899.     The Court considered that this list is not ‘frozen’ and may be added to as understanding grows.

900.     Those criteria were generally accepted by all landscape experts giving evidence to the Board.2 The criteria continue to be widely used by councils and the courts as a basis for assessing landscapes.

901.     The Wakatipu case also made the distinction between outstanding natural landscapes (section 6(b) RMA) and visual amenity landscapes as follows:

…not outstanding natural landscapes but which are visual amenity landscapes either because they are important in respect of visual amenities, or outstanding but insufficiently natural.

902.     A third category “landscapes in respect of which there is no significant resource management issue” was also defined. However, the Court said that “all landscapes form a continuum physically and ecologically…” and “we cannot over-emphasise the crudeness of our three-way division.”

903.     Evidence provided to the Board by landscape experts generally supported the use of this categorisation of the landscapes along the proposed route of the line and where the substations are proposed to be located. Expert opinion differed on the category that applied to specific landscapes, and these differences are set out in the sections of this chapter that follow.

Landscape assessment of proposed substations and overhead route

904.     Some submitters raised concerns about the adequacy of the landscape assessment undertaken by Transpower.

905.     In Chapter 4,3 the Board has set out its understanding of the legal context in relation to the adequacy of consideration of alternatives. In Chapter 7,4 the Board specially considers whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative routes for the proposed 400-kV-capable overhead transmission line. The Board considers a number of matters in relation to the adequacy of the landscape assessment including in relation to “the ACRE process”, “relative landscape and visual effects”, “routes over outstanding natural landscapes”, “effects on pastoral landscapes”, and “international practice on accommodating transmission lines”.

906.     The Board’s findings on these matters are set out in Chapter 7.5

907.     No other landscape expert undertook a landscape assessment of the whole route or to the detail that was presented for Transpower by Mr G Lister, consultant landscape architect. Other landscape experts criticised the adequacy of the landscape assessment by Mr Lister, rather than providing a comprehensive alternative assessment.

908.     The Board understands its role is to consider the evidence before it in relation to the assessment of landscape effects and come to a finding about what the effects are likely to be. The sub-sections that follow break the landscape assessment into geographical sections following the proposed route from north to south.

Visual effects

909.     Most of the submissions raised localised effects on visual amenity. Mr Lister differentiated these effects from landscape effects as, “the effect on visual amenity for specific audiences, including visual amenity effects from roads, settlements and houses”.

910.     The effects described by submitters aligned with Mr Lister’s definition of visual effects, and included effects on the outlooks from their properties, including from their residences, effects from within their community, and effects when travelling or viewing places from roads.

911.     Ms M Buckland, consultant landscape architect, defined visual effects as the visual changes in the landscape resulting from a proposed development. She explained that the nature and extent of the visual effects would be influenced by:

  • the degree of visibility
  • whether the proposal is the focal point or part of a wider view
  • whether the view is transient or stationary
  • the degree of contrast with the surrounding environment.

Visual effects assessment of proposed substations and overhead route

912.     Mr Lister’s visual effects scale was peer-reviewed by Dr M L Steven, consultant landscape architect, with minor change suggested to category names. The validity of the methodology was challenged by Ms B M Gilbert, Ms S Peake, and Mr D J Scott, who are all consultant landscape architects. Ms Buckland did not agree with the assessment made by Mr Lister in the application of the methodology.

913.     Alternative visual assessment methods were proposed and used by Mr D Mansergh, a consultant landscape architect and recreation planner, being a Geographical Information System-based “zone of theoretical visibility” analysis; and by Mr D J Scott, being a K2Vi terrain model and a set of photo points.

914.     The Raukawa Trust Board stated that they would be particularly affected by the visual amenity aspects of the proposal as iwi, hapū, whānau and as landowners, explaining that Ngā uri o Raukawa have resided within their takiwā and have identified themselves with their landscapes and whenua for over 500 years. The Trust Board believed that the visual assessment was subjective, and asked that the Board commission an independent visual assessment on which individual landowners and iwi may reply.

915.     Federated Farmers raised a number of landscape and visual issues pertaining to the proposed route as a whole. Federated Farmers raised concerns that the assessment of landscape and visual effects tended to undervalue rural landscapes. It contended that ‘wild nature’ had been favoured over ‘cultured nature’ in the route selection and visual assessment. Mr D J Scott also challenged Mr Lister’s assumptions about transmission lines being less obtrusive in rural working landscapes.

916.     The Manukau City Council, Matamata-Piako District Council and other submitters contended that the photomontages used by Transpower to show the landscape and visual effects under-represented what would actually be seen, and that there were significant gaps in their coverage.

917.     Mr Lister responded in cross-examination that it was not possible to produce photomontages of every single view along the proposed route.6 He stated that the viewpoints selected were representative of the line, and were used to show what the alignment would look like from a particular location, including the existing ARI-PAK A line where it existed.

918.     Mr Lister asserted that his assumption about the ability of a landscape to accommodate infrastructure is a valid factor to take into account. Dr Steven gave his opinion that the assumption that rural working landscapes could better accommodate transmission lines did not imply that rural landscapes have a “low value”.

919.     Each of the suggested alternative approaches to the visual assessment and the criticisms of how it was applied, was only raised or applied to specific sections of the proposed route, not the whole alignment. Mr Lister conceded that any scale of this type is necessarily arbitrary, and he expected that different practitioners would have different categories. He stated that his assessment was along the whole of the proposed route, as his methodology would capture the vast majority of dwellings where effects were likely to be moderate or greater.

920.     Dr Steven reviewed Mr Lister’s scale and concluded that it was a useful ‘rule-of-thumb’. Dr Steven was of the opinion that any changes to the scale should be on the basis of a rigorous, scientifically-based investigation, which none of the other landscape expert witnesses had undertaken.

921.     The Board accepts Mr Lister’s visual effects assessment as helpful and acceptable in respect of the substations and the 185 kilometres of overhead line.

Substations within Manukau City

922.     The details of the proposed Grid Upgrade to the existing Pakuranga and Otahuhu Substations and the proposed new substation at Brownhill are in Chapter 3.7

923.     Mr Lister described the changes to the Pakuranga Substation as resulting in structures covering a broader area within the existing site and some new somewhat higher superstructure. He described the changes to the Otahuhu Substation as relatively minor and resulting in the removal of some visual elements from the site in Stage 1, and the construction of new structures up to approximately 20 metres high within a compound of approximately 25 by 20 metres, in Stage 2.

924.     The proposed Brownhill Substation would be progressively established, starting with a transition station connecting overhead lines to underground cables feeding the Pakuranga Substation. Mr Lister explained that a gas-insulated switching installation is proposed when the underground cable with the Otahuhu Substation is laid. Later, further equipment, including outdoor termination gantries and transformers, would be installed, with more GIS equipment within a building.

Existing landscapes and landscape effects

925.     Effects on the landscape were not raised by submitters in relation to the proposed changes at the Pakuranga and Otahuhu Substations and the proposed new Brownhill Substation.

926.     Mr Lister described the existing landscape around the site of the Pakuranga Substation as mixed urban, consisting of residential areas, a band of reserve land and open space along Pakuranga Creek, and commercial activities along Ti Rakau Drive. Mr Lister assessed the site as having a good capability to accommodate the proposed Grid Upgrade Project because it would be similar in essential character to the existing substation, and screen planting proposed for the site would improve the existing amenity.

927.     The existing landscape character of the Otahuhu Substation was described by Mr Lister as industrial dominated by existing infrastructure and hard surfaces. This infrastructure includes the central substation for the Auckland urban area, the Otahuhu B combined-cycle, gas-fired power station, the decommissioned old Otahuhu power station, the southern motorway and the new Waiouru Peninsula expressway. The proposed works on the Otahuhu Substation site were assessed as having no landscape significance at all by Mr Lister, because they are insignificant compared with the rest of the site.

928.     The proposed site of the Brownhill Substation is located in the Turanga catchment at the ‘back’ of the Whitford Basin. Mr Lister described it as a modified rural landscape that is quite picturesque, not pristine but also typical of many of the peri-urban landscapes in this locality.8 Mr Lister assessed the landscape as having a moderately-high, natural character given the natural landforms, the stream, and some sizable remnant stands of bush. But he also observed that this natural character is being modified by the increasing presence of rural-residential development in the locality.

929.     The landscape effects of the staged developments proposed on the Brownhill site were assessed by Mr Lister as ranging from ‘relatively minor’ in relation to the transition station, ‘relatively benign’ for the GIS switching station, and ‘unremarkable’ for the GIS substation. Mr Lister’s assessment was based on his belief that, although the buildings for the switching station and the substation would be large, they could be readily accommodated by the scale of the enclosing hills. He also asserted that introducing a human element, such as the buildings, into a landscape is “not fatal to its natural character…it has an influence and is part of the continuum of what is natural or naturalness”.9 Mr Lister considered that mitigation measures including commissioning an architect to improve the aesthetics of the buildings, painting the buildings a recessive colour, and screen planting and landscape restoration, would all be appropriate to address any landscape effects.

Visual effects

930.     Visual effects in relation to the proposed Pakuranga and Brownhill Substations were the main issues raised by submitters.

931.     The Manukau City Council had originally sought a gas-insulated switching substation at Pakuranga. Mr D J Scott assessed the proposed air-insulated switching substation structure as having high adverse visual effects on adjacent residential and recreational areas due to the larger area, higher superstructure, increased scale and intrinsic unnaturalness of the open air arrangement of the cluster of exposed structural and electrical elements of an AIS substation compared to a GIS substation. The GIS substation was preferred because it would house the substation components in a building. During the course of the hearing, witnesses for the Council gave their opinion that a GIS substation at Pakuranga is no longer considered necessary.

932.     Several submitters, including, the Manukau City Council, Mr M Thompson and Ms A Bosse, Mr M and Mrs L Dodd, Regis Park Stage 2 Ltd, Underground in Manukau, Mr R and Mrs M McKenzie, Mr M A and Mrs R D Spring, Mr H Halford and Mr S and Mrs M Forbes-Brown, expressed concerns about the visual effects on neighbouring residential properties of the proposed Brownhill Substation, and the proposed overhead lines and gantry feeding into the substation. An alternative location (on the Dodd property) for the substation was suggested by many of these submitters. Regis Park Stage 2 Ltd and Underground in Manukau also sought landscape enhancement as part of the rehabilitation of Brownhill Road after underground installation.

933.     Transpower acknowledged that the proposal would have significant adverse visual effects on surrounding residential properties at the end of Brownhill Road and those that directly overlook the site. Visual amenity effects on the properties directly overlooking the site were assessed by Mr Lister as being within the ‘high’ category.

934.     Mr Lister explained the mitigation for the site included the use of GIS technology for the substation, so that most of the equipment at the substation would be contained within the building that would be of a scale that is not unknown in rural landscapes. Planting around the site would also mitigate visual effects. Transpower stated that through the consultation process with the local community about the potential visual effects, a monopole for Tower 5 and a reduced gantry structure between the monopole and the substation site had also been agreed. Mr Lister agreed that specific rehabilitation of Brownhill Road should be undertaken following installation of the underground cable.

935.     The alternative site on the Dodd property proposed for the substation by submitters was not supported by Transpower. Ms Allan stated that the report produced by MWH in 2007 set out the investigation of the Dodd property option, and the reasons why it was not considered an appropriate option, including engineering requirements, additional costs, and the loss of natural character on the proposed site.

Conclusions on substations within Manukau City

936.     The Board finds that the proposed changes to existing substations at Pakuranga and Otahuhu and the new works and substation at Brownhill would not result in any significant landscape effects.

937.     The Board finds that the visual effects in relation to the existing substations at Pakuranga and Otahuhu would be minor. The proposed planting at the Pakuranga Substation is appropriate.

938.     The Board finds that the Brownhill Substation would have significant adverse visual effects. Mitigation measures for the Brownhill Substation, including using GIS technology, a monopole for Tower 5, the reduced gantry structures, and the rehabilitation and planting on the substation site and along the underground cable route, would be appropriate, and are included in proposed conditions for the designation.

Overhead line route within Manukau City

The issues

939.     The Auckland Regional Council submitted that the overhead line route within Manukau City would result in adverse landscape impacts, particularly because the route did not avoid, where possible, outstanding or regionally significant landscapes and areas of rural character.

940.     Other submitters, including Underground in Manukau, Clevedon Cares Incorporated, Mr J and Mrs M Makin, Ms C Crosthwaite, Mr T Rishworth, Mr B Davidson, Mr P and Mrs D Harrington, Dr L Bennet, Mr R Everson, and Mr J and Ms B Addison, expressed similar concerns about adverse visual effects on the rural countryside that has attractions for city dwellers, and impacts on the unique rural character of Whitford, Brookby and the Ardmore-Clevedon areas.

941.     The Manukau City Council submitted that the proposed overhead line through Brookby would have immediate environmental impact, particularly in visual and landscape terms.

942.     Transpower accepted that the proposed line would detract from the visual amenity of the existing environment of the Whitford Basin, Brookby valley and the Ardmore-Clevedon valley.

Existing landscapes

Whitford

943.     Whitford is a broad, enclosed basin with hills defining the parameter. The basin has contrasting land cover including open pasture, remnant forest, exotic forestry and indigenous re-vegetation. Land use is mixed, with a lifestyle character typical of rural-residential landscapes around Auckland’s urban fringes.

944.     Mr Lister assessed the landscape as having a moderate degree of natural character, with the hills and streams being the main elements. The number of houses, and the patchwork of different land uses, has modified that landscape’s natural appearance.

945.     The ARI-PAK A line follows an alignment across the centre of the basin.

Brookby

946.     Brookby is a narrow valley enclosed by the Clevedon-Maraetai hills and the Whitford ridgeline. The landscape is predominantly pasture, with fragments of native and exotic bush and shelterbelts, and domestic specimen trees. It has an attractive and picturesque character with a somewhat manicured appearance.

947.     The land uses include a mixture of peri-urban activities: pastoral farming, horse studs, vineyards, plant nurseries, rural-residential and lifestyle blocks, and ancillary activities such as farm-stay accommodation. There is a primary school, and a recently developed equestrian centre.

948.     The ARI-PAK A line passes through Brookby, and further west the OTA-WKM A, B and C lines pass over the Brookby Ridge.

Ardmore-Clevedon

949.     The Ardmore-Clevedon valley is a broad-scaled plain and river valley landscape bounded by the Clevedon-Maraetai Hills and the Hunua Ranges. The valley is semi-rural in landscape character, with a mixture of land uses including productive rural activities, lifestyle properties and peri-urban facilities. There is a geometric form to the land-use pattern, accentuated by the pattern of shelter belts and shelter trees.

950.     The hills rise to around 140 metres at Brookby ridge on the north side of the valley and to around 230 metres on the south side. The land cover on the hills comprises of a mosaic of pasture, regenerating bush and pine plantation.

951.     The proposed route generally follows the existing ARI-PAK A line with minor deviations. The OTA-WKM A, B and C lines cross the valley some 2 kilometres to the west of the proposed line.

Landscape and visual effects

Whitford

952.     Mr D J Scott gave his opinion that the proposed transmission line within the small, discrete, enclosed Whitford valley system would completely dominate the integrity of this landscape. He stated that the visual effects would be exacerbated by the elevated position of the viewing audience that virtually encircle the proposed route. He claimed that Transpower had underestimated this viewing audience.

953.     Ms Peake did not agree with Mr Lister’s assessment that the Whitford valley is typical of the rural-residential landscapes around Auckland’s rural fringes. Ms Peake contended that the valley has unique landscape characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to change. She stated that the need to control development within this valley to avoid adverse effects on the landscape is recognised in Plan Change 8 of the Manukau District Plan.

954.     Mr Lister stated that the proposed line would detract from the aesthetic qualities of the landscape, and conflict with the rural-residential character.

955.     Visual effects on properties along the proposed route were assessed by Mr Lister as ranging from very high to moderate depending on the proximity of the house to the route and other factors. Mr Lister emphasised that, in his opinion, the effects on the Whitford area would be reduced by the proposed alignment of the overhead line being around the perimeter of the Whitford Basin rather than across the middle of the area as the ARI-PAK A line does at present. The ARI-PAK A line would be removed when the new line is commissioned.

956.     As stated above, Mr Lister proposed that a monopole be used for Tower 5 as part of the mitigation for the proposed Brownhill Substation. The Board agrees with this proposal.

957.     On the evidence, the Board finds that the proposed line would detract from the visual amenity and landscape value of the existing environment of the Whitford valley, an effect that would be mitigated by removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line.

Brookby

958.     Mr D J Scott stated his opinion that the scenic Twilight Road would be affected by the transmission line.

959.     Ms C Tuck (Underground in Manukau) emphasised the narrow valleys of the Brookby area, and the low, relative height of the hills, which she considered would increase the prominence of the line.

960.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that the prominence of the proposed line would be accentuated by the small scale of the Brookby valley.

961.     Ms Allan acknowledged that the proposed line would detract from the visual amenity of the Brookby valley, but gave her opinion that the landscape would continue to be a dominant feature.

962.     On that evidence, the Board finds that the proposed line would detract from the visual amenity and landscape value of the existing environment of the Brookby locality, an effect that would be mitigated by removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line.

Ardmore-Clevedon

963.     Ms Peake agreed with Mr Lister’s assessments that the scale of the Ardmore valley would moderate landscape effects, and that the valley has a moderate capability to accommodate the proposed new line. Ms Peake was particularly concerned about the cumulative effects of the new and existing lines, and the different scale of the new lines in relationship to the scale of the landscape. Mr D J Scott also expressed concern about the significant change in the scale of effect of the proposed lines compared with the existing lines.

964.     Visual effects were assessed by Ms Peake to be significant because this section of the proposed route (along with Brookby) has the highest concentration of houses likely to be affected.

965.     Mr D J Scott gave his opinion that the flat topographical nature of the valley landscape would result in the visual effects being felt from both the elevated areas overlooking the Clevedon valley, and within the valley floor itself.

966.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that the close pattern of settlement in the valley would increase the direct visual effects of the proposed line on individual properties, and visibility from roads. On the other hand, Mr Lister contended that this settled and modified nature of the landscape and the presence of the existing lines, would moderate the effect of the new line on the appearance of the landscape.

967.     Mr Lister stated that the line would be visually prominent from a number of roads within the valley and roads that cross the hills on either side of the valley. Mr Lister explained that deviations from the existing ARI-PAK A line to reduce visual effects included following a valley to the west of Clevedon township and crossing the Brookby ridge at a saddle 150 metres east of, and at a slightly lower elevation than, the existing line.

968.     On the evidence, the Board finds that the proposed line would detract from the visual amenity and landscape value of the existing environment of the Ardmore-Clevedon valley, an effect that would be mitigated by removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line.

Overhead line route within Franklin District

969.     From the boundary with Manukau City, the proposed overhead line would enter Franklin District across rising hills into the Hunua-Paparimu valley system. The route passes east of the Hunua village and south of the township, crossing west of Hunua Road. The line would then traverse country to the west of Paparimu School and village, and follow a southerly route, crossing into the Hunua foothills to leave the district at a point west of Mangatangi and State Highway 2.

970.     In the section south of Hunua village, the route deviates from the existing ARI-PAK A line, and follows parallel with the OTA-WKM A and B lines as far as Happy Valley. It would follow the middle of the landscape, maintaining as much separation as practicable from Hunua village and the landscape along the Wairoa River.

The issues

971.     The Auckland Regional Council and Franklin District Council submitted that the overhead line through Franklin District would adversely affect the Hunua landscape and visitors to the Hunua Ranges Regional Park. The councils both also expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed lines on the rural landscape character of the Franklin District.

972.     The Auckland Regional Council submitted that there would be adverse effect on proposed Outstanding Natural Landscape 62 (ONL 62) being an area north of Gelling Road, on the hills north of the Mangawhau Stream.

973.     Mr B N Davidson submitted that the proposed transmission line would be invasive and destructive of natural and physical features of the environment, and of such visual dominance, as would lead to significant permanent reduction in the quality of the lived-in environment; that it would permanently and significantly despoil and damage the visual and aesthetic environment of important recreational and environmental areas, particularly adjacent to the Hunua Ranges and park and other areas, and would cause significant and permanent visual degradation of the environment; and that the skyline dominance of the towers throughout the Hunua Valley and elsewhere would create a significant intrusion and degradation of the landscape and aesthetic environment on the approaches to Auckland. Mr Davidson also submitted that Transpower had failed to recognise the need to maintain and enhance the built and visual environment, and to mitigate, remedy and avoid undesirable and unnecessary environmental effects.

974.     Other submitters, including Ms T Curtin-Keane, Hunua School, Mr E and Mrs C Stoeven, and Mr N and Ms S Fuller, made similar contentions.

975.     Transpower replied that use of monopoles in this locality is not warranted; that compact towers would be inappropriate; and that selection of the route through the Hunua and Paparimu Valley had avoided, remedied and mitigated adverse effects on the environment. It acknowledged that the proposed line would have significant adverse visual amenity effects, and submitted that these effects should be balanced against long-term environment benefits of deferral of the need for an additional line, as compared with those of an alternative high-capacity, 220-kV line.

Effects on Hunua and Paparimu Valley

The environment

976.     Hunua is a foothill environment associated with the Hunua Ranges. To the east, which includes the Hunua Falls, and Camp Adair at the edge of the park, there are large areas of open pasture, exotic pine woodlots and indigenous vegetation, and the land uses include a mixture of farming and lifestyle properties. Hunua township is the service centre in a basin with low, rolling terrain, the Hunua Ranges to the east and the Highridge Road hills to the north. The land generally slopes towards the Hunua escarpment, which rises abruptly from the eastern side of the basin.

977.     The escarpment has a high degree of natural character; the Highridge Road hills a moderate degree of natural character; and the basin floor a moderate to low degree of natural character, mainly from shelter belts, shelter trees and woodlots.

978.     To the south of Hunua township, the western escarpment forms an extensive backdrop of hill country largely covered with indigenous forest. The Wairoa River follows the base of the escarpment. There are scattered kahikatea remnants, and a strip of riparian bush along the Mangawheau Stream.

979.     The proposed transmission-line route crosses an area of rolling hills to the west of the Wairoa River valley. At the northern end, there is plantation forest; at the southern end, dairy farming on the alluvial flats of Happy Valley; in the middle, the closer settlement pattern of rural-residential properties, pastoral farms and small plantation and shelter belts.

980.     The valley is crossed by four existing transmission lines generally in a north-south orientation, one of which (ARI-PAK A) is to be removed as part of the Grid Upgrade Project.

981.     The natural appearance of the valley is affected by the relatively close pattern of subdivision and houses, the geometry of shelter belts, and the existing transmission lines, which detract from its aesthetic qualities.

Effects on the environment

982.     There was no dispute that the proposed overhead line would have adverse visual and landscape effects on the environment in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley. The Mayor of the Franklin District, Mr M Ball, stated that the proposed towers would be significant structures that would be readily seen from a wide area of the valley and by large numbers of residents, and would add to the impacts of existing structures in the area.

983.     The HPVRA contended that the areas in the valley are relatively heavily populated and would be affected to a greater extent than areas that are relatively less populated; and particularly locations where four transmission lines are already visible, or where the proposed line would be separated from existing lines by less than 100 metres.

984.     Transpower contended that the range of possible routes in the Hunua area is constrained; that the adverse effects are to be balanced against long-term environmental effects of deferring building an additional transmission line; and that removal of the ARI-PAK A line would have more than minimal benefit to the environment.

985.     Mr Lister accepted that the line would have some effect on ecological aspects of natural character, including clearance of areas of regenerating shrubland on the Highridge Road hills. He also accepted that the proposed line would be prominent from White Road and a section of Falls Road, but would not be visible from the entrance to the Hunua Ranges Regional Park or the Falls, and would be largely screened from public places in Hunua village. Views from Hunua village would be mainly restricted to properties on the periphery, including from Hunua School grounds, from which the line would be on lower ground some 380 metres to the east. Mr Lister stated that the line would be prominent from Hunua Road as it descends to the south-eastern outskirts of the village.

986.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that the capability of the landscape to the south of Hunua to accommodate the line would be increased by the modified nature and largely working rural character, low visibility to the wider community, and the presence of the OTA-WKM lines. He remarked that the area has a reasonably close pattern of subdivision and houses which would result in significant visual effects on a number of individual properties.

987.     Mr Lister considered that the most sensitive area to broad landscape effects would be the crossing of the hills to the southern side of Happy Valley where the line would cross a small saddle. He acknowledged that it would be visible from local rural roads, including Gelling Road and Ararimu Road.

988.     This witness explained that the existing lines had been taken into account when selecting the route using the ARI-PAK A alignment. Ms Allan also stated that cumulative effects had been an integral part of the whole assessment process, in that the height and number of towers, tower design and possible use of monopoles were considered in accordance with best practice overseas.

989.     Mr D J Scott stated that although the ARI-PAK A line is to be removed, other existing lines are to remain, and the proposal would have a potential cumulative effect.

990.     Ms Peake also stated that removal of a kahikatea stand close to Downs Road would have adverse landscape effect. She did not agree that the modified nature and largely working rural character of the area necessarily increases the capability of the landscape to accommodate the line; and considered that the proposal would have a cumulative effect. Even so, Ms Peake anticipated that the transmission line would not dominate the landscape, and considered that the line would quickly become an integrated feature, although individual towers will be prominent features.

Avoiding and mitigating adverse visual and landscape effects

991.     In considering avoiding and mitigating adverse visual and landscape effects of the proposed line, the Board addresses separately the respects in which the effects have been avoided or mitigated by route selection and line design; and the respects in which further avoidance or mitigation were in issue.

Avoidance and mitigation by route selection and line design

992.     The HPVRA accepted that the proposal avoids the adverse effects of a route through areas of greatest natural character, being in native forest.

993.     Transpower contended that by its choice of route, it had avoided greater adverse visual and landscape effects, and, in that way, had mitigated them; and that the proposed removal of the ARI-PAK A line would, to a degree, remedy the adverse effects of the Grid Upgrade Project.

994.     Ms Peake gave her opinion that the choice of the proposed route sought to minimise effects on the landscape, and that the effects on the landscape would be partially mitigated by removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line, which is closer to the ranges. She agreed that one 400-kV line is preferable to two 220-kV lines; and, acknowledging the use of monopoles may be appropriate in urban situations, stated that lattice towers blend into the landscape more effectively where there are long views.

995.     Mr Lister gave evidence that the proposed route had been aligned to follow a middle course between the Hunua settlement and the area along the Wairoa River, to avoid the latter; that a route skirting to the eastern side of the ranges, that would have crossed connections between the ranges and the coast, had been rejected; and that south of Hunua village the line avoids the more picturesque and more widely used Wairoa Valley and the local settlement at Paparimu.

996.     The witness gave his opinion that the use of the route selected would have less effects than other possible alignments through the area, and that the views of the proposed line from Hunua Road and Paparimu Road would be over an area where removal of the ARI-PAK A line would improve the amenity from those roads. He also remarked that locating the line adjacent to existing transmission lines would avoid potential effects of sandwiching houses between lines.

997.     Mr Lister accepted that putting transmission routes together through Hunua could create a “wire-scape”10 and visual clutter11 with existing lines. He stated that route selection was a question of considering the cumulative effects and co-location versus a ‘greenfields route’.12 In Mr Lister’s opinion, little benefit would be gained by using monopoles in the Hunua area because it already had a character of a transmission corridor. Any benefits from using monopoles would be muted by the existing lines.13

998.     He added that removing the ARI-PAK A line would also have positive effects on visual amenity for a number of properties in the Wairoa Valley.

999.     Mr Lister also stated that the visual effects of the line crossing Happy Valley would be reduced by the fact that it would cross adjacent to, and parallel with, existing transmission lines, and in the vicinity where the road passes between two kahikatea stands which restrict views within the road corridor.

1000.     Ms Allan stated that, as the line has potential to be visually intrusive, considerable effort had gone into trying to limit its intrusiveness by identifying contexts where the line would be less obvious, and proposing additional mitigation measures. She gave details of respects in which the route deliberately avoids rivers and their margins where possible, including where the Wairoa River runs along the base of the Hunua escarpment; where it veers to the west to avoid locating the line along the centre of the valley to the south; and also where it avoids the growth area for Hunua township and areas of conservation zoning.

Further avoidance and mitigation in issue

1001.     The HPVRA contended that as the 400-kV capability of the line would have significantly greater adverse visual and landscape effects than a 220-kV line (particularly due to the greater volume contained within the towers), and as the route has to be close to existing transmission lines, the cumulative effects should be avoided, remedied or mitigated in rural areas such as Hunua, having relatively high densities of dwellings close to the line. The HPVRA argued that planting and other localised mitigation would not be effective mitigation through the valley as a whole, that the environmental benefit of removing the existing ARI-PAK A line would be minimal, and urged that monopoles instead of lattice towers, or at least compact towers, would be appropriate mitigation.

1002.     The HPVRA also accepted that the extent to which using monopoles instead of lattice towers would mitigate adverse visual effects on the environment is a matter of aesthetic preference, and argued that residents the extent to which the residents’ preference is adopted would, in practice, reduce the level of adverse visual effects, the effectiveness reflecting the subjective personal responses of affected people. The HPVRA also contended that the marginal additional cost of using monopoles instead of lattice towers over a relatively small part of the route would not be significant in the context of the Grid Upgrade Project as a whole, and would be warranted given the particular characteristics of the Hunua and Paparimu Valley part of the route.

1003.     Mr M Ball stated his understanding that options for less significant structures – pole forms, smaller lightweight conductors and cross members, less intrusive compact tower designs, monopoles, and underground cables – had not been fully considered. Mr D A Parker expressed similar opinions; and on the removal of the ARI-PAK A line, he stated that the “enormity of the new line makes this comparison odious”. He also urged that adoption of compact design would reduce field strength of electric and magnetic fields, but, in cross-examination, accepted that he had no expertise in electrical engineering, in power system planning, or in structural design of transmission lines.14

1004.     Ms Peake acknowledged that use of monopoles may be appropriate in urban situations, but stated that lattice towers blend into the landscape more effectively where there are long views.

Conclusion on Hunua and Paparimu Valley

1005.     On the evidence, the Board finds that the towers and conductors of the proposed line would have significant adverse visual and landscape effects on the environment in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley; and that in places, those effects would be cumulative on similar effects of existing transmission lines nearby.

1006.     The Board also finds that there are several ways in which the proposal would avoid, remedy, or mitigate those adverse effects. They include the choice of route, design of the line, in the removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line (albeit much smaller than the proposed line), and in being a single higher capability line, rather than (eventually) two lines of lower capability.

1007.     The Board does not accept the suggestion that different pole forms, smaller conductors and cross members, compact tower designs, monopoles, and greater use of underground cables, had not been fully considered.

1008.     Even so, the extent that the proposal would avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the line does not necessarily preclude more avoiding, remedying or mitigating of them, although a balanced judgement of costs and benefits is called for.

1009.     In Chapter 13, the Board addresses adoption of greater lengths of underground cables, and use of compact tower designs. For reasons given there, the Board does not accept contentions that those measures should be required so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley.

1010.     Use of monopoles instead of lattice towers cannot be rejected on functional grounds. Transpower itself proposes use of monopoles instead of lattice towers at Whitford and at Lake Karapiro.

1011.     Even so, the extent to which use of monopoles instead of lattice towers would mitigate the adverse visual and landscape effects of the proposed line is not straightforward. In summary, there are landscape experts who favour monopoles for short views, and in urban areas; and lattice towers for longer views. Of course, some people may have a shorter view, and others a longer view, of the same structure.

1012.     The HPVRA plainly prefers monopoles in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley. It fairly acknowledged that this is a matter of individual preference, and argued that the satisfying of its preference would mitigate adverse effects on those who share that preference.

1013.     However, that is a problematic basis for a decision under the RMA. Such decisions are not to be based on numbers.15 Nor is there evidence showing a clear preference for monopoles among residents of the Hunua and Paparimu Valley.

1014.     In the Board’s judgement, to compel Transpower to use considerably more expensive structures to support the proposed line through a particular section of the route to satisfy the preferences of taste (however sincerely held) of the HPVRA would not accord with the rule of reason approach to RMA decision-making.16 Substituting monopoles for lattice towers might mitigate the adverse visual effects of the line for some observers, but, correspondingly, it might exacerbate the adverse effects for other observers.

1015.     On balance, the Board concludes that imposing such a requirement on Transpower would not be justified.

Effect on proposed Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL 62)

1016.     The Auckland Regional Council stated that in September 2005 proposed Change 8 (Landscape and volcanic features) to the operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) was publicly notified. The proposed Change 8 included new objectives and policies relating to Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL), and new ONL maps. ONL 62 was identified on the new maps.

1017.     After submissions on proposed Change 8 were heard by the Council in May and June 2007, the Council decided to undertake and notify a variation to the landscape component of the proposed change. Decisions were not made on the landscape provisions, and the notification of the variation is still pending.

1018.     The Council accepted that the weight the Board can give to the landscape provisions in the proposed change and the identification of ONL 62 must reflect that the plan change is still at a relatively early stage of the process, with decisions on submissions yet to be made.

1019.     Ms Peake stated that part of ONL 62 (Hunua Ranges) is a strip of land on the hills north of the Mangawhau Stream that is directly connected to the Hunua Ranges Regional Park. Ms Peake identified the key elements, features and patterns of ONL 62 as “interplay of intact mature indigenous forest and forest remnants with pasture, reinforcing topography”. Ms Peake contended that, regardless of whether this Mangawhau Stream part of the ONL 62 is deemed to be an outstanding natural landscape or not, the location of the proposed overhead line through this area would not comply with the landscape policies in proposed Change 8. In particular, Ms Peake identified Policies 6.4.22–5 and 6 that seek to control inappropriate subdivision, use and development in adjacent areas connected to ONLs.

1020.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that this part of ONL 62 does not meet the criteria for classification as an outstanding natural landscape. In his opinion, that area is not part of the Hunua Ranges, it does not have a high degree of naturalness, it would only score modestly in terms of the factors listed in the corrected Pigeon Bay Criteria, and it would not meet the test of ‘outstandingness’.

1021.     On the evidence, the Board finds that little weight can be given to the landscape provisions of proposed Change 8 in relation to the area identified as part of ONL 62. The Board accepts Mr Lister’s assessment that this area does not meet the criteria for classification as an outstanding natural landscape in terms of section 6(b) of the RMA.

Overhead line route within Waikato District

The issues

1022.     Several submitters, including Glenhaven Farms Ltd, Mr J and Mrs L Darlow, Mr J Thurlow, Mr A and Mrs D Allen, and Ms L Bilby and Mr R Stewart, raised concerns about landscape and visual effects including that the proposal would be an ugly blot on the landscape and that the pylons would be ugly monstrosities that would dominate the landscape and valleys of the district. These submitters sought that the proposal be declined or that alternatives be considered to address the landscape and visual effects.

1023.     The Hon Mr W R Storey submitted that the proposal would create unacceptable adverse amenity and visual impacts, particularly in the Waiterimu district where the size of the proposed pylons would make them extremely intrusive, and there would be no way to mitigate this effect. He expressed concern that Transpower’s landscaping and tree-planting mitigation programme is inadequate, and ignores the fact that any trees would take at least 10 to 15 years before providing any effect, and that the plantings would require the use of even more productive land above that required for the actual line. Mr Storey sought that the proposal be declined, or that the proposed pylons be replaced with shorter pylons, less visually intrusive monopoles or compact structures with a maximum capacity of 220 kV.

1024.     Mr B and Mrs F Aldridge expressed their concerns about landscape and visual effects on the quiet beauty of the Waiterimu, Matahuru, Taniwha valleys. They disputed Transpower’s assessment that the valleys are relatively remote and little used. They stated that the visual amenities and landscapes of these valleys are highly valued by the local residents and the visitors and tourists that use these areas because of their scenic serenity. Mr and Mrs Aldridge also questioned why the route does not follow the OTA-WKM A, B and C lines on the western side of the valleys.

1025.     Mr and Mrs Aldridge, as well as other submitters such as Mr A and Mrs D Sutton, explained the adverse visual effects from their house and stated that planting could not disguise or hide their view of the proposed line.

1026.     Transpower replied that it would be impossible to hide the proposed line but that it is possible to mitigate or reduce the visual effects by planting. Transpower acknowledged the cumulative effects in conjunction with the existing lines within the Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valleys but stated there would be a reasonable separation of just over 1 kilometre between the lines in the valleys.

Existing landscapes

1027.     The proposed route for the overhead line enters the Waikato District in the Maramarua valley, with the Hunua Ranges forming a distant backdrop to the north and the lower Rataroa hills to the east. The land uses along this part of the proposed alignment are mainly dairy farming with a land cover of pasture with large shelter trees, small pine plantations and the occasional bush remnant. The degree of natural character was assessed by Mr Lister as being moderate-low because of a prevalence of houses, farm buildings, State Highway 2, the existing transmission lines (being the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C lines) and the linear settlement of Maramarua.

1028.     After Maramarua the route follows a north-south orientated valley from Kopuku to a ridge north of Te Hoe. Settlements along this valley include Waerenga, Matahuru, Waiterimu and Taniwha Marae. The valley has areas of alluvial flats and rolling foothills, and the land use is predominantly dairy farming with areas of pine plantations, dry-stock grazing, and open-cast coal mining at the northern end of the valley. The landscape has a working character, and was assessed by Mr Lister has having a moderately-low degree of natural character. Mr Lister described the landscape as a pleasant and quiet rural character area that is off the beaten track.

1029.     From Te Hoe, the proposed alignment is through low-lying land to the Hangawera Hills. The land use is mostly dairy farming, with the land being drained by a network of drains and canals. The Hapuakohe Range which is a prominent backdrop to the north-east of the valley, includes the distinctive bush clad peak ‘Ngaraparapa’ at its southern end. The settlement of Te Hoe’s backdrop is a hill face that has been identified in the Waikato District Plan as a landscape management area. There are pā earthworks on a spur within this area, and the route passes through the edge of that area at the toe of the hill. Mr Lister assessed the natural character of this section of the proposed alignment as moderately low, with the landscape having a working rural character that is relatively open, with a rectilinear pattern of drains, races and shelter belts.

1030.     The final section of the proposed alignment in the Waikato District skirts the base of the Hangawera Hills to near the settlement of Tauhei. This section traverses rural landscapes similar to those further north, primarily used for dairy farming. Mr Lister assessed the proposed alignment as traversing a landscape of a moderately low degree of natural character with the land having been almost completely cleared and modified.

Landscape and visual effects

1031.     No landscape or visual evidence was presented by expert witnesses called by the Waikato District Council or other submitters. Mr Lister provided a comprehensive assessment of the landscape and visual effects along the proposed route through the Waikato District.

1032.     Mr Lister acknowledged that the proposed line would be a prominent feature down the length of the Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valley, and would be experienced as such by the local community. Mr Lister stated that there would have been landscape and visual benefits if the proposed line had been routed along with the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C lines, and not on the ARI-PAK A route through the valley; but other factors considered in the ACRE process had ruled that route out.

1033.     Mr Lister considered that there would be cumulative effects in conjunction with the existing lines along the proposed route sections 6 and 7 within the Waikato district. This would be particularly in the vicinity of Maramarua, and along the Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valley, where there would be prominent lines down either side of the valley.

1034.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that the section of the proposed line between Te Hoe and the Hangawera Hills had a reasonably high capability to accommodate the proposed overhead line because of the backdrop hills, large-scale shelter trees, the existing transmission lines, the modified nature of the rural landscape character, and its working character.

1035.     Dr Steven stated that in his opinion the Te Hoe Landscape Policy Area is not ‘outstanding’, even though the Waikato District Plan equates landscape policy areas with outstanding natural features and landscapes. Dr Steven considered that the biophysical and archaeological values attributed of the site at Te Hoe were the likely reason for its classification as a landscape policy area, and not its visual quality or aesthetics. He gave his opinion that the proposed alignment that would pass through the edge of the landscape management area, would not compromise these values.

1036.     The visual effects of the proposed line through the northern part of Waikato District were assessed by Mr Lister as being mostly moderate because of the working character of the landscape, its proximity to the existing OTA-WKM lines, and the orientation of houses away from the proposed route.

1037.     Further south, the proposed line would generally parallel the through roads along the eastern side of the valley, and Mr Lister stated that it would be a prominent feature. Mr Lister gave his opinion that in some sections along the valley there would be good separation and screening by vegetation and intervening low hills. In others, such as adjacent to Taniwha Road and Kopuku Road, it would be prominent. Mr Lister stated that around 86 houses would be within 1 kilometre of the 30-kilometre proposed route section 7, and 16 houses for the 8-kilometre proposed route section 8.

Conclusions on overhead line route within Waikato District

1038.     The Board accepts the evidence of Mr Lister and Dr Steven in relation to effects on the landscapes and visual effects within the Waikato District. The Board finds that there would be significant adverse landscape and visual effects including, in some places, cumulative effects on the existing transmission lines along the proposed route sections 6 and 7 within Waikato District.

1039.     The Board accepts Dr Steven’s evidence that the proposed line would not compromise the biophysical and archaeological values attributed to the Te Hoe Landscape Policy Area.

Overhead line route within Matamata-Piako District

The issues

1040.     The Matamata-Piako District Council submitted that the proposed 70-metre high power lines of a utilitarian design would be visually intrusive, and incompatible with the rural landscape, with the landscape and visual effects incapable of being avoided, remedied or mitigated. The Council further submitted that the assessment of visual effects was inadequate and visual effects near the western edge of Morrinsville had not been adequately addressed. The Council sought that the requirement be withdrawn unless the visual and landscape effects could be adequately mitigated, by (for example) underground installation of the line or by the use of monopoles at the entrance to Morrinsville.

1041.     Other submitters, including Mr M and Mrs K Gilroy, Morrinsville Community Board, Ms M Gardner, Mr R Mead and T Boubee, and Mr A McCulloch, raised issues about the proposal being incompatible with rural landscape and effects on rural properties around Morrinsville. Submitters expressed their view of the proposed overhead line and pylons as an ugly intrusion on their landscape.

1042.     Transpower replied that the ACRE process was one of the primary means by which landscape effects and visual effects could be addressed and mitigated. The assessment of visual effects and the landscape mitigation conditions that flow from that assessment, had been based on an ‘in the field’ assessment along the entire length of the proposed route carried out appropriately by Mr Lister as a landscape expert.

Existing landscapes

1043.     From the boundary with Waikato District in the vicinity of the settlement of Tauhei, the route skirts the base of the Hangawera Hills. From here through to Morrinsville the proposed route primarily traverses moderate to shallow, rolling grazing and cropping land. South of Morrinsville the countryside is more rolling hill country, with elevations up to around 150 metres. Like the northern-most section in the Matamata-Piako District, the proposed route again traverses a landscape dominated by steep, bare-faced hillsides in the vicinity of the Mt Misery hills and the southernmost portion adjacent to the Waipa District boundary.

1044.     The proposed route generally follows the existing ARI-PAK A line alignment, with minor deviations.

1045.     The land use along this proposed route is predominately dairy farming, with some dry-stock grazing and horse facilities. There are a number of life-style properties with a concentration of rural-residential activities on the outskirts of Morrinsville.

1046.     Both Mr Lister and Ms Gilbert considered the landscape to have a rural working character, with shelterbelts, hedgerows and scattered trees adding to the visual complexity.

1047.     Mr Lister’s assessment was that the landscape generally had a moderately low degree of natural character because of the extensive clearance and modification for productive purposes.

1048.     Ms Gilbert based her landscape assessment on the landscape assessment criteria in the Matamata-Piako District Plan.17 Her assessment was similar to Mr Lister’s.

1049.     Ms Gilbert and Mr Lister agreed that the landscape has a reasonably high capability to accommodate new structures. Indeed the 1992 landscape assessment report relied upon by Ms Gilbert identified that “its landform, vegetation and mixed use in places affords good screening for new developments”. The witnesses differed in their opinion about whether this capability to accommodate new structures extends to the proposed new pylons.

1050.     The proposed line would cross State Highway 26 on the western outskirts of Morrinsville at the same location as the existing ARI-PAK A line. Morrinsville is the largest settlement passed by the proposed line. In the vicinity of the state highway crossing, the area comprises a relatively uncoordinated mix of land uses including light industrial, business, commercial, rural-residential and residential.

1051.     The landscape and visual effects of the proposed line at Morrinsville was an issue in contention between Mr Lister, Dr Steven and Ms Gilbert.

Landscape and visual effects

1052.     Ms Gilbert gave her opinion that the scale and visual character of the proposed structures would be blatantly out of keeping with the character of the existing rural landscape and Morrinsville township.

1053.     Ms Gilbert stated that during her field survey, she could identify nothing a similar scale with the exception of the TV3 mast on ranges in the Waipa District. She was of the opinion that the proposed towers, by sheer virtue of their size and scale, would appear to dwarf the landscape setting. In her opinion, the scale of the towers would be exceptionally incongruous with the surrounding landscape.

1054.     Mr Lister acknowledged that there is a substantial difference in scale between the existing ARI-PAK A line and the proposed line. He stated that the ACRE process was a primary means by which landscape and visual effects were addressed and mitigated. Transpower submitted that Ms Gilbert’s opinion reflected her brief to assess the landscape and visual effects of the proposed line just within Matamata-Piako District, rather than in the context of the route as a whole.

1055.     The Matamata-Piako District Council submitted that Transpower had ignored the importance of an entry to a town in forming impressions of that town. Ms Gilbert contended that the proposed transmission towers would be of an incongruous scale with the adjacent shelterbelt tree planting, and that this would tend to draw the eye, increasing their visual prominence.

1056.     Ms Gilbert suggested a range of mitigation measures, including roadside planting of an avenue of trees on the State Highway 26 western approaches to Morrinsville, and riparian planting on Mt Misery locations. Both Mr Lister and Dr Steven supported those proposals, which would need to be carried out in cooperation with the local authority, the New Zealand Transport Agency and landowners.

1057.     Ms Gilbert also suggested underground installation of the line as a possible mitigation option, but conceded that the cost of this option did not make it realistic. The use of monopoles for this section of the route was also explored by Ms Gilbert. Her final opinions about this as an option were inconclusive, as she acknowledged that monopoles were still large-scale utilitarian elements of an incongruous scale. Neither Mr Lister nor Dr Steven supported the use of monopoles there, both concluding that the landscape is not of such significance, nor the effects of such a magnitude, as to warrant the greater cost of the monopoles.

1058.     Ms Gilbert challenged the visual assessment scale used by Mr Lister to determine which individual properties would qualify for consideration under the proposed visual mitigation conditions. She gave her opinion that in the Matamata-Piako District, the scale used by Mr Lister does not adequately identify the properties that would be exposed to adverse visual effects. Ms Gilbert provided a recalibration of the assessment scale based on her assessment of the visibility of the proposed line within the district’s landscapes.

1059.     Mr Lister conceded that any scale of this type is necessarily arbitrary, and he expected that different practitioners would have different categories. He stated that through his assessment along the whole of the proposed route, he was of the opinion that the 1-kilometre limit is a practical and commonsense limit that would capture the vast majority of dwellings where effects were likely to be moderate or greater.

1060.     As stated at the beginning of this chapter, Dr Steven reviewed Mr Lister’s scale and concluded that it was a useful ‘rule-of thumb’. Dr Steven was of the opinion that any changes to the scale should be on the basis of a rigorous, scientifically based investigation, which Ms Gilbert had not undertaken.

1061.     Mr Lister, Dr Steven and Ms Gilbert agreed that the most sensitive part of the route through this district is some 4.5 kilometres along the crest of a range of hills south of Morrinsville. The witnesses all agreed that the elevation of these hills, relative to the surrounding plains, means that the proposed line will be visible from the wider landscape including State Highway 26. Mr Lister gave his opinion that the advantages of avoiding the ridgeline would be outweighed by greater visual amenity effects in other areas.

1062.     Mr Lister described the visual effects from roads and from individual properties. The proposed line would be visible on the skyline from roads within the Thames Valley to the east. It would also be visible from along the Morrinsville-Walton Road, and would be particularly prominent from Starky Road. Eighty-two houses were assessed by Mr Lister as falling within the 1-kilometre mitigation threshold. No further evidence was given to the Board on these matters. The Board accepts Mr Lister’s evidence on visual effects.

Conclusions on overhead line route within Matamata-Piako District

1063.     On the evidence, the Board finds that there would be adverse effects on the landscape and visual amenity within Matamata-Piako District, particularly from the proposed route along the crest of hills south of Morrinsville.

1064.     The Board also finds that any adverse visual and amenity effects where the line crosses State Highway 26 at the western approaches to Morrinsville would be minor, because of the lack of existing amenity values and the very low visual quality of the adjacent light industrial area; the fleeting nature of the views of the proposed line from travellers along State Highway 26; the fact that the existing ARI-PAK A line would be removed; and given the necessity for the line to pass near the town, the proposed location of the line being where it would be viewed directly by few residents.

1065.     The Board does not support the use of monopoles at Morrinsville because they would have little, if any, benefit in terms of the existing landscape that the proposed line would traverse.

1066.     As stated in paragraph [922] of this chapter, the Board accepts Mr Lister’s visual effects assessment as helpful and acceptable in respect of the 185 kilometres of overhead line.

Overhead line route within Waipa District

The issues

1067.     The Waipa District Council submitted that as Lake Karapiro and Maungatautari and the western bank of the Waikato at Arapuni are identified in its district plan as special landscape character areas (SLCAs); these areas qualify as outstanding natural features and landscapes under section 6 RMA. The Council contended that giving effect to the duties to recognise and provide for the preservation of the natural character of the Waikato River and its margins, the protection of outstanding natural landscapes, the protection of such from inappropriate development, and to have particular regard to those provisions of the district plan (which should be accorded primacy in the assessment of environmental effects and great weight) would justify rejecting the requirement, or re-routing the line away from those SLCAs, or installing cable underground in them.

1068.     Other submitters, including: Mr G Lorigan, Mr J and Mrs M Darby, Ms V Barrow, Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust, Ms P Wren, Mrs P Wilkinson and Mr T Johnston, submitted that the proposal would ruin one of the most beautiful parts of the country, and that there would be adverse effects on people’s outlook onto the stunning surrounding landscape.

1069.     A group of residents from Te Miro, including Mr G Copstick and Ms K Brennan, the Bodle family, Mr T Shergood and Ms R Sellers, Mr V P Jones and Mrs S Jones, Messrs N and M Sweetman, submitted that visual and amenity effects on this location would be significant. They stated their beliefs that these effects had been underestimated for rural properties because rural living did not take place mainly indoors. These submitters gave their opinions that lifestyle farmers purchase land to be able to spend time out-of-doors enjoying the amenity values of the surrounding countryside. They also stated that the landscape and visual effects of the ARI-PAK A line and the proposed line would not be comparable, and it is wrong to use the existence of the ARI-PAK A line as an argument in support of replacing it with much larger new structures. These submitters also contended that the proposed planting mitigation measures are unworkable and impracticable because the plantings would often have to be on productive land on neighbouring properties. They asked that the proposal be declined in its entirety.

1070.     Transpower contended that in identifying Lake Karapiro, Maungatautari and the western bank of the Waikato River at Arapuni as SLCAs, the district plan lacks integrity and does not justify rejecting the selected route; it disputed that Lake Karapiro, Maungatautari and the western bank of the Waikato River at Arapuni qualify as outstanding natural features or landscapes in terms of section 6; it contended that the proposed use of monopoles at the Karapiro crossing would be appropriate mitigation of the effects on that landscape; and submitted that re-routing or underground cable installation is not properly before the Board or affected landowners (especially those on an eastern route option).

1071.     Transpower acknowledged that the proposed line would have landscape and visual effects within the Waipa District. The variety of landscape character, land uses and settlement patterns within the district would mean that effects would be more significant in some parts of the district than others.

1072.     The main issues for consideration are whether Lake Karapiro, Maungatautari and the western bank of the Waikato River at Arapuni qualify as outstanding natural features or landscapes in terms of section 6; if so, whether the proposed transmission line would be inappropriate development from which they should be protected; the extent of the effect on their attributes as SLCAs in terms of the district plan; whether re-routing or underground cable installation is properly before the Board; and if so, whether that is justified.

Existing landscapes

1073.     The proposed line would enter the Waipa District across the Maungakawa range just west of Ruru, and then travel south through hill country just east of Cambridge, near Whitehall. The route then crosses State Highway 1 and Lake Karapiro, 3 kilometres west of the Horahora Bridge. The proposed alignment would then cross the lower slopes of Maungatautari and turn south-east to again cross Lake Karapiro about 800 metres north of the Arapuni Township, and enter the South Waikato District.

1074.     The Pakaroa Ranges to the west, and the Maungakawa Range (that consists of an arc of three andesite volcanic cones) to the north and east, enclose a central basin of rolling hill-country which the route traverses north of the Waikato River. The proposed line would cross the Maungakawa Range at a saddle west of the Ruru cone, and essentially follow the alignment of the existing ARI-PAK A line.

1075.     The land use consists of clusters of residences on smaller lifestyle properties, dairy farming, dry-stock grazing, small plantations and orchards, and remnant stands of bush within the farmland. There are small rural settlements at Te Miro and at Whitehall.

1076.     Mr Lister was the only landscape expert who assessed the existing landscape in the northern part of Waipa District and gave evidence to the Board. He assessed the landscape as having a moderate natural character because it has mostly been cleared and is managed as a productive landscape. He gave his opinion that aesthetically the landscape is attractive and picturesque, with a sense of seclusion and enclosure, because it is reached through ‘passes’ across hills from each direction.

Description of Karapiro and Maungatautari

1077.     Maungatautari is an andesite volcanic cone that rises to 797 metres and has three main peaks. This mountain stands out in the south-eastern part of the Waipa District. It dominates flat lands to the west, and Lake Karapiro, the Waikato River, Lake Arapuni and State Highway 1 to the east. The higher part of the cone is in native forest, and is a scenic reserve bordered by a pest-proof fence to create an ‘ecological island’. The lower slopes are in pasture, and very little development is visible.

1078.     Three existing overhead transmission lines pass over the eastern flanks of the cone.18 The main access to the ecological island, and the site for an intended visitor centre, are on the southern side of the mountain; and there is also a northern access. Three further overhead 220-kV transmission lines pass high over the western and south-western flanks.

1079.     Lake Karapiro is a flooded river behind a hydro dam that was constructed in the 1940s. The lake stretches back 23 kilometres to Arapuni. The lake edge east of Karapiro village slopes steeply to the surface with ignimbrite rock outcrops and indigenous vegetation giving the banks a natural character. The natural appearance is modified by houses along the banks overlooking the lake, and by the presence of existing infrastructure: State Highway 1, and two existing transmission lines.19 The lake is a focus of tourism, being visible from parts of State Highway 1, from Karapiro village, and from the southern bank. Part of the lake surface is used as a venue for international rowing competitions, and other water sports.

1080.     The proposed overhead transmission line would cross Lake Karapiro about 3 kilometres west of Horahora Bridge (where the lake is about 200 metres wide), pass through the Maungatautari SLCA for about 5.5 kilometres, and then pass through the Arapuni SLCA for about 1 kilometre.

1081.     Transpower proposes that a total of seven structures supporting the line on each side of the lake crossing (three to the north and four to the south) would be monopoles instead of lattice towers.

Landscape and visual effects

1082.     Ms Buckland and Mr Lister agreed that the sensitive locations along the route are the crossing of the Waikato River at Karapiro, Arapuni and the crossing of Ruru to the north. Ms Buckland also considered that the route in the vicinity of Maungatautari is also sensitive, but Mr Lister did not agree with this assessment. The crossing at Karapiro and the route in the vicinity of Maungatautari are addressed in the section below.

1083.     The landscape where the proposed line crosses the Waikato River near Arapuni is, in the opinions of both Mr Lister and Ms Buckland, not an outstanding natural landscape: rather it has high landscape quality but not as high as the landscape at the proposed crossing at Karapiro. They also agreed that parts of the margin of the river have high natural character values, and that the proposal would be an inappropriate development in terms of section 6(a) of the RMA.

1084.     Ms Buckland and Mr Lister agreed that the proposed line would be a prominent feature crossing the range adjacent to Ruru. They also agreed that Ruru is already dominated by the telecommunications tower that detracts from the naturalness of the peak, and that the line would compete visually with Ruru and reduce the apparent scale of the mountain.

1085.     Mr Lister acknowledged that the proposed line would detract from the picturesque aesthetics of parts of the district, including the northern-most part of the district around Ruru Range, but that in other locations the landscape has a relatively high capacity to accommodate the line because of its working character, the presence of the existing transmissions lines, and lower visibility from roads and houses.

1086.     Visually from roads, the proposed alignment would be moderately prominent because there is a network of local roads that would be crossed; the rolling topography means that the proposed line would be prominent where it crossed skyline ridges. Mr Lister’s assessment was that around 55 residences in this section would fall within 1 kilometre of the proposed line.

1087.     Mr Lister stated that the assessment of visual effects on houses was not intended to suggest that there would be no visual effects on land around residences. He gave his opinion that the estimation of effects from houses is pertinent information on which to assess the significance of effects.

1088.     Mr Lister agreed with Mr Copstick and Ms Brennan that it is not possible to mitigate all adverse effects of the proposed line but asserted that, contrary to these submitters’ views, what Transpower is offering in mitigation is a responsible approach.

1089.     The Board accepts Mr Lister’s assessment, and finds that there would be adverse landscape and visual effects on the environment along this section of the proposed line through the northern part of the Waipa District. More significant landscape and visual effects would occur in the vicinity of Ruru, of Te Miro, and south of Whitehall.

1090.     The Board finds that the western bank of the Waikato River at Arapuni does not qualify as an outstanding natural landscape in terms of section 6 (b) of the RMA, but it does have a high landscape quality. The expert landscape witnesses who assessed the effects on the natural character of the Waikato River at the crossing near Arapuni for Transpower and for the Waipa and South Waikato District Councils differed; those differences are addressed in the South Waikato District Council section paragraphs [1140]–[1179] of the present chapter.

1091.     The Board notes that there was general agreement amongst the expert witnesses about the landscape and visual effects within Waipa District, except in relation to the effects on Karapiro and Maungatautari.

Effects on Karapiro and Maungatautari

District Plan provisions

1092.     As mentioned in Chapter 4, the Waipa District Plan identifies Lake Karapiro and Maungatautari (among others) as SLCAs; and states policies of protecting the existing landscape of volcanic cones, and the present character of the upper slopes of Maungatautari, and of protecting the landscape character of Lake Karapiro as seen from State Highway 1, and of protecting the land-use quality of Lake Karapiro.

1093.     The plan classifies utility structures as permitted activities if not more than 25 metres in height, 110 kV, and 110 MVA capacity per circuit. It classifies as discretionary activities utility structures that do not comply with the standards for permitted activities. It provides criteria for deciding applications for discretionary activities, including whether the size or location of the structure will affect significant views from State Highway 1, together with the extent of any measures taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate such effects; and whether alternative locations, or other options are physically, technically or operationally possible to protect the environment having regard to the costs and benefits of doing so.

Karapiro and Maungatautari are outstanding natural landscapes

1094.     In considering whether Lake Karapiro and Maungatautari are outstanding natural features or landscapes in terms of section 6(b) of the RMA, the Board needs to resolve a difference that appeared about whether a feature or landscape needs to be natural as well as outstanding in order to qualify. Then differences of expert evidence about the extent to which each qualifies can be considered.

To qualify, landscapes have to be natural as well as outstanding

1095.     Ms M Buckland is a consultant who has worked in landscape architecture for 40 years, 26 of them in private practice in New Zealand, specialising in landscape assessment and planning, and evaluating the visual and landscape effects of a wide variety of development.

1096.     This witness had, in a report for the Waipa District Council in 1993, identified Maungatautari as an outstanding natural feature and landscape, and Lake Karapiro as an outstanding natural feature. She had since made a further study on whether those SLCAs that would be affected by the proposed transmission line would be outstanding natural features and landscapes. In her evidence she detailed an extensive process by which she had come to the opinions that they are both outstanding natural features and landscapes.

1097.     Ms Buckland included in her evidence her comments on Mr Lister’s evidence. Relevantly, in respect of outstanding natural landscapes and features in terms of section 6(b), Mr Lister had stated that to qualify, features and landscapes had to be both outstanding and natural. Ms Buckland stated that she did not agree with that, particularly as it applies to hydro lakes, which she considered can be outstanding without being entirely natural, but may be modified.

1098.     In cross-examination, Ms Buckland explained that she disagreed with the Environment Court decision in Wakatipu Environment Society v Queenstown-Lakes District Council 20 which she had cited, that section 6 landscapes must be both outstanding and natural. She gave her understanding that the Court decision refers very specifically to that district; and in the North Island, looking at different landscapes, a landscape does not have to be natural in order to be outstanding. She noted that there is an emphasis on natural character in section 6, but considered that a broader assessment should be undertaken.21

1099.     Transpower submitted that the interpretation of section 6(b) stated in the Wakatipu case is correct, and that there is a continuum of naturalness depending on context, rather than it necessarily being absolute. Counsel for the Waipa District Council did not join issue with those submissions.

1100.     The Board considers that the meaning to be given to section 6(b) is a question of interpretation. Although the application of the provision may lead to different results in different contexts, the meaning to be given to the provision of the Act is to be the same for all parts of the country. So the Board does not accept the notion that for section 6(b) to apply to a landscape in the Wakatipu district it must be both outstanding and natural, but for the section to apply to a landscape in the North Island, it need not be both outstanding and natural.

1101.     With respect, the Board finds persuasive the legal reasoning given in the Wakatipu decision for the interpretation of section 6(b). No reasoning based on the law about interpretation of statutes was presented to the contrary. So the Board follows the Wakatipu decision, and holds that the interpretation of section 6(b) given in it is correct.

1102.     The Board also accepts Transpower’s submission that there may be degrees of naturalness, so that a landscape that is not absolutely natural might still qualify in terms of section 6(b), though one that has little natural character would not.

Lake Karapiro is an outstanding natural landscape

1103.     Even though the Waipa District Plan identifies SLCAs to give effect to section 6(b), that is not determinative of whether they are outstanding natural features or landscapes for the purpose of applying that provision of the Act.22 RMA decision-makers are to make their own assessment, based on the evidence.

1104.     In considering whether, in the vicinity of the proposed crossing by the overhead transmission line, Lake Karapiro is an outstanding natural landscape, Ms Buckland gave her opinion that it is. Mr Lister considered that it has moderately-high natural character, modified by existing buildings and infrastructure, and concluded that it warrants being regarded as an outstanding natural landscape. Dr Steven disagreed because the lake is by no means natural in that it is the product of human modification of nature. He regarded it is a visual amenity landscape.

1105.     The Board does not accept that a lake has necessarily to be treated as ineligible to be an outstanding natural landscape if it has been created by an artificial dam. As a question of degree, the landscape value of Lake Karapiro is slightly diminished by the formation and pattern of flows being no longer natural, as it is also diminished a little by the buildings and infrastructure.

1106.     The Board finds Mr Lister’s consideration of the question well balanced and that, in the vicinity of the crossing point, Lake Karapiro is an outstanding natural landscape.

The upper part of Maungatautari is an outstanding natural landscape

1107.     Applying the criteria described in the Wakatipu decision, Ms Buckland came to the opinion that Maungatautari is an outstanding natural feature and landscape. Mr Lister agreed, but did not include in that category the lower slopes, which do not share the same landscape qualities. Dr Steven also agreed about the upper, forested slopes. He considered the natural quality of the lower farmed slopes to be in the moderate to moderate-low category.

1108.     The Board found persuasive the explanations given by Dr Steven and Mr Lister; and finds that the upper, forested slopes are an outstanding natural feature and landscape; and that the lower farmed slopes are not.

Effects of proposed line on Karapiro and Maungatautari

Effects on Lake Karapiro landscape

1109.     In her evidence, Ms Buckland gave an extended explanation of her consideration of this topic, leading to her opinion that the proposed line would have significant adverse effects on the natural character, on significant landscape features, and on the amenity value of the area; and would adversely affect the integrity of the district plan identification of the Karapiro SLCA.

1110.     Ms Buckland gave her opinion that the fact that the ARI-PAK A line is already a feature of the landscape in no way mitigates the adverse visual landscape and amenity effects of the substantially larger and more visually intrusive line. She accepted that some change in outstanding natural features and landscapes may be acceptable, provided the essence of the natural feature or landscape is treated appropriately.

1111.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that the line would detract from the aesthetic qualities by increasing existing effects, because of its larger scale compared with those of the existing transmission line. He described ways in which the alignment, span length and positioning of towers had been modified to reduce the additional effects, and stated that the line would have little effect on biophysical elements or processes of natural character.

1112.     On the district plan criteria, Mr Lister observed that the plan does not prevent all development in SLCAs, but through design guidelines and controlled activity mechanisms, controls the manner in which it is carried out. He concluded that the effects of the transmission line would be mitigated by choice of route (so the crossing point avoids more sensitive parts of the lake), and by removal of the existing line. He also supported the use of monopoles in the vicinity of the lake crossing.

1113.     Dr Steven considered that the lake landscape falls in the semi-natural to agricultural range, and that the towers are the elements of the line that would most impact on the aesthetic qualities of the landscape. He supported the use of monopoles instead of lattice towers to reduce the visual impact and come to an acceptable outcome. He accepted that the conductors would have a visual impact, but considered that it would be only a marginal increase over that of the existing conductors spanning the lake at that location.

1114.     Dr Steven considered that the perception of scale of the lake corridor landscape would remain largely unaltered by the proposed line, and that the conductors crossing the lake would not impact on the natural character of the lake as a whole.

1115.     Having considered the opinions of the expert witnesses, the Board finds that although the lake landscape is already modified, the towers and conductors of the proposed line would substantially further reduce its natural character and aesthetic quality. The excess in height and scale over those of the existing line to be replaced is considerable; but even so, the removal of that line would to some extent remedy the adverse effects. The selection of the crossing point to avoid more sensitive parts of the lake, and the use of monopoles in the vicinity of the crossing, would mitigate the adverse effects to some extent. Yet considerable adverse landscape effects would remain.

Effects on Maungatautari landscape

1116.     Ms Buckland gave evidence that from Horahora Road the proposed line would interfere with views to Maungatautari, and would contrast with the existing landscape character; its scale and form would not be in keeping with the surroundings. Overall it would have high intrusion and qualitative impacts on the landscape. This witness rated the overall visual effects from that viewpoint as moderate.

1117.     Ms Buckland also reported on the effects looking north-west from a point on Arapuni Road south of the junction with Old Taupo Road. She concluded that the visibility of the proposed line would depend heavily on weather and light conditions. Five pylons would be visible: three would be silhouetted against the sky, and two would be seen against the mountain. Most of the width of the view would be affected by the proposal, which would interfere with the view to the mountain and contrast with the existing natural character. The scale and form would not be in keeping with the surroundings. The new line would have high intrusion and qualitative effects on the landscape, and the visual effects would be moderate.

1118.     Mr Lister stated that there is a clear difference between the natural bush-clad upper slopes of Maungatautari (which he accepted is an outstanding natural landscape) and the settled landscape on the lower slopes along the alignment of the proposed line (which in his view is not an outstanding natural landscape).

1119.     Mr Lister considered that landscape has reasonably high capability to accommodate the line because of its broad scale, modified nature, and the presence of the existing transmission lines and large shelter trees. He considered it would have minor effects on natural elements and processes.

1120.     Mr Lister observed that the proposed alignment is restricted to the route of the existing (smaller) ARI-PAK A line, which it is to replace. He accepted that it would have some effects on views of Maungatautari from two roads to the east.

1121.     Ms Allan described around 5 kilometres of the proposed alignment to the east of Maungatautari (between proposed Towers 303 to 314) that would follow the existing Arapuni to Hamilton A and B 110-kV-lines (ARI-HAM A and ARI-HAM B). She stated that this proposed alignment would result in the occurrence of cumulative landscape and visual effects in this locality.

1122.     Dr Steven considered that the proposal would not be a significant downgrading of either natural character or landscape significance, because the alignment is at the margins of the Maungatautari SLCA, with an agricultural landscape of moderate naturalness, and in an area currently traversed by transmission lines. The outstanding natural landscape is at a sufficient horizontal and vertical remove to ensure that visual effects are kept to an acceptable level. In summary, Dr Steven considered that the values identified for Maungatautari would be unaffected by the proposed transmission line, and that the landscape would remain rural in character.

1123.     Ms Buckland disagreed with Mr Lister’s view that the lower slopes do not appear to be part of the mountain, and asserted that they are part of the landscape feature as a whole.

1124.     The Board is persuaded by the evidence of Mr Lister and Dr Steven that, although the lower slopes are of course part of Maungatautari, they are perceptibly different from the bush-clad upper slopes which are what gives this feature its outstanding natural quality. Routing the proposed line across the upper slopes would be difficult to justify. But the Board has to assess the effects of routing it over the lower slopes generally along the alignment of the one of the existing lines that it is to replace.

1125.     Even there, the line would be visible from public and private viewpoints, possibly more so than if it had been routed through the bush. As Ms Buckland reported, its scale and form would not be in keeping with much of the character of the lower slopes. Its height and scale is so much greater than those of the existing line which is to be replaced, that removal of the latter could only remedy the adverse effects to a moderate extent.

1126.     Even so, the route would avoid the even greater effects of a line passing higher on the mountain over the part that is an outstanding natural feature and landscape.

1127.     The Board is not persuaded to share Dr Steven’s opinions that the proposal would not be a significant downgrading of natural character or landscape significance, and that the visual effects would be at an acceptable level. The Board finds that even though routed to avoid affecting the upper slopes, the proposed line would be a significant downgrading of landscape values; would result in cumulative effects on the existing transmission lines; and that the visual effects would be greater than desirable.

Application of s 6(b) directions and district plan criteria

1128.     The Board has to consider the effects of the proposal on the Lake Karapiro and Maungatautari outstanding natural landscapes by the extent to which it recognises and provides for the protection of those outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate development. As the height, voltage and current capacity of the proposed line exceed the district plan standards for permitted activities, the Board should also consider those effects by the district plan criteria.

1129.     By section 6(b) the Board is to recognise and provide for the protection of the outstanding natural landscape of Lake Karapiro from inappropriate development. The proposed development is inappropriate to the extent of its considerable adverse landscape effects. The landscape is partly protected from the potential effects by the remediation and mitigation measures already mentioned. To the extent that considerable adverse landscape effects would remain, that is a negative factor to be considered in the ultimate judgement of the designation requirement.

1130.     The Board has also to recognise and provide for the protection of the outstanding natural landscape of Maungatautari from inappropriate development. That landscape would be protected from the potential adverse effects by being routed to avoid affecting the upper slopes that form the outstanding natural landscape. The landscape values of the lower slopes would be significantly downgraded, and the visual effects would be greater than desirable. Regard is to be had to those effects on the environment. But the direction to recognise and provide for protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate development does not apply in that respect.

1131.     The first relevant district plan criterion is whether the size or location of the structures would affect significant views from State Highway 1. This is to be considered by the extent of any measures taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate those effects.

1132.     The Board finds that the size and location of the proposed towers would affect significant views from State Highway 1. It also finds that measures have been taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate those effects in selection of the route and crossing point, in removal of the existing transmission line structures, and in proposing that monopoles be used instead of lattice towers in the vicinity of the highway and lake.

1133.     The other relevant district plan criterion calls for consideration of alternative locations or other options.

1134.     A district plan, being subordinate legislation made under the RMA, cannot be inconsistent with the RMA itself. The RMA provides by section 171(1)(b) the extent to which a functionary considering a requirement for a designation is to have regard to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work. So the Waipa District Plan cannot require a decision-maker facing a designation requirement to consider alternative locations or other options to any greater extent.

1135.     In Chapter 7 of this report, the Board has already set out its consideration, and stated its findings, on the adequacy of the extent to which consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the Grid Upgrade Project. To the extent that this satisfies the Board’s duty under section 171(1)(b), it has also to satisfy the district plan criterion.

Alternative eastern route

1136.     Ms Buckland had assessed the effects on landscape values of an alternative eastern route for the line, which she found would not affect any outstanding natural feature or landscape, and would only affect open farmland.

1137.     Mr Lister commented that Ms Buckland had downplayed the landscape qualities of the eastern route, and had overstated the differences in landscape quality between the two. He stated that the eastern route would traverse a settled landscape; would affect a number of houses; and traverse outskirts of two towns. It would cross an area of open landscape adjacent to State Highway 29 likely to result in high visual effects.

1138.     As the Board has stated in Chapter 7 its findings on the adequacy of consideration of alternative routes, it declines to address further, or make any finding, on the relative merits of the eastern alternative route identified by Ms Buckland.

Overhead line route within South Waikato District

The issues

1139.     The South Waikato District Council submitted that the proposal fails to acknowledge that it would introduce a substantial new structure and network into the rural primary production landscape of the district without mitigation measures to address the resulting direct and indirect effects on landowners, the South Waikato community, and future generations. The Council submitted, that in particular, there had been inadequate evaluation in terms of landscape and visual effects; that the landscape evaluation did not support the route sought by Transpower; and that the size and scale of the pylons preclude the ability of the landscape to absorb the proposed structures. The Council also considered that inadequate consideration had been given to the landscape and amenity value provisions of the South Waikato District Plan. It sought that the notice of requirement over a land corridor within the South Waikato District be declined.

1140.     Other submitters, including Mrs H Burton, National Wetland Trust, Mr D Riley, Ms J Colliar, Mr T Colliar and Mr J A Townsend, made submissions about the adverse impact on the natural character of the landscape, and how the proposal would ruin the green landscape of the South Waikato. Mr J A Townsend stated that the proposal would result in visual ‘uglification’. Some submitters made specific comments about the visual effects of the proposed line when viewed from their properties.

1141.     New Era Energy South Waikato, which includes some 20 affected landowners in South Waikato, submitted that the proposal would result in adverse effects on the environment including adverse visual and amenity impacts. Of particular concern was that the proposed route was a ‘greenfields’ route instead of following the existing transmission corridor through South Waikato. New Era Energy also contended that, given the size of the proposed works and pylons, visual impacts on individual landowners would not be able to be mitigated. This would mean that the visual zones of influence from the highly intrusive pylon structures and lines would extend several kilometres either side of the proposed corridor, depending on the intermediate landforms.

1142.     New Era Energy asked that the proposal be declined, or that the proposal only be approved with conditions that address adverse visual and landscape effects. Proposed conditions included requiring monopoles or compact design structures for 220-kV-capacity lines, and more extensive underground installation, including in South Waikato.

1143.     A group of six residents of Mangakino, including Mrs T Jakes, Mrs S Polatsek, Mrs P Wilson and Mrs R Winterburn, submitted that the proposed transmission lines in the area of Lake Maraetai would impact on the landscape amenity value of the land opposite the Mangakino township. This group of submitters all sought that the proposed overhead lines follow the same route as existing transmission lines to the west of the Mangakino township, to keep all the visual ‘pollution’ to one area. They also stated that if the proposed line did stay to the east of the town as proposed, the alignment should be such that the visual impact be mitigated by using the natural topography such as natural valleys. These submitters also sought an increase in the number of towers used so that there is a reduction in the height of the towers.

1144.     Transpower replied that adverse environmental effects were avoided and mitigated through the ACRE process, and that the route chosen was a result of the rigorous application of that process. Transpower stated that the landscape and visual amenity provisions of the district plan had not been dismissed, and accepted that particularly in close proximity to the line, visual amenity values would not be maintained or enhanced. Transpower submitted that landscape mitigation is proposed for properties within 1 kilometre of the line.

Existing landscapes

1145.     This section of the proposed route enters South Waikato at the Waikato River crossing that is 800 metres north of Arapuni township. The landscape south of Arapuni has low to moderate relief, small streams and distinctive ignimbrite outcrops and hummocky landforms. Further south, the proposed line traverses more than 30 kilometres through an ignimbrite plateau dissected by a complex drainage pattern into a series of rolling hills and steep-sided valleys.

1146.     Land use is predominantly dairying at the northern end of the proposed route and forestry at the southern end. There is a transitional area south of Wiltsdown Road where pine plantations are being cleared and converted to large-scale dairying operations. Four settlements; Arapuni, Waotu, Pikitu Marae and Puketurua, are located in the rolling dairying country.

1147.     Further south, the forestry activities predominate and there is only transient public access to the forests from State Highway 32 that traverses the forest. The town of Mangakino is located within Taupo District but overlooks Lake Maraetai on the Waikato River. The proposed line would be visible from the town across Lake Maraetai. The route would then cross the Waikato River again immediately north of the Whakamaru Substation.

1148.     Mr Lister assessed the landscape from Arapuni south as having a moderate natural character and having a working character dominated by productive activities. He stated that the landscape had an attractive rural appearance with some of the rock features and knolls being local landmarks.

1149.     Ms D J Lucas, consultant landscape architect, agreed that this section of the proposed route is a traditional dairying landscape. She also agreed that the landscape is a fine-scaled landscape with a moderately close settlement pattern. She stated that its character is as a lived-in, producing landscape, and not a more recent lifestyle-type place.

1150.     Further south, Mr Lister stated that the landscape character continues to be of a working rural character, with dairying and forestry, but here it is on more of an industrial scale. Mr Lister did not regard this landscape as having particular significance or special amenity. Mr Lister considered that Lake Maraetai is the most significant landscape feature in this section of the proposed line.

1151.     The proposed crossing point of the Waikato River near Arapuni was assessed by Mr Lister and Ms Lucas as having a moderately high degree of natural character and landscape value. Ms Allan and Dr Steven did not rate the natural character of this crossing area as highly as the other witnesses due to the range of structures, exotic plantings and formal shelter belts.

1152.     Mr Lister and Dr Steven both considered the section of the Waikato River where the proposed line would cross north of Whakamaru to have a relatively high natural character, although surrounded by a more modified forestry and agricultural landscape.

Landscape and visual effects

1153.     Mr Lister accepted that the route chosen through the ACRE process had greater visual and landscape effects than other potential routes in South Waikato because it had to be a connected route with sections to the north and south. The ACRE process and the consideration of alternative routes has already been addressed in Chapter 7 of this report.

1154.     In a year-2000 draft landscape study for the South Waikato District Council, Mr Lister characterised the landscapes in the district as having a “high standard of landscape amenity across the entire district” and in cross-examination, he confirmed he still agreed with this.23

1155.     Ms Lucas and Mr Collier confirmed that for the South Waikato District the protection of special landscapes and visual amenity values is recognised in objectives and policies in the district plan. Special landscapes are not explicitly mapped in the district plan as the methods chosen were voluntary. Ms Lucas contended that Transpower had underestimated the landscape and visual effects for lands in the Arapuni/Te Waotu/Tokapuhi area, and that the intricate and multi-factor character of the landscape would be demeaned and dwarfed by the large structures proposed.

1156.     Ms Lucas gave her opinion that Transpower should not have equated the vacuum of delineated landscape values in official documentation with a vacuum with regard to highly valued landscapes on the ground.

1157.     Ms Lucas stated that the classic rural landscape character that the South Waikato landscapes epitomise would be disrupted and detracted from through being traversed by the collection of large unrelated structures. The line would read as an intruder in this heritage agricultural landscape.

1158.     Dr Steven contended that the concepts of ‘classic rural landscape character’ and ‘heritage agricultural landscape’ used by Ms Lucas are meaningless because they are undefined, and no robust assessment criteria are provided. In his opinion, the South Waikato landscapes could be considered in the same manner as other dairy or agricultural landscapes generally.

1159.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that the proposed alignment would avoid the most picturesque and historically significant landscapes closer to the Waikato River to the west, and to the east at Hodderville. He considered that the fine scale of the landscape, and its lack of existing transmission lines, reduce its capacity to accommodate the proposed line. But by following broader landscapes with a more working character, and where vegetation clearance could be minimised, the effects of the proposed route would be moderated by the settled and modified nature of the landscape.

1160.     In the southern part of the proposed route, Mr Lister concluded that the landscape has a high capability to accommodate the line because of its large-scale topography, plantation cover and working character. Visual effects from State Highway 32 would vary according to when in the plantation rotation it is viewed, being a prominent feature during times of felling and replanting of forest adjacent to the proposed alignment.

1161.     Mr Lister described the proposed route of the line as being more than 1 kilometre inland from the recreational area on the edge of Lake Maraetai and 2 kilometres from Mangakino township. The route had been chosen to follow the lowest terrace opposite the lake with higher ground behind the line. In Mr Lister’s opinion, the bulk of the line would be screened by trees, but its prominence would vary depending on when areas of forest were felled and replanted. No other evidence was given on the landscape and visual effects on Mangakino township.

1162.     The South Waikato District Council submitted that “it is common ground that particularly in proximity to the line, visual amenity values will not be maintained and enhanced”.

1163.     Transpower submitted that its visual evidence supported this assessment. Transpower stated that the landscape and visual mitigation conditions are proposed for properties within 1 kilometre of the line. No other evidence was provided about mitigation proposals to address the visual effects that were agreed by all parties would occur.

1164.     The Board finds that there would be significant landscape and visual effects in the fine-scaled landscapes of the dairying country along the proposed route south of Arapuni.

1165.     The Board also finds that the forestry and dairy conversion country at the southern end of the proposed route through the South Waikato district is a landscape with a high capacity to accommodate the line, and that effects on this landscape would not be significant.

River crossings within South Waikato District

1166.     The effect of the proposed two crossings of the Waikato River in this district on the river and its margins natural character was raised in evidence given by the landscape witnesses for Transpower and the Waipa and South Waikato District Councils.

Arapuni crossing

1167.     As stated above, the witnesses Ms Buckland, Mr Lister and Ms Lucas assessed the natural character of the crossing point of the river near Arapuni more highly than did Ms Allan and Dr Steven.24 Ms Lucas stated that in the past, structures associated with the hydro-electricity activities at Arapuni had not been placed to the north and east of the power station, and as a consequence a natural river section had been retained. She contended that the proposed crossing would be inappropriate because of the effect on the natural character, landscape, heritage and amenity values of the river corridor.

1168.     Mr Lister stated that while natural character considerations are important at the Arapuni crossing, the fact that the landscape is modified is also relevant when assessing whether the line is appropriate.

1169.     Mr Lister described the tower proposed on the southern bank of the river as being in a prominent and open location on the crest of a high river terrace escarpment where it would be prominent from the river below, and visible in longer distance views from the north along Lake Karapiro.

1170.     Dr Steven and Ms Allan concluded that some further reduction in natural character would occur with the proposed introduction of unnatural elements into the predominately agricultural landscape. Ms Allan stated that in her opinion the set-back of the towers from the river margins, and the short line crossing at right angles to the river flow, meant that the proposed crossing was not inappropriate. Dr Steven gave his opinion that, seen in the context of the hydro-electric generation and distribution along this stretch of the Waikato River, the proposed crossing is an appropriate use of the river margin.

1171.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that monopoles might be warranted at this crossing because of its moderately high natural character, moderately high landscape values, the prominent and open location of the southern back tower, and the future continuation of the South Waikato River Trail along the river. Ms Buckland and Mr Lister had agreed that should monopoles be used at Arapuni, it was preferable that these replace Towers 321, 322 and 323 on the south bank. Mr Lister also considered that there should be one tower on the north bank, Tower 320. Ms Lucas did not seek that monopoles be used at this crossing.

1172.     The Board agrees with Ms Buckland, Mr Lister and Ms Lucas that the margins of the Waikato River at the crossing point near Arapuni have a high natural character in terms of section 6 (a) of the RMA. The Board has already found that the crossing is not within an outstanding natural landscape in terms of section 6 (b) of the RMA. The Board considers that while not outstanding, the landscape is relatively unmodified and that the proposed crossing would have adverse landscape and visual effects.

1173.     The Board accepts that the visual effects of open structure lattice towers recede with distance. This type of tower would have less effect on the natural character of the margins of the river at the proposed crossing point than would monopole towers.

1174.     The Board finds that the proposed crossing at Arapuni would have adverse effects on the landscape and natural character of the margins of the Waikato River. The crossing at Arapuni would be an inappropriate development in terms of section 6 (a) of the RMA.

1175.     The Board finds no justification for stipulating that monopole towers be used at this crossing.

Whakamaru crossing

1176.     Mr Lister and Dr Steven agreed the proposed line crossing near Whakamaru would have a modest effect on the natural character and landscape qualities of that section of river. Dr Steven gave his opinion that of all the proposed crossings of the Waikato River, the Whakamaru crossing point displays the highest level of natural character.

1177.     The crossing point was described by Dr Steven as being where the river is confined within a narrow canyon with steep rock cliffs. The proposed towers would be set well back from the canyon edge, and it is unlikely that they would be visible from the river. Dr Steven gave his opinion that this crossing has a landscape context of hydro-electricity generation and distribution activities similar to Arapuni.

1178.     The Board finds that the crossing of the Waikato River adjacent to the Whakamaru Substation is an appropriate use in terms of section 6 (a) of the RMA in relation to the preservation of the natural character of the Waikato River and its margins, because the proposed line would be within the context of the hydro-electricity development and structures that already exist in the surrounding landscape.

Substations and overhead line route within Taupo District

1179.     The components of the Grid Upgrade Project that are within Taupo District consist of an extension and modification of the existing Whakamaru Substation, the construction of a new 220-kV/400-kV substation on a new site 1 kilometre north of the existing substation, and new overhead lines from the crossing of the Waikato River immediately north of the existing Whakamaru Substation to the site of the proposed new substation.

The issues

1180.     Ms E Wallace submitted that the visual effects of the proposal would scar the environment and ruin the natural beauty of Whakamaru and surrounding area. Ms Wallace asked that the proposed substations and overhead line not be allowed to be built at Whakamaru. Mrs J Berry submitted that the proposed lines would cross her property and she was concerned about their visual ugliness. She sought the lines to be re-routed behind the Mangakino village.

Existing environment and landscape and visual effects

1181.     The site of the existing and proposed substations and overhead line at Whakamaru were described by Mr Lister as a working landscape that is already visually affected by the existing substation, by five parallel transmission lines, and by adjacent infrastructure. The main potential landscape and visual effect for this part of the proposed route is the crossing of the Waikato River, and this is addressed paragraphs [1140]–[1179] of the present chapter.

1182.     No other evidence was presented on these issues.

Conclusions on substations and overhead line route within Taupo District

1183.     The Board finds that the landscape and visual effects of the proposed substations and overhead line at Whakamaru would, in context, be minor.

Cumulative effects

1184.     Many submitters raised cumulative effects on the landscape and visual effects of the proposed overhead line. In particular, cumulative effects were raised in relation to the proposed route sections 4 to 7 along the Hunua, Paparimu and Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valleys where sections of the line were proposed to be located near the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C transmission lines. A proposed section of line to the east of Maungatautari that would run parallel to the existing ARI-HAM A and ARI-HAM B lines was also raised as an area of likely cumulative effects.

1185.     Most of the landscape witnesses also questioned whether cumulative effects had been adequately considered as part of Transpower’s route selection, including the assessment of landscape and visual effects undertaken by Mr Lister.

1186.     Ms Peake contended that Mr Lister’s approach had been to presume that existing lines were just another element of the receiving environment, and outside the scope of the assessment. Ms Peake also disputed Dr Steven’s evidence because she considered that he had not compared the cumulative effects arising from using an existing alignment, with the new effects from selecting a ‘greenfields’ alignment.

1187.     Mr M Ball maintained, in relation to the Hunua area, that it seemed that Transpower had used the fact that an area already had a lower quality of environment because of existing transmission lines, to propose that the area could be subject to a further lowering of environmental quality.

1188.     Transpower submitted that in those sections of the route where the line would be aligned adjacent to an existing line, the residual effects of the proposed activity (after mitigation) would not cause an unacceptable increase in cumulative adverse effects.

1189.     Mr Lister gave his opinion that there is no simple answer to cumulative effects of transmission lines. He stated that existing lines had been taken into account in each phase of the ACRE process, as detailed in Ms Allan’s evidence. Mr Lister and Dr Steven agreed that the consideration of cumulative effects in using an existing corridor rather than introducing new effects to a landscape by choosing a ‘greenfields’ alignment, involves the consideration of many complex and often competing factors. The decision would depend on the context of the options that were available.

1190.     Dr Steven stated that he was not aware of any valid instrument that could be employed to provide a detailed and useful comparison of these effects.

1191.     Mr Lister did not agree with Mr Ball’s contention. He stated that the approach taken was to select the best route for the proposed line, not to select a route based on modified areas being preferred because of their low environmental quality.

Conclusions on cumulative effects

1192.     In the sections of this chapter that consider the landscape and visual effects in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley, the Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valley and the lower slopes of Maungatautari, the Board has found that the proposed line would have significant adverse visual and landscape effects that, in places, would be cumulative on similar effects of existing transmission lines nearby.

Avoidance, remedy and mitigation measures for landscape and visual effects

1193.     Many submitters requested various measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the landscape and visual effects of the proposed line. These measures include:, planting to screen the proposed line, deviations to the line or placement of individual towers, underground installation of sections of the line, the use of monopoles, the type of line, eg, 220 kV, and compact towers. Many of these proposed measures were suggested to address other effects as well, such as effects on farming operations, or on future urban development, and ecological considerations.

1194.     Other submitters, including the Manukau City Council, the Hon Mr W R Storey, Federated Farmers, Mr Copstick and Ms Brennan, suggested that the mitigation measures proposed by Transpower would not be able to be implemented because they rely on planting and other activities occurring on adjacent properties and road verges. These submitters questioned how these mitigation measures could be undertaken, maintained, and enforced. They were also concerned that some mitigation measures such as planting would occupy additional productive land to the actual line easement, and that there would be no compensation for this use of land.

1195.     Some submitters were also concerned that the planting patterns in the Transpower mitigation guidelines were not always appropriate for particular landscapes, and that the planting only sought to address visual effects from residences, rather than the wider visual effects of the proposed line from within farmland in general.

1196.     As outlined at the beginning of this chapter, some submitters questioned the use of a 1-kilometre distance for deciding if properties would be included in Transpower’s proposed landscape mitigation programme.

1197.     Transpower replied that the ACRE process was the primary approach to avoiding and mitigating adverse landscape and visual effects in terms of the proposed alignment. It contended that the removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line where the proposed line would follow its alignment, is a remedy,25 and that a range of mitigation measures had been proposed to reduce localised adverse effects.

1198.     Mr Lister and Mr Steven provided evidence about the various landscape mitigation measures, including the proposed:

  • a) replacement of vegetation removed
  • b) screen planting from roads
  • c) screen planting from individual houses
  • d) design and rehabilitation of earthworks
  • e) screen planting of specific facilities, such as at substation.

1199.     Mr Lister stated that the landscape mitigation guidelines would be used to design specific responses that tie in with the landscape patterns specific to each site. Dr Steven considered that there are some limiting factors, such as the restrictions on the height and, therefore, the species of trees that could be replanted within the designation corridor; and the time it would take for trees to grow and provide effective screening that would diminish or delay the effectiveness of the proposed landscape mitigation techniques.

1200.     Dr Steven emphasised that any screen planting proposals, both in relation to dwellings, and along roads, would require close liaison with residents, the local authority and Transit New Zealand (now the New Zealand Transport Agency). Dr Steven explained that the landscape mitigation process proposed by Mr Lister provides for consultation and approaches that would address the limiting factors he had identified.

1201.     Mr Lister and Dr Steven stated that they both supported some of the mitigation proposals put forward by Ms Gilbert. In the Matamata-Piako District section of this chapter, the proposal for the establishment of an avenue of trees on SH26 is outlined. In Chapter 14 of this report, other mitigation proposals put forward by the Matamata-Piako District Council are considered.

1202.     Ms Buckland suggested that views of Lake Karapiro could be enhanced by removing short sections of vegetation between State Highway 1 and the lake. Mr Lister agreed with this proposal.

Conclusions on avoidance, remedy and mitigation measures for landscape and visual effects

1203.     The Board has made its finding in relation to the ACRE route selection process as a method of avoiding adverse landscape and visual effects; and the proposed removal of the ARI-PAK A line as a way of remedying the adverse effects of the proposed new transmission line.

1204.     As already stated at the beginning of this chapter, the Board agrees that the proposed visual assessment process, including the 1-kilometre threshold for participation in the landscape mitigation programme, is appropriate.

1205.     The Board addresses many of the mitigation measures suggested by submitters as they relate to specific sections of the proposed line in Chapter 7, in the present chapter and in Chapters 13 and 14.

1206.     The Board finds that the proposed mitigation measures are adequate, and are appropriately reflected in the proposed conditions for the designation.

1207.     Clearing vegetation for views to Lake Karapiro, while discussed as a possible mitigation measure, is not subject to the proposed conditions because the land involved is administered by other parties.

Conclusions on landscape and visual effects

1208.     The Board has considered all the landscape and visual effects evidence that was presented to it. The Board has used this evidence to assess the landscape and visual effects, and has made findings about what the effects are likely to be.

1209.     The Board notes that all parties agreed that there would be adverse landscape and visual effects from the proposal. However, there were differences in opinion about what the effects might be and the magnitude of them.

1210.     The Board judges that the proposed overhead line will have significant visual and landscape effects on the Hunua and Paparimu Valley; the Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valley (proposed overhead line sections 6 and 7) in the Waikato District; Ruru, Te Miro and south of Whitehall in the northern part of the Waipa District; at the crossing of the Waikato River at Arapuni, and the dairy country south of Arapuni in the South Waikato District.

1211.     The Board also finds that the adverse visual and landscape effects in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley; the Kopuku-Taniwha-Waiterimu valley (proposed overhead line sections 6 and 7) in the Waikato District and along part of the proposed route across the lower slopes of Maungatautari would be cumulative on the existing transmission lines in these localities.

1212.     The Board finds that in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point, Lake Karapiro is an outstanding natural landscape, and that considerable adverse landscape effects would remain at Lake Karapiro even after avoidance and mitigations measures are taken into account.

1213.     The Board also finds that the upper, forested slopes of Maungatautari are an outstanding natural feature and landscape; and that the lower farmed slopes are not. Along the proposed route across the lower slopes of Maungatautari, the Board finds that there would be cumulative effects on the existing transmission lines, and that the visual effects would be greater than desirable.

1214.     The Board finds that there will be significant adverse visual effects in relation to the proposed Brownhill Substation, and that the mitigation measures proposed in relation to the site are appropriate and are included in proposed conditions to the designation.

1215.     On the evidence, the Board finds that the proposed line would detract from the visual amenity and landscape value of the existing environment of the Whitford/Brookby/Ardmore-Clevedon valleys; within Matamata-Piako District, particularly along the crest of hills south of Morrinsville and at the proposed crossing at Arapuni, where there will also be adverse effects on the natural character of the margins of the Waikato River.

1216.     The Board further finds that the crossing at Arapuni would be an inappropriate development in terms of section 6 (a) of the RMA.

1217.     Even with the mitigation proposed in various places and in various ways, and even with remediation with the removal of the ARI-PAK A line, the Board finds that substantial adverse landscape and visual effects would remain. There would be significant landscape and visual effects on the environment, and also cumulative effects on the effects of existing transmission lines.

Endnotes

1. Wakatipu Environmental Society Inc & Ors v Queenstown-Lakes District Council [2000] NZRMA 59.
2. The use of these criteria for landscape assessment was challenged by Ms D J Lucas.
3. Chapter 4, para [176]–[190].
4. See Chapter 7, para [580]–[656].
5. See Chapter 7 para [629].
6. Transcripts 05/06/08, pp35–36.
7. See Chapter 3, paras [55]f.
8. Transcript 05/06/08, p41.
9. Transcript 04/06/08, p17.
10. Transcript 04/06/08, p29.
11. Transcript 06/06/08, p5.
12. Transcript 04/06/08, p29.
13. Transcript 06/06/08, p5.
14. Transcript 12/09/08, p6.
15. Upland Landscape Protection Society v Central Otago District Council (HC Dunedin 16/09/08 Fogarty J [66]).
16. TV3 Network Services v Waikato District Council [1998] 1 NZLR 360; [1997] NZRMA 539; per Hammond J.
17. The District Plan requires regard to be had to “The Preliminary Visual and Landscape Study”, October 1992 (Volume I) prepared by LA4 Landscape Architects.
18. The Arapuni-Pakuranga A, and the Arapuni-Hamilton A and B lines.
19. The ARI-PAK A line, and the Hinuera-Karapiro A line.
20. [2000] NZRMA 59 para 87.
21. Transcript 8/07/08, p41; 9/07/08, pp1f.
22. Chance Bay Marine Farms v Marlborough District Council (HC Wellington 15/12/2000 Doogue J); Unison Networks v Hastings District Council (HC Wellington 11/12/07 Potter J); Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society v North Shore City Council (Environment Court Decision A078/2008); Briggs v Christchurch City Council (Environment Court Decision C045/2008).
23. Transcript 04/07/08, p11.
24. See also the Waipa District Council section in this chapter for Ms Buckland’s assessment of this crossing point on the Waipa District side of the Waikato River.
25. Transcripts 06/06/08, p10.

 

|