Chapter 12: Other adverse environmental effects
Social effects
The issue
1282. A number of submitters contended that the construction and existence of the overhead transmission line would have adverse social effects on the environment. Such concerns were expressed by several submitters from the Te Miro district as well as by submitters from elsewhere along the route.
1283. The different kinds of social effects raised were mainly in these categories:
- a) feelings of powerlessness: imbalance of resources in resisting or opposing a State-owned enterprise; severance by the line of a farm dwelling from a milking shed, or from other farm facilities; being unwilling to grant an easement, being threatened with it being taken compulsorily under the Public Works Act; seeing land and easements being bought by Transpower even before the Inquiry had been completed; and affront at Transpower’s insensitive and belittling responses of ‘adapt or move away’
- b) feelings of being unsettled, of stress, anger and despair: from the prospect of living and working close to the transmission line; annoyance at the unwanted presence of the line; fears of cancer and other serious physical or mental ill-health for oneself or one’s family from living and working close to the line; concern of marriage break-ups or other family dispersals due to the transmission line
- c) inability to obtain from Transpower clear understandings of the timing, duration, nature and extent of impacts on farm management etc of construction, and of impacts of eventual restrictions on activities in the vicinity of the transmission line
- d) disappointment of long-term investments already made or committed in business developments (including farm developments such as plantations, shelter-belts, milking sheds, workers’ housing, and potential subdivisions); long-term expectations for retirement, and intergenerational succession jeopardised
- e) sense of unfairness: where land entirely beyond designation limits is adversely affected and unsellable with no compensation or mitigation of effects; and where land is to be the subject of an easement, that compensation can only be by lump sum, not by periodic payments
- f) fears of disintegration of mutually supportive local communities due to sales of farms, schools closing due to reduced rolls, and loss of community and family identity on sales of farms that have been held by families for generations.
1284. Transpower accepted that social impacts would occur during the project planning, consultation, construction, operation, and decommissioning stages. It contended that mitigation and avoidance of adverse effects had been ongoing. It proposed a stakeholder management plan; a communications plan; landowner management plans; construction management plans; and site works plans to manage and mitigate the effects of the project at the level of community, household and landowner.
1285. Transpower contended that construction of the project is expected to have the greatest social effects, so construction management plans are to involve opportunities for communities to engage with contractors. Transpower also acknowledged that once works have been established, social effects would arise, though they are expected to be minimal.
1286. Transpower accepted that anxiety and stress could occur due to uncertainty at the planning and construction stages. It proposed offering counselling assistance as a mitigation measure, and included a condition of the designations to that effect.
Evidence
1287. Dr P H Phillips, who has extensive experience of social impact assessments of many infrastructure projects, gave evidence of having (with professional colleagues) prepared a social impact assessment in respect of the proposed transmission line. He acknowledged that the absence of detailed information about the construction programme had limited the assessment of potential effects on individual properties.
1288. On the planning stage, Dr Phillips had found that the prospect of the Grid Upgrade Project had been a significant disruption to the order of people’s lives. He affirmed that stress and anxiety from uncertainty about the effects of the project could be a particular issue for some people, resulting in physical and mental symptoms of stress, including disagreements between partners, and fears about strangers entering private property affecting the occupiers’ sense of security.
1289. Although he had found concerns about unfairness, Dr Phillips did not consider that the project threatens cultural integrity in continuation of local traditions and customs; nor that effects on school rolls would be more than minor and temporary.
1290. This witness concluded that Transpower had mitigated those impacts by keeping the decision-making period as short as possible; by providing accurate and timely information about the project and its effects; and by developing effective working relationships with individuals and groups where possible.
1291. Dr Phillips had also considered potential social impacts of the construction phase. He had found that it would impact directly on landowners and land users, particularly because of the seasonal nature of farming activities. He considered that provision and management of suitable housing and services for the construction workforce, which avoided the need for construction camps, would minimise potential effects on communities.
1292. Once constructed, Dr Phillips considered that the social effects of operation of the line would be more modest, with ‘turnover’ in communities resulting in greater acceptance of the line. He accepted the potential for ongoing stress and resentment, but anticipated that eventually the majority of people would accept the line or leave the district. Dr Phillips acknowledged that there may still be a measure of anger, along with acceptance or resignation, particularly where landowners are affected by loss of freedom of activities on part of their land. He considered that these issues would be addressed through compensation, mitigation, change in the population, and acceptance of the existence of the line.
1293. Dr Phillips’s social impact assessment had been the subject of peer review by Ms J Meade Rose, a social anthropologist with wide experience of social effects assessment. In her evidence, Ms Meade Rose gave her opinion that Dr Phillips’s assessment of social effects had been comprehensive and appropriate. She recommended more extensive opportunities for counselling, and had advised Transpower about setting up such a service.
1294. Ms Meade Rose gave her opinion that effects from the planning phase had been considerable, and many of them had been unavoidable due to the large scale and complex nature of the project, of the approval processes, and of public involvement. She anticipated that the social effects of the construction phase would be manageable, and those of the operation phase, negligible.
1295. Even so, Ms Meade Rose gave her opinion that the submissions about social effects are valid, and represent issues of varying degrees of concern by individuals and groups. She considered that consultation and mitigation measures would enable concerns to be worked through and, where appropriate, mitigated.
Consideration
1296. The Board does not doubt, nor belittle, the social effects already experienced as a result of the planning process up to the Board’s Inquiry into the designation requirements and associated resource consent applications: the announcement of the proposed route, the Electricity Commission processes, and the preparation for and participation in the Board’s public hearing. However, nothing in the Board’s power could ameliorate those effects; and the Board’s task relates to the designations and resource consents sought by Transpower to authorise the construction and operation of the project: the overhead line, the transition, switching and substations, and the underground cables. So the Board limits its findings to the potential social effects on the environment of the construction and operation of those elements of the project.
1297. As observed by several submitters, and acknowledged by Dr Phillips, there is not enough detailed information about the construction programme to reliably assess the potential social effects in respect of individual properties. At the general level, there is potential for considerable social impact. Some of that impact would be unavoidable, given the scale, and complexity of the works. That makes the mitigating and remedying of those social effects the more important.
1298. Yet the extent to which the mitigating and remedying of the social effects is effective depends on the aspects about which there cannot be prescription: the sensitivity, understanding, respectful attitude and competence with which Transpower’s contractors deal with landowners and occupiers, and communities. That is true of mitigating the physical effects of activities on private land which comprises people’s homes and workplaces, and which may be the scene of ancestors’ lives, and the location of current owners’ aspirations for their futures, and those of their descendants. It is also true of attempts to remedy by counselling any social harm done by the existence of the project and its construction and operation.
1299. Aspirations about sensitivity, understanding, respectful attitudes and competence by contractors are too judgement-laden to sensibly be the subject of conditions of designations or resource consents. So it is fortunate that in the present case the requiring authority is a State-owned enterprise that has a statutory responsibility to exhibit a sense of social responsibility by having regard to the interests of the communities in which it operates; and by endeavouring to accommodate and encourage these when able to do so. The communities, and the people of them, are entitled to more than lip service. They are entitled to a corporate culture that is determined and effective in willingly giving full effect to discharging that social responsibility.
1300. In terms of section 319(2) of the RMA, the Board expressly recognises adverse social effects only to the extent that they are mitigated and remedied as fully as they can be by sensitivity, understanding, respectful attitude and competence with which Transpower contractors deal with landowners and occupiers, members of the public, and communities in mitigating and remedying social impacts of the project, and the works in constructing it. The Board makes its findings about the social effects of allowing the designations and resource consents on the basis that they would be mitigated and remedied in those ways and to that extent.
1301. Having considered the submissions and evidence, and on the bases mentioned in the previous two paragraphs, the Board finds that the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed transmission (overhead line, transition, switching and substations, and underground cables) would have adverse social effects in these respects:
- a) feelings of powerlessness over one’s own property, and affront at responses from Transpower to ‘adapt or move away’
- b) feelings of being unsettled, stress, anger and despair from unwilling imposition of the line and fears of serious ill-health and family fragmentation
- c) uncertainty about timing, duration, nature and extent of impacts
- d) disappointment of long-term expectations and commitments to farm and business developments and family continuity
- e) sense of unfairness of effects on different properties, and about entitlements to compensation
- f) fears of disintegration of local communities.
1302. Although the severity of those social effects may vary from property to property and community to community, and may be abated over time, these are significant effects that deserve to be considered in an ultimate judgement about whether the designations should be upheld or withdrawn.
Traffic effects
1303. The construction of the proposed transmission line has potential for significant adverse effects on normal use of public roads. Traffic flows could be interrupted in installing underground cables in public roads if cut-and-cover methods are used instead of underground thrusting; and heavy vehicles carrying transformers and other major components to substation sites, major elements of towers, and lengths of conductor for the overhead line, could also interrupt use of roads for emergency and normal use in both urban and rural areas.
1304. Submitters who live in Gray Road, Te Miro, pointed out that they are solely dependent on the use of that road for access. They contended that they should not be cut off from using it whenever they need for routine and emergency purposes by heavy vehicles associated with construction of the line. Submitters who live in Brownhill Road also raised concerns about effects of construction traffic on safety and free use of that road. Those are examples of effects that could arise elsewhere as well.
1305. In general, interruptions to use of public roads for construction purposes are subject to approval by the relevant road controlling authority under the Local Government Act. However, the Board finds that the extent of the potential effects on the environment of constructing the proposed Grid Upgrade Project warrants conditions of the designations that set parameters within which road-controlling authorities would exercise their authority.
1306. Transpower proposed common underground cable route conditions to be attached to the designation in the Manukau City District Plan in respect of the installation of underground cables there. Among those conditions several would limit the adverse effects of the works on use of public roads, including development (in consultation with identified stakeholders) of a traffic management plan that is generally consistent with Transit New Zealand’s Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management. The conditions require that the traffic management plans recognise that the paramount purpose of roads is the free passage of the public and its vehicles.
1307. The conditions referred to in the previous paragraph are specific to the installation of the underground cables in roads, mostly in the urban environment of East Tamaki, but including Brownhill Road. Similar conditions were proposed for the Pakuranga, Brownhill and Whakamaru North Substations (in respect of transport of transformers to those sites).
1308. The concerns expressed by submitters from Te Miro also raise potential effects that could be mitigated by conditions of all the designations in respect of the overhead line, and transition, switching and substations.
1309. The proposed common overhead line conditions 19–21 require traffic management plans in respect of road crossings and local roads used by heavy traffic. However, by comparison with the corresponding condition in respect of underground cables, they omit provision requiring that traffic management plans recognise the paramount purpose of roads, and a requirement for consultation with key stakeholders. The Board does not understand why effects on users of rural roads affected by construction of the overhead line should be the subject of less effective mitigation than for users of mostly urban roads affected by installation of the underground cables.
1310. The Board finds that if the designations for the overhead line are upheld, the potential adverse effects on free passage by the public and its vehicles on public roads should be mitigated by the imposition of conditions of the designations as proposed; and that the common conditions in respect of traffic management plans should be amended in those respects to conform with those for underground cables.
Effects on farming
Submitters’ concerns
1311. Many submitters (including the Waikato District Council and Federated Farmers) raised concerns about anticipated detrimental effects on management of land for farming or on other businesses, that could be caused by entry over the land by Transpower or its contractors for construction, operation or maintenance of the overhead line; or by limitations on the use of their land due to the presence of the line crossing the land.
1312. Submitters described respects in which management of their farms, including location and timely movements of livestock in appropriate paddocks and on farm races at various seasons, and activities sensitive to disturbance such as calving, lambing, and mating, could be substantially disturbed by entry of contractors, and their heavy vehicles and machinery; and occupation of substantial areas of land for construction activities (the evidence establishing that a ‘pulling station’ for stringing wires from towers could occupy as much as 4000m² or thereabouts).
1313. Federated Farmers stated its members’ concerns that Transpower does not have systems and procedures that are satisfactory to farmers for resolving indemnity and compensation questions, and submitted that those questions are relevant to the Board’s consideration of the requirements, and should be considered under section 171(1)(d). Federated Farmers also acknowledged that consideration of easements and compensation are private matters between landowners and those seeking easements, but submitted that compulsory powers overhang negotiations between Transpower and landowners.
1314. Submitters also cited temporary effects during construction of the line, and permanent effects after it is commissioned; and these are now summarised below.
Temporary construction effects
1315. On temporary construction effects, submitters stated concerns that:
- a) all or some of a farm would not be able to be used for pasture or cropping for longer or shorter periods, resulting in losses of production
- b) soil would be rendered unproductive or less productive due to compaction by heavy vehicles, and due to deposit on it of roading and other construction materials
- c) both cropping and management of livestock (particularly young animals and during calving, lambing and mating) would be more difficult and more expensive due to disturbance by contractors’ machinery and vehicles; to vehicle tracks dividing paddocks; and due to disruptions to routes for stock races to milking sheds etc
- d) removal of trees and shelterbelts, and premature removal of plantations (or parts of them) for production or erosion control, would adversely affect economics of farm businesses
- e) interruptions to the use of farm airstrips and aerial topdressing would delay timely application of fertiliser, grass seed or weed spray
- f) piping networks for livestock watering would be interfered with
- g) milking sheds, and other infrastructure would have to be relocated
- h) construction activities would create risks for farm workers and their families.
1316. Submitters’ examples of permanent effects having long-term impacts on the economics of farm businesses included:
- a) parts of farms becoming unproductive or less productive as a result of restrictions on normal farming activities near the transmission line, such as restrictions on placement of fences; on fires; on activities that result in dust in the air; and difficulties in driving tractors and moving irrigators around and near the pylons
- b) restrictions on, and extra cost of, aerial application of fertiliser, grass seed, and weed spray, making some parts of a farm unproductive; cost of having to buy supplementary feed currently grown on-farm; and lost opportunities to use farm airstrips for scenic flights
- c) having to remove or trim trees, shelter belts, and plantations for production, and for erosion control; and lost opportunities for new plantations, and for future development of farm infrastructure (including dwellings) near the transmission line
- d) tracks currently used for stock races no longer being suitable for animals’ hooves due to roading metal laid to enable heavy-vehicle access to the transmission line for maintenance activities
- e) difficulties with recruiting workers and with ownership succession, due to people’s aversion to living and working near high-voltage transmission lines.
Transpower’s response
1317. Transpower did not dispute that disturbance and disruption to farming activities could result from the construction of the transmission line. It contended that the construction activities can readily be managed so the disturbance and disruption would be minimised. It explained that this would be done through conditions of designations and of resource consents; through cost incentives to the contractor; through inclusion of Transpower staff in an alliance with the contractor; through a construction management plan; and through stakeholder relationship management plans and landowner management plans.
1318. Transpower asserted that the construction process would be managed so that affected parties would have advance information of construction activities, including the timing and nature of work to be carried out, and the impacts that may result; so that disturbance and disruption could be minimised. It explained that an important part of achieving that would be consultation by Transpower and its contractors with landowners, with a view to reaching agreement about managing construction and longer-term changes to farming practices. Transpower acknowledged that there would be some alteration to aerial topdressing practices etc, for a relatively small number of properties; but it contended that the long-term effects would be minor, and farmers would be able to adapt their practices to the presence of the line.
1319. Mr F J Hall, a qualified and experienced farm-management consultant, gave evidence on the potential physical effects of the construction and operation of the Grid Upgrade Project on agricultural activities, including farm management; tracks and races; fencing; water supplies; cowsheds and other buildings; and trees that provide shelter.
1320. This witness considered that livestock would be able to graze between legs of the transmission towers, so the direct impact of tower placement on grazing would be minimal. He recognised that areas under the towers would not be able to be used for cropping, but stated that the majority of land along the route is not used for cropping, other than for feed crops (hay and silage); and he considered that the impact of towers on feed crops would be minor.
1321. Mr Hall acknowledged that two milking sheds on the proposed route would have to be relocated or replaced; also a woolshed and some hay barns. He considered that there could be some benefits to farmers from relocating or rebuilding in more appropriate locations; and he acknowledged that a new building would need to be completed prior to demolition of the existing one. He explained that those impacts would be addressed by Transpower purchasing easements, and by offering agricultural advice on selection of new building sites.
1322. Mr Hall acknowledged that some trees and shelterbelts would be removed from most properties through which the transmission line would pass; in his opinion the agricultural impact would be low. He stated that if trees are replanted, it would take 4 to 6 years for them to provide shelter; and he considered that it would be appropriate for Transpower to discuss options for replacement, and to proceed with replanting at the earliest stages.
1323. He considered that the impacts on effluent and irrigation systems would be addressed by Transpower meeting the costs of relocating them. He acknowledged that new access tracks would need to be formed on virtually all properties on the route. Landowners would be able to choose whether to have these systems left, or removed and the land rehabilitated. Similar arrangements would be needed over disposal of spoil.
1324. Mr Hall acknowledged that fencing would be likely to be affected, and that Transpower should address the impacts of inefficient grazing through the easement process. He also acknowledged the potential for disruption to farm management during construction of the proposed line; and that the extent of the impact would depend on the time of year. He considered that the timing of construction would need to be planned ahead and specific arrangements made for mitigation.
1325. Mr Hall acknowledged that addressing the effects of the transmission line on farming activities by mitigation works or purchase of easements would require careful liaison between Transpower and individual landowners. He considered that Transpower landowner liaison officers should offer the services of an agricultural adviser to consider site-specific issues, including timing of entry.
1326. Mr P Rasul, Transpower’s project manager for the overhead section of the Grid Upgrade Project, gave evidence of the process for constructing the overhead line. He described the role of the landowner liaison officers, who would maintain contact with landowners prior to, and throughout, the various stages of construction; and stated that sensitive times would be incorporated into the programme wherever practicable.
1327. Mr Rasul stated that, following completion, the sites would be reinstated to their original conditions so far as reasonably practical; and all surplus materials and temporary access roads would be removed (unless the landowner requested they remain), except for four-wheel drive access tracks for maintenance and emergencies. He explained that works such as breaking up compacted topsoil would be carried out in accordance with best agricultural practice; and following joint inspection, the agreement of the landowner would be sought that the final condition of the land be considered acceptable.
1328. He confirmed that Transpower would be adopting best international practices; and that the comprehensive set of project controls and mitigation measures would ensure that, through sound construction practices, disturbances would be minimised.
1329. In his evidence Mr P J Patrick, a Transpower transmission-line field engineer, explained the detail of site works plans for each property, including agreements on entry, access routes, protection of infrastructure, gates, materials on roads, times of work, reinstatement, and disposal of spoil. He acknowledged that some disruption would be inevitable; and acknowledged that measures would need to be taken to prevent dust nuisances and avoid sediment in waterways.
1330. Mr Patrick confirmed that a comprehensive ongoing programme of consultation would be needed, and agreement where practical on measures to limit potential adverse effects. He described measures for mitigating temporary losses of grazing, including minimisation of damage, repair of damage, compensation for damage done, and for loss of facility. Mr Patrick also detailed reinstatement works to be carried out, including re-establishing topsoil and pasture, re-aligning fences, and promptly repairing damaged gates and fences.
Consideration
1331. On considering the submissions and evidence on this topic, the Board finds that there is potential for substantial adverse effects on management of land for farming or other business. Those potential effects could result from entry by Transpower or its contractors on private land, and carrying out works for construction of the line; and from restrictions on private activities in the vicinity of the line (both within the designation and potentially beyond its limits).
1332. The Board understands that, from past experience with agents for Transpower, there is not universal confidence among those whose property would be adversely affected, that Transpower would deal with them as considerately as it represented to the Board that it would, and as its witnesses described that it would. However, as explained in Chapter 16, the Board should not be influenced by reports of such past experiences.
1333. The Board accepts that, even with all the measures described by Messrs Hall, Rasul and Patrick, some disturbance and disruption would remain, and there would be unwanted change in farm management practices for many. Even so, the purpose of the RMA is not to preclude unwanted change: the Board is concerned to identify adverse effects on the environment that could not and would not be avoided, remedied or mitigated by the proposed measures.
1334. Potential effects on use of farm airstrips, and on aerial application of fertiliser, weedspray and grass seed, are important for those who would be affected. The Board addresses these effects specifically in Chapter 13 of this report.
1335. The nature and extent of disturbance and disruption effects would vary according to the circumstances of each property, according to the particular works on that property, to their timing, and to the quality of the relationship between Transpower’s contractors and agents and the owners and occupiers of the land. Some of the effects could be remedied by replacement works, or by payment of compensation. The effects cannot be evaluated from a general review.
1336. In Chapter 4 the Board stated its understanding that Transpower is free to negotiate agreements with landowners to access their lands; that landowners are free to agree to or refuse entry; and that Transpower and landowners are free to stipulate terms and conditions for entry. If agreement is not reached, Transpower could apply to the Minister of Lands to invoke taking powers under the Public Works Act. If that is done, landowners would be entitled to seek an inquiry by the Environment Court.
1337. The effect is that, if Transpower seeks to enter private land at a time or in ways that would significantly disturb management of the land for farming or other activities, the landowner is not obliged to accept that entry, or can stipulate reasonable terms and conditions on which entry may be acceptable.
1338. Those are matters for negotiation and private agreement between Transpower and the landowners concerned. They are outside the designations required under the RMA, and beyond the scope of the Board’s Inquiry and decision.
1339. The perception that negotiations may be ‘overhung’ by potential for invocation of powers of entry under the Public Works Act is limited by the parts to be taken by the Minister of Lands and potentially by the Environment Court in any such process. The Board considers those provisions give assurance that Transpower would not act oppressively in negotiating entry on private land at a time or in ways that may significantly disturb farming or other activities on it.
1340. The outcome is that the Board finds that:
- a) there could be substantial adverse effects on management of land for farming and other businesses
- b) Transpower proposes to avoid, remedy and mitigate those effects in business-like ways
- c) landowners would have opportunities to propose ways in which adverse affects could be avoided, remedied or mitigated
- d) Transpower and landowners have mutual interests and negotiating stakes likely to result in adverse effects being minimised as far as practical.
