Chapter 13: other necessary considerations
1341. A territorial authority considering a requirement for a designation, and a consent authority considering a resource consent application, is required to have regard to any other reasonably necessary matter.1
Tāngata whenua issues
Introduction
1342. Functionaries managing use, development and protection of natural and physical resources under the RMA are (among other things) to:
- recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga2
- have particular regard to kaitiakitanga3
- take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.4
1343. The Board refers to the objects of those duties collectively as tāngata whenua issues.
1344. Four submitters raised tāngata whenua issues in their original submissions on the Grid Upgrade Project: Pohara Marae Committee; Raukawa Trust Board; Ms J Colliar for herself and on behalf of Taniwha Marae; and the Waikato Raupatu Trustee Company Limited.
Pohara Marae
1345. At the hearing, the Pohara Marae Committee raised two matters of substance: that the proposed transmission line would separate the marae from their awa; and from their urupā.
1346. On the committee’s behalf, Mr S Wilson asserted that Transpower and the committee had not established a dialogue in any substantive way.5 He contended that the Grid Upgrade Project is promoted by Transpower on behalf of the Crown, and as a state-owned enterprise, it is required to act consistently with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.6 He cited a decision given on 31 August 2005 by Chief Judge Williams,7 as Chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal, declining an application for urgency for the Tribunal to deal with a claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.8 In that decision, Chief Judge Williams held that, for the purposes of section 6 of that Act, the Grid Upgrade Project is a policy or practice promoted by Transpower on behalf of the Crown. Mr Wilson asked the Board to direct Transpower to engage with the marae committee in best-practice consultation according to a model referred to by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and adopted by Carter Holt Harvey.9
1347. Mr Wilson called three other speakers to assist in their presentation to the Board: Messrs W Papa, T Tauroa and Dr Brett Graham. A common theme amongst those speakers was a desire “to seek a direct relationship with Transpower”. The Board sees that as positive for both parties.
Raukawa Trust Board
1348. By its original submission, the Raukawa Trust Board raised an extensive list of generic issues, including the assertion (without giving particulars) that the duties described by sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 of the RMA had not been followed.
1349. However, the Raukawa Trust Board did not attend the Board’s hearing to present its submission.
Taniwha Marae
1350. Ms Colliar, for Taniwha Marae, raised at the hearing: a breach of cultural protocol during the consultation process; and the impact of the transmission line on the ability of the people of the marae to connect with their history, namely, the site of the former Tanua Pā. Ms Colliar described Transpower’s attempt at consultation as inadequate and disrespectful, in that a hui having been arranged, Transpower representatives had entered the marae without having been invited, and started setting up their equipment.10
Waikato Raupatu Trustee Co
1351. The Waikato Raupatu Trustee Co informed the Board at the hearing that the main issues it had raised could not be dealt with by the Board, and so it did not present evidence or submissions at the hearing.
Transpower
1352. In response to issues raised in respect of section 6(e) of the RMA, Transpower submitted that the relationship of iwi with their awa tūpuna, and other wāhi tapu had been recognised and provided for throughout the consultation process, and by avoiding the siting of transmission towers within the river or near its banks. It asserted that many of the issues raised on behalf of Pohara Marae related to historic events, and as such are not relevant matters that the Board should consider with regard to the proposed Grid Upgrade Project.
1353. Transpower contended that it had appropriately addressed tāngata whenua issues, so the Board might be satisfied that they had been recognised and provided for.
Evidence
1354. Neither the Pohara Marae Committee nor Ms Colliar for herself or on behalf of Taniwha Marae, had lodged evidence in support of the submissions to be given at the Board’s hearing, so their submissions were not able to be tested in cross-examination.
1355. The only evidence given to the Board bearing on tāngata whenua issues was that of Mr B Mikaere (an independent consultant in tāngata whenua consultation and cultural issues under the RMA, whose testimony was not challenged by cross-examination or contradictory evidence); and (as no submitter sought to cross-examine them) affidavits lodged by Transpower of the evidence of Ms H G Hendren and Mr T F N Ngakete describing in detail the parts they had taken in the process of consultation with iwi about the Grid Upgrade Project.
1356. In his evidence, Mr Mikaere described in detail a programme of consultation and investigation that had been followed by Transpower to identify and address potential tāngata whenua issues, including identifying known iwi and hapū organisations along the routes, and their affiliations; identifying Māori-owned land that might be affected; identifying marae and associated activities, wāhi tapu, including urupā, and significant cultural sites, such as former pā.
1357. The witness also detailed Transpower responses to all identified cultural issues that had been raised by iwi and others. He gave his opinion that the proposed routes and tower placements represent the best amalgam of public and iwi-held information, and that adjustments had been made in response. In his opinion the greater number of identified cultural issues could be provided for.
1358. Mr Mikaere also gave his opinion in evidence that he did not expect there would be significant impact on Māori except – as with other landowners – where the transmission line would have a direct impact on land, and compensation issues would arise. He remarked that the same process in determining compensation would be available to Māori as to other landowners.
1359. This witness also gave evidence that the care that had been taken by Transpower in respect of wāhi tapu, sites, and waters, illustrated an acceptance of the need to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga; and that this duty had been properly discharged.
1360. Regarding section 8 of the RMA and the allegation that consultation undertaken by Transpower was inadequate, Mr Mikaere stated that Transpower had been attempting to consult with the marae and its people since late 2004, but its efforts were continually blocked by local politics. Consequently, Transpower submitted that a direction from the Board to engage in a mutually agreed consultation process sought by the Pohara Marae Committee was unnecessary.
1361. Mr Mikaere also addressed the Treaty principle of active protection of rangatiratanga; and gave his opinion that in identifying the tāngata whenua of the lands affected, Transpower had ‘protected’ the rangatiratanga of the Māori parties involved. He addressed, too, the Treaty principle of mutual benefit, and noted that Māori are part of the community that would benefit from the Grid Upgrade Project.
Consideration
1362. As the Raukawa Trust Board and the Waikato Raupatu Trustee Co did not pursue their submissions at the hearing, the issues raised by them (to the extent that they were specific) do not require further consideration by the Board.
1363. The Board accepts the unchallenged evidence given by Ms Hendren, Mr Ngakete and Mr Mikaere.
1364. The Board finds that in the processes of consultation and selecting the proposed routes for the transmission line and underground cables, Transpower recognised and provided for the relationships of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga; and had particular regard to kaitiakitanga.
1365. The Board also finds that, in those processes, Transpower has taken into account the applicable principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, in particular protection of rangatiratanga, and also mutual benefit.
1366. Of the specific issues raised by Ms Colliar for herself and for Taniwha Marae, the Board addresses the first (a breach of protocol in consultation) in the next section of this chapter. The second of the specific issues raised by Ms Colliar and for Taniwha Marae related to connection with the site of the former Tanua Pā. She described that site as located west of Taniwha, located on a hill, and taking in sweeping views of the valley; and asserted that the proposed line would be yet another physical structure that would segregate them from their original pā site.11
1367. It is not evident to the Board that there is a substantial tāngata whenua issue involved, as distinct from a landscape issue, even though the adverse landscape effects would be perceived by Māori, as well as by others.
Adequacy of consultation
Submitters
1368. Some submissions contained allegations that Transpower had lacked good faith throughout the consultation process. Dr McQueen’s second submission (No 1076) contained this allegation:
Transpower have not followed required consultation processes, and the so-called ‘consultation’ they have undertaken has not been done with a true intention of proposing a ‘least environmental impact’ solution. The consultation processes they have used are unlawful and have not been undertaken in the spirit that the RMA intended.
1369. Dr McQueen gave substantial evidence on other relevant topics, but did not offer evidence in support of the allegation in his Submission No 1076 about consultation. In submissions at the hearing, he asserted that the consultation process had been driven to meet the letter of the regulations requiring consultation, rather than the spirit of true consultation about alternatives.12
1370. In their joint evidence, Ms Brennan and Mr Copstick gave their opinion that serious flaws in Transpower’s consultation process showed it to be bogus, and a box-ticking exercise, rather than a genuine attempt to address the real damage their proposal would inflict on the environment and communities. They referred to Transpower having confined personal consultation to landowners from whom they want to purchase an easement, and not contacting owners of other land that would be impacted (who were deemed unaffected and excluded from information about the proposal). They reported harassment and threats of court action against landowners; and perceptions by landowners of dismissive, patronising and offensive attitudes by Transpower contractors; and that Transpower was not sincerely interested in engaging in genuine consultation.
1371. At the hearing, Mr C Richards submitted that he and his neighbours had spent hours trying to find out from Transpower what impact the lines would have on their properties and businesses, and that they had very little success. He stated their perception that Transpower had not listened to any of their concerns, and had ignored them to stick to their grand plan; that although he and his neighbours were willing to work with Transpower, Transpower had been not willing, and had kept pushing them with the Public Works Act.13 (The particulars given by Mr Richards do not relate to environmental effects of the proposed transmission line, but mainly to questions in respect of easements, construction access, fencing, liability, land-use constraints, compensation, betterment, and taxation.)
1372. Mr C C Tylden spoke of what he described as Transpower’s bullying tactics, and stated that right from the first communications with Transpower, they had used the threat of the Public Works Act.14
1373. Ms C Baldwin made submissions on behalf of New Era Energy Incorporated and New Era Energy South Waikato, that Transpower had failed in its obligation to consult adequately or correctly with landowners and the community; she described the consultation as a sham; she spoke of struggles landowners had had to get information, maps and other data; and she described the consultation process as an insulting and arrogant failure. In response to a question from the Board, Ms Baldwin gave as an example questions asked of Transpower consultation contractors about effects of the proposed transmission line on old marae sites and places of historic interest, and how they would be handled: stating there had been no opportunity for dialogue or for answers to be given.15
1374. In their submissions, Ms Brennan and Mr Copstick stated that Transpower’s evidence about consultation of fine-sounding objectives and respectful approach did not reconcile with what they described as the arrogant and often confrontational faces at the community consultation meetings. They described the community consultation as part of the ACRE process as being too little, too late, insincere, and irrelevant.16
1375. In their submission, Ms S Jones and Mr V Jones were also critical of Transpower’s consultation and unresponsiveness.17 Mr S Jefferis, presenting submissions for Te Hoe Holdings Limited, stated that after the initial route had been altered to go through the middle of their mature podocarp bush, consultation had never existed.18 In his submissions, Mr A Kinsler referred to consultation having been too little and too late; and stated his belief that Transpower had already made up its collective mind about what they wanted to do, and “we were going to be ignored anyway”, remarking that this was not consultation, but being dictated to.19 Mr C McKenzie stated his experience of the consultation as having been very one-sided, high-handed, and a farce.20 Presenting submissions for Haunui Farm, Mr M Chitty spoke of his concern about the lack of consultation Transpower had with him as a severely affected landowner.21 Mrs J van het Bolscher, speaking to the submission by herself and her husband, described Transpower’s consultation as an empty gesture.22
1376. Mr R McKenzie agreed in cross-examination that movement of the Brownhill Substation site to a less visually prominent location, and selection of a monopole for Tower 5, had come about through the consultation process; but he was critical that the consultation process had not shown him the wider panorama in which his property would have views of two other towers which would not be monopoles: so he felt slightly misled by the consultation process as far as it went.23
Response by Transpower
1377. Transpower submitted that consultation (other than with tāngata whenua) is not required by the RMA, nor is it one of the matters that the Board is required to consider.24
1378. Transpower explained the stages of the consultation it had undertaken. It stated that after it had published the indicative alignment in July 2005, consultation on the centreline and detailed tower locations had occurred between that month and January 2006, a process that was still continuing at the time of the hearing. Transpower reported that during the July 2005/January 2006 consultation phase, more than two-thirds of the 432 proposed towers had been moved to accommodate landowner concerns. Further changes had been made before the notices of requirement were lodged, and between then and the hearing, 28 further minor tower movements had been proposed, either in response to further landowner requests, or for improved outcomes.
1379. Transpower also stated that information gathered in consultation had been important in the final design of the project, including the choice between the western and eastern routes. It maintained that in the result, the proposed designation alignment takes into account a large number of constraints, taking all practical steps to mitigate impact on dwellings, farm buildings, and indigenous vegetation.
1380. Further, Transpower contended that consultation with landowners and other affected persons had been a core aspect of the ACRE route selection process (which from the outset had taken into account social aspects such as settlement patterns, cultural and heritage values); and that it had considered, and (where appropriate) actioned, landowners’ requests for mitigation and adjustments to address environmental effects.
1381. Transpower denied Mr Copstick and Ms Brennan’s assertions that consultation had been confined to landowners from whom they want to purchase an easement. Counsel explained that a distinction had been made between people whose properties would be crossed by the line, and those whose properties would not be crossed, to recognise the different nature of potential impacts; but that the distinction had no impact on whether or not people were consulted. The only people identified by Mr Copstick and Ms Brennan as having been omitted were Mr V and Ms S Jones, and Transpower reported that its records showed 29 inward and outward contacts with them.
1382. Transpower stated that it had continued to attempt to engage with the Pohara Marae Committee, and had been frustrated; and submitted that a direction by the Board (as requested by Mr S Wilson) would have doubtful validity.
1383. Transpower acknowledged that the breach of tikanga that had led to the cancellation of the hui at Taniwha Marae had been regrettable, and reported that it had apologised to Taniwha Marae forthe perceived breach of tikanga, but the apology had not been universally accepted. It submitted that consultation is a reciprocal process, and that a party who withdraws from consultation or declines to take part, cannot complain that Treaty principles have been infringed. It submitted that the cancellation of one hui did not mean that the consultation was flawed; nor did it invalidate the process. Its repeated offers to request another hui had not been taken up until after the Taniwha Marae submission had been lodged.
Transpower’s evidence
1384. Dr Phillips had designed and implemented an extensive and lengthy community consultation for Transpower, including numerous public meetings, newsletters and individual letters, and visits to groups and individuals described in his evidence to the Board.
1385. In rebuttal evidence, Dr Phillips rejected assertions by Mr Copstick and Ms Brennan that people whose properties would not be crossed by the line had not been contacted; and he rejected that Transpower had kept one small part of the community informed and the rest of the community in the dark. He confirmed that there had been a number of individual contacts with Mr V and Ms S Jones, and provided details.
1386. Dr Phillips reported on having provided aerial photographs showing the indicative centreline, possible tower positions, and bounds of the designation; and stated that landowners had been encouraged to meet with case managers so they could have input in the process. He stated that he had been unable to identify instances that could support allegations of bullying tactics.
1387. In cross-examination, Dr Phillips gave his opinion that, as a whole, the consultation Transpower had undertaken was appropriate, and had worked well.25
1388. On the cancellation of the hui at Taniwha Marae, Mr T F Ngakete (a kaumātua of Ngāti Noho) gave evidence that he had made an error of marae tikanga in that Transpower representatives had entered the marae prior to the pōwhiri, which had been seen as an affront by some of those present. He had apologised to the whānau, and his apology had been accepted by some, though not accepted by others due to previous animosity to him. Mr Ngakete gave his opinion that no fault could be attached to the consultation he had been involved in.
1389. Mr Mikaere gave his opinion that the breach of tikanga and cancellation of the hui had not disadvantaged members of the marae, because its submissions contained no issue that had not already been noted and addressed.
1390. In respect of the Pohara Marae, Mr Mikaere acknowledged that apart from the initial meeting, there had been no formal ‘sit-down’ with them, but reported on several meetings with their representatives, as well as exchanges by telephone and mail.
The Board’s findings on consultation
The law
1391. Section 36A of the RMA was enacted by the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005. The effect of that section is that, as applicant for resource consents and as requiring authority for designations, Transpower was able to consult any person, but did not have a duty under that Act to consult any person. So to the extent that some submitters had an understanding that Transpower was obliged by the RMA to enter into consultation with them or anyone else, the Board holds that they were mistaken.
1392. Dr McQueen’s contentions that the processes Transpower used were unlawful, and that Transpower did not follow required consultation processes, appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the law, and are not cogent.
The evidence
1393. Three other contentions about Transpower’s consultation processes are also immaterial.
1394. Dr Phillips’s evidence to the contrary being unchallenged, the evidence does not support Ms Brennan’s and Mr Copstick’s contentions that Transpower had excluded from consultation owners of land over which easements are not required. In any event, Transpower was not obliged to consult anyone, and was free to consult with whom it chose. Dr McQueen’s submission that the consultation processes were not undertaken in the spirit that the RMA intended is also immaterial, as the RMA does not require any consultation. The Pohara Marae Committee’s request that the Board direct Transpower to engage with them according to a certain consultation model is outside the scope of the functions conferred on the Board by the RMA.
1395. The other contentions about Transpower’s consultation processes are criticisms about how Transpower carried them out: that it was arrogant; bogus; confrontational; dismissive; disrespectful; making an empty gesture; a farce; not genuine; lacking good faith; too late; high-handed; insincere; insulting; misleading; offensive; patronising; not revived on change of route; a sham; and negated by threats of court action under the Public Works Act.
1396. As a state-owned enterprise, Transpower has a duty to have regard to the interests of the communities in which it operates, and to endeavour to accommodate and encourage these when able to do so.26 However, the Board’s duties are under the RMA, and it has no function under the State-owned Enterprises Act. As the RMA does not impose a duty on Transpower to consult anyone, the Board excludes from influence on its decisions the contentions alluded to, because they are irrelevant to its function.
Conclusion
1397. The Board does not belittle the strong dissatisfaction with Transpower’s consultative process expressed by the 16 submitters who raised the issue. Given Transpower’s use of statutory powers, all people potentially affected should have been treated better than as described in the allegations in the submissions and evidence referred to in this section of the report.
1398. Even so, only four submitters27 gave evidence of their experiences of the consultation process, and even those four omitted particulars of their assertions that would have made testing their statements practicable.
1399. The total number of people who might potentially be affected by the Grid Upgrade Project proposal appears to exceed 10,000.28 Although the Board does not condone any lapse in the quality of consultation, it considers that it would be disproportionate to allow the regrettable experiences of fewer than a score of submitters to influence the decisions to confirm or cancel the designations, or to grant or refuse the resource consents.
Animal health
1400. Effects of the overhead line on animal health were raised by some submitters, including Haunui Farm, the Hon Mr W R Storey, Mrs L Storey, Mr Copstick and Ms Brennan.
1401. In his evidence, Mr K M Rooney, veterinarian, identified potential effects on animal health arising from noise, construction site debris, the season in which construction and maintenance of the proposed overhead line occurred, and electric and magnetic fields.
1402. Electric and magnetic fields have the potential to affect farmed mammal species similarly to humans. However, in his opinion based on the available animal epidemiological evidence, the levels of EMFs from the proposed line would present no health hazard to animals, including effects on equine conception or pregnancy.
1403. Some submitters were concerned about leakage of electrical current from the proposed line. Dairy cows may show behavioural changes, restlessness, irritation and a reduction in milk production when exposed to current leakage or stray voltages as low as 0.5 V. This distress is associated with mastitis and increased bulk somatic cell counts.
1404. Mr Rooney asserted due to its design, the proposed line is highly unlikely to have direct electrical effects that would result in distressed cows. He reported that typically current leakage affecting cows occurs in milking-machine electrical installations that are inadequately earthed. Mr Rooney gave his opinion that in the unlikely event that current leaked from the transmission line, the source would be able to be detected, and the leakage rectified.
1405. Mr Rooney gave evidence that as horses have very well-developed hearing, noise from the conductors in adverse weather conditions is likely to startle some horses, in particular yearlings and foals. Since horses run away at high speed when startled, this could result in trauma. That potential effect would be reduced by the design of the proposed line, which is associated with less noise compared to current lines. In his opinion it could also be managed by minimising handling and by shifting horses in adverse weather.
1406. This witness concluded that in the case of Haunui Farm, a thoroughbred breeding farm, there would be potential effects for equine health and farm worker safety if the horses are startled by noise from the line. In rebuttal evidence he stated that the impact on horses or donkeys on other properties, including lifestyle blocks, would be less: due to the lower stock rate, the generally quieter nature of horses on these properties compared to those on thoroughbred breeding farms, and the quiet nature of donkeys.
1407. Mr Rooney considered that other potential effects on animals, such as stress from disruption to farm activities and construction noise, and consumption of construction debris, could be avoided or minimised by close advance liaison between the farmer and contractors, and actions included in the site works plan.
1408. In response to queries raised about effects of EMFs on food animals (Mr G E Orbell, Mr D and Mrs L Daley), Mr Rooney stated that there is no evidence suggesting any human health risk from consumption of meat or milk from animals grazed in the vicinity of high-voltage transmission lines.
Conclusion
1409. In the absence of contradictory expert evidence and cross-examination, the Board accepts Mr Rooney’s evidence that the proposed line would not result in long-term significant adverse effects on animal health. It finds that there would be a potential adverse impact on horses, in particular at Haunui Farm. There would also be some potential short-term effects on other farm animals during construction and, to a lesser extent, during maintenance; these effects would need to be addressed in site works plans and property easement agreements.
Design of towers
1410. Some submitters raised issues about the design of the towers for the overhead line, including the use of monopoles as an alternative to lattice towers.
1411. The HPVRA raised the design of the towers. Its submission referred to the scale of the proposed towers being significantly greater than that of existing pylons and lines. HPVRA submitted that replacing the lattice towers with less intrusive monopoles or more compact structures would be a desirable option for avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of the Grid Upgrade Project.
1412. Mr D A Parker gave evidence for HPVRA and asserted that, as well as the capacity of the line being greater than was needed, Transpower had misunderstood the ICNIRP guidelines in defining electrical parameters: this had been one of the factors resulting in large-scale towers.
1413. Mr Parker urged that either (smaller) compact towers, monopoles or both be used in place of the larger towers proposed. The akimbo type of compact tower was a particular type of compact tower that Mr Parker described in his evidence.
1414. HPVRA and others stated that the benefits of using compact towers or monopoles would afford an opportunity to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse visual effects of the proposed Grid Upgrade Project.
Response by Transpower
1415. Transpower submitted that the proposed line would be predominantly constructed using double-circuit steel lattice towers, ranging in height from 46 to 70 metres (with single-circuit towers proposed for two transposition sites along the proposed line, and at Brookby Ridge, due to a height restriction associated with Ardmore Airport).
1416. Transpower also submitted that the heights of the towers are principally set by the minimum clearance to the ground and the underlying topography; and that the quality of the landscape is one of the main factors to take into account in considering whether to use monopoles.
Transpower’s evidence
1417. Mr Boyle gave evidence that the transmission line needs to be designed for energised maintenance (also referred to as ‘live line maintenance’) to ensure that the transmission system supplying the upper North Island has high availability. A line designed for energised maintenance would minimise the number of line outages for maintenance, but would need increased distances (vertically and horizontally) between bundles of conductors, and would result in structures that are wider and higher than compact towers.
1418. In his evidence, Mr R J C Noble explained that the first part of the development of an overhead transmission line design is to select a structure type and conductor; and that the type of structure, including the height, is a function of a number of parameters including the operating voltage, tower spacing, audible noise, and safety requirements (including for electric and magnetic fields).
1419. Mr Noble stated that cost is also a major factor, and referred to recent Australian experience showing that monopoles are approximately 2.6 times the cost of steel lattice towers of similar strength.
1420. In his evidence, Mr Khot identified the electrical design parameters that are taken into account when the line and towers are being designed. These parameters included limits of electrical and magnetic fields at the boundaries of the designations, those affecting the performance of the line and its electrical stability, and minimum safe distances for people carrying out maintenance of the tower and conductor components. He also gave evidence on the design features used to minimise the effects of lightning on the line.
1421. Mr Khot asserted that although ‘line compacting’ is a desirable concept wherever possible, where line reliability is paramount other factors, such as live line maintenance capability, govern the design of the towers.
1422. In rebuttal evidence, Mr Khot rejected the assertion that Transpower had misunderstood the ICNIRP guidelines in relation to Reference Level and Basic Restriction electric field levels. In doing so, he also referred to the evidence of Dr Black and Mr van Rongen.
1423. In rebuttal of Mr Parker’s evidence, Mr Lake provided his analysis of the design and operational characteristics of akimbo insulator arrangements on towers. He identified some Transpower towers that have been fitted with these insulator arrangements.
1424. Mr Lake asserted that a disadvantage with akimbo arrangements is that they lack direct access to the conductors. He gave his opinion that akimbo insulators should only be proposed in special situations where normal cross-arms and single vertical insulator arrangements cannot be used.
1425. He also gave his opinion that it is a very unlikely scenario for a tower to fail so that its total height is laid flat and perpendicular to the line. Mr Lake stated that towers are to be sited so that they are not in line with any houses.
Consideration
1426. The Board finds that Transpower is required to ensure the reliability of the transmission system, and that this had led to it selecting a structure type and physical size that provided acceptable electrical and magnetic fields limits, capable of live line (energised) maintenance.
1427. Mr Parker does not have directly relevant experience in the field of high-voltage electrical engineering.
1428. In the absence of contradictory expert evidence, the Board accepts the opinions of Messrs Boyle, Noble, Khot and Lake in relation to the design of the transmission line, and particularly in regard to ‘compact’ towers and ‘akimbo’ insulator arrangements. The Board finds that neither ‘compact’ towers, nor akimbo insulator arrangements would allow for the energised maintenance that would provide reliable availability of proposed line for grid security such as Transpower has to achieve by the GPS and GRS.
1429. The Hunua and Paparimu Valley Residents’ Association request for use of monopoles instead of lattice towers in the Hunua locality is addressed elsewhere in this chapter.
Underground cables or overhead lines
1430. Many submitters contended that the effects of the proposed Grid Upgrade Project could be avoided, remedied or mitigated by using underground cables instead of an overhead line in their locality of interest.
1431. One such submitter, ‘Underground in Manukau’, submitted that the entire route of the overhead 400-kV-capable line in Manukau City be placed underground. Other submitters made similar suggestions.
1432. Manukau City Council (Mr Freke, Group Manager, Transportation) acknowledged that it is not economically viable to take the entire route underground. However, the submitter contended that the extent of the route that is laid underground should be greater than that proposed by Transpower.
1433. The reasons advanced by Manukau City Council for underground cable installation were the adverse effects of the 400-kV-capable overhead line on the Whitford Valley and the Brookby Valley areas. Manukau City Council was seeking an extension to the proposed underground cable section, but with 400-kV cabling south from the Brownhill Substation.
1434. New Era Energy South Waikato sought a greater length of underground cable installation than proposed, including in the South Waikato.
Response by Transpower
1435. Transpower responded that taking small segments of the proposed line underground, while technically feasible, would carry a high cost; and that transition substations would be needed where the overhead lines connect to the underground cables.
1436. Transpower contended that even a short cable link in an overhead line would reduce the availability of the overall circuit. Reduced circuit availability may require additional circuits to be installed earlier than would otherwise be necessary, or other measures may need taking to ensure the required level of grid security is maintained.
1437. Transpower also contended that long sections of underground cable have a potentially detrimental effect on system reliability and security and, in the event of failure, are difficult and costly to repair.
Transpower’s evidence
1438. Mr Wildash, a Transpower senior development engineer, gave evidence that for EHV networks, underground cables have much greater costs than overhead line; and that the capital cost ratio for taking a section of a 400-kV 2700-MVA line underground is about 15:1.
1439. Mr Wildash also gave evidence on the lower reliability of underground cable relative to an overhead line, due to the long outage times required to locate faults underground and to repair cables. He stated that, although installing cables underground is technically feasible, it would be very costly, and would also degrade the reliability of the 400-kV circuits because of the length of time to repair cable faults.
1440. Cross-examination of Mr Wildash did not reveal any basis for the Board not accepting his evidence; and no qualified witness gave evidence that contradicted him.
Consideration
1441. Manukau City Council submitted that Mr Wildash’s evidence on costs was deficient, simplistic, unsubstantiated, inherently unreliable and not probative.
1442. The Board regards those criticisms as overstated, and apparently based on a misunderstanding of the witness’s evidence.
1443. The Board accepts that more extensive underground installation of the transmission line could substantially mitigate adverse landscape and visual effects. It accepts Mr Wildash’s evidence that the cost of taking part of an EHV system underground can be up to or above 15 times that of overhead line; and that locating and repairing faults in underground cables takes significantly longer than it does in respect of faults in overhead lines. The Board also accepts that as Transpower has to work within the constraints of the GPS and the GRS, it has to favour options that support reliability and security of supply.
1444. The environmental benefits of taking larger sections underground cannot be ascribed a reliable monetary value; but the Board judges that the additional cost of further underground installation, and the resulting reduction of reliability and security of supply, would be disproportionate to the perceived benefits. So the Board finds that it is not justified in requiring more of the transmission line to be taken underground.
Effects on local roads
Submissions
1445. The Waikato District Council, and several submitters having land in its district, raised concerns about potential damage to public roads caused by significant numbers of heavy vehicles using the roads for construction of the proposed overhead line. The Council maintained that many of the roads concerned have not been designed nor constructed to cope with the numbers and weights of vehicles that would be used; and contended that the traffic would have adverse effects on the surface pavements, and also long-term effects on the life of the underlying foundation structure of the roads.
1446. The Council contended that it would be inequitable for this burden to fall on the ratepayers of the district, and that Transpower should be required to defray those costs. It argued that a condition proposed by Transpower for surveying road condition in the immediate vicinity of construction entries off public roads would be inadequate for uncertainty, and would not extend far enough.
1447. The Council asserted that the potential costs of restoring the roads would be significant, and that it would not be equitable nor easily affordable for the community to bear the cost of remedying those adverse effects. It sought conditions of the designation requiring preparation and approval of a traffic management and mitigation strategy, monitoring, and mitigation (including repair of damage to roads).
1448. The Waikato District Council referred to damage caused to public roads by heavy traffic associated with construction of Transpower’s Ōhinewai Switching Station. Mr Patrick gave evidence that this project is not comparable, as the former had involved 7340 heavy-vehicle movements concentrated on one road; and the Upgrade Project would involve about 200 movements per tower, not necessarily concentrated on one road.
1449. However, Mr A D A Gray (a consultant professional engineer) responded that as there are to be 115 towers within the Waikato district, its proportion of Mr Patrick’s estimate of the total likely 61,169 trips would require between 15,000 and 20,000 heavy-vehicle trips; and its proportion of Mr Patrick’s estimate of the maximum of 194,648 trips would require between 50,000 and 60,000 heavy-vehicle trips. On those calculations, Mr Gray estimated that the Council could incur a potential cost of $250,000 for loss of pavement life (though he stated in cross-examination that the amount of that estimate is only illustrative of the potential scale29).
1450. Transpower accepted that it should pay for short-term damage caused to roads in the vicinity of access ways to properties, and it proposed conditions for that.
1451. On the Waikato District Council’s concern with potential damage to the underlying road pavement and loss of pavement life, Transpower contended that the Council’s case is opportunistic in that it is seeking to have its roads upgraded at Transpower’s (and ultimately the electricity consumer’s) expense on the basis that the Grid Upgrade Project is not a permitted activity; yet the Council does not expect compensation from milk tanker operators for loss of pavement life caused by their use of roads.
1452. Transpower submitted that loss of pavement life is included in road-user charges, which Transpower and its contractors would be paying in the normal course. It contended that there is no legal basis for territorial authorities to impose conditions of designations levying such a payment; and that the Board should not impose such a condition in respect of a matter that was not the subject of district plan provisions, nor clearly identified in the Council’s legal submissions or evidence.
Consideration
1453. The Board accepts the general thrust of Transpower’s submissions on local roads.
1454. In its original submission on the relevant designation requirement, the Waikato District Council made a general request for conditions requiring Transpower to mitigate the effects of construction traffic on roads. However, the Council did not state in its submission the condition that it wanted imposed. Nor did it do so in its evidence statements, nor its submissions at the hearing.
1455. If the designation is upheld, the effect of section 176 is that the activities of constructing the Grid Upgrade and maintaining it will be as fully authorised in terms of the RMA as are permitted activities under the district plan. Levying of financial contributions under the RMA is conditional on appropriate plan provisions, and none were brought to the Board’s attention. The Board accepts that, like operators of other heavy vehicles such as milk tankers, Transpower and its contractors would contribute to the cost of maintaining roads by payment of road-user charges in the normal way.
1456. The Board is not persuaded that there is a basis in principle for singling out Transpower for levying liability to compensate for loss of pavement life when other operators of heavy vehicles are not levied. Nor is the Board persuaded that in the circumstances there is a basis in law for imposing a condition requiring such a financial contribution.
1457. So (except to the extent of conditions set out in Appendix K to this report) the Board declines to impose conditions sought by the Waikato District Council, and in particular, declines to require Transpower to repair, restore or rehabilitate any local road in its district, or to contribute to the cost of any such work, or to compensate the Council for any long-term impact of construction traffic on the underlying design-life of roads in its district.
Effects on safe use of Ardmore Airfield
Introduction
1458. Ardmore Airfield (near Papakura) was originally a wartime military aerodrome. It is now used for general civil aviation, predominantly pilot training. The airfield has about 250,000 movements per year by fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. It has one operational runway, aligned 30º/210º.
1459. At present four Transpower transmission lines pass to the east of the airfield: the OTA-WKM A, B and C lines (1.4–2.2 kilometres from the north-easterly end of the runway), and further east the ARI-PAK A line (4.7 kilometres from that end of the runway).
1460. The proposed new transmission line would also pass to the east of the airfield, beyond the existing lines and five kilometres beyond the north-easterly end of the runway. It would have a height of 72.4 metres above mean sea level, and would replace the closer ARI-PAK A line, which would be dismantled.
1461. By its submission, Ardmore Airfield Tenants and Users Committee alleged that the proposed lines and pylons would constitute a hazard to aircraft operations at Ardmore Airfield, and that risk analysis by Transpower and its consultants had been totally inadequate. The Committee also asserted that an aircraft impacting the lines would be a massive single-point failure of the grid. The Committee asked for independent professional reports on pilot and passenger occupational safety and health; and that the lines be required to be laid underground for 500 metres on either side of an extension of the centre-line of the airfield runway, between two well-lit pylons.
1462. At the hearing, the Committee was represented by its acting chairman, Mr McCreadie. He has a degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Chemicals and Materials Engineering), and has experience as a private pilot (a total flying time of 853 hours including training), including precision competition work. His professional work has included analysis of client and public risks. On the Committee’s behalf, Mr McCreadie cross-examined certain witnesses called by Transpower, and himself gave evidence on which he was cross-examined by counsel on behalf of Transpower.
1463. Transpower disputed the Committee’s allegations, and contended that the risk analysis made by its consultants (Airbiz Aviation Strategies) is reliable, and that the marginal safety effect of the new transmission line instead of the ARI-PAK A line would be de minimis.
1464. Transpower called evidence from Mr Sullivan who is a professional engineer with 40 years’ experience in the aviation industry: 15 years as a specialist airport consultant in airport operations including safety management systems and training, and safety compliance audits. Mr Sullivan had made an independent assessment of the potential aviation risks presented by the proposed transmission line.
1465. Transpower also called rebuttal evidence from Mr M B Stevens, a former Deputy Director of the Civil Aviation Administration (CAA) who had been in charge of aerodrome safety throughout New Zealand for over 12 years.
1466. Transpower remarked that the CAA and Ardmore Airport Limited had been consulted in preparation of the Airbiz report, and had not seen it necessary to make any submission to the Board; and that the Airways Corporation of New Zealand had made a submission, but not in opposition.
1467. Much of Mr McCreadie’s challenge to Transpower’s position on this topic concerned in some detail his criticism of the risk analysis made by Airbiz. Yet although the Airbiz report was of course presented to the Board, none of its contributors were called to give evidence. Instead, the evidence called on Transpower’s behalf on this topic was that of Messrs Sullivan and Stevens, both of whom are independent of Airbiz. The Board is able to make its finding on the topic on the evidence before it, without having to decide on Mr McCreadie’s challenge to the Airbiz report. Rather the Board identifies the material differences between Mr McCreadie on the one hand and Messrs Sullivan and Stevens on the other, and states its reasons for its decision on those differences.
1468. Before doing so, the Board records Transpower’s submission that this question involves a comparison of the marginal adverse effect on the safety of aircraft operations posed by the proposed transmission line in place of the existing ARI-PAK A line. That was put to Mr McCreadie in cross-examination. He agreed, explaining that he was referring to the marginal total additional effect.30 The Board accepts that.
1469. Those material differences between Mr McCreadie and Messrs Sullivan and Stevens relate to: the ICAO Safety Management Manual; the Ardmore Aerodrome Obstacle Limitation Surface; the nature of risk to aircraft in distress; the risk posed by the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C lines to an aircraft in distress; and the marginal additional risk that would be posed by the proposed line to an aircraft in distress.
ICAO Safety Standard and Surfaces
1470. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) administers the Chicago Convention, to which New Zealand is a signatory. In his evidence Mr Sullivan referred to the ICAO Safety Management Manual.
1471. Mr McCreadie gave his opinion that the ICAO safety management template used by Mr Sullivan is a simplistic and archaic system providing for omnipotent bureaucracies to impose risk judgements on stakeholders who have not agreed to the analysis, or to accept or share those risks without compensation; and is not appropriate for multiple uncontracted parties.
1472. Mr Stevens gave evidence that most states, including New Zealand, apply ICAO technical standards and recommended practices for domestic aviation; that New Zealand has adopted them to a very large extent, and the CAA is committed to an ongoing programme of doing so.
1473. In his rebuttal of Mr McCreadie’s reference to the ICAO document as archaic, Mr Sullivan gave evidence that the first edition had been published in 2006, and that it had been specifically developed to assist the consistent worldwide implementation of safety management systems by aviation industry operators and service providers, drawing on best practice and giving specific acknowledgement to Australia and New Zealand.
1474. Mr Sullivan acknowledged that New Zealand has not yet adopted the 2006 document, and remarked that its safety assessment process is similar to the risk management process described in AS/NZS 4360:2004 that was relied on by Mr McCreadie.
1475. Mr McCreadie is of course entitled to his opinion about the value of the ICAO 2006 document. However, in the absence of any evidence that his view of it is shared generally by experts in aviation safety, on the evidence of Messrs Sullivan and Stevens, the Board sees no reason for not accepting Mr Sullivan’s expert opinion on that question.
Ardmore Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
1476. In his evidence Mr Sullivan referred to the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS) for Ardmore Airfield, the lower limits of which are designed to provide adequate vertical clearance above potential obstacles for pilots complying with visual flight rules and aerodrome traffic rules. The witness stated that none of the proposed towers or conductors would penetrate the navigable airspace defined by the OLS; and that normal flight operations through the Clevedon Valley are protected.
1477. In cross-examination, Mr McCreadie accepted that none of the current or proposed structures penetrates the Ardmore OLS defined by civil aviation regulations. However, he stated that he did not consider they are relevant to continuous fence-type obstacles directly across the track.
1478. In rebuttal, Mr Sullivan disputed Mr McCreadie’s opinion that the OLS is not relevant to assessment of the transmission line. He observed that the OLS makes no distinction between the type of obstacles, but simply requires that structures not extend above the individual or collective surfaces; and that fence-type structures that do not penetrate the OLS are permitted without special constraint.
1479. The Board accepts Mr Sullivan’s evidence that the intangible or imaginary surfaces adopted for limitation of obstacles to flights in and out of airports would apply to the proposed transmission line structures. There is no dispute that the proposed transmission line structures would not penetrate those surfaces. The Board sees no basis for accepting Mr McCreadie’s opinion that this is not relevant to assessment of the extent to which the proposed line would pose a threat to safety of flights leaving or approaching Ardmore Airfield.
Nature of relevant risk to aircraft in distress
1480. Mr McCreadie explained fully the nature of the risk to an aircraft in distress in a real emergency, namely potential loss of control in avoiding obstacles. He classified as having the bulk of significant and unavoidable risk a complete or partial loss of power on take-off, or on final approach to land, or in transit through the Clevedon Gully.
1481. Mr McCreadie also referred to the fact that Ardmore is predominantly a training aerodrome, and that student pilots have a tendency for slower response times and increased chance of taking inappropriate actions in emergencies. He gave his opinions that introducing 60-metre-high electric fences would add considerably to the complexity of responding to an engine failure or serious power loss at less than 500 feet above ground level, that it would cut down the number of safe options, and would increase the number of potential inappropriate actions.
1482. In cross-examination Mr McCreadie acknowledged that he is an interested party, an advocate, and cannot be an advocate and treated as an expert witness.31
Risk from OTA-WKM lines
1483. Both Mr Sullivan and Mr Stevens gave their opinions that the existing OTA-WKM A, B and C lines pose a greater risk to aircraft leaving or approaching Ardmore than would the proposed transmission line. In cross-examination by Mr McCreadie, Mr Sullivan explained why he considered the new line as less significant.32
1484. Mr McCreadie accepted that although the proposed towers would be five metres or so higher above mean sea level than the towers of the existing OTA-WKM C line, the latter are about 3.5 kilometres closer to the runway; although he pointed out that engine failure could occur at any point.33 He also agreed that laying the proposed line underground would not fix the existing obstacle posed by the OTA-WKM A, B and C lines.34 He stated his opinion that the risk from the proposed line would be cumulative on the risk from the existing lines,35 explaining that an aircraft flying in the circuit is exposed in a crosswind situation to the ARI-PAK A line or the new line for a longer period than it is exposed to the existing lines which are crossed at 90º.36
1485. The Board accepts that although OTA-WKM lines are lower in terms of height above mean sea level, being much closer to the runway they pose a greater risk to aircraft leaving or approaching Ardmore than would the proposed transmission line. However, given the distance between the route of the proposed lines and that of the existing OTA-WKM lines, the Board does not see the practical significance of their existence to assessing the marginal additional effect of the proposed lines.
Risk from proposed line
1486. In his evidence, Mr Sullivan noted that in normal operations in the Ardmore Mandatory Broadcast Zone, aircraft would be flying with at least 500 feet vertical clearance above the proposed line; that bona fide low-level operations (such as aerial topdressing) could be at 250 feet or less above ground level, but the proposed line would not increase the risk posed by the ARI-PAK A line. A similar opinion was given by an expert witness in topdressing aviation, Mr A J Nichol.
1487. In respect of emergencies in taking off, Mr Sullivan considered that the OTA-WKM C line represents the critical obstacle, an opinion with which Mr McCreadie agreed in terms of performance rating and slope of climb.37 On risk of engine failure, Mr Sullivan gave his opinion that the risk to an aircraft in distress posed by the proposed line would be one in 68 years, which is no marginal addition to the risk posed by the existing ARI-PAK A line that is to be replaced. The witness also considered abnormal flight operations, and stated that conflict with the proposed line would be a gross deviation from normal flight altitude, which he regarded as an insignificant risk.
1488. Mr Stevens gave his opinion that even in the case of engine failure, in no case would the new line pose a credible threat; and engine failure below an altitude of 500 feet would involve an aircraft taking off or landing close to the aerodrome, in which case the proposed line would be irrelevant because of its location.
1489. In cross-examination, Mr McCreadie agreed that aircraft flown by student pilots should not be anywhere near the proposed line unless in an emergency.38
1490. Accepting its importance, the Board has reviewed all the evidence bearing on this topic. On comparing the respective qualifications and professional experience of Messrs Sullivan and Stevens with those of Mr McCreadie, and taking into account the independence of Messrs Sullivan and Stevens, the Board finds the latter opinions more credible where they differ.
1491. In summary, the Board finds that the marginal additional risk to the safety of aircraft using Ardmore Airfield posed by replacing the existing ARI-PAK A line with the proposed transmission line would not be significant, and would not amount to an adverse effect on the environment.
Effects on use of farm airstrips
1492. Transpower acknowledged that the overhead line would have some effects on aerial topdressing and similar activities, and would be an additional obstacle for agricultural and other small aircraft. It maintained that those effects would be limited to areas close to the line, and to a relatively small number of larger properties which depend on aerial application; and contended that the effects would be manageable.
1493. Although the topic had not been raised in its submission on the designation requirement, nor in its counsel’s submissions in presenting its case, these effects were raised by a witness called by the South Waikato District Council. Consultant planner, Mr Collier, raised as a primary concern effects on farming practices, such as the ability to apply fertiliser by air.
1494. Mr Collier stated in evidence that normal activities of many farms in the South Waikato District would be hindered in that the aerial application of fertiliser would be severely affected by the lines, and their effects on air strips. He also raised cumulative effects of reduced fertiliser application rates affecting nutrient levels, and in turn the soil productivity of the district.
1495. A number of other submitters also raised concerns in relation to topdressing, including Mr K Baker (Lichfield Farms); Mr M S and Mrs C K Bill; Mrs J M Sceats; Mrs L Storey, the Hon Mr W R Storey, Mr J Lyons, Mrs L E Lyons, and Mr G W H Vercoe.
1496. Mr A J Nichol is the managing director of an aerial topdressing business, having had decades of experience in that industry (including 16,300 flying hours); he is member of the governing committee of the New Zealand Agricultural Aviation Association, and its observer on the Aircare Safety Committee of the Aviation Industry Association. Mr Nichol also has knowledge of farm practices and requirements in relation to agricultural aviation. He professed, too, to have a good understanding of agricultural helicopter operations, although he acknowledged that he had no operational experience of flying helicopters.
1497. Mr Nichol explained that in assessing effects of the overhead line on agricultural airstrips, distance of an airstrip from the line is relevant, as are the orientation and elevation of the airstrip, and the number of properties that are served by it.
1498. The witness explained that transmission towers are generally visible unless in cloud or fog; and that the main hazard that a line presents is the conductors which, in certain light conditions, can be virtually impossible to see (especially the top wires). However, he stated that generally they do not cause a problem, as pilots operating in the district and region have local knowledge.
1499. Mr Nichol gave his opinion that where the ARI-PAK A line is being replaced by the proposed line, there would be little difference in the area of land that is inaccessible to topdressing; although he acknowledged that aircraft would need to climb to a greater height to cross the new line, or alter a flight path to cross only at a tower for enhanced safety. Either would add to flight distance and time. He considered that there would be relatively few airstrips that would be rendered unusable.
1500. The witness reported that he had identified 33 airstrips in proximity to the proposed line, of which he had inspected nine. He considered that three of them would be seriously affected: Lyons’ at Paparimu, Rangers’ near Putaruru, and Scherers’ near Putaruru. As agricultural operations are not carried out from the Scherers’ airstrip, Mr Nichol considered that it is not part of the aerial topdressing activity of the district. He also gave his reasons for considering that the effects of the proposed transmission line on the other six airstrips he had inspected would be of little consequence.
1501. Mr Nichol also addressed the particular cases of individual submitters who had raised concerns about topdressing on their farms, concluding that in general there are potential economic disadvantages to some, due to increased fertiliser application costs; but if pilots are operating in compliance with the rules, there should be no additional risk.
1502. In cross-examination by the Hon Mr Storey, Mr Nichol estimated that the extra cost could be between 10 and 20 per cent, depending on the location, elevation and size of the airstrip, and the amount of the load.39 He also agreed that any constraint on topdressing can affect land use; and if the orientation of the airstrip has to be changed, there could be additional costs.40
1503. The Board accepts the submissions, and finds that the overhead line would have adverse effects on aerial application of fertiliser, pesticides etc and would be an obstacle for small aircraft (and a greater obstacle than the existing ARI-PAK A line that it is to replace over much of the route).
1504. The extent of the adverse effects on aerial application would differ widely according to circumstances. In some cases, inability to replace an airstrip with another as serviceable and safe could result in considerable and ongoing increase in costs of application, and reduce the existing potential productivity of part of a farm.
1505. In principle, the extent of such effects is capable of being mitigated to some degree by sensitive and competent Transpower case managers, determined to identify and provide constructive measures to remedy impacts or redress them. Despite reports of past experiences with Transpower representatives, that might be achieved by determined application in practice of a general policy to give full effect to the social responsibility mandate entrusted to Transpower by Parliament.
Effects on Arapuni
1506. The route of the proposed overhead line would cross Lake Karapiro about 800 metres northeast of Arapuni. The water in Lake Karapiro is a reservoir for generation of electricity by Mighty River Power Limited (MRP), which expressed concern that the Grid Upgrade Project not adversely impact on its operations.
1507. The South Waikato District Council submitted that in selecting the route for the overhead line, inadequate consideration had been given to the partly developed Waikato River Trail in the vicinity of Arapuni. Ms Lucas considered that safeguarding the rural amenity values associated with this had been underestimated and would be adversely affected.
1508. Mr D A Bamford, a recreation and tourism consultant, gave evidence that the Waikato River Trail has been established from Arapuni Dam to Jones Landing on the right bank of the river over a length of about three kilometres, and that there is a plan to develop this walking path further. He stated that recreational use of the path does not appear to be impacted by the existing hydro facilities at Arapuni, and that the proposed line would not directly impact on, or interfere with, recreational fishing, swimming or walking.
1509. Mr Lister gave his opinion that the area that would be crossed by the line has moderately high natural character and landscape values, that a tower proposed on the southern bank would be in a prominent and open location on the crest of a high river terrace escarpment, and that a future continuation of the walking trail is planned for the eastern bank.
1510. MRP reported that it had come to an agreement with Transpower that a condition be attached to the relevant designation to the effect that Transpower (as requiring authority) undertake all works and activities, including erection of structures, in a manner that does not prevent or hinder the continued operation of the Waikato Hydro System in accordance with its resource consents.
1511. The Board accepts Mr Bamford’s opinion, and finds that the proposed line would not have a significant adverse effect on the walking trail or on other amenities of Arapuni. If the designation requirement is confirmed, the condition proposed by Transpower and MRP is to be imposed.
Effects on Brookby
The issue
1512. The Manukau City Council submitted that the proposed overhead line through Brookby would have significant adverse effects on the long-term potential for development of that area. The Council contended that the Board should decline the notice of requirement in respect of the part of the route from where the overhead line would enter the Brookby Valley in the vicinity of Tower 14, or from just south of Ardmore flight path, as that part of the line should be underground.
1513. Other submitters made similar contentions, particularly Underground in Manukau, Haunui Farm, and Mr J and Mrs B Addison.
1514. Transpower contested the contentions about effects on the future potential environment, arguing that the Board could not consider effects on it and that the evidence did not establish any material impact on the long-term development potential of the area.
Planning status
1515. Brookby is beyond the Auckland metropolitan urban limit; it is zoned rural in the Manukau City Council’s district plan, which limits subdivision and non-rural activities. No planning instrument indicates that any part of Brookby is intended for urban development or for countryside living.
1516. Parts of Brookby are affected by height restrictions associated with Ardmore Airfield and Auckland International Airport. Three towers of the existing ARI-PAK A line infringe a protection surface for Ardmore, and one also infringes a control for Auckland Airport. None of the towers of the proposed line would infringe any of those controls.
Description of proposal in Brookby
1517. The route for the proposed overhead line diverges from that of the existing ARI-PAK A line between Brookby and the urban edge. Two single-circuit towers are proposed on the Brookby Ridge to avoid infringing the height restriction associated with Ardmore Airfield.
1518. Mr Freke stated his belief that Transpower had not progressed or investigated further various substation/transition station sites and cable options. That was disputed by Ms Allan, who cited her Interim Report on Northern End Modifications.
1519. Having reviewed that document, the Board does not accept Mr Freke’s evidence in that respect.
Effects on existing environment
1520. Mr D J Scott stated his opinion that the proposal would have significant adverse effects on recreation areas of Brookby, including the pony club and the school. He described Haunui Farm as a trophy property of the area, and remarked that the proposed line would have a much more significant effect on it than the existing ARI-PAK A line does. He also expressed concern about clearance and trimming on the fringe of an area of secondary kahikatea bush at spans 12 and 13.
1521. Other submitters raised landscape and visual effects on the Brookby area; the Board addresses these in the relevant chapter of this report.
The potential future environment
1522. The Manukau City Council asserted that Brookby contains large areas suitable for possible future urban development, although no formal planning document provides for future urbanisation and it is not earmarked in any policy document.
1523. Mr C McKenzie had made a brief analysis of available information to confirm the suitability of Brookby as a possible future area, and stated that it may at some future time be considered as a possible urban area, but further investigations are needed to assess whether underground installation through the Brookby Valley is appropriate. His evidence did not pre-empt a future comprehensive study of possible urbanisation, and he had not been aware that the ARI-PAK A line across the Brookby Valley is to be removed.
1524. Mr D J Scott identified Brookby as one of several South Auckland catchments ideally placed to accommodate environmentally responsible future settlement opportunities, but in cross-examination he agreed that no document outlines his vision of a future urban area at Brookby, and that he could not give evidence indicating that the community shared that vision.41
1525. Mr Freke gave his opinion that it is inevitable that the metropolitan urban limit will be reviewed, and although that does not automatically mean all areas in the vicinity of current limit will be urbanised, he considered Brookby a prime candidate (though not immediately), and he acknowledged that there is no Council initiative to address or change its zoning.
1526. Transpower responded that by the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004, urban expansion in the area would require the Auckland Regional Council to approve the extension of the metropolitan urban limit; and that there is no sufficient or reliable evidential foundation for the existence of a vision for Brookby or urbanised or countryside living. Ms Allan gave evidence that submissions to the Manukau City Council seeking extension of Plan Change 8 into Brookby had been declined by the Council, pending a full study and consultation.
1527. On that evidence the Board finds that future urbanisation of Brookby is no more than a long-term possibility, and is no more than conjectural.
Effects on potential future environment
1528. The Manukau City Council acknowledged that future urban development would not be prevented by the proposed transmission line, but argued that development would be constrained and options for development limited, in that the line would create a corridor limiting urban design options and severing connectivity by pedestrian and vehicular passage. It argued that infrastructural projects with significant impacts should not be allowed to drive the future pattern of settlements and development, and foreclose options.
1529. Mr D J Scott gave opinion evidence along those lines. Mr Freke gave his opinion that the Board should have regard to the likely future urban form, and give weight to it when considering the Transpower proposal. Mrs Tuck gave her opinion that if the line goes ahead and development proceeds across Brookby, there is a future slum in the making.
1530. Transpower responded that there was no evidence to show that the overhead line would have any material impact on the long-term development potential of Brookby, nor any qualified evidence on the practicality or merits of or justification for laying underground cables through Brookby, or of specific sites for a transition station.
1531. The Board accepts Transpower’s submission that the evidence does not tend to show that the line would have any material impact on the long-term future environment of Brookby.
1532. If the Board were free to have regard to potential effects of the Grid Upgrade Project on a future urban environment in Brookby, the suppositious nature of it would make rational assessment of those effects impracticable. In the event, as explained in Chapter 4, the Board holds that it would not conform with the law to have regard to such speculative effects.
Conclusion on Brookby
1533. The Board declines to make any finding about effects on a possible future environment in which Brookby might have been urbanised.
Effects on Morrinsville and district
1534. In its submission, the Matamata-Piako District Council asked that the transmission line be installed underground along the western periphery of Morrinsville, or an alternative route be used. Those requests are addressed in Chapter 14 on local specific modifications.
1535. In presenting their submissions at the hearing, N G Richards Farms Ltd, Mr C C and Mrs M A Tylden, and Mr P J and Mrs V R Phillips asked that the route of the line through their properties south of Morrinsville be altered. That is also addressed in Chapter 14.
1536. In his submission, Mr G W H Vercoe asked that the proposed line be re-routed in the vicinity of his property at Tauhei; that, too, is addressed in Chapter 14.
1537. Mr A L Loveridge, who has a dairy farm on the outskirts of Morrinsville, submitted that the proposed transmission line is not needed; that alternative technology should be used, that an easement 600-metres wide should be provided; that there would be adverse health effects from electric and magnetic fields; that farming activities would be disturbed by construction of the line, and from its existence over his farm; and that the line would interfere with electronic controls for his milking shed. All those topics are addressed generally elsewhere in this report.
1538. Mr H M and Mrs B J Seales have a farm at Hangawera Road, near Morrinsville. In their submissions they contended that: better alternatives should be used, including building a power station in Auckland; that other technology be used; that an easement 600-metres wide should be provided; that there would be health effects from electric and magnetic fields; that their security would be compromised; that farming activities would be disturbed; that subdivision of their farm would be jeopardised; and that adequate compensation is uncertain. All those topics are addressed generally elsewhere in this report.
Effects on South Waikato district
1539. The proposed overhead line would pass through the South Waikato district, involving the erection of 108 towers, and two crossings of the Waikato River. The route is a greenfields route, in that it does not follow the route of an existing transmission line. Effects on Arapuni specifically have already been addressed in this chapter.
1540. The South Waikato District Council submitted that the transmission line would result in adverse effects on the environment: in particular that the size and scale of the towers would have landscape, visual and amenity effects on owners of land through which it passes, and on the wider community’s social and cultural well-being. The Council contended: that those effects could not be avoided, remedied or mitigated, having particular regard to the district plan; that inadequate consideration had been given to alternative routes and methods of undertaking the work; that the proposal does not recognise and provide for preservation of the natural character of lakes and rivers and their margins, and their protection from inappropriate use and development; and that it would not maintain and enhance amenity values or the quality of the environment.
1541. New Era Energy South Waikato, in submissions presented by Ms C Baldwin, raised its concerns about disturbance of farming activities, including adverse effects on soil, fencing and irrigation; restriction of aerial topdressing; safety of farm workers, and employers’ responsibilities for them; health effects of electric and magnetic fields; adverse effects on the health and well-being of livestock; effects on the ability to attract and retain farm workers; economic effects on farm businesses; negative effects on farm values; width of easement; and restrictions on potential for subdivision.
1542. A number of farmers in the South Waikato made submissions about adverse effects of the line, particularly there being better alternative methods and technology; health effects of electric and magnetic fields; visual and landscape effects; disruption of farm activities including livestock management; effects on use of farm airstrips and restrictions on aerial topdressing; interference with electronic systems for livestock management; risk of towers falling; recreation and tourism effects; inadequacy of compensation; and potential liability for outages.
1543. Drummond Dairy and Scenic Dairies, whose farm properties in the South Waikato would be crossed by the proposed line, asked that the towers be relocated to remove them from their properties, or realigned within their properties. Those requests are addressed in Chapter 14.
1544. The route of the proposed overhead line would cross Lake Maraetai at Whakamaru, downstream of the Whakamaru Hydro Station. The water in the lake is a reservoir for generation of electricity at Maraetai Hydro Station.
1545. MRP was concerned that the Grid Upgrade Project not adversely impact on its operations there. The agreement it reached with Transpower extended to the attaching of a condition to the relevant designation to the same effect as that already referred to in respect of Arapuni Hydro Station and Lake Karapiro at Arapuni.
1546. Hancock Forest Management and Carter Holt Harvey have interests in substantial forests in the South Waikato district. To the extent that their submissions sought specific local modifications to the relevant designation, that is addressed later in this chapter. Concerns raised by them about compensation, indemnification against potential liability, and third-party use of telecommunication capability of the proposed work, are addressed elsewhere in this report.
1547. Elsewhere in this report the Board specifically addresses the adequacy of the consideration given to alternative routes and methods; the landscape and visual effects of the proposed line in the South Waikato district; social effects of the Grid Upgrade Project; disturbance of farming activities; health effects of electric and magnetic fields around the line; effects on the health and well-being of livestock; the width of the easement; effects on the use of farm airstrips and aerial topdressing; interference with electronic systems for livestock management; risk of towers falling; and the relevance of compensation and potential liability for outages.
1548. On examination, submissions about effects on amenity values, and on tourism and recreation, in the South Waikato district did not raise particulars that were distinct from landscape and visual effects. To the extent that the proposed line would fail to provide for preservation of the natural character of lakes and rivers and their margins, and their protection from inappropriate development, the Board has regard to those topics in Chapter 18 in coming to its ultimate judgement on the requirements.
1549. On MRP’s submission, the Board considers its judgement on whether to uphold or withdraw the designations on the basis that if it upholds them, it will impose the condition proposed by MRP and agreed to by Transpower.
Effects on Te Miro district
1550. A number of people lodged submissions about potential effects of the proposed overhead line in Te Miro district. Most of them also submitted that the line is not needed, that the scale and capacity of the line is excessive, and urged alternative methods (especially generation in Auckland) and alternative technology.
1551. Questions of the need for the Grid Upgrade Project, the choice of that method, and the scale and choice of technology, have been addressed elsewhere in this report; specific consideration of them in respect of Te Miro district is not needed.
1552. The submitters also raised effects on the environment of Te Miro district. To the extent that they raised health effects, inadequacy of the width of the designation or easement, and insufficient consideration of environmental costs of the proposal, their submissions are included in general consideration of those topics elsewhere in this report.
1553. Although only two of the submitters from Te Miro raised landscape and visual effects in their written submissions, most of them addressed the Board on those effects during the hearing. The Board addressed the landscape and visual effects in Te Miro district in Chapter 10 of this report.
1554. One submission related to danger to aircraft movements posed by the transmission line towers. Earlier in this chapter, the Board addressed the question of effects on use of farm airstrips. In the course of that, reference was made to the expert evidence of Mr Nichol, who gave his opinion that transmission towers do not generally cause a problem as pilots operating in a district have local knowledge.
1555. The Board has no basis for doubting that this opinion is applicable to the proposed transmission line in Te Miro district.
1556. In summary, the Board accepts that the proposed transmission line would have significant adverse landscape and visual effects on the environment of Te Miro district; and that it could also have some social effects during construction and for a period of operation until the residents become used to it. Those effects would be remedied to an extent by removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line. The effects can also be mitigated to some extent by the way in which Transpower manages its relationships with local residents.
Effects on Taniwha and Waiterimu district
1557. Numerous submissions were made by farmers from the Taniwha and Waiterimu district. They raised contentions (in common with many other submitters) that: the Grid Upgrade Project is not needed; that the scale and capacity of the proposed transmission line are excessive; that alternative methods should have been adopted; that alternative technology should be used; that an alternative route should have been chosen; and that the proposed width of the designation is inadequate. The Board has addressed those general topics in earlier chapters of this report.
1558. The submitters contended that the line would have several adverse effects on the environment of the district, including risks of ill health from electric and magnetic fields; landscape and visual effects; effects on farming activities including constraints on aerial topdressing, and removal of shelter belts; effects on recreation through the district; effects on family heritage and on succession planning; and risks from sabotage or earthquake damage to the line.
1559. Elsewhere in this report the Board addresses generally questions of risks of ill health from electric and magnetic fields; landscape and visual effects; effects on farming activities and aerial topdressing; social effects including effects on family heritage and succession planning; and risks of the line collapsing.
1560. To the extent that submitters from this district argued for specific local modifications of the line (Mr G Athy, and Mr E J Mackay, and Te Hoe Holdings), those are addressed in Chapter 14.
1561. These submitters, in common with many others, raised questions of unfairness; reverse sensitivity; property devaluation; and potential liability for outages. Those topics are also addressed elsewhere in this report.
1562. In summary, the Board finds that the proposed transmission line would cause significant adverse landscape and visual effects on the environment in the Taniwha and Waiterimu districts; that it has potential for significant social effects; and for significant disruption to farming activities, especially during the construction phase.
Effects on Whitford district
1563. In respect of the Whitford district, submissions were made by the Manukau City Council, Underground in Manukau, and several landowners.
1564. They raised concerns about alternative methods; choice of technology; and demand growth, being general questions (not specific to the Whitford district) that were also raised by many other submitters, and which the Board has addressed earlier in this report.
1565. Some submissions also questioned the selection of the site for the Brownhill Substation, and suggested another site that they considered more suitable. In the event, once it was confirmed that the Brownhill Substation would be a GIS facility, with monopoles, and planting and landscaping mitigation, the challenge to the proposed site was not substantially pursued, except by Mr R and Mrs M McKenzie, Mr M A and Mrs R D Spring, and Regis Park Stage 2 Limited. Their requests for specific local modifications are addressed later in Chapter 14.
1566. Manukau City Council, Underground in Manukau, and several individual submitters contended that the proposal to take the transmission line underground should be extended further south than the Brownhill Road site proposed by Transpower. The Board accepts that underground cables would have less environmental effects than overhead line.
1567. Earlier in this chapter the Board has addressed the comparison of overhead and underground transmission, and stated its finding that although the latter has less environmental impact, there are substantial counter-indications in terms of costs of construction, installation and maintenance, and in reliability for security of supply. The cases of the submitters did not address those directly in any substantial way. Rather, they emphasised the environmental advantages, and suggested that if the transmission line is to be imposed on the community, the costs of minimising the environmental effects by underground installation should be accepted.
1568. The Board does not accept that. It understands that the basis for making decisions under the RMA calls for identification and evaluation of costs and benefits associated with a proposal, and having regard to them, along with the relevant and applicable statutory instruments, in a process that is subject to Part 2 and for the purpose stated in section 5. In doing so, the Board will have regard to the effects on the environment of Whitford (and elsewhere) of the proposal, involving overhead line to a substation at the Brownhill Road site, and underground cables from there to Pakuranga, and (eventually) to Otahuhu.
1569. The adverse effects on the Whitford environment presented by the submitters included risk of ill-health from electric and magnetic fields, landscape and visual effects of the overhead line and substation; disturbance of farming and foreclosing of property development; interruption of use of public roads, especially during construction; noise, particularly from corona discharge; inadequate width of designation; social effects; potential liability for outages; and reduction in property values.
1570. Those topics are not specific to Whitford, and are addressed more generally elsewhere in this report.
1571. In summary, the Board finds that the proposed transmission line would cause significant adverse landscape and visual effects on the environment in the Whitford district (as elsewhere along the route); it has potential for significant social effects and for significant disruption to farming activities, especially during the construction phase.
Comments on Draft Report and Decision
1572. Under section 148 of the RMA the Board released its Draft Report and Decision on the 27 May 2009. In accordance with section 148(4) of the Act, the Board invited the persons to whom the draft report had been sent to send comments on any aspects of it to the Board by the 24 June 2009. Thirty-two comments were received on a variety of issues. The Board has considered these as set out below.
Support of the Board’s findings
1573. Three submitters lodged comments in support of the Board’s findings and the process that it followed; these were Glencoal Energy Limited and the Stirling family, W Phillips and Mighty River Power Limited. The Board acknowledges those comments.
Disagreement with the Board’s findings
1574. Many submitters (L Bilby, K Brennan and G Copstick, B Burwell, J Gasnier, R Habergham, P Phillips, C Richards and C Tylden, J Self, B and C Silvester, and N and M Sweetman) expressed disappointment at the Board’s findings and reiterated their opposition to the proposal. The Board has noted these submitters’ points of view and thanks them for their thoughtful comments.
Compensation
1575. Many submitters making comments again raised their view of the inadequacy of the law relating to compensation. The Board reiterates its opinion that consideration of compensation is outside the scope of its duties.
Conditions
1576. Transpower and the eight councils who made comments on the draft report, provided the Board with helpful suggestions to correct cross-references and wording in the conditions. The Board has adopted those suggestions. The Board has also corrected the commencement date for Mighty River Power’s resource consents for the Waikato Hydro Scheme in condition 12 in Appendix F.
1577. Six councils (Manukau City and Franklin, Waikato, Matamata-Piako, Waipa and South Waikato Districts) suggested alterations to conditions, including some new conditions in appendixes C to U of the draft report. The Board invited Transpower to consider these suggested changes and provide a response to the Board.
1578. The Board has considered the council’s requests and Transpower’s responses to these requests. Nothing in the material provided by the councils to support the suggested changes to the conditions convinces the Board that the findings that the Board recorded in the draft decision should be amended. The Board also agrees with Transpower’s contention that many of the changes suggested by the councils had not been raised previously at the hearing, and that other suggested changes were an attempt to re-litigate matters that had been raised by submitters but had not been accepted by the Board.
1579. The Board considers that the time for the advancement of significant changes to the draft conditions was at the hearing, not at the time of providing comments on the draft report.
1580. The Board notes that Transpower has stated in its response to the councils’ suggested changes to conditions that it proposes to continue to work through the issues that had been raised by the councils to see where further agreement could be reached between them.
1581. The Board accepts the changes to conditions that were proposed by Franklin District Council and South Waikato District Council and that were supported or not opposed by Transpower. Those changes clarify aspects of some conditions and extend some time limits for responses from councils from 15 to 20 working days. In particular, amendments to the conditions relating to landscape mitigation assessment notices are to be provided to landowners in writing, and a requirement for an “advice note” relating to temporary road closure after the Traffic Management Plan condition.
1582. The Board accepts Transpower’s submission that it is appropriate to make these changes in all conditions for all designations because of the generic nature of the conditions for the designations along the route of the overhead line.
Further undergrounding
1583. Four parties (R Lever, P Rishworth, M and R Hunt and K Holland) submitted comments requesting further undergrounding of the line. The Board has already given its views about undergrounding in this chapter. The Board accepts that underground cables are generally proposed to be on public lands or roads, but also accepts that physical requirements for overhead lines of the scale proposed precludes them being only on public land or roads.
Transpower New Zealand Ltd
1584. The Board is grateful for Transpower’s focussed and careful comments on the draft report. The Board has incorporated the suggested corrections to condition cross-references and the corrections to the text of the draft report that were set out in Appendixes A and B of Transpower’s comments.
1585. The Board has also considered the more substantive comments by Transpower on the text within the body of the draft report and accepts the majority of these comments as helpful in clarifying the meaning and intent of the text.
1586. The text in Chapter 13 relating to the effects on local roads has been rewritten in light of comments made by both Transpower and Waikato District Council.
1587. The references to Maungatautari in the report have been checked for consistency and some amendments made to make it clear when the text refers to the upper or lower slopes of Maungatautari.
1588. Transpower asked the Board to make a number of amendments to the legal descriptions for land affected by the designations, and to include some new legal descriptions that were not in the original Notice of Requirements. The Board asked Transpower for a statutory declaration to support these changes.
1589. By its memorandum of further comments dated 3 August 2009 on the Board’s draft report, Transpower provided a statutory declaration by David James Viviers about changes of legal descriptions of land affected by proposed designations.
1590. The Board has considered Mr Viviers’ declaration, and finds that generally the proposed changes to the tables of legal descriptions of land would bring up to date the legal descriptions in the notices of requirement, or correct typographical errors; and that no new land that was not subject to the original notices of requirement would be affected by the proposed designations.
1591. Three particular changes need separate consideration.
1592. The first relates to the land occupied by existing Whakamaru Outdoor Switchyard. Mr Viviers declared that this land had been included in the relevant notice of requirement, and is correctly described in the table of land to be affected by the proposed designation.
1593. The Board has examined the map incorporated in the notice of requirement issued to the Taupo District Council and identified on it that the land occupied by the existing Whakamaru Outdoor Switchyard is shown as to be affected by the proposed designation. Therefore, the Board accepts Mr Viviers’ declaration in that respect and finds that this land was the subject of the relevant notice of requirement.
1594. The second piece of land calling for particular consideration is a small part of Franco Lane in Manukau City, which is affected by the proposed designation for the Brownhill to Pakuranga underground cable. Although it was not listed in the schedule of land affected in the original or amended notice of requirement, that part of Franco Lane was shown as affected in a map attached to an amended notice of requirement issued to the Manukau City Council in April 2007.
1595. Having identified on that map the part of Franco Lane shown as affected, the Board finds that it was subject to that notice of requirement issued to the Manukau City Council.
1596. The third piece of land calling for particular consideration is that affected by a proposed deviation of the existing Hamilton-Waihou A transmission line, being work ancillary to the proposed new overhead line to allow for the Hamilton-Waihou line to be crossed by the proposed 400-kV-capable transmission line.
1597. That land was shown on Map 10 incorporated in the notice of requirement issued to the Matamata-Piako District Council, although by oversight, legal descriptions of the land affected were not given in the schedule of land affected in the notice of requirement.
1598. The Board has examined Map 10 and has identified the delineation on it of land to be designated for the Hamilton-Waihou line; and the Board finds that the land shown on the proposed designation for that line was subject to that notice of requirement issued to the Matamata-Piako District Council.
Ardmore Airport Tenants and Users Committee
1599. The Board has noted and thanks the Committee for their considered comment, particularly regarding alternatives. The Board considers that the opportunity to comment does not give the Board the opportunity to receive further evidence, or review its findings on the evidence it did receive.
1600. In its comments, the Committee also questioned the independence of Mr Sullivan from Airbiz. The Committee comment appears to treat a reference to Mr Sullivan as being independent of Airbiz as denying his role as a contributor to the Airbiz report. Though Mr Sullivan contributed to the Airbiz report, he did so in an independent capacity and can therefore be understood to be independent of Airbiz itself.
Auckland Regional Council
1601. The Board received constructive comments from the Regional Council on minor matters, all of which have been adopted.
Federated Farmers
1602. The Board notes the comments by Federated Farmers about the consideration of alternative routes and methods. The Board has given its decision and reasoning on the adequacy of the consideration of alternatives in Chapter 7.
1603. In regard to compensation, the Board gives in Chapter 16 its reasons for holding that its authority does not extend to compensation and nothing in Federated Farmers’ comments persuades the Board that its finding in that respect is incorrect.
1604. Although Federated Farmers seek to find an implication in paragraph [2284] concerning their attitude towards the Wakatipu case, the Board is unaware of any basis for such an implication.
1605. Finally, in regard to the comment made by Federated Farmers that the proposal does not promote sustainable management, the Board states in Chapter 18 its judgement that the purpose of the Act would be more fully served by granting the proposal, and is not persuaded that this is unsound.
Franklin District Council
1606. Franklin District Council raised again, through its comments, the matter of Outline Plans of Works. The Board adheres to the opinion stated in Chapter 16 that the application to a particular case of the Outline Plan of Works provisions of 176A of the RMA is outside the scope of the Board’s authority to decide on the proposed designations.
Manukau City Council
1607. The Board is grateful for the Council’s full and considered comments and notes with disappointment the Council’s disagreement with key factual findings and judgements.
1608. The Council referred in paragraphs 4-15 to Outline Plans of Works. The Board does not accept that it has any authority in respect of that topic, and leaves it to the application of section 176A.
1609. The Council refers at paragraph 16-33 to its views on the inadequacy of the law, on compensation. The Board understands this to be a political question, not one of the application of the law and reiterates its opinion that it has no authority to impose conditions on that topic.
Matamata-Piako District Council
1610. The Board thanks the Council for its concise comments on the draft report. The Council sought the reference to the New Zealand Standards for Noise in the conditions be updated from the 1991 Standards to the more recent 2008 Standards.
1611. Transpower provided a response to this comment by the Council. The Board accepts the reasoning provided by Transpower that a specific reference to a NZ Standard in resource consent conditions is not automatically updated to the latest version of a Standard, when a new Standard is promulgated. The Board therefore declines to change the citation in the conditions from the 1991 to the 2008 Noise Standards.
B and B McAlley
1612. The Board thanks the McAlleys for their fully considered comment and notes their opinion about objectives and policies of the Manukau City District Plan and the social effects. Their opinion about deficiencies of the law on compensation is evidently shared with other submitters. However, despite the beliefs of Mr and Mrs McAlley that the Board has the power to make recommendations on that topic, the Board is satisfied that it has not, and gives its reasons in Chapter 16 for coming to that conclusion.
R J McQueen
1613. The Board received a comment from Dr McQueen explaining his opinion that the draft decision is wrong and that the Board had not applied key tests that it should have done. The Board has considered those comments but remains satisfied that it has applied the tests prescribed by law, and has explained as best it could its reasons for its ultimate judgement.
I Newsome
1614. The Board is grateful for Ms Newsome’s comments, but these are not within the scope of the Board’s authority. The Board invites her to discuss these questions with the Transpower case manager.
P Phillips, C Richards and C Tylden
1615. The Board thanks Messrs Phillips, Richards and Tylden for their comments. The Board has amended the headings in the tables in Chapter 19 from “easement width” to “designation width” in response to comments made by these submitters and Transpower.
1616. The Board sought Transpower’s response to the submitter’s comments about an access track and a hayshed on Mr Richard’s property. The Board believes that the draft report accurately reflects the evidence about these matters put before the Board at the hearing. The Board understands that Transpower and Mr Richards have discussed an alternative to the original access track since the hearing. These subsequent discussions are not a topic that the Board can include in this report.
H M Seales
1617. The Board thanks Mr Seales for his thoughtful comments. The Board understands that it would be more acceptable to people in his position if there was no provision for betterment, that farmers whose lands are badly impacted had the opportunity to sell to Transpower at what they consider a realistic price, and if compensation paid to landholders was not taxable. However, none of these is a matter within the Board’s authority, and there is nothing the Board can do to assist him in these respects.
R Smart
1618. The Board thanks Dr Smart for his full comments on health risks. The Board heard conflicting points of view, and has given its reasons in Chapter 9 for the findings it has made.
South Waikato District Council
1619. The Board has considered South Waikato District Council’s comments on the ACRE model, and remains of the opinion that in all the circumstances, Transpower’s consideration of alternatives adequately addressed the need to avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse landscape effects in the South Waikato District.
1620. On the Council’s request for the use of monopoles and undergrounding of cables, the Board addresses those topics in Chapters 10, 13 and 15 where it explains its approach to those suggestions. The Board considered the river crossing at Arapuni carefully, and concluded that monopoles were not justified and stated reasons in Chapter 10 and Chapter 15.
Waikato District Council
1621. The comments made on behalf of the Waikato District Council relate to the Board’s consideration and findings in relation to construction traffic effects, and conditions of the designation in respect of them.
1622. The Council commented that the description in paragraph [1447] of the draft report of the conditions that it had requested did not accurately reflect what the Council had asked for. The Board has therefore re-worded the second sentence of that paragraph, to more fully describe the scope of the conditions sought by the Council.
1623. The Council also commented that paragraph [1450] of the draft report confuses two issues, because of the different subject-matter of the preceding two paragraphs. To avoid risk of confusion, the Board has moved the text of paragraph [1450] and inserted it to follow directly after paragraph [1446].
1624. The Council commented that paragraph [1451] incorrectly stated that there had been a meeting with it. To correct that, the Board has omitted the second sentence of paragraph [1451].
1625. The Council commented that paragraph [1455] of the draft report was incorrect by stating “…the Council did not state in its submission the condition that it wanted…”, citing draft conditions produced as an exhibit by a witness called by it, Mr Gray. However, the Board has verified that neither those, nor any other, conditions were stated in the Council’s submission on the requirement for designation in the Council’s district plan, lodged on 8 October 2007. So the text of paragraph [1455] stands.
1626. The Council also commented that paragraph [1456] of the draft report was incorrect in stating that agreement had been reached over compensation for short-term damage. The Board has therefore omitted the text of what was paragraph [1456] of the draft report.
1627. The remainder of the Waikato District Council’s comments on the Board’s draft report are directed to advancing grounds for the Board to reconsider its decision declining to impose the draft conditions produced by Mr Gray, and to impose them.
1628. The Board understands that the Council is disappointed at having failed to persuade the Board to impose them. However, the Board also understands that the opportunity to comment on its draft report does not extend to provide for the Board to review the substance of the decisions contained in the draft report to the extent of granting what it had decided to decline. In short, it is not an opportunity for relitigating matters in issue.
1629. Paragraph [1459] of the draft report required amendment consequential on the amendments itemised above, without altering the substance of the decision stated in it.
Waikato Regional Council
1630. The Board has made the corrections requested to the numbering of the resource consent conditions requested by the Waikato Regional Council.
1631. The Waikato Regional Council and Transpower both requested that condition 9 in Appendix U (for consents 116904, 116902 and 116905) refer to an updated technical report. The Board asked Transpower to explain what authority the Board has to refer to a document that was not in existence at the time that the Board’s hearing was completed.
1632. The Board agrees with Transpower’s explanation that the Board does not have the authority to do so, and has not updated this reference in the conditions.
Waipa District Council
1633. The Board appreciates the comments received from Waipa District Council. The Council’s comments about conditions have been addressed above with the comments made by other councils about the conditions.
1634. The Council also raised the issue of the removal of the ARI-PAK A line, as did Messrs Phillips, Richards and Tylden. The Board sought a response from Transpower about this issue. The Board understands that some of the designation for the 400-kV-capable line will overlap with the existing ARI-PAK A line and some of the ARI-PAK A line is outside of the designation.
1635. The Board is satisfied that the conditions covering activities within the designation are appropriate to deal with the effects of removal of those parts of the ARI-PAK A line within the designation. The Board notes that Transpower has stated in an “advice note” its commitment to applying these conditions in relation to sections of the ARI-PAK A line outside the designation.
1636. The Board also notes that there is no current designation for the ARI-PAK A line, so no action is required by Transpower under section 182 of the RMA.
Endnote 1. RMA, ss171(1)(d) & 104(1)(d).
2. RMA s 6(e).
3. RMA s 7(a).
4. RMA s 8.
5. Transcript 7/10/08, p 32.
6. Transcript 7/10/08, p 32.
7. As he then was, now a High Court Judge.
8. WAI 1294.
9. Transcript 7/10/08, p 33.
10. Transcript 8/10/08, p 24.
11. Transcript 8/10/08 p 23.
12. Transcript 22/07/08, p 8.
13. Transcript 21/07/08, pp 2, 3, 7, & 9.
14. Transcript 21/07/08, p 12.
15. Ibid, pp 27f.
16. Transcript 24/07/08, p 12.
17. Transcript 23/07/08, pp 9, 11, 12, 14.
18. Transcript 5/08/08, p 9.
19. Transcript 12/09/08, pp 22f.
20. Transcript 23/09/08, p 49.
21. Transcript 24/09/08, p 34.
22. Transcript 24/09/08, p 37.
23. Transcript 24/09/08, p 46.
24. Citing RMA, s 36A.
25. Transcript 20/05/08, p 7.
26. State-owned Enterprises Act 1986, Part 1 4(1).
27. Ms Brennan, Mr Copstick, Mr R McKenzie, and Mr M Spring.
28. Dr Phillips reported letters and newsletters being sent to more than 10,000 properties.
29. Transcript 7/07/08, p 21.
30. Transcript 24/09/08, p 9.
31. Transcript 24/09/08, p 6.
32. Transcript 22/05/08, p 34.
33. Transcript 24/09/08, p 11.
34. Ibid, p 12.
35. Ibid, p 9.
36. Ibid, p 11.
37. Idem.
38. Ibid, p 14.
39. Transcript 23/05/08, pp 5f.
40. Ibid, p 6.
41. Transcript 10/09/08, pp 11–13.
