Chapter 14: Local specific modifications
1637. Many submitters asked the Board to make specific modifications to the requirement, mostly local alterations to the route, use of monopoles instead of lattice towers, or laying cables underground instead of overhead lines.
1638. As stated in Chapter 4, the Board holds that, by combination of sections 147(8) and 172(2) of the RMA, its power to modify the requirement is limited to changes that do not render it inconsistent with the requirement as notified.
1639. Mr Noble noted the flexibility built into the notices of requirement for lateral movement of the transmission towers. It provides for moving towers up to 5 metres laterally and up to 40 metres along the alignment without rendering the requirement inconsistent with that notified.
G Athy
1640. Mr Athy has an organic glasshouse business on a 1-acre block in Taniwha Road near Te Kauwhata. By his submission he opposed the transmission line as un-needed, out-of-scale, and on too narrow an easement. In presenting his submission, Mr Athy contended that the transmission line would be 75 metres from his property; and that it would destroy the business and its resale value; and referred to uncertainty in development options. He told the Board that the existing 110-kV line is within 35 metres of his boundary.
1641. If the Board confirms the designation generally, there is no sufficient basis for modifying the route to take it further from Mr Athy’s property.
Camperdown Holdings Ltd
1642. By its submission, Camperdown Holdings Limited (CHL) described its interest in developing an unformed section of Caldwells Road (which is part of the route for the proposed underground cable between Brownhill and Pakuranga), and in designing a satisfactory intersection of that road with Sandstone Road, with particular reference to sight-lines. In the submission, CHL did not ask for a specific modification to the requirement in respect of the underground cable.
1643. At the hearing, CHL announced that it had reached agreement with Transpower over a designation condition for protection of sight-lines at the intersection, and an agreement with Manukau City Council over depth of the cable at the intersection to protect it from future road works. Transpower included such a condition in the set of specific conditions it proposed for the cable designation.
1644. To the extent relevant to the Board’s Inquiry, those agreements would be given effect by Conditions 4 and 4B of the proposed specific conditions for the Pakuranga to Brownhill underground cable route.
1645. If the Board confirms the requirement, it will impose those conditions.
K H Carter and J E Carter
1646. The submissions by Mr and Mrs Carter (0348 and 0349) were in standard form, and stated their opposition to the proposed transmission line in general on grounds of not being needed, there being better alternatives, it being out-of-scale, and on too narrow an easement. Each submission stated explicitly that the submitter did not want the proposal modified by conditions, but wanted it turned down completely.
1647. At the hearing, Mr Carter stated that he and his wife have a deer stud on land overlooking Lake Karapiro; that an existing pylon on the property would be removed, and a new pylon erected on a neighbour’s property, with the lines passing over a corner of the Carters’ property. He asserted that a number of pylons would be visible from the property, that it is not a question of ‘not in our back yard’, but that the project is basically flawed.
1648. If the Board upholds the designation generally, there is no sufficient basis for modifying the route to take it further from the Carters’ property.
Hancock Forest Management and Carter Holt Harvey
1649. By its submission (No 1014) Hancock Forest Management (NZ) Limited (HFML) stated that it manages forest holdings owned by Taumata Plantations Limited and by Carter Holt Harvey Properties that would be affected by the requirement. HFML asked that the requirement be declined, or amended to extend the designation width. The submission did not specify the exact width sought.
1650. At the hearing, counsel (Mr R Simpson) appeared on behalf of HFML and also for CHHL, presenting a joint case for both. CHHL had not lodged a submission on the requirement, and counsel did not clarify the nature of its standing in the Inquiry. Evidence was also given on behalf of CHHL by its Environment Manager, Mr Parrish, in which he summarised the relief to which he considered CHHL was entitled. Mr Parrish had himself lodged a submission which contained no indication that he did so as an agent for CHHL.
1651. In addressing the Board on behalf of both HFML and CHHL, Mr Simpson sought that any designations and resource consents be made subject to conditions requiring Transpower to take additional steps to protect the network from damage, such as: to acquire additional land establishing a wider corridor than the current proposal of 130 metres; and use of overhead chains, signs, and other safeguards where contractors cross the corridor to gain access to forestry blocks. Counsel also proposed that the network be re‑routed to circumvent production forestry land; or conditions requiring Transpower to acquire additional land for a buffer zone.
1652. Evidence was given on behalf of HFML by Ms Strang, its environment manager. This witness stated that the proposed designation route passes through Kinleith Forest for a distance of approximately 18.6 kilometres, of which 4.8 kilometres are on Taumata Plantations land, and 13.8 kilometres on forests held under forestry right, the underlying land being owned by CHHL to which it is to be returned following harvest.
1653. Ms Strang stated that the notice of requirement provides an indicative maximum width of the proposed designation of 100 metres; and that subsequent discussions with Transpower had identified that the minimum width required to protect the proposed lines from damage due to tree toppling is 130 metres. The witness stated that land (mostly steeper country) has been identified along the route outside of the 130-metre corridor, where production forestry would become impracticable due to the presence of the power lines. She reported the view of harvesting staff that such areas would need to be harvested prior to construction of the proposed power line, and retired.
1654. However, Ms Strang brought the Board up to date by presenting an addendum to her evidence statement: she reported that Transpower and HFML had reached agreement by which the concerns she had detailed had been resolved to HFML’s satisfaction, and that the agreement is to be formalised by a single easement.
1655. In cross-examination, Ms Strang confirmed that HFML accepted the 130-metre designation width.
1656. In respect of local modification of the requirement, Mr Parrish stated that he would like to see the width of the designation significantly increased. However, during the cross-examination of Mr Parrish, Counsel for CHHL (Mr Simpson) announced to the Board that it consented to widening the requirement to 130 metres, subject to resolving issues of liability for outages, and for damage to forests by fire.
1657. In his rebuttal evidence (and in cross-examination by Mr Simpson), Mr J C Miles (Transpower’s Property Manager) confirmed that Transpower proposes a designation width of a minimum of 130 metres in forestry areas, and wider in some places.
1658. The right of a landowner to grant an easement over its land is independent of that land being designated. As explained in Chapter 16, although issues of liability may be relevant in negotiations over the possible grant of an easement, the Board holds that they are not relevant to whether the requirement or designation should be confirmed or withdrawn; they are beyond the scope of the Board’s Inquiry, and beyond its power to direct.
1659. The parties affected (being Transpower, HFML and CHHL) are in agreement, and no submitter opposes, the widening of the designation through Kinleith Forest to 130 metres. The Board accepts Transpower’s submission that this modification would not alter the essential nature of the project (the route and physical structures being unchanged), and would not be inconsistent with the requirement as notified. So if the Board upholds the requirement, it will direct that the width of the designation where it passes through Kinleith Forest is to be 130 metres.
Drummond Dairy and Scenic Dairies
1660. On 4 October 2007 a submission (No 0852) was lodged by Agricultural Investments Limited (AIL). By that submission, AIL stated that it was the conditional purchaser of certain land at Waotu that would be crossed by the proposed designation; and asked that the towers be realigned to remove them from the property completely, or relocated as shown on a map attached to the submission (Map B) as a preferred route.
1661. On 5 October 2007 a submission (No 1001) was lodged by Mr K Baker, who stated that he was a director of Lichfield Farms Limited (LFL), as owner of 1135 hectares of dairy farming land; and that LFL wished to oppose the granting of resource consent. That submission did not contain any request for any specific local modification of the requirement or designation.
1662. At the hearing, counsel for Drummond Dairy Limited (DDL) and Scenic Dairy Limited (SDL) presented submissions in support of AIL’s submission, stating that DDL and SDL are successors in title to the submissions lodged by AIL and LFL, having purchased from AIL parts of the land formerly owned by LFL.
1663. None of them AIL, LFL, DDL or SDL had lodged any evidence statement with the Board within the time originally stipulated, nor within the extended time allowed; nor had any of them applied for a waiver to adduce evidence that had not been lodged in time.
1664. As well as legal submissions presented by counsel for DDL and SDL, Mr G Evans presented submissions on behalf of DDL; and Mr R P Landers on behalf of SDL.
1665. The general thrust of the submissions on behalf of those companies was that the designation would enable transmission towers close to farm infrastructure, which would adversely affect management and development of the farms in various respects; and seeking realignment of the route away from DDL’s and SDL’s properties, or at least realigning the designation as proposed in AIL’s submission on the lands now owned by DDL and SDL, so the line would have significantly less impact.
1666. In response, Transpower contested the claims by DDL and SDL to be successors in title to the submissions lodged by AIL and LFL. As described in evidence by Messrs Noble and Hall, Transpower submitted that it had given consideration to the relocation suggested; and that as neither DDL nor SDL had adduced evidence, their assertions had not been tested.
1667. The Board considers first Transpower’s challenge to the entitlement of DDL and SDL to be heard in support of AIL’s submission. None of them, AIL, DDL, or SDL, adduced formal evidence to establish the DDL and SDL are now owners of land that was previously owned by AIL, being the subject of its submission 0852. Even so, Mr Evans stated in his submission that DDL’s farm is one of three properties previously collectively known as Lichfield Farms Limited, Scenic Farm being another; and that Drummond Farm had been syndicated by AIL, and taken over by a group of investors in December 2007. Mr Landers stated in his submission that SDL had been part of the Lichfield Farms Group that had been split into three equity partnerships, and that SDL owns and operates Scenic Farm.
1668. The statements by Mr Evans and Mr Landers did not describe the succession of ownership of the land in legal language, nor in evidence statements lodged prior to the hearing that would allow for considered cross-examination. Mr Hall gave evidence consistent with their statements that the property had been sold by LFL on 12 November 2007. There being no evidence to the contrary, the Board considers the statements by Messrs Evans and Landers and the evidence of Mr Hall an adequate basis for finding (as it does) that, as current owners of parts of the land being the subject of the AIL submission, DDL and SDL were entitled to be heard in support of AIL’s submission as successors of AIL.
1669. The Board turns from the question of standing to the merits of DDL’s and SDL’s cases for re-routing the designation through their lands as sought in AIL’s submission. There is no evidence as such in support of those cases, only submissions by Messrs Evans and Landers that were not able to be tested by cross-examination. There is evidence by Mr Noble to the effect that the re-routing would extend significantly outside the designation boundaries; that it would encroach on a property owned by Te Raparahi Trustees and affect the alignment and number of towers on a neighbouring Maxwell Farms property; and that it would be significantly more expensive as it would add approximately 450 metres in length and require an additional tower and a heavy strain tower. There is also evidence by Mr Hall of having visited the properties and, acknowledging construction impacts, giving his opinion that the proposed line would not adversely affect the productivity of the land. Neither of those witnesses was cross-examined on behalf of AIL, DDL or SDL.
1670. On Mr Noble’s evidence, the Board finds that the proposed modification of the requirement would be inconsistent with the requirement notified. The Board accepts Mr Noble’s evidence about consequential effects on other properties, and Mr Hall’s opinion about the productivity of the land not being affected adversely. Therefore, the Board declines to modify the requirement as sought by AIL, DDL and SDL.
Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family
1671. By their submission (1070) Glencoal Energy Limited, Mrs M J Stirling, Ms J J Stirling and Mr A J C Stirling sought that the location of towers 88 and 89 be moved to avoid land under which their coal deposits lie.
1672. At the hearing, the submitters and Transpower informed the Board that they had reached agreement by which Towers 88 and 89 would be shifted, and other conditions of the designation are proposed, to reduce the impact on harvesting the submitters’ coal resource.
1673. Statements of evidence by Mr Coleman and Ms Stirling were presented to the Board, and an affidavit by Dr I R Brown (a senior chartered professional engineer specialising in geological engineering) was lodged, in which he confirmed that the alteration to the line route and the proposed conditions would address the issues that he would have raised in evidence.
1674. The Board was informed that the effect would be that one tower would be moved by about 35 metres, another by 125 metres, that there would be increased clearance above the proposed State Highway 2 bypass to the north of Tower 88, and uniform line span lengths.
1675. Mr Noble gave rebuttal evidence that the only party potentially directly affected is Transit New Zealand (as it was then called), which had advised Transpower in writing that it had no objection. He stated that he did not consider there would be any impact on other parties as a result of the proposed tower moves. That evidence was not challenged by cross-examination or by contradictory evidence, and the Board accepts it.
1676. The proposed specific designation conditions relate to tower heights, locations, and foundations, and to open-pit mining activities under the line.
1677. The Board accepts that the local modifications proposed by Transpower and those submitters are mitigation measures that would not alter the essential nature of the Grid Upgrade Project and are within the ambit of the relief sought by the submitters in their original submission; that the Board has authority to direct that they be made; and that, no party being prejudiced, it is appropriate that if the designation requirement is confirmed, those amendments to the proposal be made, and those conditions imposed.
V P Jones, S B Jones, and J Parry
1678. These submissions (0176, 0177 and 0178), in standard form, stated opposition to the proposed transmission line in general on grounds of not being needed, better alternatives, out-of-scale, and on too narrow an easement. Each submission made clear that the submitter did not want the proposal modified by conditions, but wanted it turned down completely.
1679. At the hearing, Mr and Mrs Jones emphasised the adverse environmental and health effects that they feared from the proposed transmission line. They stated that their home would be 93 metres from one of the largest pylons, and another would be directly in front of their view. They, and Mrs Jones’s father, Mr J Parry, maintained their opposition to the proposal as a whole, and they made no request for any modification, whether of the route or the design of the structures.
1680. Even if the Board upholds the designation, there is not, in its judgement, sufficient basis for modifying the route to take it further from Mr and Mrs Jones’s property.
E J Mackay
The submitter’s case
1681. By his submissions (0556 and 0807) Mr E J Mackay, as well as opposing the proposed line in general, also opposed the proposed alignment over the J F Mackay Estate’s farm at Taniwha, and requested that the line be moved 40 to 50 metres to the west. By Submission 0807, Mr Mackay explained that the proposed alignment would pass over an existing woolshed and a shelter belt, both of which would have to be removed, with significant impact on farming operations. He had sought advice from an engineering consultant with transmission line experience, who had advised that the move would be relatively easy and would cost significantly less than would remedial work if the proposed route is used. Mr Mackay attached a letter from the consultant, Mr W D McIntosh of Odyssey Energy Ltd, giving technical details of moving Towers 133–138 westward.
1682. At the hearing, counsel for Mr Mackay added that the current alignment would pass 111 metres from the dwelling on the property, from which it would have a very high visual impact; that the construction of the line would require removal of a shelterbelt of nine macrocarpa trees that contribute to general landscape character, and are a significant shelterbelt for livestock; and that a woolshed and implement shed would also have to be relocated. Counsel also argued that it is not reasonably necessary for the line to be located on the Mackay property exactly as proposed; and that it could be re-aligned and still achieve Transpower’s objective.
1683. Counsel identified five neighbouring properties that would be affected by the alternative alignment proposed by Mr Mackay; and stated that the owners of three of them support the re-alignment. In respect of one of the other two properties, owned by the Smith family, counsel asserted that by moving Tower 133 by 8.7 metres and increasing its height by 3.1 metres, the line would be approximately 1 to 2 metres closer to the dwelling on that property. In respect of the other property, owned by the Ian Storey family, moving Tower 134 by 17.3 metres and increasing its height by 4.1 metres would move the line 17 metres further away from the dwellings on that property; and moving Tower 15 by 25.5 metres and increasing its height by 1.6 metres would move the line about 20 metres further away from the dwelling. Counsel submitted that the impact of the relocation on those properties would be less than minor; and that the positive benefits to Mr Mackay and his neighbours would outweigh any adverse effect on neighbours who have not provided written consent; and that there are no identifiable adverse effects. Counsel also contended that the requested modification is required to mitigate adverse effects on the Mackay property; and that it is not plausible that anyone who did not lodge a submission would have done so had the proposed modified alignment been notified.
1684. Due to Mr McIntosh not being available, evidence was given by Mr R J Loveless, managing director of Odyssey Energy Ltd, of his peer review of Mr McIntosh’s report. The witness gave his opinion that within certain technical limitations declared by Mr McIntosh (arising from use of a different software version) the proposed re-alignment is a practical alternative; and that a change of structure type for Tower 138 would involve a small increase in overall cost. The witness reviewed the re-alignment by certain principles of alignment selection and tower positioning referred to by Mr Noble, and gave his opinion that it is a technically viable alternative.
1685. In cross-examination, Mr Loveless accepted that the change of structure type of Tower 138 would result in it being about 40 per cent heavier.1 He also agreed that it is technically feasible to move the woolshed.2
1686. Mr Mackay submitted that by moving Tower 138 westward by 40 to 50 metres, removal of the shelterbelt and destruction of the woolshed and yards would be avoided. He remarked that it would be decades before new plantings could provide the same level of shelter as the existing shelterbelt (which he described as a prominent landscape feature); and that removal of the shelterbelt and construction of a 52-metre-high tower and 20 conductors on the proposed alignment would have an adverse visual impact on the estate property and for members of the public using Taniwha Road.
1687. Mr Mackay also submitted that if the proposed line is moved westward, the impact on the farm business during construction of the line should be manageable, subject to availability of a reliable work schedule from Transpower.
1688. On the additional cost of constructing the line on the modified alignment, Mr Mackay submitted that it would be covered by the existing budget which, he said, is costed to an accuracy of plus or minus 20 per cent; and that the cost of relocating or rebuilding the woolshed, removing the existing sheep dip, removing trees and replacing them with fabric windbreak and shelter, and associated remedial work, is $150,000. He produced copies of letters from R M McAlpine, Hansens Farm Ltd and Mr D and Ms C Short supporting the requested re-alignment.
Transpower’s response
1689. Transpower resisted the realignment sought by Mr Mackay on two main grounds: landscape effects and engineering reasons.
1690. In his evidence-in-chief, Mr Noble stated that Mr Mackay’s request had been investigated several times, and had been declined for visual landscape reasons. The witness confirmed that in his rebuttal evidence.
1691. In his evidence-in-chief, Mr Noble explained that the requested re‑alignment would introduce a ‘dogleg’ of angles at the crossing of Taniwha Road, angling about 9 degrees to the left at Tower 138, and about 4 degrees to the right at Tower 139. He stated that Tower 136 could be shorter by about 1.5 metres; and that in its new position, Tower 138 would be about 1.5 metres higher and about 40 per cent heavier, resulting in a small increase in project cost.
1692. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Noble stated that the re-alignment described by Mr McIntosh would require repositioning six towers, would require movement of the designation over six properties (the offsets being significantly more than the 5-metre lateral movement tolerance proposed in the notice of requirement), and confirmed that it would create a ‘dogleg’ in the alignment at Tower 138.
1693. Mr Noble also described another possible realignment forming new angle points at Towers 137 and 138 (the latter being repositioned outside the proposed designation). He stated that these moves would not comply with the design principle of preferring straight consistent lines to numerous angle changes or varying tower heights and spacings; but he acknowledged that it would be technically possible from an engineering perspective.
1694. In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Lister explained that there are both benefits and ‘disbenefits’ of the requested realignment. He identified the main landscape benefit as retention of three macrocarpa trees, and also some visual amenity benefit for views from Mr Mackay’s house; and the disbenefits as introduction of a ‘dogleg’ in the line, and the need for a heavier suspension tower. He placed greater value on maintaining a straight alignment.
1695. In cross-examination, Mr Lister accepted that the realignment sought by Mr Mackay would help avoid very high visual impacts, but stated that it would cause different visual amenity effects on the wider community by introducing a ‘dogleg’ in the line; though he accepted that transient views from the road would have lesser impact on the view than effects on those who reside on the property and wanting to develop farm tourism.3
1696. Shown two possible alternative alignments that had been presented by Mr Noble, Mr Lister gave his opinion that the second of them, with the sharper ‘dogleg’, would have the greater effect, but both would have an adverse effect (but not very high) on people outside the property.4 Mr Lister said that he had tried to avoid recommending changes that would introduce ‘doglegs’ into the line.5
1697. The limited extent of Mr Lister’s knowledge of the existing environment that would be affected is evident from his not having been on the Mackay property,6 and being uncertain about the number of macrocarpa trees in the shelterbelt that would have to be removed.7
1698. Mr Hall, an agricultural and farm management consultant, gave his opinion that it would be relatively easy to relocate the existing woolshed, build new sheep yards, and replace existing farm storage sheds. He gave his opinion that the macrocarpa trees are not a true shelterbelt, but could provide limited shade and shelter; though he considered that they are a health risk for dairy cows in calf. He considered that the impact of removal of this cluster of trees would be minor.
Consideration
1699. The Board accepts that the requested re-alignment of the designation would be technically feasible, though at increased cost; that it would mitigate adverse effects on the view from the dwelling on the Mackay property and from the road; and that it could avoid removal of the stand of macrocarpa trees (which would not be effectively replaced for many years), and avoid relocation of the woolshed and implement shed.
1700. The Board also accepts that the re-alignment would not conform with the principle of preferring straight alignments of towers, and minimising angle changes, and varying tower heights and spacings; that by introducing a ‘dogleg’ in the alignment, it would itself result in an adverse visual effect on the environment; and that it would increase adverse effects on the Smith and Ian Storey properties, the owners and occupiers of which do not consent to the re-alignment.
1701. The Board does not accept Mr Mackay’s contention that the resulting effects on those properties would be less than minor; nor does it accept that the positive benefits to Mr Mackay and his neighbours should prevail over the effects on the Smith and Ian Storey properties. Rather, the Board finds that the requested re-alignment and relocating six towers, including construction of a strain tower and creating a ‘dogleg’, and altering the designation over six properties, would be inconsistent with the requirement as notified. Therefore, the Board declines to modify the requirement in the way described in Mr Mackay’s submission.
Manukau City Council
1702. By its submission, the Manukau City Council asked for local modifications to the proposal: that the transmission lines be underground north from the flight paths of Ardmore Aerodrome; that if the overhead transmission line is approved, it is to be limited to 220 kV, with consequential changes to pylon design, scale and appearance to minimise impacts; and that the Brownhill Substation be declined, as a more appropriate location exists.
1703. The Council also asked the Pakuranga Substation be gas-insulated not air-insulated switch gear, but did not pursue that request, nor call evidence to support it. The Council also made requests about conditions to be attached to the designation, and subsequently reached agreement with Transpower in those respects.
1704. Elsewhere in this report the Board has given its findings on whether the extent to which the line is to be underground should be prolonged further south; on whether the overhead line should be limited to 220 kV instead of 400‑kV-capable; and on changes in pylon design, scale and appearance. The remaining request for a local modification relates to the location of the Brownhill Substation. However, that was not pursued in the submissions presented on the Council’s behalf; and in cross-examination Mr Freke explained that the location of the substation was consequential on the request for more extensive underground cabling, the main concern being the overhead lines rather than the substation per se.8 As the Board has not been persuaded to modify the requirement in that respect, the challenge to designating a transition station and substation at the Brownhill site falls as well.
Matamata-Piako District Council
1705. By its submission (1113) the Matamata-Piako District Council asked that the transmission line be installed underground, or that the requirement be withdrawn if the impacts are incapable of being mitigated; more particularly, it sought that the line be installed underground along the western periphery of Morrinsville; and it sought–
That if alternative routes exist which can minimise the impact of the proposed transmission line on the productive capacity of the land resource then that the notice of requirement be modified accordingly.
1706. At the hearing, to the extent that the Council’s opening submissions related to local modifications to the proposal, the focus was on the effects of the proposed line close to the western entry to Morrinsville, urging strongly that this part be placed underground, or if not, that monopoles be used.
1707. Mr D Phillips, an urban designer, gave his opinions that it would be a mistake to justify the route of the proposed line at the western approach to Morrinsville, due to significant visual impact for travellers entering the town; and that there is likely to be residential and rural-residential development on the western side of Morrinsville within the next 20 years (referring to his expectation that current zoning would be replaced).
1708. This witness had not himself carried out statistical analysis to support assumptions about projected growth of the town, and in cross-examination stated his belief that another witness, Mr Rademeyer, had been involved in some statistical analysis.9 Mr Phillips also referred to enormous growth in building consents and subdivision applications in the last two years, but provided no figures or other data about that;10 he agreed that he had not taken into account availability of servicing of land for future development, nor natural hazards or geotechnical issues (beyond his own understanding from site visits), and though ecological issues may have come into it, he had not taken high-class soils into account.11 He had not identified floodplains of the Piako River or the Waitakaruru Stream in relation to future development of the town.12
1709. This witness also stated that studies about urban growth or growth potential had not been adopted in any Council reports or annual plan (though he referred to a current process of changing some of the plans), nor in any consultation document for public comment.13 He also accepted Statistics New Zealand population projections for the district of which the low and medium projections are for declines, and the highest is an increase of 3000 people over 25 years.14
1710. Mr Rademeyer gave his opinion that Morrinsville will develop as a dormitory town for Hamilton commuters by expanding to the west, although he conceded that the district plan does not provide for future growth of the town beyond the existing industrial and rural-residential zones. He stated that the proposed transmission line would be an impediment to future growth to the west.
1711. In cross-examination, Mr Rademeyer agreed that no further statistical analysis had been made since Statistics New Zealand had found that the population of the district is likely to remain constant over the next 20 or 25 years;15 agreed that existing zoning has capacity for 1300 additional dwellings in a town that currently has about 2500 dwellings;16 and also agreed that many things could affect growth projections as a dormitory town.17
1712. Ms Gilbert referred in her evidence to the western approach to Morrinsville, describing the view of the proposed towers to the south as transitory and of incongruous scale, and visually prominent against a bare hillside and skyline; and to the north dwarfing the existing vegetation. She argued that the towers would further reduce the quality of visual landscape in the western approach, and discourage future development that seeks to enhance the western edge of the town.
1713. Ms Gilbert gave the opinion that use of monopoles in the vicinity of Morrinsville is worthy of consideration, although she accepted that a transition between monopoles and lattice towers is likely to be visually discordant. This witness considered that underground cable installation would provide the optimal solution, but gave her understanding that this option would be prohibitively expensive.
1714. In cross-examination, Ms Gilbert agreed that in the same location a monopole would be the same height, and the conductors would be the same size, as a lattice tower, and the base footprint would still be large; but she considered their visual character aesthetically preferable.18
1715. The Matamata-Piako District Council’s request that the transmission line be re-routed to minimise the impact on the productive capacity of the land resource is problematic for three reasons. First, it is vague about where the new route is proposed to pass. Secondly, it is clear that it is not a minor deviation that is sought, but an entirely different route. That would be inconsistent with the requirement as notified, and outside the limit of the Board’s power to modify the requirement.
1716. Thirdly, the evidence did not sustain a finding that the transmission line would have a significant impact on the productive capacity of the land. Mr Orbell accepted in cross-examination that by and large the line through the Matamata-Piako District almost entirely avoids Class 1 and Class 2 land,19 and that virtually no land would be taken out of productive use as a result of replacing the existing Arapuni-Pakuranga line with the proposed line.20 Mr M B O’Connor’s survey of opinions by landholders did not provide a probative basis for finding to the contrary.
1717. For those reasons the Board declines to require that the proposed transmission line be re-routed.
1718. The Council’s request that a section of overhead line along the western edge of Morrinsville be replaced by underground cables or monopoles was based on an expectation of rural-residential and residential development around the western approach to Morrinsville within the next 20 or 25 years. The Board is not persuaded that this expectation is soundly based, neither in the extent of likely demand, nor in the location of future development. The district plan does not support it. So in the Board’s judgement, the Council’s grounds for modifying the requirement to replace overhead line with underground cables, or to replace lattice towers with monopoles, do not justify the Board requiring either.
1719. Ms Gilbert’s opinion that the visual character of monopole towers is aesthetically preferable to that of lattice towers is shared by some (but not all) of the landscape architects who gave evidence, among whom there is general agreement that a transition between monopoles and lattice towers in the same view can be discordant. It is not clear how that discordance could be avoided if monopoles were used to support the proposed overhead line in the open country to the west of Morrinsville.
1720. The Board’s overall judgement is not to make any modification to the requirement as notified in the vicinity of Morrinsville.
Orini Downs Station Ltd, Orini Hilltops Ltd, Waikato Quarries Ltd and Perry Aggregates Ltd
1721. These four companies have various interests in respect of land at Tauhei used for farming and for quarrying. By their submissions (0837, 0838, 0839 and 0840), in addition to opposition to the proposed transmission line in general, they sought local modifications in re-alignment of the proposed line on their properties in recognition of the long-term strategic value of quarriable rock reserves; and also sought a uniform easement width of at least 75 metres across the property. None of those submissions identified with particularity the re-alignment requested.
1722. Those requests were pursued by these submitters at the Board’s hearing. It was contended that the proposed line would divide the dairy farm; would double the area of it on which spray and fertiliser could not be spread from the air; would preclude use of a potential staff housing site; and would require removal or trimming of trees planted for landscaping, gully stabilisation, and wetland enhancement. Reference was also made to a condition of a 2005 resource consent for quarry expansion limiting dust effects on the ARI-PAK A line.
1723. In her submissions, counsel for the submitters (Dr Forret) contended that if the requirement is confirmed, the route should be re-aligned in Orini Downs Station in recognition of the long-term strategic value of the rock reserves and operation of farming activities. Further submissions on behalf of Orini Downs Station were presented by Messrs Jamieson and Willoughby. However, neither counsel, nor those presenters, identified with specificity the re-alignment proposed; and no evidence was adduced in support of the submissions.
1724. In closing, Transpower referred to the submissions presented by Messrs Jamieson and Willoughby, and remarked that the submitters had not lodged any evidence to establish their concerns, so depriving Transpower of the opportunity to give a detailed response to any site-specific issues raised; and submitted that factual assertions in the submissions presented by Messrs Jamieson and Willoughby should be given little, if any, weight.
1725. Mr Rasul gave evidence that the proposed alignment and tower positions had been established in the ACRE process (including consultation); and that any change of alignment that may suit these submitters would impact on the affected landowners to the north and south of the Orini Downs property.
1726. Ms Allan gave evidence that the current quarry is at the closest point 230 metres from the proposed line, and that on information provided with the application for the quarry consent, any future quarry development would be on a path away from the line. This witness concluded that the submissions expressed unnecessary concern about the effect of the proposed line on the value of the quarriable rock reserves.
1727. Neither of those witnesses was cross-examined on behalf of Orini Downs Station or associated companies.
1728. The Board accepts that the linear nature of the proposed transmission line means that any re-alignment would be likely to have consequential changes to the effects on properties to the north and the south of Orini Downs Station. The particular re-alignment sought is described in the submissions in such general terms that people who may be affected could not have understood the extent of the potential effects; nor can the Board compare the effects on the environment of the proposed line with those of altering the line to suit Orini Downs Station; nor can the Board make a finding whether the modification to the requirement would be consistent with the requirement as notified.
1729. The condition on the 2005 resource consent relates to effects on the Arapuni-Pakuranga line. The resource consent condition relates specifically to the ARI-PAK A line, which is to be dismantled if the proposed new line is constructed. The condition does not extend to the proposed new Brownhill-Whakamaru line. So the Board is not persuaded that the condition accepted by these submitters on the 2005 resource consent provides a rational basis for altering the alignment of the proposed line.
1730. On the width of an easement across these submitters’ property, the original submission (professionally prepared) specifically refers to the easement, not to the designation. The distinction in substance between the designation and the easement was identified early in the public hearing; and when (later in the hearing) the submissions of Orini Downs Station Limited and associated companies were presented, there was no suggestion that the original submissions had referred to the easement in error, or that alteration to the width of the designation had been intended.
1731. An easement is a property right over land. It is not created under the RMA, but by the owner of the land. If the owner of Orini Downs Station chooses to grant to an easement over the land for the proposed transmission line, it can, as an exercise of its property rights as owner, stipulate the width and location of the strip of land over which the easement is to apply. By contrast, the authority of decision-makers under the RMA (including the Board) is to decide whether to uphold, modify or withdraw (cancel) the designation. The possible scope of modifications to the requirement may extend to the width of the designation; but it cannot extend to the width of an easement.
1732. In summary, the Board declines the requests by Orini Downs Station and associated companies for local modifications in respect of the alignment, and in respect of the width of the easement.
M J and G Ranger
1733. By their submissions, Mrs M J Ranger (0616) and Mr G Ranger (0611) stated that the proposed line would be immediately in front of their house and view, and asked that if more lines are required they use the present corridor where the A and B lines are established.
1734. At the hearing, Mrs Ranger presented submissions on behalf of the extended Ranger family, in which she spoke on several issues important to them (including their support for upgrading the existing [Otahuhu-Whakamaru] A and B lines. But Mrs Ranger did not address the earlier request that the proposed transmission line be re-routed to the corridor in which those lines have been established.
1735. The Board infers that the Rangers no longer want the transmission line re-routed to that corridor, perhaps because of the effects on those who would be affected. The Board is not in a position to compare the effects on the environment of establishing the proposed transmission line on the notified route with those of establishing it in the corridor occupied by the existing lines. It therefore declines to modify the requirement as requested.
Regis Park Stage 2 Ltd
1736. By its submission (0765), Regis Park Stage 2 Limited (Regis Park) asked for the requirement to be modified by moving the Brownhill Substation, stipulating that it be gas-insulated, not air-insulated: requiring that the transmission line be underground within Manukau City; limiting the Brownhill-Pakuranga underground cable to the Sandstone, Whitford Park, Brownhill Roads route; and declining the Brownhill-Otahuhu underground cable.
1737. In his evidence in support of Regis Park’s submission its General Manager, Mr M Mason, asserted that the Grid Upgrade Project proposal is flawed because the site for the transition station/substation is not in the vicinity of the urban boundary; that the metropolitan urban limit in the Auckland regional policy statement is not the urban boundary; and that the line should be laid underground from much further south, to the south of Ardmore.
1738. In cross-examination, Mr Mason agreed that the Regis Park land is beyond the metropolitan urban limits currently set, and that any change to the limits needs to be agreed to by the Auckland Regional Council;21 that the Regis Park development is in the Flatbush Countryside Transition Zone,22 and that Regis Park’s undeveloped land is in the Whitford Rural A zone, and subject to Plan Change 8.23 Mr R Bruce (a director of Stage 2) gave evidence that the metropolitan urban limit is a work in progress, not a line that’s drawn in the sand that says there’s going to be no future growth outside it.24
1739. Transpower submitted that Regis Park had a misunderstanding about the metropolitan urban limits in claiming that they are a work in progress. Transpower maintained that the proposed design of the overhead line in the vicinity of Brownhill Road and the substation site are appropriate, and the proposed mitigation measures address any relevant concerns of Regis Park.
1740. Ms Allan gave evidence that two other sites for the transition station/substation had been evaluated, and that for practical reasons Transpower had decided not to proceed with either. She gave her opinion that the Brownhill Road site is an appropriate location for the development. In cross-examination, Ms Allan agreed that the gas-insulated version of the substation would take up a smaller area and footprint than the air-insulated version; and that the two other sites considered would only be possible if gas-insulated.25
1741. Mr Lister gave his opinion that potential adverse visual amenity effects of the substation would be avoided to a considerable extent by use of gas-insulation and by tubular superstructure and a monopole at Tower 5; and that the scale of the proposed building is not unknown in rural landscapes. He stated that the site is a reasonable distance from the Regis Park area, and located at a lower elevation in the valley.
1742. In cross-examination, Mr Lister agreed that he had been involved with a team that looked at a number of substation sites; he gave his opinion that the Brownhill termination point for the overhead line is the best of the options considered; and said that they had scoped around the area for other termination points as well.26 He confirmed that he had considered the effects on the Regis Park area and on development likely to occur along Redoubt Road extension; and that the most prominent part of the project for the Regis Park area by a long way would be the transition site and substation site, which includes Tower 5.27 The witness estimated that the distance from Redoubt Road and the Regis Park subdivision to Tower 5 would be about 600 metres, and explained that the line follows a valley to the south and then bends around to the east in a curve.28 The towers are not 70 metres high, and would be running in a valley between quite steep hills running away from the site; they would be prominent, but not exceptionally prominent, features.29 Mr Lister gave his understanding that the substation site would be quite tucked away from most of the Whitford Basin.30
1743. Later in cross-examination, Mr Lister described the effect of the towers on properties in the Regis subdivision as less than moderate; and he stated that about six substation sites had been considered in total, and that of these the site selected would meet the criteria best.31 He also explained that the effects of the line would be reduced by putting it on the alignment proposed, rather than through the middle of the Whitford Valley along the existing ARI-PAK A line, where it would be visible by a much wider range of people, and across the middle of the basin rather than in the periphery.
1744. Returning to the modifications requested by Regis Park, Transpower has chosen gas-insulated technology for the Brownhill Substation, and has chosen the Sandstone, Whitford Park and Brownhill Roads route for the Brownhill-Pakuranga underground cable. The Board is considering the requirement on the basis of those choices, so it is appropriate that the designation is limited to them.
1745. Regis Park’s request that the transmission line be placed underground within Manukau City was not based on grounds that stand independently of similar requests by Manukau City Council and Underground in Manukau, except to the extent that it focused on adverse effects on the landscape as viewed from its own existing and possible future development of its land.
1746. In the latter respect, the Board holds that the law requires it to ignore possible future development that is not currently permitted or authorised. The adverse effects on the landscape viewed from the existing Regis Park development would be mitigated by Transpower adopting gas-insulated technology for the substation, reducing the scale of the eventual substation buildings; by using a monopole for Tower 5; and by using a tubular structure, rather than lattice, in the transition station/substation grounds.
1747. The Board accepts the opinions of Ms Allan and Mr Lister that several sites for the transition station/substation were considered in a methodical way, from which the proposed Brownhill Road site was preferred; and judges that requiring use of another site would not be justified.
1748. The Board also accepts that the selection of the route of the overhead line was the result of a similar methodical process; and accepts Mr Lister’s opinion that the adverse landscape effects of the towers, experienced from existing and permitted or consented development on the Regis Park land, would be low to moderate. The Board judges that these effects would not justify placing underground that section of the overhead line.
1749. The other local modification requested by Regis Park was that the requirement for the proposed Brownhill-Otahuhu underground cable be declined. However, that request was not specifically addressed in Regis Park’s submissions or evidence; and the Board finds that Transpower’s affirmative case for that requirement was not damaged or weakened by Regis Park’s submissions or evidence.
N G Richards Farms Ltd, C C and M A Tylden and
P J and V R Phillips
1750. By its submission (No 0894), N G Richards Farms Limited stated it wanted the project totally stopped while alternatives are pursued, such as a HVDC line. It contended that the proposed AC transmission line poses a health risk (particularly of cancers), that it would be an environmental disaster, that the easement is too narrow, and that the project would significantly devalue its property.
1751. By their submissions in standard form, Mr and Mrs Tylden (No 0593) and Mr and Mrs Phillips (Nos 0724 and 0735) stated that they did not want conditions, they wanted the applications wholly turned down.
1752. At the hearing Mr C Richards presented the submissions of N G Richards Farms Ltd, and the Tylden and Phillips families. Mr Richards urged that the line be relocated sideways by about 12 metres to the west to allow maintenance of boundary fences and electric fences for controlling livestock; and to avoid having to shift a hay barn. He acknowledged that this could affect the property of a Mr Josevich, as well as other landowners Mr Richards was representing; and that he had been advised by Transpower that the route alteration he wanted could also have a consequential effect on the proposed line crossing the existing Hamilton-Waihou 110-kV line, though Mr Richards considered that the crossing would actually be easier.
1753. Mr Patrick gave evidence that it is now proposed to access the tower site on the Richards property from the neighbouring property adjacent to the western boundary; and that the access across the Richards property would be less than 200 metres long, with a carriageway width of up to 4 metres, and would avoid the existing drive, trees, daffodils and sheep yards of concern to Mr Richards.
1754. None of these submitters had asked for alteration of the route in initial submissions, and none lodged a statement of evidence at the time directed, or even later. So counsel for Transpower did not have opportunity to make a considered response to the suggestion, nor to cross-examine on it. The Board acknowledges that Transpower has responded to Mr Richards’s concern, and judges that local modification of the requirement is not warranted.
P F Robinson
1755. By his initial submission (No 0094), Dr P F Robinson asked that the requirement for the overhead line be turned down in whole. By a later submission (No 0643), Dr Robinson again asked for refusal of consent, and added that if consent is to be granted, he wanted re-routing of the line to avoid a stand of trees, or ecological compensation.
1756. At the hearing, Dr Robinson gave evidence of having been told that an important stand of mature kahikateas in excess of 1 hectare on his property would have to be removed; explained the landscape and ecological values that they contribute; and argued that removal of them would have a devastating effect for him and for the community. He asserted that the proposed route would place the proposed line too close to existing OTA-WKM A and B lines for prudence, and argued that there is scope for moving the line so the trees would not be affected.
1757. Dr Robinson did not propose a specific alternative route, and when asked about that in cross-examination, he referred to at least two other routes, further to the east, that had been seriously looked at by Transpower, indicating that there is some scope for realignment. He acknowledged that people with greater expertise than himself would need to look at that. He also acknowledged that he had discussed replacement plantings with Mr S H Beale, and remarked that there is no way that those trees could be replaced. He conceded that he was satisfied that he could manage the effects on his farm that might affect its organic status.32
1758. In response, Transpower observed that no evidence or other material had been provided about where relocation would occur, or whether it would affect other properties.
1759. Mr Beale acknowledged Dr Robinson’s concerns, and stated that the tallest trees in the stand are in the order of 30 metres in height or greater. This witness described the reasons why, in general, clearance of trees in the designation is required; and also described the mitigation, including replanting with selected species within the designation, and planting in another location on an affected property, with an equivalent area of vegetation of species similar to those removed.
1760. Mr Beale described the kahikatea stand on Dr Robinson’s property as ecologically significant; and stated that this stand lies almost entirely within the designation and would need to be removed due to the height of the trees, along with a number of trees outside the designation. He stated that it is proposed to plant an area between two existing kahikatea fragments immediately to the west of the affected stand so as to eventually form one stand.
1761. Mr Lake gave evidence about the engineering design and reliability of towers and tower foundations. In the absence of any technical challenge to his evidence, the Board does not accept the prudence argument presented by Dr Robinson as a ground for moving the proposed alignment further from the existing OTA-WKM A and B lines.
1762. Ms Allan gave evidence about the ACRE process used for selecting the route for the overhead line. Dr Robinson did not present any detailed critique of the method adopted; earlier in this report the Board has given its finding on the general acceptability of it.
1763. Therefore, although the Board shares Dr Robinson’s regret at the prospect of removal of his stand of mature kahikateas, it has no basis for comparing the environmental harm with what might result from a realignment; it has no knowledge of what other properties might be affected; and is not persuaded that directing realignment of the relevant section is warranted.
Sexton Farms Limited
1764. As well as raising general grounds of opposition that are addressed in general elsewhere in this report (such as visual effects, width of easement, potential liability for outages, and inadequacy of compensation), by its submission Sexton Farms stated that the proposed route would require relocation of the whole farm infrastructure of dairy shed, farm races, water supply, effluent disposal, power lines, calf shed, three large implement sheds, and two farm homes with established gardens. That was demonstrated to the Board on site by Mr J Sexton.
1765. Even so, by its submission Sexton Farms sought that the Board withdraw the requirement: it did not seek a specific local modification to the route or the proposed line.
1766. At the hearing, Sexton Farms was represented by Mr Sexton, who made submissions on its behalf. In summary, the subjects were general opposition to the proposal as being unnecessary; potential liability for outages; absence of expectation of more generation to justify the capacity of the transmission line; economic effects, including inadequacy of compensation and costs of relocating the farm infrastructure; visual impact; adverse health effects; reverse sensitivity; climate change (including potential liability for carbon emission charges if trees removed for the line cannot be replaced); and disruption to farm activities and lifestyle (including amateur radio activities). The Board was asked to withdraw the requirement; but was not asked to direct a specific local modification of the route.
1767. In his evidence, Mr Hall acknowledged the extent of relocation of farm infrastructure that would be required.
1768. In the absence of a specific request for modification of the route, Transpower would not have been able to address such a modification, and did not do so.
1769. Therefore, the Board is not able to direct modification of the proposed route in respect of its crossing of Sexton Farms property. It expects that Transpower would need to negotiate with Mr Sexton over rights of entry, acquisition of an easement, and mitigation of losses and costs.
M A and R D Spring, R and M McKenzie
1770. By their submissions, these submitters asked for local modifications of the requirement in these respects: relocating the Brownhill Road transition station and substation from the current site to a site at the rear of Mr and Mrs Dodd’s property; and requiring that it be gas-insulated, not air-insulated.
1771. These submitters also asked that the line be laid underground further to the south than Whitford. The Board has addressed that topic earlier in this chapter.
1772. At the hearing, evidence on behalf of the Springs and the McKenzies (and other residents of lifestyle properties on Brownhill Road, apart from Mr and Mrs Dodd) was given by Mr M McKenzie.
1773. He stated that the main views from those properties are over a valley in farmland and native bush, where the proposed transmission line and towers, and the Brownhill Substation, are to be located; and that earthworks for the substation would create dust, debris and noise, and would scar the landscape.
1774. Mr McKenzie also stated that Mr and Mrs Dodd had offered Transpower a 4-hectare block of their land for the substation, where it would be less visually intrusive, being hidden behind a small ridge and a group of macrocarpa trees. He added that if the substation is approved on the Brownhill site, the submitters asked that the Board require that monopoles be installed instead of lattice towers at positions 6, 7 and 7A as well as for Tower 5.
1775. Ms Allan gave evidence that four possible sites had been considered for the substation, in what she described as a robust process; and referred to a report on it dated February 2007.33 This witness also described consideration given to the site for the substation offered by Mr and Mrs Dodd, and stated that the results had been included in a report dated July 2007 which identified reasons why the site was not proceeded with.34
1776. Mr D A Burns is an experienced consultant in engineering geology and geotechnical engineering. He gave evidence that he had evaluated seven possible transition sites, on geotechnical risk and cost of development due to slope stability. He gave detailed reasons (including screening potential) for his opinion that what is identified as the GIS 2 option on the proposed site is suitable and preferable.
1777. Mr Burns had subsequently considered the possible site on the Dodd property. He gave his reasons for his opinion that the geotechnical risk associated with developing that site would be greater than for the GIS 2 option, and (based on preliminary assessment) the cost of civil engineering works to develop the Dodd-property site would be considerably higher. Mr Burns was not cross-examined by or on behalf of the Springs or the McKenzies; and no expert evidence was given that contradicted his evidence or called in question the opinions he gave in his evidence.
1778. Mr B L Stark gave evidence in rebuttal of typical practice during significant earthworks, to use a water cart as required to control dust by spraying water over dry exposed soil.
1779. Mr Warren gave rebuttal evidence that the effect of damp conditions in assessing corona discharge from transmission lines had been taken into account in recommending noise limits.
1780. The Board has reviewed both reports referred to by Ms Allan. Section 2 of the February 2007 report relates to the South Auckland transition station/substation. It describes the requirements for a site as well as consultation processes and outcome; it analyses written submissions; identifies a possible alternative site; describes further investigations made into environmental issues associated with development of the proposed site, comparison of development options; and gives reasons for preferring the gas-insulated option 2.
1781. The July 2007 report describes the site on the Dodd property; investigations of its suitability; and attaches an independent geotechnical report outlining that development over Turanga Creek would be needed, and that the geotechnical risk and cost of development on the Dodd-property site would be considerably greater than of the proposed site. The report records the reasons for not proceeding with the Dodd-property site, being additional cost, engineering, natural character effects, statutory process risk, and insufficient space for ultimate installation of replacement plant.
1782. The Board finds that modifying the requirement to require development of the transition station/substation on the Dodd-property site would be inconsistent with the requirement notified. The Board also finds that adequate consideration was given by Transpower to that site; and that it was rejected for business-like reasons.
1783. Mr Spring’s request, made at the hearing, for monopole towers instead of lattice towers at positions in the Whitford Valley, was apparently based on his opinion (shared with some other submitters for whom he spoke) that use of monopoles would mitigate the adverse visual effects created by use of lattice towers. However, not everyone prefers monopoles to lattice towers; and opinions may depend in part on the distance from which the towers are viewed.
1784. The original submission made by Mr and Mrs Spring made no reference to seeking monopole towers instead of lattice towers, nor did the submission lodged by Mr R and Mrs McKenzie. People who (perhaps because of the distance of their view of the towers in question) preferred lattice towers could not have known that Mr Spring would make this request at the hearing, and had no opportunity to contest it or express differing views on it.
1785. The Board is not confident that the request for monopoles is supported widely among those who might be affected, and is unwilling to direct a change that may not be supported widely by those who would be affected.
Te Hoe Holdings
1786. By its submission (1161) Te Hoe Holdings Ltd asked that the line be moved so the towers and line would not require the removal of native podocarp forest for its construction.
1787. At the hearing, Mr Sam Jefferis presented submissions on the company’s behalf. He explained that the route of the proposed line is to pass through a patch of native bush, with an angle tower right in the middle of a piece of virgin podocarp forest, although it could go straight on the existing alignment of the ARI-PAK A line, and avoid having to remove more native trees.
1788. Mr Beale gave evidence that during engineering and environmental investigations, it had been recommended that Tower 112 be shifted further to the east beyond the edge of the forest, to significantly reduce the degree of vegetation clearance of this forest remnant. That recommendation had been endorsed by Transpower. However, Mr Beale reported that in subsequent discussions with the landowners who would be affected (the Tubics), the proposal was rejected, as it would move the proposed overhead line closer to their house.
1789. Mr Beale recognised that the forest remnant has ecological value, and is locally significant. He described Transpower’s proposal to carry out significant replanting of shrubs and pioneer tree species that attain a height at maturity no greater than 14 metres along the corridor in the large kahikatea fragment affected by Tower 112; and for plantings of kahikatea, tōtara and kōwhai on the eastern side of the stand beyond the designation to offset loss of trees from within the designation.
1790. The Board understands the submitter’s regret at the prospect of removing trees from within their valued podocarp forest remnant. However, the understandable opposition to the proposed re-routing by landowners who would be affected is a considerable deterrent to that measure to avoid having to remove the trees.
1791. The proposed mitigation planting will take years to mature, and cannot fully remedy the loss meantime. Even so, the Tubics’ opposition based on the effect on their home of the proposed re-routing precludes directing that modification of the requirement.
G W H Vercoe
1792. By his submission, Mr Vercoe asked that in the vicinity of his farm property at Tauhei, the proposed line be re-routed to follow the line of the existing Arapuni-Pakuranga A transmission line.
1793. At the hearing, Mr Vercoe explained that the deviation from the existing line would bring the new line extremely close to his boundary and impact on his farming ability there, and interfere with his daughter’s wish to build a new house. He argued that if the new line is built and followed the existing line, it would not impact on his property any more than the existing line that has been there for many years.
1794. In answer to a question from the Board, Mr Vercoe explained that the proposed towers would be on his neighbour’s property, and dominate his property.
1795. The Board understands that the deviation from the existing line referred to by Mr Vercoe is between Towers 195 and 201.
1796. In rebuttal evidence, Mr Noble explained that the proposed line deviated from the Arapuni-Pakuranga alignment in the vicinity of Tower 200 to avoid a number of farm buildings at Tauhei Road and near Tower 198. He confirmed that the angle in the line at proposed Tower 200 is about 35.5 degrees.
1797. Mr Noble’s evidence in those respects was not challenged by cross-examination or by contradictory evidence. The Board accepts it, and finds that the selection of a different route than that followed by the existing Arapuni-Pakuranga line was based on respectable reasons. The potential for the requested deviation having greater adverse effects on other land (whose owners and occupiers may be unaware of the alteration) was not negated.
1798. The proposed re-routing is not warranted.
Waipa District Council
1799. The Waipa District Council lodged two submissions (0919 and 0984) by which it sought that the requirements for designations be rejected; and alternatively that the line be re-routed away from special landscape character areas, or installed underground through those areas. In neither submission did the Council identify the alternative route away from special landscape character areas that it sought.
1800. At the hearing, counsel for the District Council (Mr Kirkpatrick) repeated the alternative outcome that the Council had asked for, but did not identify the preferred route either.
1801. The Council called as an expert witness an experienced planning consultant, Mr Olliver. This witness gave his opinion that adverse visual effects could have been avoided or mitigated by either re-routing the alignment clear of Waipa’s sensitive landscapes, or by choosing the eastern route option35 which, he asserted, is physically, technically and operationally possible, and feasible.36
1802. In cross-examination, Mr Olliver agreed that when it comes to a linear route the Board has to look beyond local authority boundaries, and decisions have to be made between routes, and between different local authority areas, to combine sections to obtain a continuous route.37
1803. Mr Olliver agreed that he had read a sensitivity analysis on choice between the western and eastern routes before finalising his evidence, but had not referred to it in his evidence statement, as he considered it would not have added anything to his evidence. The witness conceded that for completeness he should have drawn the Board’s attention to it.38
1804. Mr Olliver identified that the eastern route did not encounter outstanding landscapes, or river crossings; but agreed that the Council had not commissioned reports dealing with Māori land, archaeological sites, social impact, degree of property difficulty, or other matters of that nature in respect of the eastern route;39 and had not asked Transpower for information and other specialist reports it may have had.40 He accepted that the archaeological assessment of the eastern route had made a recommendation that Section 13 be avoided on archaeological grounds;41 and explained his opinion that in consideration of alternatives, there were some aspects of Transpower’s assessment that he considered insufficient.42
1805. Later Mr Olliver agreed that Transpower had applied RMA weightings, but he considered that where finely balanced, section 6 matters had not come through strongly enough.43 He would have expected the multi-criteria analysis to be used to inform the RMA assessment, as opposed to possibly the RMA analysis just being one of a number of criteria to be taken into account; but he did not mean that in choosing between routes using a multi-criteria analysis, regard can only be had to Part 2 matters.44
1806. Mr Olliver agreed that the Waipa District Council had not carried out its own investigation, or put forward any specific option other than the eastern route, though it had raised with Transpower that the line may be able to be re-routed to go outside the special landscape character areas.45
1807. Mr Olliver also accepted that matters that had been taken into account in choosing between the eastern and western routes, such as Crown land, numbers of dwellings, and property compensation costs, were matters that Transpower had every right to take into account; but explained that in his mind they were much less significant than specific Part 2 matters. He also agreed that if there were section 6(e) or section 6(f) matters in respect of other routes, that could alter his opinion.46
1808. In answer to questions from the Board, Mr Olliver gave his opinion that re-routing to avoid the special landscape character areas, or a combination of re-routing and underground installation may be within the scope of modification of a requirement or perhaps conditions; but he acknowledged that re-routing is difficult in the absence of a specific re-routing proposal; and that those who have interests in the alternative route do not have the suggestion before them. The witness accepted that unless it was very minor, that would be a significant obstacle to re-routing.47
1809. The Board declines the Waipa District Council’s request for re-routing the transmission line because–
- a) No specific alternative route was identified in the original submission, nor in submissions or evidence at the hearing.
- b) The deviation would not be consistent with the required notification.
- c) The evidence does not establish that overall, the net adverse effects of using the alternative route would be less than those of using the proposed route.
Endnotes
1. Transcript 4/08/08 p11.
2. Ibid, p12.
3. Transcript 5/06/08, p50.
4. Ibid, p51.
5. Ibid, p45.
6. Ibid, p52.
7. Ibid, p56.
8. Transcript 11/09/08, p4.
9. Transcript 18/07/08, p4.
10. Ibid, p5.
11. Ibid, pp7f.
12. Ibid, p14.
13. Ibid p8.
14. Ibid, p10.
15. Ibid, pp 39f.
16. Ibid, p43.
17. Ibid, pp40f.
18. Transcript 17/07/08, p34.
19. Ibid, p23.
20. Ibid, p23.
21. Transcript 23/09/08, p28.
22. Idem.
23. Ibid, p30.
24. Ibid, p34.
25. Transcript 7/04/08, p18.
26. Transcript 4/06/08, p16.
27. Transcript 5/06/08, p10.
28. Ibid, p11.
29. Ibid, p17.
30. Ibid, p22.
31. Ibid, p44.
32. Transcript 23/09/08, p7.
33. MWH New Zealand Limited, 2007.
34. Allan, 2007.
35. Mr J B Olliver, Statement of Evidence, para 96.
36. Ibid, para 101.
37. Transcript 9/07/08 p23.
38. Ibid, p25.
39. Idem.
40. Ibid, p26.
41. Ibid, p27.
42. Ibid, p28.
43. Idem.
44. Ibid, p29.
45. Ibid, p35.
46. Transcript, 9/07/08, p36.
47. Transcript, 9/07/08, p40.
