Skip to main content.

Chapter 15: mitigation and remedial measures and conditions

1810.     Previous chapters of this report concerned particular topics especially those about health effects, landscape and visual effects, audible noise and electronic interference, and the Board has addressed ways by which possible adverse effects on the environment might be mitigated.

1811.     Mitigation measures proposed by Transpower, and by submitters, included deviations to the alignment, more extensive underground installation, more use of monopoles, and mitigation planting.

1812.     Some mitigation measures are permissible within the scope of the requirements that allow flexibility for minor tower movements up to 40 metres longitudinally, and 5 metres laterally. Others, beyond those limits but not rendering the requirement inconsistent with the requirement as notified, may be within the scope of the Board’s authority to modify a requirement.1 The modifications for Glencoal Energy and the Stirling family, and for Hancock Forest Management and Carter Holt Harvey, described in Chapter 14, are examples.

1813.     Natural justice requires that proposals for deviations of the line, or other modifications beyond the scope of the tolerances incorporated in the requirements can only be considered if owners of land that could be adversely affected have given informed written approval, or have had proper notice and opportunity to be heard on the modification.

Underground installation

1814.     Numerous submitters proposed extensions to the length the transmission line is to be laid underground, as a mitigation measure.

1815.     The Board accepts that more extensive underground installation of the transmission line could substantially mitigate significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects.

1816.     The Board addressed this issue in paragraphs [1431]–[1445] of Chapter 13 of this report, where it gave its reasons for finding that it is not justified in requiring further underground installation of the transmission line.

Use of monopoles

1817.     A number of submitters requested that monopoles be utilised in place of lattice towers at various locations along the proposed route. These submitters included Manukau City Council, Matamata-Piako District Council and South Waikato District Council.

1818.     Evidence about the use of monopoles was given by a number of landscape experts. Little consensus was achieved about the appropriateness of using monopoles. Mr Lister considered that monopoles are less visually cluttered than lattice towers; Dr Steven noted that they are nonetheless industrial elements, and no less incongruous in a landscape than lattice towers. In addition Dr Steven did not agree with Mr Lister’s opinion that the benefits of monopoles diminish with distance. Ms Peake concurred with Mr Lister’s opinion about the benefits of monopoles over lattice towers when viewed at a short distance, and that lattice towers blend better into the landscape when viewed from a distance. Mr D J Scott, Ms Buckland, Ms Gilbert and Ms Lucas also gave evidence about the use of monopoles. There was no consensus among the expert witnesses on whether it would be appropriate to use monopoles in the Grid Upgrade Project.

1819.     In his evidence-in-chief, Mr Lister suggested locations where the use of monopoles could be appropriate for mitigation of adverse visual effects: on the north and south banks of Lake Karapiro (three and four respectively), it being a high-value landscape and a part of a scenic corridor; the Waikato River crossing at Arapuni (three on the south bank and one on the north bank) the proposed river trail, having moderately high natural character and moderately high landscape values.

1820.     Although Mr Lister recommended the use of monopoles at those locations, he did not assert that their use is required.2

1821.     Transpower proposes to use seven monopoles at the crossing of Lake Karapiro, and a condition to that effect is included in the conditions for the designation in the Waipa District Plan for the overhead line.3

1822.     Transpower asserted that the use of monopoles in the locations in the South Waikato District is unnecessary, citing a lack of consensus amongst experts.

1823.     The Board’s opinion on the use of monopoles as a mitigation measure is detailed in Chapter 10. In summary, the Board supports the use of monopoles at the Waikato River crossing at Lake Karapiro, and in the position of Tower 5 at the Brownhill Substation. The Board is not persuaded that imposing a requirement on Transpower to use monopoles in the Hunua and Paparimu valley, at Morrinsville, or at Arapuni would be justified.

Proposals of conditions

1824.     During the course of the hearing, Transpower and various submitters proposed various conditions for requirements or resource consents. The Board summarises those proposals.

Auckland Regional Council

1825.     Auckland Regional Council and Transpower jointly proposed conditions for resource consents in the Auckland region. The conditions are set out in Appendixes P, Q, R and S, and are summarised in paragraphs [2293]–[2308] of Chapter 17 of this report.

Waikato Regional Council

1826.     Waikato Regional Council and Transpower jointly proposed conditions for resource consents in the Waikato region, which are set out in Appendixes T and U, and are summarised in paragraphs [2309]–[2318] of Chapter 17 of this report.

Manukau City Council

1827.     Manukau City Council and Transpower jointly proposed conditions for the designations required in the Manukau City District Plan, which are set out in Appendixes C, D, E, G, H and I. Manukau City Council stated that subject to the imposition of the respective conditions, it no longer opposes requirements for the Pakuranga Substation, for the Otahuhu Substation, nor for the underground cable routes.

1828.     The suggested conditions agreed upon by Transpower and Manukau City Council included amendments suggested by Mr N I Hegley, acoustics consultant, to the original conditions restricting emission of noise. The Council stated that in the light of the incorporation of Mr Hegley’s suggested amendments, it no longer sought a GIS substation at Pakuranga.

1829.     Manukau City Council maintained its opposition to the designation for the overhead line within its district, and its conditional opposition to the requirement for designation of the Brownhill Substation.

Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family

1830.     Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family, and Transpower, jointly proposed conditions for the designation of the overhead line relating to the proposed Towers 88 and 89, by which they are to be shifted. The conditions are set out in Appendix K.

1831.     In addition to the conditions set out in Appendix K, Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family proposed a further condition, prohibiting Transpower from withholding its consent under section 176 of the RMA to open-pit mining on the Maxwell Block, provided the mining operations meet the restrictions identified in the conditions.

1832.     Transpower did not consent to the imposition of that condition, and maintained that it would be unnecessary. It explained that, although it is appropriate for Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family to be provided with as much certainty as possible about the future of the coal resource, it had confirmed in writing to the submitters that, should the designation be confirmed and the conditions set out in Appendix K be imposed, it would not withhold its consent for the purpose of section 176 of the RMA. Transpower asserted that this confirmation is sufficient, and that the further condition proposed by Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family is not necessary.

1833.     The Board considers that for it to impose the further condition would be inconsistent with the scheme of the RMA, by which it is the requiring authority whose consent is required for activity that would prevent or hinder work to which a designation relates. The territorial authority has no power to impose a condition that would deprive the requiring authority of its freedom to grant or withhold consent. Therefore, the Board declines to impose the further condition requested by Glencoal and the Stirling family.

Vector Ltd

1834.     Vector originally lodged a submission in support of the Grid Upgrade Project as a whole, but opposing aspects of the requirements: mainly because the underground transmission cables would be buried largely in roads, adjacent to Vector’s conduits for gas, electricity and communications.

1835.     Vector and Transpower subsequently reached agreement on a Protocol for Future Works in close proximity to existing assets in the proposed designation; and jointly proposed minor amendments to the original conditions. The amendments have been incorporated in the conditions set out in Appendixes G and H.

1836.     Vector did not pursue its submission further.

New Zealand Historic Places Trust

1837.     By its submission (0992), the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) sought various modifications, conditions and advice notes to be attached to the designations for the Grid Upgrade Project.

1838.     At the hearing, NZHPT announced that it had reached agreement with Transpower on conditions of the designations and resource consents that would protect archaeological and Māori spiritual needs.

1839.     The agreed amendments have been incorporated in the conditions in the appendixes to this report.

Camperdown Holdings Ltd

1840.     The Trustees of the Zong You Family Trust (the Trust), successors to the submitter Camperdown Holdings Ltd (CHL), stated they were only concerned with the Grid Upgrade Project in that they sought assurance that the interests of the Trust would not be adversely affected; and that, where appropriate, the parties would work together on any matters that were mutually beneficial.

1841.     Their principal concern related to the potential for the location of the Pakuranga to Brownhill underground cable to affect roading development in the area of the Trust’s property.

1842.     A designation condition was proposed by the Trust and Transpower to ensure that sight-lines would be protected, and that cables are laid at a depth to ensure future road construction would not impact on them. These conditions are set out in specific condition 29 in Appendix G.

Transpower

1843.     The Board questioned the wording of the proposed landscape conditions,4 and whether the provision in respect of a ‘landscape adjudicator’ delegated an adjudicative role to a third party, in conflict with the case of Turner v Allison.5

1844.     Following review of the relevant case law, Transpower submitted amended landscape conditions which, it submitted, would not offend against the principle in Turner v Allison, in that the independent landscape architect could certify that relevant thresholds have been met, rather than taking an adjudicatory role.

1845.     No submitter argued to the contrary.

1846.     The Board accepts that the amended landscape conditions would entrust an independent landscape architect with a certifier role, not an adjudicatory role; and would not offend against the principle identified in Turner v Allison; and holds that they might lawfully be attached to designations.

1847.     The conditions in the appendixes incorporate the amendments that avoid entrusting a third party with an adjudicatory function.

Conditions

1848.     At the closing of the Inquiry hearing, Transpower submitted to the Board proposed conditions for the designation requirements and for the resource consents. The Board sets out those conditions in appendixes to this report as follow:

1849.     Conditions on designations:

  1. Pakuranga Substation (Appendix C)
  2. Otahuhu Substation (Appendix D)
  3. Brownhill Substation (Appendix E)
  4. Whakamaru and Whakamaru North Substation (Appendix F)
  5. Pakuranga to Brownhill underground cable (Appendix G)
  6. Brownhill to Otahuhu underground cable (Appendix H)
  7. Overhead line section: Manukau City (Appendix I)
  8. Overhead line section: Franklin District (Appendix J)
  9. Overhead line section: Waikato District (Appendix K)
  10. Overhead line section: Matamata-Piako District (Appendix L)
  11. Overhead line section: Waipa District (Appendix M)
  12. Overhead line section: South Waikato District (Appendix N)
  13. Overhead line section: Taupo District (Appendix O).

1850     Conditions on resource consents:

Auckland region

  1. Conditions for works in the bed of a watercourse and diversion of surface water (Appendix P)
  2. Conditions for the discharge of contaminants (Appendix Q)
  3. Conditions for land-use consents for earthworks (Appendix R)
  4. Conditions for land-use consents for earthworks/roading and tracking and discharge of contaminants permit (Appendix S)

Waikato region

  1. Condition for discharge permit for composting/mulching of vegetation (Appendix T)
  2. Condition for land-use consent for tower foundation drilling below the water table, land-use consent for vegetation clearance and earthworks in a high-risk erosion area, and a discharge permit for site water and drilling fluids (Appendix U).

Conclusion

1851.     The Board is satisfied that, if the requirements are confirmed and if the resource consents are granted, the proposed conditions in those appendixes should be imposed.

1852.     When, in Chapter 18, the Board applies Part 2 of the RMA, and comes to the ultimate judgements on whether or not the requirements are to be confirmed and the resource consents granted, it does so on the basis that if they are confirmed and granted, those conditions will be imposed.

 

Endnotes

1. RMA, ss 147(8), 148(8), and 171(2)(b).
2. Transcript, 4/06/08, p12.
3. Appendix M, Condition 2.
4. Transcript, 16/06/08, p59.
5. [1971] NZLR 833 (SC).

 

|