Skip to main content.

Chapter 17: Application of relevant considerations

1956.     In Chapter 4, the Board described the legal context, including identifying the relevant provisions of the RMA, and of instruments made under it. In subsequent chapters, the Board has considered the submissions and evidence on the main issues, and stated its findings on them. It has now to continue the decision-making process by applying the relevant provisions of the Act and subordinate instruments to those findings, before coming to its judgements on the ultimate issues.

1957.     The Board applies the considerations relevant to the designation requirements, then those relevant to the resource consents.

The designation requirements

1958.     In paragraph [155] of Chapter 4, the Board quoted the directions to a territorial authority considering a requirement. The direction to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement is expressed to be subject to Part 2. In paragraphs [163]–[164] of that chapter, the Board gave its reasons for applying Part 2 after having made findings and assessments on the environmental effects, and the other considerations that are to be evaluated. So the Board summarises its findings on the effects on the environment; applies them to the applicable instruments listed in section 171(1); and then applies Part 2 in Chapter 18.

Effects on the environment

1959.     There would be positive and adverse effects on the environment of allowing the requirement.

Positive effects

1960.     In Chapter 6, the Board identified these positive effects on the environment of allowing the designation requirements.

1961.     The upgrade represents long-term planning, reflecting that electricity transmission assets typically have lives exceeding 50 years.

1962.     The route largely uses an existing transmission corridor, rather than establishing a new corridor or multiple lines.

1963.     The upgrade would replace older assets of smaller capacity with new assets of higher capacity and greater reliability.

1964.     The upgrade would promote renewable generation by facilitating transmission of electrical energy from renewable sources to the major market.

1965.     The upgrade would make up a predicted deficiency with a reliable supply of electrical energy at Auckland at times of peak demand.

Adverse effects

1966.     In Chapter 10 the Board found that allowing the proposed overhead transmission line would have significant adverse landscape and visual effects on the environment, which in some parts would be cumulative on similar effects of existing transmission lines.

1967.     In Chapter 12, the Board stated its findings that allowing the designation requirements would have significant potential adverse social effects on the environment, albeit that they may vary from property to property and community to community, and may abate over time; potential effects of disturbance of farming and other activities on private land; and potential adverse effects on free passage by the public and its vehicles on public roads. Those adverse effects should be mitigated by compliance with proposed conditions of the designations.

Planning instruments

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

1968.     This Act applies to the whole of the catchment of the Hauraki Gulf, and sections 7 and 8 are to be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. It seeks, among other things, to protect the quality of the water in the Gulf. Parts of the alignment are within remote catchment areas of the Gulf.

1969.     Ms Allan gave evidence that the construction activities, being confined in area and to be managed in ways that avoid potential for contaminants in surface runoff to affect waterways, would not conflict with the Act.

1970.     There being no submission or evidence to the contrary, the Board accepts Ms Allan’s opinion, and so finds.

National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission

Submissions

1971.     Transpower referred to passages in the preamble to the NPS recognising that technical, operational and security requirements associated with the transmission network can limit the extent to which it is feasible to avoid or mitigate all adverse environmental effects; that the adverse environmental effects of the transmission network are often local, while the benefits may be in a different locality and/or extend beyond the local to the regional and national, making it important to balance local, regional and national environment effects (positive and negative); and that significant upgrades are expected to be required to meet demand and the Government’s objective for a renewable energy future, so strategic planning for transmission infrastructure is required.

1972.     Transpower quoted the Objective in the NPS in respect of recognising the national significance of the transmission network by establishment of new transmission resources to meet the needs of present and future generations, while managing the adverse environmental effects of the network and the adverse effects of other activities in the network.

1973.     Transpower also cited Policy 1, of recognising and providing for the national, regional and local benefits of sustainable, secure and efficient electricity transmission; and stating that the benefits may include improved security of supply of electricity; or efficient transfer of energy through a reduction of transmission losses; or facilitation of the use and development of new electricity generation, including renewable generation which assists in the management of the effects of climate change.

1974.     Transpower referred as well to Policy 2, directing that decision-makers are to recognise and provide for the effective operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of the electricity transmission network.

1975.     On behalf of Orini Downs Station, Dr Forret referred to the Objective of the NPS, and noted that it provides that the adverse environmental effects of the network are to be managed, as well as the adverse effects of other activities on the network. Counsel acknowledged that the NPS recognises that electricity transmission activities will have adverse environmental effects, and that these cannot always be avoided, remedied or mitigated. She drew attention to Policy 6 by which substantial upgrades of transmission infrastructure should be used as an opportunity to reduce existing adverse effects of transmission, including effects on sensitive activities where appropriate; and to Policy 10 by which decision-makers must, to the extent reasonably possible, manage activities to avoid reverse-sensitivity effects on the electricity transmission network, and ensure it is not compromised.

1976.     On behalf of Mr Mackay, Mr and Mrs Dombroski, Drummond Dairy and Scenic Dairies, their counsel drew attention to the same provisions of the national policy statement.

1977.     For Orini Downs Station, Dr Forret submitted that it is arguable that any decision to establish a new component of the transmission network must take into account existing activities so that reverse sensitivity effects can be avoided, avoiding existing quarries, dwellings and other sensitive activities.

1978.     Counsel for the Hunua and Paparimu Valley Residents Association, Mr D A Allan, referred to Policy 4 about having regard to the extent to which any adverse effects have been avoided, remedied or mitigated by the route, site and method choice. He stated the Association’s concern that the method chosen by Transpower (the 400-kV-capable lattice tower line) rather than reducing effects, would generate very significant adverse visual amenity effects.

1979.     As Dr Forret and Ms J Bright had, Mr D A Allan cited Policy 6 and submitted that benefits of removing the existing ARI-PAK A line are minimal in the context of the additional adverse effects generated by the new line. Counsel contended that this is particularly so in the part of Hunua (Hunua Road to Ararimu Road) where the new line is on a different alignment from the line being removed, but is proposed to be very close to other existing lines.

1980.     Mr D A Allan referred to Policy 8 of avoiding adverse effects on existing sensitive activities. He submitted that houses are sensitive activities and that particular care needs to be taken to mitigate effects through rural areas with relatively higher densities of dwellings close to the line, such as Hunua.

1981.     On Policy 13, of recognising long-term planning for development operation and maintenance of transmission infrastructure, the Association contended that the 25-year period in which the 400-kV-capable line would not be used to capacity is beyond a reasonable planning horizon.

Evidence

1982.     In supplementary evidence, Ms Allan gave her opinion that the decisions made for the Grid Upgrade Project accord with the objective and relevant policies of the NPS.

1983.     In explaining that opinion, this witness stated that although the NPS had not existed at the time, in determining the substation locations and overhead line and underground cable routes, and mitigation proposals, the adverse environmental effects of them and of other activities of the network had adequately and appropriately been managed; and that existing adverse effects, and potential for future adverse environmental effects on the new transmission resources, had also been so managed.

1984.     On Policy 1, Ms Allan stated the national, regional and local benefits of sustainable, secure and efficient electricity transmission that are identified in that policy are applicable to the Grid Upgrade, and there may be others as well, instancing the removal of the ARI-PAK A line, and economic benefits of construction and maintenance of the new infrastructure.

1985.     On Policy 2, the witness gave her opinion that integration of the Grid Upgrade Project into the network in a location of high demand and significant supply, as well as the capacity and staging of the transmission, would contribute to a high level of overall effectiveness of the network. She observed that a project with less ultimate capacity would be less effective.

1986.     Ms Allan addressed Policy 3 about consideration of technical and operational requirements of the network in relation to measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse environmental effects. She acknowledged the technical evidence that the overhead line is appropriate for technical and operational requirements, and that it would have unavoidable environmental effects associated with the height of the conductors to meet EMF requirements, and spacing of arms to allow for maintenance. Ms Allan remarked that a 220-kV line would have quite similar effects. By contrast the underground cables, though not as convenient technically and operationally, would largely avoid long-term adverse environmental effects. She observed that the use of gas-insulated switching substation technology proposed for the Brownhill Substation would mitigate adverse visual effects.

1987.     On Policy 4, Ms Allan gave her opinion that the adverse effects of the 400-kV-capable overhead line would only be marginally, if at all, greater than those of any other feasible method of transmission having equivalent long-term capacity and capability, and likely to be less than those of two 220-kV lines. She stated that the route-selection process had sought to avoid adverse environmental effects, and that any remaining effects that cannot be avoided are to be mitigated.

1988.     Policy 5 directs that when considering the environmental effects of transmission, decision-makers are to enable reasonable operational, maintenance and minor upgrading requirements of established transmission assets. Ms Allan observed that this is relevant to upgrading existing transmission assets, such as the Whakamaru Substation; and to the proposed assets when they exist: for example, the eventual conversion to 400 kV.

1989.     Policy 6 applies to substantial upgrades of transmission infrastructure. Ms Allan was uncertain whether that is applicable to the proposed Grid Upgrade Project, but noted that it would involve reductions of existing adverse effects of transmission, including those on sensitive activities, such as removal of the ARI-PAK A line from near Paparimu School in the Hunua Valley and at the Lake Karapiro crossing; and also laying the line underground through urban areas.

1990.     Policy 7 mandates minimising adverse effects on urban amenity and avoiding adverse effects on town centres, areas of high recreational value or amenity and existing sensitive activities. Ms Allan gave her opinion that this would largely be achieved, by underground cable installation in urban areas, and by the route avoiding urban growth areas, schools, residences, hospitals. The Hunua Regional Park has also been avoided.

1991.     As Ms Allan observed, Policy 8 applies in rural environments. It states that planning and development of the transmission system should seek to avoid adverse effects on outstanding natural landscapes, areas of high natural character and areas of high recreation values and amenity and existing sensitive activities. The witness gave her opinion that all the matters listed had been taken into account and largely, if not entirely avoided. She gave particulars in support of her opinion, referring to the line avoiding the Hunua Ranges, the upper slopes of Maungatautari, and the lower part of Lake Karapiro; and acknowledged that visual and amenity effects on some houses, and a small number of schools, had not been able to be avoided fully.

1992.     Policy 9 directs that provisions dealing with electric and magnetic fields associated with the transmission network are to be based in the ICNIRP Guidelines and recommendations from the WHO monograph 238 and applicable New Zealand standards or national environmental standards. Ms Allan gave evidence that conforming with the ICNIRP guidelines had been one of the main drivers of the design of the proposed line, which would comply fully with them over the life of the Grid Upgrade Project and under all normal operating conditions. She considered that Policy 9 would be achieved.

Consideration

1993.     Policies 10 and 11 relate to managing the adverse effects of third parties on the transmission network. Important as that topic is, it is not relevant to deciding on Transpower’s requirements for designations. Policy 12 is a direction to territorial authorities about identifying the transmission network on planning maps, and is also irrelevant to the Board’s Inquiry. Policy 13 directs decision-makers to recognise that the designation process can facilitate long-term planning for transmission infrastructure. Policy 14 is immaterial to the Board’s Inquiry.

1994.     Having reviewed the submissions and evidence on the application of the National Policy Statement, the Board finds that there was no material dispute that the proposal is consistent with Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 13. The Board now considers Policies 4, 6, and 8 (on which there were differences of opinion), before coming to an overall judgement about attaining the objective of the NPS.

1995.     On Policy 4, the Board’s finding in Chapter 10 was to the effect that adverse visual and landscape effects on the environment in the Hunua and Paparimu Valley, cumulative on similar effects of existing transmission lines nearby, would not be fully avoided, remedied or mitigated by the route, site and method selection. Even so, in several ways they would be avoided, remedied or mitigated to some extent in the choice of route, design of the line, the removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line (albeit much smaller than the proposed line), and in being a single higher-capability line, rather than (eventually) two lines of lower capability.

1996.     The policy is not an absolute, but one of degree: “decision-makers must have regard to the extent to which any adverse effects have been avoided, remedied or mitigated”. It is to be read in the context of the functional imperatives in Policies 2 and 3.

1997.     The Board’s judgement is that the extent to which adverse visual and landscape effects (cumulative with those of existing lines) would not be fully avoided, remedied or mitigated by the route, site and method selection would be partly mitigated and remedied in other ways mentioned; and in the context of the functional imperatives.

1998.     Remembering that Policy 6 is about using substantial upgrades as an opportunity to reduce existing adverse effects of transmission, the Board finds that removal of the ARI-PAK A line qualifies; and it judges that for those affected by the appearance of that line, the benefits of removing it would be more than minimal even though, due to its scale, the landscape and visual effects of that line are not as great as those of the proposed line.

1999.     On Policy 8, the Board finds that in planning the line, Transpower did seek to avoid adverse effects on outstanding natural landscapes, areas of high natural character, areas of high recreational value and amenity and existing sensitive activities. It may not have avoided all such areas to the extents desired by the Waipa District Council and the HPVRA, but it certainly avoided the areas mentioned by Ms Allan.

2000.     Returning to the more general objective of the NPS, the Board judges that, in facilitating the establishment of new transmission resources to meet the needs of present and future generations, Transpower has also managed the adverse environmental effects of the network. In so doing, the proposal does not conflict with the national policy statement.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

2001.     Generally the Grid Upgrade Project is not in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). However, Ms P M Hunter gave evidence that the Brownhill-Otahuhu route for the proposed underground cables crosses Otara Creek just inside the CMA between Johnstones and Franklin Roads, Otara.

2002.     As Ms Hunter observed, the designation cannot and does not extend into the CMA; and the crossing of Otara Creek requires resource consent from the Auckland Regional Council.

2003.     Some parts of the routes of the underground cables, and the Otahuhu and Pakuranga Substations, might be considered to be in the coastal environment.

2004.     Ms Hunter gave her opinion that, given the nature of the existing environment, and the mitigation measures proposed, there would be no conflict with the provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). That was not contested by any submitter.

2005.     Ms A T McGovern, a consultant environmental planner, gave evidence that the whole route of the proposed Brownhill-Pakuranga underground cable is a sufficient distance from the coastal boundary that the NZCPS is not applicable. That was also not contested by any submitter either.

2006.     The Board finds that to whatever extent the Otahuhu and Pakuranga Substations and routes for underground cables to them are within the coastal environment to which the NZCPS applies, the existing development of the substations and the parts of Manukau City affected by the cable routes are such that the NZCPS would not influence the decision on the proposed designations in respect of them. It follows that confirming the requirement on the proposed conditions would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives or implementation of the policies of the NZCPS.

Auckland Regional Policy Statement

Submissions

2007.     At the Board’s hearing, the Auckland Regional Council stated that it accepted that a secure supply of electricity to the Auckland region, with sufficient capacity to meet current and future demand, is a fundamental prerequisite to the social and economic objectives of the region. It also accepted that a shift towards renewable energy may require a strengthened transmission network; and that for the foreseeable future, the majority of Auckland’s base-load energy supply will come from outside the region, and will rely on transmission infrastructure.

2008.     In respect of proposed Change 8 to the regional policy statement, the Regional Council reported that it had decided to vary the landscape component of the proposed change, and that this process is still pending. It accepted that the weight to be given to it must reflect that it is still at a relatively early stage.

2009.     The Regional Council urged that the Board avoid or mitigate landscape and visual effects on the natural and rural character of the rural parts of the region, but did not propose any specific measures to do so.

Evidence

2010.     Ms Peake gave her opinion that the proposal would not comply with landscape policies of the regional policy statement, as cumulative effects are not avoided, the transmission line would have adverse effects beyond the boundary of numerous sites, and the visual coherence or integrity of the wider landscape will be reduced.

2011.     Ms Allan referred to the ARPS as a high-level policy document, which identifies the need for energy, and utility network systems, including electricity transmission. She described the statement as focusing on efficiency in use and transmission, and use of sustainable energy resources.

2012.     Ms Allan referred to passages in the regional policy statement which recognise that the National Grid is reaching capacity, the need to ensure a reliable and secure supply of electricity, and that failure to do so would severely restrict the region’s economic and social growth and development. The regional policy statement indicates that strategic policies for regionally significant infrastructure are to be given effect through provisions of district plans and/or the designation process.

2013.     Ms Allan referred to proposed Change 6 to the regional policy statement, including a policy that assessments of environmental effects of transmission proposals are, when necessary, to be carried out in accordance with the 4th Schedule to the RMA. She stated that this had been done in the documentation presented with the notices of requirements in respect of the Grid Upgrade Project.

2014.     There are many objectives and policies in the regional policy statement on matters of significance to iwi, on maintaining the quality of water, on conservation of soil, and other important topics, that do not bear particularly on decision of the requirements for the proposed designations.

2015.     A policy that does bear on the designations is protecting the quality of identified outstanding natural landscapes and regionally significant landscapes; and elsewhere, protecting the elements, features and patterns which contribute to the character and quality of the landscape and its amenity value, or which help to accommodate the visual effects of development, by avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects on them.

2016.     Ms Allan gave her opinion that the proposal avoids outstanding natural landscapes and regionally significant landscapes.

2017.     Ms Allan also referred to proposed Change 8 to the regional policy statement, which would (among other things) replace the policy on landscape, and identify an area in the Hunua Valley for significant landscape values. Landscape effects have been considered in Chapter 10 of this report.

2018.     Ms Allan concluded that the proposed overhead line is consistent with the broad policy intentions of the regional policy statement.

Consideration

2019.     The Board has had particular regard to the relevant provisions of the ARPS. It finds that the proposed Grid Upgrade Project is supportive of the policies about ensuring a reliable and secure supply of electricity with sufficient capacity to meet current and future demand, and related policies.

2020.     The route for the overhead line has been selected to avoid identified outstanding natural landscapes and regionally significant landscapes; and the proposal has been designed to avoid, remedy and mitigate landscape and visual effects elsewhere to varying extent.

2021.     As the identification by proposed Change 8 of the area north of Gelling Road, Hunua, as an outstanding natural landscape is subject to a variation that is not before the Board, and the process for resolving a dispute over that identification has not been completed, the Board considers it premature to give the proposed identification of that area any significance at this stage.

2022.     Although adverse landscape and visual effects would remain, the Board accepts Ms Allan’s opinion and judges that, in the scale of the need for transmission to meet future demand, the outcome would be proportionate, and not in conflict with the regional policy statement read as a whole.

2023.     The Board finds that confirming the requirements would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives, or implementation of the policies, of the ARPS.

Waikato Regional Policy Statement

2024.     Relevantly, Policy One in Chapter 3.12.2 of the WRPS is promoting efficiency and conservation in transmission of energy; and Objective 3.13.2 concerns maintaining and enhancing continued operation of regionally significant infrastructure (including network utilities).

2025.     In those respects, Ms Allan gave her opinion that the proposed Grid Upgrade Project would accord with that policy and be in agreement with that objective as it represents an efficient transmission system and regionally significant infrastructure, replacing one of lesser capacity. That was not challenged by any submitter in the context of the regional policy statement.

2026.     Mr Olliver also stated that the Grid Upgrade Project is broadly consistent with the energy philosophies of the regional policy statement, in that it has the potential to influence improved efficiency in the transmission of energy; and that it is not inconsistent with the infrastructure policies.

2027.     Mr A M Collier drew the Board’s attention to Objective 3.3.7 of the regional policy statement of net reduction in the effects of accelerated erosion and avoiding those effects where practicable; and gave his opinion that erosion and sediment control measures can ensure that effects of earthworks can be appropriately managed.

2028.     Mr Collier also drew attention to Objective 3.3.9 of maintaining versatility and productive capacity of the region’s soil resources, and expressed concern that application of fertiliser by aerial topdressing would be severely affected by the lines and by effects on airstrips. In cross-examination this witness agreed that erosion is a matter covered by conditions of the regional consents; and that he had visited two airstrips and was unclear how fertiliser could be applied.1

2029.     The Board considers that Mr Collier’s knowledge about airstrips and aerial topdressing is insufficient to cause doubt about the acceptability of Mr Nichol’s opinion that the effects on aerial topdressing would be minor.

2030.     Overall the Board finds that the proposed transmission line would be consistent with the broad policy intention of the WRPS; and that confirming the requirements would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives, or implementation of the policies, of the WRPS.

Manukau City District Plan

2031.     In Chapter 4, the Board identified relevant provisions of this plan.

2032.     Transpower submitted that the proposed upgrade is in general accordance with its provisions; and that visual impacts have been avoided and mitigated as far as practicable by route choice and alignment design.

2033.     Ms Allan gave her opinion that the district plan effectively contains a separate code for network utilities, including transmission of electricity; and presented a detailed assessment of the policy framework, from which she stated her conclusion that there is no major inconsistency with policy in the plan. She acknowledged that objectives and policies to protect or enhance amenity values may not be fully achieved because of visual impacts of the overhead line and Brownhill Substation structures, despite avoiding, remedying and mitigating those impacts to the extent practicable. Even so, she concluded that there is no significant inconsistency between the substation proposal and the policy framework.

2034.     Ms McGovern and Ms P M Hunter gave evidence about the application of the district plan to the Pakuranga Substation, and to the proposed underground cables between Brownhill Road and the Pakuranga and Otahuhu Substations.

2035.     The network utility provisions of the district plan apply to the underground cables and the Pakuranga Substation, with which they are consistent. They also found that the construction of the cables, being short-term and temporary activities, would not greatly impact on the plan provisions for the various zones through which the cables pass. Ms McGovern observed that the Pakuranga Substation has for decades been operated in a manner compatible with the surrounding land uses; and that its zoning as Residential is anomalous.

2036.     The evidence of those witnesses was not challenged or contradicted, and the Board accepts it.

2037.     The Board finds that the proposed upgrade generally conforms with applicable provisions of the Manukau District Plan; and the landscape and visual effects of the proposed structures would be avoided, remedied or mitigated to the extent practicable.

Franklin District Plan

2038.     Relevant provisions of the Franklin District Plan were summarised in Chapter 4.

2039.     Transpower submitted that the plan includes objectives and policies that support the proposed infrastructure and the particular alignment, taking into account the potential for growth of Hunua township and the important values associated with the Hunua Regional Park.

2040.     Ms Allan gave her opinion that the objectives and policies support major infrastructure (that would include the proposed overhead transmission line) and the alignment avoiding Hunua township and the Hunua Regional Park.

2041.     That evidence was not challenged or contradicted; and accepting it, the Board finds that the proposal conforms with the Franklin District Plan.

Waikato District Plan

2042.     In Chapter 4, the Board identified provisions of the operative Waikato District Plan and of the proposed district plan that might be relevant.

2043.     Transpower acknowledged that the proposed transmission line is not entirely consistent with the objectives and policies; and explained that the matters raised by the policy framework of the plan had been taken into account in selecting the route so as to avoid and mitigate effects, and address other policy issues, to the extent practicable.

2044.     Ms Allan gave evidence that the choice of route had provided the initial basis for avoiding or mitigating adverse effects; and acknowledged that visual effects of large structures are unavoidable. She explained that choosing a route that largely avoids elevated areas and ridgelines had reduced and mitigated those adverse effects; and that removal of the ARI-PAK A line would remedy them to some extent. She observed that the policy framework appeared more directed to controlling rural subdivision and development, than to limiting infrastructure development.

2045.     Ms Allan referred to policies seeking underground cable installation and co-location where practicable, and remarked neither is practicable for a transmission project of the scale needed. She concluded that although not entirely consistent with all the objectives and policies of the plans, relevant matters in the policy framework had been taken into account, and adverse effects avoided or mitigated to the extent practicable.

2046.     No submitter contended otherwise; and the Board accepts Ms Allan’s opinions about the application of the plans to the proposal.

Matamata-Piako District Plan

2047.     Relevant provisions of the Matamata-Piako District Plan were summarised in Chapter 4.

2048.     Transpower accepted that the visual impacts of the proposed overhead line would not necessarily conform with the policies in that respect; and contended that generally, policy relating to amenity values is achieved with the alignment and line design. It remarked that the plan contains no policies suggesting that the west of Morrinsville is a future growth area.

2049.     Ms Allan gave her opinion that the proposed line is relatively consistent with provisions of the plan applying to works and network utilities. She acknowledged that, observed from close to the line, the visual impacts of the line would not be consistent with the general policies about amenity values, but stated that generally the policy about amenity values is achieved with the alignment and line design.

2050.     Ms Gilbert gave her opinion that the proposed line would be contrary to the objectives and policies. However, in cross-examination she agreed that she had not considered relevant objectives and policies relating to utilities.2

2051.     The Board considers that, compared with Ms Allan’s analysis, Ms Gilbert’s was incomplete in that respect. The Board finds Ms Allan’s evidence more helpful and preferable.

2052.     In summary, the Board finds that the proposal would conform with the district plan provisions about network utilities; and although it would not fully conform with those about amenity values, they would be avoided, remedied and mitigated to the extent practicable.

Waipa District Plan

2053.     The Board summarised relevant provisions of the Waipa District Plan in Chapter 4.

Submissions

2054.     Transpower submitted that there is no inherent conflict with the policies in respect of the Rural Area and SLCAs through which the overhead line would pass; but considerable consistency with the overall policy framework for rural areas.

2055.     Waipa District Council submitted that the integrity of the SLCAs should be regarded as forming a matter of national importance and weighed accordingly; and that the district plan provisions should be accorded primacy in the assessment of effects and given great weight.

Evidence

2056.     In her evidence, Ms Allan noted that the district plan seeks to protect the landscape character of the river valley while allowing activities including rural-residential development in areas where they will have minimal adverse visual impact on the landscape. She found that identifying a SLCA along the river corridor does not prohibit development which may be appropriate where visual impact is minimised.

2057.     In cross-examination, Ms Allan explained that although the policy discourages development, by the rules a considerable amount of development is possible as a controlled activity, applications for which cannot be refused; and she considered that large dwellings and other buildings could be more obvious over a longer view in the landscape than lattice towers.3

2058.     Ms Allan remarked the alignment of the transmission line, where it crosses the lake, is in a less-sensitive location and the structures, (though larger) are fewer in number than those of the existing ARI-PAK A line that is to be removed. She concluded that there is no major inconsistency with the policy.

2059.     In respect of the other areas of identified landscape values that would be crossed by the line (Maungatautari and north of Arapuni), Ms Allan considered that those areas are less sensitive, and do not justify special treatment.

2060.     Ms Allan gave her opinions that the proposed transmission line would not conflict, but would have considerable consistency, with the policy framework for the Rural Area; and that the alignment is consistent with the objectives and policies for public works and works of utility service operators.

2061.     Mr Olliver gave his opinion that the alignment of the overhead line through the SLCAs would be in direct conflict with the rules, policies and objectives of the district plan. He acknowledged the protection policies do not prevent development, and that they envisage some forms of development. He stated the proposed line would be out of scale and located in highly visible parts of the State Highway 1 corridor; that it would fail to protect the landscape character of the Waikato River valley and lakes; and that adverse effects on the environment could not be avoided nor sufficiently mitigated.

2062.     Mr Olliver considered that the proposal conflicts with the policy of discouraging further development which could have an adverse effect on the landscape qualities of the scenic landscape protection corridor along State Highway 1, including restrictions on the erection of further powerlines. He also considered that adverse visual effects on the environment at the Arapuni crossing (a locality that has a high degree of natural character) could not be minimised, and is contrary to Policy RU14; and also to RU15 in respect of the Waikato River south of Horahora Bridge. He also maintained that the proposal is inconsistent with Objective PW2, in that adverse visual effects could have been avoided or mitigated by re-routing clear of Waipa’s scenic landscapes, or by choosing an eastern route option.

2063.     Mr Olliver acknowledged that the district plan does not prohibit activities in the SLCAs, explaining that it controls development in them by objectives, policies, rules and performance standards. He referred to the conditions for structures in SLCAs by which specific permitted activity thresholds are set, and some activities prohibited. He acknowledged that the rule does not prohibit erection of structures and buildings in SLCAs, and explained that it restricts the scale and location of structures relative to the skyline and proximity to public roads or the Waikato River.

2064.     Activities that do not comply with those thresholds are classified as controlled activities, and are to be assessed under Rule 2.6.1. By that rule the matters over which the Council can exercise control include protecting visual amenity of outstanding landscapes; assessment includes location of structures relative to skylines, the extent to which activities would be obtrusively visible, and the extent to which measures are taken to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects.

2065.     Mr Olliver gave his opinion that the line would not satisfy the criteria in Rule 12.3.3 for utility services that are not permitted activities, in that it would be obtrusively visible; would detract from the amenities of the area and would affect significant views from State Highway 1; and discards an alternative location which is physically, technically and operationally possible: the eastern route.

2066.     Mr Olliver concluded that the requirement is not consistent with the district plan and directly conflicts with a number of its rules, objectives and policies.

2067.     In cross-examination Mr Olliver agreed that the policy for protecting the present character of Maungatautari only applies to the upper slopes4; and that not every part of the SLCA is an outstanding natural landscape.5

2068.     In reply, Transpower submitted that there is a distinct lack of integrity in the SLCAs identified in the district plan.

Consideration

2069.     To the extent that the Board’s Inquiry is into a requirement for a designation, the framework for consideration of alternative routes is that explicitly set by section 171(1)(b). A territorial authority is not able to extend the scope of consideration of alternatives by provisions of its district plan. So the Board discards Mr Olliver’s point about choosing an eastern route.

2070.     Having considered the evidence, the Board finds that the proposed overhead line would not support the policies applicable to the landscape context of State Highway 1, the Waikato River valley, and the SLCAs; but could qualify for resource consents judged by the criteria and having regard to the positive effects of the proposal, and the extent to which adverse landscape and visual effects have been or would be avoided, remedied and mitigated – including by selection of the route, use of monopoles near the lake crossing, and removal of the existing ARI-PAK A line. The Board is not persuaded that the alignment south of Horahora Bridge, and the proposed crossing at Arapuni, would challenge the policies to the same extent.

2071.     In summary, the proposal would not support important policies of the Waipa District Plan, but balanced with the positive effects, and the extent of avoidance, remedying and mitigating measures, the Board judges that it would qualify for resource consent in terms of the district plan.

South Waikato District Plan

2072.     Relevant provisions of the South Waikato District Plan are summarised in Chapter 4.

Submissions

2073.     Transpower submitted that the overhead transmission line is generally in accord with the policy framework of the South Waikato District Plan, except in terms of visual impact on amenity values; and that the further development of the Whakamaru Substation, and development of the proposed new Whakamaru North Substation, would not be inconsistent with that framework.

2074.     South Waikato District Council contended that there would be adverse effects on the environment having particular regard to the relevant provisions of the district plan; and that the proposal is generally contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan; would not produce the outcomes in the anticipated environmental results for network utilities; and would have effects incompatible with existing land uses in the Rural zone.

2075.     New Era Energy South Waikato submitted that the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the district plan.

2076.     Transpower replied by observing that inconsistency with a district plan is not determinative of whether requirements should be confirmed. It contended that any inconsistency with the district plan could be overcome by imposition of the proposed conditions; and that as the plan does not identify any valued landscapes or features, any route for the transmission line through the district would have been likely to have been inconsistent with its policies.

Evidence

2077.     In her evidence, Ms Allan presented an analysis of the relevant policies, and gave her opinion that the transmission line would be generally consistent with the policy framework, except in terms of visual impact on amenity values. She observed that the route would avoid parts of the district having special amenity values.

2078.     Ms Allan remarked that because of the scale and capacity of the line, it is substantially outside what is contemplated by any permitted activity provisions. She identified a policy conflict between national and regional needs (which the Grid Upgrade Project is designed to meet) and amenity policies interpreted at a localised level. She considered that designations can provide for network utilities that may not be able to attain approvals in any other way.

2079.     Mr Collier gave his opinion that the proposal would be generally contrary to the objectives and policies of the district plan.

2080.     In terms of the rules governing network utilities, Mr Collier stated that as the voltage of the line would exceed 110 kV, it is a discretionary activity. He also remarked that the height of the structures would exceed the 10-metre height limit for permitted development in the Rural zone.

2081.     Mr Collier considered the proposal incompatible with policies about the scale of development, non-compliant with performance standards for permitted public works; not avoiding, remedying or mitigating significant adverse effects; using a greenfields corridor instead of co-siting with compatible facilities where technically feasible and practical; and no underground cable installation to avoid adverse effects on amenity values. He considered that the transmission line would not meet minimum environmental conditions; would adversely affect amenity values by significantly affecting landscape and visual character; and would result in significant disruption to people and communities.

2082.     Mr Collier acknowledged that the district plan does not give any particular recognition in terms of landscape values to any particular area, leaving them to evaluated on specific proposals.

Consideration

2083.     The Board accepts that the district plan does not contemplate a project of the scale of the proposed transmission line to serve national and regional needs, which results in the proposal being inconsistent with policies developed with smaller utility structures in mind. That underlies the inconsistencies with the policies drawn to the Board’s attention by Mr Collier.

2084.     In particular, that also explains incompatibility with policies about scale of development; non-compliance with performance standards for particular public works; and no underground cable installation to avoid adverse effects. In Chapter 7 of this report the Board has addressed the selection of the route; and the choice of an overhead line rather than underground cables; and disruption of activities. Sharing an existing transmission corridor rather than using a greenfields route which was not practicable.

2085.     There was no issue that, particularly due to the scale of the structures, the line would have adverse landscape and visual effects on the amenity values of the South Waikato environment. In that respect, the proposal is inconsistent with policies of the district plan.

2086.     Even so, if weighed with the positive effects, and the extent of avoidance, remedying and mitigating measures, the Board judges that it would qualify for resource consent in terms of the district plan.

Taupo District Plan

2087.     Provisions of the Taupo District Plan that might apply to the Grid Upgrade Project were summarised in Chapter 4.

2088.     Transpower submitted that the short stretch of the overhead line within the Taupo district is in accord with the policy framework of the district plan.

2089.     Ms Allan produced an analysis of the district plan policies applicable to the short stretch of overhead line and a single tower leading to the Whakamaru Substation complex; and gave her opinion that the work would be consistent with the applicable policy framework.

2090.     No submitter contended otherwise.

2091.     The Board accepts Ms Allan’s opinion, and finds that the proposal would not be contrary to the district plan.

Summary of findings on planning instruments

2092.     The Board has, as directed, paid particular regard to the relevant provisions of the prescribed classes of planning instruments.

2093.     The Board has found that the proposal would not conflict with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act; the NPS; or the Auckland and Waikato RPSs. In respect of the ARPS, the Board noted a reservation about the adverse landscape and visual effects.

2094.     The short extent of work in the coastal marine area led the Board to find that in the circumstances the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement would not influence the decision on the relevant requirement.

2095.     The Board found that the proposal generally conforms with Manukau City, Franklin, Waikato, Matamata-Piako, and Taupo District Plans, again with reservations about landscape and visual effects, acknowledging that they have been, and are to be, avoided, remedied and mitigated to the extent practicable.

2096.     The Board found that the proposal would not support important policies in the Waipa and South Waikato District Plans concerning landscape and visual effects; though that is to be weighed against the positive effects of the proposal and the extent to which those effects have been and are to be avoided, remedied and mitigated.

Consideration of alternatives

2097.     In Chapter 7, the Board addressed particularly the question whether adequate consideration had been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work; and concluded that, considered overall, adequate consideration had been given to those alternatives.

Necessity for achieving objectives

2098.     In Chapter 8, the Board addressed particularly whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving Transpower’s objectives for which the designations are sought; and concluded that both the work and the designations are reasonably necessary for achieving them.

Other necessary matters

2099.     In Chapter 13, the Board addressed a number of particular matters to decide whether it is reasonably necessary to consider any of them in order to make a decision on the requirements.

2100.     In that chapter, the Board found that there is no tāngata whenua matter that needs to be considered in making that decision; no consultation matter; no matter about the design of the overhead line towers; no matter about the extents to which the transmission line is proposed to be overhead and underground; no matter about the long-term effects on the life of foundations of local roads; no matter about the marginal additional risk to the safety of aircraft using Ardmore Airfield; and no matter about the effects on use of farm airstrips.

2101.     In Chapters 10, 12 and 13, the Board addressed whether there would be effects on particular localities that it is reasonably necessary to consider in order to decide whether to confirm or withdraw the requirements. In summary, the Board found that even after the extent to which they are avoided, remedied and mitigated, the overhead line would have significant remaining adverse landscape and visual effects on the environment, including parts with enhanced visual amenity values (including Lake Karapiro and Maungatautari); and would also have potential social effect and effects of disruption to farming and other activities. Those effects on the environment have to be considered in deciding whether the requirements are to be confirmed or withdrawn.

2102.     In Chapter 14, the Board addressed whether any local specific modifications to the requirements should be made at requests of particular submitters. The Board concluded that these local modifications should be made:

  • a) on the property the subject of the submissions by Glencoal and the Stirling family, the sites for two towers should be moved; there should be increased clearance above the State Highway 2 bypass north of Tower 88; and there should be uniform line span lengths
  • b) the designation through the Kinleith Forest should be widened to 130 metres.

2103.     Those modifications should be considered in making decisions on the requirements.

2104.     In Chapter 15, the Board stated its intention that, if the requirements are confirmed, it would impose proposed conditions on the designations. It is necessary that the Board have particular regard to that intention in making decisions on the requirements.

Summary on designations

2105.     In summary, in considering the requirements and making decisions on the designations sought, the Board will, subject to Part 2:

  • a) consider the positive effects on the environment of allowing the requirements:
  • b) consider the adverse effects on the environment of allowing the requirements, being significant landscape and visual effects, including parts with enhanced visual amenity values and cumulative effects of those kinds; potential social effects; potential effects of disturbance of farming and other activities on private land; potential effects on free passage by the public and its vehicles on public roads; and the extents to which they are avoided or would be remedied or mitigated by compliance with proposed conditions:
  • c) have particular regard to its findings that the proposal would not conflict with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act; the NPS; the Auckland and WRPSs; generally conforms with Manukau City, Franklin, Waikato, Matamata-Piako, and Taupo District Plans; would not support important policies in the Waipa and South Waikato District Plans concerning landscape and visual effects; subject to a general exception that the proposal would not be consistent with policies for protection of landscape and visual amenity values, qualified by the extents to which adverse landscape and visual effects have been and are to be avoided, remedied and mitigated.
  • d) have particular regard to its findings that adequate consideration had been given to alternative sites, routes or methods of undertaking the work;
  • e) have particular regard to its findings that both the work and the designations are reasonably necessary for achieving Transpower’s objectives for which the designations are sought;
  • f)  have particular regard to its findings about local specific modifications to the requirements, and imposition of proposed conditions referred to in paragraphs [2039 and 2041] respectively of this chapter.

The resource consent applications

2106.     In paragraph [213] of Chapter 4, the Board quoted the directions to a territorial authority considering a resource consent application. The direction to consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement is expressed to be subject to Part 2. In paragraphs [157]–[164] of that chapter, the Board gave its reasons for applying Part 2 after having made findings and assessments on the environmental effects, and the other considerations that are to be evaluated. So the Board summarises its findings on the effects on the environment; applies them to the applicable instruments listed in section 104(1); and then (in Chapter 18) applies Part 2.

Description of resource consents

2107.     In this section, the activities to be authorised by the resource consent applications to the Auckland Regional Council and the Waikato Regional Council are described. The application of the statutory instruments applying to each consent is included later in this chapter.

2108.     Some flexibility about the sites of the towers is allowed for in the applications to allow for minor changes, partly because Transpower had not been able to gain access to some properties. This flexibility also provides for unexpected ground conditions or archaeological or ecological finds, where it would be appropriate to move a tower slightly to avoid an adverse effect. Ms Allan stated her view that the effects resulting from such changes would be de minimis, and generally done for beneficial reasons.

2109.     The resource consents needed for the construction of the underground cable between Otahuhu and Brownhill Substations are not being sought now, because that work is unlikely to commence prior to 2020 and consents granted now would lapse before they could be exercised. It is also possible that changes in construction methods or technology may have occurred by then.

2110.     In its opening legal submission Transpower submitted that most construction activities would be permitted activities. However, to cover all eventualities, global consents have been applied for.

Consents – Auckland region

2111.     In June 2007, Transpower applied to Auckland Regional Council for resource consents for work associated with the construction, installation, use, operation and maintenance of a new 220-kV underground transmission cable between the Pakuranga Substation and Brownhill Road, and for works that are proposed to be located within the area of the requirements for designation of the overhead line section. The application also extends to the area of the required designation for the Brownhill Substation.

2112.     In July 2007 Transpower applied for further resource consents from the Auckland Regional Council for work associated with the construction of towers for the new (400-kV-capable) transmission line and ancillary works, including tower access and some topographic modification within the designated area.

Brownhill-Pakuranga underground cable

2113.     By Application 34102, Transpower sought a land-use consent for earthworks (including but not limited to trenching, excavation test pits, geotechnical drilling, backfilling or clean filling) to enable the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV underground transmission cable inside and outside any sediment-control protection area.

2114.     By Application 34370 Transpower sought consent to discharge contaminants to land from ancillary activities that produce wastewater or wash water. The proposed activities would include: the use of chemical cracking rock-breaking techniques; dewatering sediment-laden water from the trenches; the washing of vehicles, plant or machinery; geotechnical drilling activities; dust suppression, and concrete or asphalt laying or reworking, associated with the installation and maintenance of the 220-kV underground cable.

2115.     By Application 34372, Transpower sought consent to works in the bed of a watercourse for these activities:

  • a) trenching through a watercourse for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission-cable structure under the bed of the unnamed watercourse immediately north of Ti Rakau Drive adjacent to a Manukau City Council Stormwater Management Area
  • b) placement of a bridge over the bed of the Turanga Creek, Brownhill Road, Whitford for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission cable, including the placement of abutments and a Reno mattress on the stream banks
  • c) placement of two culverts in the bed of the Mangemangeroa Stream, Caldwells Road, East Tamaki, including the placement of fill above those culverts for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission cable
  • d) placement of a bridge over the Mangemangeroa Stream, Caldwells Road, East Tamaki for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission cable
  • e) placement of a culvert and fill over an unnamed stream directly above Dunvegan Rise (and below Point View Drive) East Tamaki, including the associated disturbance of the streambed for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission cable
  • f)  land-use consent for the placement of a bridge over an unnamed stream directly above Dunvegan Rise (and below Point View Drive) East Tamaki, including the associated disturbance of the streambed for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission cable.

2116.     By Application 34373, Transpower sought consent for the diversion of a stream flow associated with the placement of two culverts in the end of the Mangemangeroa Stream, Caldwells Road, East Tamaki for the installation and maintenance of a 220-kV transmission cable.

Overhead line and Brownhill Substation

2117.     Transpower applied for the following resource consents for works within the area of the requirement for the overhead line section of the Grid Upgrade Project. The works would also intrude into the area of the designation for the Brownhill Substation.

2118.     By Application 34711, Transpower sought land-use consent for earthworks (including but not limited to benching, foundation excavation, topographic modifications, geotech drilling, backfilling or clean filling), to enable the construction of tower foundations inside and outside any sediment protection control area. In addition it would facilitate earthworks for roading and tracking to enable access to the tower construction sites inside and outside any sediment protection control area.

2119.     By Application 34712, Transpower sought consent for the discharge of contaminants to land from ancillary activities that produce wastewater or wash water, such as:

  • a) the use of chemical cracking rock-breaking techniques
  • b) de-watering sediment-laden water from the trenches
  • c) the washing of vehicles, plant or machinery
  • d) geotechnical drilling activities
  • e) dust suppression
  • f)  concrete laying or reworking, associated with the installation of the tower foundations.

Consents from Environment Waikato

Overhead line and Whakamaru North Substation

2120.     Transpower applied for resource consents for works within the area of the requirements for the overhead line section of the Grid Upgrade Project. The works would also extend into the area of the requirement for designation for the Whakamaru North part of the Grid Upgrade Project.

2121.     By Application 116902, Transpower sought land-use consent for vegetation clearance and earthworks associated with tower site preparation and access tracks, within the designated area in high-risk erosion areas.

2122.     By Application 116903, Transpower sought a discharge permit for the composting of vegetation (less than 20 cubic metres per site) for composting/mulching of vegetation generated through vegetation trimming and clearance.

2123.     By Application 116904, Transpower applied for land-use consent for the drilling of tower foundations below the water table.

2124.     By Application 116905 Transpower sought a discharge permit for the discharge of site-water and drilling fluids from drilling activities into surface water.

Effects on the environment

2125.     There would be positive and adverse effects on the environment of allowing the requirement. When addressing these actual and potential effects on the environment, the Board needs to make a judgement based on the realistic possible effects, their likelihood, and potential impacts.6

Positive effects

2126.     In Chapter 6, the Board identified the positive effects on the environment of the Grid Upgrade Project which the activities that would be authorised by the resource consents would enable.

Adverse effects

Ecological effects

2127.     In his evidence, Mr Beale, independent terrestrial ecologist and resource management expert, addressed impacts of the resource consent applications on terrestrial ecology.

2128.     Mr Beale identified seven areas of locally significant vegetation in terms of the values contained in section 6(c) of the RMA, and gave his opinion that none of these areas would be either regionally or nationally significant. This view was contested by Waipa District Council which contended that the proposed clearance of vegetation would be contrary to Policy RU37 of the Waipa District Plan relating to the protection of areas of significant indigenous flora and fauna. Mr Beale responded that the proposal would not be contrary to the policy because it would not affect any area of significant vegetation or habitats of indigenous vegetation that is listed in Appendix 14 of the district plan.

2129.     Mr Beale stated that the majority of vegetation clearance would be carried out across land that is flat or gently undulating; and that the vegetation stands that would be most affected would be stands of kahikatea in Ardmore Basin, the Paparimu/Hunua Valley area, and across the Waikato plains. Mr Beale acknowledged that in many places, complete removal of stands would be necessary.

2130.     Te Hoe Holdings submitted that the construction of the transmission towers would result in the clearance of “virgin bush”. Mr Beale acknowledged the ecological value of this forest remnant, though he noted that due to stock invasion it could not be described as virgin bush. He reported that relocation of the tower site had been considered, but that this option had been rejected by the affected landowner, because avoidance of the forest remnant would have moved the tower closer to a residence. Transpower therefore proposed a mitigation measure that Mr Beale considered to be extensive, including the replacement of trees within the designation, and establishment of equivalent vegetation outside it.

2131.     Mr Beale acknowledged in his evidence that the selective removal of canopy trees would result in localised disturbances. The main vegetation changes would involve increase in stature of remaining vegetation, and potential reduction in the regenerative capacity of the remnants. Mr Beale also stated that vegetation clearance would result in increased levels of fragmentation in affected remnants; and that increased fragmentation could have significant adverse effects on forest ecosystems, particularly through increased edge effects.

2132.     The National Wetland Trust submitted concerns regarding the potential disruption of ecological corridors through the clearance. Mr Beale agreed that there is a risk of this, but considered that the proposed mitigation would retain corridors without further disruptions in future.

2133.     Mr Beale defined the general purpose of the proposed mitigation measures as being to replace cleared vegetation with either vegetation of a more appropriate stature, or to reinstate the vegetation at another location, giving a list of species suitable for location under the overhead line.

2134.     In his evidence, Mr Beale accepted that, for up to 1 year following establishment, maintenance of all plantings would be Transpower’s responsibility; and acknowledged that in practice the landowner’s agreement would be necessary.

2135.     On the adverse effects on ecological values as a result of the underground cable and substations, Mr Beale proposed the following mitigation measures:

  • a) define all construction site boundaries clearly on the road
  • b) ensure that, as far as practicable, no vegetation is disturbed or removed beyond the defined construction zone
  • c) replace amenity trees removed elsewhere along the cable routes
  • d) relocate native plantings within the stormwater management areas to other parts of these areas beyond the cable route;
  • e) replace māhoe trees removed from the steep slopes immediately north of and downslope of Point View Drive
  • f)  when designing amenity and screening planting schemes for the Pakuranga Substation site and the Brownhill Transition Station site, consider the contributions to the ecological value of the area, including the adjacent riparian areas.

2136.     The Board shares submitters’ disappointment at the proposed clearing of valued stands of native trees, and considers those clearances as adverse effects on the environment.

2137.     The Board finds that the clearances are necessary for the establishment of the transmission line, and that the proposed mitigation and remedial measures would mitigate the adverse effects to some extent. Albeit reduced in those ways, adverse effects would remain, to be had in regard in deciding the relevant resource consent applications.

Archaeological effects

2138.     The land-use consent applications for earthworks relating to both tower foundations and the underground cable have the potential to have significant adverse effects on archaeological and heritage sites.

2139.     Mr B D Druskovich, consultant archaeologist, provided the main evidence relating to the archaeological and heritage effects of the resource consent applications.

2140.     Construction of the underground cable could possibly damage and/or destroy three archaeological sites, and archaeological evidence is likely to be found during the works at the Pakuranga Substation. Mr Druskovich asserted that although these sites may be damaged by the underground cable proposal, the actual impact of effects would be minimal because the sites have already been compromised by farming and other activities in the past. Mr Druskovich noted that modification of the sites would require the approval of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT).

2141.     NZHPT had withdrawn evidence it had previously intended to adduce; and joined with Transpower in proposing archaeological and cultural conditions. Those conditions would require further investigation to be undertaken prior to commencement of construction activity. NZHPT informed the Board that its concerns would be addressed by imposition of the proposed conditions.

2142.     The underground cable from Pakuranga to Brownhill would pass an archaeological site consisting of a flattened knoll with terraces on it. The archaeological significance of the site is unknown. Mr Druskovich stated that, provided the proposed mitigation is undertaken, laying the cables in the area would be acceptable due to the unknown nature of the site, and the fact that only a portion of it would be disturbed.

2143.     Towers 63a to Tower 71 would be located over an area where a number of archaeological finds had been noted. Mr Druskovich stated that he expected to find archaeological evidence on or around all tower sites in that area, particularly the location of Paparata Pa. In his evidence he proposed mitigation measures, regarding which no submitters raised concerns.

2144.     The Board finds that the disturbance of possible archaeological sites would be necessary for the establishment of the transmission line, and that the proposed mitigation measures, and necessity of obtaining NZHPT approval, would avoid adverse effects on the environment.

Noise effects

2145.     In Chapter 12, the Board addressed audible noise effects from construction of the transmission line. Those findings are applicable to the exercise of the resource consents involving construction activities.

2146.     The Board reiterates its finding to the effect that, if construction activities are carried on in compliance with the proposed conditions, incorporating the New Zealand Standard for Construction Noise NZS 6803:1999 and amendments proposed by the Manukau City Council and Mr Lloyd, emission of noise would be appropriately constrained, and no significant adverse effect on the environment would result.

Construction effects

2147.     Effects associated with construction process could include removal of clean fill, vibration effects, creation of dust, runoff causing erosion and stormwater discharges into nearby watercourses.

2148.     Mr Patrick, transmission lines engineer from Transpower, described a range of measures that would be used to prevent dust nuisance and management of waterways to avoid potentially adverse effects. Such mitigation would include the watering of track surfaces, refraining from working in sensitive locations, avoiding work during periods of excessive water flow, and avoiding work when ground conditions were unsuitable. There was no contention that these measures would be insufficient to mitigate the adverse effects of the earthworks.

2149.     Ms Allan gave her opinion that construction-related effects would be localised and temporary; and that the distance of construction activities from dwellings, combined with liaison with potentially affected peoples, would be sufficient to mitigate the majority of effects.

2150.     Ms Allan acknowledged that it may not always be practicable to apply dust mitigation efforts commonly utilised in urban environments, such as watering of the ground. She stated that as the receiving environment is not a highly sensitive area, so this would not be a problem. In addition, she stated that in areas of sensitive land use (such as horticultural land) special mitigation methods would be applied: for example, permanent earthwork cut faces and fill areas would be hydro-seeded as soon as possible. As a result of this mitigation, Ms Allan concluded that dust effects would be localised, minor and temporary.

2151.     Federated Farmers submitted that earthworks should be undertaken in a manner that does not create dust nuisance, and when undertaken in waterways should be managed so as not to create a muddy mess.

2152.     Mr A M Collier stated that erosion and sediment control measures could ensure the earthworks would be appropriately managed; and that careful consideration should be given to potential cumulative effects of accelerated erosion as a result of earthworks.

2153.     Mr K Baker of Lichfield Farms Limited raised concerns in his submission relating to disruption to farming practices during construction. Mr Patrick detailed the potential effects of construction on the Lichfield farm property, and stated that the potential for adverse effects would be minimised through liaison and consultation with the affected party. Measures identified in that way would be incorporated into the site works plan for Lichfield Farms.

2154.     The construction of the Brownhill Substation is to be in four stages, of which the first stage and the last two stages would involve earthworks to be authorised by Resource Consent 34711. The majority of those earthworks would be carried out in the first stage and would include, not exclusively, construction of site access, underground cable installation, all the site earthworks, and ground stabilisation.

2155.     Ms Allan gave evidence that elements of the construction stages that impinge on the natural environment, such as the earthworks and stream works, would be mitigated by using varying design methodology and the provision of a construction management plan and a site works plan. Auckland Regional Council’s TP90 (Technical Publication No. 90) guidelines would be applied to earthworks. Construction noise would be managed to meet the requirements of the current Construction Noise Standard (NZS 6803). Dust mitigation would be carried out by using water carts at key locations, hydro-seeding of finished surfaces, wheel washing, and covering dusty loads leaving the site. In the witness’s opinion, the overall effects of the substation construction would be temporary, localised and, allowing for the proposed mitigation, minimal.

2156.     Ms McGovern gave evidence that a construction management plan would be prepared in accordance with Auckland Regional Council technical publications. Measures in the construction management plan would be complied with and monitored to ensure that any effects are no more than minor in the surrounding environment. For each site and tower there would also be a site works plan. This would be a specific detailed plan giving layout and activity description, and also referring to procedures or requirements of the construction management plan. Details regarding both site works plans and construction management plans are included in conditions proposed by Transpower and the regional councils.

2157.     By their submission, Mr W and Mrs S Fuller raised concerns regarding the construction of an access road through their property, the removal of vegetation, and proposed ‘major’ earthworks. Mr Patrick addressed those concerns in his evidence. Mr Patrick also stated that the effects of the access road would be temporary, with the road being removed and the land returned to its previous state at the end of construction. The witness estimated that the area of vegetation to be removed would be approximately 1.2 hectares, and gave the opinion that the impacts would be similar to those of removing trees for harvest. Mr Patrick proposed a range of mitigation measures to alleviate the adverse effects resulting from the proposed earthworks.

2158.     In his evidence Mr Rasul, project manager for the Grid Upgrade Project, outlined the proposed construction management plan. The plan would contain:

  • a) land stability and sediment management controls
  • b) storage and reuse of topsoil
  • c) management and disposal of spoil
  • d) groundwater and stormwater management, treatment and disposal
  • e) silt and dust control, during earthwork stage
  • f)  traffic/access management
  • g) temporary activities and equipment storage in specified areas
  • h) alliance car parking in specified areas
  • i)  security and lighting during construction
  • j)  contaminated land management practices
  • k) construction noise, dust and vibration
  • l)  hours of work
  • m) existing network utilities’ protocols and guidelines
  • n) cultural protocols and archaeological requirements
  • o) vegetation restoration
  • p) community information and liaison.

2159.     The Board accepts the evidence given by Mr Patrick, Mr Collier, Mr Rasul, Ms McGovern and Ms Allan. In reliance on their evidence, the Board finds that if the construction activities are carried out in compliance with the proposed conditions, and the proposed mitigation measures are provided, the adverse environmental effects of allowing the construction activities would be minor, and would not warrant refusing the resource consent applications.

Construction-related traffic effects

2160.     In paragraphs [1304]–[1311] of Chapter 12, the Board addressed the potential for adverse effects of construction activities on use of public roads, particularly interruptions to traffic flows. The Board stated its finding that the potential adverse effects should be mitigated by imposition of proposed conditions.

2161.     The Board is satisfied that the exercise of the activities that would be authorised by the resource consents sought could avoid substantial adverse effects on traffic, but only if such conditions are fully complied with.

Effects on surface or groundwater

2162.     In her evidence, Ms Allan stated that generally any effects on groundwater would be localised and temporary, except that earthworks at a few towers may involve changes that would permanently but slightly alter groundwater levels in the immediate vicinity. In addition it is possible that the topographic modifications in the vicinity of Tower 9, and between Towers 14 and 16A and B, would have a similar effect. All those areas are elevated and remote, so there would be no adverse effect on the availability, quality or use of groundwater.

2163.     Mr D Cameron, a water quality scientist, provided expert evidence regarding the potential effects on surface water as a result of the Grid Upgrade Project. Those potential effects would include a loss of riparian vegetation, disturbance to stream banks or beds resulting in the discharge of sediment into the watercourse, and introduction of structures in the active channel that might affect ecological function.

2164.     Mr Cameron identified that where the cable line would cross Pakuranga Creek near Ti Rakau Drive, the cable would pass through a stormwater management area. However, he gave his opinion that the effects of placing the cable in this area by an open trenching process would result in minor effects, provided suitable mitigation is undertaken. Mr Cameron advised that sediment mitigation measures should be a part of the proposed construction plan, and recommended that these be consistent with Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 90.

2165.     Transpower is also seeking two consent options for the cable crossing an unnamed tributary of Pakuranga Stream: a filled embankment; and a cable bridge. The embankment option would extend the existing culvert upstream by 30 metres. The potential effects of that option would include the loss of 30 metres of existing streambed, and a temporarily increased sediment load downstream. The 30-metre stretch that would be lost is already modified. Mr Cameron gave his opinion that there would be no more than a minor effect on the aquatic ecology. The use of the cable bridge option would require no temporary or permanent construction in the watercourse channel.

2166.     Transpower is seeking consent for two options for the proposed cable crossing of Mangemangeroa Stream at the location of the unformed Caldwells Road: a fill embankment, and a cable bridge. Both options would require the removal of vegetation, with a 20-metre wide swath necessary for the bridge option, and a 50-metre wide swath for the embankment option. The reach affected by this loss of vegetation would be less than 1 per cent of the entire stream, and Mr Cameron gave his opinion that the effects of the loss would be insignificant.

2167.     The construction of the culvert component of the fill embankment would involve extensive earthworks, and the placement of a culvert in the stream. Those activities could have a range of adverse effects on the stream ecology, particularly on the banded kōkopu present. Mr Cameron outlined a variety of potential mitigation methods to minimise those effects,, recommending for both the implementation of appropriate sediment control measures through the construction management plan.

2168.     Mr Cameron gave his opinion that the proposed cable crossing of Turanga Creek would require no works in the stream bed, and no vegetation clearance. The only earthworks necessary would be for abutment fill, for which Mr Cameron supported the development and implementation of a construction management plan incorporating sediment-control measures. Subject to compliance with the plan and implementation of those measures, Mr Cameron classed the potential effects on the stream as less than significant.

2169.     The cable crossing of Otara Creek would involve the removal of a swath of vegetation 10 metres to 20 metres wide, and trenching in the creek bed. This would affect an area of mangroves of 150–300 square metres on the west bank, and up to 100 square metres on the east bank. Mr Cameron stated his opinion that the loss of this vegetation would have no more than a minor adverse effect on Otara Creek. He proposed mitigation of the release of sediment through trenching, including a timing requirement for fish passage and sediment control methods.

2170.     The cable crossing of an unnamed tributary of Turanga Creek is proposed to be done by trenching at times of low flow. Cables would be installed at a depth of 1.5 metres in the ground. This reach of the stream is highly modified, and Mr Cameron assessed the potential effects as no more than minor.

2171.     Mr D J Scott stated in his evidence that the development of Brownhill Substation would “in effect destroy the very elements that the community are actively protecting and enhancing”. The reason for this statement was given as Transpower’s intention to modify and fill the stream to form a large level building platform.

2172.     The effects on this stream were identified by Mr Cameron in his evidence. Allowing for the proposed mitigation, Mr D J Scott classed the effects as minor.

2173.     Ms Allan addressed the submission from Mr Scott, and gave her opinion that his opinion was a “significant overstatement”; in particular as she noted that the earthworks had been located following community consultation.

2174.     The evidence of Mr B H Kouvelis, a senior environmental engineer, addressed the potential effects of the resource consents on groundwater. He stated that trenching, tower foundations and possibly cuttings for access roads to tower sites were likely to affect the groundwater, and that the effects of these were likely to be minor and localised.

2175.     The construction phase of the Grid Upgrade Project would result in an alteration in groundwater flow patterns around the immediate area of the tower foundations. Mr Kouvelis gave his opinions that the dewatering and excavation elements of the project would be unlikely to impact on water levels in existing water supply bores; and any of those effects would be temporary, localised and minor. He also noted that the diversion of groundwater in the area is a permitted activity.

2176.     Mr Kouvelis identified the need for detailed geotechnical investigations prior to detailed design of each tower. In addition he considered that any necessary mitigation should be addressed through provisions in the construction management and site works plans.

2177.     Agricultural Investments Ltd (AIL) raised effects on groundwater from drilling below the groundwater table. Mr Kouvelis addressed this concern, and gave his opinion that there would be little likelihood of the two bores close to the AIL property being affected. The two bores in question draw from a significantly greater depth than the drilling that would be carried out as a part of the Grid Upgrade Project.

2178.     The Board accepts the opinions of the expert witnesses and finds that, if the activities that would affect groundwater and surface water are exercised in accordance with the proposed conditions, and with the proposed mitigation measures, any substantial adverse effects would be avoided or mitigated, and any remaining effects would only be of minor significance.

Effects on construction traffic

2179.     Construction traffic would be moved to sites using the local road network and State Highway 1 and would be subject to normal traffic requirements. Any new or modified access to the roads would either meet district plan requirements, or resource consent would be obtained. Where practicable, access over private land would follow existing farm access tracks, although a number of new tracks will need to be constructed at appropriate times of the year.

2180.     Ms Allan gave her opinion that the construction traffic would cause only minor, localised and temporary disturbance both on and off the sites.

2181.     The Board finds that effects of construction traffic using public roads would be mitigated by compliance with traffic management plans (as discussed in paragraph [2161] of this chapter; and effects of construction vehicles passing over private land could be mitigated by terms and conditions of grants of rights of entry, and of easements.

Social effects

2182.     Social effects of exercising the resource consents are likely to occur at varying significance along the line ranging from direct interruption of lifestyle (due to construction), and to fear and anxiety. Expert evidence about those potential effects was given by Dr Phillips and Ms Meade Rose, and was described in Chapter 12. They concluded that although the effects may be genuinely felt, and may be significant in those personal terms, given the extent of the line, the impacts would be minor to moderate.

2183.     The Board accepts those assessments of the social effects of activities that are the subject of the resource consent applications. As identified in paragraphs [1285] and [1287] of Chapter 12, Transpower proposes measures to mitigate and remedy those effects.

Cultural effects

2184.     Most of the potential cultural effects of exercising the resource consents are substantially the same as those of the designation, which were addressed in the archaeological effects section earlier in this chapter.

2185.     In her evidence, Ms McGovern gave her opinion that as there is the potential for excavation work to uncover items of cultural importance, any work in the area would be undertaken in accordance with proposed protocols. The witness considered that they would be adequate to avoid and mitigate any effects on cultural sites found.

2186.     In its submission, the Ngati Raukawa Trust Board expressed concern about the impact of the proposed Grid Upgrade Project on rural marae activities, lifestyles and cultural values.

2187.     In his evidence, Mr Mikaere, specialist in tāngata whenua consultation, gave his opinion that Transpower had met those concerns by ensuring the relevant provisions in Part 2 of the RMA are properly addressed. He added that, where opportunity presents, culturally appropriate steps would be taken to accommodate Māori cultural values.

2188.     The Board finds that any cultural effects of the resource consents would not be distinct from those of the designations, on which its findings were summarised in Chapter 13.

Cumulative effects

2189.     In her evidence, Ms Allan noted comments in the section 42A report to the Board about potential cumulative effects of the resource consents. She stated that the resource consents relate to discrete areas that are widely spread, and gave her opinion that as such there would be no cumulative effects associated with them.

2190.     That was not disputed by any submitter.

2191.     The Board accepts Ms Allan’s opinion and finds that any adverse effect of the exercise of any of the resource consents sought would not be a cumulative effect.

Discharge consents

2192.     Section 105 of the RMA directs that if an application is for a discharge permit, then the consent authority is, in addition to the matters in section 104(1), to have regard to:

  • a) the nature of the discharge and the sensitivity of the receiving environment to adverse effects
  • b) the applicant’s reasons for the proposed choice
  • c) any possible alternative methods of discharge, including discharge into any other receiving environment.

2193.     Two of Transpower’s resource consent applications seek discharge permits, so the Board has to have regard to those criteria.

Nature of discharges

2194.     Exercise of the consent sought by Application 34370 to the Auckland Regional Council would result in the discharge of contaminants to land from ancillary activities that produce wastewater or wash water. Similarly, the consent sought by Application 34712 would result in discharge of contaminants to land from ancillary activities that produce wastewater or wash water. (Details regarding the activities are contained in the description of the resource consent applications in paragraph [2120] of the present chapter.)

2195.     Exercise of the consent sought by Application 116905 to the Waikato Regional Council would result in the discharge of site water and drilling fluid from drilling activities into surface water.

2196.     In his evidence Mr Cameron stated that the development and implementation of appropriate sediment-control measures would be appropriate mitigation measures, and should be included in a construction management plan.

2197.     On the discharge of stormwater and groundwater, Ms McGovern stated that the predominant contaminant would be likely be sediment. In the opinion of this witness, the identification of a stormwater management area in the construction management plan would suitably mitigate any adverse effects of this discharge.

2198.     Ms Allan provided detail of proposed mitigation. She stated that dewatered stormwater would be discharged to nearby vegetated land and directed away from nearby streams. Ms Allan gave her opinion that, following mitigation, the effects of discharges would be minor or insignificant along the upgrade route.

2199.     Ms McGovern stated that construction of the proposed Pakuranga Substation could result in adverse effects on nearby Pakuranga Creek, such as the creation of dust, and runoff causing erosion. Ms McGovern gave her opinion that the proposed construction management plan, prepared in accordance with Auckland Regional Council technical publications, would be sufficient mitigation of these potential effects.

Sensitivity of the receiving environments

2200.     The proposed cable route would cross an unnamed tributary of Otara Creek near Te Irirangi Drive. This stream passes through a stormwater management area and is highly modified. Transpower proposes to install cables by open-trenching at times of low flow, a practice that could result in the disturbance of sediment. In Mr Cameron’s opinion the effects of this action would be less than minor, due to the low ecological value in that reach of the stream.

2201.     No issue was raised in submissions about the discharges regarding the sensitivity of the receiving environment.

Alternative discharge methods

2202.     Transpower submitted that the receiving environment has the ability to absorb the discharges from the activity, and that there are no practical alternative methods of discharge currently available.

2203.     No submitter disputed that, and neither of the consent authorities (the Auckland and Waikato Regional Councils) raised any concern regarding the discharge permits. Conditions to be attached to the discharge permits were submitted to the Board by Transpower and the consent authorities.

Consideration of discharges

2204.     Having had regard to the nature of the discharges, the sensitivity of the receiving environments, Transpower’s reasons, and any possible alternatives including the possibility of discharge into other receiving environments, the Board finds that, if the proposed discharges are carried out in full compliance with the proposed conditions of consent, any adverse effects on the environment would be insignificant.

Summary of findings on environmental effects of resource consents

2205.     In summary, the Board finds that the activities that would be authorised by the resource consents sought would or could have these effects on the environment:

  • a) positive effects of making up a predicted deficiency in reliable supply of electrical energy at Auckland at times of peak demand, largely using an existing transmission corridor, replacing older assets of smaller capacity with new assets of higher capacity and greater reliability, and promoting renewable generation by facilitating transmission of electrical energy from renewable sources to the major market
  • b) adverse effects on terrestrial ecology in clearances of native vegetation, even after allowing for proposed mitigation and remedial measures
  • c) adverse social effects that may be significant in personal terms, although not more than moderate.

Planning instruments

2206.     Having considered the actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activities that would be authorised by the resource consents, the Board has to have regard to any relevant provisions of planning instruments in the classes listed in section 104(1)(b): a National Policy Statement; a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement; a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; and a plan or proposed plan.

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act

2207.     As stated in paragraph [1969] of this chapter, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (HGMPA) is, for the purpose of resource consent applications, to be treated as a New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. It seeks, among other things, to protect the quality of the water in the Gulf.

2208.     Ms McGovern gave evidence that the works for the Brownhill-Pakuranga underground cable are within the greater Hauraki Gulf marine catchment as defined in the HGMPA.

2209.     That witness stated that the construction activities are confined in area and are to be managed in a way that would avoid the potential for contaminants in surface runoff to affect nearby waterways. Also, the earthworks for the construction of Brownhill Substation are a significant distance from the marine zone, and the various mitigation methods proposed would ensure there would be no adverse effect on that zone or the coastal waters of the Hauraki Gulf.

2210.     Further consents may be needed for activities within the zone covered by the HGMPA, particularly for the upgrade of the Pakuranga Substation. Ms McGovern stated her opinion that there would not be any effect relevant to the HGMPA, as any earthworks would be of relatively small scale, and sediment mitigation measures will be implemented.

2211.     There being no dispute, the Board accepts those opinions, and finds that the activities proposed to be authorised by the resource consents, if carried out in compliance with the proposed conditions, would not contravene any provision of the HGMPA.

National Policy Statement for Electricity Transmission

2212.     In paragraph [2001] of this chapter, the Board stated its finding that in facilitating the establishment of new transmission resources to meet the needs of present and future generations, Transpower has also managed the adverse environmental effects of the network (even though some would not be fully eliminated); and in so doing, the proposal does not conflict with the NPS.

2213.     The proposed resource consents are needed for works required for the Grid Upgrade Project, and are incidental to it. As found in paragraphs [2138] and [2184] of this chapter, the only adverse effects on the environment of exercising the resource consents would be adverse effects on terrestrial ecology in clearances of native vegetation, and adverse social effects that would be no more than moderate. Transpower proposes mitigation and remedial measures in respect of both classes of effect.

2214.     So the Board finds that exercising the resource consents in compliance with the proposed conditions would not conflict with any relevant provision of the NPS on Electricity Transmission.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

2215.     In paragraph [2007] of this chapter, the Board stated its finding that to whatever extent the Otahuhu and Pakuranga Substations and routes for the underground cables to them are within the coastal environment to which the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement applies, the existing development of the substations and the parts of Manukau City affected by the cable routes are such that the NZCPS would not influence the decision on the proposed designations in respect of them.

2216.     The activities within the coastal environment that would be authorised by the resource consent would mostly be within the established urban area of Manukau City, or (like the works in the headwaters of the Mangemangeroa Stream and Turanga Creek) some distance from the coast.

2217.     In the event, neither Transpower, nor any submitter, contended that the NZCPS should influence the decision of any of the resource consent applications; and no witness gave evidence tending to show that it should.

2218.     The Board finds that the activities within the coastal environment that would be authorised by the resource consent would all be minor and subject to proposed conditions, compliance with which would ensure those activities would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives, or implementation of the policies, of the NZCPS.

Auckland Regional Policy Statement

2219.     In paragraphs [239]–[249] of Chapter 4, the Board identified relevant provisions of the ARPS. In paragraph [2024] of the present chapter, the Board stated its finding that the proposed Grid Upgrade Project is not in conflict with the policy statement, read as a whole.

2220.     The activities that would be authorised by the resource consents sought from the Auckland Regional Council are incidental to the Grid Upgrade Project, and mostly involve earthworks, and works in watercourses. Conditions to be attached to the consents have been agreed on by Transpower and the Auckland Regional Council.

2221.     A number of the policies seek to protect the quality of water in watercourses. Ms Allan gave her opinion that any effect on water bodies would be minor and localised, and would not threaten the values set out in objective 8.3 of the regional policy statement. The proposed conditions and intended construction management plans are designed to ensure adverse effects on water quality are to be avoided or mitigated in accordance with the proposed construction management plans, so that implementation of the regional policies would not be impeded.

2222.     Following consultation with iwi, the conditions also provide for protocols to be followed in the event of evidence of earlier Māori occupation being uncovered by the work.

2223.     The works, including removal of vegetation and earthworks for the underground cables, are to be done so as to avoid impinging on natural and cultural heritage values, and where required, approval by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust is to be obtained. The unchallenged evidence of Ms Allan and Ms McGovern was that the mitigation measures required by the proposed conditions would ensure consistency with the regional policies in those respects.

2224.     Although construction of the tower foundations for the overhead line would involve soil disturbance, the effects would be localised; and risk of erosion would be avoided by site management and replanting.

2225.     In short, the Board finds that the activities in the Auckland region to be carried on under resource consents would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives, or implementation of the relevant policies, of the regional policy statement.

Waikato Regional Policy Statement

2226.     In paragraphs [254]–[259] of Chapter 4, the Board identified relevant provisions of the WRPS.

2227.     Chapter 3.3 relates to objectives and policies concerning land and soil. In her evidence, Ms Allan stated that the foundation and tracking works would be undertaken in a way that would avoid inducing erosion; and that the approach to construction is consistent with the policy of avoiding, remedying or mitigating accelerated erosion. On an objective concerning moisture management it was Ms Allan’s evidence that the proposed site and vegetation management would avoid net loss of productive soils. That witness also stated that the structures associated with the proposed consents would avoid effects on the banks and beds of water bodies.

2228.     Ms Allan also gave her opinion that water quality would not be compromised by the work; and that the mitigation planned at the construction stage would avoid adverse effects on water bodies: no contaminant discharges are intended. During construction, stormwater from sites would be treated and discharged to land.

2229.     On plants and animals (biodiversity), Ms Allan gave evidence that the proposed mitigation would ensure that the exercise of the resource consents would not compromise those objectives; and that although a small number of areas of significant vegetation would be affected, those effects would be minimised by mitigation proposals and enhancement where possible.

2230.     Ms Allan’s evidence on those topics was not challenged. Relying on it, the Board finds that the activities in the Waikato region to be carried on under resource consents would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives, or implementation of the relevant policies of the regional policy statement.

Proposed Auckland Regional Air, Land and Water Plan

2231.     The Board summarised relevant general provisions of the proposed plan in paragraphs [250] and [251] of Chapter 4.

2232.     Objectives 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 relate to discharges to air, and are relevant to the consent applications due to the potential for dust to be released from earthworks.

2233.     Ms Allan gave evidence that those air quality objectives would not be compromised by activities associated with the Grid Upgrade Project, as any temporary effects on air quality associated with construction sites would be minor and localized; and provisions in the various management plans would avoid or mitigate any effect on amenity in the general rural area, while proposed mitigation measures would serve Policy 4.4.3.

2234.     On discharges to land, and land and water management, Ms Allan gave her opinion that the objectives would be met in that foundation works would have a less than minor effect, and any drilling undertaken would comply with conditions for permitted activities.

2235.     Chapter 7 of the proposed plan relates to beds of lakes and rivers. Objective 7.3.3 relates to activities in, on or under urban streams, of which Ms Allan claimed none would be affected by the proposed overhead line. In her evidence Ms Allan asserted that the relevant policies were not compromised by the proposed activities.

2236.     Land-use consents for earthworks within the designated areas could generate discharge of contaminants to air and, as such, are governed by Rule 4.5.1. Ms McGovern explained that emission of dust would be managed through a construction management plan, so the activity would be classed as permitted under this rule.

2237.     Application 34712 seeks consent for discharge of contaminants to land, an activity governed by Rule 5.5.68, by which this activity would be discretionary. Any potential effects would be avoided, remedied or mitigated through a construction management plan.

2238.     Application 34712 seeks consent for the drilling of holes, which by Rule 6.5.18 is classed as a permitted activity.

2239.     In summary, the Board finds that none of the activities in the Auckland region for which resource consents are sought would contravene the proposed Auckland Regional Air, Land and Water Plan; and that those that require resource consent are eligible for it.

Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control

2240.     In paragraphs [252] and [253] of Chapter 4, the Board summarised relevant provisions of this plan.

2241.     Objective 5.5.1 concerns maintaining or enhancing water quality in the region. In her evidence, Ms Allan explained that the proposed tower foundations and earthworks would be undertaken in a manner consistent with these goals.

2242.     Objective 5.1.2 relates to the mauri of water in the region. Ms Allan reported that consultation with tāngata whenua had not identified any concerns regarding the mauri of water, and as such Ms Allan considered that the proposed activities would not impair the achieving of that objective.

2243.     Policies 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of this plan relate to land disturbance activities resulting in elevated discharge of sediment. Ms Allan gave her opinion that mitigation in accordance with construction management plans would result in any adverse effects being minor or less.

2244.     By Rule 5.4.2.1 of this plan, roading/tracking and earthworks in areas between 1.0 and 5.0 hectares are classed as controlled activities. Site works associated with construction have the potential for sediment laden runoff from the site, and are the subject of Application 34711.

2245.     Details were given in evidence of measures by which potential effects would be avoided, remedied and mitigated in accordance with a construction management plan.

2246.     Rule 5.4.3.1 classifies as restricted discretionary activities: those in areas greater than or equal to 0.25 hectare (including the construction of roading/tracking over 100 metres length). Again the potential effects of the proposed activities are to be avoided, remedied and mitigated by measures described in a construction management plan.

2247.     The discharge of any sediment-laden runoff resulting from activities authorised by grant of Application 34711 would be controlled by Rule 5.5.1 (iii), and classed as permitted activities.

2248.     In summary, the Board finds that none of the activities in the Auckland region for which resource consents are sought would contravene the proposed Auckland Regional Plan – Sediment Control; and that those that require resource consent, are eligible for it.

Waikato Regional Plan

2249.     The Board summarised the general provisions of the Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) in paragraphs [260]–[264] of Chapter 4.

2250.     Section 3.2 of the WRP concerns the management of water resources. In her evidence, Ms Allan stated that water bodies would not be directly affected by any of the activities for which consents are sought, and therefore Policy 1 would not be compromised.

2251.     Policy 2 of that section of the WRP concerns the management of degraded water bodies. Ms Allan stated in evidence that temporary construction activities where consents were not required would be managed in a way that achieved the detailed criteria.

2252.     In respect of Policy 3 (concerning natural character) and Policy 4, (concerning Waikato region surface water class), Ms Allan gave her opinion that the natural characteristics of lakes, rivers and their margins would not be affected and as such there would be no effect on the characteristics listed in Policy 3; so consents are not required under Policy 4.

2253.     Section 3.5 of the WRP governs discharges. Policy 1 enables discharges to water that will have only minor adverse effects. Ms Allan gave her opinion that that any incidental discharges to water would comply with permitted activity requirements, and would not require consents. Policy 3 of this section elucidates alternatives to direct discharge to water. Ms Allan commented that discharge to land (and land treatment if necessary) would be employed in association with tower foundation works.

2254.     In regard to discharges to land (Policy 4), Ms Allan stated that where water from construction activities is discharged to land, no added nutrients would be involved. In regard to the preservation of groundwater quality (Policy 5), the witness explained that discharges to land would be minor and localised, so the objectives of Policies 4 and 5 would be achieved. Policy 7 relates to stormwater discharges, in particular their management. Ms Allan stated that treatment of stormwater to avoid adverse effects on receiving waters would be achieved through construction and site management plans.

2255.     Land-use consent Application 116904 applies to the drilling of tower platforms, in respect of which Section 3.8: Drilling is relevant. Ms Allan gave evidence that the objectives of Policies 1 and 2 of this section, regarding the effects of drilling and the enabling of drilling activities respectively, would be covered by planned geotechnical investigations and foundation works.

2256.     Application 116904 seeks consent for drilling below the water table, an activity governed and classified by Rules 3.8.4.6, 3.8.4.7, 3.8.4.8 and 3.8.4.9. Although Transpower maintained that Rules 3.8.4.8 and 3.8.4.9 were unlikely to apply at most tower sites, site-specific consents would be applied for at a later date if required. Rule 3.8.4.6 would classify the activity as permitted if re-instatement of holes takes place within two days. As this may not occur, consent is required under Rule 3.8.4.7, in which case the drilling would be conducted in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Rule 3.8.4.7.

2257.     The discharge of drilling fluids under Application 116905 is controlled and classified by Rules 3.8.4.3 and 3.8.4.4. Transpower proposes, in accordance with those rules, that all water and drilling fluids would be controlled and treated in accordance with a construction management plan to ensure compliance with the rules.

2258.     Rules 3.5.11.4 and 3.5.11.5 class as permitted activities the discharge of stormwater to water or land in compliance with specified conditions. Application 116905 seeks consent for such discharge in case it is required.

2259.     Application 116902 entails earthworks, to which Section 5.1: Accelerated Erosion applies. Objective 5.1.2 of this section is a net reduction of accelerated erosion across the region. Ms Allan stated in her evidence that earthworks relating to the site would be undertaken in a manner that does not contribute to accelerated erosion, corresponding with the objective. Policy 1 relates to managing activities that may cause accelerated erosion. Ms Allan explained that land disturbance activities would be carried out in a way that would avoid accelerated erosion or any of the listed associated effects. Policy 2 and Policy 3 of that section relate to regulatory measures and the promotion of good practice. Ms Allan stated that earthworks and associated activities would accord with them.

2260.     The activities under Application 116902, when not in a high-risk erosion area, are by Rule 5.1.4.11 classed as permitted activities. Transpower maintained that those activities would be conducted in accordance with a construction management plan, complying with the conditions stipulated in this rule.

2261.     Activities under Application 116902 that are in a high-risk erosion zone would be classified by Rules 5.1.4.14 and 5.1.4.15 as controlled or discretionary activities. The implementation of a construction management plan would ensure compliance with those rules. If compliance with Rule 5.1.4.14 could not be achieved, a site-specific land-use consent would be applied for under Rule 5.1.4.15.

2262.     Application 116903 for the composting of vegetation is governed by Rules 5.2.8.1 and 5.2.8.4. The first of these applies to small-scale composting of less than 20 cubic metres per site. However, as the application is for a greater amount, Rule 5.2.8.4 applies, by which the composting would be a discretionary activity. Transpower maintained that the activity would be conducted in accordance with a vegetation management plan to ensure compliance with conditions imposed by the Waikato Regional Council.

2263.     Section 5.2 of the WRP relates to discharges onto and into land, and as such is relevant to the consents required for the Grid Upgrade Project. Objective 5.2.2 of this section pertains to the manner in which discharges of wastes and hazardous substances to land are undertaken.

2264.     In her evidence, Ms Allan explained her opinion that the various discharges involved would be in accordance with this objective. Policy 1 of this section (regarding low-risk discharges onto or into land) relates to a number of consents, most of which generally meet the requirements of the policy. Ms Allan also stated that those with adverse effects that would not comply would be the subject of mitigation or avoidance measures.

2265.     Policy 2 relates to other discharges onto or into land, of which those consents that do not comply also have mitigation planned.

2266.     Ms Allan’s evidence about the application of the WRP was not challenged, and the Board accepts it. The granting of the resource consents was not opposed.

2267.     The Board finds that none of the activities in the Waikato region for which resource consents are sought would contravene the WRP; and that those that require resource consent are eligible for it.

Proposed Auckland Regional Air, Land and Water Plan and the underground cable

2268.     Chapter 5 of this proposed plan is directly relevant to the proposed underground cable. Objective 5.3.13 of this chapter is to maintain the health, versatility and productive potential of regional soils. Ms McGovern gave her opinion that discharges associated with the underground cable would be of a minor nature and would not undermine the nature of soils in the area. She added that the construction management plan would include measures to avoid or mitigate any discharges.

2269.     Chapter 7 of the proposed plan is relevant to the three stream crossings necessary for the underground cable proposal. Ms McGovern gave her opinion that the development would be consistent with Objectives
7.3.1–7.3.3 due to the construction methodologies to be used, and the implementation of the construction management plan. Ms McGovern’s evidence also provided consideration of policies 7.4.8, 7.4.15, 7.4.16, 7.4.17, 7.4.20 and 7.4.21. After analysing each policy, she concluded that through appropriate design, mitigation and the use of construction management plans the proposed development would be consistent with the policy.

2270.     Transpower submitted that the use of a construction management plan will result in any potential discharge of contaminants to air (a result of exercising the consent sought by Application 34102) being classed as a permitted activity under Rule 4.5.1.

2271.     Application 34370 concerns the discharge of contaminants to land classified by Rule 5.5.68 as a discretionary activity. Ms Allan asserted that the adverse effects of these activities would be adequately mitigated through a construction management and a site management plan, and would comply with the rule.

2272.     The activity for which Application 34370 is made is classified as a discretionary activity by Rule 5.5.68. This rule applies to any discharge not otherwise provided for in any other rule in Chapter 5 of the proposed plan. It is possible that there may be discharges from ancillary activities such as vehicle or equipment washing, dust suppression or other activities associated with the installation of the underground cable that may not meet all the permitted activity conditions. In particular, activities would be located immediately adjacent to some watercourses. However, Ms Allan asserted that the effects could be adequately mitigated through the implementation of a site management plan.

2273.     Application 34373 is for consent to the diversion of surface water, which is governed by Rule 6.5.18 relating to the drilling of holes for geotechnical investigations. Provided this activity complies with conditions placed upon it, it would be classed as a permitted activity. The diversion of groundwater, a component of Application 34373, falls under Rule 6.6.69. This activity is classified as a restricted discretionary activity.

2274.     Application 34372 seeks consent for a variety of works in the bed of a watercourse. These activities are governed by Rule 7.5.6 and classified as restricted discretionary activities. This discretion is restricted to the actual and potential adverse effects arising from specified matters.

2275.     Having considered the potential effects of the applications (none of which was opposed) and the relevant rules in relation to the objectives and policies of the proposed plan, the Board finds that none of the activities for the underground cables for which resource consents are sought would contravene the proposed plan; and that those that require resource consent are eligible for it.

Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control and the underground cable

2276.     Objectives 5.5.1 and 5.1.2 of the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control (ARPSC) relate to enhancing or maintaining the quality of water bodies, and sustaining their mauri and wāhi tapu.

2277.     Ms McGovern gave evidence that the three watercourse crossings for the underground cable are to be undertaken in a manner to ensure the maintenance of water quality. She also stated that operation of the underground cable would not affect the watercourses.

2278.     Policy 5.2.1 of the ARPSC relates to land disturbance activities that may result in the generation and discharge of elevated sediment levels. The policy states that the employment of methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate these will be required. Ms McGovern stated that such measure would be undertaken and implemented through a construction management plan. In addition she advised that other land disturbance activities would be carefully managed to ensure consistency with Policy 5.2.1.

2279.     Application 34102 falls under Rule 5.4.3.1, by which it is classified as a discretionary activity. The excavation would have the potential for sediment-laden runoff during rain events, and the area and slope of the land in this instance determines activity status.

2280.     Application 34102 also falls under Rule 5.5.1, by which it is a permitted activity, so long as the conditions of the granted land-use consent are adhered to.

2281.     Ms McGovern’s evidence was not challenged, nor was the granting of the resource consents opposed.

2282.     Having considered the potential effects of the applications and the relevant rules in relation to the objectives and policies of the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control, the Board finds that none of the activities for the underground cables for which resource consents are sought would contravene the plan; and that those that require resource consent are eligible for it.

Summary of findings on planning instruments

2283.     Having had regard to the relevant provisions of the planning instruments applicable to the resource consent applications, the Board finds that the several activities that would be authorised by them, if carried on in compliance with the conditions proposed to be imposed on them, would not contravene the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act; would not conflict with any relevant provision of the NPS; would not significantly hinder achievement of the objectives, or implementation of the policies, of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, the ARPS, nor the WRPS; would not contravene the proposed Auckland Regional Air, Land and Water Plan, nor the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control or the Waikato Regional Plan; and that those activities that require resource consent under them are eligible for it.

Other necessary matters

2284.     By section 104(1)(c), a consent authority may have regard to any other matter it considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

2285.     Submitters (including but not exclusively Orini Downs Ltd and Perry Aggregates) expressed concerns that the consents sought are too generalized. In addition they asserted that there was not enough information given for the authority to assess the effects of the proposed activities. These concerns appear to the Board to be unfounded.

2286.     The Board does not find in the submission by one of the consenting authorities, Auckland Regional Council, that it considered the application to have a significant lack of relevant information. In addition, Mr Rasul reasoned that as access was not granted to all properties that would be affected, further investigation would be required to address some matters. This would enable the development of site-specific responses to effects, as well as the consideration of issues raised by individual landowners.

2287.     No submission was made by the second consenting authority, Waikato Regional Council. However, in a joint memorandum with Transpower, presented to the Board on 29 October 2008, the Council proposed various conditions for the resource consent applications.

2288.     The Board considers that, in the overall context of its Inquiry, there is no other matter that it considers relevant and necessary to determine the resource consent applications.

Conditions of consents

2289.     The distinction between the conditions to be imposed on the designations and those to be imposed on specific resource consents was explained by Ms Allan in cross-examination.7

2290.     A designation applies to a corridor for an overhead line or underground cables, or to substation sites; and the conditions restrict the activities that may be carried on in those corridors or sites for the designated purpose, including operational and maintenance activities.

2291.     A resource consent authorises a specific and defined activity on an identified site; and the conditions restrict the carrying on of the specified activity and in terms of section 108.

Resource consents from Auckland Regional Council

2292.     A set of conditions for the resource consents for activities within the Auckland region was proposed by Transpower and the Auckland Regional Council.

Conditions for Application 34102

2293.     The suggested conditions for land-use consents for earthworks would require preparation of a construction management plan. The plan is to ensure that the activities identified by consent numbers 34102, 34370, 34372 and 34373 are managed in an integrated and effective manner. The proposed conditions also provide details regarding the content of the construction management plan.

2294.     In addition, the proposed conditions require the consent-holder to submit an erosion and sediment control plan. That plan is to be consistent with the construction management plan and with Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication No. 90.

2295.     The proposed conditions contain other requirements regarding both known and unknown archaeological sites and wāhi tapu.

2296.     The consent period proposed is 35 years from the date of commencement of the consent under section 116 of the RMA. However, Transpower expects that the works will be completed by December 2013.

Conditions for Application 34711 and 34712

2297.     Conditions were also proposed for the land-use consent for earthworks/roading and tracking and the discharge of contaminants permit.

2298.     Those conditions also require a construction management plan; and in respect of control of earthworks, erosion and sediment control, they require the consent-holder to submit an erosion and sediment control plan, consistent with the required construction management plan. There is the particular provision that erosion and sediment control measures are to be constructed and maintained in general accordance with Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication No. 90.

2299.     The suggested conditions for these consents also contain provisions regarding contaminant management. In particular they require that no disturbed soil or debris or other material is to be deposited where it may enter any water body, or cause damage to any waterway.

2300.     Site-specific conditions are included, requiring that any bulk earthworks in the vicinity of Towers 9, 14, 16A and 16B are not to be undertaken during the period of 1 May to 30 September inclusive of any year.

2301.     The expiry date of these consents is proposed to be 35 years from the date of commencement, although it is expected that works will be completed by December 2013.

Conditions for Application 34370

2302.     The proposed conditions for the discharge of contaminants on this application also require preparation of a construction management plan. The details of these conditions are similar to those for the preceding applications.

2303.     Again the consent period sought for this consent application is 35 years from commencement.

Conditions for Applications 34372 and 34373

2304.     These applications relate to works in the bed of watercourses and the diversion of surface water.

2305.     A number of pre-works requirements are given in the suggested conditions. These relate to the provision of designs of the specific structures for the size, location and likely effects to be determined. If works affecting the beds of watercourses are not completed, or substantially completed, within 5 years of commencement, then the consent-holder is to resubmit the designs of the structures for further comment and approval.

2306.     Similar to the suggested conditions for other ARC consents, the necessary contents of the required construction management plan are specified.

2307.     The proposed conditions also contain qualifications regarding stream work, archaeological sites, wāhi tapu and the cessation of works. Finally, in agreement with the other consents, the time period sought for this consent is 35 years.

Resource consents from Waikato Regional Council

2308.     The Waikato Regional Council and Transpower jointly proposed conditions for the resource consents in the Waikato region.

Conditions for Application 116904

2309.     The proposed conditions for the discharge permit for the composting/mulching of vegetation would stipulate that the consent-holder advise the Council of the specific parts of the Grid Upgrade Project that are not permitted activities, and so subject to this consent.

2310.     In regard to management of the discharge permit, the proposed condition would require that the consent-holder provide the Regional Council with a construction management plan, containing details of the procedures to be implemented in accordance with the conditions of the consent.

2311.     The proposed conditions prohibit any contaminants entering any water body, or disturbed or cut vegetation soil or debris being able to enter any water body or damaging any waterway.

2312.     The expiry date of this consent is proposed to be set at 35 years from the date of commencement. It is expected the works will be completed by December 2013.

Conditions for Applications 116904, 116902 and 116905

2313.     Proposed general conditions for the two land-use consents and discharge permit include requirements for submission for approval of a construction management plan to manage in “an integrated and effective manner” the three consents.

2314.     In addition the consent-holder would be required to submit an erosion and sediment control plan consistent with the construction management plan. Further conditions are proposed regarding construction activities, stabilisation and contaminant management.

2315.     The consent-holder would be required to ensure discharges would not result in erosion or scour. In addition, direct discharge to surface waters would be prohibited, with any discharge management structures to be located at least 10 metres from any surface water.

2316.     The proposed conditions would also impose a duty on the consent-holder to protect and manage any known and unknown archaeological sites.

2317.     The consent period sought is 35 years from the date of commencement. In agreement with the other consents, works are expected to be completed by December 2013.

Relevant submissions

2318.     Regis Park Stage 2 Ltd requested that landscaping be undertaken on Brownhill Road subsequent to underground installation of the cable. Ms McGovern addressed this submission in her evidence, and stated that the evidence of Mr Lister noted that such rehabilitation would be undertaken.

2319.     Vector requested that conditions be placed on the resource consents to the effect that the underground cable route would not adversely affect its infrastructure. Ms McGovern stated in her evidence that she understood Transpower had already commenced discussion with Vector on these concerns.

2320.     The Board finds that the proposed conditions presented to it would be appropriate; and considers whether the resource consents applied for should be granted or refused on the basis that if they are granted, the proposed conditions would be imposed.

Summary on resource consents

2321.     In summary, in considering the effects and making decisions on the resource consents sought, the Board will, subject to Part 2:

  • a) consider the positive effects on the environment of allowing the resource consents
  • b) consider the adverse effects on the environment of allowing the resource consents, being significant ecological effects, following the clearance of native vegetation; potential archaeological effects; potential construction effects, including both noise and traffic disturbance generated by the proposed activities; effects on both surface and groundwater; social as well as cultural effects; and the extents to which they are avoided or would be remedied or mitigated by compliance with proposed conditions
  • c) consider the nature of any discharge and sensitivity of the receiving environment, and the use of any possible alternatives
  • d) have regard to its findings that the proposal would not conflict with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act; the NPS; the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement; the Auckland and WRPSs; generally conforms with the proposed Auckland Region Air, Land and Water: Sediment Control, and with the Auckland and Waikato Regional Plans
  • e) have regard to its findings about the imposition of proposed conditions referred to in paragraphs [2294]–[2318] of the present chapter.

 

Endnotes

1. Transcript 7/10/08, p4.
2. Transcript 17/07/08, p37.
3. Transcript 26/06/08, pp2f.
4. Transcript 9/07/08, p32.
5. Transcript 9/07/08, p33.
6. Stalker v Queenstown Lakes District Council (Environment Court Decision C040/04), para 14.
7. Transcript 26/06/08, p52.

 

|