Chapter 5: Existing and Future Environment
398. Consideration of both the designation requirements and the resource consent applications involves having regard to any actual and potential effects of the designation and exercise of the resource consents “on the environment”.1
Extent of future environment to be considered
399. There was a difference over the basis for establishing the extent of the future environment on which environmental effects are to be considered. This difference arose from different interpretations of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Queenstown-Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate.2
400. Transpower submitted that the future state of the environment on which effects might be considered includes the environment as it might be modified by the use of rights to carry out non-fanciful permitted activities. This included by exercising resource consents that had been granted at the time a proposal was being considered, where it appeared likely that those resource consents would be implemented. Transpower submitted that the effect of application of the Court of Appeal’s Judgment is that the environment potentially affected does not extend to modifications by implementation of future resource consents, as being too speculative.3
401. Counsel for Transpower acknowledged that, given the long-term staged nature of the Grid Upgrade Project, restricting the understanding of the environment in that way could be unsatisfying. However, they argued that in considering future changes to the environment, people would be on notice of the transmission line from the designations. This would give them a degree of certainty about what the future environment would be like, and this knowledge would allow them to order their affairs accordingly.
402. The Manukau City Council contested Transpower’s submission, arguing that on closer analysis, the Court of Appeal’s Judgment did not restrict having regard to longer-term modifications to the environment. The Council submitted that the approach contended for by Transpower would not engage adequately with the concern in Part 2 for the future state of the environment, particularly considering the significant scale of the project, its dominance and permanence in the landscape, and the prolonged period over which it is to be implemented.
403. Counsel for the City Council argued that as elements of the proposal might not be implemented for many more than five years, and as the capability for transmission at 400 kV (the justification for larger tower structures) might never be needed, the Board should have regard to effects of the grid upgrade on future rural-residential or urban development of parts of its district as these effects would be likely in the longer term, even though that development is not permitted now by either the district plan or by current resource consents.
404. Counsel sought support for that from a decision of the Environment Court in Lorraine Bax Property Investments v Rodney District Council;4 and submitted that the Board should have regard to effects on future rural-residential development in Whitford that would be provided for by proposed Change No 8 to its District Plan, relying on decisions of the Environment Court5 about the weight to be placed on proposed planning instruments.
405. In Hawthorn, the questions of law for decision by the Court of Appeal included whether the receiving environment included not only the existing environment but also the reasonably foreseeable environment. The Court was unanimous, and its Judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper, known for his broad experience of planning and environment law at the Bar.
406. The Court considered in detail relevant contents of Part 2 of the RMA; observed that consent authorities have to have regard to the future environment; and said:6
Future potential effects cannot be considered unless there is a genuine attempt, at the same time, to envisage the environment in which such future effects, or effects arising over time, will be operating. The environment inevitably changes, and in many cases future effects will not be effects on the environment as it exists on the day that the Council or the Environment Court on appeal makes its decision on the resource consent application.
407. Later, the Court said:7
In summary, all of the provisions of the Act to which we have referred lead to the conclusion that when considering the actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing an activity, it is permissible, and will often be desirable or even necessary, for the consent authority to consider the future state of the environment, on which such effects will occur.
408. After a full consideration of case authorities and argument, the Court held:8
… the word “environment” embraces the future state of the environment as it might be modified by the utilisation of rights to carry out permitted activity under a district plan. It also includes the environment as it might be modified by the implementation of resource consents which have been granted at the time a particular application is considered, where it appears likely that those resource consents will be implemented. We think [the High Court Judge] erred when he suggested that the effects of resource consent that might in future be made should be brought into account in considering the likely future state of the environment. We think the legitimate considerations should be limited to those that we have just expressed.
409. So the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the future environment extends to modifications to the existing environment that are reasonably foreseeable but have not yet been authorised.
410. It appears that the Court of Appeal has not had any reservations about the correctness of its interpretation about the receiving environment, because in its more recent Judgment in Auckland Regional Council v Living Earth9 it referred to Hawthorn on the concept of the receiving environment.
411. Like anyone else, the Manukau City Council is entitled to regret that the Court of Appeal interpreted the Act in the way that it did, and to wish that it had identified a less restricted scope of the future environment. However, in identifying the environment that would or could be affected by activities authorised by the designations and resource consents, the Board has to apply the law as declared by the higher Courts, in this respect the Court of Appeal’s Judgment in Hawthorn. It is not the Board’s function to attempt its own interpretation of the Act on a question already settled by the Court of Appeal, nor is it the Board’s function to consider possible advantages of changing the law as settled by that Court. The Board’s role is to apply the interpretation in Hawthorn to the circumstances of the proposed designation and resource consents.
412. The Board has now to address the Manukau City Council’s submission that the Board may consider the future development potential of land that would be affected by Change No 8 to the Manukau City District Plan in accordance with the approach taken by the Environment Court in its decision in Lorraine Bax Property Investments v Rodney District Council10 of doing so as “other relevant matters”. The passage in that decision relied on by counsel for the City Council is this:11
We are not talking about granted resource consents here, nor about operative district plan provisions permitting residential activity on the Cabra Developments land, so the weight to be given to the possibility must be less. But it is illogical and artificial to ignore the high likelihood that in the foreseeable future residential development will expand westwards to be very close to the site. The rural character of the immediate area, and its amenity values, will thus be profoundly altered. The two houses of the proposal, even though quite closely grouped, could not be said to be nearly as incongruous as they are now claimed to be.
413. It appears the Court considered that the power to have regard to other relevant and necessary matters extends to allowing it to give to the future environment that would be affected a meaning, that was considered but not accepted by the Court of Appeal.
414. The Board is not persuaded that the provisions for having regard to other matters that the decision-maker considers relevant and reasonably necessary, should be interpreted so as to allow it to give a meaning to the future environment that the Court of Appeal has rejected. Reasons for restricting and extending the scope of the future environment were considered by that Court which, applying to the RMA the principles of interpreting legislation, declared the extent to which potential future modifications to the environment should be considered.
415. That Court has described the extent, and the Board’s understanding of its functions is to treat the Court’s Judgment as decisive authority on the point. The Board does not accept that it should ignore or defy that authority and have regard to future potential modifications of the environment beyond the extent established by law on any concept that applying the law is artificial or illogical.
416. Accordingly, the Board accepts Transpower’s submissions, and does not accept the Manukau City Council’s submissions; and holds that in considering effects of the proposed grid upgrade on the future environment it should not consider modifications that would not be permitted either by the district plan, as it now stands, or by implementation of resource consents that have already been granted.
The existing environment
417. The Board heard considerable evidence about the character and characteristics of the general environment between South Auckland and Whakamaru and the sites to which the designation and resource consent applications relate. The following is a general description of the existing environment along the proposed overhead alignment, underground cable routes and at the substation sites as provided in evidence during the hearing, noting specific features and landscapes. Specific environmental effects are addressed later.
Overhead alignment
General overview of the existing environment
418. The approximately 185-kilometre proposed overhead line begins at the Brownhill Road Substation in Manukau City and traverses land through the Franklin, Waikato, Matamata-Piako, Waipa and South Waikato Districts, terminating at Whakamaru Substation in the Taupo District. The line would cross over 50 local authority roads (mostly low to moderate traffic volume), State highways five times, the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line, several streams and rivers (including the Waikato River three times), small areas of land owned by the Crown, and approximately 315 private properties.
419. The ARI-PAK A line is currently located along a significant proportion of the proposed route and, as detailed by Mr Coad for Transpower, this line will be decommissioned, dismantled and removed as part of the upgrade project.
420. The overhead line would traverse a range of land uses including beef, sheep and dairy farms, and lifestyle blocks in the northern Waikato/South Auckland areas and predominantly rural pasture land dominated by dairy farming in central and south Waikato. Other rural land uses along or near the route include a goat farm, equine breeding stud, deer farms, a poultry farm and four organically certified farms. Remnants of indigenous vegetation of varying composition and quality (primary and secondary forest, scrub and shrubland) are scattered along the route and a commercial forestry block is located at the southern end of the proposed line.
421. In his evidence, Mr B D Druskovich, a consultant archaeologist, stated there are a number of historic places and areas (both pre-European Māori occupation sites and sites from the last 200 years of European occupation) located near, or within, the proposed route alignment.
Specific sections of the overhead line
Whitford, Brookby, Ardmore-Clevedon and Hunua areas
422. The proposed overhead line would initially traverse Whitford Valley and the Brookby area of Manukau City. Whitford Valley is a broad basin surrounded by hills and characterised by lifestyle blocks and mixed land uses including pasture, pine plantations, orchards, a vineyard, horse stud and other peri-urban activities such as a golf course. Similarly, in the Brookby area, the proposed line would follow a small valley system enclosed by the Clevedon-Maraetai Hills and the Whitford catchment ridgeline. Brookby is characterised by a mix of land uses such as pasture farmland, lifestyle blocks, horse studs and plantations.
423. The proposed line would continue through the Ardmore-Clevedon Valley which is a 4.5-kilometre wide alluvial plain with mixed intensive land-use patterns of productive rural activities (eg, horse training facilities, plant nurseries, glasshouses and vineyards), lifestyle properties and patches of indigenous vegetation. The proposed line would pass 5 kilometres to the north-east of Ardmore Airport. In his evidence, Mr A R McCreadie for Ardmore Airfield Tenants and Users’ Committee, informed the Board that Ardmore Airport was developed in 1943 as a base hospital airfield and today is predominantly a civil training base used by general aviation aircraft with over 200,000 aircraft movements per annum. Mr R E Sullivan stated that a wide mix of aircraft types with a range of performance characteristics use the facility. Mr Sullivan also highlighted that Ardmore has operated as an “uncontrolled” aerodrome since 1998 and is, therefore, governed by rules of flight established by the Civil Aviation Authority.
424. The next 6.4 kilometres of the proposed overhead line crosses the Hunua Basin, an area of rolling terrain and mixed land uses (dairy farms, horse studs and lifestyle subdivisions). The back-drop to the basin is the western escarpment of the Hunua Ranges, an extensive area of steep hill country covered in indigenous forest that encompasses a number of water catchments and a regional park. The proposed line will be located approximately 1.3 kilometres west of the Falls Road entrance to Hunua Regional Park, crossing the west of the Wairoa River Valley. Wairoa River Valley is characterised by plantation forest in the north, rural-residential properties and pastoral farming in the centre, and dairy farming in the south.
South of Lyons Road to Tauhei Road
425. The proposed line would continue across Maramarua Valley, an area characterised by high, steep hills on the northern side and low, rolling hills to the south. Pastoral farming (especially dairy and cropping) is the dominant land use along the proposed alignment and there are a number of small lifestyle properties. Occasional bush remnants are present. The Maxwell Block is under and near towers 88 and 89 of the proposed overhead line.
426. The existing environment from Kopuku to Te Hoe comprises a north-to-south orientated valley approximately 30-kilometres long. The valley is characterised by alluvial flats and rolling foothills, enclosed by parallel ranges of steeper hills. The predominant land use in the valley is dairy farming, with occasional pine plantations on the hills and at the northern end of the valley.
427. Between Flaxmill Road and Tauhei, the Hangawera Hills rise to approximately 150 metres above the surrounding plains, with dairy farming dominating the lower slopes. Beyond Tauhei Road, the landscape is low-lying flat or gently undulating land to rolling hill country. Production activities dominate land use, including dairying and horse facilities, along with a number of lifestyle properties. The proposed line passes approximately 300 metres from the western outskirts of Morrinsville township (population 6000) in the rural zone. Mr Druskovich identified a large hilltop pa located at Tauroa approximately 100 metres from the proposed overhead line.
South of Wairama Road to north of State Highway 1
428. The next approximately 21 kilometres of proposed line would cross the middle of a basin enclosed by the Pakaroa Range to the west and the Maungakawa Range to the north and east. The rolling hill country located to the south of the range is a mixture of dairy farming, dry-stock grazing and small plantations. Two small villages, Te Miro and Whitehall, are located within the central basin area.
Lake Karapiro
429. The proposed overhead alignment crosses the Waikato River through the north and south banks of Lake Karapiro, a flooded river valley located between Karapiro Village and the Horahora Bridge in the Waipa District. Lake Karapiro is identified as a Significant Landscape Character Area (“Lake Karapiro landscape as seen from State Highway 1”) in the Waipa District Plan. The partly vegetated banks slope steeply down to the lake in a series of terraces, with occasional rock outcrops. The lake can be seen from parts of State Highway 1, with river terraces and the grassed hills rising to Maungatautari beyond. Lake Karapiro is an international rowing venue with the Lake Karapiro Rowing Centre located at the northern end of the lake. The lake is surrounded by a mixture of pastoral farms and rural-residential development. Karapiro Hydro Station is located at the northern end of the lake. The town of Cambridge is located on the Waikato River about 17 kilometres north-west of the lake.
Maungatautari
430. The next 11 kilometres of the proposed line will pass along the eastern side of Maungatautari and approximately 1 kilometre to the west of the Waikato River. Maungatautari is a volcanic landform located in the south-eastern part of the Waipa District to the south of Lake Karapiro. The landform consists of three main peaks: Maungatautari (797 metres), Pukeatua (752 metres) and Te Akatarere (727 metres). Maungatautari is the most prominent of several volcanic peaks in that part of the Waikato Basin, visually dominating the flat lands to the west, and Lake Karapiro, the Waikato River, Arapuni, and parts of State Highway 1 to the east.
431. The upper slopes of the mountain are clad in native vegetation and are protected as the Maungatautari Scenic Reserve (an “Ecological Island” established by the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust) which is surrounded by a 47-kilometres predator-proof fence. The lower slopes of Maungatautari are characterised by pastoral farming. Maungatautari is identified as a SLCA in the Waipa District Plan.
Arapuni
432. From the Maungatautari area, the proposed line then crosses the Waikato River about 800 metres north of Arapuni township. The left bank of the Waikato River at this point is classified as a SLCA in the Waipa District Plan. The proposed line continues through rolling farmland dominated by rural production activities. Four settlements occur amongst the farming landscape: Arapuni, Waotu, Pikitu Marae and Puketurua.
Kinleith Forest
433. In the next section, the proposed line crosses the Waikato River for a third time at Maraetai Lake just north of the Whakamaru Substation.
434. The southern 30 kilometres of the proposed line passes through plantation forest which is predominantly radiata pine. In her evidence, Ms S Strang, a civil engineer and environmental management professional, stated that the forest is presently owned by Taumata Plantations Ltd and Carter Holt Harvey, and managed by Hancock Forest Management (NZ) Ltd. The forest was established in the 1920s and currently consists of a mixture of trees between six and 34 years old. Mr M G Colley, a forestry consultant, advised the Board that significant areas of the northern end of this forest are currently being converted to pasture for dairy farming.
Underground transmission cable routes
435. In his evidence Mr H R Wildash, a senior development engineer with Transpower, detailed that the proposed underground transmission cable routes would be placed primarily under legal roads from the proposed Brownhill Substation to both the Pakuranga Substation and the Otahuhu Substation. The environment along the proposed routes is predominantly developed urban areas or planned urban areas. There are existing cables running parallel to, and across, parts of the proposed underground cable route.
Substation sites
436. Mr R J Deller for Transpower gave an overview of the location and surrounding environment of the existing and proposed substation sites that are part of the application. A summary is provided below.
Existing Otahuhu Substation
437. The Otahuhu Substation is characterised by an urban landscape dominated by existing infrastructure. Currently, the site has a main switchyard (300 metres x 120 metres) with associated gantries, lines, transformers and transformer oil containment facilities, as well as storage yards, warehouses, workshops and offices. The site is dominated by transmission towers of various heights and designs and a lattice communication tower. The Otahuhu power station, the decommissioned old Otahuhu power station and the Southern Motorway are all close to the site.
Existing Pakuranga Substation
438. The existing Pakuranga Substation is located on a 12.5-hectare site on the eastern edge of the suburb of Pakuranga in Manukau City. The site is bordered by Pakuranga Creek (a tidal creek), Ti Rakau Drive and residential properties. The site comprises a combined 110-kV and 33-kV outdoor switchyard and associated switchgear, power transformers, as well as transformer oil-containment facilities, 33-kV ripple-control plant and associated building and 33-kV underground cables. Three overhead transmission lines (Arapuni-Pakuranga, Otahuhu-Pakuranga and Pakuranga-Penrose) terminate at the site. In his evidence, Mr Druskovich detailed three archaeological sites (two middens and a hawthorn hedge) at, or immediately, adjacent to the site.
Proposed Brownhill Road Substation site
439. The proposed Brownhill Road Substation site is located on a 60‑hectare block at the head of a narrow tributary valley in Whitford that is currently leased for grazing. The site is close to the urban boundary, with land adjoining the property to the west undergoing subdivision and development.
Existing Whakamaru Substation
440. The existing Whakamaru Substation consists of a 220-kV switchyard located on an open terrace of the west bank of the Waikato River, downstream from the Whakamaru Dam. The surrounding area is predominantly pastoral farmland and exotic forest.
Proposed Whakamaru North Substation site
441. The proposed Whakamaru North Substation site is located approximately 1 kilometre north of the existing Whakamaru Substation on flat, pasture-covered farmland. State Highway 30 passes the site for approximately 1 kilometre and Whakamaru settlement and Whakamaru Dam Village are located 700 metres and 1.5 kilometres to the south-east of the site respectively.
The future environment
442. As detailed earlier, the extent of the future environment in Queenstown-Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate includes the implementation of resource consents that have been granted at the time that the requirements are considered, and those activities that would be permitted by the operative regional and district plan provisions.
443. The only extent to which the future environment was referred to at the hearing was in evidence by Mr C J Freke for Manukau City Council, and Mr M Rademeyer, a consultant planner for Matamata-Piako District Council (supported in evidence by Mr D Phillips), in respect of planning provisions, Transpower in respect of resource consents that have been granted but not implemented, and Mr B W Coleman, a property management expert. Although not canvassed in evidence at the hearing, various permitted activities are provided for in the rural zone of each of the district plans.
444. Mr Freke considered the Brookby area “to be a prime candidate for future urbanisation” but continued “In saying this, I acknowledge that there is at present no Council initiative to address or change the zoning for this area”. In his closing submission for Transpower, its leading counsel Mr J S Kós also stated that, in respect to Brookby, there was no document publicly available and adopted under the RMA or otherwise which recognises or provides for Brookby as a future urban development.
445. In his evidence for Matamata-Piako District Council, Mr Rademeyer commented on future growth in that district stating “residential and rural-residential expansion is most likely to occur towards the west, in that vicinity of the proposed line” before acknowledging “the district plan does not indicate future growth areas towards the west of Morrinsville”. Mr Rademeyer concurred with Ms Allan’s assertion that the district plan contains no provisions or policy that would suggest the area to the west of Morrinsville town is a future urban growth area.
446. Transpower has been granted resource consents to undertake upgrade works at the existing Otahuhu Substation and the Board was informed that these works are now underway. Contact Energy also holds resource consent to develop the Otahuhu C gas-fired power station, located adjacent to this site.
447. Development has commenced on the Card Road lifestyle subdivision (a rural-residential subdivision comprising 12 lots of between 8 hectares and 0.78 hectares) located partly on an elevated ridge-line crossed by the alignment in Matamata-Piako District.
448. Regis Park Stage 2 Ltd was granted resource consent in May 2007 for 20 subdivision lots on 50 hectares of land at 227 Brownhill Road. This site adjoins the northern boundary of the proposed Brownhill Substation site.
449. Orini Downs Station Ltd has resource consent to extract 50,000 metres cubed of blue/brown rock per annum from its commercial aggregate quarry located on Orini Road, 23 kilometres north of Hamilton and approximately 230 metres from the proposed overhead line.
450. Mr Coleman, in his evidence for Glencoal Energy Ltd and the Stirling family (title holders of an area of land known as the ‘Maxwell Block’ near towers 88 and 89), identified that the Maxwell Block is situated above a coal resource and he outlined the potential for future open-cast mining of coal deposits at this site. Under Rule 14.5 in the Waikato District Plan, prospecting or exploration of this resource would be a permitted activity, while any extraction of the coal resource is a discretionary activity requiring consent.
451. In considering the effects of the designation and resource consents on the environment, the Board imputes to its understanding of the environment potential activities that are permitted by the respective zonings and by the current resource consents.
Endnotes
1. RMA, ss 171(1) & 104(1)(a).
2. [2006] NZRMA 424.
3. Transpower opening submissions, para 526.
4. Environment Court Decision A149/06.
5. Citing Keystone Watch Group v Auckland City Council, Environment Court Decision A7/01, followed in Mapara Valley Preservation Society v Taupo District Council, Environment Court Decision A083/07.
6. Para [53].
7. Para [57].
8. Para [84].
9. [2008] NZRMA 22 at [51].
10. Environment Court Decision A149/06.
11. Para [28].
