Flat Hill Wind Farm Appeal

I’ve been wondering how the appeal process has been getting on and now we have an update.  Totally disagree with part of this statement from the landowner

Worries the wind farm could lead to more turbines on the same site were wrong, he said. Any other company moving in to Flat Hill would have to go through the same process as Energy3, he said.

Yes, they have to go through the same process but if this one is approved it moves the goalposts as does every subsequent consent.  The next consent will be assessed against how much the environment has already been altered, modified..etc… The commissioners will say it’s already got 8 turbines, it’s only 4 more, we have no grounds to refuse it.  The next commissioners will say it’s already got 12 turbines, it’s only 4 more, we have no grounds to refuse it and it goes on and on and on…

Ravensdown And So Called Compliance

I’ve previously used comments from Rodney Green, Ravensdown CEO.  Those comments came from this email.  It’s interesting that in the email he says;

As we have done successfully for many years, please be assured we will be working with the Bluff
Community Board, Invercargill Council and Environment Southland as we evaluate these options. We will
do our part to try and ensure this collaboration can take place at speed. If all those interactions go to
schedule, we expect to be in a position to communicate with residents about the preferred options by March 2012.

Well, it seems things are not going to plan because here we are in April and RAVENSDOWN requested Public Excluded with the community board.  Unfortunately our April Fools allowed it!  The only information provided is ‘Ravensdown are awaiting compliance before removing 232 Gore Street’.

Compliance?  According to Mr Green

we comply with the stated relevant zoning regulations

Why are you ‘awaiting compliance’ if you ‘comply with the stated relevant zoning regulations’?  Since they are talking about removing the Shaw Savill building we know it’s not relating to the building itself therefore it must be relating to their activity.

For a long time I have been complaining that they don’t have resource consent for their activity.   It seems pretty obvious that they want to get their ducks in a row before they stop using the site for their activity.  They have needed resource consent because they store more than 5000kg of a Agrichemical.  They have never had consent and ICC have never made them.   Herein lies the problem I think.

My guess is that they want a retrospective resource consent.  If they knock down the building they will have pre-existing rights to rebuild on the footprint BUT they do not have pre-existing rights for their activity because there is no approval in the first place hence no paperwork (a resource consent).  When they rebuild the process will include a resource consent check, unless they sort it out NOW (before demolition) they will have nothing on file.

Council could give them retrospective resource consent but public interest in the activity may make ICC notify (if they have a brain cell) and Ravensdown won’t like that, the community being able to have a say!  ICC may show their usual disregard of their residents and grant resource consent without publicly advertising it (until after the fact).  We can still have some confidence though because once the activity stops, they have one year to begin again…or they have to re-apply.  The Resource Management Act has some good sections:-)

Aroha Mai Te Turakanui A Rua

After much mental anguish, I have made the decision not to appeal the Flat Hill Wind Farm  consent in Environment Court.  That , in no way, means I don’t believe it can’t be won or that it shouldn’t be appealed.  It means I acknowledge that as a mother of four, 20 months through to ten years, I have other responsibilities.

If my fears over the wind farm decision are correct, it will reiterate that this consent was a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect the Outstanding Natural Feature and Landscape, so is raising my children.

I will however be furthering my inquiries into the validity of ICC commissioners serving on power generation consents.   ICC elected members can laud their Council Controlled Organisation’s profitability (in this case, Electricity Invercargill and its many subsidiaries) and also make decisions on consents relating to local network power generation.  It seems inappropriate to me.  If only Charlie had made that connection earlier…I probably would have called for independent commissioners.

I do not claim that the natural environment has lost out here but the ONFL is now, in my opinion, a paper designation…no different than the paper roads on many plans (like those missing pieces of Lagan or Walker Streets).  They exist on paper but in reality serve no purpose.

Even with my basic understanding of  resource consents I have noted that each one has a statement on ‘how much it has already been modified’ which invariably always says ‘it has been substantially modified by…’.  Of course they are going to say that, they want approval!  I contested the statement in this consent that ‘the area had been substantially modified by farming’.  None of the ‘farming activity’ had a structure that breached Rule 4.22 (no structure above the ridge line).

This approval means that the statement can easily be proven from here on in…there is an 81 metre turbine breaching the ridge line.  If I want to build a house on the ridge, my consent application to breach Rule 4.22 is going to say ‘the area has been substantially modified by the wind farm turbines’.  If it’s a ‘green’ house it would be even easier.

This doesn’t mean I’ll stop blogging about it though and worse still it means I now see grave failings in the RMA (OMG another issue to torment me).  I need to get a life, for now though I need to apologise for my shortcomings (and try and come to terms with it).

Aroha Mai Te Turakanui A Rua

Flat Hill Wind Farm Submissions

Well, here is the folder with all the Flat Hill Wind Farm submissions (be patient, big file), the Notice of Decision and original proposal.  For the alterations to the turbine layout and any other information I’ve gathered click on the Wind Power category (bottom right).  Don’t forgot to click on the links within the blog posts so you can read the actual facts yourself.

That said, I ask all those that say ‘do you want to dam another river?’ to assess the FHWF proposal and this SITE and then say to yourself, if under the RMA this area was assessed as being an Outstanding Natural Landscape how can we now say it’s OK to breach those rules under the RMA?

I really don’t care if central government have a Statement on renewable energy that says any renewable energy is good no matter how small the output is…that statement should also include ‘unless the impact is detrimental to ONFL’  We all know central government aren’t the sharpest tacks, they probably thought the RMA would protect the ONFL.  You would think it would but if we allow ‘commissioners’ that obviously have no understanding of RMA/ONFL (and in particular the values placed on the landscape) you can expect them to approve the White Wind Farm and then another on Laidlaw’s (other than Energy 3) and so on and so on….

Don’t ICC (the decision makers in this) have 100% ownership of Electricity Invercargill and subsidiaries?  How does that work?  Are they ‘local network distribution’?  If they are, that will look good for the newly imposed Pre-Election reports…haven’t we  done well…we increased the profits of our Council Controlled Organisations so as to offset you rate increases…yay us!  Re-Elect us!

Flat Hill Wind Farm Result Is In!

What a shocker….not!!!

GRANTED

For those new to the www click the big word granted to read full decision:-)

 

We’ll Get Back To You

Still think I’m being told mincey pies.  I ended up ringing Jackie Kruger and she told me she has organised Terry Boylan to check if they have complied with the notification period and get back to me.  I want the decision!  I asked for the decision and got a line about the chairman having to approve the release of the decision.  She was on a cellphone, sound was terrible and I was a bit grumpy so I gave up rather than argue the case (and most probably say something I shouldn’t).

I will now say though that if ICC’s claim that the notices have been sent is true then the chair has ‘approved the release’ and as such can be spoken of (especially to me – I am a submitter).

The issue of giving notice is ambiguous though.  I believe ‘must be given notice within 15 days’ means I should have the decision by the 15th day at the latest.  I’m sure there will be discussions over that (I’m anal and council staff tend to be too).  Either way it seems that if the notice was sent, it must have been after the mail had gone for that day, otherwise it would have arrived yesterday.

I will be very pissed if the paper has it before the submitters because I’ve already had discussions with ICC over this…so that’s the big question for me, who finds out first, STL or submitters/applicant?

Something Cr Kruger said reiterated my view that it’s been approved.

Meanwhile I’ve already quoted Section 115 but I wonder if they organised compliance with Section 114 (3) if they sent us a summary?

And The Winner Is…

To be known tomorrow.  I have had to keep ringing ICC as messages didn’t work.  After a long time on hold the receptionist tells me that the Flat Hill Wind Farm Decision has been made and the letters were posted today.

Tomorrow’s mail could have long term ramifications.  I think ICC have approved it and in ten or fifteen years I will say I told you so as I gaze upon a ridgeline with an array of structures breaching what once was an outstanding natural feature:-(

Will let you all know as soon as I find out.

Too Much Spin For My Liking

From today’s Bluff Beacon

Bluff Urban Renewal – Cr. Neil Boniface was present to discuss his council portfolio
of Urban Renewal. After hearing council’s vision for this portfolio the board decided
to call a public meeting to allow residents to give their views on what they would like
to see for Bluff. The board would envisage a Community Development Committee,
exclusive of community board representation to be formed at this meeting.

That’s not how it happened according to my sources.  Cr Boniface suggested the public meeting and you went along with it.  And wasn’t it the public meeting that he suggested be independent of the Board? (and therefore not orchestrated).

If there is a Community Development Committee then surely that’s up to the people with an interest.  If a Board member wants to join, then so be it, just as long it is clear whether they are attending as a resident or a Board member.  I only say that because I know some were perturbed to find out their business was being reported at community board meetings as a member’s report.  Stalin’s rule has put an end to that though I suppose!

If the Board ever want to support or endorse (or fob off) the views of the committee in the future it may be necessary to have someone involved.  Or an easier way would be to ASK the committee to report progress regularly.

Interestingly, I might know some people already involved in the idea of Urban Renewal?  Hmmmm, might need to consider zoning issues first though?  It seems Linda Bell was ahead of the game…could it be she knew something was coming up?

Thanks Fred

Well, tomorrow is the hearing for Flat Hill Wind Farm and an editorial of Fred Tullett’s gave me some more food for thought.  I have to now take the baby so don’t anticipate actually being able to speak (or sit and listen).  I will have to pop in and out.  I have prepared my speech which surprisingly enough is rather brief.  I will have some printed copies in case I can’t stay.

I am standing firm on the belief that this will open the door for the ridge line to be scattered with structures.  My argument is not based on the effect these particular structures will have on the environment but the impact on the environment of this proposal by, in effect, removing the Outstanding Natural Feature and Landscape protection afforded to it by the District Plan (under RMA)

I don’t know if it’s what they can consider but I feel strongly about it so thought that’s the best any of us can do…argue for what we believe and hope it’s enough.

Is It Or Isn’t It?

I find comments in the recommendation report a little confusing. Bold emphasis mine

The Wind Farm proposes a significant intrusion of structures and this could have a
commanding effect on landscape and views (height and width) over a small proportion of the
entire landscape. It is anticipated, however, that the Wind Farm’s potential visual
prominence is reduced by recessive colouring and also that the prominence could diminish
with climatic conditions, distance and familiarity over time.

The scale of the proposal is small, and is mitigated by the expanse of the wider environment.
The turbines are not going to be scattered broadly along the length of the landscape. Eight
turbines are more acceptable than a larger scale Wind Farm covering a much increased
area of the Bluff, Greenhills Omaui landscape, and therefore the concentrated nature of the
proposal avoids a larger envelope of effects.

They willingly admit it is a ‘significant intrusion’ ‘however’ it will be ‘reduced’ and could ‘diminish’ and ‘familiarity’ will address this.  The proposal and ‘mitigated’ by the fact that the landscape is expansive (so is the Grand Canyon).  That’s nice, beat the environment with it’s own expansiveness.  Ever thought that Rule 4.22 was put in the District Plan especially to protect that expansive, mammoth proportions of the landscape hence they put in the requirement NOT to breach the ridgeline?  It seems to me that they are acknowledging that there are effects that need mitigating?

And then we have this

The District Plan has a 10 metre height threshold and requires that structures shall not
appear above ridgelines. The application suggests the proposed effects in this regard are
not significant. This is a difficult issue to reconcile, because the turbines will be highly visible
above the ridgeline and seen against the skyline. This is mitigated to some degree by
recessive turbine colouring.

More mitigating…

Other environmental effects, particularly those relating to health and safety, are
mitigated by conditions to the extent that they can be considered minor.

So it’s a ‘significant intrusion’ that ‘highly visible’ but it’s a big ridgeline and we’ll paint them white (or grey) and then ‘they can be considered minor’.  Silly me, my Mother always told me white shows everything…