I don’t really grasp any of the Facebook terminology and only really use it to see what organisations are saying or doing.
Today I received my Greenpeace email saying KFC are using pulp from rainforests and there are only 400 Sumatran tigers left. I am taking them at their word on this and ‘joined the revolt’.
I’m sure Bluff’s One Term Politician will agree, I am revolting:-)
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…
But when my Google Alert sent this through I do get a knot in my stomach
Shell has announced it is taking over control of further exploration in the Great South Basin, saying there are good signs of viable quantities of natural gas.
Austrian company OMV, which headed the joint venture exploring the basin, carried out a 3-D seismic survey of 4820 km2 of promising areas of sea floor this summer.
The survey, using the state-of-the-art mapping vessel Polarcus Alima, was completed ahead of schedule because of better than expected weather.
The basin lies off the south-eastern coast of Southland and Otago.
Shell NZ chairman Rob Jager said more high-quality data than expected was collected.
Under the joint-venture agreement, Shell will now take charge of development of the basin and will decide how to proceed.
However, Mr Jager said any decision to drill an exploration well would be taken later.
Shell joined the OMV joint venture in August last year, taking a 50 per cent stake
I have no idea on the impact on the environment etc but whenever I see comments about big business in the area I am reminded of the petition and it’s intention to future proof Bluff from inappropriate expansion on the main street.
NB: The ‘tips’ at the bottom of my Google Alerts are teaching me SOOOO much about search engine tricks!
I’ve noticed an increase in songbirds since the Hill was felled. I don’t have a lot of trees but more so lately I’ve been entertained by melodious trilling from the neighbours Macrocarpa’s (well more accurately from the birds visiting them).
I have to assume it’s because we have less trees on the hill so they are coming into the residential area more. Don’t get me wrong though, I love listening to them and watching them but it does raise the concern that they are more open to attack from domestic cats. All the great work the Bluff Hill/Motupohue Environment Trust are doing trapping pests on the hill and the bloody birds are going to get killed because their trees were removed and they’ve migrated towards the township hence this picture always pisses me off.
What the hell is there to smile about?
This one become another turncoat situation when she realised the community weren’t as happy about it as she was. Back in March 2011
Bluff Community Board chairwoman Jan Mitchell said the hill looked unsightly with more than two-thirds of the trees gone, but was pleased it was being replaced by native bush.
The pine trees posed threats to the safety of residents because of how frequently they fell, so it would be good to see them gone, she said.
Forty four hectares of unsafe trees? WTF
And Robin Pagan is talking his fair share of shit with this comment
However, the area would be covered in native bush once the felling was complete and he expected the land scarring to be invisible within two years, he said.
Mitchell might have believed him but I do my own research!
Loving the BayBuzz blog I mentioned the other day and in light of all the farm and land management issues in Southland of late, thought I’d highlight this post regarding the Environment Court hearing taking place over Horizons Regional Council One Plan.
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
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!
This one gave me a giggle. From a Bluff resident…
I wonder under what Section of the RMA the commissioners should consider this reason?
What a shocker….not!!!
For those new to the www click the big word granted to read full decision:-)
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?
