We see in the upcoming Regulatory meeting agenda (last page) that all the dangerous buildings listed are in Bluff.
It also seems that ICC staff have been leaving in droves (well five – four in one department alone). Are they leaving for better jobs, frustrated or just getting out of Dodge like the Deputy Mayor?
The 2012 meeting schedule lists a Regulatory meeting for the 12th of April but it’s not even listed on the upcoming meetings page. I know they aren’t good at enforcing their regulatory roles but have they now just given up completely?
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:-)
So who else found it in the Action Sheet?
Click to enlarge
Some idiot suggested it be in Public Excluded but I remind anyone and everyone that it is up to the elected members to vote on whether it be in PE.
The reason for the PE is given as ‘to protect the privacy of natural persons’. What natural persons? Can’t be our elected members, they voluntarily gave up that privacy when they ran for the Board. The employees of Ravensdown that are attending? I doubt it, being as they have hundreds of shareholders they are responsible to…
This is the general fob off reason they choose because the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act doesn’t offer
“To exclude the peasants so they can’t see us fold under pressure or hear what bullshit excuses we accept or deals we make that screw over the community and prove we are inept morons who have now crossed way over the line into ICC’s regulatory responsibilities”
BTW, it seems the current price for selling out the community is $5k (previously $4k), are Ravensdown willing to beat that…let the bidding begin!
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?
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?
Another submitter (against) has not received their notification of the decision. If Flat Hill Wind Farm has maybe Warren could enlighten us to the outcome? How about it Warren?
Blog hits and searches are showing that a lot of people are interested in the outcome (and I’m really impatient). The councillors I emailed have not responded as yet.
For once we have a well kept secret, unfortunately the law requires the decision to be known by now, not a good look for ICC.
Search terms and discussions have me wondering something though. Someone searched up ‘what do the council and government think of wind power?’. It may be a very generalised question, open to many answers but it had me wondering…Does the council’s (or government’s) views or policies even come into it? The Resource Management Act is a role delegated from central government and is about the environment. If a council has a policy to support coal power generation (extreme I know) and they have a resource consent application for wind turbines surely the environment trumps their policy. I consider the decision to be made on behalf of Mother Nature not council policy or personal views.
I have been annoyed by the amount of people that say ‘it’s better than damming another river or coal power’. We were never choosing between damming a river or wind power. The small insignificant amount of power generated by the FHWF will not stop a river being dammed or even remotely affect power prices. I would be very interested to see a comparative study done (independently) of solar and wind power using the same area. I wonder what would provide better power output?
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.
I’ve left a message with ICC and await the response eagerly.
They have previously told me that the hearing officially ended on 2 March and they seemingly have to respond, in writing, with 15 working days to the applicant and submitters.
I’ve checked today’s mail…nothing…hmmm
