BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

ENV-2016-CHC-47

IN THE MATTER of an appeal under section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN BLUESKIN ENERGY LIMITED

Appellant

AND DUNEDIN CITY COUNCIL

Respondent

_______________________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF EVIDENCE OF BLUESKIN AMENITY AND LANDSCAPE SOCIETY (BALS)

2

INDEX OF CONTENTS

Personal pp.3-4

The Blueskin Amenity and Landscape Society pp.4-6

Scope of Evidence pp.6-7

The Appellant’s Evidence pp.7-8

Effects on Near Neighbours pp.8-10

Effects on the Wider Environment pp.10-13

Landscape pp.11-12

Noise pp.12-13

Light p.13

Hazards p.14

The Turbine Project and the Community pp.15-17

Porteous Road pp.17-20

Claimed Benefits pp.20-4

Contribution to Renewable Energy Generation pp.21-2

Economic Benefits pp.22-4

Other p.24

Conclusion pp.24-5

APPENDIX 1: BALS Certificate of Incorporation

APPENDIX 2: BRCT/BEL Pamphlet

3

PERSONAL

1. My name is Andrew (Andy) Barratt. My wife and I live on a 17ha rural property

on Apes Road, Merton, on the northern side of the Kilmog Hill. Distance and

topography ensure that we would not be directly affected by the proposed

development. We neverless consider ourselves to be part of the

neighbourhood.

2. Although I am the holder of BA (Hons) and PhD degrees from the University

of Durham in the UK, I have no qualifications relevant to the matters before

the court. I have, however, served for two terms on the Waikouaiti Coast

Community Board, in which capacity I undertook training in matters pertaining

to the Resource Management Act and sat on a number of resource consent

hearings under the jurisdiction of the Dunedin City Council.

3. Since moving to the district in the early 1990s, and especially over the last

decade of semi- and then full retirement from professional life, I have become

increasingly interested in all aspects of sustainability, particularly food

production. Our property is certified organic and produces a modest amount

of fruit and vegetables for the local market. Our house was built in 1995, and

we live off the grid, relying primarily on solar power for electricity and solar

tubes for hot water. I represent our local organic producer group (Otago

Organics) on the national coordinating committee of Organic Farm New

Zealand. I am co-chair of River-Estuary Care Waikouaiti-Karitane, secretary

and committee member of Sustainable Dunedin City, secretary and

committee member of Dunedin Rural Development, long-time member and

past chair of the Coastal Otago Tree Crops Association.

4. Although I have never had a formal role with the Blueskin Resilient

Communities Trust (BRCT), I have followed the Trust’s activities with interest,

especially in the early years of its activities. As noted in the evidence of Mr

Willis and Dr Stephenson, I attended the “community visioning exercise” in

September 2006 (Willis §11) and participated in the “integrated thinking

exercise” in 2009 (Stephenson §31).1 Several years ago my wife and I

responded to a call from BRCT for donations of unwanted solar power

1 I wish to correct a potential misunderstanding. Although I do, as stated above, have an

association with the organizations mentioned in Ms Stephenson’s evidence, I attended this meeting (and any others run by BRCT) as a private party. None of the groups I belong to has

actively expressed support for BRCT or for this wind generation project.

4

equipment with the gift of an inverter that was surplus to our requirements.

Although I remain to this day sympathetic to the principles espoused by

BRCT, I opposed the original application for the installation of a wind

generation facility on Porteous Hill and I registered with the Court as an s274

affected party objecting to the current appeal by Blueskin Energy Limited

(BEL) against Commissioner Weatherall’s resource consent decision.

5. I have prepared this evidence on behalf of the Blueskin Amenity and

Landscape Society (BALS). As I have been aided considerably by other

members of our Society, I will use the first person plural (“we”) in most of what

follows. I will restrict the first person singular (“I”) to points where I refer to

items raised in my original submission to the resource consent hearing or my

personal perspective as an s274 party.

THE BLUESKIN AMENITY AND LANDSCAPE SOCIETY

6. The Blueskin Amenity and Landscape Society is an incorporated society (see

Appendix 1: Certificate of Incorporation).

7. It was set up following two meetings in Warrington of local residents who had

opposed the original resource consent application. They were joined by

others who had not been party to that original process but were equally

determined to demonstrate their opposition to the appeal now before the

Court. BALS exists:

(a) to display the strength of community resistance to the BEL proposal with

regard to the Fourth Schedule to RMA Clause 7(1)(a) which states that an

assessment of environmental effects should include “any effect on those

in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the wider community, including

any social, economic or cultural effects”;

(b) to present these community concerns to the Court;

(c) to raise funds in support of our case, particularly to apply for financial

assistance from the Environmental Assistance Fund;2

(d) to streamline the process for our members and the Court, given the large

number of s274 parties involved.3

2 Our application was declined.

5

8. BALS has 98 members. Of those, more than forty were party to the original

resource consent hearing and more than forty registered with the Court as

affected parties. Most, although not all, are resident in the Blueskin Bay

settlements of Waitati, Warrington, Doctors Point or Purakaunui. All have a

close connection with the area directly affected by the proposed development.

We all consider ourselves “locals”.

9. Our members represent a broad cross-section of the local community in

terms of age, gender and occupation. Collectively we can count several

decades of service to the community as elected members of local bodies.

Three are past trustees of BRCT.

10. BALS is by no means a homogeneous group. (No real community ever is, of

course.) Although some (like myself) can be characterised as “greenies”,

others espouse more “middle-of-the-road” beliefs and values. But we are

united in our opposition to the case put forward by BEL in its appeal.

11. With regard to the larger issues raised by this case, we wish to record that

BALS objects neither to the principles set out in the National Policy Statement

for Renewable Energy (NZPSREG) nor to the Dunedin City Council’s

objectives identified in its Energy Plan and other relevant documents.4 We do

not oppose wind turbines or any other form of renewable energy generation

per se, only this specific project.

12. The concerns of our members are covered in the evidence below. We

contend that the revised (single-turbine) proposal before the Court differs in

no substantial way from the original (three-turbine) proposal and that

Commissioner Weatherall’s decision to decline the resource consent

application was well-founded and holds equally for the present case.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

13. In preparing this evidence, we have reviewed the following documents, in full

or in part:

(a) Resource consent documentation;

3 As a result many of these parties withdrew from the Court process on the understanding

that BALS would cover their objections in its evidence.

4 In particular, “local renewable energy is encouraged” (2GP, 5.2.1).

6

(b) Commissioner Weatherall’s decision;

(c) Evidence prepared on behalf of the Appellant;

(d) Resource Management Act (RMA);5

(e) National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Generation (NPSREG);

(f) Operative Dunedin City District Plan (ODP);

(g) Proposed Dunedin City District Plan (2GP)

14. The Court has explained the difference between lay and expert evidence and

we have tried to the best of our ability here to follow the guidelines presented

to us. Although we do refer to matters raised in expert evidence, we do so

only to point out perceived omissions, inconsistencies and similar matters and

not to challenge any witness’s expertise. We apologise if we occasionally

overstep the mark.

15. Given the volume of evidence already before the Court, we have been

mindful of the need to be as concise as possible. Several BALS members will

present individual evidence as s274 parties. We will refer to that evidence

without repeating its substance.

16. When referring to relevant DCC planning documents we cite both the current

district plan (ODP) and the proposed district plan (2GP). We understand that

the relative weight given to these two documents is a matter to be resolved by

the Court.

17. In the evidence that follows we will address the issues identified by BALS

members at meetings of the Society and in written submissions to the original

hearings. These are:

(a) the quality of the evidence presented by the Appellant;

(b) the effects on the immediate neighbours;

(c) the effects on the wider environment;

(d) hazards;

5 For convenience, we employ the abbreviations adopted by Mr Farrell in his evidence. We

note, however, that he appears to use “2GP” and “PDP” interchangeably in reference the proposed Dunedin City Second Generation District Plan.

7

(e) the BEL proposal as a “community-led” project;

(f) access to the site via Porteous Road;

(g) the claimed benefits of the project.

THE APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE

18. In my submission to the resource consent hearing, I expressed the view that,

despite the fact that the wind turbine project was being promoted as a

“community” venture, it should be judged by the same standards as any

commercial venture. That view was accepted by the planner, Mr Sycamore, in

his report to the hearing.6

19. We repeat that view here. Although we accept that BEL and its owner BRCT

are not corporate bodies and lack the resources normally available to

commercial developers, they (and particularly BRCT) have received

considerable sums from granting agencies and substantial pro bono support.

They have also had the benefit of financial aid from the Environmental

Assistance Fund in mounting their appeal. In any case, we do not believe that

shortage of resources should absolve the Appellant of the responsibility to

provide full and detailed evidence.

20. We will refer to what we consider to be significant insufficiencies in the

Appellant’s evidence in the sections which follow. Of general note is a

reliance on desk-top analysis, rather than careful on-site observation (the

evidence on avifauna is a noteworthy example), lack of supporting data (see,

for example, footnote 12 to §60, below), and a failure to supply evidence that

one would expect to accompany an application of this sort (see §42, below).

EFFECTS ON NEAR NEIGHBOURS

21. The near neighbours (referred to as the “Pryde Road neighbours” in the

original hearing and as the “Porteous Hill neighbours” in this case) have legal

representation. We do not pretend to speak on their behalf or to represent

them in any way. We do, however, wish to record our members’ deep disquiet

at the cost, in terms of time, money and emotional distress that this case has

6 See §13 of the report, reproduced in Willis, p.262 “The applicants consider the proposal is a

community support activity. I do not accept this definition, and while it is not a perfect fit, I consider the proposal is best assessed as a utility activity”. We note that Farrell (§31) says the same (and without qualification).

8

entailed for them. We realise that these may not be matters of concern to the

Court, but they are of great importance to us, fellow members of the

community.

22. In submissions to the DCC hearing and at subsequent BALS meetings, our

members expressed the view that the proposed development would have a

disastrous effect on the amenity of properties in the immediate vicinity of the

wind turbine site. In §39 of his decision, Commissioner Weatherall concurred

with that view, stating: “Ultimately I have decided that the wider benefits of the

application do not outweigh the significant adverse effects on the amenity

values of the nearest neighbours”.

23. The current appeal, although it concerns a different option for the

development (one taller turbine instead of three smaller ones) will clearly turn

on the same issues and we will leave those arguments for the legal

professionals. We simply note that the evidence of Mr Sycamore for the DCC

(§§150-152; 164) concludes that the effects on at least two neighbouring

properties would be so significant as to stand in the way of granting consent.7

24. The reference, in the evidence of Mr Farrell (§121) and Mr Moore (§96), to

the small number of affected neighbouring properties appears to suggest the

cynical notion that the amenity of the near neighbours can be sacrificed to the

“greater good”. Even if the RMA contained such a provision (which we do not

believe it does), we argue below that the “greater good” in this case is so

vastly exaggerated that it can be almost entirely discounted. As noted above,

this was the Commissioner’s view as well, although it was stated rather less

emphatically.

25. We make three final points, in the belief that these might aid the Court in its

deliberations:

(a) Mr Moore (§67) distinguishes between the visual effects on the house

sites at the neighbouring properties and the effects on the wider

setting of the properties. This is an important distinction (for noise, as

7 Even Mr Farrell (§6[b]) has to concede: “The increase in size of the turbine does not reduce

(and may increase) [our emphasis] the visual amenity effects on Mr Mursa at 110 Porteous

Road”.

9

well visual considerations). In this case, it has to be borne in mind that

the neighbouring properties are small in size, to the extent that the

“wider setting” is in effect, the entire property. If the proposed turbine

were to be erected, the neighbours would have very few (if any) places

to go to escape its amenity effects. In this connexion, Ms Lucas’s

admission (§25) that “the amenity experienced on the associated lands

[our emphasis] will be affected by the turbine located above” is equally

worthy of note.

(b) In his evidence (§56ff), Mr Moore defines the “near neighbours” as those

living within 1.5kms of the proposed development. Ms Lucas (§8) follows

this same definition in identifying the “eight rural properties of various

sizes adjoin[ing] the site”. We note that this definition is a live issue in

the 2GP hearings. Indeed, in his submission to the 2GP hearings panel

– a submission commissioned by the Dunedin City Council – Mr Moore

refers specifically to the visual effects of “turbines within the 85-125m

high range” and notes that they potentially have a “highly significant

visual impact within approximately 1km of the site and a “significant

visual impact within approximately 1-3km of the site”.8 These opinions

will necessarily inform the planners’ final recommendation on the

suggestion that the 2GP follow the example of many other planning

authorities (especially those with considerable experience of the real-

world cases of adverse effects from wind generation) and include

minimum setbacks between large wind turbines and dwellings. The

Planners’ Right of Reply – Network Utilities and Energy Generation

(p.11)9, confirms that this is a matter under consideration.

(c) The Appellant’s evidence contains several references to the Brooklyn

windfarm on the outskirts of Wellington (Stephenson §§95,96; Ruru §20;

Farrell §62) in order to argue that the separations from dwellings in this

case are, as Mr Farrell puts it, “not unusual”. We suggest that this is a

false analogy: Brooklyn is a hill suburb, not a rural location and hence

8 Before the Dunedin City Council, In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991, and

In the matter of submissions on the Network Utility Section of the Proposed Dunedin City District Plan, Evidence of Michael William Moore, dated 16 June 2016, §31.

9 My attempts to navigate the Dunedin City Council’s website in order to supply the source of

this and the previous reference have been unsuccessful.

10

gives rise to quite different expectations regarding amenity; the Enercon

E82 turbine is considerably larger than the Brooklyn turbine; the

landscape values are not comparable; aspect and topography are quite

different.

EFFECTS ON THE WIDER ENVIRONMENT

26. The Court has been provided with ample expert evidence on the wider

amenity effects of the proposed development. The expert witnesses on

landscape and noise effects will have conferred before the hearing and will be

subject to legal cross-examination, as will Mr Walrond, the geotechnical

expert. The paragraphs below are intended only to inform the court of the

potential effects of the proposal as perceived by our members. We will refer,

in turn, to landscape, noise and hazards.

Landscape

27. A concern for the wider landscape effects of the proposal on the Blueskin Bay

area was raised in many of the submissions to the DCC hearings and

repeated in the applications of the s274 parties to this appeal. The Court will

hear much the same from the s274 parties who have presented evidence.

28. Many of the points made in the expert witnesses’ evidence align with the

views expressed by our members.

(a) “Located on Porteous Hill, one tower with its rotor above will be highly

visible around much of this rural landscape”. (Lucas §43);

(b) “The introduction of a turbine will change the visual character of Porteous

Hill. It will change the contribution of Porteous Hill to the wider coastal

landscape”. (Lucas §44);

(c) The “hilltop is a visually sensitive location, forming the skyline from many

areas surrounding and this is recognized by the ridgeline and wahi tupuna

overlays in the 2GP”. (Moore §15);

(d) The site is “visible at distances of up to 13km and more from links to the

south of Blueskin Bay including such significant viewpoints as State

Highway 1, Mt Cargill Road, Blueskin Road, Purakaunui Road, Heyward

Point Road”. (Moore §28);

11

(e) There are “numerous houses” in this area (Moore §28) and three

townships – Waitati, Doctors Point and Warrington (Sycamore §23);

(f) There are “no structures present on the hilltop at present”. (Moore §8);

(g) The turbine will form a “focal point in the surrounding landscape”. (Moore

§21);

(h) “Porteous Hill does have significance in terms of Section 7(c) and (f) of

the RMA”. (Moore §20);

(i) With reference to the ODP, the DCC planner notes that the turbine, by

virtue of its size and shape represents a “significant deviation from what

was generally anticipated by the plan” (Sycamore §48).

29. Although these comments align with the observations of the local residents in

our Society, we wish to note that, from our lay perspective, they do not

amount to effects that are “no more than minor”.

30. It is not just local residents who are the issue here. We refer the Court to the

evidence of Mr Mark Brown, who stresses the significance of overseas and

local tourism and relates this to 14.1.1 of the ODP.

31. As Mr Moore constantly reminds us, and other expert witnesses confirm, how

one responds to the potential introduction of such a large structure into what

is defined as a “significant natural landscape” in the 2GP will be a matter of

opinion. Dr Ruru believes that turbine would provide a welcome reminder to

her family of where electricity comes from. No doubt there are others

(including her fellow BRCT trustees) who have the same opinion, although

none have taken the opportunity to inform the Court of their view. By contrast,

many local residents have told the Commissioner at the original hearing and

this Court via s274 notices that they look upon the proposed development as

an unwelcome and unnecessary intrusion into the beauty of their place.10 We

10 We refer here not only to the opinion of our own members. Mr Willis, in Appendix 11 to his

evidence (SW p.247) supplies the results of a questionnaire on landscape values. Of the questions answered in the positive, only two can be seen as accepting wind turbines as part of the local landscape (1. “You can’t stop progress”, 4 answers, 3.17%; 2. “Whatever will be will be”, 2 answers, 1.59%). Of the remainder, three are clearly resistant (3. “I love it just the way it is”, 12 answers, 9.2%; 4. “There has been some inappropriate development”, 11 answers, 8.73%); 5. “I don’t want any more developments without discussion”, 18 answers, 14.29%). The other three provide no indication either way (6. “It’s a multifunctional landscape”, 19 answers, 15.08%; 7. “It’s beautiful, functional and productive”, 28 answers, 22.2%; 8. “I value the wild places”, 28 answers, 22.2%).

12

agree with Ms Stephenson (§87) that it would be an exaggeration to say that

the erection of the turbine would result in a “divided community”. We simply

stress that there is ample evidence, embodied in the very Society we

represent, that there are many local people who object strongly to the

proposal in terms of its visual effects.

Noise

32. The expert witnesses confirm the commonsense view that the degree to

which the noise effects from the turbine will be detrimental to amenity

depends entirely on the distance of any property from the turbine. In this

case, the near neighbours are clearly the most important affected parties.

33. With regard to the evidence itself we suggest that this is an area where the

sufficiency of what has been provided by the applicant might be questioned.

34. As the experts recognise, and as Judge Borthwick noted at the Pre-Hearing

Conference, held in Dunedin on 10th March this year, it is crucially important

to have long-term measurements of background noise levels at critical sites in

order to make an informed assessment of amenity effects. The DCC

planner’s report provides a few relevant snapshots (Sycamore §79) but this

would hardly seem to provide enough data to go on. Although the Appellant

did attempt to rectify this gap in the evidence at the suggestion of Judge

Borthwick, we do not see how, given the short time frame involved, any

evidence supplied can be deemed truly sufficient to answer the three

questions raised by the judge in the Pre-Hearing Conference Record

(§26[c]).11

Light

35. The Appellant’s landscape expert witnesses refer to the red hazard light

which would be required to comply with civil aviation requirements. Mr Moore

(§53) acknowledges that the effect of this light on the wider amenity would

vary, depending on “atmospheric and lighting effects”. He elaborates on this

point later (§79), where he writes: “In cloudy conditions there could be a red

haze effect as a result of light reflection off the clouds”. He does, however,

11 We also draw attention to the concerns of Mr Hunt, which are supported by the DCC

planner in his recommendation that an adequate background sound level survey be included within the brief of evidence, and not as a condition of consent (Sycamore [83]).

13

discount the potential magnitude of this effect. Ms Lucas (§34), although less

precise in her description of this same effect, also concludes that it would be

“no more than minor”. Mr Morrison, in his lay evidence, disagrees strongly.

We note that Mr Knox says nothing about this matter and that the expert

witnesses have not indicated whether they agree or disagree on this point.

14

HAZARDS

36. At the DCC hearing, I was one of a number of submitters raising concerns

over the location of the turbine site in an area within a hazard zone for land

instability. Mr Sycamore covers this in his evidence (§31), where he notes

that “the actual tower locations [sic] are situated in an area not marked for

landslide instability”. It may be of importance here that, as Mr Albert suggests,

it is not 100%-certain precisely where the tower would be erected.

37. This stability of the site is considered by Mr Walrond in his expert evidence

and the DCC planner accepts his view, quoting Mr Walrond (“the site appears

well suited to the proposed development, with volcanic rock available at

shallow depth” (Sycamore §97)) and stating “I am satisfied natural hazards

and geotechnical matters can be sufficiently addressed by way of consent

conditions”.

38. We are not qualified to comment on these opinions. We simply observe that

Mr Walrond (§11) appears rather more circumspect than Mr Sycamore, when

he writes: “Owing to the proximity of landslide features locally [our

emphasis], a cautious approach should be adopted”. We simply wonder at

what point in the process it is reasonable to expect such caution to be

exercised.

39. We note finally that Mr Walrond’s evidence and its attached groundwater

report prepared by Geosolve focus more or less entirely on the potential risks

associated with the erection of the turbine at the top of the hill. What is not

considered in any detail in either report are the potential risks posed by any

necessary works on Porteous Road, which provides access to the site.12 We

return to this point separately below.

12 Those who live in the vicinity (and anyone who walks the land – particularly after a heavy

rainfall event) can point to significant features – swamps, ponds (some man-made) and watercourses (many ephemeral) – which make this such a dynamic piece of land. The motorway beneath these slopes is notoriously unstable and the NZTA has had an active interest in this area ever since SH1 was put in. It is unclear from the Appellant’s evidence if the authority is aware of its proposal to realign Porteous Road.

15

THE TURBINE PROJECT AND THE COMMUNITY

40. The evidence presented by the Appellant refers repeatedly to the Porteous

Hill proposal as a “community-led” project. Mr Willis, Dr Stephenson and Dr

Ruru provide exhaustive details of the process by which the original idea for

local wind-powered electricity generation was transformed into the specific

project under consideration by the Court.

41. Although we accept the account of community engagement supplied by the

Appellant as broadly true, we do not accept at all that the description

“community-led” properly fits a process that has been BRCT-led from the

outset. As the evidence of s274 parties confirms, there is strong resistance in

the community to the idea that BRCT can properly pretend to be expressing

the will of local residents. The very existence of BALS reflects the strength of

that resistance.

42. We refrain from detailed engagement with all the evidence before the Court

as this would take up too much valuable time. We agree with Mr Farrell

(§25(b)[iv]) that the adequacy or otherwise of consultation is largely irrelevant

in any case. But there are a number of points which we do consider to be

important:

(a) There is a significant difference between inviting the public to poster

displays and discussions about the options identified by BRCT in relation

to community wind-powered generation and consultation with affected

parties and the community-at-large about the specific project for which

consent is being sought. As Commissioner Weatherall put it in his

decision (§34): “it is […] clear from the submissions that the more recent

changes to the project prior to the lodgement of the application were not

well understood by the local community. There was no evidence to

indicate that there was any specific consultation on the establishment of

three 90m high turbines on Porteous Hill”. It was only after lodging its

appeal to the Court that BRCT sought to rectify this omission by holding

the three meetings in September 2016 referred to in the Appellant’s

evidence.

(b) The very fact that the wind turbine idea “has been discussed in the

community for the best part of a decade” (Walrond §125) is part of the

problem. As the Appellant’s evidence attests, every aspect of this idea,

16

from the size and number of turbines, to the possible generation sites, the

wind data collected and the business model, have undergone so many

changes as to challenge even the most assiduous student of these

developments. As a result, there has been some understandable

confusion about the final project, particularly with regard to its community

benefits.

(c) One of the most important parts of this complex evolution has been the

abandonment of the original idea of providing some sort of price dividend

to local power consumers. The posters reproduced in Appendix 6 to Mr

Willis’s evidence show how the idea of locally-owned power generation

was linked to projections of rising costs of electricity for private

households. Although the Appellant is quite open about the way that

these initial aspirations had to be put aside in the face of commercial and

other realities, you will still find people who believe that this project would

result in lower power bills for locals.

(d) The “engagement strategies” covered in Appendix 5 of Mr Willis’s

evidence refer, under Phase 2 (Site Options), to the need to discuss “pros

and cons of sites” (SW p.104). The evidence provided indicates that the

balance of that discussion was weighted substantially in favour of the

“pros”. Section 4 of the posters reproduced in Appendix 6 of Mr Willis’s

evidence presents the case for the choice of Porteous Hill as the

preferred site. Although it could well be true that this site has the “best

wind resource”, this does not mean that the resource is sufficient to justify

the project economically. (The evidence of Mr Jock Brown deals with this

point in detail.) The statement that there is “easy access” via Porteous

Road is, at the very least, a liberal interpretation of the word “easy”. The

claim that this has “low impact on landscape” could, perhaps, be justified,

but note that the turbines in question at the time were the much smaller

Windflow 500s, with a tower height of 30m and a rotor diameter of 33m.

Nowhere is there a mention of the near neighbours and the potential

sacrifice of their amenity if the project were to go ahead.

(e) We reproduce in Appendix 2, the leaflet circulated at the meetings held in

September last year. This contains an understandably partial summary of

the Commissioner’s decision. Whether or not the statement about wind

quality is true was very difficult to say on the basis of the limited data

17

available at the time. (As s274 evidence shows, locals have for a long

time been suspicious of BRCT’s claims in this respect.) The DNV-GL

Energy advice mentioned has not been supplied or summarised in any of

the Appellant’s evidence. We return to other statements in this leaflet

below.

(f) The September meetings and subsequent media statements by those

speaking for the Appellant have been characterised by a tendency to

disregard the reasonable concerns of neighbours and local people and to

dismiss those opposed to the project using pejorative epithets.

43. The evidence of s274 parties attests to the strength of feeling in the

community on this issue. We note that the governance model chosen by

BRCT does not give the local community a direct voice in its operation. There

is nothing wrong with that in itself, nor can it be suggested that this would

prevent BRCT from realising its ambitions. We do suggest, however, that the

history of BRCT suggests that the absence of any governance mechanism to

demonstrate a community mandate for this proposal is a real weakness.13 If

BRCT had been able to provide the evidence of such a mandate, this might

have justified, at least to a limited extent, its attempt to have its original

application for a resource consent treated as non-notifiable, which would have

excluded the community from the process.

PORTEOUS ROAD

44. The current project relies on the viability of access to the turbine site via

Porteous Road. This is a half-chain wide gravel road, steep in places and with

a number of “hairpin” bends.

45. The question was raised in submissions to the DCC’s resource consent

hearing whether the road was actually capable of accommodating the

transport of the turbine components. The matter was addressed in a

submission from Fulton Hogan Limited, a heavy haulage contractor, which

concluded that access could be achieved with some improvements to the

road. To my knowledge, this submission was never tested in any detail at the

13 The example of the (highly successful) Central Lakes Trust (CLT), which owns Pioneer

Energy provides an instructive contrast. The trustees of CLT are elected, in line with the local election cycle, by all resident electors and non-resident ratepayer electors in the Central Lakes Trust region.

18

hearing. In the end, the whole issue appears to have been effectively

overshadowed by the many other matters that formed the basis of the

Commissioner’s decision to decline the resource consent application.

46. When we read the original batch of evidence supplied by the Appellant, we

were surprised to note that there was nothing at all to support the assertion

that Porteous Road allowed “good road access” to the site (Willis §62). The

DCC planner and two of the expert witnesses accepted this view without

question.14 We wonder on what basis these statements were made, given

that they would appear to repeat the opinion of the original Fulton Hogan

document, which relates to the transportation of the three smaller turbines,

not the larger Enercon E82 model now proposed.15

47. Curiously (and despite the comment in §14 – see footnote 12) the DCC

planner’s report raises a number of questions with regard to Porteous Road.

He writes: “I note a number of critical sections of Porteous Road that may

present challenges in terms of navigating a transporter”, adding that the

Appellant may need to satisfy the Court that the transport of the turbine to the

site is achievable [and] should be satisfied that the turbine materials can be

delivered to the site lawfully and safely” (Sycamore §107). On the

“lawfulness” of this activity, we assume that he was alluding to the probable

need for the turbine transporter to have access to private land adjacent to the

road.

48. All of these matters were raised by BALS at the Pre-Hearing Conference and

Judge Borthwick responded in her Record of that conference. With regard to

the legal concerns, it was her view that the “court would not be interested

whether third-party approval is also required to access land or for works on

the land” (§19). We accept that judgment and understand the reasons for it.

But in §17, Judge Borthwick also indicated that “The scale of the access

works may be relevant to the landscape and amenity assessment” and “the

14 Mr Sycamore (§14) refers to “some minor works required to broaden corners within the

road reserve of Porteous Road itself; Mr Moore (§ 16[b] notes the need to upgrade the road by “widening at its intersection with State Highway 1, tree removal and battering at a few sharp bends, and raising the road surface in the vicinity of the access point to the road”; Mr Farrell (§28[f]) says “the site is accessible with limited roading improvements required to facilitate the development.

15 We acknowledge that the planners have considered the second Fulton Hogan report as

part of their conference.

19

effect of the works can be taken into consideration even though they are on

road reserve and/or permitted under the District Plan”. The Appellant

responded by supplying a second (and substantially different) report from

Fulton Hogan.

49. The new transportation report raises considerably more questions than it

answers. Its conclusion - “In my assessment the turbine components can be

transported to the application site using the existing Porteous Road formation.

Some minor upgrade works, tree removal and trimming along the road will be

required. All of these works are to take place within the legal road reserve.”

(McNeilly §21) – seems at odds with the scale of what is proposed in the body

of the report. Given that the report accepts without question the assumption

that the road can be substantially rerouted at key points because of a claimed

discrepancy between the existing road and the legal road, it is difficult to be

sure that one understands exactly what is meant by this statement as a

whole.16

50. Whether or not the transportation report provides a robust expert opinion on

how the turbine materials might be legally transported to the site or even

transported to the site at all remains to be tested, although perhaps not by

this Court. What is of particular note is that it cannot really be said to contain

sufficient evidence on which to base any proper assessment of landscape

and amenity effects.

51. What is more, without detailed evidence of the volumes of material to be

removed, the number and size of trees to be cut down and the location and

nature of the various watercourses involved, we suggest that, in view of the

unstable nature of the surrounding terrain, it is impossible to be sure that

there are no significant hazards to be considered here. In this connexion we

draw attention again to statement by Mr Walrond (§14) about the need for

geo-technical assessment of areas below the proposed turbine site.

52. After receipt of the new transportation report, a number of our members spent

several hours inspecting Porteous Road together with a local landowner who

has a long association with the site. It had been raining consistently in the

16 These issues appear to assume greater significance in the light of NPSREG, Policy C1(b):

“Decision-makers shall have particular regard to […] b) logistical or technical difficulties [our emphasis] associated with developing, upgrading, operating or maintaining the renewable electricity generation activity”.

20

previous few days and there was ample evidence of the significance of

several watercourses. This lay assessment identified many noteworthy

issues. These include:

(a) the removal of 12 historic trees planted by the first European settlers,

probably as a hedge to mark the boundary of the road reserve;

(b) excavation to remove large tree stumps with inevitable disturbance of

watercourses;

(c) potential silting of the many waterways that dot Porteous Hill;

(d) removal of berms, one of which is about 2m high on potentially unstable

land;

(e) potential pollution of clean spring-fed water used as stock water on

adjacent farmland.17

53. We acknowledge that this is lay assessment only. If we had had the funds to

pay for this, we would have commissioned a full expert report. In any case,

we understand that the responsibility rests with the Appellant to provide the

Court with all relevant evidence and we suggest that the transportation report

does not meet that requirement.

CLAIMED BENEFITS

54. From the very beginning, the wind turbine idea has been promoted in terms of

its potential benefits both to the local community and to the wider public of

New Zealand. Although the original benefits sought (cheaper power for

Blueskin Bay residents; financial opportunity via direct community ownership)

had to be abandoned in the face of insuperable difficulties, the claims still

feature prominently in the evidence presented by the Appellant, albeit in a

very different form.

55. The Appellant’s evidence refers to a number of potential benefits. We touch

on each of these below.

Contribution to local and national renewable energy generation

17 This is a major issue for two of the Porteous Hill neighbours. In their evidence, Ms Ozanne

and Mr Thom also express their real concern over the potential impact of development works on their farming operations.

21

56. In his closing remarks the DCC planner refers to “the public good and benefit

arising from the development” (Sycamore §164). He adds that the

“development clearly enjoys central government policy support” (ibid). For the

applicant, Mr Farrell sets great store in that policy support (the NPSREG) in

arguing that the proposal should be considered a project of “national

significance” (Farrell §30[c]). We are sure that this is an opinion that will be

tested by legal experts, who will ask whether the project meets the

requirement of Policy C1(a) – that generation must be located where the

resource is available – and consider whether the DCC planner is correct

when he suggests that Mr Farrell neglects the detrimental effects on other

parties (Sycamore §117).

57. From a lay perspective, and as s274 parties point out, it seems difficult to

accept that this really is a case of national or even regional significance. The

amount of energy that would be generated is small and the contribution to the

reduction of carbon emissions negligible. And there is plenty of surplus

capacity around the country in the form of already consented wind farms (the

Mahinerangi project is of note in our region).

58. To conclude, we draw attention to an apparent contradiction in the Appellant’s

evidence. Mr Farrell (§ 50[c]) refers to “an increase in the diversity of supply

increasing the resilience [our emphasis] of the electricity supply for the city”.

He refers elsewhere to NSPREG Policy B(c) in support of his opinion that the

turbine “will increase the diversity and security [our emphasis] of local

electricity supply, making the Dunedin district (particularly Blueskin Bay) more

resilient” (Farrell §99[d]). Dr Ruru (§18) repeats this claim: “in the event of

disrupted national grid, the Blueskin Bay settlements will be able to increase

resilience with access to Our Blueskin Turbine’s locally generated electricity”.

Although there can be no doubt on the question of diversity, the claims about

resilience appear to be discounted in the expert opinion of Mr Terry Jones,

dated 25th January, 2017 (Willis, Appendix 16) who attests that “the wind

turbine alone will not necessarily increase the local area’s electrical

resilience [our emphasis] but it will have a positive reduction of electrical

transmission losses”. He adds that, for the turbine to serve as a back-up

power source, there would need to be “further equipment and technical

advances” (SW pp.202, 203).

Economic benefits

22

59. The claimed economic benefits of this project have been widely contested

both at the DCC hearing and at the subsequent public meetings called by

BRCT. They are contested again in the evidence of s274 parties. We note

that the DCC planner shares this concern: “The application promotes the

concept of funnelling profit from the sale of electricity to the local community

[…] no evidence has been provided indicating how this will occur” (Sycamore

§123).

60. Mr Sycamore could be overstating the case a little here. Mr Willis, Dr Ruru

and Dr Stephenson all describe the business model to be adopted.

Stephenson (§§80-82) provides a clear account of how BEL, as a BRCT-

owned company will be a major partner, alongside a series of limited

partners, supported by a bank loan of up to 40% of debt equity. The likely

viability of such a model is another matter entirely and this is covered in the

expert evidence of Mr Jock Brown. And, as Mr Albert indicates, the

comparison with the Hepburn project in Australia (Stephenson §§22-24) is

imprecise and very discouraging in terms of a likely outcome for this project.

61. Leaving aside the question of viability, it should be noted that the potential

economic benefit to the local community might not be that significant. In the

first place, the benefit – via dividends to BRCT – is quite modest and mostly

indirect (see §62, below). And it is absolutely unknown quite how many local

residents might respond to the opportunity to join the minor partners in

investing “up to $2 million” in the project (Stephenson §81). It would seem

reasonable to assume that, given the small size of the communities involved,

that local investment might make up only a relatively small proportion of any

investment raised this way.18

62. Turning to the estimated financial benefit to BRCT, we suggest that Mr Farrell

is mistaken when he talks of “Direct [our emphasis] benefits to the community

by way of an annual dividend (in the order of $100,000) to be paid directly to

community initiatives” (Farrell §50[a]). We refer here to the evidence of Dr

Ruru, who describes how BRCT will set up “an independent Blueskin Bay

community body to allocate at least 10% [our emphasis] of the annual

dividends for charitable and other projects of benefit to at least one Blueskin

18 The only evidence supplied (Willis, Appendix 4, SW pp.56-7) is not encouraging in this

respect.

23

Bay settlement” (Ruru [37]). In terms of guaranteed direct benefit to the

community, this amounts to just $10,000.

63. The BRCT Profit and Loss statement for the financial year 2015-16, supplied

in Willis, Appendix 4 (SW pp.56-7), shows an operating budget of $102,853,

of which $80,853 comprises salaries. This suggests that the remainder of the

estimated dividends would do no more than enable BRCT to keep its office

running - $85,938 in 2015-16, or 83.5% of the operating budget. How this

translates into direct benefit to the community is impossible to gauge from

this or any other financial statements on public record.

64. The Appellant’s evidence is clear that this is a crucial consideration for BRCT.

Farrell (§99[i]) refers to the project as a “source of income for BRCT – a

community organisation”; Dr Ruru (§30) notes that the projected income will

relieve the Trust of the burden of making constant applications for short-term

funding, a point reiterated in Stephenson (§64); Stephenson (§98) puts the

case rather more dramatically, suggesting that, were the Court to decline the

appeal, this could spell the end of BRCT.19 To return to Dr Ruru’s point, if the

main benefit would be that BRCT no longer has to rely on external funding,

the projected income from the project would do little more than reinforce the

status quo.

65. All of the above works on the assumption that the project would generate a

dividend for BRCT, let alone a financial return to any minority investors.

Clearly, our members are extremely sceptical. BRCT/BEL have openly stated

that they are yet to develop a business plan for the project. The “Blueskin

Wind Project” leaflet contends that “a comprehensive business plan can only

be made once details such as the Resource consent are finalised” and

concludes by stating that “if the business plan is not viable […] then the

project will not proceed”. We suggest that the $100,000, which is described

as a “projected” return in Willis §81 is rather more accurately termed a “target”

in Ruru §32. Whatever word one uses, by the Applicant’s own admission, the

sum of money has to be regarded as the product of conjecture at this time.

Other claimed benefits

19 The list of services provided in Willis §36 gives no data on which to base even a rough

cost/benefit analysis.

24

66. The remaining claimed benefits do not warrant serious scrutiny.

(a) the jobs associated with the project are either temporary or of negligible

permanent benefit to the community (see Stephenson §58-9);

(b) the benefit of “community learning” (Stephenson §58) will be achieved

even if the consent is declined.

(c) the prospect of the turbine being a “likely tourist attraction” (Stephenson

§65) is fanciful if not farcical.

67. Mr Sycamore (§123) raises one further item of concern regarding the claimed

benefit to the local community when he indicates the absence of

“mechanisms […] to ensure the development will not be on-sold to a third-

party private entity [our emphasis]”. He shares that concern with many

BALS members. When asked for comment on this matter at the September

2016 meetings, representatives of BRCT/BEL provided no clear answer.

CONCLUSION

68. The one-turbine proposal before the Court bears the marks of having been

put together hastily in the hope that it will not share the same fate as the

three-turbine application considered and declined by Commissioner

Weatherall.

69. Our members contend – and believe the evidence shows – that the

Applicant’s new case fails to meet the requirements of the Act for the same

reasons that the old one did. We suggest:

(a) The negative amenity effects on the near neighbours and the wider local

community are insupportable;

(b) The claimed contribution of the project to renewable energy generation is

minimal;

(c) The project cannot reasonably be described as “community-led”;

(d) The evidence presented by the Appellant either ignores or underestimates

the logistical problems associated with the project.

70. On the grounds covered in the above evidence, BALS opposes both the BEL

appeal and its associated application for resource consent.

25

Andrew Barratt

(on behalf of the Blueskin Amenity and Landscape Society)

1 June, 2017

26

APPENDIX 1

BALS Certificate of Incorporation

27

28

APPENDIX 2

BRCT/BEL Pamphlet

29

30