Govt policy on renewable energy cited

A PROPOSED Waitati wind farm was yesterday described as a development ‘‘of national significance’’ that should be granted consent.

Blueskin Energy Ltd (BEL), the company behind the proposal, was appealing the Dunedin City Council’s refusal to allow a 110m turbine to be erected on Porteous Hill, to the north of Blueskin Bay.

Bridget Irving, counsel for BEL, told Judge Jane Borthwick and two commissioners on the last day of the appeal hearing that the case was, ultimately, ‘‘relatively simple’’.

On the one hand, the court was faced with maintaining and enhancing amenity values, as required by statute.

Against that, it had a development ‘‘of national significance’’ that had to be proided for.

‘‘It generates significant positive effects, both nationally and locally, distinguishing it from many other wind farm developments,’’ Ms Irving said.

The court’s decision was about the assessment of a single turbine in a planning framework ‘‘bookended by incomplete instruments’’ (the DCC’s Operative District Plan and the Otago Regional Council’s Regional Policy Statement) and uncertain, nonoperative instruments (2GP, the DCC’s Second Generation Plan, and PRPS, the regional council’s Provisional Regional Policy Statement).

The National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPSREG) set out the objective and policies for renewable electricity generation under the Resource Management Act, gave clear government direction on the benefits of renewable electricity generation and required all councils to make provision for it in their plans.

Earlier this week, landscape architect Stephen Brown conceded rural environments were really the only place to site a turbine. Porteous Hill was a rural environment whose rural character was recognised by the Operative District Plan and the landscape experts agreed Porteous Hill was not an outstanding natural landscape.

But there was plenty of evidence before the court about a community that wanted to be proactive and take responsibility for its role in the global fight against climate change. At a national level, it had been recognised that renewable electricity generation had a significant role to play in New Zealand’s wider response to climate change and the National Policy Statement placed an obligation on the court to provide for it, Ms Irving said.

Porteous Hill residents living near the site were against the proposed erection of the turbine, arguing BEL’s application was ‘‘entirely contrary’’ to planning requirements designed to protect significant landscapes and rural amenity.

And the council’s position, overall, was that the proposal should not proceed, DCC counsel Michael Garbett said.

The $100,000 dividend offered to the community by BEL was ‘‘admirable’’ but was ‘‘proving elusive to pin down’’, and the possible variability of the figure affected the weight to be placed on it.

The significant amenity effects on Porteous Hill residents were ‘‘a key issue and focus of the council’’. They were not able to be mitigated on site. The planting proposed on neighbours’ properties, ‘‘if accepted’’, might help, but the issue of financial compensation was really between the neighbours and the company.

Overall, BEL’s case had the hallmark of offering some late mitigation to neighbours without engaging them, and it had occurred while maximising the generation ability of a 3MW turbine at 110m overall, Mr Garbett said.

The fact BEL had now adopted 80 conditions for a single turbine did call into question whether this was ‘‘the right proposal in this location’’.

Through the hearing, the company had picked up and adopted ‘‘a good proportion of the conditions’’ suggested by the DCC and the neighbours.

The only possible condition directed to environmental compensation or offset in the terms anticipated by the NPSREG was the possible payment of $5000 each year towards predator control in Blueskin Bay.

None of the direct visual or noise effects on people were the subject of environmental compensation or offset.

The council maintained the effects on the neighbours were ‘‘not appropriate’’, Mr Garbett said. For the proposal to go ahead, the neighbours would need to take on some of the mitigation of effects by planting, accept some financial compensation ($3000 per year) and live with the significant residual effects on their enjoyment of their properties.

BEL was seeking to maintain operational flexibility while placing the risk of lower or compromised benefits on to the community.

The court has reserved its decision.