- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
-
Hello.
Following on from some earlier posts in this forum, I’ve just spent the last several evenings trying to read the most boring document in the world, which is a 390 page pdf of scanned and non-indexed submissions to the Tararua District Plan, much of which comes from power companies. I’m not an expert at interpreting this kind of thing but I do like the idea of dragging others into the same descending pit of boredom that I’ve entered, so I thought I’d repeat some of it here for everyone’s interest. If anyone wants to chip in with more and/or better informed insight, I’d welcome it.
For those who don’t know, the Tararua District is *not* the Tararua Range as such. It covers the land approximately to the east of Palmerston North and out towards the coast. It’s of particular interest to power companies because it’s a great place for wind generation, and is already the site of several wind farms on both the Tararua and Ruahine foothills. There’s also a lot of interest in extending the wind farms and building lots more, and this is interesting from a tramping club point of view because it could potentially affect some of the area that surrounds the Tararua and Ruahine ranges. The District Plan (currently being considered) is important for this because it defines what processes and consultation have to be followed to get resource consents, or in some cases resource consents might not even be needed.
Keep in mind that this is *not* about building 200 metre high wind turbines along Sawtooth Ridge in the middle of conservation land (yet, anyway), at least as far as I can tell… although if anyone knows better I’d like to know. I guess a change of government might potentially change DOC’s priorities in certain government-owned lands, but I don’t know if that’s really an issue right at the moment.
Anyway, if you visited http://www.tararuadc.govt.nz/asp/news_details.asp?idid=548 and downloaded the 22 Megabyte PDF document containing scans of all of the full submissions, you’d find the most notable submissions at the following locations inside it: Genesis (pages 82-92), Trustpower (pages 93-108), Meridian (pages 175-212), Mighty River Power (pages 256-302), and the Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority also chipped in (pages 150-169).
Many of the details involve requests to change terminology to make the district plan more consistent with legislation such as the Resource Management Act. There’s a lot of bickering about the use of words such as “important” and “significant” as it applies to landscapes and natural features.
Energy companies in general want to have the plan adjusted so that it specifically recognises the benefits of renewable energy, as well as recognising that sometimes it’s “appropriate” to put wind generation in certain places, and that the Tararua district happens to be really windy.
Another common theme is that they’re concerned that subdivision of farms should be restricted near wind farms, or places that might be good to build wind farms. The obvious reason for this, I guess, is that if farms get sub-divided in future and people start to build lifestyle blocks on them, then those people will start to complain about wind farms on their doorsteps.
Particularly notable things:
* Genesis wants to specifically provide for renewable energy in coastal areas.
* Genesis wants to be able to put up temporary wind monitoring masts (up to 80 metres high) for up to 2 years at a time.
* Trustpower’s been quite damning of a ‘schedule of natural features’ that’s listed in appendix 3 of the plan, claiming that the schedule is not based on a consistent and robust assessment of landscape/values. Mighty River Power has also suggested that there should really be a “comprehensive District-wide landscape assessment (using standardised and recognised criteria) to categorise and distinguish between the natural features and landscapes having amenity values and those having outstanding natural values”. Trustpower is very concerned about 2 particular items in this schedule, namely item 302 “Skyline of the Tararua Ranges” for the reason of “Scenic values, particularly as viewed from adjacent plains”, and item 304 “Skyline of the Ruahine Ranges” for the reason of “Scenic values, particularly as viewed from the adjacent plains”. Trustpower wants to delete this entire schedule of natural features, but at the very least they want to delete those two items, or if that isn’t possible they want a very specific definition of what constitutes the “skyline” and what it actually means. I suppose they’re concerned that anyone could go and stand under one of their turbines and complain “you’re ruining my skyline”, but I also guess that removing it could have other implications depending on what sort of wind farms they have in mind.
* Meridian has stated that certain maps provided in the draft plan are very ambiguous and need to be improved, since those are the bits they’re most interested in.
* Trustpower wants to add some text that addresses tensions between protecting landscape values and providing “important infrastructure”. Meridian has stated that it thinks important landscapes should be able to give way to important economic gains.
* Mighty River Power wants to recognise that “primary production” also shapes vitality and character of rural areas, which I guess is another way of saying that things like wind farms could make the Tararua District seem kind of cool or trendy and interesting and help people feel good about themselves.
* The Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority seems to think the plan needs to be amended to recognise that there’s room for “small scale hydroelectricity generation in the district”. I’m not sure exactly what this means, but I hope the ‘small scale’ thing means they’re not suggesting building massive dams somewhere.
Anyway, those are the bits that stood out to me. The whole exercise of reading this thing in my (cough) spare time has been extremely boring, but I rest assured that when I feel bored in the future, all I need to is think back to these times because anything compared with this will feel like a happy dream. I hope that in repeating parts of the submissions here, I’ve dragged some others with me into the descending pit of boredom (you could be my friends!), but hopefully if you’re the kind of person who thought it seemed kind of interesting but couldn’t be bothered reading 390 pages, you might now feel a little more enlightened.
Until 4pm on 3rd October, the TDC is accepting submissions that relate specifically to the submissions that it’s already received, so if you’d like to make a submission about this then now’s your chance. (Note that if you make a submission, you’re also required to post a copy to all the organisations who made the submissions you’re commenting about, so be prepared for that.)
My personal view from a perspective of being interested in tramping is that the most important aspects here are to do with landscape and skyline and what they actually mean. For *me*, I suppose it’s quite important that when I go tramping somewhere it feels as if it’s a remote area, and the easiest way to ensure that is to make sure that the landscape and view from within the various ranges is kept
as free as possible from imposing human-built structures. (Within reason, of course.) There’s probably also the aspects of the skyline and what it actually is, the profile of the mountains as seen from certain places, etc etc.I’m thinking about maybe making some kind of submission to do with how I think things like “skyline” and “landscape” should be considered from a recreational point of view, in the case that those things are re-considered as a result of the submissions, but I haven’t quite made up my mind yet. (I have to wake up first.)
I think that’s everything. Comments and thoughts are welcome.
Mike.
-
-