Table 4 in the appendix outlines the summary of decisions sought from each submission. Five categories were used to broadly summarise the decisions sought by the submissions.
| Decision sought | No. of submissions | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Approve application | 3 | 12.5% |
| Compensation for loss of property value | 3 | 12.5% |
| Decline application | 2 | 8.3% |
| Specific issues to be mitigated | 12 | 50% |
| Other | 4 | 16.7% |
| Total | 24 | 100% |
Further information on each of the five categories is provided in sections 5.1 to 5.5.
5.1 Approve application
Three submitters (one implied) indicated they wish the applications to be approved in their entirety.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (S/Y) | Supports diverse electricity generation capacity to meet increasing demand. |
| 7 | Fish & Game NZ, Eastern Region (implied) (S/N) | Support development of diverse renewable energy (not just hydro). No fisheries or game bird resources will be affected. |
| 6 | Ministry of Economic Development (S/Y) | National benefits by using viable and renewable energy source, security of supply and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
5.2 Compensation for loss of property value
Three submitters indicated the need for compensation for the loss of property value and rural amenity and lifestyle.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | Dutton Price, Miss Lynley; Dutton Price, Miss Alison (O/N) | Loss of lifestyle and devaluation in property. |
| 13 | Ellery, Mr Grant and Mrs Francis (O/Y) | Disruption and loss of property value. Request shelter belt to screen plant and noise. Provision of alternative water supply if water gets contaminated. |
| 5 | Hansen, Mr Graham and Mrs Isobel (O/N) | Construction noise disruption to lives and property value. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
5.3 Decline application
Two submitters indicated they wish the entire applications to be declined.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasoning/decision sought |
|---|---|---|
| 18 | Houghton, Mr Ray (O/Y) | Adversely affect the landscape and amenity values. Increase of traffic on the SH1 and Poihipi intersection and compromise safety. Odour and reverse sensitivity issues. If consent granted then applicant should be required to mitigate traffic effects at intersection. Change to intersection layout. |
| 11 | Transit New Zealand, Hamilton Regional Office (O/Y) | Poihipi Road/SH1 intersection has known safety and capacity issues. Proposal does not offer appropriate conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate the traffic effects. If consent granted then require upgrade to intersection or divert construction traffic. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
5.4 Specific issues to be mitigated
Twelve submitters detailed specific issues they wish to have mitigated and/or addressed.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of reasoning/decision sought |
|---|---|---|
| 24 | Birdsall, Mr Anthony, and Koster, Mrs Linda (NS/Y) | Monitoring of groundwater and Contact to provide water supply if contaminated. Locate station on eastern boundary. Structures screened. |
| 4 | Environment Waikato (N/Y) | Consents should be consistent with council geothermal policy and existing consents. |
| 19 | Geotherm Group Ltd (M/Y) | Inclusion of conditions to ensure adverse impacts on the Geotherm Project are avoided, remedied or mitigated. Issues include reinjection sites, combined H2S and noise emissions, geothermal features and export to national grid. |
| 10 | McGrath, JJ and JM and Family (M/Y) | Reinjection into same geothermal system. Confine operations to area stated. |
| 15 | McLachlan, Mr Alistair; McLachlan, Ms Ava Marie; MacPower Ltd (M/Y) | Inclusion of conditions to ensure does not impact on the Geotherm Project. Issues include cumulative air and noise emissions, reinjection of geothermal fluids, transmission capacity, impacts on existing consent holders, extension of land area and recent drilling of a new well. |
| 22 | Tauhara North 3B Trust (M/Y) | Consultation and regular updates on reinjection plans and monitoring adjacent to interests of the Trust. |
| 17 | Taupo District Council (N/Y) | Conditions on traffic, earthworks, visual, noise, hazardous substances, natural hazards, cultural and cumulative effects. The 6,500 tpd of cooling water blowdown and condensate onto land should instead be reinjected. |
| 14 | Te Kapa o Te Rangiita ki Oruanui (N/Y) | Clarify issues not resolved in pre-consultation process. Issues include staged reinjection impacts on taonga, groundwater integrity, impacts on sites of significance in the CIA and ability to exercise their relationship with their taonga. Pre-hearing meeting requested and decision on hold until it occurs. |
| 16 | Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board (N/Y) | Clarify issues not resolved in pre-consultation process. Issues include staged reinjection impacts on taonga, groundwater integrity, impacts on sites of significance in the CIA and ability to exercise their relationship with their taonga. Pre-hearing meeting requested and decision on-hold until it occurs. |
| 2 | Vanner, Mr Brett and Mrs Heather (N/N) | Give careful consideration to construction of visible structures and consider burying pipes. |
| 20 | Waikato Raupatu Trustee Company Ltd (Tainui) (NS/Y) | Include condition to ensure that within 12 months of the Crown settling any claim under the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi Act (1975) the consent holder will review conditions of the consent to ensure consent is in alignment with the provisions of any such settled claim. |
| 3 | Wind Farm Developments (Australia) Ltd (N/Y) | Require condition ensuring project shall not result in the loss of generation from any existing or approved renewable generation projects as at the 7/03/08. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
5.5 Other decisions sought
Four submitters did not fall into any of the above categories and are listed below.
| Submission no. | Submitter | Summary of decision sought |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Department of Conservation (N/N) | Supports efforts to decrease discharge to the Waikato River. No relief sought. |
| 1 | Macphal, Ms Sarah; Campbell, Mr Ian (O/N) | None stated. |
| 21 | Major Electricity Users’ Group (N/N) | Request Board give little weight to reasons for Minister calling in the proposal. |
| 23 | Toyota, Anna and Karz (M/N) | None stated. |
Note: Brackets show the submitters’ position – (position/heard).
Key: Position is: S – Support; O – Oppose; N – Neutral; M – Mixed; NS – Not stated
Heard is: Y – Yes or N – No.
See more on...
5. Decisions Sought
April 2008
© Ministry for the Environment