2. Overview of submissions

2.1 Breakdown of submissions, by type of submitter

Table 1: Number of submissions, by category of submitter

* Note: For the purposes of this report the corresponding percentages (in brackets) have been rounded up to whole numbers, and so do not sum to 100.

Figure 2: Proportion of submissions, by category of submitter

 

Twenty-six submissions were received from local government (territorial authorities, regional councils and unitary authorities). Twenty-four submissions were received from landowners, accounting for 29 percent of the submissions. Individual submitters and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) provided nine submissions each. Nine submissions were also received from the electricity industry, three from other industry and one from an iwi authority.

2.2 Breakdown of submissions, by position

The majority of submitters supported, in principle, the concept of providing consistent requirements for electricity transmission. However, they differed in their views on the appropriate way to provide for electricity transmission, ranging from full support for the standards as proposed, to opposition and a preference for a different method of providing for electricity transmission.

Submissions were grouped into five categories, according to their position on the proposal:

• support − clear support was indicated for the proposed standards, including submitters giving support but requesting a small number of minor changes to improve the clarity of the proposals, such as requesting the consistent use of terms or making reference to regional plans and policy statements as well as district plans

• conditional support − clear support was indicated for the proposal, but requesting more than minor changes, such as re-classifying activities

• not stated − no clear statement of support or opposition was given, and this could not be determined from the content of the submission

• conditional oppose − indicating opposition to the standards as proposed, but that such opposition could be overcome by making specific changes to the proposals

• oppose − indicating clear opposition to the standards as proposed, and requesting that either the standards be completely redrafted or that another solution would be preferable.

Figure 3 shows the breakdown of submissions, by position on the proposal, for each of the proposed standards.

Figure 3: Proportion of submission, by position, for each of the proposed standards

Read a description of this image

The breakdown of submissions by position for the proposed transmission activities NES shows that 44 percent of submitters supported the changes, either as proposed (23 percent) or subject to specific changes being made (21 percent). Thirty-five percent of submitters opposed the NES, and a further 9 percent opposed the standards but their objections would be met by making specific changes.

For the proposed transmission risks NES, 45 percent of submitters opposed the NES, and a further 10 percent opposed the NES but their objections would be met by making specific changes. Only 8 percent of submitters supported the proposed NES without change, and another 27 percent supported it but asked for significant changes.

The breakdown of submissions by both position and submitter group is depicted in Figures 4 and 5. These figures clearly show that the majority of landowner submissions were opposed to both the proposed transmission activities NES and the proposed transmission risks NES. Individuals and NGOs expressed a range of views about the standards, while the majority of local government submissions indicated support or conditional support for the standards. Although only one local government submitter was opposed to the proposed transmission activities NES, five were opposed to the proposed transmission risks NES. The electricity industry expressed support for the proposed transmission activities NES and conditional support for the proposed transmission risks NES.

Figure 4: Breakdown of submission on the transmission activities NES, by position and submitter category

Read a description of this image

Figure 5: Breakdown of submissions on the transmission risks NES, by position and submitter category

Read a description of this image