Skip to content

Wind

Wind

V Wind Energy

A          Introduction

 

Harnessing energy from the wind has grown exponentially in recent decades in an effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand’s winds are amongst the world’s best. Although wind is intermittent and unpredictable, it is now commercially viable. Adverse environmental effects, however, lie with landscape, visual effects, cumulative impacts and noise. Linked are adverse environmental effects on avifauna, ecology, traffic, fire risk, rural activities, recreation, tourism, and Maori values. Such concerns, as will be seen, are not completely without substance. The Environment Court and Boards of Inquiry have, nonetheless, reasoned that given wind energy’s environmentally benign nature, wind energy will often but not always meet the RMA 1991’s purpose of sustainable management. Where wind energy does not, redesign or truncation may be available. With such support, New Zealand has over 600 MW of commercial large-scale wind energy operating or under construction and nearly 3500 MW consented or proposed but not yet constructed.1

 

B          History of Wind Farms in New Zealand

New Zealand sits in a major atmospheric circulatory zone which results in prevailing westerlies known colloquially as the Roaring Forties which is a reference to New Zealand’s latitude.2 New Zealand, therefore, has an “excellent”3 and “high quality wind”4 which compares favourably internationally.5 Utilisation of the wind resource has traditionally proved financially prohibitive but with an increasing price of electricity and the cost of wind turbines declining, wind farms have proliferated in New Zealand.

New Zealand’s first modern wind turbine was established at Brooklyn in Wellington in 1993.6 In 1995, a plan for 47 turbines on Baring Head near Wellington was declined.7New Zealand’s first wind farm called Hau Nui8 was opened in 1996 with seven turbines to be followed by a further eight turbines in 2004.9

been established in the Manawatu near Palmerston North due to the wind funnelling effect of the Tararua and Ruahine Ranges.10 The Tararua wind farm development was completed in three stages in 1999, 2004, and 2007 with 48, 55, and 31 turbines respectively.11 This is joined by Te Apiti with 55 turbines built in 2004.12 Nearby Te Rere Hau, also built in stages, now has 97 turbines.13 Many smaller turbines have also been constructed around New Zealand consistent with the PCE’s preference for community based energy.14 Nevertheless, several large commercial wind farms have been built. These include Meridian’s White Hill (Southland), West Wind (Wellington), Te Uku (Waikato) and TrustPower’s Mahinerangi (Clutha).15

C         Ownership of Wind

1          Consent Duration

At common law, air like water is incapable of ownership and subject to res communes. What is left is land ownership over which the air flows.  It is strange therefore that resource consents for the water16 for hydro or geothermal power stations, coastal permits17 for marine energy activities and discharges of greenhouse gases18 from fossil fuel fired power plants, all have maximum resource consent terms of 35 years. Despite this, wind generated electricity falls to be considered as a land use activity of unlimited duration.19 While almost all consented wind farms have perpetuated this anomaly, the Board of Inquiry into Hauauru ma Raki (168 turbines, 150 metres in total height)20 granted 50 year resource consents. It found 50 years was “the maximum period that the turbines might be in service” because after that turbines would require replacement. When reliance is placed on the reversible effects of wind turbines,21 decommissioning requirements become essential so the Board held there should be removal of a turbine if the turbine ceases to operate for two years.22 This consent term argument has the potential to constructively bring wind rights in line with other forms of electricity generation.

2          Conflicts over Resource

Although wind is renewable, logistical limits to wind turbine development are being encountered. In Unison Networks Ltd v Hawkes Bay Wind Farm Ltd, Unison and Hawkes Bay Wind Farm (HBWF) both appealed to the High Court against the decision of the Environment Court confirming grants of resource consents to both parties. Unison (15

turbines, 90 metres total height)23 and HBWF (75 turbines, 125 metres total height)24 are competitors and the two applications could not co-exist as “the wind produces a wake of disturbed air downwind of it sufficiently turbulent not just to impair efficiency but to damage another turbine attempting to operate within that distributed airflow.”25 The Unison proposal was the first-stage of a two-stage project which given its small size meant the inference was irresistible that the application “was made to secure priority.”26 Unison’s resource consents were lodged and notified days before HBWF’s more complex application was lodged and notified.27 HBWF was successful in consolidating the proceedings into one hearing because it “would be a waste of resources… to have to deal with… common issues twice.”28 At the subsequent hearing both resource consents were confirmed with the HBWF turbines to “avoid wake turbulence effects on the Unison turbines” because Unison had priority.  ((Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 58/2006, 17 July 2006  at [84].)) The High Court refused to alter priority and also refused to rephrase separation conditions which constrained HBWF’s turbines but rather referred to specific turbines.29

D         Assessment of Environmental Effects of Wind Energy

1          Economics

Wind energy is expensive because of its intermittent and unpredictable nature. Wind speed and direction can vary within minutes. These fluctuations need to be accommodated. In these circumstances, hydroelectric generation can be utilised concurrently with its storage capacity to provide electricity when the wind is in a lull. Alternatively, wind is usually available when the hydroelectric lakes are low due to rainfall. In Project HayesJudge Jackson in the Environment Court rejected such an argument along with the proposal for 176 turbines at 160 metres in total height on the Lammermoor Range in Central Otago.30 His Honour stated that such complementary was one-sided with only “hydro generation assisting wind generation.”31 It was held “windpower does not solve the problems posed by a [dry year] shortage of energy at peak times.”32 Storage capacity was true of any generation as “thermal fuel [can be] stored.”33 Wind energy, therefore, needed “back-up generation” which meant that a “thermal plant   would be required.”34 Although Judge Jackson noted that the Court should not be

“concerned for the financial wellbeing of corporate entities”35, the costs of additional capacity brought about by wind generation was a cost which required consideration as it will be paid by consumers.36

 

On appeal, the High Court returned the decision to the Environment Court for reconsideration. Meridian has since withdrawn its applications altogether.37 However, the High Court did not discuss this lack of complementarity andthe problems raised by these comments await answer. The first point that can be made is that the cost of electricity is protected through electricity pricing to find the lowest overall cost.38 It follows that the electricity generator will bear the capital and operational costs of the wind farm.39 Problematically, Judge Jackson’s encouragement of fossil fuels for electricity is inconsistent with legislative encouragement of renewable energy.40 The Environment Court has previously recognised the “strong synergy between wind generation and hydro”41 as it had “no doubt that the production of electricity from [a] wind farm has the potential… to result in hydroelectric storage to be utilised.”42 Another point is thatassumptions are made of New Zealand generating up to 20 per cent of its electricity from wind which ignores the current levels of wind generated electricity.43 Also at a purely evidential level, the New Zealand Institute of Economics has stated that in the Manawatu, wind speeds are negatively correlated with electricity prices but are positively correlated with lake levels in the North Island.44

 

The High Court, on appeal from the Environment Court decision in Project Hayes, focused on two principal inter-related errors of law. The Environment Court had engaged with the argument that an assessment of environmental effects should include “a description of any possible alternative locations or methods for undertaking the activity.”45 Meridian was asked for further information relating to alternative locations for wind farms “elsewhere in New Zealand.”46 Even so, Judge Jackson

found that alternative locations should have been further critiqued.47 The High Court emphasised that what was merely required was a description of alternative locations and that applicants were not required to “describe alternative sites beyond the relevant district.”48 The second error of law related to s 7(b) of the RMA 1991 which calls for consideration of the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. Judge Jackson put a judicial gloss on the word efficient to require economic efficiency as a cost-benefit analysis to quantify “the value of the landscape.”49 The High Court found that the approach aimed at increasing objectivity was legally erroneous because an ecosystem simply “may not be capable to expression in dollar terms.”50 It held “[a] degree, even a relatively high degree, of subjectivity is virtually inevitable.”51

 

2          Landscape

 

The reason that the Environment Court overemphasised objectivity is because crucial to wind farm decisions is landscape. In Project Hayes, Judge Jackson defined the landscape as “four-dimensioned in space and time within the given environment” including memorability, perceptions, values, experiences, time, association and views.52 It is unsurprising that later attempts to quantify the landscape value in monetary terms proved insurmountable given the earlier ethereal definition of landscape. This broader definition can be rationalised to be the “natural and physical attributes of land together with air and water which change over time and which is made known by people’s evolving perceptions and associations.”53 This definition brings together the amended Pigeon Bay factors.54 It represents “our sense of, or attachment to, place.”55 In Project Hayes, the Environment Court described the Lammermoor Range as “moorland”56 with a “vast… treeless plateau covered in either soft-textured golden-brown tussock or snow”57 among a soft and undulating landform.58 Evidence of artists and writers who had been enchanted by the Lammermoor Range was led.59 Tall vertical structures were found to visually compromise, and were unable to be absorbed into, the open horizontal landscape.60 The wind farm would create its own.61

 

Assessments of landscape have proven controversial with wind farm proposals.62 Wind is found in open, elevated and coastal environments. On the one hand, turbines in such environment can be “majestic and graceful”63 whilst having “elegant, kinetic qualities [that together] are often both spectacular and dynamic.”64 On the other, wind farms exceed the human scale, chopping up and disturbing a still panorama with commotion and inflict “an overpowering, intrusive, and unacceptable presence.”65 This industrialisation of the rural landscape can create a “thicket”66) as a white “picket fence”67 with “serried ranks of tiered rows.”68 Visual incoherence can reign with the “massing or congestion of turbines”69 in a “complex mass of structures…overlapping…moving at different speeds.”70 Where turbines are overwhelmingly dominant and have a bearing down effect on the observer, visual amenity is imperilled.71 In the Hauauru ma Raki the potential effect of turbines on the Waikato rural landscape and coastline was described by witnesses as “ugly”,72 “visually offensive”,73 “abhorrent”74 and “unattractive.”75 Ultimately, however, the Board of Inquiry found that there were significant benefits to the project including its supply of renewable energy to Auckland.76 In Project Central Wind, (52 turbines, 135 metres total height)77 the Tongariro National Park was of concern because of its status as a UNESCO World Heritage Site with Mt Ruapehu, Tongariro and Ngauruhoe protected.78 The Environment Court found that the accompanying wind farm would not “diminish the outstanding natural characteristics of the Volcanic Plateau in any way.”79 In terms of Mt Ruapehu, its “sheer scale” guarantees that it is “the dominating feature in the landscape.”80

3          Cumulative Effects

 

Related to landscape and visual amenity are the cumulative effects of wind turbines. In the Manawatu, cumulative effects of multiple wind farms “are becoming a concern.”81 With saturation,82 “enough is enough [and] the balance of public opinion is clearly at a tipping point.”83 Turitea (60 turbines, 125 metres total height)84 had a total of 702 submissions before the Board of Inquiry due to filling the only remaining gap on the Ranges.85 The problem arises from the spread of the wind farms along the horizon and density but also relates to the differences in design of wind farms.86 For instance, in the

Manawatu there are different turbine heights, different tower design (lattice and tubular), different colours as well as different blades (two or three).87 The larger turbines are spaced at greater distances turning more slowly, with the smaller turbines having frenetic activity.88 If built the consented Turitea wind farm will boost turbines in the Manawatu to 346 over about 28 kilometres.89 The ability of landscape views to digest turbines simultaneously (at the same time) or sequentially (one after another) was described by the Board as adverse.90 Nevertheless, in some circumstances accumulation was addressed by the different quadrants that the wind farms occupy as well as views being for a brief period when travelling.91 It should be noted that in 2009,92 resource consents were surrendered for Motorimu (80 turbines, 81 metres total height) which proved economically unviable after the Environment Court truncated the broader proposal along the foothills of the Tararua Ranges in the Manawatu.93

 

4          Indigenous Flora and Fauna

The Minister for the Environment called in Turitea not least because the wind farm will be sited on the Turitea Reserve owned by the Palmerston North City Council which is classified as a “local purpose reserve” under the Reserves Act 1977 in order to protect the city’s water supply along with indigenous flora and fauna.94 In 2006, the Council changed the purpose of the Reserve to renewable electricity generation. Friends of the Turitea Reserve Society alleged that the decision was ultra vires, made with an improper purpose and in breach of natural justice.95 Baragwanath J discussed the electricity system with the analogy of a swimming pool. Hoses would pour water into the swimming pool while holes would drain the swimming pool. The closer the hose is to a hole, the greater the share of the outflow although it was never certain “how much… water from a particular hole flows out of a particular hole.”96 This could be thought of in the same way as national (the swimming pool), local (one particular hose) and the consumer (one particular hole) in terms of electricity system. The argument was that the Council was pursuing a national (rather than local) and private (rather than public) purpose. Baragwanath J found that electricity could be a legitimate community purpose97 and that the revenue generated would be returned to improving the reserves under the control of the Council.98 The Council had also satisfied the requirements of natural justice including objectivity, transparency and consultation.99

 5          Noise

 

Power Limited v Franklin District Council [2005] NZRMA 541 (EnvC) at [116].)) Others refer to the noise as innocuous, similar to the hum of a refrigerator. Noise was a critical issue in Project West Wind (62 turbines, 111 metres total height)100  on the south west coast of Wellington.101 Noise was also at issue in the adjacent Project Mill Creek (26 turbines, 111 metres in total height).102 Noise from wind turbines is both mechanical and aerodynamic. Mechanical noise is no longer considered a problem.103 Aerodynamic noise will arise from the design of the tower and blades as well as the speed of the blades. Environmental factors will also affect the noise level.104  In relation to noise, special audible characteristics (SACs) which include tonality, impulsiveness, and amplitude modulation may, in addition, be a problem.105 SACs refer to the character rather than level of noise.106 At a general level, New Zealand Standard 6808: 2010 “Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators” applies to noise from wind farms. This stipulates that the recommended noise limit is the background sound level (LA90 (10 min))plus 5 dB (decibels) or 40 dB LA90 (10 min) whichever is greater.107 Where special audible characteristics are present, a 6 dB upper limit penalty is imposed.108 There is, furthermore, provision for high amenity areas.109

 

Conditions of resource consents for wind farms usually require a Noise Management Plan. Conditions for Project West Wind went further than the applicable New Zealand Standard by requiring that when background noise is low less than 25 dB LA95 (10 min) then the wind farm is limited to 35 dB LA95 (10 min).110 This means that while “strong guidance” is taken from the applicable standard, it is possible “to apply more stringent noise conditions.”111 Detailed provisions also related to SACs.112 The Environment Court found that “[t]he monitoring, measurement and reporting of the sound conditions… is a demanding and technical undertaking. It behoves Meridian and the Council to be diligent[,] open, transparent and helpful.”113 It may well be that turbines neighbouring dwellings might be temporarily stopped if there is noncompliance.114 When installed, the Project West Wind turbines had SACs which took time for remediation through software changes and the installation of dynamic dampers.115 In Project Mill Creek although the Environment Court took account of these concerns, it found in consistent wind speed threshold for noise across the whole wind farm of 6 m /s to attenuate noise levels.116 Related to noise is health effects such as sleep deprivation, migraines, epilepsy, anxiety and psychiatric phobias.117 It includes such medical

conditions as tinnitus and vibro-acoustic disease.118 However even in the situation of pre-existing autism, the Environment Court has found that it is not required to protect hyperacusis (sensitive hearing) and individual management is required.119

6          Birds and Bats

An adverse environmental effect is on fauna and habitat from wind turbine activity. Collision strike to birds and bats arose in Hauauru ma Raki because of migratory pathways. This required analysis of the effects on migratory shore birds, resident shore birds, international migratory birds, resident bush birds, farm birds, wetland birds and bats. Migratory shore birds travel from the South Island nests to North Island feeding grounds.120 International migratory birds are governed by the Bonn121) and Ramsar122 Conventions which protect avian migratory species.123 The bar-tailed godwit (from Alaska) and the red knot (from South Korea) were of particular concern.124 The Board concluded the resource consent conditions seek to achieve no-net-loss through a Biodiversity Remediation and Enhancement Scheme.125 The scheme is designed to protect breeding habitat as well as increase predator control as an environmental offset.126 For international migratory species, an annual sum of $10,000 is proffered.127 Bush birds are of less concern because they do not commonly fly at rotor height.128 In any event, an Ecology Peer Review Panel is to oversee carcass and other monitoring.129 This review includes the power “to require individual turbines or groups of turbines to cease operation if necessary.”130 For bats, the long-tailed and short-tailed bats are nationally endangered. It is thought that moths are attracted to aviation lights and heat of the turbines during night which in turn attracts bats.131 There is also the risk of barotrauma caused by the air pressure effect of blade movement.132 Thus, a bat mitigation programme is usual with translocation of roosts if necessary.133

 

7          Water

Broader ecological matters will be affected by construction. Wind farms require significant quantities of concrete which in turn requires water abstraction from rivers or aquifers.134 Sedimentation and siltation of waterways due to construction of roading required for turbine access will also have a negative impact on aquatic life. Tight conditions relating to water abstraction will often be present. For instance Palmerston North’s water supply is found in Turitea Reserve which had been closed to preserve water quality of   of the catchment.135 Given that turbine roading requires cut and fill areas and that water

catchments generally have higher regional rainfall, the potential for landslide was acute.136 The Turitea Board referred to water quality as “a major issue” and Mighty River Power was made to indemnify Palmerston North City Council for any changes in water quality.137 The Board was satisfied anyhow that contingency measures and water monitoring would provide “adequate safeguards” to protect water quality.138 Vegetation that would be destroyed during construction would be mitigated by revegetation offsets, weed control, predator control and direct transfer of flora if feasible.139  Biodiversity offsets are typical to ensure no-net-loss to ecological integrity but the Turitea Board declined several turbines because high ecological values needed protection.140 Aligned with such concerns are effects on further fauna, and their habitat, such as on invertebrates (insects) and herpetofauna (lizards and frogs) in any wind farm envelope.141 In Waitahora (52 turbines, 150 metres in total height),142 east of the Manawatu, the limestone karst formations that the wind farm was to be built on gave rise to underground caves, tunnels, and holes due to extensive underground water.143 It was noted that stalagmites, stalactites, flow stones and associated subterranean fauna are intolerant of change but that there was a low risk of disturbance.144

8          Rural Activities

Wind farms are predominantly located on rural land with associated rural activities. In Awhitu (18 turbines, 90 metres in total height),145 Isola Stables had about 30 race horses on the property at once and the Isola Equestrian Facility is purpose built for horse-riding events.146 Horses are flighty and could potentially be affected by the visual and noise stimuli. The Court found that there had been an overstating of the risks,147 that horses needed to be introduced, habituated and acclimatised to the wind turbines,148 and that refinements in design had “all but eliminate[d] the potential” risks of the wind farm on horses.149 In Waitahora, Kia Ora Stud runs a throughbred horse stud as well as an agistment service.150 Similar evidence was led as to the real and serious risk to the safety of horses at the property. The Court found that “[l]ife is not risk-free, and the Act does not require the elimination of all risk.”151 Risk to horses “is not substantiated by experience in comparable situations.”152 In Mt Cass where three alternative proposals as to wind turbine design were consented,153 the potential loss of agricultural production was cited.154 This is because “[t]he ability to undertake aerial top-dressing” is often raised as a constraint.155 Of course, any aviation including fix-wing aircraft and helicopters need to “keep clear of [power] lines” and turbines.156 Additionally, farmers often emphasise the “working landscape” and that views (and noise) for dwellings is just as important as the “amenity

presently enjoyed [in] their workplace” outside.157 In this context, high levels of construction traffic pose a menace (even if temporary) to rural ways of life.

 

9          Fire Risk

 

Wind turbines have the potential to catch fire for a multitude of reasons including transformers, wiring, and lightning. Evidence of structural failure is provided by a prototype wind turbine in Canterbury which had its rotor ripped out and its blades severed in 2005 when “the wind suddenly reversed direction and strengthened, from north-westerly to south-westerly, in about 90 seconds.”158 Consistent with the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, a Fire Management Plan is usually desirable.159 Mt Cass held that the “incremental risk of a fire from a wind turbine… should be minimal.”160 Yet such a plan “will provide acceptable procedures for the management of the risk of fire and suppression of a fire should occur.”161 In Turitea, Palmerston North City Council is required to have a Fire Management Plan as the rural fire authority.162 This is complemented with Mighty River Power’s Emergency Response Plan incorporating fires.163 In terms of the Building Code, the structure of a building is to have fire resistance proportionate to any fire hazard and the height of such a building.164 Consideration is also to be given to the physical conditions likely to affect building stability such as earthquakes.165

 

10        Recreation, Tourism and Heritage Protection

Recreation, tourism and heritage protection were key components to the Environment Court’s declining of resource consents in Project Hayes and arguably Meridian’s withdrawal of the project altogether. The Environment Court referenced walkers, hunters, trampers, cross-country skiers, angling, boating, four-wheel driving, mountain biking, and horse riding.166 In combination with tourism related to the Central Otago Rail Trail167 activities included photography, botanising, art and filming.168 The assumption that outdoor recreation could be divorced from its surroundings was explicitly rejected and “people go to an area for the quality of the experience.”169 The gold mining history of the site was examined with the Old Dunstan Road,170 Styx Jail, and Hotel being held to be “a heritage landscape of interest.”171 By contrast, tourism relating to Waipara wineries in Mt Cass was found to be “a destination choice in their own right” and that a correlation did not exist between “uncluttered landscape and fine wines.”172 Rather “a wind farm may increase tourism.”173 However, with the saturation of landscapes with turbines, such a conclusion is obviously questionable.

As a side note to recreation, wind turbines have the potential to affect radio and television reception. Cases have consistently held that any interference “must be rectified at full cost” to the wind farm operator.174

 

11        Maori

A consistent challenge to wind energy is Maori association with the landscape. This led to the rejection of 37175 and a reapplication for 34 turbines176 at 130 to 135 metres in total height177 in Te Waka which was the second stage to Unison Networks Ltd’s enterprise described above. The turbines were to be to the south and west of a distinctive feature known as Te Waka with the nearest turbine 400 metres from the feature.178 Te Waka is a distinctive landform which represents a waka with a hull, sternpost, and wake. The feature is rich in lore, history, and spiritual significance.179 It includes a rock shelter and moa hunting site of archaeological significance.180 The Court considered ss 6(e), 7(a), and 8 of the RMA 1991 which relate to Maori concerns. The Court noted the “depth of emotion” and “attachment of the people to this area.”181 The feature was not an outstanding landscape feature in the district plan but was seen as a key landmark in myth, legend and reality.182 The Court concluded that this was an outstanding landscape and that “it is not open to us to embark on a major redesign of the project.”183 On appeal to the High Court, Potter J upheld the Environment Court’s decision that the district plan was not determinative of outstanding natural landscapes and that the Environment Court was entitled to make its own judgment on the evidence.184 In the reapplication for 34 turbines while the Court recognised that an outstanding natural feature does not preclude development,185 the proposal would “visually intrude quite markedly” on views and “would not serve to needs” of protecting Maori values under the RMA 1991.186 The Maori and landscape alliance proved a persuasive basis for declining the application.

E          Conclusion

Wind energy is often seen as the poster boy of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. As New Zealand’s winds are world renowned, New Zealand has begun extensive commercial exploitation of its wind resource. Although wind is intermittent and unpredictable, it is now financially viable. Criticisms of wind farms relate to landscape, visual, cumulative and noise effects. Other adverse environmental effects include avifauna, ecology, traffic, fire, rural activities, recreation, tourism, and Maori values. Wind energy is being developed because due to its environmentally benign nature, it often (but not always) meets the purpose of sustainable management under the RMA 1991. Where the purpose of sustainable management has not been satisfied, wind farm proposals have been truncated and redesigned but rarely declined. This bodes well for New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions targets but as New Zealand has followed the commercial rather than community model of wind farms, New Zealand would do well to avoid resistance.187

 

  1. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Wind Farms Operating and Under Construction” and “Proposed Wind Farms” (2012) New Zealand Wind Energy Association <www.windenergy.org.nz>. []
  2. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Wind Power, People, and Place (Wellington, 2006) at 16. []
  3. At 16. []
  4. Helle Tegner Anker, Birgitte Egelund Olsen and Anita Ronne (ed) Legal Systems and Wind Energy: A Comparative Perspective (DJOF Publishing, Copenhagen, 2008) at 284. []
  5. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 21. []
  6. At 22. []
  7. At 96-97. []
  8. For convenience and due to space constraints all windfarms herein described are given names which either refers to the location or the commonly cited name for the project. For instance, Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council EnvC Wellington W 31/2007, 14 May 2007 is described as Project West Wind whereas Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council [2011] NZEnvC 232 is labelled Project Mill Creek. []
  9. PCE Wind, above n 362,at  97 []
  10. At 16. []
  11. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Wind Farms Operating”, above n 361. []
  12. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Wind Farms Operating”, above n 361. []
  13. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Wind Farms Operating”, above n 361. []
  14. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 113 []
  15. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Wind Farms Operating”, above n 361 []
  16. RMA 1991, s 123(d). []
  17. RMA 1991, s 123 (c). []
  18. RMA 1991, s 123(d). []
  19. RMA 1991, s 123(1). []
  20. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [132]-[136]. []
  21. At [1143]. []
  22. At [1169]. []
  23. Unison Networks Limited v Hawke’s Bay Wind Farm Limited HC Wellington CIV 2006-441-0810, 15 May 2007 at [6]-[7] []
  24. Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council [2010] NZEnvC 376 at 3. []
  25. Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 58/2006, 17 July 2006 at [12]. []
  26. Unison Networks Limited v Hawke’s Bay Wind Farm Limited HC Wellington CIV 2006-441-0810, 15 May 2007 at [9] []
  27. At [13]. []
  28. Hawkes Bay Wind Farm Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 05/2006, 19 January 2006 at [8]. []
  29. Unison Networks Limited v Hawke’s Bay Wind Farm Limited HC Wellington CIV 2006-441-0810, 15 May 2007 at [86]; Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 81/2006, 22 September 2006 at [6]-[7] and Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council [2010] NZEnvC 376 at 3. []
  30. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 []
  31. At [557]. []
  32. At [343]. []
  33. At [557]. []
  34. At [593]. []
  35. At [587]. []
  36. At [604]. []
  37. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Proposed Wind Farms”, above 361 []
  38. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch 4 [88]. []
  39. At ch 4 [90]; Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council [2011] NZEnvC 232 at [39]. []
  40. RMA 1991, s 7(j); Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act 2000 [EECA 2000], s 5 []
  41. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council EnvC Wellington W 31/2007, 14 May 2007 at [399]. []
  42. Upland Landscape Protection Society Incorporated v Clutha District Council EnvC Christchurch C 85/2008, 25 July 2008 at [220]. []
  43. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [604]. []
  44. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011), at ch 4 [58]; Johannah Branson Exploring Wind-Hydro Correlation (New Zealand Institute of Economics, Wellington, 2008). []
  45. RMA 1991, sch 4, cl 1(b). []
  46. Meridian Energy Limited v Central Otago District Council HC Dunedin CIV 2009-412-000980, 16 August 2010 at [58]. []
  47. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [702]-[705]. []
  48. Meridian Energy Limited v Central Otago District Council HC Dunedin CIV 2009-412-000980, 16 August 2010 at [68] and [93]. []
  49. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [697]. []
  50. Meridian Energy Limited v Central Otago District Council HC Dunedin CIV 2009-412-000980, 16 August 2010 at [107]. []
  51. At [110]. []
  52. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [202]. []
  53. MainPower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council [2011] NZEnvC 384 at [300]. []
  54. Wakatipu Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [2000] NZRMA 59 (EnvC); See also: Pigeon Bay Aquaculture Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council [1999] NZRMA 209 (EnvC). []
  55. MainPower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council [2011] NZEnvC 384 at [302]. []
  56. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [283]. []
  57. At [288]. []
  58. At [305]. []
  59. At [308]. []
  60. At [472]. []
  61. At [757]. []
  62. Fraser Clark “Comments in Response to Property Rights, the Public Interest and Global Considerations: The Case of Wind Energy Development” (2007) 7 BRMB 91; Richard Fisher “Wind Energy in New Zealand: Regulatory and Policy Lessons to Date” (2005) 9 NZJEL 307;David Grinlinton “David Grinlinton Replies” (2007) 7 BRMB 80; David Grinlinton “David Grinlinton Replies” (2007) 7 BRMB 92; David Grinlinton “Is Wind Power the Answer to New Zealand’s Energy Needs” (2005) 6 BRMB 71; David Grinlinton “Property Rights, the “Public Interest” and Global Considerations: The Case of Wind Energy Development” (2007) 7 BRMB 62; David Grinlinton “Tilting at Windmills?” (2007) 7 BRMB 75;Nicky McIndoe “Wind Energy Development and Landscape Considerations – A Response” (2007) 7 BRMB 76;Imke Sagemuller “Legislative and Policy Regime Governing the Generation of Wind Energy in New Zealand” (2006) 24 JERL 165; Janet Stephensen and Seth Gorrie “Just Part of Who You Are: The Hidden Significance of Landscape in the Windfarm Debate” in Jacinta Ruru, Janet Stephenson, and Mick Abbott Making our Place: Exploring Land-Use Tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand (Otago University Press, Dunedin, 2011) 185. []
  63. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 55. []
  64. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [471]. []
  65. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 55. []
  66. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011 []
  67. At ch 13 [73]. []
  68. At ch 13 [124]. []
  69. At ch 13 [157]. []
  70. At ch 13 [137]. []
  71. At ch 13 [345]. []
  72. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [700]. []
  73. At [700]. []
  74. At [703]. []
  75. At [703]. []
  76. At [1202]. []
  77. Rangitikei Guardians Society Inc v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [2010] NZEnvC 14 at [13]. []
  78. At [38] and [240]. []
  79. At [243]. []
  80. At [201]. []
  81. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 105. []
  82. Motorimu Wind Farm Ltd v Palmerston North City Council EnvC Wellington W 67/2008, 26 September 2008 at [182]. []
  83. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch 11 [12]. []
  84. At ch 13 [78] and ch 19 [44]. []
  85. At ch 13 [7]. []
  86. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 89. []
  87. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch  12 [5]. []
  88. At ch 13 [73]. []
  89. At ch 12 [5] and ch 19 [44]. []
  90. At ch 13 [257]. []
  91. At ch 13 [254]-[256]. []
  92. New Zealand Wind Energy Association “Wind Farms Operating”, above 361 []
  93. Motorimu Wind Farm Ltd v Palmerston North City Council EnvC Wellington W 67/2008, 26 September 2008 at [5] and [363]-[367] []
  94. Friends of Turitea Reserve Society Incorporated v Palmerston North City Council HC Palmerston North CIV 2006-454-878, 25 July 2007 at [3]. []
  95. At [7]. []
  96. At [45]. []
  97. At [23]. []
  98. At [20]. []
  99. At [103]-[104] and [155]. []
  100. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council EnvC Wellington W 31/2007, 14 May 2007 at [524], [535] and [584]. []
  101. At [1]. []
  102. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council [2011] NZEnvC 232 at [3] and [395]. []
  103. Anker, above 364, at 207 []
  104. At 207. []
  105. Standards New Zealand NZS 6808: 2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (Wellington, 2010) at cl 5.4.2. []
  106. MainPower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council [2011] NZEnvC 384 at [436]. []
  107. Standards New Zealand NZS 6808: 2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (Wellington, 2010) at cl 5.2 []
  108. At cl 5.4.2 []
  109. At cl 5.3.3. []
  110. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council EnvC Wellington W 31/2007, 14 May 2007 at [60]. []
  111. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch 15 [122]. []
  112. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council EnvC Wellington W 31/2007, 14 May 2007 at [53]. []
  113. At [66]. []
  114. At [66]. []
  115. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council [2011] NZEnvC 232 at [110]; Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011), ch 15 at [56]-[57]. []
  116. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council [2011] NZEnvC 232 at [102]. []
  117. At [124] and [130]-[133]; Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch 15 [13]. []
  118. Meridian Energy Limited v Wellington City Council [2011] NZEnvC 232 at [133]. []
  119. MainPower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council [2011] NZEnvC 384 at [442]. []
  120. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [501]. []
  121. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1651 UNTS 356 (opened for signature 23 June 1979 and entered into force 1 November 1983 []
  122. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance 996 UNTS 245 (opened for signature 22 February 1971 and entered into force 21 December 1975). []
  123. Anker, above 364, at 173-177 []
  124. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [540]-[543]. []
  125. At [490] and [563]. []
  126. At [520]. []
  127. At [545]. []
  128. At [553]. []
  129. At [563]. []
  130. At [564]. []
  131. At [569]. []
  132. At [569]. []
  133. At [571] – [574]. []
  134. At [590]-[591]. []
  135. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch 7 [1]. []
  136. At ch 7 [35]. []
  137. At ch 7 [49]; See also: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2007, s 69U. []
  138. At ch 7 [71]. []
  139. At ch 8 [36]. []
  140. At ch 8 [79]. []
  141. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [575]-[583]. []
  142. Contact Energy Limited v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [2010] NZEnvC 406 at [2]. []
  143. At [78]. []
  144. At [103]. []
  145. Genesis Power Limited v Franklin District Council [2005] NZRMA 541 (EnvC) at [9]-[11]. []
  146. At [132]. []
  147. At [164]. []
  148. At [152]. []
  149. At [165]. []
  150. Contact Energy Limited v Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council [2010] NZEnvC 406 at [59]. []
  151. At [71]. []
  152. At [73]. []
  153. MainPower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council [2011] NZEnvC 384 at [485]. []
  154. At [73]. []
  155. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [974]. []
  156. At [978]; See also: Hart v Civil Aviation Authority HC Timaru AP 9/99, 6 October 1999; Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand “Civil Aviation Rules” (1 March 2007) <www.caa.govt.nz>, pt 91 and 137. []
  157. At [362]. []
  158. Veronika Meduna “Wind Energy in New Zealand” (2009) Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand <www.TeAra.govt.nz>. []
  159. MainPower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council [2011] NZEnvC 384 at [108]. []
  160. At [115]. []
  161. At [122]. []
  162. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal (6 September 2011) at ch 7 [23]. []
  163. At ch 7 [24]. []
  164. Building Regulations 1992, sch 1, C.3.3. []
  165. Building Regulations 1992, sch 1, B1.3.3. []
  166. Maniototo Environmental Society Incorporated v Central Otago District Council EnvC Christchurch C 103/2009, 6 November 2009 at [69]. []
  167. At [70]. []
  168. At [81]. []
  169. At [83]. []
  170. At [207]. []
  171. At [69]. []
  172. At [372]-[373]. []
  173. At [374]. []
  174. Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Hauauru ma Raki Wind Farm and Infrastructure Connection to Grid (13 May 2011) at [755]. []
  175. The Outstanding Landscape Protection Society Inc v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 24/2007, 13 April 2007 []
  176. Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Auckland W 11/2009, 23 February 2009 []
  177. The Outstanding Landscape Protection Society Inc v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 24/2007, 13 April 2007 at [2]; Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Auckland W 11/2009, 23 February 2009 at [145]. []
  178. The Outstanding Landscape Protection Society Inc v Hastings District Council EnvC Wellington W 24/2007, 13 April 2007 at [5]. []
  179. At [8]. []
  180. At [37]. []
  181. At [81]. []
  182. At [23]. []
  183. At [108] and [117]. []
  184. Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council HC Wellington CIV-2007-485-896, 11 December 2007 at [81]. []
  185. Unison Networks Limited v Hastings District Council EnvC Auckland W 11/2009, 23 February 2009 at [142]. []
  186. At [144] and [159]. []
  187. PCE Wind, above n 362,at 112-113. []