The recently consented Hauauru ma Raki (HMR) Wind Farm to be built on coastal hills between Port Waikato and Raglan will be the largest in New Zealand and amongst the larger wind farms in the world. The wind farm will comprise 168 turbines and a capacity of over 500MW, similar in nominal capacity to some of New Zealand’s largest hydro stations. The wind turbines will be up to 150m in height (to blade tip) and will be clustered in eleven groups within an area 40km from north to south. 

The areas is an extensive pastoral farming landscape with some picturesque limestone landforms and an exposed Tasman coast line. It is somewhat ‘off the beaten track’, although the wind farm will be visible along the coast approximately 10km north of Raglan.

The Board of Inquiry decision introduced several points of case law relevant to landscape matters. The project was also noteworthy because it entailed a one-year adjournment during which time further investigations and refinements to the design to be carried out. 

 Definition of ‘Landscape’

The Board made significant observations on the definition of ‘landscape’ and the manner in which the well-known ‘Pigeon Bay factors’ are used. In discussing the definition of landscape the Board referred to one of the submissions and went on to quote the European Landscape Convention:  

“[607] The definitions of landscape, natural character and rural character included in the submission by Mr A J Carr are a useful starting point. Mr Carr described landscape as both a physical area and the relationship and interaction between people and the environment within the area. He further described landscape values as meaning more than the visual aesthetic and the natural environment, but also a sense of place.”

[608] The definition of landscape in the European Landscape Convention is clear, useful and applicable in terms of the Act. The Convention defines landscape as:

An area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.
[609] We note that an important part of this definition is people who live in, pass through, influence, and are or were associated with a landscape. For too long landscapes, in terms of the Act, have been described in biophysical or biogeographical terms only, without adequate recognition of people’s perceptions, relationships and values.

 The Board then criticised the manner in which the ‘Pigeon Bay factors’ have became something of a ‘formula’ for landscape assessments.  

[611] …We find these [Pigeon Bay] factors to be a mix of objective and subjective matters and not sufficiently differentiated to clearly address the effects of change on people and communities identified in Section 5 of the Act. We acknowledge that they have been used in Environment Court decisions but conclude they should not be adopted as a formulaic framework for landscape assessment. (emphasis added)

Instead the Board went on to describe and assess the landscape under three categories:

[612] We find that the landscape is:

[a] a biophysical entity;

[b] and is valued, used and modified by people;

[c] and it is also perceived and experienced by people. 

 Another division of the Environment Court made a similar observation on the formulaic use of the ‘Pigeon Bay factors’ in the Te Waka Wind Farm case in Hawkes Bay.

“ … it is important to avoid settling upon a mere formulaic framework that could simply be ‘fed through’ in a computerised fashion. Ultimately each case must be considered in the light of dependable and recognised pointers or guiding criteria to assist the making of an overall appraisal and judgment, without the risk of professional landscape architects failing to see the wood for the trees.” (paragraph 96)

 The HMR Board of Inquiry, however, noted that while landscape may be understood as a whole, for the purpose of analysis it can nevertheless be useful to assess discrete factors.  

[606] We acknowledge, as with other factors we take into account, landscape aspects overlap with visual amenity, ecological and cultural factors. When addressing effects on landscape and natural character, we also acknowledge that many people, including iwi, understand landscape as an holistic matter. However, we assess discrete factors for ease of analysis.

Natural Character 

The Board made similar observations in terms of natural character of the coastal environment. It noted that natural character cannot be assessed objectively, but is a matter of both biophysical and perceptual aspects (paragraph 627). It went on to make the following comments on the requirement to preserve natural character under RMA s6(a) and the test of ‘appropriateness’. 

[630] Preservation of natural character requires the natural features to remain intact and natural processes to occur as well as the perception of naturalness to continue.…

[631] Where preservation of natural character is not achieved the question arises as to whether the particular development is inappropriate. This is a broad test involving value judgements, perceptions and questions of degree. The use of the word inappropriate itself signals that there may be change to natural character but that there is change which is acceptable and unacceptable. 

[626] …We note that preservation is a high threshold. We also note that preservation may be a matter of degree and particular aspects of natural character may be preserved but others not. That is, there may be no effect on the natural processes of the coast, but visual effects on part of the coastal environment may occur.

The Board assessed effects on natural character of the coastal environment under the same three headings used for landscape:
• Biophysical aspects
• Perceptual and experiential
• Values and relationships

 Landscape Input to Design 

The HMR hearing process was also marked by a one-year adjournment which was sought by the applicant in response to Board concerns about the sufficiency of detail and the degree of flexibility inherent in the proposed ‘envelope’ approach to the design. During the adjournment substantial additional investigations, design refinements and changes to conditions were carried out.  

Additional investigations included, for instance, monitoring of migrating seabirds along the coast using three radar stations and a team of observers camped on vantage points along the coast. The topography was surveyed to greater detail, more detailed geotech investigations carried out, and features (archaeology, vegetation, coastal escarpment) mapped more precisely. 

Design refinements included changes to the access roads, earthworks and turbine locations. The layout was refined in an iterative approach in order to minimise adverse landscape effects, avoid encroachments into archaeological sites, and minimise encroachments into indigenous vegetation. Eleven turbines were removed and the locations of others fine-tuned to achieve a better fit with the landscape. For instance the platforms of those turbines nearest the coast were located behind topographic features so that although visible from the sea there would be greater perspective depth. 

The initial application included an ‘envelope’ approach under which turbines and roads might be located within broad consent areas. The revised design considerably reduced such flexibility and provided greater certainty of effect. 

Landscape Management Plans were also added to the requirements of the Conditions, as were significant additional ecological mitigation measures. A landscape concept plan for the sub-regional landscape was prepared tying together the different mitigation works such as enhancement of existing bush areas, fencing and retirement of parts of the coastal escarpment, and riparian restoration of streams. This was integrated with other disciplines such as ecology (terrestrial, avifauna and aquatic) and soil erosion and sediment control. Guidelines for preparation of the Landscape Management Plans were appended to the conditions, setting out objectives, quantifiable outcomes and detailed criteria in order to make ‘certification’ of the works more predictable. They also set out the requirements for the design process including landscape architectural input to such matters as the contouring and restoration of earthworks and spoil disposal. 

In summary the refinements presented at the second hearing are considered to be a benchmark in the approach to consenting such projects. 

Acknowledgement: HMR Wind Farm is a joint venture between Contact Energy and the Wind Farm Group. Isthmus was engaged as project landscape architects throughout the four-year investigation, design and consenting period. Gavin Lister provided evidence to the hearings, along with Mary Buckland who carried out a detailed peer review. Other landscape architects who provided evidence on behalf of submitters included Sally Peake, Stephen Brown and Bernard Brown. The Board of Inquiry was chaired by Judge J A Smith. Commissioners comprised Ms G Rangi, Mr J Lumsden, and Dr D H Menzies, former NZILA and IFLA President.