IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of submissions by Contact Energy Ltd in relation to Proposed Plan Changes 29 and 33 to the Taupo District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MARK BULPITT CHRISP Solicitor Acting: Rosemary Dixon Contact Energy Limited Telephone 64-4-462 1284. PO Box 10742, Wellington rosemary.dixon@contactenergy.co.nz
1.0 INTRODUCTION Qualifications and Experience 1.1 My name is Mark Bulpitt Chrisp. I am a Director and a Principal Environmental Planner in the Hamilton Office of Environmental Management Services Ltd. In addition to my professional practice, I am an Honorary Lecturer in the Department of Geography, Tourism and Environmental Planning at the University of Waikato. 1.2 I have the following qualifications and experience relevant to the evidence I shall give: I have a Master of Social Sciences degree in Resources and Environmental Planning from the University of Waikato. I am a member of the New Zealand Planning Institute and have more than 22 years experience as a resource management consultant; I have recently completed the Ministry for the Environment s Making Good Decisions course (achieving the grade of Excellent ); and Environmental issues associated with the development, expansion, and on-going operation of industrial activities, particularly within the energy sector, is one of my specialties. I have been a planning advisor for the following industrial / energy projects over the last 18 years: Wairakei Binary Plant (1994 1998); Te Rapa Dairy Factory Expansion and Co-generation Power Plant (1996 1997); Ohaaki Geothermal Power Plant Re-consenting (1998 1999); Tauhara I (Te Huka) Geothermal Power Development (1999 2000); Tongariro Power Development Re-consenting advising the Waikato Regional Council (2000 2002); Wairakei Geothermal Power Plant Re-consenting (1999 2007); Resource consents for exploratory drilling on the Wairakei - Tauhara Geothermal System (2007); 2
Te Mihi Geothermal Power Station (2007-2008); Crest Energy Kaipara Harbour Marine Turbine Project (2008 2009); Tauhara II Geothermal Development Project (2008 2010); and Hauāuru mā raki Wind Farm Project (2007 2010). 1.3 I was the primary author of the Operative South Waikato District Plan and several (now operative) private plan changes to the Waipa District Plan. I have had extensive involvement in the preparation of statutory instruments under the RMA relating to the management of geothermal resources. In recent years, this has included Change 1 and Variation 2 to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and Waikato Regional Plan respectively, the Taupo District Plan, and more recently the Proposed Waikato and Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statements. 1.4 In relation to statutory planning matters, I have been an advisor to Contact Energy Ltd (Contact) in relation to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement, the Waikato Regional Plan, and the Taupo District Plan as they have evolved over the last 17 years. I assisted Contact with the drafting of its submissions and further submissions in relation to Proposed Plan Changes 29 and 33 to the Taupo District Plan. 1.5 I am familiar with the Taupo District as a result of Taupo being my home town and having worked for Contact and a number of other clients within the Taupo District over the last 22 years. Through this work I also have experience with the Taupo District Plan, and other statutory documentation relating to the management of natural and physical resources within the Taupo District. 1.6 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2011. My evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code in the same way as I would if giving evidence in the Environment Court. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express. 3
Scope of Evidence 1.7 Contact lodged submissions and further submissions in relation to Proposed Plan Changes 29 and 33 which will be the focus of my evidence. 1.8 I acknowledge that the recommendations in the Staff Report (and as reflected in the Strikethrough) are only recommendations and that the Committee will be making its own decisions in relation to the changes sought by the various submitters. However, so as to not unnecessarily occupy the Committee s time, I will not present any evidence in relation to the aspects of Contact s submission that have been recommended for acceptance in the Staff Report (or the recommendation achieves an alternative, but nonetheless acceptable outcome). In that regard, I will leave the Committee to come to its own conclusions based on the reasons for those changes being sought as set out in Contact s submission and as supported in the Staff Report, which in my opinion are appropriate. 1.9 Because Proposed Change 33 deals with the bigger picture in terms of commercial and industrial development in the Taupo District, I will discuss that matter first followed by Proposed Change 29. Finally, I will discuss the prospect of retail activities in the Industrial Environment which relates to both Plan Changes 29 and 33. 2.0 CONTACT S SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 33 Issue 7 - Business Activity 2.1 Contact s submission expressed the view that there should be a greater recognition of the economic importance of the energy sector within the Taupo District, particularly given the high capital value and economic benefit of renewable electricity generation projects that have been built or are under construction (Te Huka and Te Mihi Geothermal Power Stations) and consented (e.g. Tauhara II Geothermal Power Station). 2.2 The relief sought by Contact was to add a new paragraph, after the third paragraph of Issue 7 as follows: The development of geothermal resources for renewable electricity generation purposes is a significant and growing activity in the Taupo District. These developments generally occur in both Rural and Industrial Environments. Several geothermal systems in 4
the Taupo District have been classified by the Waikato Regional Council as Development Geothermal Systems. A greater level of utilization of these geothermal systems is anticipated as a result of major new geothermal electricity generation projects consented and/or under construction. 2.3 As set out in the evidence of Mr Bonis 1, the Staff Report recommends that this relief sought by Contact be rejected. Mr Bonis states: I consider that the economic significance of the energy sector, whilst important, would be inappropriately placed within this context which relates to the general issues related to business distribution. The issue raised by Contact Energy is in my view best resolved through a broader consideration of the implications of the NPS for Renewable Electricity Generation (2011) within the context of the District Plan as a whole. Accordingly, this submission is recommended to be rejected. 2.4 Mr Bonis recommends that Contact s submission be rejected on the basis that Issue 7 is about business distribution. I acknowledge that Issue 7 includes some consideration as to the location and distribution of business activities, but Issue 7 is titled Business Activity, not Business Distribution, and indeed the text of Issue 7 canvases a wide range of matters including the significance of business activity (particularly highlighting manufacturing and tourism) to the Taupo District. 2.5 The wording proposed by Contact is entirely factual. The use and development of geothermal resources is one of the largest business activities in the Taupo District. The construction of the Te Mihi Geothermal Power Station is the single largest construction project in the Taupo District at present (in terms of capital value) and, in the foreseeable future, is only likely to be exceeded by the construction of the Tauhara II Geothermal Power Station. 2.6 The suggestion in the evidence of Mr Bonis (quoted above) that the issue raised by Contact is best resolved through a broader consideration of the implications of the NPSREG within the context of the District Plan as a whole begs the question as to what are Council s plans in relation to undertaking any such broader consideration. I discussed this matter with Mr Nick Carroll who confirmed that Council has not undertaken a robust review of the Taupo District Plan to assess whether it adequately gives effect to the NPSREG as 1 Paragraph 63.2. 5
required by section 75(3)(a) of the RMA and nor was it planning to do so in the foreseeable future. This means that, in terms of Council s obligations under section 75(3)(a) of the RMA, proposed changes to the Taupo District Plan need to give effect to the NPSREG to the extent those plan changes are relevant to the matters addressed in the NPSREG. Given the national significance, size, and economic importance, of the renewable electricity generation sector within the Taupo District, and the fact that those activities occur within one of the zones the subject of Plan Change 33 and 29 (i.e. the Industrial Environment), now is the opportunity to give effect to the NPSREG at least to the minor extent sought by Contact. 2.7 On the basis of the above, it is my opinion that the relief sought by Contact in relation to Issue 7 (as set out above) should be accepted. 3.0 CONTACT S SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 29 Explanation to Objective 3t.2.7 3.1 The explanation to Objective 3t.2.7 appropriately refers to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission 2008. Given the scope and content of Objective 3t.2.7, the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 should also be referred to in the explanation. 3.2 Contact s submission sought that the following wording be added at the end of the first paragraph of the explanation to Objective 3t.2.7: The National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation 2011 (NPSREG) emphasises the national significance of renewable electricity generation activities. The Taupo District has substantial sources of renewable electricity generation which need to be managed so as to give effect to the NPSREG. 3.3 The Staff Report states that it accepts this submission, but it has only accepted the submission in part. It has accepted the first sentence of the above but rejected the second sentence. The reason set out in the Staff Report 2 for only partially accepting Contact s submission is: Amendments to incorporate references to the NPSREG are considered appropriate, in so far as reference to the Statement only occur. 2 Page 31 6
3.4 This appears to be a position whereby the existence of the NPSREG is recognised but no action is taken to give effect to it as required by section 75(3)(a) of the RMA. For the same reasons discussed above in relation to Plan Change 33, it is my opinion that the relief sought by Contact in relation to explanation to Objective 3t.2.7 should be accepted. 4t.1.7 Maximum Equivalent Vehicle Movements 3.5 Contact s submission questions whether a limit of 200 is appropriate in an industrial zone, particularly given that the definition specifies that a truck and trailer to and from a site equates to 8 equivalent vehicle movements. One of the accepted characteristics of an industrial zone is larger volumes of heavy traffic. 3.6 Contact s submission sought that 4t.1.7 be deleted. Alternatively, without derogating from the relief sought above, Contact sought that 4t.1.7 be amended so that it excludes construction traffic. 3.7 The evidence of Mr Bonis 3 recommends that this submission be rejected for the following reasons. I consider that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that the management, efficiency and effectiveness of the road network can be maintained. Whilst it is agreed that construction work is typically of a limited time period, the adverse effects on the road network can still be of material consequence. It is also noted given the nature of a number of the construction undertakings in Taupo, construction periods can last considerable periods (in excess of a year). Accordingly it is considered that the provision appropriately achieves Objective 3t.2.4 and Policy (iii). 3.8 Recognising that numerical limits in rules of this nature are somewhat arbitrary, I would like to invite the Committee to consider a compromise whereby, instead of no limit as sought by Contact, there is a greater level of traffic generation allowed within the Industrial Environment (as a permitted activity) of say 400 Equivalent Vehicle Movements for construction activities (for the duration of the construction activity), recognising that such levels of traffic will only occur for a limited duration and will be within an Industrial Environment. 3 Paragraph 84.1 7
4t.2.3 Permitted Activity Rule 3.9 Contact s submission supported Rule 4t.2.3, subject to one minor change. The rule refers to the maintenance, continued operation and minor upgrading of existing electricity generation core sites. The term core sites should be deleted and replaced with the word facilities. This is important as there are electricity generation activities within the zone that are not within, or entirely within, the core sites which the rule is intended to include. 3.10 Contact sought that Rule 4t.2.3 be amended to read: Any activity involving the maintenance, continued operation and minor upgrading of existing electricity generation core sites facilities, 3.11 The Staff Report 4 states: Unhelpfully the Plan does not contain a definition of either core sites or facilities as it relates to these provisions. However it is noted that Rule 4b.12 (Rural Environment) also refers to Core Sites and accordingly for consistency purposes, or until there is a comprehensive set of amendments as a consequence of the NPSREG 2011, it is considered that the current wording be retained. 3.12 The Plan does not need to include a definition of core sites or facilities. Core sites are clearly shown on the Planning Maps in Taupo District Plan. The common use, and dictionary definition, of the word facilities is more that sufficient for the purposes of the relief sought in Contact s submission. 3.13 I was a contributing author in relation to the drafting of Rule 4b.12 (previously Rule 4b.1.4 and Rule 4b.1.5 before that) when it was first drafted in 2000. The reason why the rule was included in the plan was to provide for the continued permitted activity status of a range of activities that have been undertaken without the need for a planning consent or resource consent for over 50 years (at that time) and/or which were the subject of designations in the Taupo Transitional District Plan (thereby affording permitted activity status). 3.14 The problem that Contact is seeking to resolve is that the areas identified as core sites within the Industrial Environment only cover part of Contact s activities. This arbitrarily leaves the balance of Contact s activities in the 4 Page 51 8
Industrial Environment without the benefit of Rule 4t.2.3. I do not consider there to be any resource management justification for Rule 4t.2.3 not applying to the balance of the Industrial Environment (beyond the core sites). This is precisely the zone in which such activities should occur and the rule is limited to existing activities. 3.15 In response to the reasoning presented by Mr Bonis rejecting Contact s submission, the fact that the problem Contact is trying to solve may exist elsewhere in the Taupo District Plan (but cannot be solved in the context of Plan Change 29 for lack of jurisdiction) is not a valid reason not to resolve the problem in relation to the Industrial Environment in the context of Plan Change 29 (for which there is jurisdiction). In any event, the core sites only exist within the Industrial Environment, and now is the opportunity to resolve the issue raised in Contact s submission. 4t.4 Assessment Criteria 3.16 Contact s submission states that clause (a) of 4t.4.11 Geothermal Activity should be amended to refer to the impacts on the current and future utilisation of geothermal resources. 3.17 Contact sought that clause (a) of 4t.4.11 Geothermal Activity be amended to read: The extent to which the activity will impact on the existing geothermal based industries and the current and future utilisation of geothermal resources, e.g. reverse sensitivity issues. 3.18 The Staff Report 5 states that Contact s submission is accepted in part and proposes that the words or consented be added so that clause (a) of 4t.4.11 reads: The extent to which the activity will impact on the functioning of the existing, or consented, geothermal based industries, e.g. reverse sensitivity issues. 3.19 The reasons stated for not accepting the wording sought by Contact is: Inability to consider reverse sensitivity on unknown future activities. However, can take into account consented (but not yet implemented) activities. 5 Page 70 9
3.20 With respect, this misses the point of Contact s submission which was to ensure that the utilisation of geothermal systems for their intended purpose (as set out in the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the Waikato Regional Plan) is not compromised by the establishment or expansion of incompatible land uses. 3.21 The RPS includes a comprehensive set of objectives and policies in relation to the management of the Regional Geothermal Resource (most of which is located in the Taupo District). The RPS sets up a five-fold classification for geothermal systems. Of most relevance to Proposed Plan Change 29, at least in terms of the issues of concern to Contact, is that there is an enabling policy regime for Development Geothermal Systems in order to provide for the energy needs of current and future generations. The Wairakei Tauhara Geothermal System (over which the Industrial Environments the subject of Proposed Change 29 are located) is classified as a Development Geothermal System. 3.22 The Taupo District Council has a particularly important role to play in terms of Council s integrated management responsibilities and in terms of being consistent with the direction provided by the RPS (which must be given effect to under section 75(3)(c) of the RMA) and the Waikato Regional Plan in relation to the management of geothermal resources. In this regard, the Geothermal Chapter of the RPS includes the following objective and policy: 3.7.3 Adverse Effects of Other Activities on the Regional Geothermal Resource Objective Two: Development and use of land and non-geothermal water compatible with the use, development and protection of the Regional Geothermal Resource. Policy Two: Compatible Activities Within Geothermal Systems Ensure that development and use of land or use of nongeothermal water within Geothermal Systems is compatible with the purpose for which each Geothermal System is classified. Implementation Method: Promote the preparation of growth management and other strategies and the inclusion of objectives, policies and rules in district plans to ensure that any new land uses and land use practices within Geothermal Systems are compatible with the 10
purpose for which those Geothermal Systems are to be managed (i.e. Development, Limited Development, Research, Protected and Small Geothermal Systems). 3.23 In my opinion, the sections of the RPS set out above provide a strong policy direction for Taupo District Council to prevent establishment or intensification of incompatible land uses over or in proximity to geothermal resources. On this basis, it is my opinion that the relief sought by Contact should be accepted. Definitions Industrial Activities 3.24 Contact s submission states that the definition of Industrial Activities does not appear to include geothermal electricity generation activities, despite this apparently being the intention of Proposed Change 29. 3.25 Contact sought that the definition of Industrial Activities be amended to read: Industrial activities activities including associated land and buildings used for the manufacturing, fabrication, processing, packaging or storage of goods, servicing and repair of goods whether by machinery or by hand, electricity generation activities, research and training facilities, and includes offices associated with the above. 3.26 The Staff Report 6 rejects Contact s submission on the basis that the amendment is considered unnecessary. However, if the amendment sought by Contact is not made, there will be a high level of uncertainty as to whether Contact s activities are regarded as industrial activities on the basis that they do not fall within the ambit of the definition as currently drafted. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the definition should be amended as sought by Contact to avoid any potential for unnecessary argument at a later date. 4.0 NON-INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Contact lodged a number of further submissions on both Plan Changes 29 and 33 opposing various parties (i.e. National Trading Company of NZ Ltd, Bunnings Ltd, and Progressive Enterprises Ltd) who sought that retail activities (mainly large format retail) be allowed within the Industrial Environment. While the Staff Report accepts most of these further 6 Page 80 11
submissions by Contact, the position is not entirely clear as to what should or could eventuate. 4.2 I am not an expert in relation to retail distribution, so I will not present any substantive evidence in relation to the actual or potential threats posed to the Taupo CBD if large format retailing activities are allowed to occur in the Industrial Environment. I will only note that, in my opinion, a high level of care needs to be taken to ensure that Taupo does not end up in the situation that has developed in Hamilton whereby allowing retail activities in the Industrial Zones (particularly in Te Rapa) has resulted in serious concerns about the declining economic situation in the Hamilton CBD. 4.3 In terms of the issue of concern to Contact (and which is within my area of expertise), it is of paramount importance that incompatible land uses are not allowed to establish (or expand if they already exist) in the Industrial Environment. Such activities would undermine the integrity of the Industrial Environment due to, for example, the creation of reverse sensitivity effects (due to demanding a higher level of amenity expected within a retail area) and cumulative and/or incompatible traffic effects. 4.4 Accordingly, and in line with Contact s submission on Issue 7C (which the Staff Report 7 recommends be accepted), I would recommend that any rules allowing retail activities within the Industrial Environment (such as Rule 4t.2.9) be restricted in their applicability to the parts of the Industrial Environment to the west of the East Taupo Arterial. Furthermore, to reinforce the position, I would recommend that retail activities to the east of the East Taupo Arterial be a non-complying activity. Mark Chrisp 7 May 2012 7 Page 51 12