Didsbury-Evidence-20.. - Horizons Regional Council

shootceaselessUrban and Civil

Nov 16, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

252 views

1


Kia ora.


Nga mihi o te ra

Ki te whanau e hui mai nei.

Kia tau te Rangimarie

Kia whak
a
tapua tatou

Mea nga mea

E whakapono ana tatou

Amine






Tēnā

koutou,
Tēnā

koutou,
Tēnā

koutou katoa.

Kia ora to everyone gathered here today. My name is Vicki Didsbury and I live at 1015 Tanawa
Road, in our community of Tinui. I am married to Bruce Didsbury and we have four children
between the ages of 9 and 4. I work as a farm administrator for two pr
operties of ours


Orere here
in Tinui and Pukeatua Station in Hinakura, Martinborough. My qualifications include a Bachelor of
Business Studies in 1999
and a Graduate Diploma of Teaching in the year 2000, both
from Massey
University where I w
as awarded a

Massey Scholarship.


I am a proud member of my iwi Ngāti Kahungunu and I recognise my Rangitāne whakapapa. I am
also a proud member of the Tinui Community within which we live next door to my parents, Ian and
Helen Perry, who I am also representing in my

korero today.


We have had personal experience with the issue of wind farms as a few years back we were
approached by an electricity company to have windmills installed at a property we own with another
family member in Martinbo
rough. This property,
Pukeatua Station,

is steeped in Maori history. We
declined to have windmills placed on this property for the same core reasons we are opposing the
wind mills in this submission hearing report, although then we didn’t realise the true extent of the
impact
of windmills on rural communities. This knowledge has been built on in the process of
preparing for our written submission and for this hearing with regard to the proposed Castle Hill
Wind Farm (CHWF). Our concern for the environment and for the people w
ho would be affected
by this proposed wind farm site forms the basis of this report.


I have prepared my report for our submission hearing with the help of a host of other supportive
people and at this point I would like to thank Rawiri Smith of Ngāti
Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and
Dane Rimene from Rangitāne for taking the time to meet with me and

for sharing

their

immense
knowledge. I will always be grateful for this.


A big thank you goes to Joseph Potangaroa, author of the educational resource ‘Tuna
K
uwharuwharu; The Longfin Eel’.
1

Joseph has been so kind to offer his support as an eel
enthusiast and his abundance of knowledge on freshwater and freshwater species has helped to
guide me in my preparation of the waterways section of this report.


Than
k you also to Freshwater Ecologist Dr Mike Joy for talking to me on the phone about possible
effects of such a massive development project on waterways and fresh water species.


A big and very sincere thank you to our friends and family who have supporte
d us in
this process

in
any way, including those of you who have turned up here today to support us.




English translation


Greetings to the family gathered here
today

Let peace be with us

May we respect each other

And what we believe

Amen


2




3


On behalf of myself, my husband Bruce, and my mother and father Ian and Helen Perry, I will
present our submission hearing to provide evidence to supp
ort our position of opposition to
Genesis Energy’s application for resource consent for the proposed CHWF. The content of our
report outlines the following:




My family’s connection to Tinui, which is one area that has been proposed as a suitable site
for
the establishment of the proposed CHWF
.



My families connection to the proposed CHWF site through our iwi Ngāti Kahungunu
.



The cultural impact of the proposed CHWF on
:

(1)

Our Whānau

(2)

Our Community

And

(3)
Our Nation
.



The impact the proposed CHW
F proposal is set to have on our road
.




The health aspect of wind mills and the threats to the health of those in our family and
community members from the wider proposed CHWF area, with specific reference to
:


(1) Noise

(2) Shadow Flicker and Blade
Glint Effects

And

(3)

Electric and Magnetic Fields Effects
.



The impact of the proposed CHWF on the Tinui River and its riparian environment and on all
water courses involved in the entire area of the proposal
.



Our right to have our own point of view of

how to respond to the consent application
submitted by Genesis Energy for the proposed CHWF project
,

even if this point of view
differs in part
,

or in whole
,

to another group, or other groups, that we are affiliated to
.




The summary of our submission in o
pposition of Genesis Energy’s application for resource
consent for the establishment and operation of the proposed CHWF.


At the time of writing our written submission on the 23
rd

September 2011, we weren’t familiar with
the process of writing submissions and working through the relevant information. So throughout
our written submission we made reference to the summary document that Genesis Energy created
entitled ‘Castle Hill Win
d Farm August 2011 Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of
Environmental Effects Summary’. As we are speaking to our submission we thought we should
continue to use this as our main reference document so as to avoid confusion. So for the purposes

of this report I will continue to make references to this document and I will refer to it as the Genesis
Energy Resource Consent Summary.


Also i
t is important to note that we completed and sent our written submission of opposition to
Genesis Energy’s app
lication for resource consent for the proposed CHWF on the 23
rd

of
September 2011 and were advised of the date of this submission hearing on the 20
th

of October
2011.
As we were unfamiliar with this process we did not realise that there would be such a sh
ort
amount of time between submitting our written consent and having to have all of our preparation
ready for a submission hearing. We believe that this really is quite an ask of a family who is trying
to gather evidence and prepare for a submission heari
ng with four young children to raise, a farm
to run not to mention it being one of the busiest times of the farming year where we are dagging
ewes, crutching lambs, shearing hoggets, and preparing for weaning the lambs. This has meant
that Bruce has been
unable to help me as much as he would like in the preparation of this report.
This doesn’t fit with the way our family works where we try to do things together and help each
other out as much as possible to avoid overload on any one of us.






4




5




My fam
ily’s connection to Tinui and to our property ‘Orere’


I am a fifth generation Tinui community member. As documented in a list of Castlepoint Early
Settlers
2

my Great Great Grandfather John Alfred Perry was an Early Settler in Castlepoint. He
originally
arrived in
New Zealand and more specifically in
New Plymouth in 1841 on the pioneer
ship Amelia Thompson
3
. As orally told by my own Grandfather, Jock Herbert Perry
4
, John Alfred
Perry came to Castlepoint with Thomas Guthrie. In 1848 Guthrie became Castle
point’s first
European settler and he established a sheep and cattle run there. John Alfred Perry worked for
Guthrie until 1863

when he got 120 acres opposite the Tinui station’.


An important accomplishment for my
Great Great
grandfather John Alfred
Perry was that he ‘cut a
track through the bush and brought the first sheep, six rams, into Tinui and through to nearby
Annedale’. This information was published in a Wairarapa Times Age article
5

written by Wairarapa
Journalist Gerald Ford in January

2008
, when my Grandad died. So this is the beginning of our
family’s roots in the Tinui district and within the Tinui community.


John Alfred Perry’s son was Rupert Perry. He was also a farmer in Tinui. He was a Corporal in
World War One and he specifically

cites Tinui as his Enlistment Address in his war records
6
.


My Grandfather, Rupert Perry’s son, Jock Herbert Perry
was
a World War Two veteran and the day
before going to war, he finished a boundary fence on a property
in the Tinui Valley
where he had
farmed as manager and it was this area of land that he was later to draw the marble in a settlemen
t
ballot. This area of land is
our family farm, Orere, originally named Aberfoyle.


In Gerald Ford’s Wairarapa Times Age report
7

it is recorded that Granda
d’s farm here in the Tinui
Valley, ‘had the first topdressing airstrip’, ‘for the use of all farmers in the area’. Also that he ‘was a
veteran of World War Two’ and that he had an ‘abiding interest in the Tinui community’.


Grandad was a hard
-
working co
mmunity man, a family man and was very attached to Orere and
even in the last years before his death in 2008 he would come out to the farm to grub thistles and
to check on our progress.


It is very important for me to mention here that my Grandfather’s a
shes are spread on Orere where
we live and so too are the ashes of my maternal Grandmother Mary Eleanor Deane. This is
comforting for many of our wh
ā
nau who know that the wairua
, or spirit or soul,

of their ancestors
will be forever respected by us.


My

mother and
father
Helen and
Ian Perry took on the role of running the family farm in 1972.
They have

instilled in me and my siblings the importance of caring for the land, not just for our
generation but for future generations for the benefit of all and
also out of respect for our ancestors
who worked tirelessly to enable us to be here today, some of whom served our country for our
freedom. My father and mother still live on the farm today and are an integral part of it. It has
become a real symbol in o
ur whanau of something that is enduring, somewhere that is peaceful
and somewhere where people can come to, to remember those who have passed before us.


6


My families connection to the proposed CHWF site through our iwi Ngāti Kahungunu


Our links to the
area continue. Our whānau is also culturally and historically linked to this area as
we are members of Ngāti Kahungunu

and we are proud to recognise our whakapapa links to
Rangitāne
. We are proud descendents of the ‘great and prolific chief Kahungunu’
8
.



As explained on the Ngāti Kahungunu website
9
, ‘geographically Ngāti Kahungunu has the second
largest tribal rohe in the country, from the Wharerata ranges in the Wairoa District extending to
Cape Palliser in South Wairarapa’. This rohe takes in the pro
posed site for the Castle Hill Wind
Farm. Many of our extended whanau are also of Ngāti Kahungunu decent and they too are proud
to come out to our farm, on our traditional tribal land, to enjoy the unique character of this place,
here in Tinui, where they

can feel spiritual links and a belonging on this, their ancestral land.


It is important to note here that my Grandfather, Jock Herbert Perry, who I have talked about in the
previous section of this report, was not a descendent o
f

Kahungunu. Our links wi
th the iwi come
from his marriage to my grandmother Atareta Hihipa Ki Te Rangi Mare Mare Eria. Grandad’s

morals matched those of our iwi and right throughout my life Grandad was part of this wider group
and

as far as I am aware

he was considered by everyo
ne to be a kaum
ā
tua of our iwi. H
e was
very knowledgeable on issues associated with our iwi and of the historical cultural practises that
occurred within the Wairarapa.
In this way Grandad’s wairua extends throughout the rohe or
territory of Ngāti Kahung
unu, taking in the area of the proposed CHWF.


I have provided this summary of our fa
mily history to give evidence of

our link
s

to our farm, to the
Tinui district, and more broadly to the entire area of the proposed CHWF.


As a family who have such deep

cultural, spiritual and historical ties to the area both from roots as
descendents of Kahungunu, a chief ‘renowned for his charismatic leadership’
10
, and of the early
settler John Alfred Perry we feel that we have every justification to call ourselves Tān
gata Whenua
of this land, and of course we know others in our community, from a variety of backgrounds, with
their own personal histories will feel as we do. We are the caretakers of this land and our
connection to the area of the proposed CHWF is express
ed through kaitiakitanga, or guardianship
of our environment.



7




The cultural impact of the proposed CHWF


Now with this understanding of our family’s connection to this place of Tinui, and indeed to the
wider area of the proposed CHWF, I am going to
present evidence showing the impact of the
proposed CHWF on our family, our community and ultimately on our nation.


More specifically, in this section I will be giving evidence as to why we oppose the following
Sections of the Genesis Energy Resource Cons
ent Summary:

Section 4.1 which states
that
it is generally accepted that a site which avoids sensitive
environmental areas such as outstanding natural features and landscapes, and protected areas
along with other attributes will be suitable for wind genera
tion at a commercial scale.

Also Section 6.1.9 which states that Genesis Energy has been consulting with Ng
āti Kahungunu

on
the CHWF project and that no evidence has been found relating to any sites of cultural significance
being located within the CHWF
site.




1.

The impact of the proposed CHWF on our family


With regard to our family, the cultural impact of the proposed CHWF has been immense. We feel
as a family that our cultural links to the area of the proposed CHWF have been disrespected and
have n
ot been recognised satisfactorily by Genesis Energy in the consultation phase or in the post
written submission phase of the proposed CHWF.


We feel that our family’s connections and the strong historical bonds we have with our neighbours
and with the la
nd and water that surrounds us have been manipulated by Genesis Energy, a large,
profit
-
making company that clearly doesn’t understand the strong fabric of our community.


It is upsetting for our family, knowing now the true implications of the impact of

the proposed wind
farm on our family
, and community,

having studied Genesis Energy’s application for consent and
supporting information, that neither before or even after we submitted our written opposition to the
Genesis Energy application for resource c
onsent on the 23
rd

September 2010 were we personally
visited by anyone from Genesis Energy or by any friends or neighbours or community members
who have windmills destined to be on their properties.


Not once
has

someone come to our door

and tell us abou
t about the specifics, or the possible
impacts, of the proposed CHWF.


Surely it is the right thing for the business
and/
or
the
landowner who is causing, or creating the
opportunity to cause, a variety of impacts to communities and neighbours and other
landowners to
front up and go and visit those people who may be directly affected by their actions. This is the
kiwi way


to be up front, to be neighbourly.


We are not sure of the process that took place but we do want to say that if our neighbours, who

have wind mills on their properties, were required to sign confidentiality agreements that disallowed
them to discuss the specifics of the proposed CHWF then in terms of being honourable in the
matter of business contracts we do understand their need to r
emain tight
-
lipped on the issue. This
is not to say that we would agree with such a process and if this is indeed the case then it is a
terrible way to do business on Genesis Energy’s part as it creates division within a community.


There is a clear lac
k of respect and courtesy here. Not only is it the right thing to do but Part 2
Section 7 of The Resource Management Act 1991 states that in achieving the purpose of this Act,
all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing t
he use, development,
8


and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to (a) kaitiakitanga.
Our care and concern for our community makes us kaitiaki in this place of Tinui and as such we
feel we should have been consulted on t
he issue of the proposed CHWF with more respect.


Also, Part 2 Section 8 of The Resource Management Act states that
i
n achievi
ng the purpose of
the

Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use,
development,

and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the
principles of the

Treaty of Waitangi, 1840 (
Tiriti o Waitangi)’. While we understand that Genesis
Energy is not the Crown, which the Treaty of Waitangi specifically relates to,

we understand that it
is Genesis Energy’s obligation as a resource consent applicant in the matter of the Resource
Management Ac
t 1991 to take into account

the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.


The Waitangi Tribunal has noted that Dr Janine Hayward
has discussed the emergence of four
reconciling Treaty principles. These are ‘the principle of active protection, the tribal right to self
-
regulation, the right of redress for past breaches, and the duty to consult’. It is this first and fourth
Treaty of

Waitangi principle that I refer to in this report


‘the principle of active protection’ and ‘the
duty to consult’.
11



Being a family with deep ancestral ties to the proposed Castle Hill Wind Farm site we do not feel
that as T
ā
ngata Whenua of this land we have been privy to the principle of active protection. Our
rights as the descendents of Kahungunu with clear tribal links to the area within the proposed
CHWF site have not been actively protected. This links into the duty of

parties seeking resource
consent to consult. Our rights to a clear, detailed, informative consultation process have not been
actively protected.



Had we been effectively and appropriately consulted our deep cultural ties to the land within the
propose
d
CHWF and to the farm that we live on would have becom
e clear to Genesis Energy. We
are

a family in the Tinui district, who own a farm th
at boundaries the proposed CHWF,

who are
going to be directly affected by the proposed CHWF and who have strong cultu
ral links that extend
back to pre
-
European times in New Zealand to the specific land on which the proposed CHWF is
planned to be established on and yet we have never been
personally
visited by anyone to find out
these things.


Genesis Energy has indeed c
onsulted with representatives of the two iwi who have ancestral links
to the land within the proposed CHWF


these
are the iwi of

Ng
ā
ti Kahungunu and Rangit
ā
ne. This
fact was stated in Section 6.1.9 of the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary

but
we do

not
believe that
this should preclude Genesis Energy from digging deeper within the proposed site area
to find those iwi members who are being directly affected by the proposal.


In this way we feel that our family’s mana has been disrespected
.


The
fact that we have the ashes of ancestors, both my paternal Grandfather and my maternal
Grandmother, spread on our farm makes this area a site of immense cultural significance. Our
ancestors’ wairua or the spiritual connections of our ancestors with this l
and mean that our whanau
can come to our farm to pay their respects to their elders. They agreed to place their ancestors’
ashes out on our farm because it is a unique rural environment where their ancestors can lie in
peace away from industrial areas. S
o the proposal to erect a wind farm on our boundary and within
our area of Tinui, which has such a unique rural character, will have a
n

impact on our family who
come here to respect their ancestors in a peaceful, rural environment.



In regard to

our anc
estors’ ashes being spread here
we oppose Section
6.1.9 of the Genesis
Energy Resource Consent Summary that states that no evidence has been found relating to any
9


sites of cultural significance being located within the CHWF site. Our farm is not within th
e legal
CHWF site
,

however the wairua of our ancestors is not limited by legally binding boundaries, and
most of our whanau who return to our farm to pay their respects to our ancestors do not know
where our farm boundaries exist. In terms of wairua and s
piritual belonging there are no defined
boundaries, instead the appreciation
of our ancestors’ wairua
goes beyond limitations such as
these and into the wider Tinui and proposed CHWF environment. So in this way the proposed
CHWF site is situated on land t
hat our whānau considers to be culturally significant and so we
oppose its establishment.


When we consider the visual impact of the proposed CHWF on our family and our family life we
think of how o
ur family enjoys

living

and working
well away from
industrial sites
.

We especially
enjoy taking t
rips as a family group around our farm to appreciate the scenic beauty of our area in
Tinui. We do not only appreciate the beauty of our farm Orere but also of the wider landscape.
From the top of our farm w
e have significant views over Tinui and we have views over the area of
the proposed CHWF.



From the Genesis Energy Visual Effects Assessment, which analyses the visual effects of the
proposed CHWF from our households it is proposed that there will be aro
und 29 wind turbines in
Cluster F. The analysis of visual impact of the
wind farm

from our households shows that from my
parents household

(Dwelling 288)
, which is 2.6km from the nearest Large turbine

(Number F
-
186)
,

there is the potential for one entire turbine to be seen and five turbines where there are rotors only
visible. It is noted that existing vegetation will block this view at present however, i
t’s important to
note here that
this vegetation may not be perm
anent.

From
Bruce’s and my

household

(Dwelling
289)
, which is 2.4km from the nearest large turbine

(Number F
-
186)
,

there is the potential for

us to
see a total of seven turbines, four of them with towers and rotors visible and the remaining three
with rot
ors visible only. A
s before, in the assessment for my parent’s house
, it has been
determined by the author of the assessment that vegetation near our house and on our farm will
block the view of the windmills. However, again it is important to remember t
hat this vegetation
may not be there forever

and also that some of this is deciduous, which obviously only gives visual
protection when in leaf.



In Frank Boffa’s primary evidence report where evidence is supplied to back up Genesis Energy’s
Landscape an
d Visual Effects Assessment, he comments on our family’s concern about the visual
effects posed by the wind farm. He states that based on
the
extent and density of vegetation
on
the west side of our dwelling area that there would be no visual effects from

this particular area (his
reference here is to Bruce’s and my house at Dwelling 289). This is only part of the story for us
because firstly the vegetation around our house may be removed either by natural courses or by
people in the future and so this wo
uld change the situation and wind mills would be visible then and
secondly

we consider our whole farm to be our dw
e
lling. I
t’s the place that
we
live in as well as
work
. W
e dwell on the entire property.

We
camp
on the far
m, we eat meals

on the farm, we
work,
play, exercise and rest on our farm. So for us our farm is our dwelling and this
refutes
Frank
Boffa’s
comment

i
n terms of views from our farm and especially at elevated levels
.




The fact that our family get cultural satisfaction out of being together
on our farm

appreciating

the
Whenua, the land and its forms,

in this area is evidence in itself that the proposed CHWF is
planned on a site of cultural significance.

W
e consider that

our freedom and our way of life would
be compromised by the visual effects of the
wind farm
.



10


2.

The impact of the proposed CHWF on our community


In an article entitled ‘Wind
-
turbine project splits rural neighbours’ the author Marc Greenhill quotes
David Meares who, at the time of writing, had a Greta Valley property that was going to be
overlooked by the proposed Hurunui turbines. Mr Meares says in the article that ‘the division in the
community was a tragedy’. He goes on to say when talking about

the proposed wind farm that
‘within three or four months, it’s destroyed a community that’s taken generations to develop.
Regardless of what happens here, it will never repair’.
12



The underlying feelings

that have been created by the way that Genesis
Energy has gone about
the process of preparing their application for resource consent for the establishment of the
proposed CHWF have already interfe
red with our community in Tinui.
Genesis Energy has created
an environment in our community
surrounding th
e proposed wind farm
of ‘for’ and ‘against’
, an
environment that seems to be characterised by a lack of open communication between community
members, where the wind mills are concerned
. We fear the
continuing
social impact of such a
divisio
n in our close,

rural community

will induce the same result as what David Meares describes
in his community
.


As stated in our written submission we oppose Section 4.1 of the Genesis Energy Resource
Consent Summary where it is stated that it is generally accepted that on
e of the features that
makes a site suitable for wind generation at a commercial scale is that the site is distant from large
population centres
.
We feel that this is prejudiced against our community because we choose to
live in a low populated area. We
also feel that this disrespects the strong fabric of rural
communities.


There may be fewer people living here than in other areas of New Zealand but our feelings for the
environment and for protecting our unique land and way of life and our community sp
irit, which has
always been focused on trying to meet the needs of everyone in the community, are so strong that
we feel that it is not right for Genesis to assume that it is a suitable site for wind generation
because it is distant from large population c
entres.


I turn our attention now to how our community may be affected if the view from the outstanding
natural feature of the Tinui Taipos is compromised and negatively impacted on by the proposed
Genesis Energy CHWF.


Any proposals for the erection o
f manmade structures that have the potential to negatively impact
on the view of, or from, areas of geographical significance in the community must be questioned.
Communities have a right to protect these areas of national significance, including the geog
raphical
views from these areas, so that they remain in their natural state as usually it is the uniqueness
about the natural form of the landscape that makes an area special to the community.


I now draw your attention to a geological report from 1863 t
hat was written by James C Crawford, a
Government Geologist for the Superintendent of the Province of Wellington, His Honor I.E.
Featherston.
13



In this report James Crawford makes specific mention of the Tinui Taipos. He writes ‘Still
proceeding downwa
rds I crossed the Whareama, passed over a hill and descended upon the Tinui
station, situated upon the flats of that stream, a tributary of the Whareama. Immediately above the
station is one of those
‘remarkable hills called Taipos’
, which I accordingly p
roceeded to
examine.


The hills have an extremely fantastic, picturesque and rugged outline, and at first give the
impression of volcanic peaks, but on examination prove to be our old friend the tertiary sandstone,
11


tilted at an angle of about 70
o

and dip
ping to the Westward; the harder parts of the strata sticking
out in peaks, while the softer parts have been worn away.’


James Crawford went on to collect fossils, calculate the height of the Taipos (975 feet) and to
comment on the dimensions of the Taip
os. On these dimensions he writes ‘... It will thus be seen
that the several peaks are nearly, but not quite, in a straight line’.


These observations from 1863
symbolise the visual image of the majestic beauty of the Tinui Taipos today for all of the com
munity
to be proud of.


Unfortunately, the natural view from the Tinui Taipos is under threat from the proposed CHWF. We
oppose Section 4.1 of the Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary where it is stated that one
of the attributes that makes an area g
enerally accepted as a site suitable for wind generation at a
commercial scale is that it avoids sensitive environmental areas such as outstanding natural
features and landscapes, and protected areas. We do not feel that the site of the proposed CHWF
avoi
ds the sensitive environmental area of the Tinui Taipos at all. Just because there are no
windmills on the Tinui Taipos does not mean that they are avoided because they will be impacted
on by visual effects from viewpoints on the Tinui Taipos themselves.



Section 5, page 187 of Genesis Energy’s Assessment of Environmental Effects recognises that the
Tinui Taipos is identified as

an outstanding natural feature

in the C
ombined Wairarapa District
Plan. However in our opinion
Genesis Energy has not gone far

enough in its recognition of The
Tinui Taipos as an outstanding natur
al feature within our community. T
hey were considered
remarkable by James Crawford in 1863 and today they are just as remarkable and they give our
community a unique geographical site to be proud of, a place of spectacular beauty where major
industry does not currently impact upon the view

from this site or on the significance of this site.


Part 2, Section 6b of the Resource Management Act 1991gives further weight to our evidence. It
states under the heading of Matters of National Importance that in achieving the purpose of this
Act,
all persons exercising functions and powers

under it, in relation to managing the use,
development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the
protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappro
priate subdivision, use, and
development.


We feel that the development of the surrounding land for use as a wind farm does not give the
Tinui Taipos the protection that it deserves from a visual perspective as if the proposed CHWF
were to go ahead the v
iew from the Tinui Taipos would be changed for many years, if not
indefinitely, and it would shift from being a view of natural beauty to one characterised by unnatural
wind turbines.


Our community deserves the right to be able to appreciate the Tinui T
aipos, with consideration not
only for the appearance of the actual geographical feature of the Taipos but also in terms of the
view from them.




12


3.

The impact of the proposed CHWF on The Nation



The nation as a whole would be culturally affected by
the proposed CHWF. I say this in regard to
the effect the proposed CHWF is going to have on the view from the Tinui Cross on the Tinui
Taipos.


As outlined in a pamphlet that our family received at one of the ANZAC day ceremonies in Tinui, on
the 25
th

Apr
il 1916 Reverend Basil Ashcroft, the vicar of the Tinui parish at the time, held a service
at 7.30am in The Church of The Good Shepherd to remember the seven young men of the district
who lost their lives in Gallipoli. ‘In his service register for the per
iod, the Rev. Ashcroft referred to
25
th

April’ as ‘


St Marks Day


ANZAC DAY’.
14



It was on this day that Tinui locals at the time erected a jarrah Cross as a permanent memorial and
as a permanent reminder of the sacrifices that men and women of New Zea
land, Australia and the
Allied Forces made to ensure our freedom. It is noted, in a pamphlet that our family received at
one of the Tinui ANZAC days, that this service is recognised as ‘the first ever commemoration of
ANZAC day’ and the cross as ‘the firs
t memorial of its kind erected during the war’. The pamphlet
continues to read that ‘Over the years the Cross suffered weather and wind damage and was
replaced in 1965 by a new Cross of more permanent materials.


The Cross is 3.6 metres high and
2.4 metre
s wide and can be seen 300 meters above the village, over 2 kilometres away.


The
Cross is silhouetted on the skyline, overlooking the village and the parish.




We oppose Section 4.1 of the Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary where it is stated that
o
ne of the attributes that makes an area generally accepted as a site suitable for wind generation
at a commercial scale is that it avoids sensitive environmental areas such as outstanding natural
features and landscapes, and protected areas. In regard to
the significance of the Tinui ANZAC
cross we accept that in the document entitled ‘Genesis Energy Resource Consent Application
Volume 3a Section 4


CHWF Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment Doc 1’ Sections 10.29
and 10.30 in its assessment of CHWF la
ndscape and visual effects Genesis Energy has
recognised the Tinui Memorial Cross on the Taipos and identified the site of the cross as a site of
significance. However, the Genesis Energy Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment document
previously mention
ed also states that ‘while the site is not a public viewpoint, a visual simulation
(VP51) and an assessment of visibility and potential visual effects from Maunsell Trig, which is
immediately to the north of the Tinui Taipos site, was carried out with the
permission of the
landowners. From this particular viewpoint, the nearest visible turbines are those in Cluster F
which is 7.1km from the viewpoint. From this location, the visual effect is low and the wind farm
which is partially visible in the distance

does not intrude upon the wider view or the significance of
the site’.


We do not agree with this evidence as from our own research we have looked at the table
analysing CHWF Viewpoint 51A from the Maunsell Trig and from that point it is stated that the
re
will be 187 towers/rotors visible and 24 rotors only giving a total of 218 wind mills visible. While we
understand that it is not exactly the same view as that from where the ANZAC cross is situated it is
the nearest information we can use to gauge the

type of visual effect that the people of our nation
are going to be exposed to when coming to pay their respects to those men and women who have
been to war to fight for all of our freedom and for those men and women who have made the
ultimate sacrifice f
or all of us here today.


Part 2, Section 6(b) of the Resource Management Act highlights the need for Genesis Energy to
recognise and provide for the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from
inappropriate subdivision, use, and devel
opment.




13


Just as it is an opinion of
Boffa Miskell Ltd

who prepared the Landscape and Visual Effects
Assessment report for Genesis Energy, in their preparation for applying for resource consent for
the proposed CHWF, that the visual effect from viewpoint VP 51 of the proposed CHWF would be
low and that the wi
nd farm that would be partially visible in the distance would not intrude upon the
wider view or the significance of the site, it is our opinion that the view would be one that would
intrude upon the wider view and the significance of the site. The view
from the Tinui Cross should
not include an industrial park where anywhere up to 218 wind mills may be visible.


We also oppose Section 6.1.3 of the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary which states
that the CHWF does not impinge upon or compromise any outstanding natural features or
landscapes within the Northern Wairarapa Area. The landscape visible from The Tinui Cross is
one of national importa
nce and one that should be kept free of such huge unnatural structures such
as the proposed Genesis Energy wind mills. These structures of such enormous industrial
character would look so out of place against the natural terrain from the ANZAC cross site.



Our very own Tinui ancestors went to war to fight for our freedom and we do not believe that
Genesis energy
has

gone far enough to give the Tinui Cross site on the Tinui Taipos the respect it
commands as a place of significant national importance. It
is a place where we and our children
can go to and look out across the land and say this beautiful, natural land of ours has been
protected by our ancestors at war and this feeling of space and freedom is what is unique to this
nationally significant site
and is the feature of the site that should be maintained for the benefit of all
New Zealanders.



14




The impact the CHWF proposal is set to have on our road



Our family would be severely impacted by the increase in traffic volumes on our narrow, metal

road
known as Tanawa Road by the proposed CHWF.


Section 6.1.5 on Traffic Effects in the Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary states that the
peak daily traffic activity of any of the programmes is expected to generate total additional traffic
volume
s of between 205 and 410 vehicles per day (two way) during the construction phase of the
project. After further research we have come to see from the map entitled Figure 25 that has been
drawn by J Taylor for Genesis Energy in the Genesis Energy report en
titled Volume3b_Section6
Transportation Effects Assessment Appendix A that the maximum average daily and total heavy
commercial vehicle movements look to be around 200 two way trips, although the map and the
interpretation of the map is somewhat confusing
for us to
understand. The increase in the amount
of traffic on our roads would be just so huge that the thought of it is quite untenable. Just the idea
of having so much traffic on our road for the construction phase of the proposed CHWF makes us
extreme
ly concerned and mainly this concern is based around safety issues.


In Section 6.1.5 on Traffic Effects in the Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary it is stated
that ‘with traffic management, road improvements and mitigation measures, it is expected
that the
safe and efficient operation of the road network will continue with less than minor effects arising as
a result of the CHWF.’ This is a subjective comment to make even given the good deal of research
that Genesis has done on the impact that the w
ind farm is going to have on the transportation
system in our area. We disagree with this comment entirely.


We didn’t have enough knowledge of the impact of the traffic effects of
the
proposed CHWF on our
community at the time to put Section 6.1.5 as a

specific part of our written submission that we
support or oppose and we didn’t at the time understand the huge impact that transportation would
have on our small rural Tanawa Road. So we include it in our report here but it is important to note
that the

impact of the traffic effects do fall within our opposition to Section 6.1.9 in the Genesis
Energy Resource Consent Summary where it is stated that no evidence has been found relating to
any sites of cultural significance being located within the CHWF sit
e. Our road is actually, to us, a
site of cultural significance. It is what
three of our four
children
travel to and from school over and
it
is what we use respectfully to shift our sheep to enable us to run an effective business in order to
support our
family and our rural way of life
. Also, my
sister Lee Perry and her husband Scott
Crampton
-
Smith were killed
in a car accident
North of Auckland in September 2001

so in a cultural
context safety on our roads is a major concern for us
. So the road is cult
urally significant to us and
the sheer amount of traffic that is proposed to

be on our roads would have

a great impact on us as
a family and as a farming business and so we oppose Genesis Energy’s application for resource
consent based on this disruption t
o our lives

and business

and that of others in our community
,

and
also on the impact it is going to have on the safety of our community and all of the other
communities in the wider proposed CHWF area
.


Further to our evidence for our road being a site of
cultural significance it is stated on page 25 of 27
of Graham Nash’s Primary Evidence for the resource consent application by Genesis Energy for
the proposed CHWF in the Submissions section 7.2 that it is recognised that external roads will
require investm
ent in infrastructure to permit use as over
-
weight and over
-
dimension routes to the
wind farm site. To support the increase in traffic and especially the increase in overweight, over
dimension vehicles, Mr Nash says that significant improvements will be r
equired to road geometry,
pavement, and bridge structures and he concludes that because of these improvements the
impacts on local infrastructure will be largely positive.



15


We appreciate the moral reasoning behind Mr Nash’s decision but again, and here,

as in all of this
report, we are representing our whanau on this issue not the wishes of anyone else, we see a lack
of consultation and a lack of understanding of the people in this community and our relationship to
our surroundings, this time in respect
of our community roads.


Our

family likes the road as it is
. It is

a unique feature of where we live
, a symbol to us of our place
and our country
. The gravel road

is easier and safer for four wheeler travel, and we travel on it
every day for our four
-
wheeler farm work. The ATV tyres used on our four
-
wheelers are not
designed for sealed roads

so we wouldn’t want this if this was one of the significant improvements
that Genesis has in mind for our road
.

It could impact
on
the safety of our family and people who
we
work with where their ATV use is concerned.

The
winding,
gravel road also

slows the traffic
down as it’s dangerous to travel too f
ast
around the corners
or
on the loose metal.

So we don’t
want this unique feature of our environment on Tanawa Road in the Tinui Valley to be significantly
altered

for the purposes of the proposed CHWF
.










16




The health aspect of wind mills and the threats to the health
of those in our
community


(1)

The impacts of Noise creation

(2)

The impacts of s
hadow Flicker and Blade Glint
Effects

(3)

The impact of

Electric and Magnetic Fields
Effects


The health of our children, our whanau and our entire community is at the forefront of our minds as
we read and research for this, our submission hearing report.


Firstly I have to say we are not happy with the way the health effects have been separated
in
Section 6.1 of
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary into the health areas of 6.1.4
Noise Effects, 6.1.8 Shadow Flicker and Blade Glint Effects, and 6.1.13 Electric and Magnetic
Fields Effects. We feel that all of the health effects that we have
listed should be given specific
attention in a sub topic entitled Health Effects.
We believe that
the health of the affected
communities
should
be
one of the most major
concern
s

of any corporate organisation or group or
individual when proposing to establ
ish projects of such great magnitude within any community
.




1.

The impacts of noise creation


We are concerned with the impacts of noise creation by the proposed CHWF and how it would
impact on us as a family who live at our place of work, also on the co
mmunity as a whole.


O
ur farm boundaries the proposed Cluster F within the proposed CHWF. From what we can
interpret
from

the map within the Castle Hill Wind Farm Noise Effects Assessment that was
produced by Marshall Day Acoustics showing the CHWF Noise Contours,
our farm boundary is
within the 45d(B)A contour.
As mentioned in an earlier part of our report on the visual im
pact of the
proposed CHWF for our family w
e view our entire farm as our dwelling

and this
is significant
because The New Zealand Standard for noise number 6808:10 recommends that the wind farm
noise level outside any dwelling should not exceed 40dB(A). Th
erefore, we see that our farm is
likely to be significantly affected by noise

so
we oppose Genesis Energy’s application for
resource
consent

to establish the CHWF

based on this noise safety observation in regard to our dwelling.


Mr Michael Miklin Halstead
, who wrote the Primary Evidence Report for Genesis Energy to support
its Assessmen
t of Environmental Effect in it
s Resource Consent Application for the proposed
CHWF has responded to our comments of concern in our written submission regarding Section
6.1.
4 on noise effects in the Genesis Energy Reource Consent Summary. He says that while noise
from the wind farm may be audible, it is c
ontrolled to a reasonable level
. He says that this is
consistent with the approach used to control noise from other activ
ities.

While our comment on our
concern for the noise that may be produced from the proposed CHWF was a general one we are
disappointed that our specific farm or hous
e

has not been mentioned in Mr Halstead’s reply to give
us a better indication of how we
would be directly affected by noise from the proposed wind farm.





Section 6.1.4 on noise effects in
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary Genesis Energy
states that while noise from the CHWF may be audible outside external dwellings at times,
the
noise level is sufficiently low to avoid sleep disturbance and will not result in adverse amenity
effects, therefore it is concluded that noise effects are no more than minor
.
We have read
information on this topic that suggests that this finding need
s to be questioned.



17


The information we have gathered also suggests that noise
effects for us, as we work
on the farm
close to Genesis Energy’s proposed cluster of wind mills called Cluster F (and we could have to
work as close as 60m from a windmill ne
ar our boundary)
,

and as we return to our homes which
will be around 2.4km away from Cluster F, could actually cause negative effects on the health of
our friends and family and if you consider this from the perspective of the wider proposed CHWF
area on a

significant number of community members within and surrounding that area.


We are very concerned about the production by the wind turbines of low frequency sound. Bart P
Billings, PhD has produced a Comprehensive Review
15

on the effects of sound on your health. He
reports that High Intensity/Low Frequency sound was used during WWII as a form of torture.
Clearly, high intensity/low frequency noise can be harmful and intolerable to some.


In the Australian Senate repor
t
16

into ‘The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms’ from
23 June 2011 it is noted that ‘Wind turbines produce sound at a range of frequencies, from high to
very low, including very low frequencies that are not normally audible to the human ear’.

Senator
Judith Adams states in the report that ‘An independent study partly funded by the Danish
government and published in the Acoustical Society of America Journal in June 2011 confirms
beyond any doubt that in terms of wind mills the low
-
frequency par
t of the spectrum plays an
important role in the noise at neighbours and that the low
-
frequency sound must be treated
seriously in the assessment of noise from large turbines’. She goes on to state that the results
from this published peer reviewed resear
ch have come to ‘...confirm the hypothesis that the
spectrum of wind turbine noise moves down in frequency with increasing turbine size. The relative
amount of emitted low frequency noise is higher for large turbines than for small turbines...’



This is

worrying for us given the research we have read from Nina Pierpont, who has a PhD in
behavioural ecology at Princeton University (1985), and an MD at the Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine (1991). Dr Pierpont has written a report on the cluster
of symptoms that she
found in her medical research to be associated with living near wind mills. The definitive result of
her report is that ‘wind turbines cause the symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). I have
read Dr Pierpont’s book called ‘Wind Tur
bine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment’
17
. Her
research indicates that low frequency noise or vibration from windmills can trick the body’s balance
syst
em into thinking it’s moving, l
ike sea sickness. So this creates problems with health issues
like
‘headaches, tinnitus (ringing in ears), ear pressure problems, dizziness, vertigo (spinning
dizziness), nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia (fast heart rate, irritability, problems with
concentration and memory, and panic episodes associated with sen
sations of movement or
quivering inside the body that arise while awake or asleep.’


We are very concerned by the link between wind mill operation near dwellings and problems with
concentration and memory. Almost everyone in Dr Nina Pierpont’s study on t
he health effects of
wind mills had some kind of problem with concentration and memory as a result of living near
windmills. This includes secondary and primary school aged children. These children experienced
a range of degrees of concentration difficul
ties. One 13 year old was a good, intelligent student
that got all A’s and finished his home projects. During his exposure to the windmills near his home
his mother and teacher noted distractibility, many grades of B, home projects were half done and
he
needed constant reminders for homework and

chores, it is also noted that
he just
couldn’t

seem
to focus on anythin
g for more than 5 or 10 minutes
. These problems are disturbing to read about
and we don’t
anyone’s health put at
risk

as a result of the cons
truction and operation of the
windmills in the proposed CHWF.






18


Dr Pierpont also states that ‘Research within the last 10 years has demonstrated conclusively that
the way our bodies register balance and motion directly affects an astonishing array of b
rain
functions.’ Indeed as I read further into the topic of sound frequency and more importantly high
intensity/low sound frequency it is clear that there is a lack of good solid evidence showing that the
sound that is produced by wind mills is not bad fo
r the health of the communities in which they are
situated in or near.


Joel F Lehrere, MD who wrote a referee report
18

for Nina Pierpont’s book states that Dr Pierpont’s
medical report ‘alerts the medical profession to the potential for illness caused b
y low frequency
vibrations’. He also says that ‘it is my hope that this study, when published, will stimulate research
not only on the deleterious effects of low frequency vibration on the human species, but also on its
effects upon the animal world in ge
neral.’



From our research it has become clear that more research is required in this area of the effects that
low frequency sound can have on human health and also on animal health
. We believe that this
research should be conducted by not just one indep
endent research group but by a number of
independent groups to provide a comprehensive report on the issue. We think that this type of
study should be conducted and documented before any more applications for resource consent are
granted where the project

at hand, like the proposed CHWF, are destined to produce low frequency
sound and where they are proposed for areas where people dwell close by.


As well as our concern for the implications of low frequency sound coming from the windmills for us
and for
our community, we are concerned with the unnatural sound of the windmills. The sounds
we hear in nature are not the same as what is described when people talk of the repetitive swishing
and thumping sounds that windmills make. An Australian report that w
as commissioned by the
Clean Energy Council entitled the Sonus Report
19

‘identified two sources of noise from a turbine


mechanical noise from the gear box and generator and aerodynamic noi
s
e. The aerodynamic
noise, which is produced by the rotation of t
he turbine blades through the air, dominates’.


One of the reasons we live here is because we know that we can go on our farm and ;enjoy the
natural sounds of the birds, other animals, running waterways and of the weather and it’s
interrelationship with
the bush and forests. Even a prevailing wind is acceptable as it is a natural
sound and we know that this sound will be replaced with other calmer environmental noises in time.
We want to preserve our right to enjoy these natural noise phenomena without
the interference of
unnatural sound from wind mills.



We oppose Section 6.1.4 of Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary which states that while
noise from the proposed CHWF may be audible outside external dwellings at times, the noise level
is sufficien
tly low to avoid sleep disturbance and will not result in adverse amenity effects, therefore
it is concluded that noise effects are no more than minor. This is a subjective comment. Any noise
effects that the wind farm produces will be more than minor to

us. We simply don’t want to hear
unnatural wind mill noise or noises from our house or from out on our farm.






19



(2)

The impact of Shadow Flicker and Blade Glint Effects


As well as noise effects
we are concerned with Section 6.1.8

of
the
Genesis
Energy Resource
Consent Summary entitled Shadow Flicker and Blade Glint Effects

given our close proximity to the
proposed CHWF
.


Dr Nina Pierpont has also researched this situation and she concludes from her research that ‘In
visually sensitive people, motion detection systems are thrown off by seeing the moving blade
shadows on the landscape (which is supposed to be stationary), or

by the flickering of sunlight
inside as blade shadows cross windows.’


When we are working on the farm we shouldn’t have to think about the health effects that could be
caused by the wind mill shadow flicker and blade glint effects. It is not our choic
e to have to be
faced with the risk of suffering health effects as a result of shadow flicker and blade glint effects. It
is unfair for us to be faced with this potential health hazard and also for the animals on our farm
too.


There is a potential for
shadow flicker and blade glint effects to affect our farming operation.
This
effect could cause stress to sheep and their egg production cycle could be affected, a ewe or cow
could be disturbed by the effect during lambing or calving and could leave her n
ewborn, a ram or
bull could become stressed and this could affect sperm quality and libido and the list of these
unknowns. T
hese are very real issues for us as farmers where the health and care of everyone
who lives, works and does recreational activities

on our farm and the humane and fair treatment of
all animals on our farm is absolutely paramount. We oppose the proposed CHWF on the basis of
our duty of responsibility to the people and animals who could have their health negatively affected
by shadow f
licker and blade glint effects

and also out of concern for potential financial losses
through animal stress

as a result of the construction
and operation
of the proposed wind farm.







20


(3)

The impact of Electric and Magnetic Fields Effects


In our writte
n submission we stated that in relation to Section 6.1.13 of
the
Genesis Energy
Resource Consent Summary on Electric and Magnetic Fields Effects we are concerned about the
negative effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields Effects.


We have an overall conc
ern for human, animal and farm health in relation to electric and magnetic
fields effects caused by the workings of the turbines, the generation of electricity and the
conduction of that electricity across the wind farm through transmission lines. Our con
cern on this
health area has increased this year since reading Sophie Rishworth’s article which was printed in
the Gisborne Herald on Tuesday February 15, 2011.


This article was entitled ‘Alternative thinking on Fireblight’
20

and it details a real life
situation where
pine forests around Gisborne have begun to succumb to a disease that threatened to kill the trees.
Juken New Zealand Ltd manager Sheldon Drummond said that his company wanted to know why
the trees had a disease that had been present in a n
on
-
threatening way for a very long time. He
said that his company wanted to know what had changed in the environment that these trees could
not fight the disease that is commonly referred to as ‘Needleblight’. It is a disease that has been
present in NZ
and indeed worldwide since the 1970s but has caused only sporadic problems until
recently. So JNL brought in scientists from an Australian
-
based firm and one of the things the
scientists picked up on ‘was the increase of alternating currents running over
and through our
landscape, including the forests.’

Our modern world is exposed to a huge range of alternating current waves and ‘JNL’s hypothesis
was that the addition of so many alternating currents at various frequencies was affecting trees and
plants’
.


It was found that trees and the ferns under the trees were affected by fungal blights ‘in areas where
high levels of an electric frequency were generated.’


The trials that JNL had done at the time of the article being written were having a signific
ant impact
on tree growth and tree health. The results have been so significant that Mr Drummond has been
quoted as saying ‘There is no doubt in my mind that frequency is having an impact on forest health
around the world’. He goes on to say that the cle
arest way to see the effect that frequency has on
forest health is to observe the pine trees underneath high
-
voltage transmission lines. He says that
‘the trees are going brown, have dead tops and dead branches, but it’s the ferns underneath as
well and e
ven the Manuka. It is something affecting the whole environment and it’s the electrical
field around them’. To help plant growth and health JNL have now begun to experiment with a
range of frequency normalising equipment in their trucks, at the electrica
l plant and in the forest.


Section 6.1.13 of
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary on Electric and Magnetic Fields
Effects recognises that the proposed CHWF will create electromagnetic fields and states that
‘Compliance with ICNIRP Guidelines will e
nsure there will be no risk to public health and safety
from electromagnetic fields and that overall the design of the CHWF will have no biological or
health effects from electromagnetic fields...’ We are not confident that the CHWF will have no
biologica
l or health effects on either one, two or more of the following
-

people, animals, the
environment and all of the living things within it


and so we feel that it is our moral obligation as
parents, family and community members and kaitiaki of this area to

oppose the establishment of
the CHWF.





21




The impact of the proposed CHWF on the Tinui River and its riparian environment and
on all water courses involved in the entire area of the proposal


In this last focus area of our report I speak with enormous pride as a proud descendent of Ngāti
Kahungunu, as a loyal kaitiaki within our community and as a concerned mother for the
opportunities that could be foregone for our children and all of our desc
endents should I not stand
up here today and oppose the plans of Genesis Energy to risk the health and wellbeing of our river
here, which is the Tinui river, by constructing the proposed CHWF.


I would also like to say that we dedicate the sentiments in
this report to all of the carers of
waterways and to the waterways themselves in the specific area and in the areas surrounding the
proposed CHWF. However, due to the time demands of this consent process we have only had
time to focus on the Tinui River,
which runs through our property, so we could tell a full story which
will have overriding themes for all tributaries and waterways in the area concerned with the
proposed CHWF.


T
o begin my korereo on the importance of our river environment and of the life within it I am going
to share the following whakatauki. Whakatauki are
sayings that reflect the thoughts, values and
advice of past generations:


He taura whiri kotahi mai ano
te kopunga tai no i te pu au.

From the source to the mouth of the sea all things are joined together as one.
21


This is the way I view the water system within, and surrounding, the proposed site of the CHWF. It
is all interconnecting and this theme of con
nections and relationships will be picked up on in
various parts of this focus area on waterways.


In my report I am going to provide an alternative view of the impact of the CHWF. I am going to
approach the kaupapa or the theme of the river and the role
that Genesis Energy sees it playing in
the proposed CHWF from the point of view of a fish where the process starts on the coast and
moves inward, just like the juvenile tuna kuwharuwharu, which is the Longfin eel, rather than
starting at the area of the pr
oposed CHWF and looking out to the West.


This cultural viewpoint is very relevant to our cultural linkages. Most importantly we want to
acknowledge my late sister Dr Lee Perry. Due to our natural upbringing where our parents always
taught us to apprecia
te the water, especially the ocean and our river and the eels and their life
cycles, Lee decided to study Marine Biology and became a Dr of Marine Biology the year that she
died.


In

the year before she died, when she was studying The Culture of the Bay
Lobster in Australia,
Lee

was offered a lucrative job opportunity offshore but she turned it down to come back to New
Zealand to work as a Post Graduate Fellow with NIWA in Auckland working on a project to rear
glass eels in saltwater. She also worked in
the Maori Development Unit.
The eel is very
symbolic
of
Lee’s

time on earth as she went away but returned back home, realising that her conservation
and scientific skills could greatly benefit her homeland and the people there.


The relevance of Lee to this report is set within a cultural context whereby my sister’s life and the
values she held in her desire to protect eel populations have enhanced our own desire to protect
and preserve the Tinui River and the life that it support
s as well as all of the water ways in the
proposed CHWF area.




22


Also of significance to this part of our report is the importance that was placed on the many lakes
and rivers and harbours that were important as highways and sources of food for our iwi.

As
pointed out in A Literature Review by Jacinta Ruru entitled ‘The Legal Voice of Maori in Freshwater
Governance’
23
, the traditional Maori world view describes ‘water as being the essence of life and
the lifeblood of
Papatūānuku’
, the land, ‘often
reflected in the use of the word ‘mauri (which can be
translated as life force’. Traditional Maori practices have recognised the various states of water
and also that fresh water is integral to our ‘cultural and personal identity and wellbeing


rivers an
d
lakes carry ancestral connections, identity and wairua for whanau, hapu and iwi.


In his oral interview my Grandad spoke of ‘the Maori people who used to come here, they used to
foster the whole area. They used to take stock from one area and move it to another.’ ‘They used
to come out to the coast and camp. Inland Maori would come o
ut to camp for two or three months
at a time under the karaka trees... In the old days there were Maori reserves all along the coast.
Traditional places for camping and fishing.’


When the juvenile fish would move up into the

rivers, other species such
as K
ahawai could be
easily caught because they follow the juveniles in for a feed. The Maori, my ancestors, would
target these inward moving juveniles as a food source in a time when fish were sustainably
abundant.


‘Maori studied eels intensively to de
termine life cycles, ages, habitat and migration patterns. This
knowledge helped them determine how many eels they could take for food before depleting
numbers to a dangerous level’ and ‘eeling would occur at special times of the month and year
according
to a range of environmental indicators e.g. lunar cycles.’
24



The cultural aspect of viewing the impact on our waterways from the perspective of a juvenile eel is
relevant to our whanau as my Grandad Jock Perry illustrates in an oral interview that was
conducted in around 2003 where he shared his thoughts in an investigation on marine protection
by the Department of Conservation in association with Rangit
ā
ne o Wairarapa and Ng
ā
ti
Kahungunu ki Wairarapa.
22


From the coast Grandad’s words bring us westwards and up into the
Whareama river. Grandad
recalls that his grandfather, John Alfred Perry,
used to be able to sail
from the sea right into the Whareama
River

where he would go right up to where the Whareama

hall is now because the water was that much higher than it is now.




23


J Rimene
reinforces Grandad’s knowledge of the cultural connection that our ancestors had with
the coast in his section for the 2001
Ngati Hamua Historical Education series
25

He states that
‘The
Whareama River is a mahinga mataitai or i
mportant food
-
gathering place’ and that ‘
With its
abundant food resources and excellent transportation, Maori have held a long association with the
Whareama River’. As well as inland Maori trave
lling to the coast to collect kai moana the same can
be said for coastal Maori having to source food from the hinterland in the off season.


In his cultural impact assessment of Genesis Energy’s Castle Hill Wind Farm Rawiri Smith, on
behalf of Kahungunu
Ki Wairarapa, states that there ‘were transport systems from coastal areas to
the interior valley’ where our tipuna would source food and walking tracks along the waterways
were established because waterways were not always navigable for tr
ade.
The rivers

were
invaluable to them in their migrations as they needed to be near a water source for food, water and
easier navigable walking.


In his Cultural Impact Assessment of Genesis Energy’s Castle Hill Wind Farm Rawiri Smith talks
about the concept of Taupahi status. He says that ‘Taupahi is a Wairarapa term for seasonal living
places and is equally apt when considering coastal places and

hinterland places...’ So while
section 6.1.9 of the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary states that no evidence has been
found relating to any sites of cultural significance being located within the CHWF site, this does not
preclude the fact that Mao
ri would have used walkways beside the network of waterways that are
within or connected to the proposed CHWF. While there may be no physical evidence of
significant walking tracks or to any sties of cultural significance within the CHWF site, the migrato
ry
lifestyle of our tipuna and their need for water would point to their presence in the area.


From the
culturally and historically valued Whareama river we continue the juvenile eels
movements
westwards to the Tinui River, which is the beautiful, life su
pporting river that runs
through our farm of Orere

and which is one of the waterways that is included in Genesis Energy’s
application for consent for the establishment and operation of the CHWF
. Genesis Energy have
applied to the Greater Wellington Region
al Council for Resou
rce Consent (Number 31331) for
A
Water Permit to authorise the take and use of up to 890 cubic metres per day of surface water f
rom
the Tinui River at Taipo for

the construction phase of the wind farm also
in Consent (Number
331332) for

A Discharge Permit to authorise the discharge of storm water that may contain
contaminants to land and surface water during the construction and operation of infrastructure and
facilities , associated with the proposed CHWF consent activities.

Genesis En
ergy have also
applied for consent approval, numbered 202
-
2011
-
59, from the Masterton District Council for land
use consent for the construction, operation, maintenance, replacement and refurbishment of the
CHWF and associated structures including concrete

batching plants.


We are strongly opposed to the proposition of
any

of these consents being granted in relation to
the protection of our healthy Tinui River that plays an important part in our life here in Tinui,
especially as somewhere our family can go

together to have family time in an environment where
there is a
n

atmosphere of cultural learning and appreciation of nature.

We are completely opposed
to the proposal of having a concrete batching plant down near the water r
emoval site at the Taipo
quarr
y as it will pose a risk to the Tinui River environment.


Ryder Consulting have recognised in the Castle Hill Wind Farm Development Aquatic Ecology
Assessment report that they prepared for Genesis Energy that Concrete Batching Plants present a
risk of co
ntaminants such as diesel, lubricants and sewage effluent for watercourses and that this
risk has the potential to harm aquatic life. As well as this it is recognised in the report that there is
also the risk that new pest species may be brought into the
area on the machinery that is brought
to the site.


In the August 2011 Forest and Bird magazine, issue number 341, there is an article entitled ‘Clean,
green and endangered’.
26

The article which was written by David Brooks highlights the fact that:
24


‘Our f
reshwater fish, birds and insects are paying a high price for our ill
-
treatment of the rivers and
lakes they live in’. He notes that ‘New Zealand’s rainfall is twice the global average but our
careless attitude to this bounty means freshwater species are
disappearing and many lowland
rivers are unsafe for swimming.’ Also that ‘Our freshwater animals are in at least as much danger
as our native birds but it has been a case of out of sight, out of mind for our 40 or so native fish
species, even though 80 pe
r cent are found nowhere else in the world’.

We don’t want to become
part of statistical evidence such as this and so we are opposing the establishment of a concrete
batching plant near our river and also the extraction of water to assist in the operation

of this
batching plant.



We do not agree with Section 6.1.6 of
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary that states
and I quote: ‘Baseline surveys of the watercourses in the vicinity of the CHWF site identified no
notable aquatic values being present aside from the presence of two threatened species
(Freshwater Crayfis
h and Longfin Eel). This reflects the predominantly agricultural land use in the
catchments, the general lack of riparian protection, and the steep and erosion
-
prone soft
-
sedimentary soils that dominate the site.’


The wording ‘no notable aquatic values

being present aside from the presence of two threatened
species (Freshwater Crayfish and Longfin eel) is in itself disrespectful. Surely the mere fact that
there are two threatened species that have been identified at the site should be the first thing t
o be
noted and secondly from what I can decipher from the evidence that Genesis Energy has gathered
from the Aquatic Ecology Assessment by Ryder Consulting Limited there have been the following
fresh water species detected in the Tinui River and tributarie
s to that river



Bully species

Longfin eel

Shortfin eel

Eel species

Inanga

Cran’s bully

It is wrong for people to say that the species in this list, other than the Freshwater Crayfish and
Longfin eel, are of no notable aquatic value.


Just as the
whakatauki at the start of this section recognises the importance of connections and
relationships in nature, and the way that every part of a natural system has an effect on the system
as a whole, we can say that if we disregarded all the species with no
notable aquatic value
,
according to Genesis Energy’s Aquatic Ecology Assessment,

then the life of the stream would be
altered forever and who can say what the impact of this would be on those species that are left
behind?


This list also misses an importan
t species that has been seen by our neighbour in the Tinui River.
A
Piharau or

Lamprey has been seen in these waters. This sighting is significant in terms of it
being a diadromous species that was an important food resource for Maori. Diadromous means
‘that they undertake obligatory, regular, and seasonally timed migrations between the sea and
fresh water to complete their life cycles’.
27



The impact of increased siltation as a result of all of the earthworks and construction of the
proposed CHWF is a
lso a big worry for us, especially in terms of destroying the habitats of
freshwater species. Freshwater species like to hide in crevices formed in the river bank and they
take refuge between rocks where they hide from predators and feel safe.




25


Sectio
n 4.2.5 of
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary on Earthworks and Excess Fill
tells us that ‘the maximum earthworks volume (cut) will be between 6.1 and 8.2 million m
3
,
depending on the selected turbine size and layout configuration. Some earthwork
s cut material will
be used for engineered fill and the remainder will be disposed of in excess fill areas on site. We
have
a proposed excess fill area

close to our farm boundary.



So we are most concerned about the effects that rains will have on the e
xtraction of silt from
construction sites and excess fill areas as well as from the vast areas of roadways that are to be
established both internally and externally for the movement of traffic and materials for the proposed
CHWF.


As stated in Section 4.
2.5 on Earthworks and Excess Fill in
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent
Summary, the Earthworks associated with upgrading one Over Weight/Over Dimension Route from
Alfredton to site alone is estimated to be in the order of 510,000m
3
cut to fill or waste.

When we
are talking about the size and scale of the proposed CHWF there are very real threats of ecological
problems associated with silt damaging the environments that our fresh water species currently
enjoy and thrive in.


Under Section 55.6.2, page 2
48, of The Genesis Energy


Castle Hill Wind Farm Assessment of
Environmental Effects, Genesis Energy states that ‘Watercourses within the CHWF already
experience naturally high sediment levels due to agricultural land use, and the steep and erosion
prone,

soft
-
sedimentary land type. Existing aquatic communities are therefore expected to be
somewhat resilient to sediment influx.’ This statement is flawed. Sure the species that live here
would be used to sediment in the water due to the nature of the soil
s and the environment here in
the Tinui district, however just because the species are used to sediment in the water this doesn’t
give any of us the right to expect the species to be able to cope with more sediment influx. Just
because something is not op
erating to its greatest potential this doesn’t give anyone the right to
just keep contributing to the problem and surely where natural environments and habitats are
concerned this should be even more of a concern
. T
he river system is a series of interconn
ecting
influences and species and if one influence or species is affected negatively this problem is passed
through the system and any number of negative results could occur.


We are unhappy with the statement mentioned earlier in this section of our rep
ort, which can be
found in by Genesis Energy in their application for resource consent and this can be found in
Section 6.1.6 of
the
Genesis Energy Resource Consent Summary where it is declared that there is
a general lack of care for the riparian environm
ent. This couldn’t be further from the truth when I
consider our care for the riparian environment and that of some of our very good friends and
neighbours in this area. This comment is insulting.


We have implemented a Farm sustainability plan with th
e Greater Wellington Regional Council in
an effort to try to reduce sediment loads in our wat
erways. We plant poplar poles,
to try to avoid
erosion. We use
environment friendly

fertiliser to prevent toxic run
-
off into the waterways and we
said no a year
or two ago when one of the councils rang up asking if they could spray the willows
on the part of the Tinui River that runs through our farm to avoid spray from getting into the river.
We spend time and considerable amounts of money caring for the riparia
n environment and so we
disagree with this statement by Genesis.


Part 2, Section 7 (aa) of the R
esource Management Act requires Genesis Energy to

have particular
regard to the ethic of stewardship. By making generalised statements like the one above wh
ere it
is suggested that there is a general lack of care of the riparian environment Genesis Energy is
disrespecting the time, energy and substantial financial inputs we put in, in the ethic of stewardship
towards the riparian environment here in Tinui.




26


We oppose Genesis Energy’s application for Consent (Number 331332) for ‘A Discharge Permit to
authorise the discharge of stormwater that may contain contaminants to land and surface water
during the construction and operation of infrastructure and faci
lities , associated with the CHWF
consent activities.’


Under Section 5.6.2, page 249, of The Genesis Energy


Castle Hill Wind Farm Assessment of
Environmental Effects, Genesis recognises that ‘Construction machinery, ablution facilities for
personnel,

pavement binder compounds and discharges from Concrete Batching Plants can result
in accidental spills or leakages of contaminants (e.g. diesel, lubricants and sewage effluent)
entering watercourses, with the potential to harm aquatic life. The concrete
batching plant that is
proposed for the Tinui Taipos is near the
proposed water take p
oint located at the Tinui River and
so any contamination from here could have disastrous affects for the Tinui River and for the life
cycles that it supports.


From our own observances and active protection of our river and the riparian environment we can
say that the Tinui River is a very healthy river.


Our children set the hinaki last Christmas holidays to see how the eel population was faring and in
one nig
ht they caught 57 eels. These were released and gave us hope that our efforts in the Tinui
River are contributing to the growth of eel numbers in the area.


The Tinui River is special because it is not far from
the ocean
. This means that species such a
s
eels have a reaso
nably short route to swim up to

mature before they swim the 6,000 kilometre
journey ‘to deep warm trenches, possibly off the Tongan coast where each eel lays or fertilises
eggs.
28

All the adults then die.’ So its distance from the sea
is a real factor in giving evidence to its
status of significance
,

and also it’s healthy status due to its current lack of habitat destruction,
migration barriers and pollution. One, some or all of these factors are currently causing pollution in
extremel
y important waterways in New Zealand including the Wairarapa’s own Ruamahanga river.


From our river
, the Tinui River,

we take the journey up all the creeks, streams and other tributaries
within the farmland of the proposed CHWF and surrounding farmland.

These springs and
headwaters are considered to be sacred places

to our iwi
,
to be

Tapu, because they are the
starting points of waterways that feed all other waterways in the land.




Maori give these headwaters such significant status because they are
likened to the breaking of
waters at birth. Maori say Tuatahi ko te wai, tuarua whanau mai te tamaiti, ka puta ko te whenua.
‘When a child is born the water comes first, then the child, followed by the afterbirth (whenua)’.
29

It
is of vital cultural significance to us that the headwaters of our ancestral lands that flow from the
area of the proposed CHWF into our rivers that in turn flow out to sea in an interconnected way are
not tampered with in any way. The extent of the
proposed CHWF poses significant cultural
concerns for us where the matter of water and the mauri or life force of water are concerned.


Part 2 Section 6a of The Resource Management Act 1991 on Matters of National Importance
requires Genesis Energy to recog
nise and provide for the preservation of the natural character of
rivers and their margins and to protect them from inappropriate use and development and in
Section 6e to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions
with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.




27


Furthermore, Part 2 Section 7 of The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Genesis Energy, in
relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical reso
urces to
have particular regard to:


(a) Kaitiakitanga

(aa)

the ethic of stewardship

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources

(d) intrinsic values of ecosystems

(f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environmen
t

(g)

any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources.


On a glossary sheet produced by Te Kahui Mangai
30



the Directory of Iwi and Maori organisations


it is recognised that ‘in relation to
a
resourc
e’, such as our waterways which are
resources for all
of the life that they support and also a resource for our children’s and everyone’s learning about our
environment, ‘
kaitiakitanga

includes the ethic of stewardship based on the nature of the resource
itself.’ So in this way our family e
xercises the ethic of stewardship over our waterways and as
stewards of this special resource we oppose Genesis Energy’s application for resource consent for
the CHWF.


If Genesis Energy understood the
true
cultural value that we place o
n
the

Tinui river
and indeed all
of the head waters, tributaries and waterways of the proposed CHWF then they would see that
their proposed use and development in this proposed project is inappropriate and more specifically
that it places the river eco
-
system and the ripari
an environment of the
currently healthy
Tinui river
under unnecessary stresses and in a position of unnecessary risk.



Section 5 (2)(c) of the Resource Management Act requires that in order to promote the sustainable
management of natural and physical resources Genesis Energy needs to manage the use,
development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, o
r at a rate, which enables
people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well
-
being and for their
health and safety while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the
environment.


Where the Tin
ui River is concerned we find it incomprehensible to think about any adverse effects
as a result of Genesis Energy
’s
activities i
n the
aquatic
environment
for

the proposed CHWF.

We
understand from Ruth Goldsmith’s primary evidence for Genesis Energy’s Aqu
atic Ecology
Assessment that Genesis Energy has put measures in place to avoid significant adverse effects of
wind farm construction
and

operation activities on aquatic communities
,

like for example it has
been suggested that
through
the development and im
plementation of an appropriate

Supplementary Environmental Management Plan, the risk of accidental contaminant spills will be
managed appropriately, remedied and mitigated, and any resulting effects on aquatic communities
will be minimised.


We don’t acc
ept any risk to the environment of our river and we feel very strongly for all of the
waterways being considered for use or development by Genesis Energy for the proposed CHWF.
We don’t think that the health of the Tinui River should be risked for anythin
g and no amount of
remedying or mitigating will be acceptable to us

where our river is concerned
.


We feel that through our approach of working through our evidence on the significance of The Tinui
River and of all waterways within the CHWF from the persp
ective of a juvenile eel working our way
from the coast to the rivers and interconnecting river systems all the way up through the streams to
the headwaters of the rivers that are proposed to be used for water for the proposed CHWF has
been relevant to Sec
tions 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act 1991.



28


Because of the significance of the species in the Tinui River we believe that any backward steps
such as water extraction affecting water and species flows and also water temperatures, the
possibility
of contamination and the effects of siltation from major earthworks is not going to be
good for the life that the river supports. We want to avoid any risks that could cause significant
pollution in the Tinui River and to all waterways within the proposed

CHWF because clean water is
essential for life and for supporting healthy life systems. On the basis of all this evidence on our
focus area of waterways we oppose the Genesis Energy Application for consent

for the proposed
CHWF
.



29





Our Right To Have A
Different Point Of View To Another Group or Other GroupsThat
We Are Affiliated To


I have had meetings with Rawiri Smith of Ngāti Kahungunu and also a meeting with Horipo Rimene
of Rangit
ā
ne
regarding the impact
s

of the proposed CHWF on our family and our community. I
thank them for giving up their time to meet with me to discuss issues of importance surrounding the
proposed CHWF project. I am of the understanding that both iwi groups have or will be presenting
their own reports at this submission hearing. I am also of the understanding that my views and the
position our whanau have taken in this matter may not necessarily match those of the
representatives of my iwi, Ngāti Kahungunu, on all matters in regard to

this submission hearing for
the proposed CHWF.

I refer to case law and to the specific case of ‘Waiareka Valley Preservation Society Inc v Waitaki
District Council and Others (C84/2008).
31

‘This case relates to the eligibility of the Waitaha Trust to
b
e a s274 party to a proceeding.

The applicant argued that it had consulted with the proper representatives of the Tāngata Whenua,
in this case Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and so the Waitaha Trust could neither have an interest
greater than the public generall
y, nor represent a relevant aspect of the public interest in this
proceeding. The Court held that while Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu may be widely recognised as
representing and being able to consult on behalf of all Ngai Tahu whānui, this did not preclude an
i
ndividual hapu or member from appearing in the Environment Court. The Court also held that
there can be more than one voice representing relevant aspects of the public interest and those
voices may dissent from one another.

This case is relevant because
just as the Waitaha Trust had its own view of the impact that the
decisions and actions of the Waitaki District Council and Others were going to have and just as this
view may have been different from the voice of the representatives of the Tāngata Whenua

of the
area (Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu) our whanau has our own view of the Genesis Energy application
for resource consent
and our views

‘may’ differ in part or whole from the voice of the
representatives of our iwi


Ngāti Kahungunu. However, the court rul
ing in this case validates our
position as Tāngata Whenua of this land in the area of the proposed CHWF and our right to have
our own whānau view of whether we approve/oppose or remain neutral on Genesis Energy’s
application for resource consent for the pr
oposed CHWF.




30




Summary



In summary my parents Ian and Helen Perry along with Bruce and myself have given great thought
to the proposal of the CHWF. I have spent many hours researching the literature surrounding the
proposal to build a large wind farm
with up to 286 windmills in the Tinui and wider CHWF area.


The extent of my research is evidenced by the existence of this box of information that I have
complied to ensure that we are suitably informed of the impact of the CHWF on our family, our
communi
ty and our nation as a whole.


I
compiled a questionnaire and sent it out to whanau members on our e
-
mail, albeit quickly
.
These
replies show the sup
port we have from our wider whanau.
All of the signatures on the

informal
questionnaires
that were retu
rned to us
represent opposition to the Genesis Energy application for
resource consent for the CHWF. Other family members sent messages of support and for all of
this communication
we are

very grateful.


As an example of the support that I received during

the research phase of this process I make
particular mention of my cousin Gemma Pearson and her response to my questionnaire. Gemma
is 26 years old and is a descendent of Ngāti Kahungunu. In the comment section of her reply
Gemma states the following:


My whānau has been in the Tinui district since the 1800s. The land has provided my ancestors
with a self sufficient lifestyle. I believe the develo
pment of the proposed wind farm

will have a
detrimental effect on the environment and the people living wit
hin the community, therefore I
oppose the consent put forward by Genesis Energy. The environment in particular is an important
aspect of concern as there will be a significant amount of damage to the natural resources of our
land. The land within the Tin
ui district has a special place in the hearts/wairua of my whanau. My
grandfather Jock Perry grew up in this district and farmed here for many years and now he rests
within the land of Tinui Valley. I therefore feel a strong link towards the land here an
d would be
saddened to see the environment ruined by industrial activity and the ongoing effects the windmills
will have on our wairua.‘
3
2



Gemma
gave

further evidence to the concept of wairua and how it relates to her feelings for the
land within and surrounding the proposed CHWF by attaching
a

poem written by Heather Delamere
Thomson to her reply
. I record a section of the poem here because it is of
relevance to our report
as it

summarises the concept of wairua and it’s meaning for us in relation to the wairua of our
ancestors within our farm and the proposed site of the CHWF

:






31


Wairua


“Koro, what is wairua?”

the child asked, eyes wide.

Wairua, m
y moko is what gives us life,

Handed down to us from a time past.

At the moment of your beginning,

You shared with me the wairua of our Tīpuna;

For I am your link with the past,

You are my place in the future.

The aroha of the whānau has wairua.

And their
words, their laughter, their tears,

The marae, tangi, waiata and whakapapa,

Have a wairua that strengthens us, gives us pride.

The soft summer rain, the raging storm,

The song of the birds in the trees,

The waves on the beach,

The mist rising from the bush
,

The moonlight on the water,

And the embracing darkness of the night.

To sit quietly in the wharenui or the urupā,

And feel the presence of your tīpuna is to feel wairua

33
.


My Auntie Jillian Perry, who is a nurse here in the Wairarapa, summed up her fe
elings on the
proposed Castle Hill Wind Farm and the impacts of such a project when she sent her questionnaire
back with the following comment:

‘Being bought up at Orere, Tanawa Road, Tinui, I have a very spiritual link with the land and rivers
in this are
a. As a child I would roam over this land and spent many days eelin
g in the rivers. My
father’s as
hes are part of this very special landscape and it is my wish that this area remains as
untouched as possible for future generations to enjoy and feel the s
anctity of their tipuna.’
3
4



I thank Gemma and Auntie Jilly for sharing their honest comments on their spiritual links to this
area of Tinui, which would be a part of, and impacted by, the construction and operation of the
proposed Castle Hill Wind Farm.



Gemma and my Auntie Jilly’s

contribution to this report gives evidence to the point that our farm
Orere and the area within the proposed CHWF is steeped in the history of our whānau and is
culturally important to our whanau especially because of the w
airua of our ancestors that exists
here, not only within its legally binding boundaries but also across the land in the wider Tinui
community and in the area of the proposed CHWF.



Part 2
Section 6e and 6f

of the Resource Management Act 1991
, along with
the enduring principles
of the Treaty of Waitangi,

require Genesis Energy to recognise and provide for the relationship of
Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands and water, and
also to protect
historical heritage, like our family
’s heritage in terms of the close association it has had with the
waterways that

flow in and around the proposed CHWF from
inappropriate use and development.




We consider ourselves to be reasonable people who are open
-
minded about progress, however,
w
e hold the health and wellbeing of our community and our environment here in Tinui, and indeed
the health and wellbeing of the community and the environment in the wider proposed CHWF area
to be of paramount importance. Our research in this area has shown

that in order to be consistent
in our morals and in our roles as Tangata Whenua and kaitiaki of this land we have to continue to
express our strong opposition to the proposed CHWF.


32


We hear comments about wind farms from people of reputable positions in s
ociety like The Duke of
Edinburgh whose stance on windmills was commented on by John Barnett and Jane Clifton in Part
2 of their afternoon programme on Radio New Zealand: National
3
5
that was aired on Monday 21
st

November 2011 and they make us query the mar
keted image of wind farms as being clean and
green.


The Duke of Edinburgh, who has

devoted himself to raising public awareness of the relationship of
humanity with the environment

36

is very critical about the impact of windmills and he says ‘they are
an absolute disgrace’ and that ‘he will never allow his land to be used for turbines...’ .


The interview continues with comments from the Trust Power Community Relations Spokesman


G
raeme Purches.
37

Though

Graeme Purches supports wind farms he does acknowledge that
some of the comments The Duke of Edinburgh makes around noise is true. He says that in New
Zealand there are wind farms that have noise issues. With specific reference to one case Graeme
Purche
s says that TrustPower went to the company concerned when they stipulated a particular
turbine in their resource consent application, he goes on to say ‘...we went and said hey guys don’t
do that, you’ll have noise issues and they said no, no, no we’ll be
right. Well they have had noise
issues so it was all pretty predictable really.’


Graeme Purches also talks about wind farms like the one at Makara, (commonly referred to as
‘Makra’


(phonetically)
. At Makara there is undulating terrain which means th
at the wind comes
from all different directions and this can create a number of effects. The most significant of these
,

Graeme Purches says
,

is that the turbines break. Also, he states that ‘it is on public record now
that some of the turbines at Makara
have suffered four and a half years of wear and tear in two
years.’ He says that this can get extremely expensive.


With this in mind we question the suitability of the hill country in the proposed CHWF as a suitable
place to build a wind farm, with its

hilly terrain and super strong winds. We also question the
environmental rationale behind such a proposed wind farm where the effects on the wind mills at
Makara may serve as an illustration of what might happen to the wind mills in the proposed CHWF.


The repairs and replacement of wind mills and their components would in themselves place ex
tra
pressure on our environment. All
of the extras that these repairs and replacements would entail
such as increased travel by service people, increased productio
n of parts, the possible
contamination of the surrounding land from things like machinery oil from the broken turbines and
the list goes on. We are not convinced that this form of energy meets its marketed impression of
being a green technology. We think

that the environmental and community effects that are caused
by the windmills actually make them environmentally and socially un
-
friendly.


Just as our ancestors gave us the life blood to become proud members of Ngāti Kahungunu and of
our own whānau and o
f the Tinui Community, the events of the past have given Te Whenua (the
land), and Te Wai and Te Awa (the water and the river) that lead out to Te Moana (the sea) their
mauri, their own life forces. It is this mauri that we seek to respect and preserve in

our opposition
to Genesis Energy’s application for consent for the proposed CHWF.


Our stance of opposition to the proposed CHWF is our sign of respect for the significant cultural
sites and stories contained in our report and we would be prepared to cont
inue on this journey of
opposing Genesis Energy’s application for resource consent for the proposed CHWF.

On behalf of my parents Ian and Helen Perry, Bruce and myself I thank you very much for listening
and for giving your time to be here today.


Kia ora
koutou, Kia ora koutou katoa.




33


Full Names:

Vicki Ann Didsbury

Bruce Tony Didsbury

Helen Ann Perry

Ian Noel Perry


Dated:
5
th

day of December 2011





34


References


1.
&

24.

&

28.

Potangaroa, J. (2010).
Tuna Kuwharuwharu: The Longfin Eel
. New Zealand

2.



Castlepoint, Wairarapa


early settlers
. Retrieved from








www.familytreecircles.com/castlepoint
-
wairarapa
-
early
-
settlers
-
34966.html

3.



Wallas, J.H. Early NZ Settlers. Retreived from
www.shadowsoftime.co.nz/settlers

.html.

4.
&

22.



Department of Conservation. (2003)
Nga Whakamaramatanga o te Moana
. Retrieved from




www.marinenz.org.nz/.../DoC_2001_Oral_History_of_Kaumatua

5.
&
7.



Ford, G. (January 9, 2008).
Wairarapa Times Age:Perry clan farewells patriarch
.Wairarapa



6.



Auckland War Memorial Muse
um Cenotaph Database. Retrieved from






muse.aucklandmuseum.com/databases/Cenotaph/52881.detail

7.



As per 5 above.

8.



(2011).
Make New Zealand Home: Hawkes Bay
. Retrieved from







www.makenewzealandhome.com/content.asp?pageid=112

9.



Ngāti Kahu
ngunu Iwi Incorporated: Home Page & The Map of the Rohe
. New Zealand. Retrieved from



www.kahungunu.iwi.nz/index2.html

10.



Whaanga, M. Ngāti
Kahungunu, Te Ara


the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 2
-
Sep
-
11
. Retrieved



from
www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/ngati
-
kahungunu/1/1

11.



Waitangi Tribunal (2011).
Waitangi Tribunal:Principles of the Treaty
. Retreived from





www.waitangi
-
tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/principles.asp

12.




Greenhill, M. (2011).
The Press: Wind
-
turbine project splits

rural neighbours.

Retrieved from





stuff.co.nz/the
-
press/news/.../Wind
-
turbine
-
project
-
splits
-
rural
-
neighbours

13.



Crawford, J.C.(1863).
New Zealand Electronic Text Centre:Geological and Other Reports.






Retrieved from
www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei
-
CraGeoR
-
t1
-
g1
-
t2
-
body
-
d6.html

14.



Tinui ANZAC day pamphlet
: Information may be retrieved from
www.tinui.co.nz

15.




Billings, B
.P.
Sound Health:Feeling The Music Can Be Dangerous To Your Health
. Retrieved from




www.omnisonic.com/bbillings.html

16.
& 19.



Parliament of Australia:Senate.
The Social and Economic Impact Of R
ural Wind Farms
. Retrieved from




http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/index.htm


17.



Pierpont, N. MD, PhD. (2009).
Wind Turbine Syndrome:A Report on a Natural Experiment
. United




States:Quality Books, Inc.

18.



Lehrere, J.F.MD. (2008).
Wind Turbine Syndrome:A Report on a Natural Experiment
-

Referee Report
.



United States:Quality Books, Inc.

19.



As per 16 above
.

20.



Rishworth, S. (2011).
The Gisborne Herald:Alternative Thinking on Fireblight
. Retrieved from




www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=21438



21.
& 29
.



Ministry for the Environment.
Environmental stewardship for a prosperous New Zealand: Whakatau
k
ī
.



Retrieved
from
www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/wpoa
-
hui
-
report
-
jul05/html/page1.html

22.



As per 4 above.

23.



Ruru, J. (2009).
The Legal Voice of M
aori in Freshwater Governance: A Literature Review.
New




Zealand:Landcare

Research New Zealand Ltd.

24.



As per 1 above.

25.



Rimene, J. (2001). : Whareama. Retrieved from Ngāti Hāmua Historical Education Sheets:Whareama.



Retrieved
from
http://www.rangitane.iwi.nz/education/index.php/history/ngti
-
hmua
-
history
-
education
-
sheets

26.



Brooks, D. (2011).
Forest & Bird: Clean, green and endangered
.. New Zealand:Issue 341, August 2011

27.



Richardson, J., McDowall, R., & Taoho Patuawa.
Diadromous Freshwater Fishes


Treasures of the Sea
.



Retrieved
from www.treasuresofthe sea.org.nz/diadromous
-
freshwater
-
fishes

28.



As per 1 above.

29.



As per
21 above.

30.



Te Kāhui Māngai: Directory of Iwi and Maroi Organisations.
Glossary
. Retrieved from





www.tkm.govt.nz/glossary/

3
1
.



Richmond, T. & Leggett, M. (2004). Facilitating
Consultation with Tangata Whenua:Case

Law
. Retrieved



from

http://www.qp.org.nz/plan
-
development/consultation/consult
-
tangata
-
whenua.php

3
2
.



Pearson, G. (2011).
Response to questionnaire for proposed Genesis Energy Castle Hill

Wind Farm
.



Wairarapa

3
3
.



Delamere Thomson, H. (2009)
Wairua
. Retrieved from




http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2010/01/14/TeAraPoutama.pdf

3
4
.



Perry, J. (2011).
Response to questionnaire for proposed Genesis Energy Castle Hill

Wind Farm
.



Wairarapa

3
5
.

& 3
7
.



Clifton, J. & Barnett, J. (2011).
Audio from Radio New Zealand Afternoons:The

Panel with Jane Clifton



and John
Barnett Part 2


Interview with Graeme Purches.

Retrieved from




http://www.radionz.co.nz/nati
onal/programmes/afternoons/20111121

3
6
.



The Current Royal Family: Public work
. Retrieved from








www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/.../Publicwork.aspx

35


37.



As per number 35 above