News
This continued during the sixth day of the hearing at Tuakau yesterday, when Contact witness Chris James the "lead wind farm civil designer" and a Beca-employed consultant, according to his evidence-in-chief copped a verbal mauling from the commissioners.
They even went as far as to question Mr James' credentials and qualifications to be giving evidence on civil engineering matters for the Hauauru ma raki west coast project.
Chairman Judge Jeffrey Smith was particularly pointed with his comments, as he took issue with the perceived uncertainty created by the lack of detail in Contact's evidence.
"You might end up with a Clayton's consent one you can't do anything with," he warned Mr James.
The commissioners further expressed their displeasure after learning that Mr James is not a qualified civil engineer. He was providing expert evidence on earthworks, roading and soil disposal, which are all essentially civil engineering matters.
About 106 kilometres of roads need to be built for the project, with 47 hectares put aside for soil disposal.
Commissioner John Lumsden, a civil engineer, said he found it difficult to rely on such evidence when certainty was required around the likely effects of the project.
Commissioner Diane Menzies was more scathing. "I still can't understand how a firm like Beca thinks it is appropriate for a $1 billion project that advice from a qualified civil engineer is not needed."
Contact is seeking consent on the basis of vague preliminary designs, with flexibility to make changes as the project evolves.
But Dr Menzies criticised Contact's assumption that the imposition of consent conditions would solve any problems, and that they could be sorted out later with interested parties such as district and regional councils.
"Did you consider the board are interested parties?" she asked.
"Yes," Mr James replied.
"Then the details are needed at this stage," she said.
Mr James said final designs were difficult to achieve "at this point in time", and that many decisions would need to be made on site.
Judge Smith also lamented the dearth of accurate and detailed engineering evidence. "At the end of the day, when it comes to the final design, you are asking the board to leave it to you. The question of what is reasonable and appropriate is vital under the RMA. The difficulty is there is no power to delegate that decision-making power to you or anybody."
Judge Smith said there were "credibility issues" about aspects of Contact's evidence on earthworks and roading, and Contact appeared to be relying heavily on council information and devolving responsibility to council officials for many civil engineering aspects of the project design.
"You might have a $1 billion design swinging on one council employee who has had a bad coffee that morning."
Mr James said he stood by his evidence that Contact's philosophy was to ensure that it had a full understanding of the project's potential adverse effects in order to be able to make properly informed decisions on appropriate design.
Perhaps the most telling question of the day came from Mr Lumsden. "Do turbines require a power supply to operate?"
"I am not sure," Mr James replied.
Mr James also struggled to answer a question from Commissioner Gina Rangi, who wanted to know who the wind farm project team leader was. Mr James said he was "not sure", and that it was a question better addressed to a Contact employee.
| < prev | next > |