Contact to fight wind farm decision 

Contact Energy is vowing to fight on – even if it means spending another $10 million – to get its rejected wind farm over the line.

On Tuesday, Contact Energy announced an independent panel had rejected its application for fasttrack consent for the $1 billion Southland Wind Farm project.

Among the concerns the panel cited in rejecting the proposal was the possibility native bats could be killed by flying into the turbine blades.

The 55-turbine wind farm, on a remote but prominent range of hills near Wyndham, was expected to create up to 240 jobs during construction, and [generate power equivalent to the average load of] 150,000 homes when operational. Yesterday, Contact chief executive Mike Fuge said the company was “determined to get the project off the ground”, and was prepared to spend significantly to do so.

“[We’re] gutted. Let’s be clear: we would not have entered into this process and spent $20m [on development], if we did not have a high degree of confidence this was a good project with good economic credentials, that was the right thing for the country and the environment.

“We’re not going to take this lying down. We’re determined to get this project off the ground and see good prevail, even if that means spending another $10m.” Contact can appeal the panel’s decision to the High Court within 15 working days, on points of law only.

Mr Fuge said Contact had been “blindsided” by the decision, based on “local environmental effects”.

Explaining its decision, the consenting panel said it was not satisfied [that] adverse effects on indigenous plants and animals – including the critically endangered New Zealand longtailed bat – could be “properly mitigated” during and after the project.

Mr Fuge questioned whether the panel had taken reasonable account of Contact’s planned environmental mitigation, and expert opinion.

“The net effect on the local environment would have been overwhelmingly positive [and] over a million tonnes of carbon discharge a year saved [versus coal]. We believe, in time, the law will be correctly read, the facts correctly digested and goodwill prevail.”

Forest & Bird, which had raised concerns with the panel about potential batstrike from turbine blades, said it was “pleased” with the decision.

The group had highlighted the possibility of bats crossing turbine paths during foraging flights, based on preliminary evidence, but said mitigation was possible.

“There [were]] insufficient data provided to be able to adequately assess what the development’s effects would be on [bats],” a spokeswoman said yesterday. “Not all the turbines were shown to be visited by bats in the data collected and, in fact, only a few had bat interactions. If that is in fact the case after more data is collected, then the few turbines potentially affecting bats could be moved [or not included in the development] or have more intensive curtailment regimes applied to them.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, whose party passed the fasttrack legislation which created the independent panel process to consider consent applications, said he had not had a chance to read the decision.

Protecting biodiversity was important, but there might be some way in which the applicants could mitigate the panel’s concerns, he said.

“We don’t want to be killing off whole species of life in the country because . . . that’s important, but we also want more wind farms to be built.

“Were I the prime minister right now, I would want to see someone going through, literally line by line, what were the reasons for turning it down? And are there ways that government can help to get through that so that we can actually get these types of projects built?”

Among others opposed to the project, local landowners’ group the West Catlins Preservation Society had also been vocal regarding potential environmental and visual impacts.

Society spokesman Dean Rabbidge said the group was cautiously happy about the decision.

“We’re not getting too excited just yet, as who knows what might still happen in court.

“But this is an outstanding natural landscape that needs to be preserved, and it’s not right that a multinational corporate could just come in and undo the fantastic environmental work done by landowners over decades.