Visual effects of turbines 'slight'

Combined visual effects of the Mahinerangi wind farm and the proposed Project Hayes wind farm would be slight, an Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed $2 billion Project Hayes development was told in Queenstown yesterday.

•  Lack of side benefits cited

Christchurch landscape architect Peter Rough was called by Meridian to give evidence on the cumulative visual effects of both wind farms, which would be situated about 20km apart if constructed.

Approval has already been granted for the Mahinerangi project to the east.

He said the addition of Mahinerangi's 100-odd turbines would not make much difference to the views surrounding Project Hayes.

"The two wind farms will give rise to cumulative visual effects. The cumulative visual effects [whether they be combined, succession, or sequential], will range from being negligible to moderate, but overall it is my opinion that they will be slight and not unacceptable," his written evidence stated.

Mr Rough said all landscapes had an amenity value, and a developed landscape comprising man-made features could have a high amenity value to some people.

"People's impressions of wind farms can be completely different - some will dislike them and others won't mind them at all," he said.

Project Hayes would have up to 176 turbines, each up to 160m tall, as well as five substations connected by an underground power transmission network, and 150km of upgraded or new access roads. It would cover a 92 sq km section of land on the Lammermoor Range in Central Otago.

Mr Rough said views of the area would be mainly rural despite the developments.

"The wind farms will not adversely affect the overall landscape to the extent that its fundamental rural character will be lost, destroyed, or unacceptably altered. The landscape will become a mix of energy production and rural, with farming continuing up to and around the turbines, and the lie of the land still visible," he said.

Mr Rough said when viewed from Project Hayes, Mahinerangi turbines would be relatively small objects, in a tight cluster occupying a small part of a 360 degrees view.

Turbines would be the only features of both wind farms seen at the same time, as roading and substations could not be seen from distances which allowed the sight of both developments.

When cross-examined by appellant counsel Mike Holm, Mr Rough admitted he had not specifically considered the cumulative effects both wind farms would have on the landscape, other than visually.

"So out of sight is out of mind in that context."

He asked Mr Rough to explain what he meant when he wrote that turbines would "express natural features".

"Generally, wind farms are carefully designed and turbines are located on ridgelines and spurs, which therefore reflects or expresses the typography", Mr Rough said.

When questioned by appellant Ewan Carr about the visibility of roading, Mr Rough said the Project Hayes site was relatively flat, so "harsh cuts" would not need to be made during road construction.

"Most of the roading on the Project Hayes site is in what I would call a fairly benign topography, in comparison to Rough Ridge, for example. I would expect there to be much more significant and rougher cuts made on steeper land than the fairly gentle sloping topography of Project Hayes.

"It's going to be very thin slivers of road that may not be seen because of the height of grass", Mr Rough said.