Santana called for the accelerated timeline in a written response to the fast-track panel convenor, who had sought the company’s views earlier this month on a timeframe of up to 120 days working days to make a decision.
Convenor Jane Borthwick, a retired environment court judge, had explained that her thoughts on the required timescale were due to the ‘‘scale, nature and complexity’’ of Santana’s application.
However, in its response to Ms Borthwick, Santana had said its application needed less time due to the ‘‘robustness of the application’’ and due to continuing to engage with regulators to ‘‘minimise the contentious matters requiring determination’’.
Environmental Defence Society chief operating officer and resource management lawyer Shay Schlaepfer, said: ‘‘Santana’s suggestion that the expert panel will only need 30 days to decide its consent is an astounding display of arrogance.
‘‘The application has dubious benefits and the potential for serious environmental impacts. Close scrutiny of it will be critical. Even 90 days won’t cut it.’’
Sustainable Tarras deputy chair Rob van der Mark said he thought Santana’s call for a shorter timeframe ‘‘confirms the clear intent of Santana which is to avoid any careful analysis of their plans, ride roughshod over and lock out the local community and do as they please in a precious Central Otago natural environment that has a conservation covenant in place to protect
its values.’’
In his group’s view, the Santana proposal should not be heard through a fast track process and an initial analysis of the Santana application had shown ‘‘considerable gaps’’ with environmental impacts significantly underestimated and economic benefits ‘‘hugely overstated’’.
‘‘For Santana to request a 30-day evaluation is an insult to any qualified and respected panel, significantly increases reputational risk to anyone nominating themselves for this role and risks a monumental environmental and safety disaster for our local community.’’
Amendments to the fast track rules, in the Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024, were pushed through parliament earlier this month.
The amendments restricted the time limit for panel decisions to 90 working days after it received comments on the application, but with an ability to extend further.
Before the amendments, the rules had said that the time frame should be determined by a panel convenor with consideration of factors including scale, nature and complexity of the application.
If no time frame was set by the convenor, the pre-amendment rules had required the decision to be reached within 30 working days.
In a response to the Otago Daily Times, Santana chief executive Damian Spring said his firm’s application was ‘‘deliberately comprehensive, with more than 9,400 pages of technical, environmental and engineering evidence provided so the panel has the information it needs to assess the proposal efficiently, not as a basis to extend the process.’’
New Zealand Minerals Council chief executive Josie Vidal said that, regarding decision-making time frames, ‘‘it is entirely up to the panel and the applicant to work within the parameters of the law.’’
She said it was ‘‘great’’ to see the approval this week of the fast-track application for an extension of the Waihi mine in Hauraki District.
The Waihi North application had taken 112 working days to be heard and resources minister Shane Jones had commented, on its approval, that under a normal consenting process it would have taken more than five years.
