Santana Minerals had asked for a decision within 30 working days, later amending its request to 60 days, but fast-track panel convener Judge Jane Borthwick said, in a memo released yesterday, the project needed more time.
The project was ‘‘substantial in scale and technically complex’’, she said.
A decision would require 140 working days and would be made on October 29, she said.
‘‘Factual complexity will arise because some matters fall within the jurisdiction of multiple regulatory agencies. The application will likely raise novel legal issues,’’ she said.
A panel of seven specialists will convene on February 25. A decision about who will be invited to comment will be made by March 11.
Comments would be due by April 17.
Judge Borthwick said Santana’s application was ‘‘more complex’’ than the most comparable fast-track case — OceanaGold’s application for an extension of the Waihi mine — and therefore required a longer time frame.
The Waihi extension was approved after 112 working days.
Judge Borthwick said 60 working days was
‘‘insufficient given the scale, nature and complexity of the approvals sought and matters arising’’.
She stressed in the memo that she had spoken before about the need to ‘‘front-load the process’’.
By the time of last month’s convener’s conference, it was ‘‘usual’’ that any gaps in information or questions from invited participants have been ‘‘identified and addressed’’.
However, in this case, a copy of Santana’s draft application had not been provided to the invited participants before it was lodged at the end of last October, which had created ‘‘challenges’’, such as
the regional and district authorities — Otago Regional Council and Central Otago District Council — needing time to find external specialists prior to the conference happening, during a period that also included Christmas.
There were ‘‘outstanding information requests’’ and ‘‘narrowing or resolution of issues had yet to occur’’.
Kā Rūnaka — another statutory participant in the process — had flagged a view that Santana had failed to provide required technical reports or consult it in ways that enabled consultation prior to lodging of the firm’s application for fast-track approval.
Kā Rūnaka legal counsel Nicole Buxeda said during the conference consultation had been a ‘‘matter to be undertaken prior to lodgement. What occurs now is engagement, but the door for consultation is shut’’.
Judge Borthwick noted, in her memo, that Kā Rūnaka had signalled the approvals sought by Santana may be in breach of Treaty settlements.
She also noted Kā Rūnaka sought a separate hearing on the need for consideration of cultural evidence.
Panel members who will approve or decline the mine proposal are former High Court judge Matthew Muir, planning specialist Gina Sweetman, economist Philip Barry, landscape architect Peter Kensington, engineering consultant Douglas Johnson and environmental consultants Roger MacGibbon and Tim Mulliner.
After a decision on the mine in October, any appeal will have to be based on a point of law.
An appeal could be lodged in the High Court by the applicant (Santana), the regional or district authority (ORC or CODC), or by anyone who was invited to comment during the hearing.
Santana chief executive Damian Spring said a shorter timetable was ‘‘preferable’’, but the confirmation of a decision date gave his proposal ‘‘clear line of sight through the fast-track process’’.
Community group Sustainable Tarras, which opposes the mine, said it was relieved at the longer time frame for the panel’s considerations.
The group hoped to be invited to be heard by the panel and was engaging specialists ‘‘in areas where we believe we can add evidence’’.
