A meeting later this month is set to decide how much time will be needed for the controversial Santana Minerals Bendigo mine application but the company is sticking to asking for a 30-day timeframe.
Santana Minerals has applied through fast-track legislation for consent for its Bendigo mine but had balked at a suggestion the fast-track process for the consent might take up to 120 days.
The panel convener has now set down January 21 for a video meeting of parties to discuss both the appointment of panel members and the timing of the panel decision.
Panel convener Jane Borthwick, a retired environment court judge, had earlier suggested a timeframe of up to 120 working days.
Santana had pushed back on that date and suggested it could be done in just 30 working days.
Ms Borthwick has now decided to have a meeting of parties to discuss the timeframe for the proposed application and also what qualities would be needed to sit on the panel hearing the application.
In a minute, she said the panel convener had to consider the scale, nature and complexity of the approvals sought.
She said an inadequate timeframe lessened the effective operation of the Fast-track Approvals Act. It would not allow the panel to request further information or commission a report on matters relevant to the application.
If the timeframe for a decision was not appropriate, it affected the quality of the decision-making and did not adequately engage with the wider requirements of public law, leaving the decision susceptible to appeal or review.
An overallocation of time would not satisfy the procedural principles of the fast-track Act.
She was not seeking nominations for the panel but asking for comment on the skills, knowledge and expertise of those to be appointed to the panel.
A Santana Minerals spokeswoman yesterday said it had nothing further to add over the forthcoming meeting, and stood by comments it had previously made.
In a memorandum to the application filed last month by Santana Minerals’ counsel, the company said it favoured a 30-day timeframe, which was the default timeframe under the Act.
"Having regard to the scale and context of the project, the robustness of the application, the continuing engagement with regulators to resolve matters to minimise the contentious matters requiring determination by the expert panel and the legislative purpose and intent of the FTA, the shorter end of this timeframe range is appropriate," counsel Joshua Leckie said.
No mineral extraction activities would take place on neighbouring public conservation land and the only activities proposed on public conservation land were to maintain or improve public access, and amenity or ecological values in the surrounding environment, Mr Leckie said.
The parties invited to the meeting apart from the applicant are relevant iwi authorities and Treaty settlement entities, the Environment Ministry, Department of Conservation, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Trust, and the Otago Regional and Central Otago District Councils.
Sustainable Tarras spokeswoman Suze Keith said the group did not expect to be invited to the upcoming meeting as legislation did not allow for it.
But the group had written to the Environment Protection Authority asking for it to be heard in the process though that would be up to the yet-to-be-selected panel, she said. It was vital local concerns about various matters were heard by the panel, she said.
