The impact its proposed Bendigo-Ophir goldmine would have on its direct neighbours provided much of the focus at the second day of hearings in Cromwell for the company’s fast-track application.
When it was revealed at the hearing a social impact report had been left out of its application, hearings panel chairman Matthew Muir, KC, cut straight to the point.
‘‘Just to put the social impact question squarely, perhaps you might say confrontationally, when we hear people like Prof Geoff [Kearsley] and Dr Claire [Fletcher-Flinn] or Mr [Holger] Reinecke ... are these sort of people simply to be regarded as collateral damage?’’
Santana legal counsel Josh Leckie said the views of neighbours were very relevant to the panel.
‘‘I don’t think their views are irrelevant and that’s certainly not what [Santana] are saying.’’
Concerns had been raised by Sustainable Tarras and the Schoolhouse Terrace Services company that a social impact assessment had not been shared.
Mr Leckie said a report was done, but the company had concerns about the methodology and did not include it in the submission.
However, comments from the submitters before the panel were more relevant than a report, he said.
‘‘... things have moved on a long way from the time that the social impact assessment was prepared.
‘‘And the panel has a range of views on social impacts before you.
‘‘And in my submission, they’re entirely relevant and important to your consideration.
‘‘And some of those views are in support of the project. And some of those views are in opposition to the project.
‘‘My submission on this point is that, as a panel, you have evidence and submission before you as to those social impacts.’’
During the second day of the hearing, the panel heard from landscape experts, who also owned land at Bendigo, other neighbours and Hayden Johnston, the owner of The Canyon at Tarras, who also submitted for the Schoolhouse Terrace Service Company, and the Otago Conservation Board.
Panel member Philip Barry asked Santana what changes, if any, would they propose in their approach in the light of the hearing.
‘‘Do you have any specific takeaways from the last three days which you think could benefit from further consideration, refinement, additional research?’’
Mr Leckie said ensuring the long-term outcomes were deliverable and what gave the panel the most comfort was a really important expert-led work stream and that was a point they took on board.
On water quality, there had been considerable amendments made to conditions and additional assessment work done, but we understood the panel still had concerns.
‘‘ So I would see that as an important point for the [Santana] team to consider, particularly in regard to that broader receiving environment. I take that on board.’’
Additionally, the mechanics between management plans and conditions needed forensic analysis, Mr Leckie said.
Mr Muir said he would suggest sitting over and above all of those, or equally relevant, was issues with mana whenua engagement.
Mr Leckie said he had not left that out intentionally.
‘‘That’s the top of the list from, my perspective, and Mr Spring and I have had that same conversation several times over the last two days, and I can assure the panel that it’s certainly something the applicant is taking very seriously and is very aware of the importance of it.’’
When asked if Santana had any plans to compensate neighbours for losses incurred if the mine went ahead, Mr Leckie said he did not have any instructions on that point.
‘‘[Santana] are very committed to this ongoing engagement with neighbours and other parties, and that will continue.’’
The hearing was adjourned yesterday. Expert conferencing would be the next stage.
