An Open Letter to Councillors
Sunday 21 June 2009
Sunday 21 June 2009
The following Councillors voted for the Change in Purpose for the Turitea Reserve
Alison Wall.Peter Claridge.Marilyn Craig.*Gordon Cruden.*Vaughan Dennison.*John Hornblow.*Jim Jefferies.*Pat Kelly.*Jono Naylor.Lynne Pope.Adrian Broad.Ian Cruden.Heather Tanguay.
The rebuttal evidence provided by Mighty River Power to the Board of Enquiry plainly states that all those listed above, ranging from a retired judge to “ leaders” in the Christian community, voted with full knowledge of the size and scale of the Turitea wind farm, including the turbines to be located on private land. If that is the case, can you contradict this claim that Council officers did indeed pass on this vital information? You will need to bear in mind, however, that you as Councillors participated in special whole day workshops on the Turitea wind farm and that the public were excluded. If Council officers did not convey this information to you then they are guilty of deceit and should, in my opinion, be immediately sacked. If these officers did inform you as Councillors then your only course is, in my opinion, to tender your resignations forthwith. Those still holding office are asterisked. All, in this MRP scenario, knew of the consequences to residents and have wilfully broken the :
Local Government Act 2002
."Purpose of Local Government
This is defined in the Local Government Act 2002 section 10 as being -
(a) to enable democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
(b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and in the future."
Furthermore, these Councillors have subjected the community and wind farm victims to huge expense in time and money over a period of three years. Citizens have had to make strenuous efforts to protect the environment and their amenity. As a book is to be written, which will simply hang out to dry all the participants in this fraud against the community, those who still remain in Council and who have inflicted this debacle on the city are invited to respond to this email as individuals. No further opportunity will be given you to put your side of the story. As mentioned above there are Councillors who, in my opinion, now need to reflect on whether they are fit to hold office. The honourable course, based on MRP’s evidence, would be for a significant number to resign.
Let me remind you of a few facts.
· The Turitea submission process was a farce, which you were forced to conduct only after a publicity campaign forced your hand, when all you had intended to do was rubber stamp the proposal with a “token “public involvement. Councillors pretended that they were “gathering information “ to make a decision when that decision had already been made, a contract signed and money had changed hands. The wind farm contract and its subsequent variation are now accessible to all online. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/call-in-turitea/rebuttal-evidence/index.html ....... In particular look at the evidence from Mark Henry and Christopher Shaw.
· Submitters gave Councillors the benefit of the doubt, assuming that maybe they had been misled by a few rogue council officers. The truth, as far as MRP’s evidence is concerned, is that you were in fact lying to the public. The result, Tanguay was the first to fall. John Love in his evidence even comments on how Tanguay went to visit him. John Hornblow at the Turitea submissions made it clear that he knew of Love’s road building activities. MRP’s evidence will, at the very least, dog all Councillors with future political aspirations.
· Memorable comments from Councillors were
“ There’s gold in them thar hills”
“ It’s a no brainer”
“ I feel sorry for the people who live up there”
“ Council will request Mighty River Power to take special care of those who live in Ngahere Park”
“ It’s a done deal”
-----
Just to remind you here are just some of the gems revealed by Mighty River Power in its rebuttal evidence.
TURITEA WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
“10.1 Council to support
The Council agrees in its capacity as landowner( and subject to clause 17.2) to :
(a) Support any application by Mighty River for the grant, renewal. Variation or continuation of any Consent necessary to give effect to Mighty River’s rights under this Agreement including consent for the lease;
(b) Support Mighty River’s negotiations with Adjacent Owners, as requested by Mighty River; and
(c) Provide such written evidence of this support (and any consent or approval) as Mighty River may reasonably require.”
and
“The liability of Council (other than in its statutory capacity) for breach of this contract or for any negligent act or omission shall be limited to $3,000,000 in aggregate during the term of this Agreement. This limitation of liability shall not apply to deliberate acts or omissions of Council that breach this Agreement.”
-----
Really, how could you sign up to this? This is a deal the Mafia would approve of. But wait there’s more. This is from the Variation to the Wind Farm Agreement, which until now has been kept secret.
5.2A If it is finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction that the purpose for which the Land is held as a local purpose reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 cannot be changed to a purpose which will accommodate a Wind Farm Project, then Council will use its best endeavours , in consultation with Mighty River, to proceed with alternative measures in order to achieve the original intention of the parties as outlined in this Agreement. In this clause, “ best endeavours “include Council using every effort to obtain the agreement of the Minister of Conservation and the Crown to revoke the reserve classification and to, immediately following revocation, transfer the Land to Council under the Land Act 1948, provided that nothing in this clause shall require the Council to take any step that involves loss of ownership and /or control of any part of the Land or deprive the Council of the benefit of any revenue that it would be otherwise be entitled to under this Agreement.
So does this now mean that the Minister can use this to override a negative result from the Board of Enquiry’s deliberations? Will this turn out to be “phoney consultation” number two?
As there now appears to be a growing rift between PNCC and Mighty River Power the following rebuttal evidence from Mark Henry and Christopher Shaw is reminding you of your obligations to them and discloses as a lie any suggestion that you did not know what was going on.
Mark Henry
2.2 I do not accept Mr Baker’s assertions. In my opinion there has been significant interaction
and consultation with Council regulatory planners and advisers in relation to the Turitea
Wind Farm project. These interactions with regulatory staff began as early as July 2006
(being prior to my involvement in the project), where a meeting between Tony Parsons
and Lorraine Marsh (on behalf Mighty River Power) and Virginia Shaw (Council planning
manager) records discussions regarding the proposed wind farm layout. In the minutes to
the meeting, under a heading “Noise/Planning Issues”, guidance was received from
Virginia Shaw, noting: “Having viewed the indicative turbine layout, Virginia commented on
the increase of rural subdivisions in the area. She noted that any noise monitoring … will
need to take account “as of right subdivisions”. The minutes of this meeting are attached
as Appendix One.
3.2 Since early 2006, Mighty River Power project representatives have had weekly meetings
scheduled with Council representatives. These regular meetings have been held more
often than not, either face to face or by way of video or phone conference, and involved
Council officers Mr Mike Manson (Business Development Manager) and Mr Chris Pepper
(Water and Wastes Services Manager). Mr Manson has been able to advise on matters
relating to the wind farm development agreement between Mighty River Power and
Palmerston North City Council, and on matters relating to the Ecopark. Mr Pepper has
been able to advise on activities within the Turitea Reserve and particularly within the
water supply catchment for which he has responsibility.
4.1 I believe that there has been significant consultation and interaction with Palmerston North
City Council staff and representatives in relation to the design and consideration of the
Turitea wind farm.
Christopher Shaw
2. DEVELOPMENT OF TURBINES ON PRIVATE LAND
2.1 At paragraph 23 of his evidence, Mr Naylor questions whether Mighty River Power’s
selection of a number of turbine sites on private land that are “close to adjoining 4
properties” meets the “spirit and intent” of PNCC’s October 2006 resolution to change the
purpose of the Turitea Reserve. A copy of that resolution is included as Attachment 2. He
notes in particular that part of PNCC’s resolution refers to Mighty River Power being
directed to “ensure that adjoining landowners’ enjoyment of their properties is not
unreasonably adversely affected” as a result of the location and number of turbines on
private land outside the Turitea Reserve.
2.2 I consider this statement does not fully or accurately reflect my understanding of PNCC’s
awareness as to the likely size and scale of the Turitea development. It is true that PNCC
was not close to the specific detail of our negotiations and agreements with individual
landowners. I also accept that the proceedings regarding change of purpose for the
Turitea Reserve focused solely on development within the reserve, and did not specifically
consider the turbines on private land, as it was not appropriate or necessary for them to
do so.
2.3 However, I believe that PNCC has at all times been aware that Mighty River Power was
speaking with adjoining landowners with a view to securing the right to develop turbines
on private land. Indeed, the possibility of the wind farm being expanded beyond the
Reserve boundaries was specifically identified and promoted in the request for tender
document (“RFP”) that PNCC issued in March 2005. Paragraph 1.4 of the RFP (included
as Attachment 3) states:
“The Council has been approached and had dialogue with the adjoining landowners
to the Turitea Reserve prior to the release of this RFP. These landowners could add
up to a further 1,000 hectares of land to the development.
There is a desire particularly from Mr John Love to be included in any development.
Mr Love's land (Lot 7) provides an access way to the southern end of the Turitea
Reserve off Green’s Road and overlooks the nearby Linton Substation.
Mr Andrew Day of Lot 25 (see appendix 1) has also indicated a willingness to
provide access through his property which is on the boundary of South Range Road
and the Tararua District Council side of the Pahiatua Track. This provides an
alternate route to the site for construction purposes.”
2.4 The RFP goes on to provide a list of adjoining owners that PNCC identifies as having
“been contacted and willing to be included” in the wind farm proposal.
5
2.5 Subsequent to, and as a result of, PNCC’s October 2006 resolution, Mighty River Power
and PNCC executed the Variation to Turitea Wind Farm Generation Agreement (“the
Variation”) to contractualise, among other things, the requirements of the Council’s
October 2006 resolution. In my view this provided PNCC the opportunity to make clear in
the commercial arrangements between the parties the spirit and intent in respect to
turbine sites on private land. I note that this matter does not feature in the Variation.
2.6 Since submitting its tender document and being awarded the Turitea contract, several
Mighty River Power personnel, including myself, have had ongoing engagement
(generally at least weekly) with PNCC officers. From my involvement in various meetings
and telephone discussions, I have no doubt that PNCC (via relevant officers and other
personnel) has been fully aware of the likely extent and scale of the Turitea proposal, and
in particular, that this would extend beyond the boundaries of the reserve itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I await your prompt individual replies by Monday 29th June at the latest. I am giving you the courtesy of giving your point of view first. Of course you may well like to consider the implications of not responding before this open letter becomes public.
If you knew the extent and scale of the proposal all along you should, in my opinion, resign, if not then you must revisit and cancel the original decision. This will, of course, mean seeking legal advice other than that which has got you into this unbelievable mess which will leave city ratepayers with a ravaged environment and a multi-million dollar liability.
Paul Stichbury
------------
Three Councillors have courteously responded to this open letter. Michael Feyen, Lew Findlay, Chris Teo-Sherrel. All are opposed to this project. None of the Councillors asterisked above have replied. The Mayor Jono Naylor on their behalf sent this response.
Furthermore, these Councillors have subjected the community and wind farm victims to huge expense in time and money over a period of three years. Citizens have had to make strenuous efforts to protect the environment and their amenity. As a book is to be written, which will simply hang out to dry all the participants in this fraud against the community, those who still remain in Council and who have inflicted this debacle on the city are invited to respond to this email as individuals. No further opportunity will be given you to put your side of the story. As mentioned above there are Councillors who, in my opinion, now need to reflect on whether they are fit to hold office. The honourable course, based on MRP’s evidence, would be for a significant number to resign.
Let me remind you of a few facts.
· The Turitea submission process was a farce, which you were forced to conduct only after a publicity campaign forced your hand, when all you had intended to do was rubber stamp the proposal with a “token “public involvement. Councillors pretended that they were “gathering information “ to make a decision when that decision had already been made, a contract signed and money had changed hands. The wind farm contract and its subsequent variation are now accessible to all online. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/call-in-turitea/rebuttal-evidence/index.html ....... In particular look at the evidence from Mark Henry and Christopher Shaw.
· Submitters gave Councillors the benefit of the doubt, assuming that maybe they had been misled by a few rogue council officers. The truth, as far as MRP’s evidence is concerned, is that you were in fact lying to the public. The result, Tanguay was the first to fall. John Love in his evidence even comments on how Tanguay went to visit him. John Hornblow at the Turitea submissions made it clear that he knew of Love’s road building activities. MRP’s evidence will, at the very least, dog all Councillors with future political aspirations.
· Memorable comments from Councillors were
“ There’s gold in them thar hills”
“ It’s a no brainer”
“ I feel sorry for the people who live up there”
“ Council will request Mighty River Power to take special care of those who live in Ngahere Park”
“ It’s a done deal”
-----
Just to remind you here are just some of the gems revealed by Mighty River Power in its rebuttal evidence.
TURITEA WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
“10.1 Council to support
The Council agrees in its capacity as landowner( and subject to clause 17.2) to :
(a) Support any application by Mighty River for the grant, renewal. Variation or continuation of any Consent necessary to give effect to Mighty River’s rights under this Agreement including consent for the lease;
(b) Support Mighty River’s negotiations with Adjacent Owners, as requested by Mighty River; and
(c) Provide such written evidence of this support (and any consent or approval) as Mighty River may reasonably require.”
and
“The liability of Council (other than in its statutory capacity) for breach of this contract or for any negligent act or omission shall be limited to $3,000,000 in aggregate during the term of this Agreement. This limitation of liability shall not apply to deliberate acts or omissions of Council that breach this Agreement.”
-----
Really, how could you sign up to this? This is a deal the Mafia would approve of. But wait there’s more. This is from the Variation to the Wind Farm Agreement, which until now has been kept secret.
5.2A If it is finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction that the purpose for which the Land is held as a local purpose reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 cannot be changed to a purpose which will accommodate a Wind Farm Project, then Council will use its best endeavours , in consultation with Mighty River, to proceed with alternative measures in order to achieve the original intention of the parties as outlined in this Agreement. In this clause, “ best endeavours “include Council using every effort to obtain the agreement of the Minister of Conservation and the Crown to revoke the reserve classification and to, immediately following revocation, transfer the Land to Council under the Land Act 1948, provided that nothing in this clause shall require the Council to take any step that involves loss of ownership and /or control of any part of the Land or deprive the Council of the benefit of any revenue that it would be otherwise be entitled to under this Agreement.
So does this now mean that the Minister can use this to override a negative result from the Board of Enquiry’s deliberations? Will this turn out to be “phoney consultation” number two?
As there now appears to be a growing rift between PNCC and Mighty River Power the following rebuttal evidence from Mark Henry and Christopher Shaw is reminding you of your obligations to them and discloses as a lie any suggestion that you did not know what was going on.
Mark Henry
2.2 I do not accept Mr Baker’s assertions. In my opinion there has been significant interaction
and consultation with Council regulatory planners and advisers in relation to the Turitea
Wind Farm project. These interactions with regulatory staff began as early as July 2006
(being prior to my involvement in the project), where a meeting between Tony Parsons
and Lorraine Marsh (on behalf Mighty River Power) and Virginia Shaw (Council planning
manager) records discussions regarding the proposed wind farm layout. In the minutes to
the meeting, under a heading “Noise/Planning Issues”, guidance was received from
Virginia Shaw, noting: “Having viewed the indicative turbine layout, Virginia commented on
the increase of rural subdivisions in the area. She noted that any noise monitoring … will
need to take account “as of right subdivisions”. The minutes of this meeting are attached
as Appendix One.
3.2 Since early 2006, Mighty River Power project representatives have had weekly meetings
scheduled with Council representatives. These regular meetings have been held more
often than not, either face to face or by way of video or phone conference, and involved
Council officers Mr Mike Manson (Business Development Manager) and Mr Chris Pepper
(Water and Wastes Services Manager). Mr Manson has been able to advise on matters
relating to the wind farm development agreement between Mighty River Power and
Palmerston North City Council, and on matters relating to the Ecopark. Mr Pepper has
been able to advise on activities within the Turitea Reserve and particularly within the
water supply catchment for which he has responsibility.
4.1 I believe that there has been significant consultation and interaction with Palmerston North
City Council staff and representatives in relation to the design and consideration of the
Turitea wind farm.
Christopher Shaw
2. DEVELOPMENT OF TURBINES ON PRIVATE LAND
2.1 At paragraph 23 of his evidence, Mr Naylor questions whether Mighty River Power’s
selection of a number of turbine sites on private land that are “close to adjoining 4
properties” meets the “spirit and intent” of PNCC’s October 2006 resolution to change the
purpose of the Turitea Reserve. A copy of that resolution is included as Attachment 2. He
notes in particular that part of PNCC’s resolution refers to Mighty River Power being
directed to “ensure that adjoining landowners’ enjoyment of their properties is not
unreasonably adversely affected” as a result of the location and number of turbines on
private land outside the Turitea Reserve.
2.2 I consider this statement does not fully or accurately reflect my understanding of PNCC’s
awareness as to the likely size and scale of the Turitea development. It is true that PNCC
was not close to the specific detail of our negotiations and agreements with individual
landowners. I also accept that the proceedings regarding change of purpose for the
Turitea Reserve focused solely on development within the reserve, and did not specifically
consider the turbines on private land, as it was not appropriate or necessary for them to
do so.
2.3 However, I believe that PNCC has at all times been aware that Mighty River Power was
speaking with adjoining landowners with a view to securing the right to develop turbines
on private land. Indeed, the possibility of the wind farm being expanded beyond the
Reserve boundaries was specifically identified and promoted in the request for tender
document (“RFP”) that PNCC issued in March 2005. Paragraph 1.4 of the RFP (included
as Attachment 3) states:
“The Council has been approached and had dialogue with the adjoining landowners
to the Turitea Reserve prior to the release of this RFP. These landowners could add
up to a further 1,000 hectares of land to the development.
There is a desire particularly from Mr John Love to be included in any development.
Mr Love's land (Lot 7) provides an access way to the southern end of the Turitea
Reserve off Green’s Road and overlooks the nearby Linton Substation.
Mr Andrew Day of Lot 25 (see appendix 1) has also indicated a willingness to
provide access through his property which is on the boundary of South Range Road
and the Tararua District Council side of the Pahiatua Track. This provides an
alternate route to the site for construction purposes.”
2.4 The RFP goes on to provide a list of adjoining owners that PNCC identifies as having
“been contacted and willing to be included” in the wind farm proposal.
5
2.5 Subsequent to, and as a result of, PNCC’s October 2006 resolution, Mighty River Power
and PNCC executed the Variation to Turitea Wind Farm Generation Agreement (“the
Variation”) to contractualise, among other things, the requirements of the Council’s
October 2006 resolution. In my view this provided PNCC the opportunity to make clear in
the commercial arrangements between the parties the spirit and intent in respect to
turbine sites on private land. I note that this matter does not feature in the Variation.
2.6 Since submitting its tender document and being awarded the Turitea contract, several
Mighty River Power personnel, including myself, have had ongoing engagement
(generally at least weekly) with PNCC officers. From my involvement in various meetings
and telephone discussions, I have no doubt that PNCC (via relevant officers and other
personnel) has been fully aware of the likely extent and scale of the Turitea proposal, and
in particular, that this would extend beyond the boundaries of the reserve itself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I await your prompt individual replies by Monday 29th June at the latest. I am giving you the courtesy of giving your point of view first. Of course you may well like to consider the implications of not responding before this open letter becomes public.
If you knew the extent and scale of the proposal all along you should, in my opinion, resign, if not then you must revisit and cancel the original decision. This will, of course, mean seeking legal advice other than that which has got you into this unbelievable mess which will leave city ratepayers with a ravaged environment and a multi-million dollar liability.
Paul Stichbury
------------
Three Councillors have courteously responded to this open letter. Michael Feyen, Lew Findlay, Chris Teo-Sherrel. All are opposed to this project. None of the Councillors asterisked above have replied. The Mayor Jono Naylor on their behalf sent this response.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Paul
Thank you for your email, I will respond promptly as you requested.
You have raised a number of points in your letter including questioning the integrity of staff and councilors alike. I do not believe that an open letter is the most appropriate way to deal with these issues and so will not be responding to those issues at this time.
You have also brought up issues regarding evidence and rebuttal evidence relating to a matter that is currently before a Board of Enquiry appointed by the Minister of Conservation and so to comment on this in this format would in my opinion be inappropriate at this time.
However, I will make this observation . Right throughout every stage of this proposal the Council’s position has been that approval of any windfarm project in this area would be subject to a full RMA process, which we are now going through. We had always anticipated that Council would be the consenting authority and had intended to carry out significant investigatory work, the costs for which would have been recoverable from MRP. As the matter has now been called in the Council has maintained that in order to keep true to our objective of having a rigorous assessment of the proposal we have, at significant expense to the ratepayer, undertaken to ensure that the Board of Enquiry has the best evidence in front of it as it deliberates the outcome of this proposal.
Kind regards
Jono Naylor
My response to Mr Naylor.
Hi Jono,
Questions of integrity are indeed matters, which, something that on the scale and impact of this development, and in particular the manner in which it has been forced on the community, should be in the public domain. Feeling precious about reputations and integrity rings very hollow with those the Council has ignored, marginalised and misled. The ambitions of a few have trampled on the rights of a much greater number.
Hasn't there been enough secrecy to date with MRP, your partner, actually admitting to deliberately maintaining an “information vacuum” until after submissions closed? The question as to who has been deceiving who is something that you should feel confident in responding to. The evidence is not sub judice, it is in the public arena and you are not prohibited from expressing opinions about it. We are not now going through a full RMA process as you state. This deeply flawed proposal has been hijacked by the Minister for spurious reasons as detailed in the Manawatu Standard. Did your legal advisor tell Councillors that there was a strong possibility that the wind farm would be called in? The way the contracts between MRP and PNCC were written certainly pointed in that direction. Has there not been simply a nod and a wink to the criminal acts carried out? See:
http://mightyriverpowerbusylittlebees.blogspot.com/
and
http://naughtymrheffernan.blogspot.com/
Neither of the two websites above cover matters I would place at the feet of PNCC, but it certainly shows the type of institution PNCC got into bed with. What you have now is an arm of the government that has had a city turned over to it as its plaything. If the city doesn’t “play” it faces unspecified but apparently potentially unlimited financial penalties. I would suggest that this is so scandalous, so outrageous, so undemocratic that it could form the sole grounds for overthrowing the contract altogether. To do this will take leadership and courage and dare I say it “integrity.” Do this ( and real soon ) and you will have my full support.
I see your reply to me was copied to all other Councillors, and this openness I applaud but you can’t have it both ways.
One final question, why wasn’t the rigorous assessment done in the first place? When I asked you to do just that in my Turitea submission PNCC simply threatened to charge me and then refused to answer any questions at all.
Kind regards
Paul Stichbury.
Mr Naylor's response.
Hi Paul
It is obvious from your follow up letter that we hold differing views on how events have transpired. I am completely happy with the way I and the Council have conducted ourselves through this process and see little value in continuing to discuss this matter further at this time.
Kind regards
Jono Naylor
Perhaps Mr Naylor should take his hands out of his pockets and point to those who paid all his election expenses, just to dispel rumours that the secret trust which funded him was not a front for money from wind farm interests. At least Higgins, wind farm contractors and related by marriage to the Waters family who own Ngawai farm, were willing to declare their $3,500 donation to him.
