Updated Saturday 2nd February 2013
For the latest on this fraud click on "HOME"
This map will help you to more accurately place the faults relative to the wind farm.Click to enlarge
Manawatu was very lucky in 2004 - 2005
The earthquake threat to Palmerston North
NZ's biggest earthquakes since 1848
Palmerston North's flood risk - potential for 3,500 houses to go under
The level of deception the city has faced
For the latest on this fraud click on "HOME"
Corruption permeates the proposed Turitea wind farm disaster, approved right on a fault line, and towering over Palmerston North. The image at the top of the page is the view from the centre of Palmerston North.Thousands of properties on the marine terrace on the other side of the Manawatu River are right under the wind farm. The wind farm is in the city's water supply and last remaining native forest, home to endangered and protected falcons.
- Mighty River Power will shortly be partly publicly owned under an asset sales programme. No private investor in his right mind is going to countenance owning inefficient, noisy, obtrusive, extremely expensive, unpopular wind farms in residential areas to satisfy the whims of politicians wedded to thermogeddon.
Genesis Energy are more astute and intelligent than Mighty River Power. Genesis Energy is proposing the 600MW (or possibly 858MW) Castle Hill Wind Farm well away from rural residential property and they have squared off with all affected parties beforehand to ease the RMA process.
To all recreational users of Kahuterawa and Greens Roads and the Kahuterawa Recreational Area, including Scotts Road.
Your enjoyment of these areas will come to an end when Mighty River Power starts using Kahuterawa and Greens Roads to construct its wind farm.
An endless stream of trucks will make the roads too dangerous for 3 to 5 years.
It is highly likely the end of Kahuterawa Valley will be used to link a resurrected Motorimu wind farm with the Turitea wind farm.
Preserve your recreational amenity by emailing: turiteacallin@mfe.govt.nz or by writing to:
Freepost Call-in
Turitea Wind Farm
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10362
The Terrace
Wellington 6143
A warning to local land owners
hosting Turitea wind turbines,
this will certainly happen here.
"Meanwhile, lawyers acting for Mr Hodgson have advised his neighbour that the businessman may sue him for loss of amenity and reduced property value if the wind farm goes ahead."
Christchurch hit by a 6.3 earthquake 22/2/2011
Massive destruction, a terrible tragedy.
Well here you go, the board approves the Turitea wind farm right next to two huge fault lines, we told them, but they didn't listen.
The Pahiatua fault line is New Zealand's San Andreas equivalent. While opposed to this particular wind farm costing up to 1 billion NZ, we take no pleasure in expecting at some time to see 61,125m turbines snap off like so many carrots. Check the link below for NZ's active faults
What the Board of Enquiry wilfully ignores. These are the known active faults. Click to enlarge.
Manawatu was very lucky in 2004 - 2005
The earthquake threat to Palmerston North
NZ's biggest earthquakes since 1848
Palmerston North's flood risk - potential for 3,500 houses to go under
The level of deception the city has faced
Spot the wind farm on the Pacific Ring of Fire?
The big picture
Has Contact Energy left Mighty River Power at the bus stop by getting the jump on significant geothermal developments?
Looks like Mighty River Power is coming to it's senses and pursuing Geothermal, something it has undoubted expertise in - NZ Herald 11/3/2011Why was Mighty River Power mucking around with the Turitea wind farm, which should never have proceeded in the first place, instead of pursuing more viable and reliable options such as geothermal?
Is mighty River Power too arrogant to bail out gracefully while it can still save face?
Has PNCC counsel inflamed the situation by stating he was "over the moon" with the draft decison?
Why did mayor Naylor inflict this fiasco and expensive burden on rate payers and nearby residents by voting to change the purpose of Turitea Reserve to allow wind turbines? Why not ask him?
Jono Naylor
1/ HAVE THE RATEPAYERS OF PALMY BEEN RIPPED OFF?
2/ HOW MUCH WILL PNCC EARN FROM THE REDUCED TURITEA WIND FARM?
3/ HOW MANY MEGA BUCKS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THIS?
3/ HOW MANY MEGA BUCKS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THIS?
4/ WILL MIGHTY RIVER POWER SUE PNCC NOW THAT ITS PLANS HAVE BEEN THWARTED AFTER RECEIVING THE RED CARPET?
5/ HAS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PNCC COVERED OFF THIS POSSIBILITY?
6/ CAN PNCC SUE IT"S LEGAL COUNSEL IF THEY ARE SUED BY MIGHTY RIVER POWER?
7/ Can severely affected residents sue PNCC for not heeding the Local Govt Act as far as the loss of their social, cultural and economic well-being is concerned?
6/ CAN PNCC SUE IT"S LEGAL COUNSEL IF THEY ARE SUED BY MIGHTY RIVER POWER?
7/ Can severely affected residents sue PNCC for not heeding the Local Govt Act as far as the loss of their social, cultural and economic well-being is concerned?
Locals at Westwind at Makara report that recently a substation has blown up and has had to be replaced. Turbine bearings are also having to be replaced. Didn't we all tell the Board of Enquiry this would happen!!
Update Feb 18, 2011
Draft Report and Decision on the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal – Extension of Time for Making Comments on the Draft Report
In accordance with the directions in the Memorandum from the Board, comments on the Draft Report and Decision are to be received by 5pm on 12 May 2011.
Please email your comments to turiteacallin@mfe.govt.nz. or post them to:
FreePost Call-In
Turitea Wind Farm
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10362
The Terrace
Wellington 6143
The draft report is available on the Turitea webpagehttp://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/
Caroline van Halderen
Project Co-ordinator
Turitea Wind Farm Call-In
0800 836 666
Map of revised wind farm layout.
Looking to sell before people realize the 10 years allowed for constructing the wind farm has severely devalued your property?
These local real estate companies are keen for your business.
Search Results
Real Estate Agents Palmerston North | Watson Integrity | Property...
Watson Real Estate Agents offer a unique approach to property in thePalmerston North, Feilding and greater Manawatu regions.
www.watsonproperty.co.nz/267 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
(06) 353 7274
finda.co.nz (3)3 reviews
Place page
Property Brokers sell more real estate in the lower North Island ...
Property Brokers sell more real estate in the lower North Island and Canterbury combined than any other company. Buying, selling or leasing commercial real ...
www.propertybrokers.co.nz/ -236 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
(06)356 5122 1 review
Place page
Real Estate Agents Palmerston North
Real Estate Agents Palmerston North: Understanding the market and the unique nature of rural real estate and business is the key to delivering the very best ...
www.bayleys.co.nz/...north.../real-estate-agents-palmerston-north.html239 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
021 372 422 Place page
JVL Real Estate - residential, rural, lifestyle and commercial ...
JVL Real Estate has made an impact in the region as a young, innovative company ... Feilding, Palmerston North, Palmerston North Lifestyle, Rural, Sections ...
jvl.co.nz/166-176 Broadway Avenue, Manawatu-Wanganui
(06) 356 8283 1 review
Place page
Remax Go For Sold
REMAX Real Estate Palmerston North | Feature property for sale, PN Surrounds, 2112, State Highway 56. Rateable Value $573000, 4 Beds 2 Bathrooms 2 Garage
www.remaxpn.co.nz/Palmerston North
(06) 355 4324
finda.co.nz (3)3 reviews
Place page
Professionals Unique Realty Mreinz
Palmerston North Office (Head Office) 210 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 2024,Palmerston North Principal: Max Vertongen AREINZ Phone: (06) 350 0007
www.uniquerealty.co.nz/210 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
(06) 350 0007
finda.co.nz (1)1 review
Place page
Palmerston North Real Estate - LJ Hooker Palmerston North - LJ ...
LJ Hooker Palmerston North specialising in Real Estate Palmerston North. Thinking of buying property in Palmerston North, selling property in Palmerston...
www.ljhooker.co.nz/palmerstonnorth
Ray White Real Estate Palmerston North
Palmerston North estate agents, Enquire now about our huge selection of Houses - Homes - Life style blocks and businesses for sale and for rent in and ...
www.rwpalmerstonnorth.co.nz/
Palmerston North Property - New Zealand Real Estate Agents
Palmerston North and surrounding districts real estate for sale featuring photo... Agency: Professionals-Unique realty MREINZ. licensed real estate agent ...
www.palmerstonnorthproperty.co.nz/agents.php
Why won't they live next door?
"In 18 years of daily researching and campaigning against industrial wind turbines,
I have never heard of a proponent of this destructive industry
who has chosen to buy a house in the vicinity of a wind farm.
All I receive are requests from people who want to know where they can buy a house
which is not threatened by a wind farm."
Angela Kelly, Hay-on-Wye, Wales
Herald Sun Feb 12, 2011
THERE is "no doubt" wind farms have a negative effect on the value of adjoining properties, according to a senior rural real estate agent.
Elders Rural Services national sales manager Shane McIntyre said the towers were seen by most of the market as "repulsive" and could lead to a 30 to 50 per cent drop in the value of the land.
In an email to a member of the anti-windfarm group, the Landscape Guardians, seen by The Weekly Times,
Mr McIntyre said a proliferation of wind towers adjacent to a property had the same effect as high-voltage power lines, rubbish tips, piggeries, hatcheries and sewage treatment plants.
Mr McIntyre said a proliferation of wind towers adjacent to a property had the same effect as high-voltage power lines, rubbish tips, piggeries, hatcheries and sewage treatment plants.
This meant, he said, that "if buyers are given a choice, they choose not to be near any of these impediments to value".
For the source of the above click link below
Some local reactions to date.
Friday 11th February
The draft decision is out. 61 turbines have been provisionally approved, 43 turbines have been declined.
Click the links below
This is how NZ operates behind the scenes.The landscape, property values and the wellbeing of the community are subservient to outright corruption. A big thank you to the Christchurch Press. At last some real investigative journalism.
*
But wait, there's more - Noise standards paving the way for billion-dollar wind-farm developments across the country are biased and should be ripped up, academics say.
*Who’s who on wind panel - BLATANT CORRUPTION
*
But wait, there's more - Noise standards paving the way for billion-dollar wind-farm developments across the country are biased and should be ripped up, academics say.
The Press News
By PAUL GORMAN - The Press Last updated 05:00 18/08/10
The wind-energy industry exerted undue influence in setting new noise levels for the country's wind farms, opponents of the standard say.
Meeting minutes and voting papers of the Standards New Zealand committee on wind-farm noise, released under the Official Information Act (OIA), show:
Six of 12 members were either wind-farm consultants, worked for a power company or were members of the Wind Energy Association, which partly funded the committee.
Concerns of AUT University public health senior lecturer Dr Daniel Shepherd about committee membership and the standard were dismissed as irrelevant by its members and as having "nothing of substance" they needed to deal with.
Strong opposition from committee member Professor Philip Dickinson to the standard, including his view that several statements in the draft standard were "blatantly false".
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority's (Eeca) wish for a medical review of the proposed standard was overruled because the committee felt it was difficult to identify someone suitably qualified to do it and because of "what would be achieved by it".
A wind-farm expert working with wind-farm developer Meridian Energy, Malcolm Hayes, was allowed at a meeting, but anti-wind-farm lobbyist and author Nick Jennings was not.
The minutes show that as early as its first meeting, on July 10, 2008, committee members shied away from tougher turbine guidelines for power companies after Dickinson suggested 30 decibels (dBA) should be the maximum amount of turbine noise allowed to be heard inside a bedroom.
"A level of 35dBA was mentioned as a significant restraint for operators of wind-turbine generators to achieve under higher wind speeds, "the minutes said.
Two ballots were held, and three members who opposed the standard in the first vote supported it in the second, although one who initially supported it ultimately decided to abstain.
Committee chairman Stephen Chiles, who is advising Meridian on its proposed Project Hurunui wind farm in North Canterbury, told The Press the revised code was more stringent than its 1998 predecessor. The committee reviewed but did not change the lower limit from 40dBA of sound audible at a dwelling, or background noise levels plus 5dBA, although did lower it to 35dBA for areas of high amenity value.
District plans generally allowed for 40 to 45dBA at night, "but a handful in rural areas allow for a limit of 35", he said.
Greta Valley businessman John Carr requested the committee papers as part of his campaign against the planned Project Hurunui wind farm and other proposed developments in North Canterbury. He said the OIA documents showed the new standard had been "tainted".
A truly independent committee should be formed to produce a new standard. Until such time, no district council or the Environment Court should consider any consent application from a wind energy company." Dickinson, the Massey University representative, voted against the standard in both ballots.
In comments on his first vote, he said the standard underestimated the sound residents would hear from turbines. Several statements in the draft standard were "blatantly false", he said.
In the second ballot, Dickinson called the standard "totally unacceptable" and labelled parts of it "arrogant and misinformed" and "totally false".
"If the standard progresses to be adopted in this form, the university will demand there be a short statement after the committee representation, saying: `The Massey University representatives did not agree to this standard as written, considering it to be ethically and scientifically wrong'."
The paragraph was not included in the published standard. Instead, it said while Dickinson did not support it, he recognised "the revised standard is an improvement on the original".
Shepherd wrote to the committee in August 2008 questioning committee membership and saying health expertise was under-represented in favour of acoustics.
"It is understood some of the members of the review committee are acoustic consultants working for wind-farm developers. It is also understood that in forming the panel, a number of scoping group members have been excluded because their opinions do not align with those organisations sponsoring the standard.
"The inclusion of individuals enjoying financial arrangements with the sponsoring organisations and the exclusion of those not aligned with the sponsor immediately exposes the standard to critical evaluation that it cannot credibly defend."
Minutes show the committee said there was "nothing of substance" in Shepherd's comments.
After receiving no reply, Shepherd wrote again more than a year later saying it was disappointing little had been done to correct the standard's "substantial deficiencies".
"One issue that still remains is that committee members have not sufficiently declared, nor has Standards New Zealand sufficiently acknowledged, conflicts of interest."
In October 2009, Shepherd finally received a reply saying the committee was aiming for a standard with "reasonable balance".
Chiles defended the committee process as "very robust".
"The types of questions that John Carr and others are raising now were anticipated. We were fully aware that everything we did would be under intense scrutiny," he said.
"All those bodies who have an axe to grind will be represented on the committee. You also have to have wind-farm operators with the technical knowledge to write a meaningful standard. It's a consensus-based process."
Hayes had been invited to attend a meeting because he was a "world-leading expert", but Jennings was a layperson who had picked up on a body of research on vibro-acoustic disease, supplied the committee with a bundle of papers and wanted to present that. "We didn't see the need for a layperson to take us through the process."
Ruth Paul , who represented the Executive of Community Boards, changed her vote from "no" to "yes" after working with Wind Energy Association chief executive Fraser Clark and Meridian employee Paul Botha on a lower turbine noise limit of 35dBA for quieter areas.
*Who’s who on wind panel - BLATANT CORRUPTION
Stack the noise standard
Committee and bring in
"Yes" men to get what you
Want.
The secret is out! Chiles refused to divulge this information to the Board of Enquiry when asked.
Committee and bring in
"Yes" men to get what you
Want.
The secret is out! Chiles refused to divulge this information to the Board of Enquiry when asked.
I refer to the letter published in last
week’s edition by John Adams titled No
support for Fraser Clark’s view.
He stated he was unable to find a
list of the committee members for the
new noise standard Acoustics-Wind
Farm Noise NZS6808-2010 published in
February.
The list is:
Stephen Chiles, chairman, URS
New Zealand Ltd. Represented the
NZ Acoustical Society. Now advising Vested interest
Meridian Energy Ltd on Hurunui Wind,
North Canterbury.
Nevil Hegley, consultant.
Nevil Hegley, consultant.
Representing Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Authority. Has consulted Vested interest
for Mighty River Power and Genesis
Energy.
Malcolm Hunt, Malcolm Hunt
Associates. Represented NZ Institute of
Environmental Health Inc. Prepared the Vested interest
environmental noise effects report for
Mt Cass wind farm, North Canterbury,
on behalf of Mainpower.
Miklin Halstead, Marshall Day
Acoustics. Represented the NZ
Acoustical Society. The business has Vested interest
acted as consultant to a number of the
wind energy companies.
Paul Botha, Meridian Energy Ltd.
Represented the NZ Wind Energy
Association. Now working on Vested interest
Meridian’s Hurunui Wind, North
Canterbury.
Fraser Clark, NZ Wind Energy
Association. Replaced James Wellar.
Represented NZ Wind Energy
Association. Chief executive of NZ Vested interest
Wind Energy Association. James No acoustical training
Wellar is a wind resource analyst from
Tasmania who has consulted to wind
energy companies.
Philip Dickinson, Massey University.
Represented Massey University. The only dissenter
Professor of Acoustics and Human &
Health, Massey University. The most qualified
George Dodd, University of
Auckland. Represented University of
Auckland. Head of Acoustics Testing
Service.
Matthew Borich, Wellington City Noise Control Officer
Council. Represented Local Government
NZ. Compliance specialist advice
officer.
Vern Goodwin, Southern Monitoring
Services. Represented Ministry of
Health and Resource Management Law
Association.
Rachel Treston, Ministry of
Environment. Replaced Barbara Rouse.
Represented Ministry of Environment. No known acoustical training
Senior analyst, resource management
tools team.
Ruth Paul, chairman Makara and
Ohariu Community Board. Represented
executive of community boards. No known acoustical training
It was noted in the standard that
Dickinson did not support it.
The committee was funded by the
Wind Energy Association and Energy
Efficiency Conservation Authority.
Wind Energy Association and Energy
Efficiency Conservation Authority.
John Carr
Greta Valley
North Canterbury
Letters here, pages 20 and 22.
Note the discrepancy in the whitewash from NZ Standards on page 22 where the 12 members of the committee came from 11 organisations. No mention that one organisation provided two members for the committee. Guess which one.
Professor Dickinson a dissenting acoustics expert on the panel has trashed Clark and his merry band of burglars.
"Dickinson said the prediction for wind farm noise in the NZ standard will always under-predict the noise by 20 decibels, adding that the ISO standard for this noise was written for application in buildings, not specifically for wind farms.
However, the final word goes to Rapley, who suspects that the country's noise standards have been made as "blindingly, scientifically stupid as practically possible to make it as confusing as possible to regulate, which allows people to make it as noisy as they want".
Letters here, pages 20 and 22.
Note the discrepancy in the whitewash from NZ Standards on page 22 where the 12 members of the committee came from 11 organisations. No mention that one organisation provided two members for the committee. Guess which one.
Professor Dickinson a dissenting acoustics expert on the panel has trashed Clark and his merry band of burglars.
"Dickinson said the prediction for wind farm noise in the NZ standard will always under-predict the noise by 20 decibels, adding that the ISO standard for this noise was written for application in buildings, not specifically for wind farms.
However, the final word goes to Rapley, who suspects that the country's noise standards have been made as "blindingly, scientifically stupid as practically possible to make it as confusing as possible to regulate, which allows people to make it as noisy as they want".
