Farmer Questions Consultation Process for Slopedown Wind Farm

A farmer from the Redan Valley is raising concerns over her exclusion from the consultation process regarding the proposed Slopedown wind farm. Carlyn Stewart, who works on her husband’s family property located less than 3 kilometers from the site, is puzzled as to why her property was not included in discussions while others situated further away were invited to participate.

Stewart highlighted that under the fast-track legislation, properties adjacent to the wind farm should automatically be part of the consultation process. However, she noted that a section of the Catlins Conservation Park separates her family’s land from the wind farm site, complicating their status. “We are some of the most affected individuals yet we can’t speak,” she said, expressing her frustration at being left out of the dialogue.

Stewart also questioned why Contact Energy, the company behind the project, had reinstated three turbines and a monitoring mast in its current application after previously volunteering to remove them in response to the initial Covid-19 recovery fast-track legislation. She stated that these turbines would be prominently visible from her property and along the valley road, yet were not included in the landscape assessment.

In response to inquiries, Contact Energy maintained that the three turbines had never been officially removed from the proposal in the earlier hearing process. The company asserted that these turbines are optimally positioned for wind energy production and could provide power for approximately 7,500 households, exceeding the energy needs of the town of Gore.

During the previous consultation phase, Contact Energy had indicated a willingness to eliminate the three turbines if necessary. However, the decision made by the Covid-19 legislation panel noted that the company had “offered” to delete them from the proposal. Contact Energy clarified that its intent was always to maintain a layout featuring all 55 turbines, emphasizing that no turbines were designated as “sacrificial.”

The discrepancy in the consultation process has left Stewart feeling overlooked, especially as other landowners who had previously submitted feedback were included. “Looking at the map, I can’t see how that’s any different for us,” she remarked, highlighting the inconsistency in the selection criteria for participation.

Stewart’s case underscores broader concerns regarding stakeholder engagement in renewable energy projects. As communities grapple with the implications of such developments, the need for transparent, inclusive communication becomes ever more critical. The outcome of this situation may set important precedents for how future projects navigate community consultation and involvement.