Hmmm someone has been nibbling away on the buy side for a while?
Yes it's been going on for a while. Someone has been buying up steadily at 5c. Either a gambler or they know something. It would be great to be a fly on the wall at PNCC.
Favourable judgement from Court of Appeal, dismissing PNCC. Just the noise issue now? Nwf appears to want to talk their way through that. Maybe PNCC will rethink sinking further ratepayer money into fighting this?
Favourable judgement from Court of Appeal, dismissing PNCC. Just the noise issue now? Nwf appears to want to talk their way through that. Maybe PNCC will rethink sinking further ratepayer money into fighting this?
Looks good, though obviously - it was always just the "noise issue". Don't know enough about the PN Councillors ... so far they came across as self interested and litigious, happy to gamble tax payers money away to serve a minority and keep lawyers happy.
It would be great, though if they show us that there is more depth about them and that they are able to engage with NWF instead of just keeping the courts busy.
Discl: Happy not to live in windy Palmy - would be annoyed with a council wasting tax payers money at the court instead of doing something sensible with it.
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
As I understand it the noise issue is not that NWF is in breach of resource consent but rather that the noise level has come in a bit higher than originally indicated by NWF(and WTL).
I am not sure why the environment court wants to concern themselves with anything other than the resource consent.
Have I got it right?
Last edited by JAYAY; 10-12-2014 at 08:38 AM.
Reason: spelling
As I understand it the noise issue is not that NWF is in breach of resource consent but rather that the noise level has come in a bit higher than originally indicated by NWF(and WTL).
I am not sure why the environment court wants to concern themselves with anything other than the resource consent.
Have I got it right?
Yes, but as I understand the City of Palmy saying that the original consent was based on NWF's original noise information. They are therefore not interested in what limits the law sets, but only that the noise is different to what NWF originally predicted.
----
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future" (Niels Bohr)
Yes, but as I understand the City of Palmy saying that the original consent was based on NWF's original noise information. They are therefore not interested in what limits the law sets, but only that the noise is different to what NWF originally predicted.
Ok, why then did PNCC give consent based on a higher level? Obviously they (PNCC) were happy to provide some leeway.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by kiora
Bookmarks