The hearing panel is now seeking more information from invited parties and comments on draft conditions.
The 55-turbine wind farm planned for the Slopedown area is part of a fast-track hearing supposed to produce a decision by mid-November.
Applicant Contact Energy had asked for a extension into next year while it reviewed evidence requested by the panel from experts. It also hit out at some of the experts employed by the panel, saying they had spent one or two hours on the site compared to the hundreds of hours by Contact’s experts.
Earlier this month, Contact Energy had asked the panel for a 100-day extension to any decision, which was allowed under the fast-track legislation.
Contact in that request expressed some frustration around the so-called information gaps highlighted by the peer reviewers, who were hired by the panel.
"Contact and its experts consider that there is already sufficient information before the panel, which provides a robust basis for granting consents," Contact said in a memorandum to the panel.
"The surveys and assessments supporting the application have been no less thorough than for any other project of this kind. Further, Contact's experts have been encouraged and empowered to take a conservative approach to their assessments."
It said about 950 person hours had been spent at the site since the start of last year studying the ecology and it "unequivocally disagrees that the level of effort and methods employed for our assessment are unsatisfactory".
"Rather, we have very much taken a conservative approach in our assessment and followed appropriate methodologies for all our field surveys."
In contrast, the ecology peer reviewer spent one to two hours at the site and thus "had little opportunity to familiarise himself with the wide range of vegetation types".
Contact Energy questioned the work of some reviewers.
"In a number of cases the peer reviewers appear to have participated in expert conferencing without having considered the responses by Contact's experts to their peer reviews, with the result that the joint witness statements simply restate many of the views originally expressed by the peer reviewers."
Contact very much wanted to study the peer reviews and proposed more survey work so wanted the timeline pushed out.
But the panel knocked back the idea of moving the hearing into next year, saying "the extremely limited statutory timeframes set out in the Act do not enable the panel sufficient time to allow for this."
"There simply isn’t enough time," the panel said.
The next step for the panel would be to issue a request for further information for parties to comment on draft conditions and provide any further information that may address the concerns raised.
The panel is: lawyer Clare Lenihan, experienced RMA commissioner Sharon McGarry and conservationist Gina Solomon.
