Ararat Wind Farm Panel Report - Planning · ararat planning scheme permit application 09/004799 and...

ARARAT PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 09/004799 AND

NORTHERN GRAMPIANS PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 5.2009.94.1 ARARAT WIND ENERGY FACILITY

PANEL REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2010

ARARAT PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 09/004799

and NORTHERN GRAMPIANS PLANNING SCHEME

PERMIT APPLICATION 5.2009.94.1 ARARAT WIND ENERGY FACILITY

PANEL REPORT

ROBIN SAUNDERS, CHAIR

JACK CHIODO, MEMBER

IAN GIBSON, MEMBER

SEPTEMBER 2010

ARARAT WIND ENERGY FACILITY PANEL REPORT SEPTEMBER 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY....................................................................................................................8

2. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................9

2.1 THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS.................................................................10

2.2 NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL...............................................................................10

3. STRATEGIC & STATUTORY CONTEXT.............................................................12

3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK.................................................................12

3.2 LEGISLATION .......................................................................................................12

3.3 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF) ................................................13

3.4 LOCAL POLICY PLANNING FRAMEWORK (LPPF) ..............................................15

3.4.1 Ararat Planning Scheme..............................................................................15

3.4.2 Northern Grampians Planning Scheme ....................................................16

3.5 ZONES ..................................................................................................................16

3.6 OVERLAYS............................................................................................................17

3.6.1 Ararat Planning Scheme: VPO1 and VPO2 ..............................................17

3.6.2 Ararat Planning Scheme: WMO.................................................................17

3.6.3 Northern Grampians Planning Scheme: ESO1.........................................18

3.7 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS...................................................................................18

3.7.1 Clause 52.32: Wind Energy Facility ...........................................................18

3.7.2 Clause 52.17: Native Vegetation.................................................................20

3.8 GUIDELINES .........................................................................................................20

3.8.1 The Victorian Wind Energy Guidelines (VWEG) ....................................20

3.8.2 The EPHC National Wind Farm Guidelines ............................................21

3.8.3 Model Planning Permit Conditions for Wind Energy Facilities............21

3.9 SUMMARY OF STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ............................................................22

3.10 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................24

4. ISSUES..........................................................................................................................25

4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS ..................................................................................25

4.2 ISSUES FOUND TO BE NOT RELEVANT TO THE PANEL ....................................27

4.2.1 Grid Connection ...........................................................................................27

4.2.2 Loss of Value.................................................................................................29

4.3 ARRANGEMENT OF ISSUES IN THE REPORT.......................................................30

5. FLORA AND FAUNA................................................................................................31

5.1 WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? ....................................................................................31

5.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................32

5.3 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................35

5.3.1 Native vegetation removal..........................................................................35

5.3.2 Disturbance of habit.....................................................................................37

5.3.3 Potential bird strike......................................................................................38

5.4 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................39

5.4.1 Native vegetation removal..........................................................................39

5.4.2 Disturbance of habit.....................................................................................40


5.4.3 Potential bird strike......................................................................................43

5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................44

6. NOISE AND HEALTH ..............................................................................................45

6.1 THE ISSUES..........................................................................................................45

6.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................45

6.2.1 The application of NZS6808:2010...............................................................45

6.2.2 Do the predictions meet the NZS6808:1998 criteria?...............................46

6.2.3 Human health impact ..................................................................................50

6.2.4 What permit conditions should be imposed? ..........................................51

6.3 SUBMISSIONS........................................................................................................51

6.4 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................52

6.4.1 The application of NZS6808:2010...............................................................52

6.4.2 Do the predictions meet the NZS6808:1998 criteria?...............................52

6.4.3 Human health impact ..................................................................................52

6.4.4 What permit conditions should be imposed? ..........................................53

6.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................55

7. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS ...............................................................56

7.1 THE ISSUES ...........................................................................................................56

7.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................56

7.2.1 Landscape impacts .......................................................................................57

7.2.2 Visual impacts...............................................................................................60

7.2.3 Cumulative impacts .....................................................................................62

7.2.4 Night lighting impacts.................................................................................63

7.2.5 Powerlines within the site ...........................................................................64

7.3 SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE .............................................................................64

7.4 DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................68


7.4.2 Visual impacts...............................................................................................75




7.5 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................79


7.5.2 Visual impacts...............................................................................................80




8. ROADS AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ...........................................................82

8.1 THE ISSUES ...........................................................................................................82

8.2 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................82

8.3 SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE...............................................................................84

8.4 DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................85

8.5 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................87


9. AVIATION SAFETY AND FIRE .............................................................................88

9.1 ISSUES...................................................................................................................88

9.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................88

9.2.1 Interference with current operations.........................................................88

9.2.2 Interference with Future operations ..........................................................89

9.2.3 Aviation lighting ..........................................................................................89

9.2.4 Fire risk from the WEF ................................................................................89

9.3 SUBMISSIONS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE...............................................................89

9.3.1 Interference with current operations.........................................................90

9.3.2 Interference with Future operations ..........................................................90

9.3.3 Aviation lighting ..........................................................................................90

9.3.4 Fire risk from the WEF ................................................................................92

9.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................92

10. SHADOW FLICKER, BLADE GLINT & ELECTROMAGNETIC

INTERFERENCE (EMI) .............................................................................................93

10.1 ISSUES...................................................................................................................93

10.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................93

10.3 SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE ............................................................................95

10.3.1 Shadow Flicker .............................................................................................95

10.3.2 Blade glint......................................................................................................96

10.3.3 Electromagnetic Interference ......................................................................96

10.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................100

11. SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT .................................................................102

11.1 WHAT IS THE ISSUE?..........................................................................................102

11.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................102

11.3 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ...........................................................................105

11.4 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................106

11.4.1 Potential Erosion Hazards ........................................................................106

11.4.2 Structural soundness of on‐site access roads .........................................106

11.4.3 Mitigation and Management of Erosion .................................................107

11.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................109

12. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC...................................................................................110

12.1 WHAT IS THE ISSUE?..........................................................................................110

12.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................110

12.2.1 The Proponent’s Approach .......................................................................110

12.2.2 Results of Perception Studies....................................................................110

12.2.3 The Consultation Process ..........................................................................111

12.2.4 Minimising Social Disruption...................................................................112

12.2.5 Impacts on Agriculture and the Tourism Industry ...............................112

12.2.6 Maximising Local Economic Benefits......................................................113

12.2.7 Sustainable Energy.....................................................................................114

12.3 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS ...........................................................................114

12.3.1 The Nature of Submissions .......................................................................114

12.3.2 The Consultation Process ..........................................................................114


12.3.3 Impacts on Agriculture and the Tourism Industry ...............................114

12.3.4 Maximising Local Economic Benefits......................................................115

12.3.5 Sustainable Energy.....................................................................................116

12.4 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................116

12.4.1 Results of Perception Studies.........................................................................116

12.4.2 The Consultation Process ...............................................................................117

12.4.3 Minimising Social Disruption........................................................................117

12.4.4 Impacts on Agriculture and the Tourism Industry ....................................118

12.4.5 Maximising Local Economic Benefits ...........................................................119

12.4.6 Sustainable Energy ..........................................................................................119

12.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................119

13. ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE.............................................................121

13.1 THE ISSUES.........................................................................................................121

13.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................121

13.3 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................122

13.4 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................122

14. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT....................................................123

14.1 ISSUES.................................................................................................................123

14.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................123

14.3 SUBMISSIONS......................................................................................................124

14.4 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................126

14.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................127

15. PLANNING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 128

15.1 ISSUES.................................................................................................................128

15.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................129

15.3 SUBMISSIONS......................................................................................................131

15.4 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................131

15.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................133

16. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................135

16.1 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................135

16.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................136


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A SUBMISSIONS ....................................................................................138

APPENDIX B HEARING DOCUMENT LIST..........................................................139

APPENDIX C DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT (PREPARED BY THE

PROPONENT) ......................................................................................142

APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (PREPARED

BY THE PROPONENT).......................................................................165

APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED PLANNING PERMIT.......................................190

APPENDIX F RECOMMENDED “ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

PLAN AT THE PRE‐CONSTRUCTION STAGE”.........................198

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Location and form of the Ararat WEF proposal .............................. 11

Figure 2 Locations of background noise measurements................................ 48

Figure 3 Background noise levels at House AH12, with average

L95 noise levels superimposed ............................................................ 50

Figure 4 Site Access Points ................................................................................. 83

Figure 5 Lookout Hill broadcast transmitter and proposed

Ararat Wind Farm showing areas potentially affected

by television interference. ................................................................... 97

Figure 6 Potential interference zones predicted by the RES

Interference Model ............................................................................... 98

Figure 7 Development of the EMP through its stages.................................. 133

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Strategic Framework .......................................................... 22

Table 2 Visual assessment of residential viewpoints for which photomontages were done....................................................................... 61

Table 3 Visual impact of lights trialled and installed in Victoria and South Australia........................................................................................ 63

Table 4 Summary of SNR output from the RES Interference Model .................. 99


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

AH8 House 8 ‐ a location of ambient noise monitoring, shown on

Figure 1

ARC Ararat Rural City

ARCC Ararat Rural City Council

AusWEA Australian Wind Energy Association

BBMP Bat and Bird Management Plan

CFA Country Fire Authority

BL&A Brett Lane & Associates

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan

dBA Measure of loudness, measured on the decibel scale, and

adjusted for equivalence to the response of the human ear.

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

EMI Electromagnetic Interference

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPHC Environment Protection and Heritage Council

ESO1 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1

GHCMA Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

GWMW Grampians‐Wimmera‐Mallee Water

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

L95 Noise level exceeded for 95% of the time

MAV Municipal Association of Victoria


MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

MW Megawatt (a million Watts, a measure of electrical power)

NGS Northern Grampians Shire

NGSC Northern Grampians Shire Council

NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council

NZS6808:1998 New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound for Wind Turbine Generators

NZS6808:2010 New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound for Wind Turbine Generators (superseding the 1998 version in New Zealand)

OLS Obstacle Limitation Surface

PAD Planning Application Documentation

PS Pyrenees Shire

PSC Pyrenees Shire Council

RES RES Australia Pty Ltd

RVP01 Residential Viewing Point 01

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPO1 Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1

VPO2 Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2

VPP Victorian Planning Provisions

VWEG Victorian Wind Energy Guidelines (Policy and Planning

Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria,

September 2009)

WCMA Wimmera Catchment Management Authority

WEF Wind Energy Facility

WTG Wind Turbine Generators


1. SUMMARY

RES Australia Pty Ltd (the proponent), part of Renewable Energy Systems,

which has wind energy facilities in a number of countries, has applied for

planning permits to establish a 75 turbine wind energy facility north east of

Ararat. The relevant permit applications are Application 09/004799 under the

Ararat Planning Scheme (for 70 turbines) and Application 5.2009.94.1 1 under

the Northern Grampians Planning Scheme (five turbines).

The application is based on the wind turbines having a hub height of up to 94

metres, a rotor diameter of up to 104 metres, and a blade tip height of up to

135 metres, and will have a capacity up to 3.3 Megawatts.

The electrical connection to the State’s high voltage grid is not included as part

of the application.

The principal issues arising from the Ararat WEF proposal are:

medium to high landscape and visual impacts;

the need for native vegetation removal and the required offset works to

achieve the Net Gain policy;

the need for some further investigation of stability and safety issues on the

on‐site and off‐site access routes; and

the need to take particular care to avoid erosion of the fragile soils encountered at the site.

These matters, and a number of more minor matters, are addressed in the

Recommended Permit Conditions (Appendix E) and the Environmental

Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage (Appendix F).

After considering the contribution that the WEF can make to sustainable

energy supply, the Panel had no difficulty in concluding that the net

community benefit was substantial, and the project should proceed.

Other matters, with potential for wider application than just for the Ararat

WEF are:

the conclusion that the compilation by DSE of all Victorian data on bird and

bat strike from Victorian WEF’s is highly desirable;

the approach taken in this report of having not merely an outline EMP, but

a developed EMP, which included the recommendations of the Panel, the

recommendations from other authorities, and all the detailed commitments

of the proponent, including the adoption by the proponent of the

recommendations of the experts it employed.


2. OVERVIEW

The Permit Applications:

Ararat Planning Scheme Application 09/004799 Northern Grampians Planning Scheme Application 5.2009.94.1 1

The Project: The proposed Wind Energy Facility (WEF) is for 75 wind turbine generators (70 within the Rural City of Ararat, and 5 within the Northern Grampians Shire) and associated infrastructure sited 9 to 17 km northeast of Ararat on both sides of the Pyrenees Highway.

Proponent: RES Australia Pty Ltd

Responsible Authority:

Minister for Planning

Panel Members: A Panel with the following members was appointed under Sections 97E, 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider submissions and make recommendations to the Minister about the Ararat WEF: Robin Saunders, Chair Jack Chiodo, Member Ian Gibson, Member

Panel Hearings: The Hearings were held at Ararat on the following dates: Directions Hearing: 27 April 2010 Main Hearings: 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 July 2010

Site Inspection: An accompanied inspection was conducted on the second day of the Hearings (6 July 2010). The Panel also viewed the site and surrounding Wind Energy Facilities (Waubra and Challicum Hills) from public roads on a number of occasions, and was unaccompanied on these occasions.

Appearances: Department of Planning and Community Development represented by Ms Donna Grace-Davis.

RES Australia Pty Ltd represented by Mr Tim Power, a Partner of Freehills, who called the following evidence:

Mr Chris Turnbull of Sonus Pty Ltd—Acoustics;

Mr Allan Wyatt of ERM Consultants—Landscape/visual;

Mr Sydney Herron of Ambidji Group P/L—Aviation;

Mr Brett Lane of Brett Lane & Associates—Flora and fauna;

Dr Trenton Gilbert of GL Garrad Hassan—Shadow flicker, blade glint and electromagnetic interference.

Ararat Rural City Council represented by Mr Eoghan McColl.

Northern Grampians Shire Council represented by Mr Scott Douglas.

Mrs Lorraine Stewien

Mr Ormond Randell

Submitters A list of all submissions referred to the Panel is included in Appendix A


2.1 THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

The Planning Application Documentation (PAD), comprising Volume 1 –

Main Report, Volume 2 – Specialist Assessments and Volume 3 – Drawings,

describes the site, the surrounds and the proposed development. Figure 11

below shows the locality of the WEF.

The WEF is entirely within the Farming Zone under both councils’ planning

schemes. The land is at the western end of the Great Dividing Range, within

the Wimmera River catchment (via Mount Cole Creek) to the north and within

the Hopkins River catchment to the south.

2.2 NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL

The proposed WEF is for 75 wind turbine generators and associated

infrastructure sited 9 to 17 km northeast of Ararat on both sides of the

Pyrenees Highway. 70 of those turbines are within the Ararat Rural City

(ARC), and 5 within the Northern Grampians Shire (NGS). The proposal also

includes access tracks, access points from public roads, internal collector

network cabling (overhead and underground), permanent meteorological

masts, on‐site electrical substation and associated buildings and works.

The wind turbines proposed will fit within the following dimensions:

a blade tip height of up to 135 metres;

a rotor diameter of up to 104 metres;

a hub height of up to 94 metres;

and have a capacity up to 3.3 megawatts.

Other features of the WEF are:

road and junction upgrading / construction works to provide five site

entries;

provision of five site vehicular access locations;

preparation of up to four construction compounds;

crane hard‐standing areas;

excavation of rock for roadbase and land filling (located within the

infrastructure zone;

excavation and construction of wind turbine foundations;

relocation of excess excavated material;

construction of crane hard‐standing areas;

1 Source: Volume 2 of the Application Documentation, Landscape and Visual Assessment ERM

September 2009, Figure 2.1


construction of approximately 55km of new permanent access tracks;

clearing of some native vegetation on‐site and at the site entry locations;

establishment of mobile concrete batching plants;

underground cabling that generally follows the access track alignment and

some additional overhead power lines;

on‐site substation;

site office and storage building;

maintenance and control room including car parking area; and

three permanent meteorological masts (lattice tower construction).

The general location and form of the proposal is given in Figure 1 below, taken

from Mr Wyatt’s Expert Witness report.2

Figure 1 Location and form of the Ararat WEF proposal

2 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010, Figure 2.1


3. STRATEGIC & STATUTORY CONTEXT

3.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK

This section of the Report considers the policy context for the Ararat WEF and

focuses on the strategic and policy issues. It assesses how the application

meets the objectives of the Ararat and Northern Grampians Planning Schemes.

It includes a brief appraisal of the legislation relevant to the application, State

Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Local Planning Policy Framework

(LPPF) including Municipal Strategic Statements (MSS) and Local Planning

Policies, the appropriate zone and overlay controls, and particular provisions

in the Victorian Planning Provisions. Further, it outlines the status and

content of Guidelines available to evaluate wind energy facilities.

The submissions from the Department of Community Planning and

Development (DPCD), ARC and NGS Councils and the evidence from Mr

Power for the applicant set out the details of the relevant planning provisions.

The Panel notes that other submitters did not take issue with the interpretation

of these provisions by DPCD, Councils and the proponent.

The Panel does not propose to set out the details of all the provisions that may

be relevant; rather, the Panel will refer to them as appropriate. The clauses

referred to this discussion are contained in the Ararat and Northern

Grampians Planning Schemes.

3.2 LEGISLATION

The legislative framework surrounding the development of wind farms has

been thoroughly addressed in other Planning Panel reports relating to wind

farms. This report will outline the legislative and strategic planning

framework that has informed the application and the Panel’s considerations,

but will not reproduce it in depth.

The relevant legislation is described in the RES Australia Main Application3,

which covers the following:

Planning and Environment Act 1987;

Environment Effects Act 1978;

3 RES Australia, Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume 1, pp.

101-09


Environment Protection Act 1970;

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988;

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006;

Heritage Act 1995;

Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994;

Water Act 1989;

Victorian Renewable Energy Act 2006; and

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

3.3 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF)

The SPPF clarifies the aspects of State Policy to be considered in land use

planning decisions. It establishes the need to integrate the range of policies to

be considered in any issue to be determined, and “balance conflicting

objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development”.

The Goal of the SPPF (Clause 11.02) is:

...to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section

4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through

appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices

which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the

interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.

A number of clauses within the SPPF are relevant to the consideration of the

proposed Ararat WEF. The single most significant clause is 15.14 Renewable

Energy, which has the following Objective 15.14‐1:

To promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures

appropriate siting and design considerations are met.

Clause 15.14‐2 covers General Implementation:

Planning should facilitate renewable energy development in appropriate

locations.

Planning should consider the economic and environmental benefits to the

broader community of renewable energy generation and the effects on the

local environment.

In planning for wind energy facilities, planning should:

- Facilitate the consideration of wind energy development proposals;

- Recognise that economically viable wind energy facilities are dependent on

locations with consistently strong winds over the year and that such sites

may be highly localised;


and must take into account the Policy and Planning Guidelines for

Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria, 2009.

In considering proposals for renewable energy, planning and responsible

authorities should have regard to the Renewable Energy Action Plan, July

2006.

The Panel noted that the terminology including “promote” and “facilitate”

establishes support for the establishment of renewable energy facilities,

including wind farms. On the other hand, the SPPF does not provide

unqualified support for wind farms, requiring consideration of appropriate

location, design and environmental impacts. Importantly, the clause

references the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy

Facilities in Victoria, revised September 2009, providing a statutory basis for the

Wind Energy Guidelines for the proponent, submitters, Planning and

Responsible Authorities, and the Panel.

Several other clauses within the SPPF are of significance:

Clause 15.01 Protection of catchments, waterways and groundwater requires

avoidance of activities which degrade catchment soils and water sources.

Clause 15.04 Air quality requires protection and improvement of air

quality.

Clause 15.06 Noise abatement states that suitable project design or distance

separation is needed to protect sensitive land uses and development.

Clause 15.07 Protection from wildfire requires avoidance of conditions that

promote wildfire and installation of appropriate infrastructure and

equipment to assist with fire fighting efforts.

Clause 15.09 Conservation of native flora and fauna requires protection and

conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation and habitats for

native plants and animals, and suitable control of pest plants and

animals.

Clause 15.11 Heritage requires the conservation of places that have

natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social

significance or other special values important for scientific and research

purposes.

Clause 17.04 Tourism encourages tourism development that maximises

employment and assists the State to be a competitive tourist destination.

Clause 17.05 Agriculture seeks to protect the State’s agricultural base from

unplanned loss and encourages sustainable agriculture.

Clause 18.04 Airfields seeks to facilitate the siting of airfields and

extensions to airfields, restrict incompatible land use and development in


the vicinity of airfields, and recognise and strengthen the role of airfields

as focal points within the Stateʹs economic and transport infrastructure

Clause 18.09 Water supply, sewerage and drainage states runoff from

development should not contaminate water supplies.

Clause 19.03 Design and built form requires development to have regard to

its context and achieve good quality design.

3.4 LOCAL POLICY PLANNING FRAMEWORK (LPPF)

3.4.1 Ararat Planning Scheme

The MSS within the Ararat Planning Scheme provides the local land use

planning framework relevant to the consideration of the proposed Ararat

WEF. Relevant clauses include:

Clause 21.02 Vision – Strategic Framework outlines the Council’s vision for

the community. Notably, it includes the following:

Actively pursue wind energy industry opportunities for the establishment

of the Ararat Wind Industry Park

Actively investigate and promote opportunities for large scale tourism

accommodation development.

Support and advocate for the construction of the Challicum Hills Wind

Farm.

Clause 21.05 Environment, covering natural resource management, water

quality, catchment management, rural landscapes, heritage and

sustainable development.

Clause 21.06 Economic Development, outlining the importance of existing

industries and promoting new ones. This clause includes the following

reference to the Wind Energy Industry:

Ararat Rural City Council is committed to actively pursuing wind energy

opportunities in the municipality including wind farm sites (such as at

Challicum Hills) and the establishment of manufacturing facilities related

to the wind energy industry. Council supports the development of an

Ararat Renewable Energy Park.

The Ararat Renewable Energy Park will accommodate different types of

industrial uses including manufacturing primarily relating to renewable

energy. The site is ideally located adjacent to the aerodrome and along the

Western Highway providing excellent access and logistics opportunities.


3.4.2 Northern Grampians Planning Scheme

The Northern Grampians Planning Scheme includes the following clauses

relevant to the Panel’s assessment:

Clause 21.03 Vision Statement outlines the Council’s vision for the

community, including agriculture, tourism, environment and heritage

Clause 21.06 Agriculture, aiming to protect, conserve and enhance

agricultural land for the benefit of current and future generations.

Clause 21.10 Environment, with the following objectives:

to achieve total catchment management

to manage salinity

to maintain and improve the condition of waterways and wetlands to

achieve acceptable water quality standards

to protect flora and fauna

to reduce soil erosion

to reduce the impacts of flooding and surface water run‐off

to ensure that land use and development does not increase the level of

fire risk and includes adequate fire protection measures.

Clause 21.07 Tourism, aiming to foster further tourism development.

Clause 22.11 Heritage, aiming to recognise and preserve natural, spiritual,

cultural and built forms.

3.5 ZONES

The site is in the Farming Zone (Clause 35.07‐1) in Ararat Rural City and the

Northern Grampians Shire, while parts of the site in Ararat Rural City are in

the Road Zone (Clause 36.04).

The purposes of the Farming Zone include:

...To provide for the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.

To ensure that non‐agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely

affect the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and

sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area.


A WEF is a Section 2 use in the Farming Zone. Thus, the proposed Ararat

Wind Farm requires a planning permit for:

The use and development of the site for a wind energy facility, including

associated infrastructure and removal of native vegetation, pursuant to the

Farming Zone (clause 35.07);

Construction of a building or carrying out of works within the Farming

Zone (clause 35.07‐4); and

Earthworks within the Farming Zone (clause 35.07‐4).

3.6 OVERLAYS

3.6.1 Ararat Planning Scheme: VPO1 and VPO2

Parts of the site are subject to the Vegetation Protection Overlay ‐ Schedule 1

(VPO1) and Vegetation Protection Overlay ‐ Schedule 2 (VPO2) under the

Ararat Planning Scheme. VPO1 aims to protect areas of significant remnant

vegetation throughout the municipality, while VPO2 protect areas of

significant remnant vegetation located along roadsides.

A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop any native vegetation. An

application to remove native vegetation must:

Indicate the total extent of native vegetation on the subject land and the

extent of proposed clearing, destruction or lopping, the location of any river,

stream, watercourse, wetland or channel on the subject land, and if relevant

the location of areas with a slope exceeding 20%.

Specify the purpose of the proposed clearing.

Demonstrate that the need for removal, destruction or lopping of remnant

native vegetation has been reduced to the minimum extent that is reasonable

and practicable.

Specify proposals for revegetation following disturbance or restoration of an

alternate site, including proposed species, ground stabilisation and ongoing

maintenance.

If the area of proposed clearing exceeds 0.4 ha, include a report on the

vegetation and habitat significance of the area subject to the permit, to the

satisfaction of the responsible authority.

3.6.2 Ararat Planning Scheme: WMO

After the lodging of the application, a Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO)

was introduced by the Minister for Planning via Amendment C22 and

gazetted on 11 February 2010. The WMO covers an insignificant part of the

WEF site.


3.6.3 Northern Grampians Planning Scheme: ESO1

The Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1) applies to the part

of the site located within the Northern Grampians Shire.

The Schedule to ESO1 provides the following “Statement of environmental

significance”:

There are significant ridges on the highest land in the municipality which

display erosion characteristics and which are susceptible to further

environmental degradation.

The “Environmental objectives to be achieved” are the following:

To protect significant ridges from development which may accentuate erosion.

To maintain the natural beauty of the ridge system.

To protect the remnant native vegetation and to encourage the re‐establishment

of native communities in degraded areas.

To prevent erosion of the ridge system.

To maintain the landscape qualities of the ridge system especially when viewed

from surrounding areas.

Within this Overlay a permit is required to construct a building or construct or

carry out works where these activities are undertaken on an area with a

gradient of more than 10%, or where native vegetation is proposed to be

removed.

3.7 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

3.7.1 Clause 52.32: Wind Energy Facility

Clause 52.32 of the Victorian Planning Provisions covers the requirements for

a WEF, and is the clause in the Ararat and Northern Grampians Planning

Schemes that is of primary significance to the Ararat application.

The “Purpose” of the Clause is:

To facilitate the establishment and expansion of wind energy facilities, in

appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.

The Application requirements in Clause 52.32‐2 are of particular significance.

The application must include the following information, as appropriate:

A site and context analysis, including:

- A site plan, photographs or other techniques to accurately describe the site

and surrounding area.


- A location plan showing the full site area, local electricity grid and access

roads.

A design response, including:

- Detailed plans of the proposed development.

- Accurate visual simulations illustrating the development in the context of

the surrounding area and from key public view points.

A rehabilitation plan for the site.

A written report(s), including:

- An explanation of how the proposed design derives from and responds to

the site analysis.

- A description of the proposal.

- A description of how the proposal responds to any significant landscape

features for the area identified in the planning scheme.

An assessment of:

- the visual impact of the proposal on the landscape.

- the visual impact on abutting land that is subject to the National Parks

Act 1975.

- the impact of the proposal on any species (including birds and bats) listed

under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

- the noise impacts of the proposal on existing dwellings prepared in

accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998, Acoustics –

The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators.

- the impacts upon Aboriginal or non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage.

A statement of why the site is suitable for the wind energy facility.

An environmental management plan including any rehabilitation and

monitoring.

Clause 52.32‐3 covers Decision Guidelines. In addition to the Decision

Guidelines under Clause 65, the following must be considered, as appropriate:

The effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of noise, blade glint,

shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference.

The impact of the development on significant views, including visual corridors

and sightlines.

The impact of the facility on the natural environment and natural systems.

The impact of the facility on cultural heritage.

The impact of the facility on aircraft safety.

The Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities

in Victoria, 2009.


3.7.2 Clause 52.17: Native Vegetation

Clause 52.17 of the Victorian Planning Provisions covers the requirements for

a Wind Energy Facility.

The “Purposes” of the Clause are:

To protect and conserve native vegetation to reduce the impact of land and water

degradation and provide habitat for plants and animals.

To achieve the following objectives:

- To avoid the removal of native vegetation.

- If the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, to minimise the

removal of native vegetation through appropriate planning and design.

- To appropriately offset the loss of native vegetation.

To provide for the management and removal of native vegetation in accordance

with a property vegetation plan.

To manage vegetation near buildings to reduce the threat to life and property

from wildfire.

The Decision Guidelines in Clause 52.17‐5 reference Victoria’s Native

Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (Department of Natural

Resources and Environment 2002), which has as its primary goal “…to achieve:

A reversal, across the entire Landscape, of the long‐term decline in the extent and

quality of native vegetation, leading to a Net Gain”. The decision guidelines then

set out the fundamental principles of the Framework, “to avoid, minimise and

offset” the removal of native vegetation. They refer to the role of native

vegetation in protecting water quality and waterway and riparian ecosystems

and preventing land degradation. Further, they require assessment of the

conservation status of the native vegetation, its quality and condition and

“whether the native vegetation is a threatened community, or provides habitat for

threatened fauna or flora, as listed in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988”.

3.8 GUIDELINES

3.8.1 The Victorian Wind Energy Guidelines (VWEG)

The Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in

Victoria, September 2009 (VWEG) represent a significant document in the

consideration of the merits of the Ararat proposal by the Panel. The

Guidelines clarify State Government support for the development of the wind

energy industry in Victoria. It identifies the planning framework for wind

energy facility proposals, clarifies the requirements of planning permit

applications, establishes the criteria for assessing wind energy facilities, and

describes planning permit administration and enforcement.


The purpose of the Wind Energy Guidelines is:

To outline how the Victorian Government will facilitate the appropriate

development of wind energy facilities, balancing environmental, social and

economic outcomes.

The Victorian Wind Energy Guidelines have statutory status, as described in

Section 3.3 State Planning Policy Framework above. While the Guidelines are

often broad in scope, they provide the principles that guide the proponent in

its application, and the Panel in its assessment. Further, the Guidelines

reference other more specific documents and guidelines, such as the

Australian Wind Energy Association’s (AusWEA) Best Practice Guidelines for

Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia (2006) and the New Zealand

Standard NZS6808:1998, Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound

from Wind Turbine Generators.

3.8.2 The EPHC National Wind Farm Guidelines

The Draft Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) National

Wind Farm Development Guidelines were developed by a Working Group

that included Commonwealth and state representatives of the Environment

Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) and the Local Government and

Planning Ministers’ Council. The report was released in July 2010, after the

Ararat Wind Energy Facility application, but before consideration by the

Panel.

Unlike the Victorian Wind Energy Guidelines, the Draft National Guidelines

do not have statutory status. Nevertheless, they provide a sound compilation

of current standards relating to wind farms. In particular, the Technical

Appendices provide detailed consideration of methodology for assessment of

a range of issues such as consultation, noise, landscape, birds and bats,

shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference.

The Panel therefore gave consideration to the methodologies in the Draft

National Guidelines, and used them to the extent that they assisted the Panel

in its assessment of the project according to statutory requirements.

3.8.3 Model Planning Permit Conditions for Wind Energy Facilities

DPCD has prepared model planning permit conditions for wind energy

facilities, aiming “to assist all parties involved in permit applications for wind

energy facilities where the Minister for Planning is the responsible authority”4.

4 DPCD website, Wind Energy Facilities


These model conditions “are for guidance only and should be adapted

depending on the individual circumstance of each wind energy proposal”.

The Model Conditions formed the basis of “without prejudice” discussions

between DPCD, Ararat Rural City Council, Northern Grampians Shire

Council and the proponent between formal sessions during the Panel

hearings. In turn, these discussions provided an important input into the

Panel workshop session on Planning Permit Conditions and the

Environmental Management Plan.

3.9 SUMMARY OF STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Table 1 summarises the most significant elements of the strategic and statutory

framework considered by the Panel in its assessment of the application.

Table 1 Summary of Strategic Framework

Chapter and topic: Area Relevant elements of the strategic and statutory context

3. Strategic assessment / contribution to Government policy objectives

SPPF

LPPF

VPP

VWEG

Clause 11.03-3 Management of resources

APS Clause 21.02 Vision – Strategic Framework

APS Clause 21.05 Environment

APS Clause 21.06 Economic Development

NGPS Clause 21.03 Vision Statement

Clause 52-32 Wind Energy Facility

pp.27-28

5. Flora and fauna SPPF

LPPF

VPP

Overlays

Other Govt policy

VWEG

Clause 15.09 Conservation of native flora and fauna


NGPS Clause 21.10 Environment

Clause 52-17 Native Vegetation

APS VPO1 and VPO2

NGPS ESO1

Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (DNRE 2002

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

pp 13-14; 21-22; p. 33



6. Noise SPPF

VPP

VWEG

Clause 15.05 Noise Abatement

Clause 52.32 the noise impacts of the proposal on existing dwellings prepared in accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998, Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators.) pp.30-31

7. Landscape and visual

LPPF

Overlays

VWEG



NGPS ESO1

p. 14; pp. 28-30

8. Roads and traffic management

SPPF Clause 11.03-4 Infrastructure

9. Aviation and Fire Safety

SPPF

VWEG

Clause 15.07 Protection from Wildfire

Clause 18.04 Airfields

p 32

10. Shadow Flicker, blade glint and EMI

VWEG p31

11. Soil and water management

SPPF

LPPF

Other Govt policy VWEG

Clause 15.01 Protection of Catchments, Waterways and Groundwater APS Clause 21.05 Environment



Glenelg Hopkins and Wimmera Regional Catchment Strategies pp.13-14

12. Social and economic impacts

SPPF

LPPF

VWEG

Clause 11.03-5 Economic well-being

Clause 11.03-6 Social needs

Clause 11.03-7 Regional co-operation

Clause 15.12 Energy efficiency

Clause 15.14 Renewable energy

Clause 17.05 Agriculture APS Clause 21.05 Environment

APS Clause 21.06 Economic Development

NGPS Clause 21.06 Agriculture

NGPS Clause 21.07 Tourism

p.12 (employment and regional development); pp. 17-18 (consultation)



13. Aboriginal cultural heritage.

SPPF

LPPF

VWEG

Clause 15.11 Heritage


NGPS Clause 22.11 Heritage

pp.14

14. Administration and enforcement

VWEG Section 4.2 and pp.34

15. Environmental Management Plan

VWEG pp.26

3.10 CONCLUSIONS

As described in this report, the Panel concluded that there is strong State

Government support for the development of wind energy facilities in Victoria,

as long as the facilities are appropriately sited, have acceptable environmental

impact and generate net community benefit.


4. ISSUES

4.1 NATURE OF SUBMISSIONS

20 submissions were received by DPCD and were referred to the Panel. Of

these, four supported the proposal, two had no objections, three had qualified

approval providing development was in accordance with guidelines or

specified conditions, and eleven objected to aspects of the proposal.

The issues identified in the submissions were:

flora and fauna, including the need for vegetation removal on access roads

off‐site;

noise, including low frequency sound, infrasound, and health impacts;

landscape and visual impacts, including aviation lighting;

roads and traffic management;

aviation safety;

fire;

shadow flicker, blade glint and electromagnetic interference;

soil and water management;

social and economic impact, including consultation and tourism;

rights of adjacent land owners;

ongoing administration and enforcement of any planning permit that may

be issued;

Environmental Management Plan;

grid connection; and

loss of value.

While the last two of these issues are outside the scope of the Panel’s task, they

are briefly addressed to the extent that is necessary to document why the

Panel is not reporting on them at greater length.

DPCD Grampians Region, acting on behalf of the Minister for Planning,

provided advice on policy matters and the statutory framework for the

proposal, along with a brief discussion of the issues raised in submissions.

Mr Power, a partner of Freehills, acting for the proponent, RES Australia,

called evidence on the following matters:

acoustics — Mr Chris Turnbull of Sonus Pty Ltd;


landscape/visual — Mr Allan Wyatt of ERM Consultants;

aviation — Mr Sydney Herron of Ambidji Group P/L;

flora and fauna — Mr Brett Lane of Brett Lane & Associates; and

shadow flicker, blade glint and electromagnetic interference — Dr Trenton

Gilbert of GL Garrad Hassan.

No other party was represented by Counsel.

The ARCC generally supported the proposal5. It provided comment on a

range of matters, including night lighting, loss of native vegetation, and

enforcement.

The NGS made a submission6 to the hearing in response to the Panel’s

Directions, and addressed specifically the Environmental Significance Overlay

that affects that part of the proposal within their municipality.

The referral authorities nominated under the relevant Planning Schemes are:

ESO1 – Glenelg Hopkins (GHCMA) and Wimmera Catchment (WCMA)

Management Authorities and Grampians‐Wimmera‐Mallee Water

(GWMW);

ESO2 – Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE):

WMO – Country Fire Authority (CFA); and

Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road – VicRoads.

DSE made a written submission7 on the application, expressing concern that

the application did not adequately address the avoid and minimise principles

of Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (DNRE

2002), the affect of Turbines T32, T33, T64 and T65 on avifauna accessing the

Ararat Regional Park, landscape and visual amenity from Langi Ghiran State

Park and providing detailed items to be included in the environmental

management plan. DSE attended the Hearings (in part) but made no further

written submission, save for marked up sections of the DPCD draft Planning

Permit and a response to a Panel query relating to the impact of the Land and

Biodiversity White Paper on the project.

GWMW made a submission8 to the referred application, and offered no

objection. It did not attend the Hearing.

5 Submission No 15 6 Hearing Document No 22 7 Submission No 14 8 Submission No 3


The GHCMA made a written submission9 focussing on the need to manage

impacts of batters, internal roads and drainage on erosion, and avoid the

transport of weed species, but did not attend the Hearing. The WCMA did

not provide a written submission, and did not attend the Hearing.

The CFA made a submission10 on the referred application, and offered no

objection, and recommended that the site be developed in accordance with

CFA’s document Emergency Management Guidelines for Windfarms.

VicRoads made a submission11 on the referred application, and offered no

objection, providing specified permit conditions were adopted.

4.2 ISSUES FOUND TO BE NOT RELEVANT TO THE PANEL

4.2.1 Grid Connection

The Pyrenees Shire Council written submission12 objected to the failure by RES

Australia to include the grid connection as an integral component of the

proposal on which they are seeking a planning permit, and requests that the

Minister defer the consideration of the Ararat WEF until a complete

application is submitted. Two submitters, Mr and Mrs Harrington and Mr

Wilde objected to the proposed acquisition for the grid connection, while Mr

Wilde was also concerned at the potential for the construction and operation

of the grid connection to introduce weeds to his property, which operates

under a bio‐security arrangement and is weed free.

None of these submitters presented to the Hearing, though the PSC was

scheduled to appear, but made a further written submission after the Panel

Hearing was closed. This written submission repeated the main concern of

the PSC, namely the incomplete nature of the proposal, and addressed further

issues. These were enforcement, noise, siting of turbines in relation to

property boundaries, aviation lighting, and secondary consent. These further

issues had been discussed at the Hearing, and the material before the Panel at

the time of the Hearing has formed the basis of the Panel’s considerations.

The Panel did arrange for the late written submission from the PSC to be sent

to parties for information, and RES Australia made a further submission on

the matters raised. However, as noted above, it was the material before the

Panel at the time of the Hearing that has formed the basis of the Panel’s

considerations.

9 Submission No 7 10 Submission No 1 11 Submission No 2 12 Submission No 20


Turning now to the issue of the completeness of the application, Mr Power in

his opening address to the Panel drew attention to Part 4 of the VWEG that

makes clear that the grid connection does not form part of the Minister’s

assessment of a WEF. Notwithstanding that, Mr Lane did undertake some

preliminary investigation of the clearing that might be required for any grid

connection, but this material was not put forward for considered deliberation

at the Panel Hearing, but rather for general information.

Mr Power also commented as follows:

It is standard practice for separate permit applications to be made for

electricity transmission lines. This is primarily because connection to the

electricity grid is a separate land use from a wind energy facility, and is

typically subject to input from the network service provider. In any event,

impacts of the electricity transmission line are unlikely to be significant.

Section 2.1.2 of the VWEG13 addresses the grid connection. It states that “The

transmission or distribution system of power lines necessary to connect a wind farm to

the electricity grid is a separate land use to that of a wind energy facility.” It also

states:

While the applications can run in parallel, there may be two different

responsible authorities [ie the Minister for Planning and Council for some

projects] and timelines for approval could differ depending on the nature of

the application. Where they are separate applications, details of the power

line infrastructure are not required to be provided as part of the wind

energy facility application, with the exception of the distribution starting

point.

The Panel has no power to consider the detail of the grid connection, in a

situation where the applicant has chosen to apply separately for a permit for

the grid connection, and where comprehensive details, impacts and

ameliorative measures are not provided to be considered in tandem with the

application for the WEF. As this is the case for the Ararat WEF, the Panel will

not further consider the merits of different grid connection alternatives.

The Panel does, however, share the concerns of the PSC, and notes the concern

and anxiety expressed by the two submitters who must now wait for a further

process prior to any decision on the grid connection being made. The normal

definition of a project includes elements necessary to bring the project to

fruition, and will include off‐site matters as required. In the present Ararat

WEF, examples include the use and maintenance of local roads, necessary

vegetation clearance along public roads, and traffic safety measures on the

13 Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, Revised

September 2009


road system for the transport of imported heavy equipment. All these matters

have been addressed by the proponent, and will form part of either any

planning permit condition or the Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

In just the same way, the VWEG contemplate the grid connection being

considered in conjunction with the WEF application. The proponent has not

chosen to take that approach, no doubt in part because of the difficulty of

getting the required input from the network service provider at this time. The

Panel would agree with the PSC that considering a project holistically is good

practice, and is routinely recommended in international Environmental

Impact Assessment practice.

The Panel therefore recommends that:

The Minister for Planning and the Minister for Energy and Resources

amend the Policy and Planning Guidelines to require the grid

connection permit to be applied for concurrently with a WEF

application, and the two applications to be considered together.

4.2.2 Loss of Value

The submissions to the Panel by Mrs Stewien and Mr Randell both raised the

issue of the loss of value of their property as a result of the presence of the

WEF. Mr Power addressed this issue in Part B of his submission to the

Hearing, and quoted its conclusion in Acciona Energy Oceania Pty Ltd v

Corangamite Shire Council14 as follows:

It is a well established planning principle that depreciation of land values

as a result of a proposed development is not a relevant ground by which to

refuse a proposal. That is, property value is not, in itself, a planning

consideration. Amenity is relevant and we have addressed potential

amenity impacts in these reasons.

Mr Power concluded that impact on property values as irrelevant to the

assessment, and was not supported in any case by any evidence.

The Panel agrees that the position Mr Power put is consistent with long‐term

decision‐making by Planning Panels Victoria and VCAT, and has not further

considered the issue of Loss of Value.

14 [2008] VCAT 1617 at para 112


4.3 ARRANGEMENT OF ISSUES IN THE REPORT

The issues identified in Section 4.1 above have been grouped into the

following chapters of the report:

Chapter 5 Flora and Fauna

Chapter 6 Noise and Health Impacts

Chapter 7 Landscape and Visual impacts

Chapter 8 Roads and Traffic Management

Chapter 9 Aviation Safety and Fire

Chapter 10 Shadow Flicker, Blade Glint and EMI

Chapter 11 Soil and Water Management

Chapter 12 Social and Economic

Chapter 13 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Chapter 14 Administration and Enforcement

Chapter 15 Environmental Management Plan

Chapter 16 Recommended Permit Conditions

Chapter 17 Conclusions

Chapter 18 Recommendations


5. FLORA AND FAUNA

5.1 WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

There are three main issues relating to flora and fauna:

the extent to which native vegetation removal is avoided, minimised and

offset;

the impact of disturbance of habit, particularly as a result of the

construction of access roads, power lines and other infrastructure through

the site; and

the potential for bird strike from turbine blades.

The principles underlying these matters have been addressed in past Panel

reports relating to wind energy facilities, but there are site‐specific issues that

are addressed in this report.

At the hearings, the Panel sought advice from the Department of

Sustainability and Environment (DSE) about the relevance of the Land and

Biodiversity White Paper (2009) regarding the proposal. In particular, it

requested advice on the implications of the threshold concepts of flagship

areas, biolinks and resilience for consideration of the Ararat WEF.

DSE responded by stating that the proposed facility is located in a biolink,

between the Greater Grampians and Goldfields flagship areas. It noted that

the intention of establishing flagship areas and biolinks “is to enable high level

targeted investment decisions to be made in the future, and as such, they

should not be interpreted as being specific tools for decision makers to utilise

in a planning context”. DSE added:

It is worth noting that wind farms by their very nature and design have

potential to provide barriers to the values recognised by biolinks (i.e.

ecological connectivity / movement of species). However in the

departments opinion these concerns can be dealt with via the planning

tools and processes currently available in Victoria’s planning system.

The Panel has noted the advice from DSE on the potential for wind farms to

provide barriers to the values recognised by biolinks. In the absence of any

further advice, submissions or concern from DSE, or any other party, and the

general evidence of low avifauna use in the wind farm area, this matter has

not been taken further by the Panel.


5.2 BACKGROUND

The policy considerations relevant to flora and fauna have been detailed in

Chapter 3 above, and in the VWEG15.

The specialist assessment carried out by Brett Lane and Associates (BL&A)16

sets out the principal investigations undertaken for the application. In his

expert witness statement17, Brett Lane described the methodology used in

assessing flora and fauna impacts of the proposed facility:

Mapping of the remnant vegetation and scattered trees within designated

infrastructure zones on the two portions of the site and in surrounding

roadsides based on air photo interpretation and ground‐truthing.

Spring flora surveying (October 2007) for areas of the proposed footprint

identified at that time as being suitable habitat for rare or threatened flora.

An overview fauna survey of the site. A survey of the entire site for ground

fauna (e.g. reptiles and frogs) was not considered necessary.

Two separate targeted surveys for the Powerful Owl in remnant treed

vegetation adjacent to the northern portion of the site.

A bird utilisation survey to detail bird life on the proposed wind farm site,

including bird abundance, diversity, distribution, flight patterns and

heights and general aspects of bird behaviour on the site (part of a Level one

bird risk assessment as per the AusWEA interim standards).

An Anabat® ultrasonic bat survey to detail bat diversity and activity levels

on those parts of the proposed wind farm site where turbines are proposed to

be located.

A desktop flora and fauna assessment for a potential overhead powerline

route.

Following discussions with the DSE, four reports were prepared for the

project:

BL&A (2007) Proposed Ararat Wind Farm Preliminary Flora and Fauna

Assessment, Report 7169 (1.3);

BL&A (2009a) Proposed Ararat Wind Farm Flora and Fauna Assessment,

Report 7169 (2.7);

15 Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, published by

the Victorian Government Department of Planning and Community Development Melbourne, September 2009, pages 13 and 14

16 Volume 2 of the Application Documentation, Flora and Fauna Assessment, Brett Lane & Associated Pty Ltd, September 2009 (Reports Numbers 7169 (2.7) and 7169 (3.1))

17 Proposed Ararat Wind Farm, Expert Witness Statement of Brett Lane, June 2010, Section 1.3


BL&A (2009b) Ararat Wind Farm: Targeted Powerful Owl Survey, Report

7169 (3.1);

BL&A (2010b) Ararat Wind Farm: Potential Overhead Powerline Desktop Flora

and Fauna Assessment, Report 7169 (6.0).

The results of the surveys were summarised in Brett Lane’s expert witness

statement on flora and fauna. With regard to flora:

A total of 101 flora species were recorded within the proposed

Infrastructure Zone, 75 (74%) of which were indigenous, 24 were

introduced species and two were planted non‐indigenous trees...Fifteen

flora species of state and/or national conservation significance were

identified in the FIS and EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool as

occurring or having the potential to occur in the 20km search region that

includes the proposed wind farm. No species of conservation significance

was recorded in the proposed Infrastructure Zone during the survey.

The analysis of fauna at the site describes the species found in surveys:

Based on the field assessment and the review of existing information, the

study area is known to or is likely to support 165 species of fauna,

including 25 species of mammals (six introduced), 122 species of birds

(five introduced), 15 species of reptile and three species of frog...

Table 5 of the Flora and Fauna Assessment Report... provides a list of

threatened fauna species that are likely to occur in the study area. None of

the fauna species in Table 5 were recorded in the study area during the

current investigation.

Fauna investigations were carried out to determine the presence of the

Powerful Owl. The investigations were carried out and the Powerful Owl

was not detected. The results of these investigations are contained in the

report for the Powerful Owl...

The analysis of birds is particularly significant. The bird utilisation surveys

identified 38 bird species, with the most abundant species being Australian

Magpie, Long‐billed Corella, Galah and raven spp (mainly Little Raven).

These species, together with the Australasian Pipit and Sulphur‐crested

Cockatoo, Yellow‐rumped Thornbill and White‐fronted Chat, accounted for

90% of individual birds observed.

The expert witness statement of Brett Lane from BL&A referred to the

existence of raptors at the site:

Birds of prey (or raptors) formed 2.6 percent of all individuals counted in

the proposed wind farm and three percent of birds seen at RSA [rotor

swept area] height. The species most commonly observed at RSA height


was the Wedge‐tailed Eagle, followed by Brown Falcon and Nankeen

Kestrel. The utilisation rate of Wedge‐tailed Eagles at the site is very low

(0.008 birds per hectare per hour) compared with the spring utilisation

rate at a number of other wind farm sites in Victoria...

The expert witness statement also addressed the issue of native vegetation

removal, and the offset plan aimed at protecting and replacing native

vegetation:

A total of 8.53 hectares, (equivalent to 5.89 habitat hectares) of native

vegetation is proposed to be removed from within the infrastructure zone.

Prescribed offset targets for the removal of native vegetation within the

infrastructure zone are summarised as follows:

0.32 habitat hectares for the removal of 0.16 habitat hectares (0.31

hectares) of Very High conservation significance vegetation;


hectares) of High conservation significance vegetation; and


hectares) of Medium conservation significance vegetation.

A total of 8 habitat hectares is required to achieve the associated offset

target for the removal of the above native vegetation.

Based on previous experience, approximately 40 hectares of suitable native

vegetation may be required to achieve this offset target. This is based on a

potential 20% improvement of the offset site (8 habitat hectares x 5 = 40

hectares). It should be noted that this is a highly conservative estimate,

which for the most part is based on a default habitat score of 0.7 for Grassy

Dry Forest EVC. This assessment therefore represents a worst case

scenario but it demonstrates the scale of the required offset. Many hectares

of native vegetation of the same EVC as that being removed occur within

the properties in which the wind farm is to be built. These areas are

considered to be more than adequate to meet the offset target.

Mr Lane concluded:

Based on the initial vegetation mapping, the design of the wind farm

layout has, for the most part, avoided impacts on minor roads known to

support significant roadside vegetation, including Hopkins River Road,

Warrak Road and Big Hill Road, identified in our report and in municipal

roadside vegetation mapping.

The wind farm footprint and proposed access tracks avoid the majority of

intact native vegetation on the site. A number of additional changes,

namely re‐routing of various access tracks to avoid mapped areas of native


vegetation, have been implemented following discussions between Brett

Lane & Associates Pty Ltd and RES Australia Pty Ltd (BL&A 2009a).

Offsets for the removal of native vegetation have been prescribed in BL&A

Report 7169 (2.7). An offset plan will be prepared detailing vegetation to

be removed, prescribed net gain targets, and details of the offset site. Areas

of remnant native vegetation within the properties involved in the project

could provide the required offset (approx. 40 hectares) as these will meet

like‐for‐like criteria. The proponent proposes to discuss the use of these

areas with the relevant landholders (p 19).

The proponent thus relied heavily on the work of Brett Lane and Associates,

and concluded that the proposed Ararat Wind Farm can be designed,

constructed and operated in compliance with applicable legislation and

policies relating to flora and fauna.

During the site inspection Mr Power pointed out examples of where access

roads to and within the site had been aligned to minimise clearing of native

vegetation.

5.3 EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

5.3.1 Native Vegetation Removal

In its written submission on the exhibited Application Documentation, DSE

provided comments under the headings “In response to the section 55

referral” and later in the submission under the heading “In response to the

section 52 notice”.

In accordance with Section 61 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act:

The responsible authority must decide to refuse to grant a permit if a

relevant referral authority objects to the grant of the permit.

Comments provided under Section 52 do not carry the same requirement, and

can be considered on their merit, and in conjunction with other aspects of the

overall assessment.

The DSE submission in response to the Section 55 referral stated that the

Department believed that the application had not adequately addressed the

‘avoid and minimise’ principles of Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A

Framework for Action (2002), “particularly with respect to the location and

alignment of hard standing areas and vehicular tracks impacting on areas of

very high and high conservation significance”. DSE explained at the Hearing

that this is a general comment aimed at ensuring detailed discussions are held

with the Department as the vegetation clearance requirements are subject to a


greater level of detail. Should areas of very high conservation significance not

be avoided, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change must approve

(or reject) the offset plan. As the DSE submission states:

In this case the department requests that the Panel recommend that the

Minister for Planning defer issue of a permit for removal of native

vegetation of very high conservation significance until the Minister for

Environment and Climate Change has approved that removal.18

In relation to the remainder of the DSE comments under its Section 55

responsibilities, three particular permit conditions are stated, namely:

The approved (Named) Offset Plan will be endorsed and become part

of the permit.

Before the vegetation removal starts, the offsets documented in the

approved (Named) Offset Plan must be initiated to the satisfaction of

the Responsible Authority and the Department of Sustainability and

Environment.

Offsets must be completed according to the schedule of works in the

(Named) Offset Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority19.

Comments provided under Section 52 included reference to turbines in

proximity to State and regional Parks, Landscape and visual amenity, and the

statement that the Department has no objection to the granting of a permit,

subject to conditions based on DPCD’s Model Wind Energy Conditions February

2009. The issues raised by DSE have been addressed in the relevant chapters

of the Panel report (Chapters 5 and 7 in particular).

At the hearings, representatives of DSE contributed to the “without prejudice”

discussions on permit conditions, and agreed that the Department’s concerns

had been addressed by the proposed conditions.

Ararat Rural City Council’s submission on the exhibited documents also noted

that, “in addition to the vegetation offsets proposed any permit also addresses the

damage or loss that may result from the yet to be determined transport routes”20.

This was reinforced by W J and L O Stewien, who expressed concern about the

impact of transport along Big Hill Road “with trees canopied over the transport

corridor and the subsequent need to remove or damage such trees”. Peter Woods

also referred to Big Hill Road as a “treed wildlife corridor”, and submitted that

18 Submission 14, p.2 19 Ibid, p.2 20 Submission 15


the entry point for the project off the main Ararat/Warrak Road should be

shifted “slightly west” to avoid damage to the corridor.

The Expert Witness Report on Traffic by Ms G Austin of Aurecon Australia

Pty Ltd provided a response to the issue raised by Ararat Rural City Council.

Chapter 4 of her Expert Witness Statement (see pages 11 to 34) made a

preliminary review of the likely damage to vegetation on the access routes. It

concluded (page 35) that:

A preliminary analysis of the loss of vegetation on transport routes has

been undertaken. In general, vegetation loss is anticipated to be low, with

the potential for up to 7 trees to be removed.

It should be noted that this is a preliminary view and further route

analysis will be undertaken to confirm routes and swept path

requirements. This will include a trial run to clearly identify issues.21

5.3.2 Disturbance of Habitat

The Hamilton Field Naturalists Club submitted that in December 2009 “a

viable population” of the Golden Sun Moth had been found in the vicinity of

towers T49, T67 and T50, and that construction of these towers would lead to

the removal of its habitat. The Club considered that the surveys conducted in

2008 had not covered these important areas. Further, the Club was critical of

aspects of the Flora and Fauna Assessment carried out by Brett Lane and

Associates (BL&A), and stated in part:

The land within tower number T67, appears to contain a diverse and

species‐rich native ground flora ...This is not the low quality habitat

claimed in the BL&A flora and fauna report...Apart from ad hoc

‘incidental records’, the B&LA Flora and Fauna Assessment does not

appear to have conducted rigorous assessment of cryptic species such as

the Golden Sun Moth or Fat‐tailed Dunnart, despite the area in question

clearly containing suitable habitat.22

The Club was critical of the survey points used for the bird and bat surveys,

under‐estimation of the significance of native vegetation in ground layers

(such as native grasses and herbs), and failure to properly consider impacts on

the Southern Bent‐wing Bat. It recommended the removal of T49, T67 and T50

from the plans, and use of the area as a “habitat offset area”.

Mr Lane responded to the Club’s submission in his Expert Witness Report. In

particular, he drew attention to the site where the Golden Sun Moth was

21 Gillian Austin, Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd, Expert Witness Report on Traffic, p.35 22 Hamilton Field Naturalists Club, submission 17


found by club members (at a creek crossing on the Hopkins River Road),

pointing out that habitat values further up the slope in the infrastructure zone

are of much lower quality than those at the creek crossing on the road.

The Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority noted the

importance of avoiding the introduction of weed species through “poor

machinery hygiene practices” and avoiding the use of hay bales for control of

erosion and sediment, and proposed relevant permit conditions. The potential

for the introduction of weeds was also identified by K J Wilde, whose written

submission refers to the farm’s current weed‐free status, and expresses

concern about the need for cleaning machinery to avoid the introduction of

weeds such as Paterson’s Curse. The Panel notes that Mr Wilde’s submission

related to the grid connection, which is not part of the proposal (see Section

4.2.1 above).

5.3.3 Potential bird strike

The potential for mortality of birds from strike by turbine blades was raised in

two submissions on the exhibited application. W J and L O Stewien expressed

concern about the “survival opportunity” of a pair of Wedge‐tailed Eagles

which nest in the area, while J Smithers‐Tomkin accurately described the birds

as “majestic”, and was troubled that:

This wind ‘farm’ would become part of a wedge‐tail eagle zone which

covers an area from One Tree Hill – the Black Range – Dunneworthy

Common and s‐east to Mount Langi Ghiran.23

In its written submission on the application, DSE expressed concern about the

proximity to the Langi Ghiran State Park and Ararat Regional Park. In

particular, it had “serious concerns” about the location of four proposed

turbines (T32, T33, T64 and T65) near the Ararat Regional Park, because “the

turbines are located on a ridge line highly utilised by avifauna moving

between the park and another area of significant native vegetation located

approximately 600 metres to the north east”. The DSE submission on the

exhibited documents recommended that no turbines be built in this area, but:

...if turbines are approved in this location the department strongly

recommends that each turbine be included in any monitoring program

required under the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan, in conjunction

with specific and targeted mitigation measures that address the high

avifauna utilisation (and potential mortality/strike rate) of the site.24

23 Submission 12 24 Submission 14, p.2


Mr Lane responded to the DSE concern in his Expert Witness Statement,

detailing that “There was no evidence of regular usage of this part of the site by

significant numbers of bird species moving between forested habitats, including to and

from nearby conservation reserves25.” In relation to the Bat and Bird Management

Plan (BBMP), Mr Lane stated “The recommendation to ensure greater search effort

at these turbines can be included in this plan.”

At the hearings, representatives of DSE indicated that they were satisfied that

the monitoring program under the BBMP within the EMP would meet the

requirements of the Department. The Department did not continue to pursue

the removal of the turbines near the Ararat Regional Park.

5.4 DISCUSSION

5.4.1 Native Vegetation Removal

The removal of native vegetation is clearly a significant issue, with an

estimated 8.53 hectares proposed to be removed from within the infrastructure

zone. However, the Panel concluded that the principles of “avoid, minimise

and offset” had been pursued in planning to date, and can be further refined

as more detailed planning proceeds.

Following discussion at the Panel hearing, the proposed permit was modified

to include a requirement for a “Net Gain Offset Plan”, as detailed in Appendix

C, Clauses 4, 5 and 6.

The proposed Environmental Management Plan also includes the requirement

for a Native Vegetation Offset Management Plan, repeating the steps listed in

the proposed Permit.

Following discussions at the hearings, the requirements of this Native

Vegetation Offset Management Plan appeared satisfactory to key

stakeholders. The Panel agrees that it will achieve a net gain in quality and

quantity of native vegetation in accordance with the principles and guidelines

associated with the Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action (DSE

2002).

The Panel thus concluded that the proposed content of the Native Vegetation

Offset Management Plan is satisfactory, but that its duplication in the Permit

Conditions and the Environmental Management Plan is clumsy and

confusing. It considered that the detail should be described in the

Environmental Management Plan, which is required to be endorsed as part of

the Permit (Appendix F). The Permit conditions (Appendix E) should be

25 Proposed Ararat Wind Farm, Expert Witness Statement of Brett Lane, June 2010 p.18


simplified to list the Native Vegetation Offset Management Plan as one of the

plans incorporated within the EMP. In this way, the requirements of DSE as a

referral agency are met, and the permit Conditions are simplified.

In relation to the request from DSE that that “the Panel recommend that the

Minister for Planning defer issue of a permit for removal of native vegetation of very

high conservation significance until the Minister for Environment and Climate

Change has approved it” (see Section 5.3.1 above), as there is a single permit

being considered (under each Scheme), there appears to be a potential

difficulty. The refinement of the proposal would normally require further

detailed investigations at the pre‐construction phase. However such work

will not normally be undertaken without the security of a permit being issued.

For this reason the Panel believes that a variation to the wording suggested by

DSE is needed, to require that removal of native vegetation having very high

conservation significance does not commence until the Minister for

Environment and Climate Change has approved its removal.

5.4.2 Disturbance of Habitat

The Panel assessed the significance of habitat that may be damaged during

construction and operation of the facility. In particular, it reviewed the

possible impact of road access to the facility on roadsides of high conservation

value, including those that may provide habitat for the threatened Powerful

Owl and Golden Sun Moth.

The Panel concluded that the location of access points to the site was

consistent with “avoid and minimise” principles. It supported the

modifications to access points that minimised potential loss of native

vegetation along Warrak Road that had been made by the proponent during

the initial planning phase. Further, it considered that any additional

refinements to avoid and minimise vegetation loss can be addressed in

detailed designs through the Environmental Management Plan.

With regard to the concerns of W J and L O Stewien about the impact of

transport along Big Hill Road, the Panel considered that the proposed access

crossed Big Hill Road, but had very little impact on vegetation within the road

reserve. At the hearings, Ms Stewien indicated concern that access to the site

would involve heavy vehicles travelling along Big Hill road, but this is not the

case. The Panel was satisfied that the high conservation quality of vegetation

in this locality would not be compromised.

The Panel reached similar conclusions regarding the special cases of the

threatened Powerful Owl and Golden Sun Moth. It is clear that there is


appropriate habitat for the Powerful Owl in the area, particularly in the Ararat

Regional Park, and Brett Lane noted in his expert witness statement that:

There are seven records (excluding duplicates) of Powerful Owl from the

AVW search region, between 1995 and 1997. Three of the records of

Powerful Owl are from Ararat Hills Regional Park, close to the northern

cluster of the proposed Ararat wind farm site. The remaining records are

from Mount Cole State Forest and Langi Ghiran State Park, south of the

southern cluster of the wind farm site26.

Despite the records of the Powerful Owl, the species was not detected during

the surveys conducted by BL&A. With regard to the Powerful Owl’s habitat:

In the privately owned woodland abutting the northern sub‐section of the

wind farm, hollow counts varied from 2 to 36 over five, 500 x 100 metre

transects. In Ararat Hills Regional Park, counts ranged from 34 to 67

over four 500 x 100 metre transects. The number of large, hollow‐bearing

trees was also much greater in Ararat Hills Regional Park. Powerful Owl

habitat quality was considered high in Ararat Hills Regional Park and

moderate in the privately owned woodland north of the wind farm site.

This again support a conclusion that movement of the owl out of the

regional park to the northern woodland is likely to be infrequent.27

In the Panel’s view, the records of sightings of the Powerful Owl were

sufficient to indicate that it is likely that the species may be found in the Ararat

Regional Park and nearby woodlands. However, there was insufficient

evidence that the proposed Ararat WEF would impact on the birds or their

habitat in any significant way, and was not convinced to reduce the number or

change the location of any of the proposed turbines on the basis of impacts on

the Powerful Owl.

The Panel noted the submission of the Hamilton Field Naturalists Club that

the Golden Sun Moth had been observed on Hopkins River Road in the

vicinity of Turbines 49, 67 and 50 in December 2009. It also considered the

evidence of Brett Lane that his organisation’s surveys had not detected the

species, and his view was that that “there are few if any sites within the study

area that have sufficient cover of Austrodanthonia sp. (40%) to support this

species” (Flora and Fauna Assessment, September 2009, p. 35). In his expert

witness statement, Brett Lane concluded:

... Habitat [for the Golden Sun Moth] up the slope away from the road is of

much lower quality than habitat along this road. Should GSM occur in

the area, it is unlikely that a large proportion of its population would occur

26 Proposed Ararat Wind Farm, Expert Witness Statement of Brett Lane, June 2010, p.5 27 Ibid, p.13


within the limited area of impact defined by the wind farm development

footprint. The proponent has indicated that the footprint in this area could

be reduced below the 0.25 hectare removal threshold considered under the

EPBC Act to represent a significant impact on the habitat of this species, if

it were found in the area.

The Panel concluded that a precautionary approach should be taken, and that

habitat that may support the Golden Sun Moth should be protected.

Nevertheless, it considered that the small amount of habitat damage likely in

the Hopkins River Road area did not warrant reduction in the number or

change the location of the proposed turbines on the basis of impacts on the

Golden Sun Moth.

The Panel noted concerns about the introduction of weed species, but

concluded that this could be avoided through implementation of permit

conditions proposed by the GHCMA. These will be reinforced by the Pest

Plant Management Plan and the Pest Animal Management Plan within the

EMP.

In the Draft Permit Conditions (see Appendix C), the proponent has

questioned the inclusion of Clause 7 “Temporary fencing or tape must be installed

around areas of native vegetation to be retained, to the satisfaction of the responsible

authority.” and made the following note:

[Note we have asked for DSE condition 7 to be removed, or ‘All offset sites

must be legally secured in accordance with the offset plan.’]

The Panel believes there is some confusion here about the intention of Clause

7. While it is within the group of clauses under the heading ‘Net gain offset

plan’, the Panel believes it may also refer to the usual good site practice of

marking vegetation on site that is to be preserved with tape, and indicating to

contractors and others that these areas are ‘no go’ areas. As such it would be

better placed in the EMP under the ‘Native vegetation management plan’.

The Panel believes that the alternative wording suggested by the proponent

for Clause 7, to ensure legal security of the offsets, is covered in Clause (i) of

the Recommended EMP (the Net Gain Offset Plan for the Construction Phase).

The existing Clause 7, relating to good construction practice, should be

included as part of the EMP (Construction Phase).


5.4.3 Potential bird strike

The Panel’s review of the submissions and evidence indicated that there is a

likelihood that mortality of birds will occur as a result of strike from turbine

blades. However, the numbers are likely to be sufficiently low and the species

most affected are relatively abundant, meaning that this issue is not serious

enough to warrant reduction in the number or change in the location of

turbines.

The Panel noted evidence of bird collision rates from a range of European and

North American wind farms, cited in the September 2009 BL&A Flora and

Fauna Assessment (pp. 63‐65). The collision rate varied between 0.04 and 4.5

birds per turbine per year, with most wind farm bird mortality due to

migrating birds. With relatively few night‐migrating birds, it is likely that

bird strike will be closer to the lower end of the range in Australia. Further,

the most abundant species in the area of the Ararat Wind Energy Facility are

Australian Magpie, Long‐billed Corella, Galah, Raven, Australasian Pipit,

Sulphur‐crested Cockatoo, Yellow‐rumped Thornbill and White‐fronted Chat,

which are all relatively abundant.

The Panel accepted the poignant and understandable concern expressed by

submitters – particularly Mr Smithers‐Tomkins and Ms. Stewien – about the

possible impact of the facility on Wedge‐tailed Eagles. The Panel witnessed

Wedge‐tailed Eagles within the area, and is aware of their iconic, if not

endangered, status. It concluded that the likelihood of collision will be

reduced if carrion is removed from near the turbines, as proposed in the

Environmental Management Plan. There is a possibility that Wedge‐tailed

Eagles may be struck by turbine blades in the future, but the probability is low

and the mainland species is relatively abundant. Consequently, there is not a

case to reduce the number or change the location of turbines as a result of

potential strike of Wedge‐tailed Eagles.

The Panel also reviewed DSE’s initial concern about the proximity of the

Ararat WEF to the Langi Ghiran State Park and Ararat Regional Park,

especially the location of four proposed turbines near the Ararat Regional

Park. It also noted that DSE accepted that the requirements of the Bird and

Bat Management Plan within the Environmental Management Plan addressed

its concerns. The Panel agreed with this conclusion, and considered that the

requirements of the Bird and Bat Management Plan would provide a

satisfactory outcome, providing the four turbines of concern to DSE (T32, T33,

T64 and T65) are specifically cited in the relevant clause.

In discussion at the Panel Hearing, the desirability of DSE bringing together

the monitoring results of bird and bat strikes undertaken for all wind farms in


Victoria, and to make the data available publicly, was canvassed. There was

general agreement concerning the value of such work.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel concluded that flora and fauna issues were significant matters to be

addressed in planning for the Ararat WEF. Further, it considered that initial

planning for the avoidance and mitigation of potentially damaging impacts on

flora and fauna has been sound. Further requirements of the EMP will refine

this planning, and address any further flora and fauna issues if they arise.

The Panel has also concluded that the request by DSE in relation to the

removal of vegetation of very high conservation status can be satisfied with

minor amendment. Further, the Draft Permit Condition (Appendix C) relating

to temporary fencing or tape that must be installed around areas of native

vegetation to be retained should be included in the ‘Native vegetation

management plan’ in the Construction Phase of the Recommended

Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage (Appendix F).

A minor issue that was flagged at the hearings was the terminology of Bat and

Bird Management Plan (BBMP), which was referred to as the Bat and

Avifauna Management Plan (BAM Plan) in much of the documentation, and

retained this title in the proposed EMP. The Panel agrees with the Panel for

Lal Lal Wind Energy Facility (February 2009), who preferred the term Bat and

Bird Management Plan (BBMP), partly because avifauna means birds and bats.

The Panel considers that “Bat and Bird Management Plan” is a more

comprehensible title than the unfortunate acronym of “BAM Plan”.

In relation to the wording proposed by the proponent for Clause 7 of the Draft

Permit (Appendix C), the Panel concluded that the recommended wording to

legally secure offset sites would be best placed in the Net Gain Offset Plan in

the Construction Phase of the Recommended Environmental Management

Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage.

The Panel also concluded that the compilation by DSE of all Victorian data on

bird and bad strike from Victorian WEF’s is highly desirable. Such data, when

referenced with the conservation status of the various species, would provide

clearer guidance to all parties on the likely cumulative impact of bat and bird

strikes.

The Panel therefore recommends that:

DSE undertakes the task of collating, and progressively updating, all

bird and bat strike data from Victorian WEF’s, and making the data

publicly available.


6. NOISE AND HEALTH

6.1 THE ISSUES

The key issues with noise emerging from this Panel hearing are:

Should NZS6808:2010 apply?;

Will the predicted noise levels be below the standard?;

Does wind turbine noise (including low frequency noise and infrasound)

impact on human health?; and

What permit conditions should be imposed?

6.2 BACKGROUND

6.2.1 The application of NZS6808:2010

The revised New Zealand standard for wind farm noise (NZS6808:2010)

includes a number of changes of a technical nature, and one change that

reduces the acceptable noise limit (makes the limit more stringent) in a high

amenity area. NZS6808:2010 states that “A high amenity noise limit should be

considered where a plan promotes a higher degree of protection of amenity related to

the sound environment of a particular area.”

VCAT ruled in ‘The Sisters Decision’ that NZS6808:2010 does apply in Victoria

in lieu NZS6808:1998 specified in planning schemes and the Victorian

Government Planning guidelines for wind farms, a decision which is currently

under legal challenge. This raises the issue of whether NZS6808:2010 should

be applied to, or has relevance for, the Ararat WEF.

Mr Power, for RES, argued strongly in his opening submission that

NZS6808:2010 is clearly not the appropriate standard to apply and put

forward a comprehensive series of legal arguments for his conclusion. On the

issue of whether NZS6808:2010 has relevance for the Ararat WEF even if it

“...does not form part of the Victorian planning schemes...”, Mr Power submitted

that it “is either irrelevant, or should be afforded very little weight..... The simple

reason for this is that the planning schemes expressly require wind farms to be

assessed against NZS6808:1998, not the NZS6808:2010 version.”

In its Directions, the Panel sought “…advice on the status of the Australian

Standard for wind farm noise and the application of the 2010 revision of the New

Zealand Standard.” The proponent proceeded to carry out a noise assessment


of the Ararat WEF using both standards. DPCD confirmed the applicability of

NZS6808:1998 in its submission to the Panel.

6.2.2 Do the predictions meet the NZS6808:1998 criteria?

Clause 52.32 of the Planning Scheme requires that in considering an

application for a permit for a wind energy facility, the effects of noise on the

surrounding area are to be investigated and requires that the application

include an assessment of the noise impacts of the proposal on existing

dwellings prepared in accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS

6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound for Wind Turbine

Generators (the Standard).

The Standard includes recommended maximum noise levels to be received at

dwellings near a wind farm and sets out:

the method for the measurement of noise in the environment;

the procedure for measuring existing background noise levels;

procedures for predicting and assessing noise levels from the turbines taking account of existing background noise levels; and

procedures for assessing compliance after the turbines are operational.

A brief description of the provisions in the Standard, which have been

described in detail in previous panel reports, is provided below.

A summary of the provisions of the New Zealand Standard

In general, background noise levels and noise emitted by wind turbines both

increase as the wind speed increases and under these circumstances, a fixed

noise limit is not appropriate. The Standard caters for these variations by

specifying noise limits as a function of background noise and provides for a

number of steps to be undertaken as follows:

obtain noise power emission spectra for the wind turbine generators (WTG)

for use in noise propagation modelling. These are to be noise power levels

guaranteed by the turbine manufacturer for the turbines proposed;

generate noise contours for the surrounding environment by modelling

wind farm noise with all turbines operating;

monitor background noise levels (10 minute average L95) at residential

locations that are within the 35 dBA contour based on the above modelling;

monitor wind speeds (and wind direction) at the wind farm at the same

time as the background noise measurements are taken at the dwellings;

for each monitoring location plot sound levels against the corresponding

wind speed at the wind farm site;


draw the line of best fit through the set of data points using least squares regression;

continuous monitoring for a minimum of 10 to 14 days is typically required

to have sufficient data that allows:

- adequate correlations for separate daytime and night time periods; and

- exclusion of extraneous noise events.

the noise limit specified in the standard (the desirable limit) for each

location, is the higher of the background level plus 5 dBA, or 40 dBA;

for sound that has special audible characteristics, (for example clearly

audible tones, impulses, or modulation of sound levels), 5 dB is added to

the measured sound power level of the source. In effect, this is equivalent

to reducing the specified limits by 5 dBA. The Standard acknowledges that

at present there is no simple objective procedure available to quantify

special audible characteristics and that a subjective assessment supported

by objective evidence is necessary; and

sound propagation modelling using the model specified in the Standard is

undertaken for the final turbine configuration, to predict the expected noise

levels at each location for the range of operating wind speeds.

Compliance with the limit is assessed by comparing the predicted noise level

with the limit at each wind speed.

The acoustic assessment

The acoustic assessment28 was carried out by Sonus Pty Ltd, based on

NZS6808:1998.

Background noise measurements were undertaken at the following

representative dwellings.

Location Label Location Label Location Label

Hamilton AH8 Hamilton AH9 Mewburn AH11

Kneebone AH12 Moorfoot AH39 Wandarna AH52

Mooney’s Gap AH52

The location of these dwellings is shown on Figure 2 below:

28 Volume 2 of Application Documentation, Acoustic Impact Assessment Report by Sonus Pty Ltd,

August 2009


Figure 2 Locations of background noise measurements29

Three separate sound propagation models were used. Based on initial

modelling, seven houses were selected for the background noise measurement

representing individual houses and house clusters. Model predictions were

made of sound levels at 56 residences resulting from the operation of 75 Vestas

V90 2 MW with wind speeds from 4 m/sec to 13 m/sec.

Mr Christopher Turnbull, Principal of Sonus, gave expert evidence30 at the

Panel hearing. The Expert Witness Report contained a supplementary

assessment using NZS6808:2010 for completeness. The main technical

differences in the methods specified in the two standards are that

NZS6808:1998 specifies:

different sound propagation models and input parameters;

the hub height as the reference for wind speed; and

use of L90 instead of L95.

The supplementary assessment provided background noise measurements

and criteria for the seven houses for wind speeds ranging from 6 m/s to 17

m/sec, while predictions were made at all 56 houses for wind speeds from 6

m/sec to 13 m/sec.

29 Hearing Document 5, Environmental Noise overheads presented by Mr Turnbull. 30 Expert Witness Statement of Christopher Paul Turnbull, June 2010


In response to a request by the Panel, Mr Turnbull made a further

submission31, which included tabulated predictions for hub height wind

speeds from 6m/sec to 25 m/sec, and using the NZS6808:1998 standard. The

analysis confirmed that noise criteria would be met at the higher wind speeds.

Turbine noise power emissions and predicted receptor noise levels do not

increases once the rated power of the turbine has been reached at a wind

speed of 9 m/second and since the background noise keeps increasing with

wind speed beyond this, background noise will increasingly dominate at the

higher wind speeds.

In his presentation Mr Turnbull concluded that “...for the layout and turbine

selection, the noise criteria of NZS6808:1998 will be achieved at all residences”, and

further “....the noise criteria of NZS6808:2010 will be achieved at all residences”.

In relation to the high amenity areas warranting application of a lower noise

limit, Mr Turnbull stated that all nearby residences were located in either a

farming or a township zone and added that “To my knowledge, none of these

zones are considered high amenity areas in accordance with NZS 2010 in that they do

not promote a high degree of protection of amenity as it relates to the sound

environment”.

Poor noise wind speed correlations

The poor noise wind speed correlations have been noted in previous Panel

reports. Mr Turnbull explained that only noise components that are directly

affected by wind can be expected to correlate with wind speed. Poor

correlations are not an indication of faulty data but a reflection of other

sources of noise that are independent of wind such as traffic. He did not think

it appropriate that poor correlations in background noise measurements be a

consideration in determining noise criteria on a case by case basis.

Mr Turnbull undertook a re‐analysis of the background data by calculating

and plotting the average noise levels in discrete wind speed intervals. The

plot of the averages generally coincides with the regression line for all the

data, giving some confidence that the regression line is an adequate

representation of the variation in average background noise levels. An

example of the plot is shown below in Figure 3.

31 Supplementary Expert Witness Statement of Christopher Paul Turnbull, 12 July 2010


Figure 3 Background noise levels at House AH12, with average L95 noise levels superimposed32

6.2.3 Human health impact

The potential for noise from wind turbines to adversely impact on the health

of nearby residents has been raised in previous wind farm hearings and

dismissed. Although not explicitly stated in submissions for this hearing, a

linkage had been postulated to exist between low frequency noise emissions or

infrasound and adverse health impacts.

In his evidence Mr Turnbull expressed the view that:

Much of the speculation regarding the potential health effects of the noise

from wind farms is based on the assumption that the noise from wind

turbines is unique and therefore has the potential to cause health effects

that other noise sources cannot. This assumption is not correct. The

frequency content, character and level of noise from wind turbines at

typical setback distances to residences are similar to the noise from many

naturally occurring and man‐made noise sources.

32 Supplementary Expert Witness Statement of Christopher Paul Turnbull, 12 July 2010


6.2.4 What permit conditions should be imposed?

The Draft Permit Conditions prepared by Mr Power at the conclusion of the

Hearing are set out in Appendix C. The text is based on the initial version

prepared by DPCD, amended in discussions between DPCD and the

proponent, and discussed at the without prejudice session at the end of the

Hearing. While Chapter 15 and 16 discuss the EMP and Permit Conditions

generally, issues relating to noise are detailed in this section of the report.

The relevant matters (relating to tracked changes that are not shown in

Appendix C) are:

a note immediately above Condition 24 (Noise Compliance Testing),

suggests an alternative to Clause 24 preferred by the proponent, namely

that noise compliance testing should only be done in response to

complaints. This alternative was supported by Mr Power at the Hearing;

changes and deletions to Condition 24 (c) (ii), requiring determination of

the maximum monthly proportions of the wind direction distribution that

is from the wind energy facility to the dwelling (where noise compliance

testing is being undertaken) plus or minus 22.5 degrees, and a further

requirement that the compliance testing include periods where the wind is

from the wind energy facility for at least 50% of the measurement period;

minor editing to 24 (d), with the requirement for compliance testing to be

repeated between 10 and 14 months after the first compliance test; and

Condition 25 addresses Noise Compliance Enforcement, and Condition

25(d) (ii) deletes the requirement deleted under Condition 24 (d) above.

A further matter for the Panel arises from the approach being taken to make

the EMP a statutory document that is part of the permit. Consistent with that

approach, the question arises as to how much of conditions 23, 24 and 25 need

to be spelt out in detail in the permit, and how much can be simply included

as procedural matters in the EMP.

6.3 SUBMISSIONS

Three submitters expressed concern about low frequency vibration and noise,

and the health effects of noise.

In his witness statement Mr Turnbull explained that modern wind turbines are

constructed with the blades upwind of the tower, which markedly reduces the

levels of infrasound produced, to the point where it is well below the level of

perception.


On the matter of the potential impact on human health, Mr Turnbull cited the

expert panel formed by the US and Canadian Wind Energy Associations,

which found no evidence that the audible or sub‐audible sounds emitted by

wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.

6.4 DISCUSSION

6.4.1 The application of NZS6808:2010

As described above in Section 6.2.1, Mr Power submitted that no regard

should be given to the VCAT decision in the “The Sisters Decision”. The

relevant standard for wind turbine noise is as set out in the Wind Energy

Guidelines, the relevant Planning Schemes, and as further advised by DPCD,

namely the NZS6808:1998 standard.

Given the controversy that has arisen from the VCAT ‘The Sisters Decision’,

the subsequent Supreme Court challenge, the advice from DPCD, and the

persuasive argument by Mr Power, the Panel concluded that it would be

unwise and unjustified to rely on the VCAT decision. In any event, the

proponent had already demonstrated conformance with the NZS6868:2010

standard.

6.4.2 Do the predictions meet the NZS6808:1998 criteria?

The Panel accepts that the predictions of noise at dwellings outside the site

boundaries meet the NZS6808:1998 standard. Further, even if NZS6808:2010

were relevant, this tighter standard is also met.

6.4.3 Human health impact

The Victorian Work Cover Authority in a letter33 to the Berrybank Panel Chair

wrote:

The Victorian Department of Health has examined both the peer reviewed

and validated scientific research and also looked at the health aspects of the

current planning process.

Numerous international reviews on low frequency and infra sound noise,

and case studies of actual wind farm noise emissions, have demonstrated

that:

there is insignificant infrasound generated from modern wind turbines; and

33 Victorian Work Cover Authority, Correspondence 10 February 2010 relating to wind turbines and

health


levels of low frequency sound emitted from modern wind turbines are not at the level that would lead to direct health effects.

The issue was also examined by the National Health and Medical Research

Council (NHMRC) who concluded that “Based on current evidence, it can be

concluded that wind turbines do not pose a threat to health if planning guidelines are

followed.”34

There was no other evidence led on the potential health impacts of wind

farms, and the Panel accepts the advice above.

6.4.4 What permit conditions should be imposed?

There was little, if any, discussion on the matters raised above in Section 6.2.4

by the proponent in response to the Permit Condition submitted by DPCD.

In relation to the suggestion by the proponent that noise compliance testing

only be done in response to complaints, the Panel has considered the

requirements of NZS6808:1998, as set out in Section 5.1.2. The relevant

wording is “Once the WTG (or windfarm) is installed and operational, it may be

necessary to monitor the sound level in the surrounding area.…”

Where matters have the potential to adversely impact on human health or the

environment, either source monitoring or ambient monitoring or in some

cases, both is commonly required as a safeguard against breaches of

requirements and potential health and environmental damage. Where the

matter concerns amenity impacts and source monitoring is difficult the

general approach is to respond if complaints indicate that there may be a

problem.

In the present case, the Panel notes that it is predicted that the NZS6808:1998

standard will be comfortably met, and the number of submissions from

adjoining neighbours citing noise as a potential problem is remarkably small.

The Panel also notes that ambient compliance monitoring is expensive.

On the other hand the Panel is aware that there are a number of assumptions

in the noise assessment procedures that result in uncertainties in the

predictions. Compliance monitoring provides verification of what are

essentially model predictions, and can assist in resolving subsequent

complaints.

34 National Health and Medical Research Council, Wind Turbines and Health - a rapid review of the

evidence, July 2010


Overall, the Panel therefore agrees that noise compliance testing should be

required in the permit conditions to validate the predictions made and test

compliance of the constructed facility. The Panel is also of the view that

complaints should trigger further assessment including, if necessary, further

measurements.

Although construction noise was not addressed during the Hearing, the Panel

is of the view that the permit should include conditions consistent with EPA

noise guidelines. In this case complaints can be used as an appropriate trigger

for initiating construction noise measurements. The standard construction

noise condition was deleted at the meeting between the proponent, DPCD and

the Councils. The Panel, however, prefers to follow general practice for Wind

Energy Facilities, and considers that the requirements for construction noise

should be included in the permit.

In relation to the specification of wind direction requirements in the

compliance testing and enforcement, the Panel notes that Section 5.2.2 of the

NZS6808:1998 standard states “Compliance level testing shall take place at the same

positions and across a similar range of wind conditions for which background sound

level data has been previously collected.”

The Panel believes that NZS6808:1998 provides sufficient guidance on this

matter.

On the matter of repeated testing 14 months after the first compliance testing,

the Panel does not see any reason to include such a requirement. Should later

complaints be made after the initial compliance testing, the investigation

should establish if anything has changed since the initial compliance testing,

and further compliance testing would proceed in response to a complaint

where conditions have changed.

On the last matter raised in 6.2.4 above, the Panel believes that the permit

conditions 23, 24 and 25 should be restricted to a minimum, with detailed

procedural matters listed as requirements in the EMP. The Recommended

Permit in Appendix E is formulated on that basis.



The Panel has considered the evidence provided by the proponent in relation

to noise and statements in submissions by other parties and makes the

following assessment.

The panel is in general agreement with the proponent’s arguments in relation

to the appropriate noise criteria. Irrespective of the applicability or otherwise

of NZS6808:2010, there has been no evidence led, and no obvious reason to

consider that a Farming Zone or Township Zone warrants the high amenity

protection from noise in the context of the Standard.

The noise criteria in the New Zealand standard, the higher of background

level plus 5 or 40 dBA, has been adopted for assessing wind farms in Victoria.

This level defines what an acceptable level of noise intrusion from wind farms

is. This level is not intended to achieve inaudibility, but is one that provides

adequate and reasonable protection of noise amenity.

In relation to health, and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the Panel

accepts the conclusions of the NHMRC that the turbines will not pose a threat

to health.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that:

the noise criteria of the greater of 40 dBA or background L95 plus 5 dB(A) as

adopted by the proponent is appropriate;

conforming with the criteria provides a reasonable degree of protection of

noise amenity;

operation of the turbines in accordance with permit noise criteria does not

pose a threat to human health; and

EPA Standards for Construction Noise should be referenced in the

Recommended Permit.

The Recommended Permit (Appendix E) makes provision for Construction

Noise in Condition 10, while Permit Condition 11 addresses operational noise,

which is further developed in the ‘Operational noise compliance testing plan’

and the ‘Operational noise compliance enforcement plan’ in the Construction

Phase of the Recommended Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐

Construction Stage (Appendix F).


7. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS

7.1 The issues

The key issues are:

the landscape impacts caused by the WEF as seen from public viewing

points and public roads;

the visual impacts caused by the WEF as seen from dwellings within 3 km

of the nearest turbine;

cumulative impacts; and

the potential visual impact from aviation obstacle lighting if it is installed

and used.

In addressing the first issue in particular, the Panel has considered the matter

in a series of steps:

What is the level of impact?;

Is the impact ameliorated by screening?;

How is the residual impact likely to be perceived by viewers?; and

What weight should be given to visual impact?

At the outset, the Panel wishes to state its general concern that the

methodology used in the application and expert witness statement tends to

minimise and obscure the likely landscape impacts. Given the overall findings

of public perception studies, and the support for renewable energy relative to

visual impact in the policy guidelines for WEF’s, any Panel finding that the

landscape impact has been understated does not imply that the proposal

should be refused. Nevertheless the Panel has a concern that any systematic

understating of landscape impact may lead to a credibility issue in the

assessment of WEF’s.

7.2 Background

Mr Wyatt, who provided the specialist report in the application

documentation, also submitted an Expert Witness Report and presented at the

Hearing.


7.2.1 Landscape impacts

The steps taken in the assessment by Mr Wyatt are set out in the Landscape

and Visual Report September 200935 and comprise:

The visual components of the wind farm including, but not limited to,

wind turbines, substations and access roads.

The statutory context including policies, zoning and overlays.

Perception studies which are noted as a factor “that needs to be considered

when assessing the extent of visual impact”36, show ‘that they also provide the

opportunity to gain a statistically valid understanding of a local communities’

attitude towards wind farms and not just those that dislike them’ and ‘the

majority of those surveyed actually enjoy the view of wind turbines’. 37 The

Ararat WEF perception study was undertaken within about 8 kilometres

west and south of Ararat, extending 19 kilometres to Warrak to the east,

and 10 kilometres to the north (though not extending as far as

Crowlands). 71% of respondents accepted a wind farm set 1 kilometre

from their home, and 71% of respondents accepted three ‘typical’ (30 to

40 turbines) wind farms in the local rural area.38

The viewshed and zones of Visual Influence with special reference to

the 60° central field of vision. 25 publicly accessible viewpoints were

identified, and six photo‐montages were prepared. In addition, two of

the photomontages from dwellings were cited as applicable for views

from Warrak Road.

Mr Wyatt cautioned in his report that while the photomontages

reproduced in the report are technically correct, they do not portray a

perceptually accurate image on which to assess the visual impact. Mr

Wyatt submitted that photomontages at A0 size, when held at arm’s

length, give a more perceptually accurate assessment of the visual

impact. Such large photomontages were tabled at the Hearing, and a

sample was used by the Panel to compare with actual landscapes in the

field.

35 Volume 2 of the Application Documentation, Landscape & Visual Assessment Report September

2009 page 1 36 Ibid page 1 37 Ibid page 10 38 Volume 2, Report on Community Perceptions towards Wind Farms in the Ararat Region, Victoria

May 2008 pages 65 and 66


Landscape units and sensitivity defined as primarily an assessment of

the extent to which the landscape units can accept further change39.

The landscape sensitivity assessment commenced with a classification of

landscape units within the local area, as follows:

Landscape Unit 1 ‐ Flat Farmland;

Landscape Unit 2 ‐ Hilly Farmland;

Landscape Unit 3 ‐ Forested Hills;

Landscape Unit 4 ‐ Rural Townships; and

Landscape Unit 5 – Recreational Areas.

Mostly the landscapes were assessed as either Unit 1 (Flat Farmland) or

Unit 2 (Hilly Farmland) for which the rating for public viewing points is

“Low”. Ararat National Park and Mount Langi Ghiran State Park were

classified as Unit 3 (Forested Hills), while Green Lake was classified as

Unit 5 (Recreational Reserves). Both Unit 3 and Unit 5 are rated as

having “High” landscape sensitivity. Public views from Langi Ghiran

State Park (Site 6), and across Green Hill Lake from the Camping Ground

(Sites 13 and 14) were assessed as having High landscape sensitivity,

while elevated sites on nearby hills and mountains (Sites 8 and 9 – One

Tree Hill, 10 – Napoleon Hill, 15 – Mount Langi Ghiran, 24 – Crowlands

and 25 – Mount Ben Nevis) were assessed as having “Low to High”

landscape sensitivity. The other 16 public viewing points were assessed

as having Low landscape sensitivity.

Seen area analysis using GIS software to map those areas from which

the wind turbines are visible in whole or part.

Assessment of publicly accessible viewpoints; based on photomontages

and an evaluation of the three criteria40:

The distance of the viewer from the development;

The nature of the surrounding landscape (including the landscape units represented and their sensitivity) and

The numbers of viewers able to see the development.

The ratings of these criteria were set out in the report. Table 4.141 shows

zones of visual impact, and rated the visual impact at less than 1.5 km as

“Highly visible and will always dominate the landscape”, at from 1.5 km to 3


2009, page 2 40 Ibid, page 2 41 Ibid, page 14


km as ‘Noticeable and can dominate the landscape’, 3 to 8km as ‘Potentially

noticeable, but will not dominate the landscape’, 8 to 17 km as ‘Discernable’,

and greater than 17km (where the angle subtended by the eye is less than

0.5°} as ‘Outside the viewshed’. The text immediately below Table 4.1 notes

that that ‘the visual impact of a wind farm is greatest within 3 km of the nearest

wind turbine’).

At the Hearing Mr Wyatt clarified that turbines within 1.5 km of a public

viewing point were assessed under ‘distance’ as high, and that for a

dwelling the distance for high impact was 3 km. Distances from 1.5 km to

5 km were assessed as medium, while distances greater than 5 km were

assessed as low.

In terms of viewer numbers “Highways and roads within townships are

assessed as having “high” numbers of users or viewers, while local connector

roads are given a “medium” rating. “ Low” viewer numbers apply to small

local roads and other infrequently visited viewing locations.’ 42

In response to a question from the Panel at the Hearing, Mr Wyatt

advised that the Perception Study findings were not used in assessing

the visual impact from public viewing points, but were seen as

supporting the assessed impacts.

The rule for combining distance, landscape sensitivity and number of

viewers used by Mr Wyatt is to assign the value of the lowest score. If

landscape sensitivity is low, any combination of the three criteria is low

no matter how they rate. An example of the description of the method is:

If landscape sensitivity is low (i.e. within a highly man modified

landscape) then even if the wind farm was in close proximity to the

viewpoint and it was visible to a large number of viewers, the overall

viewer impact would be minor because the viewpoint is not a

landscape of such sensitivity that further change would be

unacceptable.43

Mr Wyatt selected 25 publicly accessible viewing points, considered to be

‘worst case’ locations, as set out in Table 7.1 in Mr Wyatt’s Landscape

and Visual Assessment Report, September 200944.


2009 page 31 43 Ibid page 32 44 Ibid Table 7.1


The overall visual assessment tabulated by Mr Wyatt45 for the public

viewpoints are low or nil for 23 viewing points, and medium for the two

viewing points over Green Hill Lake.

Residential dwelling viewpoints RVP03 (dwelling AH9) and RVP04

(dwelling AH12) for which photo‐montages were prepared at A0 size,

were said by Mr Wyatt to be substitutes for public viewing points, both

being just off Warrak Road. In terms of duration, Mr Wyatt cautioned

that there was significant screening of the view from the road, and the

visual impact would be low even when turbines were relatively close.

The Panel noted that for most of the length of Warrak Road between

Warrayadin Road and Warrak Township, a distance of some 11 km, the

turbines will be sited to the north at distances not exceeding 1.5 km.

Driving along this stretch of road, the Panel found the hills of the Great

Dividing Range were in almost constant view, with the roadside

vegetation not creating much of a visual barrier to the turbine vista

shown in the photomontages for these two sites.

Mitigation measures for publicly accessible viewpoints, where

roadside planting was cited as an example. No mitigation measures

have been recommended by Mr Wyatt for the public viewing areas.

7.2.2 Visual impacts

Figure 8.1 of the Landscape and Visual Assessment Report September 2009 shows

the locations of residential dwellings in close proximity to the Ararat WEF,

and the Main Report lists 56 dwellings within 3 km of a wind turbine.46

Isopleths at 1.5, 3, 8 and 17 kilometres from the nearest turbine were drawn on

Figure 8, and although it is not possible to accurately count the dwellings

shown (because they overlap in places), there appear to be in excess of 10

dwellings in the hamlet of Warrak, and about 30 elsewhere, which are within

the 3 km isopleth.

The Panel was invited to nominate residential viewpoints at which

photomontages should be prepared, and did so at the Directions Hearing,

nominating six locations, the houses AH9, AH11, AH12, AH39 and AH46

(being also houses where background noise levels were measured) and the

property of submitter 8 (Mr Randell). With the exception of the property of

Mr Randell, these photomontages were tabled at the Hearing, at both A3 and

A0 sizes. The Panel was advised that a photomontage from Mr Randell’s


2009 Table 7.2 46 Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume 1 Main Report, pages

116 and 117.


property would not be meaningful, given the shielding vegetation that existed

in all directions from within the property.

The assessment of the visual impact was undertaken using two of the three

criteria detailed in the Assessment of publicly accessible viewpoints in Section 7.2.1

above, namely landscape sensitivity and distance. Landscape sensitivity from

dwellings is taken as high in all cases. The distance assessment is high within

3 km, medium from 3 to 5 km, and low beyond 5 km.

Screen planting is to be offered to owners of non‐host dwellings who may

have a concern about wind turbines in their view from their house or garden.

An indication of the Potential Landscape Mitigation measure for dwellings is

shown in Figure 9.2. Planting is shown that screens the views of the turbines

from the house and shed, while views free of turbines remain unrestricted

from the house.

Mr Wyatt addressed the level of impact at the houses nominated by the Panel

for which photomontages were to be prepared47, and the advice is summarised

and tabulated in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Visual assessment of residential viewpoints for which photomontages were done.

Residential viewpoints Distance to nearest Turbine

Qualifications Visual impact of turbines

RVP01 (house AH39 on Buangor-Ben Nevis Road)

1.8 km Existing vegetation and shed roof filter the views

Low to Medium

RVP02 ‘Wandana’ (house AH46 on Warrak Road).

1.08 km Assuming sheds adjacent to the courtyard were removed

Medium

RVP03 (house AH9 on Warrak Road)

1.07 km none High

RVP04 ‘Penzance’ (house AH12 on Warrak Road)

900 metres

none High

RVP05 ‘Mewburn’ (house on Big Hill Road)

900 metres

none High

RVP06 (property on Pyrenees Highway)

2.9 km No photomontage due to screening vegetation

Negligible

47 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010, Section

9.1


7.2.3 Cumulative impacts

The key points made in Mr Wyatt’s treatment of Cumulative Visual Impact48

are:

Cumulative visual impact can occur either by:

sequential and simultaneous views to wind turbines from publicly accessible viewpoints or from private viewing locations, or

changes to a community’s or visitor’s perception of a region due to the presence of multiple wind farms in an area.

Mr Wyatt took into account the existing Challicum Hills WEF (15 km south‐

east of Ararat WEF), the proposed Crowlands WEF (10 km to the north‐east of

Ararat WEF) and the proposed Stockyard Hill WEF (50 km to the south‐east of

Ararat WEF).

He considered that:

…the greatest possibility of cumulative visual impact lies with visitors

travelling along the Western Highway between Beaufort and Ararat where

they will pass the proposed Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Challicum Hills

Wind Farm (constructed) and then view towards the proposed Ararat

Wind Farm, with the possibility of viewing the Crowlands Wind Farm in

the background.

Mr Wyatt considered that the there is limited road user viewing possibilities of

the Ararat WEF from the Western Highway, which is often screened by

vegetation. He assessed cumulative visual impact, as a result of the Ararat

WEF, from the Western Highway as minimal. The cumulative visual impact

for road users along the Pyrenees Highway, who will see both the Ararat WEF

and the proposed Crowlands WEF, was moderated by the low landscape

sensitivity of the landscape, and was low as a result.

Mr Wyatt also considered the change in perception by the communities or

visitors due to the presence of multiple wind farms in an area, and gave his

opinion that such viewers would become more sensitive in their perception of

wind farms. While perceptions for those using the Western Highway would

be little changed because of the limited views of the Ararat WEF, Mr Wyatt

considered that, from the perspective of the multiple views of Crowlands and

Ararat WEFs from the Pyrenees Highway, a viewer’s perception of the Ararat

area as one in which wind energy is a major element may change.

48 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010 page 85


7.2.4 Night lighting impacts

Mr Wyatt reviewed the trials of night lighting that have been undertaken at

Challicum Hills (2005) and Wonthaggi (2005) in Victoria and the recently

installed lighting at Mt Millar in South Australia49. In summary, the lights

used were as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Visual impact of lights trialled and installed in Victoria and South Australia

Example Lights used Visual impact

Challicum Hills 2000 candella red flashing incandescent medium-intensity lights

Unacceptable(a)

Bright, and strobing on blades

Trial #1 at Wonthaggi

170 candella W-Red lights Acceptable

As low as car tail lights with no strobing

Trial #2a at Wonthaggi

2000 candella medium intensity MB80 Less visible than local display lighting, street lighting and light spill from domestic locations

Trail #2b at Wonthaggi

170 candella low intensity Sealite AV Generally as for Trial #2a above, while having less visual impact that Trial #2a above

Installed lights at Mt Millar WEF in South Australia

2000 candella red flashing medium intensity LED lights, unsynchronised, and baffled to ensure that the light spread is restricted to approximately 0.5° below the horizontal and 2.5° above.

Visual impact equivalent to Trial #1 at Wonthaggi using 170 candella lights

Note (a) Quoted in Mr Wyatt’s report50 from the Yaloak Panel after viewing

the Challicum Hills trial.

Mr Wyatt concluded that if lights are required by CASA, lights similar to those

constructed at Mt Millar provide an acceptable level of visual impact. Further,

any cumulative impact from night lighting from Ararat WEF and other WEF’s

in the vicinity would be minimal.

In his Expert Witness Statement, Mr Wyatt reviewed the Waubra lighting

which uses un‐baffled Orga L350‐864‐G beam spread lights51, and further

specified that lights similar to baffled FTB360i LED integrated L864 lights52


2009, pp. 89 to 94 50 Ibid page 89 51 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010, page 45 52 Ibid page 46


would be proposed for Ararat WEF (if required) and their use would lead to a

low visual impact.

7.2.5 Powerlines within the site

The Main Report in the Application states that, in addition to a 33kV

underground cable system used to collect the power produced by the wind

turbines, there will be a number of overhead power lines within the site:

Limited lengths of internal overhead power lines are also proposed on the

subject site to carry generated power overhead once underground circuits

reach capacity, or where the terrain is too steep for underground

trenching53.

These overhead power lines are described as follows:

A number of 33kV overhead power lines will be required within the wind

farm to connect the various wind turbines to the on‐site substation. These

overhead lines will operate at 33kV and will most likely be constructed

using wooden poles, however steel and concrete pole options may be more

appropriate at some or all locations.54

The internal 33kV line will have vegetation clearance zones.

7.3 Submissions and evidence

Five submissions were received that raised aspects of landscape and visual

impact. DSE, the Rural City of Ararat, Mr Randell and Mrs Stewien addressed

the Panel, while Mr Woods was not able to, due to previous commitments

interstate.

DSE submitted that visitor numbers at Viewpoint 6, a lookout within Langi

Ghiran State Park, were likely to be greater than the ‘Low” assessed by Mr

Wyatt, and to be in fact ‘Medium’. Such an assessment for visitor numbers

would lead to a ‘Medium’ overall assessment of the visual impact at the site,

and the need for a higher consideration of ameliorative measures.

The ARC Council submission expressed concern about the potential impact of

CASA or other requirements for obstacle lighting on surrounding ground

level observation points such as Gum San and One Tree Hill Lookout. It also

expressed interest in ensuring that the community clearly understood the

potential impact on view lines to Mt Langi Ghiran. ARCC also presumed that

obstacle lighting was not part of the proposal, and information on lighting was

53 Volume 1 of the Application Documentation, p 12 54 Ibid., p.97


provided for information only. If obstacle lighting was later approved

through a further permit or secondary consent, there should be opportunity

for meaningful input from the community.

Mr Randell expressed concern about visual amenity impacts, while Mr Woods

was concerned at the bank of four towers within 1.5 km of his residence

(AH11). The submission by W J and L O Stewien strenuously opposed the

proximity and confining nature of eleven turbines on two and a half sides of

their house (AH43), with turbines being able to be sited as close as 1.2 km of

their boundary. They also expressed concern about the visual impact of the

Ararat WEF on the tourism potential of the area, with the facility detracting

from the views of and from vineyards in the area, and Mt Langi and Ben

Nevis.

Mr Wyatt, in his Expert Witness Statement, addressed these matters as

described below.

In relation to the DSE concern about visitor numbers, Mr Wyatt reiterated the

treatment of the issue in his previous report55, which reported that ‘Low’ was

the assessment against Visitor Numbers, and again concluded that he ‘did not

believe there is any significant impact from these publicly accessible viewpoints.’

In relation to the concerns by Mr Randell about visual amenity, Mr Wyatt

stated that although the nearest turbine would be 1.19 km from the property,

and the landscape sensitivity was medium, existing vegetation would result in

a negligible visual impact.

In relation to the concerns by Mr Wood about the proximity of turbines, the

photomontage requested by the Panel was prepared, and the two closest

turbines (as close as 860 metres from the viewpoint) will be clearly ‘visible

through a gap in the planting surrounding the residence’56.

In relation to the concerns by Mrs Stewien about the proximity of turbines

confining her vistas, no response was made in Mr Wyatt’s expert witness

submission. Although noting the Stewiens’ concerns57, and stating that the

visual impact on residential properties is addressed in Chapter 958, Chapter 959

did not address the concerns of the Stewiens, and restricted comment to the


2009, page 44 56 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010, page 36 57 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010, page 9 58 Ibid, page 10 59 Ibid, page 23


six residential properties for which the Panel had directed that photomontages

be prepared.

In its Directions the Panel also sought responses on a number of matters. The

first of these relevant to landscape impact assessment sought a response by the

proponent to the revised Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind

Energy Facilities in Victoria(September 2009). Mr Wyatt reviewed these

guidelines in detail, in relation to landscape and visual impact assessment,

and reported that the assessment had complied with them.

The second matter on which the Panel sought responses was directed to both

the proponent and the NGSC. It concerned the second objective of the NGPS

ES01 ‘to maintain the natural beauty and the landscape qualities of the ridge system’

and the decision guideline ‘to protect and enhance the landscape’.

In his response Mr Wyatt stated

The assumption that needs to be considered in addressing this question is

whether wind turbines destroy the “natural beauty” of the ridge system or

reduce the landscape qualities that are protected by this ESO1. I believe

that the wind turbines actually accentuate and articulate the subtleties of

the underlying landscape pattern and as such comply with the 2009

Guidelines which emphasise that “locating arrays of turbines to reflect

dominant topographical and/or cultural features, such as ridgelines, the

coastline, watercourses, windbreaks or transmission lines.60

Mr Wyatt cited other Panel Reports and landscape experts views that all

agreed that the location of wind turbines should reflect the underlying

landscape character.

Mr Douglas of NGS Council provided a written submission to the Panel in

response to the Panel request. In responding, Mr Douglas made a number of

observations. These included that:

The ‘Environmental objectives to be achieved’ of the ESO introduce

elements which are more commonly found in the Significant Landscape

Overlay;

It is likely that ‘wind energy facilities’ were not contemplated when the

overlay was drafted;

Wind turbines of the size proposed cannot be designed or managed to

remove visual impact;

60 Expert Witness Statement of Allan Wyatt, Landscape and Visual Assessment, June 2010, page 18


If structures of this size (but without any beneficial purpose and without

policy support) were proposed then it is my view that the Northern

Grampians Shire would not support the application; and

If the application was to be decided by the Northern Grampians Shire, then

it is my view that the aspect of natural beauty would not prove fatal to the

application.

The Panel considered the second last dot point above to be a clear statement

that the wind turbines would be detrimental to the natural beauty of the ridge

system.

The third matter on which the Panel sought advice from the proponent

concerned the preparation of photomontages for specified views from

dwellings, and Mr Wyatt’s response has been described in Section 7.2.2 above.

The fourth matter concerned the impact of aviation obstacle lighting, and Mr

Wyatt’s response has been described in Section 7.2.4

The Panel followed up the advice received with DPCD, seeking to clarify how

the secondary approval had been managed. The advice from DPCD was

received on 23 July 2010 by email, and included the following points:

On 19 July 2007 Acciona Energy applied to amend the approved development

plans for the Waubra Wind Farm.

The proposed changes included the installation of medium intensity aviation

safety lighting on 48 of the 128 turbines.

CASA provided advice confirming that it could not require aircraft safety

lighting for the wind farm as it is outside the obstacle limitation surface of any

airfield. However, CASA indicated its concern that the turbines would still be a

hazard to aviation.

Because CASA didnʹt require the lighting, the requirement of condition 4 to

reduce turbine height to avoid lighting did not apply.

Condition 5 of the permit requires that ʹno external lighting ... may be installed

or operated... without further consent from the Minister for Planningʹ.

On 16 October 2007, following an assessment of the potential visual impacts of

the proposed lighting along with other matters, the Minister for Planning

approved the amended development plan as provided for in Condition 3 and

Condition 5 of the planning permits.

Mr Herron gave evidence on aviation matters, and during cross‐examination

he provided further expert advice on night lighting. He confirmed that even if

CASA had not withdrawn its circular, CASA has no legal power to enforce its

guidelines. The duty of care remains solely with the proponent or operator.


In reply to questions from Mr Randell, Mr Herron advised that options for

night lighting, radar activated lights could be used. A further option is the use

of a system similar to that commonly used in aircraft, Pilot Activated Lighting

(PAL), where pilots can turn on runway lighting 30 km out from the

aerodrome.

In reply to questions by the Panel about the practice of proponents

commissioning independent quantitative risk assessments as a basis for

discussions with CASA and their insurers, Mr Herron advised that conditions

during both day and night were considered.

7.4 Discussion


The four questions posed in Section 7.1 above will be addressed in turn. The

first and second questions were “What is the level of impact?” and “Is the

impact ameliorated by screening?” These two questions will be taken

together for the publicly accessible viewpoints, as the existing screening has

been considered in assessing the level of impact, and no further ameliorative

screening is proposed by Mr Wyatt.

Level of Impact (including existing screening)

The ratings and assessment by Mr Wyatt set out in Section 7.2.1 above can be

queried in several respects. Looking first at the elements in Table 2, Summary

Assessment of publicly accessible viewpoints, the criteria are considered

below in the order they appear in that table, namely Distance, Landscape

sensitivity and Viewer numbers.

Distance

As noted in Section 7.2.1, there is some ambiguity in the criteria adopted by

Mr Wyatt in his 2009 Report and in answer to a question at the Hearing.

While the 2009 Report describes the range from zero to 1.5 km as ‘Highly visible

and will usually dominate the landscape’ and 1.5 km to 3 km as “Noticeable and can

dominate the landscape’, this latter range was subsequently said to be included

as ‘High’ only for visual assessment from non‐host dwellings. The Draft

National Wind Farm Development Guidelines61 report the likely visual impact

of less than 1 km as ‘Will always be visually dominant in the landscape’ and at 1‐

2.5 km as ‘Highly visible and will usually dominate the landscape’. Here the

61 Draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines 2 July 2010, see Table C-6 Determining the

likely visual impact of a wind turbine page 107 Source “Adapted from Peer Review Report: Dollar Wind Farm, ASPECT Studios, 2000.


descriptor identical to that for Mr Wyatt’s zero to 1.5 km is extended to a

distance of 2.5 km. The Draft National Guidelines summarise the approach to

distance in assessing multiple wind farms, and suggests the circles

differentiating High, Medium and Low visual impact be drawn at 3 km and 12

km. That is, as noted above, less than 3 km is ‘High’, more than 12 km is

‘Low’, and in‐between 3 and 12 km is ‘Medium’.

In fact, when sections of Mr Wyatt’s 2009 report dealing with the viewpoints

individually are examined, there is further ambiguity. As shown in Table 1 in

Section 7.2.1 above, one viewpoint in the range 1.5 to 3.0 km is assessed as

Medium (VP1 at 2.17 km), while two other viewpoints in the range 1.5 to 3.0

km are assessed as High (VP11 at 2.4 km & 17 at 2.95 km).

The Panel considers that it would be more consistent to assign ‘High’ to public

viewing point within 3 km, as has predominantly been done by Mr Wyatt,

though that is in conflict with his verbal advice to the Panel. In relation to the

descriptor ‘Medium’, the Panel takes a more conservative view than the draft

National Guidelines, and adopts Mr Wyatt’s 3 km to 8 km range set out in

Table 4.1 of his 2009 Report (previously discussed in Section 7.2.1 above). It is

pertinent to record that at the site inspection, which was held on a clear, cold,

sunny day, the view of Challicum Hills at a distance of 14 km from Telegraph

Hill within the site was quite noticeable. Though not dominant, it stood out

against the sky.

Landscape sensitivity

The general topography of the site is in the south‐western end of the Great

Dividing Range, with run‐off going to north‐east to the Wimmera River and

south to the Hopkins River.62 The ridges on which the turbines will be

situated are the feature of the landscape.

While it is common for landscape architects to assign ‘Low’ landscape

sensitivity to Landscape Units 1 and 2, this is done in the absence of any

Planning Scheme protection of the landscape. In the case of Ararat WEF, and

as described in Section 7.3, there is an objective of the ESO1 in the NGPS ‘to

maintain and protect the natural beauty and the landscape qualities of the ridge

system’. As noted in Section 7.3, Mr Scott’s submission left no doubt in the

Panel’s mind that the turbines would be detrimental to the view. In the

Panel’s view, Mr Wyatt’s response confused the natural beauty of the ridge

system with visual impact reduction measures in the 2009 Wind Energy

Guidelines, which includes “locating arrays of turbines to reflect dominant

topographical and/or cultural features, such as ridgelines, the coastline, watercourses,

62 Expert Witness Statement of David Tilley, page 2


windbreaks or transmission lines.” Mr Wyatt did not in fact address the issue of

natural beauty in his response to the Panel.

The issue for the Panel is whether the objective in the NGPS ESO1 should be

considered in assessing the landscape significance within the Northern

Grampians area of the WEF sites, and whether it should apply more generally

throughout the Ararat WEF area, despite not being mentioned in the Ararat

Planning Scheme.

Mr Power also addressed this issue in his Part B Submission to the Panel,

noting that the Ararat Planning Scheme does state that it is important that

future developments do not detract from natural settings, but gave no special

significance to landscape or environmental issues beyond those matters

specifically addressed in the SLO (which only nominates State parks) and the

VPO.

On balance, and after repeated site visits with this issue in mind, the Panel

considers that the landscape sensitivity of views towards the Great Dividing

Range should be given a higher grading than ‘Low” for landscape sensitivity,

and that a ‘Medium” landscape sensitivity would be more appropriate where

the hills are within 3 km of the viewing point.

Discussion at the Hearing turned to the matter of whether the objective of the

ES01 Overlay ‘to maintain and protect the natural beauty of the ridge system’

would have been more appropriate in a Significant Landscape Overlay. From

this perspective, it could be argues that the first objective, protecting erosion,

should be considered as the primary purpose of the overlay.

The Panel notes that under the Decision Guidelines in Section 52.32‐3 of

Victorian Planning Schemes, responsible authorities must consider the Policy

and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria.

These guidelines, in providing guidance on the evaluation of landscape

amenity (page 24) state:

Wind energy facilities will usually have some degree of impact on the

landscape. In deciding whether or not the visual impact of a wind energy

facility in the landscape is acceptable, it may be useful to consider

planning scheme objectives for the landscape, including whether the land

is subjected to an Environmental Significance Overlay, Vegetation

Protection Overlay or a Significant Landscape Overlay in the relevant

planning scheme.

Consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having

regard to the Government’s Policy in support of renewable energy

development.


The Guidelines, in relation to the visual impact of a wind energy facility in the

landscape, makes no distinction between the different overlays, but rather

looks at the objectives of any overlay. The Panel has taken the same view.

Visitor numbers

Mr Wyatt has adopted a rating of ‘Low’ for local roads, and ‘High’ for

highways. The traffic on the most significant local road adjoining the WEF

site, Warrak Road, varies from 140 to 192 vehicles per day between Warrak

Township and Warrayatkin Road.63 The Panel does not dispute the rating

assigned by Mr Wyatt, but suggest that as it is not quite an order of magnitude

less than the traffic on the Pyrenees Highway (1160 vpd) it might well be

accorded a ‘Low to Medium’ rating. The Panel makes this observation in the

knowledge that most of the houses within 3 km of the WEF site are at the

township of Warrak, or off Warrak Road.

The Panel also supported the views of DSE in relation to visitor numbers,

reported in Section 7.3 above.

Combining the three ratings

Having examined the three criteria, the next task is to review how they are

aggregated. The Panel is aware that combining criteria which are quite

different is not straightforward. Mr Wyatt used the expression “When you mix

apples with oranges you get fruit salad” and that succinctly states the problem.

That statement, however, does not resolve the problem.

Mr Wyatt’s approach to combining the ratings of visual impact for a public

viewing point by is set out in Section 7.2.1 above, and consists of adopting the

lowest rating for any one criterion.

While other approaches to combining ‘apples with oranges’ are found in the

extensive literature in Environmental Impact assessment and in the report by

Helen Gibson Review of the Objectives‐Based Assessment Model: An assessment tool

used by Planning Panels Victoria (October 2002), the Panel was interested to see

how other landscape practitioners go about combining ratings for WEF’s.

The approach taken by Urbis on the Berrybank WEF Report64 is set out in

Section 1.5.1, Approach to Assessment. It displays a two criteria matrix, with

ratings of Low, Moderate and High. The combined assessment is given as the

mean of the ratings, rounded up where one parameter is ’High’, and rounded

down where one parameter is ‘Low’.

63 Ararat Wind Farm Traffic and Transport Report 24 July 2009, Table 1 page 9. 64 Berrybank VIA Final Report 030709, page 3


The example given by the Shetland Islands Council65 is to consider the

combination of ‘Sensitivity’ (capacity of a landscape to accommodate the type

and scale of development without adverse effects on its character or value)

and ‘Magnitude’ (a combination of the scale, extent and duration of any

impact). The table on page 12 sets out an overall assessment of ‘Slight’,

‘Moderate’ and ‘Substantial’ which conforms to the schema used by Urbis

(The example is taken from the Institute of Environmental Assessment and

Landscape Institute, 1995, p.53).

Mr Wyatt was asked for his opinion of these two alternative methodologies,

and he robustly defended his method of combining ratings and rejected the

alternative methodologies.

The Panel has a concern that the approach taken by Mr Wyatt tends to

minimise and obscure the likely visual impacts of the proposal. Several

statements by Mr Wyatt have assisted in clarifying the Panel’s approach, as set

out at the beginning of the Chapter.

The first of these was Mr Wyatt’s advice that the Perception Study findings

were not used in assessing the visual impact from public viewing points, but

were seen as supporting the assessed impacts (see Section 7.2.1 above).

Mr Wyatt drew attention to earlier wind turbine structures that used lattice

tower construction. While they were smaller in height than modern wind

turbine towers, the use of lattice towers has been abandoned in Victoria (and

elsewhere) due to their adverse appearance.

These reflections support the Panel’s approach in separating the initial

assessment of impact and the next step of applying a cultural, or perception,

filter. Rather than relying on perception studies as mere support for the

findings of visual impact analysis, the Panel believes that perception studies

offer a separate and important aspect of visual assessment, and need to be

used to moderate the initial assessment.

The second statement of Mr Wyatt’s that has helped the Panel in clarifying its

views (reported earlier in Section 7.2.1) was made in relation to his method for

combining ratings:

If landscape sensitivity is low (i.e. within a highly man modified

landscape) then even if the wind farm was in close proximity to the

viewpoint and it was visible to a large number of viewers, the overall

viewer impact would be minor because the viewpoint is not a landscape of

such sensitivity that further change would be unacceptable.

65 Shetland Islands Council January 2006,Basic Principles of Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment for Sponsors of Development, page 12


Turning to wind turbine towers in Victoria, the Draft National Guidelines

describe the likely visual impact of a turbine as ‘Will always be visually dominant

in the landscape’ and at 1‐2.5 km as ‘Highly visible and will usually dominate the

landscape’, the latter being the identical descriptor used by Mr Wyatt for

turbines within 1.5 km. The Panel is at a loss to understand how an object that

is visually dominating in the landscape can, by virtue of a ‘low’ Landscape

sensitivity, have a Low visual impact. It seems to the Panel that if viewers in a

publicly accessible location such as a road are close to a wind tower, their

appreciation of its visual impact will be moderated by their overall

perceptions of wind farms rather than by the ‘Landscape sensitivity’.

Review of the assessment summary

The Panel has re‐worked the assessment of the 25 publicly accessible

viewpoints set out in Table 7.1 in Mr Wyatt’s Landscape and Visual

Assessment Report, September 2009 (see Section 7.2.1 above), with the

following changes:

Distance: less than 3 km rated ‘Low’, 3 km to 8 km rated ‘Medium’, and

greater than 8 km to 17 km ‘Low’. No viewpoint should be considered if

the turbines are at a greater distance than 17 km in the Panel’s opinion;

Landscape sensitivity: rated medium for Landscape Units 1 and 2 in

viewsheds of the hills comprising the western end of the Great Dividing

Range, when the hills are in within 3 km of the viewing point;

Visitor numbers: the ‘Low’ rating for Warrak Road needs to be treated

with some caution, and a ‘Low to Medium’ rating seems more

appropriate. The DSE rating for visitor numbers at Viewpoint 6 (see

Section 7.3) has also been adopted; and

Combining the factors should follow the schema adopted by Urbis and

others.

Of the 25 public viewing points for which ‘Overall Visual Assessments’ were

made by Mr Wyatt, the Panel has upgraded 19 as a result of the its review,

using the Panel’s preferred ratings and combination rules. The overall visual

impact was changed in 19 of the 25 public viewing points; and in six cases the

overall visual assessment of Low was maintained. The changes were:

from Nil to Low in one case;

from Low to Medium in 13 cases;

from Low to High, in three cases; and

from Medium to High in two cases.

However, as discussed above, it is not sufficient to merely take these results at

face value. The overall visual impact assessments need some closer

examination to further review that they are in accord with general good sense.


Rather than citing the Panel’s reasons for the review of the original assessment

of every viewpoint, a few examples are provided below.

In relation to Viewpoint 6 at Mt Langi Ghiran State Park, Mr Wyatt has

assigned a Low overall impact, on the basis that the Ararat WEF cannot

generally be seen from the park, and that the view from the lookout is largely

screened by existing vegetation. The Panel accepts this finding.

Viewpoints 13 and 14 are from Green Hill Lake Park Lookout and Camping

Area, and the ratings for Landscape Sensitivity and Visitor Numbers are both

High and Medium for Distance. In these cases the Panel has no hesitation in

confirming a ‘High’ Overall visual impact, rather than the Medium assessed

by Mr Wyatt.

Viewpoint 17 is on the Pyrenees Highway to the west of the windfarm, and

the ratings for Distance and Viewer Numbers are both High, and Low for

Landscape sensitivity. The overall visual impact assessment from has been

upgraded by the Panel from Low to High. A case could perhaps be made for

assigning a Medium for the overall assessment, but the overall assessment of

High is preferred. The Panel sees no justification in agreeing with Mr Wyatt

that the overall assessment from this viewpoint should be Low.

Mr Wyatt’s Overall assessment for Viewpoint 18, Pyrenees Highway 2

(looking south from the intersection with Woodlands Road) was Low, while

the Panel has assessed it as High. The difference comes both from the

upgraded Landscape sensitivity and the combination rule. With original

assessments of High for both Distance and Visitor numbers, and a Low for

Landscape sensitivity, the Panel would have found it should have been

assessed as High in view of the combination rule. With the increase in

Landscape sensitivity from Low to Medium assessed by the Panel, the Overall

assessment of High is confirmed and strengthened.

The third question is “How is the residual impact likely to be perceived by

viewers?”

The Community Perception study undertaken by Environmental Resources

Management Pty Ltd and Reark Pty Ltd is open to the criticism made by the

Lal Lal WEF Panel, which found that the inclusion of a factually wrong

statement about noise undermined the credibility of the study. Mr Turnbull,

the Expert Witness on Acoustics, was advised by the Panel of the finding of

the Lal Lal WEF Panel.

He was then asked for his opinion of the preamble to Question 15 in the

Community Perceptions Survey for Ararat Wind Farm, namely that “Scientific

tests conducted at wind farms have shown that people need to be less than


approximately 800 metres from the wind turbines for them to hear any significant

turbine noise, even in extreme wind conditions.” Mr Turnbull responded that “It

is not a statement that I would make. I’m not aware of any scientific tests to support

that statement.”

The Panel does not question the validity of the main findings of the

Perceptions Study, providing caution is taken in drawing attention to the

preamble to Question 15, and its potential to lessen the credibility of the study.

With that proviso, the Panel accepts that there is broad support for wind farms

in the general community, though that support may not translate to every

local community.

In view of the foregoing, it is likely that the degree of visual impact from

public viewing points will be moderated by a general perception that wind

farms are acceptable, providing the respondent is not in the immediate

vicinity of a proposed wind farm.

The fourth question is “What weight should be given to visual impact?”

Clause 4.9.1 of the Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy

facilities in Victoria states “Considerable weight should be given to the contribution

to Government policy objectives in relation to the development of renewable energy.”

and “Consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having

regard to the Government’s policy in support of renewable energy development.”

The term visual impact in the above quote is taken to include both aspects

commonly addressed by proponents, expert witnesses and Panels, Landscape

Impacts and Visual impacts. Clearly the level of Landscape impacts (i.e. those

from publicly accessible viewing points) while being characterised by the

Panel as Medium or High in more than half the viewpoints analysed by Mr

Wyatt, should be given less weight than the advantage accrued from the wind

farm through its provision of renewable energy by the policy support given

through Victorian Planning Schemes.


The four questions posed in Section 7.1 will again be addressed in turn.

Question 1 asks “What is the level of impact?” Table 2 in Section 7.2.2 sets

out Visual impact of the turbines on the six locations for which

photomontages were requested by the Panel. The results were that Mr Wyatt

assessed three properties as having a ‘High’ visual impact, one as ‘Medium’,

one as ‘Low to Medium’ and Mr Randell’s property as ‘Negligible’.


While both the Distance and the Landscape sensitivity was ‘High’ in all cases,

the assessments were made on the basis of existing screening due to sheds and

vegetation from the viewpoint.

Question 2 asks “Is the impact ameliorated by screening?”. The proponent

has offered to provide screen planting to the owner of any existing dwelling

within 3 km of the nearest turbine, regardless of the degree of impact that is

assessed.

At the without prejudice discussion at the Hearing on the draft Permit

Conditions provided by DPCD, the draft planning permit condition

concerning off‐site landscaping of non‐host dwellings (Condition 17 (a) in

Appendix C) was verbally extended to include (in part):

…a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works must be made

available to the owners of dwellings, built at the time a permit for the

Ararat WEF is granted, within 3 kilometres of the nearest turbine.

Mr Power submitted that the word granted should be replaced by lodged. His

argument was that there might be a number of dwellings for which planning

permits (if necessary) and building permits were issued, and which were

substantially completed, in the time taken for a permit for the Ararat WEF to

be issued. Such new dwellings could be in close proximity to the nearest wind

turbine, and could result in a number of turbines having to be abandoned due

to say noise impacts.

DPCD and the two Councils maintained support for the word “granted”.

The Panel notes the requirement in the Panel report for Berrybank does not

specify anything apart from the fact that ameliorative landscaping works

should be made to any dwelling existing at the time of the offer.

The ameliorative planting offered may be taken up by owners, but by no

means will vegetated screening return the visual amenity of the outlook to its

pre‐wind farm state. The views of the beautiful ridgelines of the western end

of the Great Dividing Range will be compromised by the presence of one or

more, and often many, wind turbines. Whether the residual impact is still

perceived by residents within 3 km will depend on the individual assessments

by those residents. The fact that so few residents within 3 km chose to make

submissions on the matter may indicate that there is a general acceptance of

the proposed wind farm. Alternatively it may simply be as a result of people

not feeling confident to submit, or not being aware that they have the right to

make a submission, or not feeling that any submission they may make will be

effective, or other reasons. Overall the Panel would expect the offer of screen

planting will be taken up by a number of owners, that it will provide some


further amelioration of the visual impact, but that the residual impacts may

still be of serious concern to an unknown number of residents.

On the matter as to whom the offer of off‐site landscaping works should be

made, the Panel accepts the position taken in the Berrybank permit, namely to

the owner of any dwelling existent at the time of the offer (which in turn is

must be made within six months of endorsement of the development plan

under Condition 1).

Question 3 asks “How is the residual impact likely to be perceived by

viewers?” The answer to this question rests with the individual property

owner, but the Panel is aware from submissions that at least three owners

have significant concerns. Others, of course, may find the presence of the

wind farm quite acceptable.

Question 4 asks “What weight should be given to visual impact?” The last

paragraphs of Section 7.4.1, Landscape visual impact, sets out the relevant

policy: “Consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having

regard to the Government’s policy in support of renewable energy development.”


The evidence given by Mr Wyatt was not challenged, and is accepted by the

Panel. In essence Mr Wyatt concluded that, from the perspective of the

multiple views of Crowlands and Ararat WEFs from the Pyrenees Highway, a

viewer’s perception of the Ararat area as one in which wind energy is a major

element may change. The degree to which this may be an adverse impact will

be moderated for many by the general acceptance of wind farms within the

community.

The approved Lexton Wind Farm some 20 km north west of Waubra is

unlikely to be seen from either the Western Highway or from the west, being

shielded by the Great Dividing Range and the Mount Cole / Mt Buangor

range.


ARCC raised concerns about obstacle lighting being not part of the proposal.

The Panel is satisfied that approval of obstacle lighting was sought in the

application, subject to it being required. Pages 95 & 174 of the Main Report

and Mr Wyatt’s reports and the evidence presented make this matter quite

clear.

ARCC raised concerns about the secondary consent for aviation obstacle

lighting, and the Panel pursued this matter to gain an understanding of how it


arose and was granted. The advice received from DPCD is set out in Section

7.3 above. There is no detail of how the Minister reached his decision to allow

the lighting, but clearly the decision was not accompanied by any requirement

to baffle the lights, or to require any specification of the lights.

The Panel drove along the Western Highway at night, and had the

opportunity to observe the Waubra lights from a distance of perhaps 10

kilometres. The impact was high, with the hills lit up like a Christmas tree.

The advice of Mr Wyatt was that if lights were required at Ararat WEF, the

use of 2000 candella, red, flashing, medium intensity, baffled FTB360i LED

integrated L864 lights (or similar) would result in a lower visual impact. The

Panel believes that if lights were required, they should be of the minimum

intensity that would be consistent with safety requirements.

Since the conclusion of the Ararat WEF Panel Hearing, the Minister for

Planning has received the Panel Report for Berrybank, and has issued permits

for that WEF. Condition 7 of the Corangamite permit states:

7. Aviation obstacle lighting must not be installed unless the written

consent of the Minister has been obtained.

Condition 8 of the permit includes:

8. If consent to install aviation obstacle lighting is obtained, it must be

installed under the following conditions:

a) the aviation obstacle lighting must be installed such that it is

activated only:

i. if at night, when an aircraft is in the immediate vicinity of

the wind energy facility; and

ii. during low visibility daytime conditions such as the

existence of smoke and fog;

While parties to the Hearing have had no opportunity to make any comment

on the outcome of the Berrybank permit application, the Panel notes that

similar issues were canvassed at the Ararat Panel Hearing, as reported at the

end of Section 7.3 above.

The Panel believes that great care needs to be taken to limit the unnecessary

use of nacelle lighting, and agrees with the requirement for on‐demand

lighting in line with the Berrybank case.



The landscape impacts of the internal power lines were not addressed in detail

at the Panel hearing. However, the Panel considers that the lines could

potentially have detrimental landscape impacts, which need to be minimised

in further detailed planning.

7.5 Conclusions


The Panel concludes that the Landscape impact assessment by Mr Wyatt

understates the level of Landscape impact for the following reasons:

the criteria given by Mr Wyatt for distance are stated differently in

different parts of his reports and expert evidence, and applied

inconsistently within his assessment;

the policy objective in the NGPS ES01 has not been given due regard and

has led to a lower assessment of Landscape significance of many publicly

accessible viewpoints;

the assessment of visitor numbers on Warrak Road deserves a higher

rating than Low; and

the method adopted for combining criteria does not follow common

practice and again, in a cumulative manner, further understates the

actual overall impact.

When all these matters have been taken into consideration, the Panel has

assessed the significant overall visual impact at 5 sites to be High (compared

to none in Mr Wyatt’s assessment) Medium in 13 cases (compared to 2 cases

by Mr Wyatt), and Low for 7 cases (compared to 22 cases by Mr Wyatt, and

one where he gave a Nil rating).

While Mr Wyatt assessed only two (8%) of the public viewing points higher

than Low, the Panel assessed 18 (72%) higher than Low.

The Panel considers that systematic understatement of visual impact is likely

to produce a public credibility issue in wind farm assessments.

That is not to say that the higher level of impact assessed by the Panel should

lead to rejection of the Ararat WEF. Rather, that a higher degree of visual

impact must be considered in relation to both general public perceptions of

wind farms, and the policy guidelines. This balancing of net community

benefit is undertaken in Chapter 16.



The Panel concludes that the photomontage representation of the turbines at

A0 scale prepared by Mr Wyatt make a significant contribution to visual

impact assessment, and provide a realistic portrayal of how they will ‘read’ in

the landscape. Some land owners will continue to have significant concerns

about the visual impact of the turbines in the viewshed of their homes, even

with the possibility of the mitigation resulting from screen planting. However

this level of concern is not sufficient (even in concert with the Landscape

impacts) to cause the Panel to view them as unacceptable when compared to

the significant contribution the Ararat WEF can make to sustainable energy.

Provision for off‐site landscape ameliorative works for houses within 3

kilometres of the site boundary are detailed in Appendix F, the Recommended

Environmental Management Plan, under the Landscape and visual amenity

plan in the Pre‐Construction Phase.


The Panel concludes that the cumulative impact caused by the construction

and operation of the Ararat WEF will not cause any significant cumulative

impact.


The Panel concludes that if the Minister for Planning, on the advice of a

Quantitative Risk Assessment or the requirement of a regulatory authority,

endorsed the use of lights at Ararat WEF, they should be of the lowest

intensity consistent with safety.

The further evidence of Mr Herron on options to minimise nacelle lighting,

where it is required, and the use of on‐demand lighting required at Berrybank,

leads the Panel to also favour on‐demand lighting.

Provision for night lighting is made in Permit Conditions 3 (m) and 3(n) of the

Recommended Permit (Appendix E), and in the Aviation Lighting Plan in the

Pre‐Construction Phase of the Recommended Environmental Management

Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage (Appendix F).


The Panel concludes that, as far as possible, any internal powerlines should be

underground. However, it accepts that there may be circumstances when

undergrounding may be totally impractical because of terrain or potential

vegetation removal. To achieve this objective, a process for justification and


approval of some internal overhead lines is required. The Panel has added the

following words to Condition 3 (i) in the recommended permit (Appendix E):

All new electricity cabling and powerlines associated with the internal

collector network within the wind energy facility must be underground

unless overhead powerlines are demonstrated to be necessary, and be

installed in accordance with the endorsed plans except with the further

written consent of the Minister for Planning.


8. ROADS AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

8.1 THE ISSUES

The issues arising from for traffic and transport are:

Can the predicted volume off‐site traffic generated by the Ararat WEF

during construction and operation be safely managed on the road

system?

Can the off‐site road network take the large heavy loads involved?

The issue of the structural soundness of the on‐site access tracks is considered

within Chapter 11 below. The issue of the impact of construction traffic on

existing vegetation is considered within Chapter 5 above.

8.2 BACKGROUND

Traffic and Transport was reported in Volume 2 of the Application

Documentation66. In its Directions, the Panel sought further information on

the quantities of materials required for internal access roads and their likely

source. In response, RES Australia provided an Expert Witness Report67 by

Gillian Austin of Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd who undertook a peer review of

the Traffic and Transport Report by RES Australia and provided greater detail

on:

the cut and fill balance on site;

the road capping material deliveries to site (conservatively estimated);

concrete foundation construction deliveries (using two scenarios:

concrete batched on site, and ready‐mix concrete delivered from Ararat);

electrical cable and turbine component deliveries;

construction traffic routes and access points; and

the impact of construction traffic on existing vegetation (considered in

Chapter 5 above).

In his Part B submission to the Panel, Mr Power drew attention to the close

consultation between RES Australia, VicRoads and Ararat Rural City Council

66 Volume 2 of the Application Documentation, Traffic and Transport Assessment Report September

2009 67 Traffic Assessment Panel Report, Ararat Wind Farm, RES Australia 18 June 2010 Revision 5


to identify suitable access routes and to reduce traffic impacts on the local

community.

Site access points would be as generally shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Site Access Points

The reports detailed that transport routes would be generally as follows:

Route 1 – from Portland via the Hamilton to Ararat, north through Ararat and

either along the Pyrenees Highway to site entry points 1 and 2, or via Blake

Street, Grano Road and Warrak Road to site entry points 3, 4 and 5.

Route 2 – from Melbourne or Geelong using the Western Highway and

turning into Warrayatkin Road (which is just east of Green Lake) and then

either turning into Warrak Road for site entry points 3, 4 and 5, or continuing

on Warrayatkin Road to the Pyrenees Highway for site entry 2 and further

along the Pyrenees Highway to Woodlands Road for site entry 3.

Route 3 – from Melbourne or Geelong using the Western Highway and

turning into the Buangor‐Ben Nevis Road. At Warrak the route would either

turn left into Warrak Road to access site entry points 3, 4 and 5, or proceed

north on Buangor‐Ben Nevis Road to the Pyrenees Highway, and turn left to

access site entry points 1 and 2.

The access roads are sealed roads in the main, though Warrayatkin Road,

Woodlands Road (used for a distance of approximately one km), and


Buangor‐Ben Nevis Road north of Iron Pot Creek Road (a distance of

approximately 5 km) are unsealed.

A one‐way traffic system68 is seen as one of the most effective mitigation

measures for traffic impacts. An example given is for a circulation system

west on the Western Highway, north on Warrayatkin Road, east on Warrak

Road for delivery vehicles to site entry points 3, 4 and 5, continuing east with

unloaded vehicles along Warrak Road, turning south into Buangor‐Ben Nevis

Road and then east onto the Pyrenees Highway. If deliveries were made from

Portland, it is presumed that the one way system would require the return

journey on Warrak Road and Buangor‐Ben Nevis Road as described, but with

a western leg on the Western Highway being used to return through Ararat.

The Environmental Management Plan will include, under the Construction

phase, a Transport Management Plan, to ensure the management of traffic and

mitigate any potential problems.

The peak construction traffic volume is associated with the construction of

internal access roads, crane pads and concrete turbine foundations. It is

estimated to be of the order of 150 vehicle movements per day (round trips)

spread between various routes, and these trips would include only standard

road vehicles.

Over sized vehicles would not be delivering wind turbine components in the

peak traffic period.

8.3 SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE

RES Australia did not originally offer to present expert evidence on Traffic

and Transport and on Geology and Hydrogeology. In response to the requests

for further information made by the Panel in its Directions, RES Australia

submitted the Expert Evidence Statements Ms Austin (Traffic and Transport)69

and by Mr Tilley (Geology and Hydrogeology) with additional reports by

Douglas Partners attached. In view of the general clarity of the information

presented, the Panel did not require the attendance of either Ms Austin or Mr

Tilley at the Hearings.

Submissions were received from the Rural City of Ararat concerning the

impact on vegetation on access routes which has yet to be assessed; from Mr

Woods concerning the hazardous situation at the entry to Big Hill Road and

68 Volume 2 of the Application Documentation, Traffic and Transport Assessment Report September

2009, page 31 69 Traffic Assessment Panel Report, Ararat Wind Farm, RES Australia 18 June 2010 Revision


the impact on vegetation along Big Hill Road, and from Mrs Stewien

concerning the impact on vegetation along Big Hill Road.

Ms Austin70 addressed these submissions. With respect to potential vegetation

loss on the access routes, her preliminary view was addressed in Chapter 5.

With respect to any potential for a traffic hazard to develop at the intersection

of Big Hill Road with Warrak Road, and Site Entry 4 being located just a few

metres further along Big Hill Road, Ms Austin concedes the general visibility

issue, but notes that oversized vehicles will be accompanied by police and

escort vehicles.

With respect to concerns about vegetation along Big Hill Road, Ms Austin

notes that Big Hill Road will not be used by construction traffic beyond Site

Entry 4, and there will therefore be no impact beyond that point.

At the Hearing, Mr Randell raised a concern about heavy traffic on the

unsealed Warrayatkin Road, suggesting that in periods of rain heavy traffic

would render it impassable to local traffic. In response, Mr Power referred to

the draft Planning Permit Condition requiring the proponent to include,

during the construction period, a program of regular inspection to identify the

need for maintenance works and agreed criteria that will trigger repair and

maintenance works.

8.4 DISCUSSION

The first issue identified by the Panel was: ‘Can the predicted volume off‐site

traffic generated by the Ararat WEF during construction and operation be safely

managed on the road system?’

The Panel believes that, subject to one further matter, the proposals by RES

Australia and the latest version of the Planning Permit Conditions and EMP

provided by RES Australia (see Appendices C and D) provide adequate

management of the off‐site road network for the wind farm construction and

operations.

That further matter is the potential at Site Entry 4 adjacent to the intersection

of Warrak Road and Big Hill Road to cause a traffic hazard. While

acknowledging that over‐sized vehicles will be accompanied by police and

escort vehicles, no special traffic management provision has been made for the

standard highway trucks carrying concrete, stone and other materials to the

site and using Site Entry 4. A requirement for warning signs either side of this

location, to the satisfaction of the Ararat Rural City Council, should be

included in the Traffic Management Plan within the EMP.

70 Traffic Assessment Panel Report, Ararat Wind Farm, RES Australia 18 June 2010 Revision, page 35


The second issue identified by the Panel was: ‘Can the off‐site road network take

the large heavy loads involved?’ Again, the Panel believes that, subject to one

further matter, the proposals by RES Australia and the latest version of the

Planning Permit Conditions and EMP provided by RES Australia (see

Appendices B and C) provide adequate protection for the repair and

maintenance of the local road system.

That further matter is the likelihood that the unsealed Warrayatkin Road will

become impassable to local traffic during periods of wet weather. The Panel

shares the concerns of Mr Randell on this matter.

If over‐dimensional traffic comes via Ballarat, the section of Warrayatkin Road

between the Western Highway and Warrak Road will be used by over‐

dimensional traffic accessing Site Entries 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the northern

section from Warrak Road to the Pyrenees Highway will be used by over‐

dimensional traffic accessing Site Entries 1 and 2. It is not known whether the

route may also be attractive to standard heavy vehicles carrying concrete,

aggregates or other construction materials. This will depend, in part, on the

origin of these materials.

The use of a one way system along Warrak Road, as proposed, will also

concentrate over‐dimensional traffic on the southern part of Warrayatkin

Road.

It would seem desirable for further consideration to be given to the need for

sealing Warrayatkin Road, and discussion between RES Australia and the

ARC Council, to reduce the inconvenience to local traffic during the

construction of the facility, and to provide a long term benefit to road users.

Clearly, further traffic management measures would need to be considered to

prevent conflict between over‐dimensional vehicles and other traffic, light or

heavy, on Warrayatkin Road when over‐dimensional vehicles were using it.

The possibility of a one‐way system for Site Entries 1 and 2, using a clockwise

circulation on Warrayatkin Road, Pyrenees Highway, Buangor‐Ben Nevis

Road has not been specifically proposed by either RES Australia, VicRoads or

Ararat Rural City Council. The Panel neither advocates nor dismisses such a

system, which would need further consideration of a range of factors,

including safety, road maintenance and road user costs. If such an outcome

was found to be undesirable overall, the proposal for alternative access to Site

Entries 1 and 2 via the Buangor‐Ben Nevis Road and the Pyrenees Highway

could be reconsidered. If the Buangor‐Ben Nevis Road was not used for over‐

dimensional traffic to Site Entries 1 and 2, the unsealed length of this road

would not be subject to construction traffic damage.


8.5 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel concludes that:

The potential hazard at Site Entry 4 arising from its proximity to the

intersection of Big Hill Road with Warrak Road, and the limited site

distance available, requires the use of site specific early warning signs to

reduce the risk to road users.

Further consideration of the need to seal Warrayatkin Road, and of the

need for the alternative access to Site Entries 1 and 2 via Buangor‐Ben

Nevis Road is warranted, and RES Australia should study the public risk

in this respect, providing the findings of the study to the ARC Council.

The stability and safety of on‐site access tracks needs further study, in

respect both of the sealing of steep sections of those tracks, and the need

to flatten batters to 2H:1V.

The Recommended Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction

phase, within the Transport and Traffic Management Plan, cover these

conclusions.


9. AVIATION SAFETY AND FIRE

9.1 ISSUES

The main issues relating to aviation and safety emerging from the Panel

hearing relate to the Ararat aerodrome and are:

interference with current operations at the airport including use by Royal

Flying Doctor Flying Service, Air Ambulance Service, and Country Fire

Authirity (CFA);

restricting potential expansion of the airport’s operation;

safety need for aviation lighting; and

fire risk from the WEF.

The issues arose in written submissions and were responded to in writing and

expert witness presentation. The issue of the potential visual impact from

aviation obstacle lighting if it is installed and used is addressed in Chapter 7.

9.2 BACKGROUND

Because of their height, wind turbines can be a potential hazard to aircraft in

the vicinity of airports. Aviation safety is governed by the Civil Aviation

Safety Authority (CASA). The main rules for structures around airports are

determined by CASA and a key variable is the Obstacle Limitation Surface

(OLS) which is a defined space around an airport. Obstacle height and

marking, and other requirements apply within the OLS.

A CASA advisory circular (now withdrawn) had advised that turbines that

were beyond the OLS should be lit if higher than 110 metres. The matter is

under review by CASA, and the current advice is that wind farm proponents

should assess their duty of care requirements in deciding whether to provide

lighting.

9.2.1 Interference with current operations

The Aviation Assessment Report71 documented the potential impacts of the

WEF to aircraft safety set out in Section 4.9.1 of the VWEG. The Aviation

Assessment Report also provided copies of the considerable exchange of

letters between RES Australia and relevant organisations, including Air

71 Application Documentation Volume 2, Aviation Assessment Report, September 2009


Services Australia, Ararat and Stawell Aerodromes, the Civil Aviation Safety

Authority, the Department of Defence, the Royal Australian Air Force and the

Royal Flying Doctor Service.

The report concluded that the consultations had ensured that the WEF does

not infringe on any OLS, and that the WEF will not affect any aircraft

navigation, communication or procedures.

9.2.2 Interference with Future operations

The issue of future changes to operations at Ararat Aerodrome was not

considered in the Application Documentation. It was however addressed by

Mr Herron in his expert witness statement72 which included a peer review of

the RES Aviation Assessment Report.

9.2.3 Aviation lighting

The Aviation Report73 addressed nacelle lighting. A CASA endorsed nacelle

lighting plan was provided74 on the basis that should lighting be required, the

lighting plan would be followed.

9.2.4 Fire risk from the WEF

The issue of fire risk resulting from the WEF was addressed in the Main

Report75, within the summary of environmental mitigation and management

measures.

9.3 SUBMISSIONS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE

Four submissions addressed the issues of aircraft safety and fire (Submissions

1, 11, 15 and 18). CFA, acting as a Referral Authority pursuant to Section 52 of

the Planning and Environment Ac 1987 had no objection providing and

recommended that “the site be developed in accordance with CFA’s document

‘Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms’”.

Mr O’Rorke made an extensive written submission on the exhibited

application, raising concern about the threat to the present operations and the

future potential expansion of Ararat Aerodrome posed by the WEF. At the

Directions Hearing, the Panel was informed of Mr O’Rorke’s tragic death.

72 Aviation Expert Witness Statement by Syd Herron of The Ambidji Group, 18 June 2010 73 Application Documentation Volume 2, Aviation Assessment Report, September 2009, Section 3,

page 5 74 Ibid, Figure on page 27 75 Application Documentation, Volume 1 Main Report, Table 8,Bushfire, page 88


Ararat Rural City Council expressed concern about the potential impact of

CASA or other requirements for obstacle lighting, particularly from public

viewing points.

The fourth submission raised general amenity concerns, including a mention

of obstacle lighting.

9.3.1 Interference with current operations

A principal contention was that the aerodrome is a Code 2 aerodrome with the

potential to expand to Code 3. Mr Herron, in his Expert Witness Report76 and

in his Submission to the Hearing77, explained that in fact the aerodrome is a

Code 1 aerodrome. The main runway has sufficient length, but would need to

be widened to allow for Code 2 or Code 3 status. There is no CASA

requirement for a 15 km separation of the aerodrome from a wind farm. The

nearest wind turbine is well beyond the OLS of the current aerodrome.

In relation to the use of the aerodrome by the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Air

Ambulance Service, Mr Herron states that the geometry of the OLS would not

exclude fixed wing aircraft, and further, the wind farm as proposed would not

inhibit the use of the aerodrome by either organisation. Air Services Australia

confirmed to RES that the proposed wind farm “...will not affect any procedures,

including any published Lowest Safe Altitude (LSALT).....it will also not impact on

Precision/Non‐Precision Nav Aids, HF/VHF Comms, Cables, ASMGC, Radar or

Satellite/Links.”

9.3.2 Interference with future operations

The issue was explored by Mr Herron. He referred to conversations with the

Airport Manager indicating low current demand and little foreseen change in

future demand. Mr Herron assesses the costs of upgrading the aerodrome to

Code 3 as relatively high. However, the wind farm would not create a

restriction to upgrading the aerodrome since the nearest turbine would be

outside the expanded OLS.

9.3.3 Aviation lighting

The proponent has confirmed that, in accordance with its application, RES

Australia is applying for a planning permit for a “lit” wind farm, although its

preference is that it not be lit. In its aviation assessment report RES Australia

notes the following:

76 Aviation Expert Witness Statement by Syd Herron of The Ambidji Group, 18 June 2010 77 Hearing Document No 9, Aviation Expert Witness Statement Presentation by Syd. Heron, 7 July

2010


The Commonwealth Government recently (June 2009) released a

discussion paper; Safeguards for Airports and the Communities around

Them, Department of Infrastructure, Transport Regional development and

local Government, June 2009 which addresses the safeguarding of aviation

infrastructure.

Of note, is the discussion on the potential impact of wind farms further

than 30km from an aerodrome. The paper identifies that wind turbines

over 152m above ground may be a potential aviation hazard, as normal

aircraft operations are permitted down to that height. This height is

therefore less stringent than the previous 110m height trigger under

Advisory Circular AC 139‐18(0) that was recently withdrawn. It is noted

that the proposed wind turbines at Ararat Wind Farm would not exceed a

maximum blade tip height of 135m.

In his expert witness statement Mr Herron observes that that “...the reference to

turbines over 152m being a potential hazard does not necessarily imply that this will

be a future trigger height for CASA notifications.” He points out that “... it is my

view that any duty of care considerations by the proponent will be mainly focussed on

whether to now proceed to light the wind farm. In this regard and as a function of

duty of care, there are now a number of wind farm proponents that are undertaking

qualitative risk assessments to consider whether lighting of the wind farm is

necessary. Similarly, a number of operators of existing lit wind farms have turned

their lights off or are having qualitative risk assessments prepared to consider turning

the lights off.”

Mr Herron provided a sample list of wind farms and the status of the aviation

lights78 as follows:

Facility Turbine Height Status of Lights

Alinta Wind Farm (WA), 54 turbines 118 Not lit

Hallett Wind Farm Stages 1 & 2 (SA) 124 Lights switched off

Snowtown Wind Farm (SA), 47 turbines 124 About to be switched off

Capital Hill Wind Farm (NSW), 67 turbines 125 Not lit

Cullerin Wind Farm (NSW), 15 turbines 125 Under consideration

Hallett Wind Farm Stages 3 & 4 (SA) 124 No lighting planned

Waubra Wind Farm (Vic) 110 - 120 Under consideration

78 Hearing Document No 19, letter from Syd Heron, 12 July 2010


9.3.4 Fire risk from the WEF

CFA requirements are related to fire safety issues. CFA have raised no general

objections to the wind farm and recommended that the site should be

developed in accordance with the CFA’s document ‘Emergency Management

Guidelines for Wind Farms’. The specific question as to whether turbines

would restrict the use of fire fighting aircraft was addressed by Mr Herron.

He points to the CFA submission that:

Fire suppression aircraft operate under visual flight rules. As such, fire

suppression aircraft only operate in areas where there is no smoke and

during daylight hours. The standard distance of 300 meters between

turbines would allow aircraft to operate around a wind farm given the

appropriate weather.

9.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS


to Aviation Safety and Fire.

The Panel concurs with the proponent’s conclusions in relation to the effects of

the wind farm on the Ararat aerodrome’s current and future operations. The

construction of the wind farm will not intrude into the OLS of the aerodrome

either in current or in upgraded form should this be considered, and hence

will not affect aerodrome users.

In relation to aviation lighting, the Panel is of the view that this should be

avoided if possible. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that lighting should

only be allowed if informed by a risk assessment or required by a regulatory

Authority, and then as a secondary consent. The issue of nacelle lighting is

also considered in Chapter 7 from a visual perspective, and a condition on

aviation lighting is included in the Recommended Permit (Appendix E),

Conditions 3(m) and 3(n).

In relation to the potential for fires to be started due to the operation of the

WEF, the detail specified in the EMP emailed by the proponent (Appendix D)

has been adopted in the Recommended Environmental Management Plan at

the Pre‐Construction Stage (Appendix F), with the inclusion of a reference to

‘Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms’ in the ‘Fire Prevention

and emergency response plan’ in the Pre‐Construction Phase.


10. SHADOW FLICKER, BLADE GLINT & ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE (EMI)

10.1 ISSUES

The main issues are as follows:

shadow flicker causing annoyance;

blade glint or unwanted reflections causing annoyance; and

electromagnetic interference (EMI).

10.2 BACKGROUND

The proposed wind farm will consist of 75 wind turbine generators. The

maximum hub height of each turbine is 94 metres, the maximum rotor

diameter is 104 metres and the maximum height of the blade tip above ground

is 135 metres. The blades are stated to rotate at up to approximately 20

revolutions per minute.

The large number of tall structures with rotating blades has the potential to

cast shadows and reflections on the surrounding landscape. The rotating

blades result in shadows that pass quickly by an observer, creating a flicker

effect. This can cause annoyance to residents. Another phenomenon is blade

glint, where reflections of the sun from a shiny blade surface can be annoying.

The turbines also have the potential to cause interference with communication

systems and signals, including radio and TV reception through signal

attenuation, reflection and distortions.

The VWEG specify that “The shadow flicker experienced immediately

surrounding the area of a dwelling (garden fenced area) must not exceed 30

hours per year as a result of the operation of the wind energy facility.”

The proponent addressed the issues of shadow flicker and blade glint79, and

electromagnetic interference80, in the exhibition documents.

RES Australia concluded that only one house (AH11) would experience any

shadow flicker, and the number of hours it would occur is theoretically 14.1

79 Application Documentation Volume 2, Shadow flicker and blade glint, RES Australia, August 2009 80 Application Documentation Volume 2, Electromagnetic interference report, RES Australia, 30

September 2009


hours per annum, well below the 30 hours per annum set in the Wind Energy

Guidelines. In practice, the actual number of hours where shadow flicker

would be experienced at AH11 would be considerably less than the 14.1 hours

predicted due to a range of factors including:

vegetative screening;

built structures between the house and the turbines;

turbines not turning all the time;

turbine rotor orientation; and

cloud cover.

RES Australia concluded that there are no known reports of reflected light

from turbine blades being a significant problem at any existing wind farm.

This was due to a number of mitigating factors, due in part to the use of a

semi‐matt surface finish.

The assessment report by RES included identifying and analysing four point

to point microwave links and point to multipoint television broadcasting links.

The point to point link analysis indicated no potential interference based on

Fresnel zone analysis. For television reception, a survey of aerials in the

surrounds of the wind farm was undertaken along with predicted signal

strengths from the Lookout Hill transmitter. A total of 20 houses were

identified as potentially affected by EMI, including 16 houses south of the

wind farm.

RES Australia concluded that;

Based on Fresnel Zone analysis, all point‐to‐point microwave links that

cross the site have sufficient clearance from turbines and no interference of

any link is predicted.

A prediction of interference to TV reception has been made around Ararat

wind farm. No widespread interference has been predicted and only 20

houses are potentially at risk of being affected. If required mitigation

measures are available with the most likely solution being either

installation of an improved aerial or conversion to a digital platform.


10.3 SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE

10.3.1 Shadow Flicker

One submitter expressed concern at the potential effect of shadow flicker.

Dr Trenton Gilbert of GL Garrad Hassan gave expert evidence to the Panel81.

Dr Gilbert’s assessment was for a turbine diameter of 104 metres and hub

height of 83 metres, as this represents the design with the greatest projection

area and hence maximum shadow flicker.

Dr Gilbert concluded that:

....two dwellings are expected to experience some shadow flicker, but the

durations are below the allowable limit of 30 hours per year. Additionally,

when turbine orientation and cloud cover are considered, the predicted

actual shadow flicker durations are below the allowable limit of 10 hours

per year.

The Panel believes the reference to “the allowable limit of 10 hours per year” is an

error, and the words “the allowable limit of” should be deleted.

The issue of potential impacts of shadow flicker on health has been raised in

previous wind farm panel hearings. In their rapid survey of Health, the

NHMRC conclude:

In summary, the evidence on shadow flicker does not support a health

concern (Chatham‐Kent Public Health Unit, 2008) as the chance of

conventional horizontal axis wind turbines causing an epileptic seizure for

an individual experiencing shadow flicker is less than 1 in 10 million

(EPHC, 2009). As with noise, the main impact associated with shadow

flicker from wind turbines is annoyance.

Dr Gilbert made several observations in response to questions from the Panel

that assisted it in better understanding the issue. He advised that outdoors

shadow flicker is ameliorated by the general scatter and reflection of light – it

is likely to be more of a problem for a person inside a dwelling, and near a

window. In such circumstances, the amelioration of scattered and reflected

light is not present.

Dr Gilbert also advised that there was presently no measurement method for

shadow flicker, although a PhD student in Germany is working on the

problem. No doubt this work has been encouraged by the shadow flicker

81 Expert Witness Statement of Trenton Gilbert of GL Garrad Hassan, 18 June 2010


regulations of the German Ministry for Environment and Climate Change82,

which prescribe limits of 30 hours/year and 30 minutes per day modelled

shadow flicker, and 8 hours per day actual shadow flicker.

10.3.2 Blade glint

Dr Gilbert concluded that “blade glint is not generally a problem for modern wind

turbines provided the blades are coated with a non‐reflective paint.”

10.3.3 Electromagnetic interference

Two submitters expressed concern at the potential effect on mobile phone,

radio and television reception. Mr Randell, who addressed the Panel and

contributed to discussion on the issue, runs a business installing television

aerials in rural areas, and has a good knowledge of television and radio

reception issues, and some experience of the effect of wind farms on reception.

Mr Randell was concerned that television and radio reception would be

impacted by the wind farm beyond the immediate area of the site, based on

his experience.

Dr Trenton Gilbert of GL Garrad Hassan gave expert evidence to the Panel. In

his witness report83, Dr Gilbert reviewed the original work by RES Australia

and a supplementary assessment was provided that included potential

interference to broadcast radio, mobile phone, and GPS services.

Dr Gilbert concurred with the RES analysis that showed that there was some

potential for EMI to TV reception at a number of house locations. Figure 5

adapted from Figure 5 in Dr Gilbert’s expert witness statement, depicts the

areas of potential interference with television reception.

82 See EPHC National Wind Farm Development Guidelines-Draft, July 2010 Appendix E3, page 150 83 Expert Witness Statement of Trenton Gilbert, GL Garrad Hassan, 18 June 2010


Figure 5 Lookout Hill broadcast transmitter and proposed Ararat Wind Farm showing areas potentially affected by television interference.

For comparison, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) predicted by the RES

Interference Model is shown in Figure 6, adapted from figure 12 in the RES

Electromagnetic Interference Assessment Report84.

84 Application Documentation Volume 2, Electromagnetic interference report, RES Australia, 30

September 2009, page 19


Figure 6 Potential interference zones predicted by the RES Interference Model

The report states that “Based on existing evidence and model validation the

threshold of SNR below which TV interference is unacceptable is set to 10 dB μV/m.”


The report makes the following assessment85:

Table 4 Summary of SNR output from the RES Interference Model

Transmitter SNR Description

Estimate of

Number of

Properties

Affected

Houses

Identified from

Survey

West of wind

farm

There is a small area of

interference around Mt Boswell

and south of the Pyrenees

highway down to the Warrak

road.

4 AH3, AH5,

AH6, AH53

North of

wind farm

0

East of wind

farm

There are a few places east of the

wind farm with a low SNR due

to signals reflected back from the

wind farm. This is for a few

houses around Crowlands and

Eversley. Due to the initially

excellent reception this type of

interference is very unlikely.

0

South of

wind farm

There is an area of predicted

interference running from Ararat

Aerodrome to Mount Langi

Ghiran.

16 Beyond scope of

habitation survey

Total 16

This assessment differs from Dr Gilbert’s assessment in that it predicts areas of

potential interference south (and east) of the wind farm which are not covered

in Dr Gilbert’s report.

It is noted that Mr Randell’s property is one of those identified as potentially

affected by EMI by both assessments. In this regard, Mr Randell and Dr

Gilbert are in agreement. Mr Randell does not believe that the potential

85 Ibid, table 7, page 18


interference in the location is easily remedied and would be expensive to

remedy.

Dr Gilbert outlined a number of potential remedies for TV reception issues

including installing high quality antennae and repositioning or reorienting the

antenna. In relation to how the extent to which EMI could be attributed to the

wind farm, Dr Gilbert stated that this required pre and post construction

measurements.



to shadow flicker and blade glint. It concurs with the expert evidence and

concludes that:

the amount of shadow flicker that could be potentially experienced at

nearby dwellings will be well below the guideline limit of 30 hours per

annum; and

blade glint will not be experienced because of the use of non‐reflective

coatings.

In relation to electromagnetic interference with television and radio reception,

the Panel notes the potential for this to occur at a number of locations. The

Panel accepts that mitigation measures are available to remedy reception

problems should they arise and that the appropriate way to assess the amount

of interference is via pre and post construction measurements. However the

practical experience of Mr Randell in this area, and his knowledge of previous

problems from other wind farms, persuaded the Panel to the view that a wider

range of properties than shown in Figure 5 above have the potential to be

affected by reception problems after the wind farm is in operation. This is

evident from Figure 6 above which is very helpful in this regard. Dr Gilbert

was not able to assist the Panel further in this respect.

Accordingly the Panel concludes that the following measures should be taken:

advertisement by the proponent of Pre‐Construction surveys of existing

signal strength, to dwellings as shown on Figure 5, and also to

representative dwellings within 6 km of the line between Ararat and

Lookout Hill as shown on Figure 5;

preconstruction measurement of signal strengths and quality at locations

where potential EMI has been predicted or is anticipated, or where

owners of dwellings from within the area encompassed by Figure 5 and

the area within 6 km of the line between Ararat and Lookout Hill request

such measurements;


identification of actual deterioration of signal strengths or other reception

problems by post wind farm operation monitoring; and

remediation of identified reception problems at the proponent’s expense.

The conclusion regarding Shadow Flicker has been incorporated into Permit

Condition 9 of the Recommended Permit (Appendix E). Regarding EMI, the

conclusions have been incorporated in the Television and Radio Reception

Plan in the Pre‐Construction Phase of the Recommended Environmental

Management Plan.


11. SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT

11.1 WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

The potential for significant soil erosion arising from construction and

operation of the Ararat WEF was flagged in the documentation on geology

and hydrology. The area has evidence of existing erosion, with the potential

to exacerbate problems as a result of construction and operation of access

tracks and hardstandings, on‐site tracks and turbine foundations. This

concern was clear during the site inspections conducted by the Panel, who

noted the serious examples of gully erosion in the valleys in the vicinity of the

proposed turbines and access routes.

The Panel therefore addressed three issues:

What are the potential soil erosion hazards on the site?;

Are the on‐site access roads likely to be structurally sound?; and

Are the proposals for minimising and managing the soil erosion hazards

satisfactory?

11.2 BACKGROUND

RES Australia relied on two main sources of information for its case relating to

soil and water management:

RES, Ararat Wind Farm Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report,

August 2009; and

Expert Witness Statement of David Tilley, Douglas Partners, relating to

geology and hydrology.

The August 2009 Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report prepared by

RES outlined the preliminary geotechnical investigations that have been

carried out on the subject site. It described the geology and hydrology relating

to the two river catchments within the site – the Wimmera flowing to the north

of the site, and the Hopkins to the south.

This report identified the significance of erosion, particularly in waterways

(creeks in the Wimmera catchment are described as “deeply incised”, and in the

Hopkins catchment as “displaying erosion that appears to be somewhat stabilised by

reaching bedrock”86). It cites a letter from the Glenelg‐Hopkins Catchment

86 RES, Ararat Wind Farm: Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report, August 2009, pp. 6-7


Management Authority (GHCMA), referring to the soils in this land unit as

“highly susceptible to dispersive behaviour and water erosion. The solodic soils

(Chromosols) are susceptible to erosion because they have large amounts of gravel, a

poor structure and consistence, a tendency to surface sealing, and they are readily

dispersed in water as colloidal suspensions.”87 The GHCMA pointed out that this

characteristic was exacerbated by the highly seasonal and intermittent nature

of rainfall, and the removal of remnant native vegetation, grazing and rabbits.

The RES Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report and Mr Tilley’s evidence

identified the potential for exacerbation of erosion problems as a result of

construction and operation of on‐site access tracks, hardstanding areas, and

turbine foundations.

The internal site access roads involve cuts up to 10 metres and fills of up to 5

metres in depth, judging by the preliminary track design plans.88 Batter slopes

on the access roads are shown as 1½ horizontal to 1 vertical. Construction

mitigation measures for access tracks and hard‐standing89 include the

identification of erosion prone areas, and avoidance of them where possible,

and the use of gypsum stabilisation where dispersive soils are encountered.

The guidelines for restoration works for borrow areas90 include that

permanent batters be at no steeper slope than 2H:1V (preferably flatter) to permit

soil placement for re‐vegetation. The depths of cuts are generally less than 10

metres, though some deeper possible extension areas are shown in dashed

lines.

Mr Tilley advised91 with respect to the on‐site roads that:

If imported rock is required for the base course it is worth considering

sealing these roads as a combination of trafficking and rain would lead to a

loss of base course over time if the road is left unsealed. This is especially

important if grades of up to 18% are to be adopted and heavy loads will be

accessing the site. I am advised that RES has indicated that certain steep

sections of road may have to be sealed and is included within the Planning

Application (see Figure 2.2 Infrastructure Drawing in Volume III Figures

and Photomontages of RES’ Planning Application).

87 RES, Ararat Wind Farm: Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report, August 2009, p. 9 88 Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume III, Figures 6.5 to

6.12 89 Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume II, Geology and

Hydrology Assessment Report, page 11 90 Report on Proposed Borrow Areas Ararat Wind farm by Douglas Partners July 2009, page 11

attached to the Expert Witness Statement of David Tilley. 91 Expert Witness Statement by Mr Tilley, June 2010, page 5


The August 2009 Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report proposed a

number of recommendations aimed at mitigating and managing erosion,

including:

Turbine positions and tracks have been located to avoid watercourses and

dams on‐site where possible, micros ting of turbines and infrastructure

should be undertaken with reference to drainage paths and distance to

watercourses.

Any watercourse crossing required for the development should be properly

designed and the potential for erosion as a result of the new crossings should

be mitigated through design and construction practises.

Some of the soils found on‐site, particularly north of the Pyrenees Highway

and within existing gully areas, have a high potential for erosion.

Waterways may be impacted indirectly through turbid run‐off from the

subject site, however by instigation of the mitigation measures and further

studies..., it is believed that the impact would be low.

Through careful management during construction, impacts to surface water

can also be avoided. Increased runoff is anticipated from access tracks and

hardstand areas but it is anticipated that this additional water will drain on‐

site.

Potential surface water contamination is perceived to increase when

temporary concrete batching plant/s are proposed for use during

construction. Careful consideration of the placement and management

practices of any temporary concrete batching plant/s will need to occur.

No water quality impacts are anticipated to be generated during the

operational phase due to the minimal use of tracks during operation of the

wind farm.

Continuous water quality sampling at strategic locations during

construction.92

In his expert witness statement, Mr Tilley supported these recommendations.

He summarised the design criteria to avoid and mitigate erosion problems

from access tracks and on‐site tracks, which have the greatest potential to

create soil and water management problems:

minimise length of on‐site track and position where possible on ridge crest

to minimise catchment areas above cuttings and filled areas.

avoidance of water courses;

avoid scouring caused by significant velocities by minimising collected

water flows and designing low velocity swale drains;

92 Expert Witness Statement by Mr Tilley, June 2010, page 13


discharge run‐off regularly from table drains through turn out drains in to

sheet flow across well vegetated ground so that it does not have direct access

to drainage lines;

protect batters with uphill catch drains; and

intercept subsurface flows where these seep from cut batters, and direct flow

with safety to the table drain.93

He also supported care in siting of the turbines to avoid natural low points,

continual maintenance of drainage systems and track hardstanding surfaces

during construction, and fitting erosion and sediment control devices down‐

slope of construction sites.94


The potential impact of the Ararat WEF on soils and water management was

raised in two submissions on the exhibited documents.

The GHCMA outlined the need for Works on Waterways Permits for access

tracks and electrical conduit crossings over at least six designated waterways.

It noted that the use of box culverts for the crossings “can be supported”, but

“will be treated on a case‐by‐case basis”. It also considered that the proposed

mitigation and management measures are generally sound, but that a number

of issues should be addressed. With regard to potential soil and water

management, these included:

Relocated excess excavated material should not impinge on the likely floodplain,

and not change surface water flow patterns.

Track‐side drains in areas of steep gradients and erodible soils will be highly

susceptible to rilling and erosion until grass cover in the cut drains can be

established. It is recommended that a product such as jute mat be used in steep

drain sections to stabilise drains and encourage establishment of grass cover.

A buffer of 100 metres between temporary concrete batching plants and

waterways should be applied to the site construction plans.

The use of geotextile silt fences and straw bales is preferred over hay bales for

control of erosion and sediment. The use of hay bales may introduce weed

species into pastures or native vegetation swards.95

93 Expert Witness Statement of David Tilley, Douglas Partners, relating to geology and hydrology, p. 6 94 ibid., p. 6 95 Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority Submission, 8 April 2010, p. 2


GHCMA did not object to the granting of a Permit, subject to a series of Permit

Conditions to address these matters. These have been incorporated into the

draft Permit considered by the Panel.

Peter Woods was concerned about the impact of on‐site access roads on

existing dams on his property:

... as one of the properties contributing to the Hopkins River catchment, I

have also concerns that any connecting roads constructed within the

complex should not interfere with the existing contours for runoffs of

water collection and existing dams that are already in place which would if

altered, will reduce existing flows for the Hopkins River present catchment

as it stands.

In addition to the two submissions, a letter from the WCMA dated 16 March

2009 was included as an Appendix to the RES Geology and Hydrology

Assessment Report (August 2009). It stated that the report “adequately covers

the concerns of the Wimmera CMA in regards to Environmental Management

during project”.

On the second last day of the Hearing, Mr Power advised that the Panel

should recommend that on‐site access tracks be three metres in width.

11.4 DISCUSSION

11.4.1 Potential Erosion Hazards

The Panel’s first issue was ‘What are the potential soil erosion hazards on the site?’

There was unanimity from the proponent, the expert witness (Mr Tilley),

agencies such as the GHCMA and the Panel that the area is highly prone to

erosion hazards. The very poor state of the gullies was witnessed by the Panel

in its site inspections, and the potential for sheet erosion had also been

identified by the GHCMA.

Thus, the Panel concluded that the management of soil and water during

infrastructure construction and operation is a high priority.

11.4.2 Structural soundness of on-site access roads

The second issue identified by the Panel was: ‘Are the on‐site access roads likely

to be structurally sound?’ Here, the Panel’s concern centres on the erosion

prone nature of the site, as shown by the presence of widespread gully

erosion. With access road cuts of up to 10 metres in depth, and grades of up to

18%, the potential for instability resulting from local scour of the cut or fill

faces and at the toe of the fill, combined with the potential impacts from heavy

vehicles that may have difficulty in getting purchase in wet conditions, may


constitute an unacceptable risk. Certainly the suggestion that those parts of

the site access roads with steeper slopes might be sealed needs further

consideration.

The guideline for borrow pit batters being no steeper than 2H:1V (see Section

8.2 above) may be equally applied to both cut and fill batters on the on‐site

access roads, enabling the batters to be more easily stabilised. Where the

depths of cuts and fills are small, the extra volume of earthworks would be

small. Where the depths of cuts and fills are greater, the need for stability is

also greater.

The issues of the specification for sealing the steeper grades on the on‐site

access roads, and the application of a maximum batter slope of 2H:1V to these

roads, need further expert advice during the Pre‐Construction design phase.

The Panel concluded that, when the study findings have been considered by

the Responsible Authority, the Construction Management Plan within the

EMP can be amended to the satisfaction of Responsible Authority.

In relation to Mr Power’s advice to the Panel that it should recommend that

the on‐site access tracks be three metres in width, the Panel is not inclined to

that view. The Panel notes that the CFA’s Emergency Management Guidelines for

Wind Farms addresses the issue of access to and within wind farms, and states

“Constructed roads should be a minimum of four (4) metres in trafficable width with a

four metre (4m) vertical clearance for the width of the formed road surface.” Beyond

the trafficable width (often referred to as the ‘pavement’), there needs to be

shoulders provided each side to allow a safety margin for operational and

maintenance reasons.

The width of the on‐site tracks was addressed in Section 6.3.2 of the Main

Report, as follows:

Typical access tracks will be a maximum of 6m wide running surface,

depending on topographic constraints, which will widen at junctions and

turning areas.

11.4.3 Mitigation and Management of Erosion

The Panel’s third issue was: ‘Are the proposals for minimising and managing the

soil erosion hazards satisfactory?’

In his expert witness statement, Mr Tilley concluded that the key to

minimising the impact of roads “is to reduce the accumulation and

channelling of water by dispersing it back into the usual catchment system at

as many points as possible”96. The Panel supports this conclusion, and

96 Expert Witness Statement of David Tilley, Douglas Partners, relating to geology and hydrology, p.3


assessed whether the plans for minimising and mitigating the potential for

erosion (including impacts of construction and operation of all infrastructure)

achieved this.

Thus, the Panel reviewed the Conditions relating to soil and water

management in the proposed Planning Permit, particularly the details of the

Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan required as part of

the Environmental Management Plan.

The Conditions of the proposed Permit largely reflect the DPCD Model

Planning Permit Conditions for Wind Energy Facilities97, particularly the

Conditions relating to the Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management

Plan within the required EMP. These Conditions outline the detailed

requirements of the Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan,

providing details of the procedures for minimising land disturbance and the

potential for erosion. The Plan must be prepared in consultation with the

relevant Catchment Management Authorities (and other authorities as may be

directed by the Minister for Planning), and be approved by the Minister for

Planning.

As detailed in Appendix C, the Panel workshop version of the proposed

Permit proposed a number of modifications to the Model Conditions. Under

the heading of Environmental Management Plan, it included the addition of a

requirement for planning to “consider and generally be in accordance with” a

series of EPA Guidelines and Codes of Practice relating to construction. It also

proposed the following addition to the Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality

Management Plan, noting that it must include:

(xiv) Management procedures to prevent pollution of the local waterways,

particularly from wash water and waste concrete materials.

The Panel noted the responses of the Glenelg Hopkins and Wimmera

Catchment Management Authorities to the exhibited documentation that the

proposed mitigation measures were sound, subject to some refinements

described by the GHCMA.

The Panel considered the refinements proposed by the GHCMA in the

Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan, specifically those

relating to relocation of excess excavated material, use of a product such as

jute mat in steep drain sections, inclusion of a buffer of 100 metres between

temporary concrete batching plants and waterways, and the use of geotextile

silt fences and straw bales rather than hay bales for control of erosion and

sediment. It concluded that these changes can be incorporated into the

97 DPCD, Model Planning Permit Conditions for Wind Energy Facilities, February 2009, pp. 9-10


Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan in the EMP, as

detailed in Appendix F.

The proposed EMP describes the techniques outlined in Chapters 4 to 7 of the

August 2009 Geology and Hydrology Assessment Report, all aimed at

achieving the requirements of the Permit Conditions. The Panel concluded

that these were consistent with the more general requirements described in the

Permit Conditions.

The Panel reviewed the details of the EMP following the Panel workshop, and

concluded that some simplification was desirable. In his expert witness

statement, Mr Tilley concluded that the existing water flows into the Hopkins

and Wimmera catchments “will be appropriately managed by a Soil and

Water Management Plan within a future Environmental Management Plan to

ensure the maintenance of the ongoing surface water flow patterns”98. This in

turn led to the proposed inclusion of a Soil and Water Management Plan

within the Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan, within the

Environmental Management Plan. The Panel considered that a separate Soil

and Water Management Plan added too much complexity. Its requirements

would be covered in the Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management

Plan, so reference to it in the EMP should be removed.

The Panel was disappointed with the extent of soil erosion and the state of

waterways at the site. The planning system provides an excellent opportunity

to avoid and mitigate future damage which may occur with the proposed

Ararat WEF, and the Panel is confident that the measures that are proposed

will achieve this. However, there is a limit to the capacity of a Planning

Permit application to address past damage. This will be an ongoing challenge

for landholders and organisations such as Landcare and the Catchment

Management Authorities, and it is a challenge that the Ararat WEF proponent

should also embrace.

11.5 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel concluded that soil and water management issues are highly

significant at this site, and have been generally addressed in the

documentation to date. Those parts of the Draft Permit (Appendix C) and the

“Environmental Management Plan emailed by the Proponent” (Appendix D)

that relate to the Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan have

been refined. In their amended form, they are set out in Appendix E (the

‘Recommended Permit’) and in Appendix F (the ‘Recommended

Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage’).

98 Expert Witness Statement of David Tilley, Douglas Partners, relating to geology & hydrology, p 6-7


12. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC

12.1 WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

A variety of social and economic issues were raised in the application and

submissions, and at the hearings. These included:

results of perception studies relating to wind farms;

the quality of the consultation process conducted by the proponent;

planning to minimise social disruption, particularly during the

construction phase;

potential damage to agriculture and the local tourism industry;

maximising local economic benefits; and

the contribution to sustainable energy generation.

12.2 BACKGROUND

12.2.1 The Proponent’s Approach

With regard to social and economic issues, RES Australia relied on the

information in its application, and provided little additional information at the

Panel hearing. Issues relating to the quality of the consultation process and

the impacts of the proposal on the tourism industry were raised by some

submitters, but were not explored in detail at the hearings.

To a large degree, this reflected the relative lack of controversy associated with

this wind farm proposal. The majority of any community concerns relating to

social and economic issues appear to have been flagged, considered and

largely resolved in the pre‐application and application stages, leaving few

matters of conflict at the Panel hearings.

12.2.2 Results of Perception Studies

RES Australia relied on the results of perception studies conducted in Ararat99,

other areas of Victoria and elsewhere gain an understanding of public

opinions about wind farms. It argued that the studies show that there was

considerable community support for wind farms.

99 ERM Pty Ltd and Reark Pty Ltd., Report on Community Perceptions towards Wind Farms in the

Ararat Region, Victoria, May 2008


Broadly, the studies showed that the large majority of respondents accepted

that there was a concern about the threat of global warming, and that “[w]e

need to use wind power as a source of clean energy even if it means changing

the appearance of some landscapes”100. Further, in the Ararat study:

...when respondents were asked about the acceptability of a wind farm near

where they lived, 83% supported a wind farm located 25 kilometres from

home and 71% of respondents supported a wind farm within one kilometre

of their home.101

RES Australia stated that the results of these studies encouraged it to commit

to the Ararat project.

12.2.3 The Consultation Process

The consultation process adopted by RES Australia is described in its

application102. A range of State, Australian and local government agencies,

local residents, identified stakeholders and the media were consulted.

Consultation techniques included:

... letters, e‐mails, letter‐box drops, home visits by RES representatives to

all residents within a 3km radius, press releases, newspaper

advertisements, radio interviews, meetings with Local Council officers,

providing Councillors’ Briefing Sessions at Ararat Rural City Council and

Northern Grampians Shire Council, meetings with government

departments (DPCD, DSE, Sustainability Victoria), and landowners and

will continue with respect to the re‐notification of this Referral Form

application for the increased turbine numbers. RES Australia has also

established an internet website (www.res‐australia.com.au) to publish

regular updates, to keep interested parties informed of any developments

on the proposal and to receive any comments.103

The application states that RES Australia is committed to maintaining ongoing

dialogue with the local communities, and describes a mix of information

sharing processes aiming to achieve this.

In his submission to the Panel, Mr Power argued that the lack of controversy

and opposition relating to the Ararat WEF reflected the results of this

consultation:

100 RES Australia, Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume 1,

p.21 101 ibid., p. 21 102 ibid., Chapter 5, Stakeholder Consultations & Community Engagement 103 ibid., p. 62


...some wind energy facilities have attracted significant community

opposition. This proposal has not. It is submitted that the small number

of submissions and the limited issues raised in those submissions are

indicative of the sensitive site‐responsive design of the proposed Ararat

Wind Farm and of the strength of the local community support for the

development of renewable energy projects in this region.104

12.2.4 Minimising Social Disruption

The issue of managing potential disruption from the influx of construction

workers to the area was not addressed in the application documents, or in

submissions to the Panel by RES Australia. Under “Community Impacts”, the

application referred to “understanding the potential for community benefits;

and mitigating against any potential adverse impacts upon the surrounding

residents”105.. Nevertheless, it did not quantify the impact or explore methods

to minimise disruption and maximise benefits.

12.2.5 Impacts on Agriculture and the Tourism Industry

In its application, RES Australia stated that there would be economic benefits

to the regional economy as a result of the establishment and operation of the

facility.

It considered that the facility will provide additional revenue to participating

farmers, helping to “sustain the economic viability of the estate or farm

business”106. In its concluding submission to the Panel, it argued that the

facility “will enable the existing agricultural activities that occur on the site

and adjoining land to continue in a manner that will support the long term

sustainable use of the land”.107

With regard to tourism, it considered likely that tourism will not be adversely

affected by the construction of the Ararat Wind Farm:

The Ararat Wind Farm will become a feature of the area, and is likely to

attract interest from locals and visitors alike. Given the potential for local

and visitor interest in the wind farm, RES Australia, in consultation with

Ararat Rural City Council (ARCC) and Northern Grampians Shire

104 RES Australia, Part A submission, 5 July 2010, Section 2.4 105 RES Australia, Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume 1,

p66 106 ibid., p. 192 107 RES Australia, Part B submission, 21 July 2010, p. 4


Council (NGSC) may provide resources such as information boards and

other interpretative material.108

12.2.6 Maximising Local Economic Benefits

In its application, RES Australia argued that there would be net economic

benefits to the local economy as a result of the facility.

Construction and operation of the proposed Ararat Wind Farm will have a

positive effect on the local economy, in terms of local employment during

the construction phase, and also in the longer term from the landowner

rentals, business rates, local services, and employment of operation and

maintenance staff. Demand for wind turbines and wind farms will help

establish inward investment into the Ararat and Northern Grampians

regions and also create long term skilled employment opportunities to

serve the ongoing operational and maintenance requirements of the wind

farm.109 (p. 192)

In order to maximise local benefits, RES Australia proposed active policies to

source goods and services locally. It stated that its policy:

... is to ensure that wherever possible local contractors and employees are

used in all aspects of wind farm development. The major opportunity lies

during the construction phase when suitably qualified local firms are

identified and invited to bid for a significant portion of the civil

construction work, on roads, foundations and buildings. Construction

materials are normally sourced locally and local transport and plant hire

companies used wherever possible. During construction of the Ararat

Wind Farm a temporary workforce will be required during the 26 month

construction stage.

It is anticipated that much of these construction jobs will be sourced

locally. The wind farm will also create permanent jobs relating to

operation and maintenance of the wind farm.110

Further, it indicated the direct benefit to Ararat and Northern Grampians

Shire Councils. Payments to the Councils under Section 94(5) of the Electricity

Industry Act 2000 would be an aggregate of $175,000 (for 2 MW turbines) or

$262,750 (for 3.3 MW turbines), distributed proportionally between the

Councils.111

108 RES Australia, Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume 1, p.

193 109 ibid, p. 192 110 ibid., pp. 191-92 111 ibid., p. 192


12.2.7 Sustainable Energy

The issue of the contribution of wind energy to the environmental

sustainability of energy supply has been a feature of other Panels considering

wind farms in Victoria, but was not questioned in the case of the proposed

Ararat WEF.

RES Australia submitted that the facility will:

... deliver a number of benefits, such as providing a new source of

electricity generation that utilises an infinite and sustainable resource,

thereby assisting Victoria to meet its energy requirements and assisting

the Commonwealth and State Governments achieve their key policy

objectives for climate change.112


12.3.1 The Nature of Submissions

Not all of the social and economic issues raised in the RES Australia

application and at the Panel hearings were addressed in the submissions.

However, several of the issues were raised by individuals or agencies.


In their submission to the application, W J and L O Stewien criticised the

response by RES Australia to communications from them and their legal

representatives. At the hearing, Mrs Stewien expanded on her concerns,

explaining that she was critical of the timing and content of responses to

queries raised with RES Australia by their legal representatives.


In their written submission on the exhibited application, Paul and Wendy

Harrington stated that they had “disinterest” in proposals from RES Australia

to place turbines on their property:

We do not wish to lose productive agricultural land to the installation and

permanent placements of these units. There are also the added risks

associated with overhead powerlines situated where machinery operations

are part of the business practices. Losing an easement through the

property and providing permanent access to that easement to another

entity is a position we wish to avoid.113

112 RES Australia, Part B submission, 21 July 2010, p. 4 113 Submission 10


K J Wilde expressed concern that his farming property in the Eversley area

operates under biosecurity constraints, and any vehicles entering it would be

required to be steam cleaned to avoid introduction of seed. Further, he

considered that paddocks can be boggy in winter, and unsuitable for vehicles.

The Panel notes that Mr Wilde’s submission related to the grid connection,

which is not part of the proposal (see Section 4.2.1 above).

With regard to tourism, W J and L O Stewien considered that:

The towers will diminish (not enhance) the tourist potential of a

significant and developing wine growing area. The vineyards throughout

the area and Mt Langi and Ben Nevis will be detracted by such towers. It

is noted that the projected tourist potential for the Challicum Hills Wind

farm has not been forthcoming.

DSE referred to the importance of the regional tourism industry in its

submission on the exhibited application. It considered that tourism

significance should impact on the overall visual landscape ratings, specifically

for Viewpoint 6, and this matter is considered in Chapter 7 above.


A submission on the exhibited application was received from Mr Andrew

Bradley of the Grampians Office of the Industry Capability Network (ICN).

He outlined the role of ICN in supporting Australian industry, specifically

including the facilitation of local industry participation in major projects.

The submission described some of the potential local benefits of the project,

including accommodation, catering, fencing, earthworks, onsite consumables

such as office equipment, cleaning, safety equipment, vehicle hire, fuel

supplies and the day to day usage of building materials. It estimated that

$40m of the total project cost of $350m would be spent within the region114.

Mr Bradley submitted that ICN had been working closely with RES Australia

“to ensure that any business or individual who has expressed an interest in

working on this project are given the opportunity to have their details

presented to prospective tenderers.”115

Cheryl and Gerald Shea’s submission on the exhibited application supported

the proposal. They considered that:

The employment opportunities will help to keep our town thriving and

keep young people in the town rather than moving into the city looking for

114 Industry Capability Network submission on the application, Submission 4, 30 March 2010, p. 2 115 ibid., p. 1


employment. This will benefit the football, cricket and other sporting clubs

which are the heart & soul of all country towns.116


Sustainability Victoria provided a submission on the exhibited application,

describing the Victorian Government policy support for wind energy, and

estimating the greenhouse gas abatement outcomes from the proposed Ararat

WEF. Based on a capacity factor of 35%, Sustainability Victoria estimated that

the facility would reduce Victoria’s carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by

483,000 tonnes if 2 megawatt turbines are installed, or 797,000 tonnes if 3.3

megawatt turbines are used.117

Cheryl and Gerald Shea’s submission on the exhibited application noted that

“while the wind power is probably not the whole solution it is certainly going

to make a huge contribution to clean, green energy”. This was supported by

Mark A McKew, who stated that “our reliance on the ‘dirty’ coal industry

must be scaled back, and a range of renewable energy systems encouraged”.

Ararat Rural City Council’s submission referred to its support for the concept

of renewable energy, and added that the municipality is “centrally located to

take advantage of elements of the wind industry”.

12.4 DISCUSSION

12.4.1 Results of Perception Studies

The perception studies conducted for RES Australia were not considered in

depth at the Panel hearing. They were not represented as providing more

than background information that assisted the company in its decision to site

its facility in Ararat, while the data on community support and opposition to

wind energy was broadly consistent with other studies118. The data showed

that the majority of respondents supported the concept of wind energy

generally, and a wind energy facility near Ararat in particular.

The text quoted in Section 11.2.2 above cited from the Main Report does not

appear to accurately represent the Report on Community Perceptions towards

Wind Farms in the Ararat Region. The responses to Question 3.3.10 refers to

responses on the question about “A Wind Farm One Kilometre from Home”.

116 Submission 5 by Cheryl and Gerald Shea, 2 April 2010 117 Submission 6 by Sustainability Victoria, 29 March 2010, p. 6 118 ERM Pty Ltd and Reark Pty Ltd, Report on Community Perceptions towards Wind Farms in the

Ararat Region, Victoria, May 2008, pp 5-15


The Conclusion of the study119 makes clear that the 71% in favour are

“accepting a wind farm set 1 kilometre from their home”, not within one

kilometre of their home. The error in the Main Report quotation probably

comes from using the inaccurate paraphrasing of Question 15 in Figure 4.2.

The Panel has criticised the Perception study undertaken for Ararat in Section

7.4.1 above, in relation to the factually wrong statement about noise.

While the results were of interest to the Panel, they were relevant to its

considerations to a limited extent, as detailed in Chapter 7. The task of the

Panel is to assess the planning merits of the application and ensure that the

conditions under which it may proceed ensure maximum net community

benefit.


The Panel was impressed with the consultation processes adopted by RES

Australia to date. It agreed with Mr Power that the lack of opposition to the

proposal reflects effective engagement processes, avoiding the potential for

community opposition based on misunderstandings.

Clearly, the engagement processes will need to continue to be extensive and

creative if the proponent is to maintain its community support.

12.4.3 Minimising Social Disruption

The main report of the RES Australia application states that the construction

workforce is likely to be around 180, comprising 80 involved with civil works,

50 with electrical works, and 50 others involved with wind turbine works.

These employment opportunities are described as being available for

“residents and itinerant workers”120. The operational workforce will be small:

It is anticipated that for a 75 turbine development approximately two

maintenance teams each consisting of two Specialist Service Technicians

in each team will be required to service the turbines at specified intervals.

There may also be a requirement for larger on‐site crews for major routine

maintenance works.121

119 ERM Pty Ltd and Reark Pty Ltd, Report on Community Perceptions towards Wind Farms in the

Ararat Region, Victoria, May 2008, page 65 120 RES Australia, Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit Application Documentation, 2009 Volume 1,

p98 121 ibid., p. 99


It is therefore likely that the facility would provide jobs for existing residents,

but it is also probable that there will be some influx of construction workforce

for the period of construction.

The Panel was not convinced that the potential impacts of the influx of the

construction workforce had been adequately addressed in the analysis to date.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census data show a population of 11,065

in 5,102 dwellings in Ararat Rural City, and a population of 7,680 in 3,435

dwellings in the town of Ararat at the 2006 census122. The Panel considered

that it is possible that a short‐term influx will be able to be managed without

the need for a construction camp, but there is insufficient information for it to

be certain that this will be the case123. The project has achieved well‐earned

community support to date, and this should not be risked through inadequate

social planning.

The Panel concluded that there is merit in requiring an assessment of the

capacity of the area to cope with the accommodation requirements of the

construction workforce, and a plan to ensure that this is achieved without

significant disruption and without the need for separate construction camps.

The use of such camps is unlikely to provide workers with any sense of being

part of the wider community, and can have negative social consequences. The

Panel does not consider that the numbers involved in construction and

operation of the wind energy facility requires a full‐blown Social Impact

Assessment, but a study conducted in consultation with Ararat Rural City

Council and Northern Grampians Shire Council and local community and real

estate interests should provide a satisfactory plan for managing the

accommodation impacts of the temporary surge in the construction workforce.


The Panel did not consider that there was any evidence to suggest that the

proposed facility would have negative impacts on agriculture or the tourism

industry in the area. Nor did it consider that there were likely to be

substantial positive effects – additional income for participating farmers

would have minor secondary benefits for farming operations, but would not

fundamentally change the viability of agriculture. The tourism benefits of the

wind farm would be small, particularly as wind farms become more

numerous throughout Victoria.

122 ABS 2006 Census data, from Ararat Rural City Council website 123 The issue of the social impacts of a construction workforce were also addressed in the much larger

Wonthaggi desalination plant, see Report of the Inquiry, Victorian Desalination Project, Environment Effects Statement, 4 December 2008, pp. 76-79


The Panel concluded that the concerns of Paul and Wendy Harrington

regarding the impact of the facility on their farming operations were unlikely

to be major. The proposed Environmental Management Plan addresses

farming matters such as fencing, weed control and pest animal control, which

will ensure that any potential negative impacts are managed.


The Panel supports the intent of the proponent to ensure that the local and

regional economies achieve a substantial share of the economic benefits of the

project. It proposes that RES Australia continues to work with the Industry

Capability Network and local economic development bodies to investigate

further ways to maximise local input.


The issue of the contribution of wind energy to the sustainability of Victoria’s

electricity industry was not contested in submissions or at the Panel hearings.

The Panel considered the purpose of Clause 52.32: Wind Energy Facility of

Planning Schemes, which is “To facilitate the establishment and expansion of

wind energy facilities, in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the

amenity of the area”. Further, Clause 52.32 references the VWEG, which

clearly describe the Government’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, and the role that wind energy plays in achieving this reduction.

The Panel also accepted the case presented by Sustainability Victoria that the

proposed Ararat facility would deliver significant greenhouse gas savings. It

concluded that the proposal would contribute to a more sustainable energy

supply in Victoria.

12.5 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel reached a number of conclusions relating to social and economic

matters:

Despite some objections, there appears to be substantial local support for

the project, partly reflecting the support of Ararat Rural City Council for

renewable energy development, the strengths of the site and the project,

and an effective community engagement process that resulted in few

objections based on misunderstandings.

The project is likely to provide local economic benefits, but these will

only be delivered if the proponent continues to work with local and

regional economic development bodies with a program to maximise local


benefits. Fears regarding the impact of the project on local agriculture

and tourism are not supported by the evidence.

The social impacts of the influx of the construction workforce have not

been adequately assessed to date. These are likely to be manageable, but

require more serious analysis than has been provided to date. At

minimum, an analysis of appropriate management of accommodation for

the construction workforce is required.

The project will contribute to more sustainable electricity supply in

Victoria.

The Panel concluded that an additional plan should be added to the list of

plans under Condition 7 of the Recommended Planning Permit (a construction

workforce accommodation assessment), requiring an assessment of the

capacity of the area to cope with the accommodation requirements of the

construction workforce, and a plan to ensure that this is achieved without

significant disruption and without the need for separate construction camps.

The detail of the assessment is included in the Pre‐Construction Phase of the



13. ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

13.1 THE ISSUES

No submissions were received concerning Aboriginal cultural heritage. The

only issue that the Panel wished to explore was the commitment of RES

Australia to complete the Complex Assessment and the Cultural Heritage

Management Plan (CHMP), given that the preparation of the CHMP has been

undertaken voluntarily by RES Australia.

13.2 BACKGROUND

The Aboriginal cultural heritage standard assessment124 sets out when a

CHMP is required, namely when all or part of an activity is in an area of

cultural heritage significance, and the activity is a high impact activity. While

a WEF is defined as a high impact activity, the Ararat WEF is not in an area of

cultural significance.

Nevertheless, RES Australia has commenced the preparation of a voluntary

CHMP with the first step being a Desktop Assessment. That assessment

found that it is reasonably possible that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present

in the activity area. As a consequence, the next step was the preparation of a

Standard Assessment. The Standard Assessment involved a cultural heritage

site survey of some six days in duration. The recommendations of the

Standard Assessment are:

the need for a Complex Assessment;

the need for specialist assessment of the quart outcrops and eroding

quartz fragments;

the need for subsurface testing; and

an estimate of the likely fieldwork duration and Registered Aboriginal

Parties representation.

124 Application Documentation Volume II, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standard Assessment, prepared

by Dr Tom Rymer of Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd, July 2009


13.3 DISCUSSION

In the Part B submission by Mr Power to the Hearing125, Section 10.1

Aboriginal cultural heritage, states in part in sub‐section (c) that RES Australia

engaged Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd to prepare a voluntary CHMP. Further,

sub‐section (d) documents the commitment of RES Australia Pty Ltd to

undertake the Complex Assessment as part of the voluntary CHMP.

The modified EMP tabled by Mr Power on the last day of the Hearings

included the recommendations of the Standard Assessment in full126. The only

matter not covered in the modified EMP is the commitment to complete the

voluntary CHMP, which is clearly the intention of RES Australia Pty Ltd.

13.4 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel concludes that commitment by the developer to complete the

voluntary CHMP needs to be documented. Provision for this matter is made

in the Recommended Environmental Management Plan (see Appendix F),

which enshrines it as a requirement for the project.

125 Submissions on behalf of RES Australia Pty Ltd – Part B, Document 18 at the Hearing, page 32 126 Environmental Management Plan (mitigation, monitoring, enforcement and rehabilitation),

Document 28 at the Hearing, page 6


14. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

14.1 ISSUES

The advice from DPCD concerning WEF’s where the Minister determines the

application is that ongoing administration and enforcement on the WEF is to

be undertaken by Councils acting as Responsible Authorities.

The issue for the Panel is to decide whether that advice is compelling.

14.2 BACKGROUND

In making the opening submission on behalf of DPCD (for the Minister for

Planning), Ms Grace‐Davis referred to the submission from ARC Council,

which raised concerns about responsibilities for enforcement of any planning

permit issued for the wind energy facility.

Ms Grace‐Davis advised the Panel that ARC and NGS councils would be the

responsible authorities for the administration and enforcement of the planning

permits pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

and the schedule to clause 61.01 of the planning schemes.

The schedule to clause 61.01 provides that the Minister for Planning is the

responsible authority for considering and determining applications and for

approving matters required by the scheme to be done to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority in relation to the use and development of land for the

purpose of a wind energy facility with a capacity greater than 30 megawatts.

The Schedule to Clause 61.01 in the Ararat Planning Scheme states:

The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for considering and

determining applications, in accordance with Divisions 1, 1A, 2, and 3 of

Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and for approving

matters required by the scheme to be done to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority in relation to:

The use and development of land for the purpose of a Wind energy

facility with a capacity of 30 megawatts or greater.

The use and development of land for accommodation to which clause

52.41 of the scheme applies.


The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for approving

matters required to be done to the satisfaction of the responsible authority

under clause 52.40 of the Scheme.

The Council of the Rural City of Ararat is the responsible authority for

administering and enforcing the scheme for all other matters.

The Panel notes that Section 52.40 contains provisions relating to government

funded education facilities, while Section 52.41 contains provisions relating to

government funded social housing. These matters do not apply to the WEF.

14.3 SUBMISSIONS

Submissions on administration and enforcement were made by ARC Council,

the PS Council and the proponent (Mr Power for RES).

The ARCC submission included a lengthy review of issues concerned with

administration and enforcement.

The issues of concern to ARCC include:

whether any permit is issued with appropriate tools to quickly address

community concerns;

during the time between approval and construction, owners of farming

lots greater than 40 ha (for which no planning approval is required for

the construction of a dwelling) may be unaware of the Ararat WEF being

located in the area;

cross boundary issues, with the potential for a complainant to have

difficulty in understanding to which authority the complaint should be

addressed;

arguments between authorities about the location of a particular breach,

and arguments between authorities about the substance and merits of

any complaint;

a changing view by the Minister about the general issue of

administration and enforcement. Whereas the Minister has maintained

these roles for some earlier WEF where call‐in powers were used (Mt

Mercer was cited), the practice of late has been to nominate Councils as

the administrator and enforcement authority in the Planning Permit

preamble;

when the permit preamble nominates Councils as the administrator and

enforcement authority, there are usually a number of matters in the

permit conditions that require the Minister’s, and or others satisfaction.

Would Council be able to amend plans that have been approved by the

Minister?;


the planning system does not facilitate a clear understanding of the roles

and responsibilities of the Minister and or Council as their Responsible

Authority functions cut across each other in the detail of the planning

permit in a seemingly ambiguous manner; and

the VWEG127 do not resolve the complexity and confusion about the

enforcement issue.

The ARCC referred to the recent discussions between the Municipal

Association of Victoria (MAV), Councils and the Minister for Planning, with a

view to resolving a range of issues. A cooperative approach, making better

use of resources, has some considerable support. The ARCC submission

provided extensive material about the discussions between the Minister for

Planning, MAV and Councils, and a legal opinion on the issue of

responsibility for administration and enforcement, in Appendices attached to

its submission.

In conclusion the ARCC submission requested that the Panel be cognisant of

the Minister’s position on Planning Enforcement issues and its relationship to

permit processes and conditions, but also to be aware of the proposed process

changes being discussed with the Minister for Planning.

The Pyrenees Shire Council made a submission following the exhibition of the

Application Documentation which raised only the matter of the

incompleteness of the application as it did not incorporate the connection to

the grid (see Section 4.3.1 above). Following the Hearing, the Pyrenees Shire

Council emailed a further detailed submission which addressed the issue of

the enforcement of permit conditions, setback of wind turbines from adjoining

properties, aviation lighting and secondary consent. While relevant to the

discussion, the Panel has already considered the issues raised, and does not

rely on the material presented by the Pyrenees Shire Council which was

submitted after the Panel Hearing had concluded.

A submission relevant to the enforcement issue from Mr Power was requested

by the Panel during the Hearing. In the event, it was received by the Panel on

30 July 2010. It is noted in Appendix B. Mr Power considered the matters

relevant to WEFs of 30 MW or greater, and to those less than 30MW.

Mr Power advised that the Victorian Environment and Natural Resources

Committee of the Victorian Parliament had recognised the enforcement issue,

and had recommended that “The Minister for Planning be the Responsible

Authority for all commercial wind energy facilities”.

127 Policy and Planning Guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, September

2009, page 34


Mr Power then proceeded to clearly set out that, for WEF greater than 30 MW,

while Section 61.01 of all Victorian Planning Schemes specifies (in part) “The

(relevant) Council …is the responsible authority for administering and enforcing the

scheme for all other matters.”, this provision relies on Section 13 of the Planning

and Environment Act. However Section 97A defines the party that is the “first

responsible authority”, and Mr Power’s submission sets out why this is in fact

the Minister. Section 97H then applies once a permit is issued under Section

97F, and Section 97H states “The first responsible authority becomes the responsible

authority for the administration and enforcement of this Act and the relevant

planning scheme in respect f the permit…”

Mr Power addressed this apparent inconsistency, and relied on the relevant

statutory rules to provide his opinion as to which clause of the Planning and

Environment Act should prevail. The rules state that specific clauses take

precedent over general clauses, and that a provision inserted later in time is to

be preferred if conflict arises with another part of the Act. Section 97H is both

a specific condition, and was inserted into the Act in 1993, while Section 13 is

part of the original Act. The result is that Mr Power’s advice is that for the

Ararat WEF application, the Minister is the Responsible Authority for that part

of the WEF within the ARC.

In the case of that part of the Ararat WEF within the NGS, Section 61.01 does

not apply. In such cases the Council is the first responsible authority, and is

thus the Responsible Authority under Section 97H of the Planning and

Environment Act, except that the Minister remains the responsible authority in

respect of:

(a) any matters which the permit specifies to be done by, approved

by or done to the satisfaction of the Minister;

(c) any extension of time under section 69 in relation to the permit;

(d) the correction of the permit under section 71(1);

14.4 DISCUSSION

The Panel notes that no final binding arrangement has emerged at the time of

writing this report as a result of the discussion between the Minister for

Planning, the MAV and Councils.

The advice by Mr Power is the only legal advice put to the Panel, and would

normally be given considerable weight. However it has not been tested, as the

Panel understands the situation, and remains an opinion about how the Act

should be interpreted. Further, it is contrary to the advice from DPCD, acting

for the Minister. The Panel can only conclude that the Minister concurs with

the advice given on this important issue by his Department.


In the event, the position set out by DPCD was, to a very large extent,

reluctantly acceded to by Councils in the without prejudice discussion of the

potential Planning Permit conditions. In doing this, the Councils did not resile

from concern with the ongoing difficulties for administration and enforcement

detailed in the submission from the ARCC.

As a result of the considerations above, the Panel considers that the use of the

word “Minister for Planning” is preferable to “Responsible Authority” for

conditions that stipulate consideration by the Minister, for both permits.

Concerning the potential difficulties that may arise about confusion as to

which Council a person should contact if a breach of the permit conditions

occurs, the Panel considers that the co‐operative arrangements between the

two Councils discussed by them at the Hearing have much merit.

The Panel anticipates that some further resolution of the difficulties

enumerated by the ARCC (and others) may be forthcoming when the high

level discussions are concluded and some form of agreement is reached.

14.5 CONCLUSIONS

Given the high level discussions between the Minister, MAV and Councils

that have not to date been concluded, and that there has been no court case to

resolve the apparent inconsistency between Section 13 and 97H of the Planning

and Environment Act 1987, the Panel can take no other view than that

submitted by DPCD as to the statutory position on administration and

enforcement that applies.

The Panel concludes that the use of the word “Minister for Planning” is

preferable to “Responsible Authority” for permit conditions that stipulate

consideration by the Minister, and this wording has been adopted in the

Recommended Permit (Appendix E).


15. PLANNING PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

15.1 ISSUES

Given the Panel’s conclusion that policy supports the establishment of wind

farms in appropriate locations, and should the Panel conclude that there are

no significant planning impediments to the establishment of the Ararat WEF,

the Panel’s task is to review the conditions under which the facility should be

planned, constructed, operated and eventually decommissioned.

The primary issue for the Panel is a rationalisation of the content of the

“permissions” summarised in the two Planning Permits that are the subject of

this report, and the associated Environmental Management Plan.

The proposed Planning Permit considered during the Panel hearings (with

separate versions proposed for those parts of the WEF in Ararat Rural City

and in Northern Grampians Shire) reflected the content and style of the Model

Planning Permit conditions for wind farms prepared by DPCD. The Panel felt

it necessary to investigate a model that covered all the requirements for

planning, constructing, operating and decommissioning the facility, but

simplified and clarified the Permits.

The key issue is the provision of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP)

that is specific in documenting the commitments of the proponent at the time

the Panel Report is submitted, and includes the recommended amendments

made by the relevant authorities and the Panel. For those matters where

further investigations and detailed design must be undertaken before specific

measures can be detailed, an outline of the matters to be detailed in the EMP

has been provided.

A further issue considered at the Panel hearings is the period of expiry of the

Planning Permit. RES Australia proposed that the Permit should expire if the

development is not started within five years of the date of the permit, or if it is

not completed within eight years. In comparison, the Model Planning Permit

Conditions prepared by DPCD propose expiry of the Permit if the

development is not started within three years of the date of the permit, or if it

is not completed within six years.


15.2 BACKGROUND

At the Panel hearings, the proponent, two municipalities and DPCD worked

through the proposed Planning Permit, reaching accommodation on its

content. Following some discussion and amendment at the Hearing, this

formed the basis of the version provided by Freehills to the Panel, and

included as Appendix C of this report.

The proponent also provided an outline of the EMP in the Application

Documentation128. In its Directions, the Panel directed (in part):

5. In submitting to the Panel, RES Australia should address the following

particular matters at the hearing:

a. A response to the revised Policy and Planning Guidelines for Wind

Energy Facilities (September 2009), both generally and in particular

relating to the preparation of an EMP (see below under b);

b. Concerning the Pre‐Construction and construction phase, there is a

summary treatment of “Environmental Mitigation and Management

Measures” (pages 85 to 89), but no monitoring proposals. The

application requirements for a Wind Energy facility includes “An

environmental management plan including any rehabilitation and

monitoring” (quoted on page 141 of the Main Report). No such plan

has been provided for the operational phase, merely a commitment to

make one at a later date. The proponent is requested to provide

further detail for the EMP at each of the Pre‐Construction and

construction phase, and the operational Phase. These EMPs will

require progressive development as design and construction proceed,

but should, at any point in time, provide a clear statement of the

proponent’s commitments. Where the detail is not yet available,

principles or an indicative summary should be provided. The

recommendations in the consultant reports should be listed in the

relevant part of the EMP and clarification provided whether the

proponent commits to them, or merely notes them as being a matter

for reference. Monitoring measures should be detailed where possible.

Turbine noise is one particular area where the proposed monitoring

should be detailed. The points raised in submissions, and particularly

the requirements of referral authorities and agencies should also be

considered in the EMP and detailed.

RES Australia tabled the requested EMP129 at the Hearing. The Panel made

some further request for clarification of the EMP to make it conform to the

128 Application Documentation Volume 1, Section 6.2.9 Environmental Management Plan, pages 83-90 129 Hearing Document 12


definitive document sought by the Panel, and RES Australia responded with

the version of the EMP130 now set out in Appendix D to this report. The

Panel’s introductory comment at the top of Appendix D draw attention to a

comment in the accompanying email from Freehills, which stated (in part)

“…please find attached the EMP (including the changes requested by the Panel)…”.

The Panel has considered whether this caveat by the proponent “(including the

changes requested by the Panel)”requires every tracked change in the EMP below

to be individually reviewed, and new recommendations made. These tracked

changes are, in the main, text where the commitment to specific actions had

been qualified in the earlier version (Hearing Document 12), and these

qualifications removed in the later version (Hearing Document 28). The

determining factor (in the Panel’s view) is the commitment made by RES

Australia in its preamble to the earlier version of the EMP, namely:

In addition to the EMP Framework provided in Section 6.2.9 of the report

titled Ararat Wind Farm, Planning Permit Application Documentation,

Volume 1, dated January 2010, RES Australia is able to commit to the

following plans, procedures, monitoring, enforcement and rehabilitation

measures during each of the phases of development, being:

Pre‐Construction Phase;

Construction Phase;

Operational Phase; and

Decommissioning and Site Rehabilitation phase.

In the revised version, the phrase “is able to commit” has been changed to

“commits”, removing any uncertainty as to whether the commitment is

qualified. The fact that the version electronically supplied by Freehills had all

track changes accepted, and the tone of the discussion at the Hearing, satisfy

the Panel that the electronic version is a clear statement of the proponent’s

commitments.

The Panel is appreciative of the work undertaken by RES in meeting the

Panel’s Directions, both generally, and specifically in relation to the EMP.

The Panel wishes to stress that the Permit and EMP will be binding on any

developer and operator of the Ararat WEF.

130 Hearing Document 28


15.3 SUBMISSIONS

Submissions on specific topics have been addressed in the relevant chapters

above.

15.4 DISCUSSION

The issue identified by the Panel in Section 15.1 above is central to the

structure of any EMP and any Permit that may be approved. In particular, the

Panel considers that the proposed structure and content of the Planning

Permit and EMP as shown in Appendices C and D are complex and confusing.

The duplication of much of their content raises the potential for error and

misunderstanding, and does not adequately allow for inevitable refinements

in plans as the project unfolds.

The Panel sees the need for a clear statement of those consultant

recommendations that the proponent will adopt to be integral with any

approval of the proposal. The means of giving effect to this will be a new

permit condition that cites the “Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐

construction Stage” as part of the permit (see Chapter 16 below).

The “EMP emailed by the Proponent” in Appendix D makes a significant

contribution to developing an EMP, going much further that the draft permit

conditions that specify merely an outline to the EMP. In terms of specificity,

and a clear statement of the commitments by the proponent, it would be most

undesirable to ‘lose’ the detailed EMP in a statutory sense. To do so would

mean than the Responsible Authority would have to sift through all the

commitments and recommendations of the proponent and the proponent’s

consultants, in the Application Documentation, Expert Witness Reports and

other Hearing Documents supplied by the proponent and the consultants, and

the submissions of the various authorities to determine if the EMP did in fact

conform to what was committed.

The Panel sets out below the changes that it believes are necessary to the

Appendix D EMP should the permit for the Ararat WEF be granted:

Replace the Heading: the new Heading is “Environmental Management

Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage”. While the EMP contains within it

the four “phases” listed above near the end of this chapter (Section 15.2

above) there is a need to give a unique title to the EMP as the project

moves through each stage, and the EMP goes through major updates.

Replace the Preamble with the text shown in Appendix F.


DSE submission

The comments provided by DSE under Section 52 of the Planning and

Environment Act (see Section 15.3 above) need to be considered in relation to

the status of the EMP. If the Panel’s approach to the EMP (see above) are

adopted, then the EMP matters desired by DSE can be better located in the

“Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage”, which in its

recommended form contains both prescriptive and outline material, and is

referred to in the recommended permit (see Section 16.4).

If this approach is taken, conditions 15, 16 and 17 can be deleted from the

permit conditions, and included in the EMP to the extent that they are not

already covered by specific conditions.

The Panel has reconciled the variations between the detailed

recommendations of Brett Lane and Associates already included in Appendix

D and the more general matters requested by DSE. Beyond this, the one point

where comment by the Panel is necessary is on the nomination of turbines to

be removed. As discussed in Chapter 5 above, DSE initially had serious

concerns with the location of four turbines (T32, T33, T64 and T65) near the

Ararat Regional Park. In its submission on the Application, DSE pointed out

that the turbines are located on a ridge line highly utilised by avifauna moving

between the park and another area of significant native vegetation located

approximately 600 metres to the north east. DSE recommended that no

turbines be sited in this location. However, if the turbines are approved in this

location, DSE strongly recommends that each of the four turbines mentioned

be included in any monitoring program required under the Bat and Avifauna

Management Plan, in conjunction with specific and targeted mitigation

measures.

As detailed in Chapter 5, the Panel concluded that the four turbines should

not be removed, but does support inclusion of these turbines in the BBMP

monitoring recommended by DSE.

With regard to the expiry date of the Permit, the Panel reviewed the

experience of a number of recent WEF Panels, and found variation in

approach. For example, the Permit for the Lal Lal facility requires

commencement within four years of the Permit, and completion within eight

years, while the Permit for the Berrybank facility issued on 24 August 2010

allows commencement within three years of the Permit, and completion

within six years.

The Panel concluded that the period adopted for Berrybank is reasonable, and

that the proponent can apply for an extension to the Minister if necessary.


Figure 7 below shows how the EMP will develop through the Stages of Pre‐

Construction, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning.

Figure 7 Development of the EMP through its stages

Stages of the EMP

Pre-construction

Phase

Construction Phase

Operations Phase

Decommissioning Phase

Pre-construction Stage

Construction Stage

Operation Stage

Decommissioning Stage

KEY

The active Phase at any Stage, where investigations and requirements are listed

Future Phases, where known requirements are listed.

Past Phases, which are no longer relevant.

15.5 CONCLUSIONS

The Panel has concluded that it is appropriate to restructure the permissions

to keep the Planning Permit conditions to a simple and clear list of

requirements. Reference to the Environmental Management Plan that was

proposed as a condition of the Permit is retained, and a list of environmental

planning requirements that are “called up” by the EMP condition is included.

These include environmental requirements that were originally part of the

EMP (Appendix D), but also includes others (such as the Net Gain Offset Plan)

that were originally listed as separate Permit Conditions. The Panel’s

recommended approach to the EMP is shown as Condition 7 in Appendix E.

Min

iste

rial A

ppro

val a

t th

ese

Stag

es Information Flow

Incr

easi

ng d

etai

l


The Panel is aware of the need to ensure that the conditions required by

referral authorities are faithfully included as part of the Planning Permit. In

the case of environmental requirements, it concluded that the best method to

achieve this is to include them in the EMP, which is to be endorsed by the

Minister for Planning and form part of the Permit. In this way, the

recommendations of the Panel are combined with the requirements of referral

authorities and the commitments of the proponent in a detailed EMP.

Thus, the detail of the environmental requirements is then listed in the EMP

which, at this stage, is titled “Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐

construction Stage”.

The Panel concludes that the version of the EMP in Appendix D should be

amended in the form detailed in Appendix F (“Environmental Management

Plan at the Pre‐construction Stage”), which includes the changes outlined

above in relation to the title of the EMP, the Preamble, and the detailed

recommendations in the Chapters above.


16. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

16.1 CONCLUSIONS

The principal issues arising from the Ararat WEF proposal are:

medium to high landscape and visual impacts;

the need for native vegetation removal and the required offset works to

achieve the Net Gain policy;

the need for some further investigation of stability and safety issues on

the on‐site and off‐site access routes;

the need to take particular care to avoid erosion of the fragile soils

encountered at the site.

These issues, and a number of more minor matters, are addressed in the

Recommended Permit Conditions (Appendix E) and the Environmental

Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage (Appendix F).

The Panel acknowledges that although there are significant landscape impacts

that in the main cannot be ameliorated, the presence of turbines along

ridgelines will not be seen as a negative by a high proportion of viewers. The

Panel also acknowledges the significant contribution the Ararat WEF can

make to sustainable energy.

After considering the contribution that the WEF can make to sustainable

energy supply, the Panel had no difficulty in concluding that the net

community benefit was substantial, and the project should proceed.

Other matters, with potential for wider application than just for the Ararat

WEF are:

the conclusion that the compilation by DSE of all Victorian data on bird

and bad strike from Victorian WEF’s is highly desirable; and

the approach taken in this report of having not merely an outline EMP,

but a developed EMP, which includes the recommendations of the

Panel, all the detailed commitments of the proponent, including the

recommendations of the experts it employed, and the detailed

recommendations from other authorities.


16.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends that the Minister for Planning:

1. adopt the Recommended Permit Conditions (Appendix E)

2. adopt the Recommended Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐

Construction Stage (Appendix F).

The Panel also recommends that:

3. The Department of Sustainability and Environment undertakes the

task of collating, and progressively updating, all bird and bat strike

data from Victorian WEF’s, and making the data publicly available.


APPENDICES

Appendix A Submissions

Appendix B Hearing Document List

Appendix C Draft Planning Permit (prepared by proponent)

Appendix D Environmental Management Plan (prepared by proponent)

Appendix E Recommended Planning Permit

Appendix F Recommended “Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐

Construction Stage”

Appendix A Page 138


APPENDIX A SUBMISSIONS

A list of all written submissions to the proposal is included in the Table below.

The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material

presented to it in connection with this matter.

Sub #. Submitter Organisation (if any)

1 Brendan Brown, Delegated Officer CFA, Grampians Regional Office

2 David O’Sullivan, Manager Program Development VicRoads

3 Jeff Rigby, Managing Director GWM Water

4 Andrew Bradley Industry Capability Network (Australia) Ltd

5 Cheryl & Gerald Shea Residents

6 Michael Williamson, Principal Strategic Adviser, Sustainable Energy

Sustainability Victoria

7 Marcus Little, Floodplain and Works Manager Glenelg Hopkins CMA

8 Ormond L Randell Resident

9 Mark A McKew Resident

10 Paul & Wendy Harrington Resident

11 P J & M H O’Rourke OAM Resident

12 J Smithers-Tomkins Resident

13 KJ Wilde Resident

14 Geoff Brooks, Manager Statutory Planning Services DSE

15 Stephen Chapple, Chief Executive Officer and Gwenda Allgood, Mayor

Ararat Rural City

16 Peter Woods Resident

17 P R Bird PhD OAM, Secretary Hamilton Field Naturalists Club

18 W John & Lorraine Stewien Resident

19 John Kerwan, Director Land Planning & Spatial Information Department of Defence

20 Stephen Cornish, Chief Executive Officer Pyrenees Shire Council

Appendix B Page 139


APPENDIX B HEARING DOCUMENT LIST

Doc # Date Description Presented by

1 (a, b & c)

5/7/10 Proposed itinerary for site inspections, including maps and aerial image.

Ms Grace-Davis

2 5/7/10 Submission on behalf of Minister for Planning, including Appendices

Ms Grace-Davis and Mr Fadgyas

3 5/7/10 Opening submission on behalf of proponent, RES Australia Pty Ltd

Mr Power

4 5/7/10 Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council, Wind Turbines and Health: A Rapid Review of the Evidence, July 2010

Mr Power

5 5/7/10 Presentation by Mr Chris Turnbull, Sonus Pty Ltd, to Panel hearing on Environmental Noise, July 2010

Mr Power

6 6/7/10 A3 Plans (8) of proposed project, showing infrastructure, turbine layout, lighting plan and location of residences

Mr Power

7 6/7/10 A3 copies of photomontages from numerous viewpoints

Mr Wyatt

8 6/7/10 A0 copies of photomontages for selected locations

Mr Wyatt

9 6/7/10 Presentation by Ambidgi, to Panel hearing on aviation issues, 7 July 2010

Mr Herron

10 7/7/10 Map of Wildfire Management Overlay WMO 11020 C22

Mr McColl

11 7/7/10 Presentation by Mr Brett Lane, Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd, to Panel hearing on Flora and Fauna Assessment

Mr Lane

12 7/7/10 Proposed Environmental Management Plan Framework (mitigation, monitoring, enforcement and rehabilitation

Mr Power

Appendix B Page 140



13 7/7/10 Presentation by GL Garrad Hassan, to Panel hearing on Shadow Glint, Blade Glitter and EMI

Dr Gilbert

14 13/7/10 Hard copy of presentation by Mr Alan Wyatt, ERM, to Panel hearing on Landscape and Visual Assessment

Mr Power

15 13/7/10 Selection from Section 40 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity ) Act 2000, showing required GWh per year of renewable source electricity between 2001 and 2030 (pp. 52-53)

Mr Power

16 13/7/10 Electronic copy of DPCD submission to Panel, with minor modifications including corrected numbering of Appendix 7

Ms Grace-Davis

17 13/7/10 Maps of Zones, Ararat and Northern Grampians Planning Schemes

Ms Grace-Davis

18 13/7/10 Submission on behalf of proponent, RES Australia Pty Ltd, including attachments

Mr Power

19 13/7/10 Letter from Syd Herron, Ambidgi, Expert Witness Statement: Post Planning Hearing Follow-up Advice, relating to aviation obstacle lighting, 12 July 2010

Mr Power

20 13/7/10 Submission by Lorraine Stewien to Panel, 13 July 2010, including attachments

Mrs Stewien

21 (a & b)

14/7/10 (a) Submission on behalf of Ararat Rural City Council, including attachments (b) Disc with electronic copies of documents

Mr McColl

22 14/7/10 Submission on behalf of Northern Grampians Shire Council, including attachments

Mr Douglas

23 14/7/10 Supplementary Expert Witness Statement of Chris Turnbull, Sonus, relating to noise queries from the Panel

Mr Power

Appendix B Page 141



24 14/7/10 Track changes version of Draft Planning Permit following discussion between proponent, Ararat Rural City and Northern Grampians and DPCD, 13/7/2010

Mr Power

25 14/7/10 “Clean” version of Draft Planning Permit following discussion between proponent, Ararat Rural City and Northern Grampians and DPCD, 13/7/2010

Mr Power

26 14/7/10 DSE response on Panel query relating to Flagship areas and Biolinks, from Mr Geoff Brooks, Manager Statutory Planning Services, dated 14 July 2010

Mr Dekker

27 14/7/10 DSE “track changes” version of Draft Planning Permit for Ararat Planning Permit 09/004799

Mr Dekker

28 15/7/10 Track changes version of Modified Proposed Environmental Management Plan Framework (mitigation, monitoring, enforcement and rehabilitation) – modified version of Document 12

Mr Power

Documents provided after the Hearing Provided by

29 15/7/10 Submission from Pyrenees Shire

30 15/7/10 Pyrenees Amended Permit for the Waubra WEF

Ms Grace-Davis

31 20/7/10 Panel further direction Panel Chair

32 22/7/10 DPCD response to questions on notice

Ms Grace-Davis

33 28/7/10 Draft permit after panel discussion Ms Agius (Freehills)

34 28/7/10 EMP information final Ms Agius

35 30/7/10 RES’ response to DPCD’s submission on noise and reply to Pyrenees Shire Council submission

Ms Agius

36 30/7/10 Advice to Panel re Responsible Authority

Ms Agius

Appendix C Page 142


APPENDIX C DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT (PREPARED BY THE PROPONENT)

Anna Williams of Freehills (acting for RES Australia) emailed Planning Panels

Victoria on 28 July 2010, attaching a file titled “Draft Permit after panel

discussion” and with the following relevant comment in the text of the email:

“In response to your email below, please find attached the EMP

(including the changes requested by the Panel) and the draft permit

conditions. In the draft permit conditions, text in mark‐up (without

highlight) and text highlighted in yellow was discussed during the

panel hearing. Text highlighted in green has been inserted subsequent

to the panel and reflects RES’ further submission.”

The text of the electronic document is copied below. The copying process has

resulted in text exactly as received electronically by the Panel on 28 July 2010,

with the following exceptions:

The header to each page has not been copied. It reads as follows:

Planning and Environment Regulations 2005 Form 11

Section 97F

PLANNING PERMIT GRANTED BY THE MINISTER UNDER

DIVISION 6 OF PART 4 OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

The track‐changes details did not copy, and all tracked changes were

automatically accepted in the copy.

The watermark “Without Prejudice Permit Conditions” did not copy.

The yellow and green highlights have been retained in the copy.

PLANNING PERMIT Permit No.: 09/004799

Planning Scheme: Ararat Planning Scheme

Responsible Authority for Administration and Enforcement of this Permit: Ararat Rural City Council

ADDRESS OF THE LAND:

Addresses provided by Freehills have been deleted by the Panel for conciseness

Appendix C Page 143


THE PERMIT ALLOWS: The use and development of a wind energy facility

comprising 70 generators and associated infrastructure

including access roads, cabling, permanent anemometers,

internal powerlines, substations, excavation of rock

material, earthworks, temporary concrete batching plants,

maintenance and storage facilities, car parking, removal of

native vegetation and alterations to roads and access to

roads within a Road Zone Category 1.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

PLANS TO BE ENDORSED

1. Before the development starts (following Pre‐Construction phase preliminary

investigative works and the carrying out of detailed design works), plans must be

prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The plans must be drawn

to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans may be

submitted for approval in stages or for a particular grouping of wind turbines

within the subject land. When approved, the plans will be endorsed by the

Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.

The plans must show the location and layout of the wind turbines and all on‐site

buildings and works generally in accordance with Figure 2.2 of the application

plans.

The plans must also include:

(a) A list of map coordinates for each wind turbine;

(b) The distance of each wind turbine from the nearest point on the site

boundary as depicted in Figure 2.2 of the application plans;

(c) Details of the model and rated capacity of the wind turbines to be installed;

(d) Elevation drawings, showing dimensions, of the wind turbines and other

permanent on‐site buildings (e.g. substation facilities);

(e) Drawings, showing the key physical dimensions, of all on‐site buildings and

works including:

(i) Wind turbines;

(ii) Access tracks;

(iii) Internal collector network trenches;

(iv) Any temporary concrete batching plant(s);

Appendix C Page 144


(v) The substation (including designated car parking areas, signage and

landscaping);

(vi) Any ancillary works (e.g. temporary facilities and operations within the

construction compounds); and

(vii) The infrastructure zone.

(f) A description of the materials and finishes of the wind turbine towers,

nacelles, rotor blades and other permanent on‐site buildings. The wind

turbine towers, nacelles and rotor blades must be of a non‐reflective finish

and colour;

(g) A description of the location, type and intensity of any aviation obstacle

lighting to be installed;

(h) The locations of scattered native trees and the boundaries of any patches of

native vegetation, in relation to all buildings and works, in all cases where

such trees and patches are within 25 metres of the buildings or works;

(i) Drawings demonstrating that the placement of turbine locations will not

interfere with the exclusion zones of any licensed communications links

(j) The location of all host dwellings and non‐host dwellings within 3km of the

nearest turbine; and

(k) The permitted use and development must be conducted in accordance with

all plans that are endorsed under this permit.

2. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of Pre‐Construction phase

preliminary investigative works, including sub‐surface geotechnical

investigations, for the purposes of gathering data or making other assessments

necessary or desirable in order to prepare the plan(s) under Condition 1 or other

plans specified in this permit, is approved and can be carried out before the

plan(s) are endorsed under Condition 1.

SPECIFICATIONS

3. The wind energy facility must meet the following requirements:

(a) The wind energy facility must comprise no more than 70 wind turbines;

(b) The overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the zenith of the sweep

of the rotor blade tip) must not exceed 135 metres above foundation level;

(c) The wind turbines must be mounted on tubular towers;

Appendix C Page 145


(d) The diameter of the rotor of the wind turbines must not exceed 104 metres;

(e) The hub height of the of the wind turbines must not exceed 94 metres;

(f) The rotor of the wind turbines must have only three rotor blades;

(g) Access tracks within the subject land must, to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority:

(i) have a surface material that will not unduly contrast with the landscape

except where tracks need to be sealed;

(ii) be designed to minimise impact on the farming activities on the land;

and

(iii) have an effective trafficable width of not less than 3 metres.

(h) The transformer associated with each wind turbine must be enclosed within

the tower / nacelle or be located beside each tower and pad mounted;

(i) All new electricity cabling and powerlines associated with the internal

collector network within the wind energy facility must be installed in

accordance with the endorsed plans except with the further written consent

of the Minister for Planning;

(j) Except in the case of an emergency or to accommodate the requirements of

the network service provider, no external lighting of infrastructure

associated with the wind energy facility, other than low level security

lighting and aviation obstacle lighting as provided for in condition 3(m), may

be installed or operated without the further written consent of the Minister

for Planning;

(k) All spare parts and other equipment and materials associated with the use of

the wind energy facility must be located in locked storage areas that are

inaccessible to the public to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

(l) All turbines must be located within the infrastructure zones shown on the

endorsed plan(s);

(m) If aviation obstacle lighting is required to be installed, the minimum number

and type of lights required must be installed in accordance with an aviation

lighting plan that has been endorsed by the Minister for Planning [Aviation

obstacle lighting must not be installed unless endorsed by the Minister for

Planning on the advice of a risk assessment prepared for the proponent or

the requirement of a regulatory authority. Any lights installed must be of

an intensity and baffling endorsed by the Minister for Planning.]

Appendix C Page 146


NET GAIN OFFSET PLAN

4. Before native vegetation is removed, a net gain offset plan must be prepared by a

suitably qualified ecological specialist and submitted to and approved by the

Minister for Planning in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and

Environment. Once approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part

of the permit. The offset plan must include the following:

(i) Details of the proposed offsets which will achieve a net gain in quality and

quantity of native vegetation in accordance with the principles and

guidelines associated with the Native Vegetation Management: A

Framework for Action (DSE 2002);

(ii) Fully dimensioned plans (drawn to an appropriate scale), which clearly show

the locations, boundaries and title details of all offset sites. The plans must

also clearly show the boundaries of any different management zones and the

location of any proposed fencing;

(iii) Type of offsets to be provided for each location;

(iv) Details of revegetation including number of trees, shrubs and other plants,

species mix and density (consistent with the characteristics of the relevant

Ecological Vegetation Class);

(v) Methods of managing and restoring the vegetation, including revegetation,

such as fencing, weed control, enhancement planting and other habitat

management actions;

(vi) Pest plant and animal control methods;

(vii) A statement of the need to source local seed stock and options available for

sourcing of local seed;

(viii) A statement of the need for revegetation works to be carried out by a suitably

qualified ecological specialist;

(ix) Methods of permanent protection for the offsets, such as the registration on

title of an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act

1987, an agreement under Section 69 of the Conservation Forests and Lands

Act 1987, or a covenant under section 3A of the Victorian Conservation Trust

Act 1972;

(x) Persons responsible for implementing and monitoring the offset plan;

(xi) A schedule of management actions, which documents how the net gain

outcomes will be achieved within a 10 year timeframe.

Appendix C Page 147


5. All offsets documented in the approved Offset Plan must be initiated to the

satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Department of Sustainability and

Environment.

6. All offsets must be completed according to the schedule of works in the approved

Offset Plan, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

7. Temporary fencing or tape must be installed around areas of native vegetation to

be retained, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

[Note we have asked for DSE condition 7 to be removed, or ‘All offset sites must

be legally secured in accordance with the offset plan.’]

NATIVE VEGETATION PROTECTION WORKS

8. Works must not cause damage to native vegetation stands to be retained.

Vehicular access beneath large trees and habitat trees must be prevented.

9. Tree trimming operations must be undertaken using the natural target pruning

‘three cut method’ as described in the ‘Roadside Handbook: An Environmental

Guide for Road Construction and Maintenance’ (VicRoads 2006).

10. Any roadside areas disturbed by works associated with the wind energy facility

must be revegetated as soon as practicable to minimise soil erosion.

STAGING

11. The use and development authorised by this permit may be completed in stages as

shown on the endorsed plan(s) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Any corresponding obligation arising under this permit (including the preparation

and approval of plans) may be similarly completed in stages or parts.

LAYOUT NOT ALTERED

12. The use and development shown on the plan(s) endorsed under this permit must

not be altered or modified unless:

(a) the Minister for Planning has consented to the alteration or modification in

writing; or

(b) the requirements of condition 13 are satisfied and complied with.

13. The use and development shown on the plan(s) endorsed under condition 1 may

be altered or modified without the written consent of the Minister for Planning

and will be regarded as generally in accordance with the endorsed plan(s) if:

Appendix C Page 148


(a) The [Minister for Planning/responsible authority] is satisfied that it will not

give rise to any material adverse change in landscape, vegetation, cultural,

visual, shadow or noise impacts compared to the endorsed plan(s);

(b) The turbines and wind energy facility infrastructure are located within the


(c) A turbine is not moved to within 1 kilometre of any non‐host dwelling;

(d) A turbine location is altered by no more than 100 metres; and

(e) No turbine base is located within:

(i) 100 metres from a Road Zone Category 1 or land in a Public Acquisition

Overlay to be acquired for a road;

(ii) 40 metres from a Road Zone Category 2;

(iii) 20 metres from any other road;

(iv) 5 metres from the site boundary;

(v) 100 metres from a dwelling that is not a host dwelling;

(vi) 50 metres from a waterway, wetlands or designated flood plain; or

(vii) within an exclusion zone of any licensed communications link.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

15. Note: Having regard to the fact that there are two permits for this wind energy facility,

where a management plan is referred to below, it is desirable that a single plan be prepared

in consultation with both Councils.

Before the development starts, an environmental management plan must be

prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning by the wind energy

facility operator in consultation with the relevant authorities.

The environmental management plan may be prepared in sections or stages. The

first section of the environmental management plan is the [insert name of

document], and must be complied with unless varied by a plan endorsed under

this permit.

The environmental management plan must include a copy of the endorsed plans.

The environmental management plan must consider and generally be in

accordance with:

• EPA Publication 480: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites

Appendix C Page 149


• EPA Publication 275: Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution

Control

• EPA Publication 891.1: Code of Practice, Onsite Wastewater Management

• EPA Publication 628: Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching

Industry

• EPA Publication 347: Bunding Guidelines.

The environmental management plan should, where appropriate, address and

include:

(a) A construction and work site management plan which must include:

(i) Procedures for access, construction noise control, dust emissions, spills

and leaks from the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials and

pollution management. Such construction and work site procedures

are to be in accordance with Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

requirements;

(ii) The identification of all potential contaminants and hazardous

materials used and/or stored on site in connection with the

development and use;

(iii) The identification of all construction and operations processes that

could potentially lead to water contamination;

(iv) The identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational

methods to control any identified contamination risks;

(v) The identification of waste re‐use, recycling and disposal procedures;

(vi) Appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff in

accordance with the EPA Publication 891.1 Septic Tanks Code of

Practice;

(vii) A timetable, where practicable for the construction of turbine bases,

access tracks and power cabling during warmer months to minimise

impacts on local fauna and sediment mobilisation;

(viii) Procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and equipment use,

designated tracks and works area avoid impacts on native vegetation;

(ix) Procedures to ensure the covering of excavations, trenches and holes at

night time and to fill trenches as soon as practical after excavation, to

protect, as far as practicable, native fauna and domestic stock from

being injured by or entrapped;

Appendix C Page 150


(x) The removal of works, buildings and staging area on completion of

construction of the project.

(b) A hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan. This plan must include:

(i) Procedures for the proper handling and storage of hazardous materials

on‐site including procedures for any on‐site, permanent, post‐

construction storage of fuels, lubricants or waste oil to be in bunded

areas; and

(ii) Design criteria for any hazardous materials storage facilities on‐site,

and

(iii) Contingency measures to ensure that any spills or leaks of hazardous

materials, chemicals or oils are contained on‐site and cleaned up in

accordance with Environment Protection Authority requirements.

(c) A sediment, erosion and water quality management plan. This plan must

be prepared in consultation with the relevant Catchment Management

Authority/ies and other authorities as may be directed by the Minister for

Planning. The plan must include:

(i) Procedures to ensure that silt from batters, cut‐off drains, table drains

and road works is retained on the site during and after construction and

replaces as soon as possible.

To this end:

• All land disturbances must be confined to a minimum practical

working area;

• Soil to be removed must be stockpiled and separate soil horizons must

be retained in separate stockpiles and not mixed and replaced as soon

as possible in sequence; and

• Stockpiles must be located away from drainage lines;

(ii) Criteria for the siting and design of any temporary concrete batching

plant associated with the development of the wind energy facility and

the procedure for its operation, removal and reinstatement of the site

once its use finishes. The establishment and operation of any such

temporary concrete batching plant must be designed and operated in

accordance with the Environment Protection Authority Publication 628

Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry;

(iii) The installation of geo‐textile silt fences (with sedimentation basins

where appropriate) on all drainage lines from the site which are likely

to receive run‐off from disturbed areas;

Appendix C Page 151


(iv) Procedures to suppress dust from construction‐related activities.

Appropriate measures may include water spraying of roads and

stockpiles, stabilising surfaces, temporary screening and/or wind

fences, modifying constructions activities during periods of heightened

winds and revegetating exposed areas as soon as practicable;

(v) Procedures to ensure that steep batters are treated appropriately for

sediment pollution control in accordance with Environmental

Protection Authority Publication 275 Construction Techniques for

Sediment Pollution Control;

(vi) Procedures for the management of contaminated waste water including

waster water discharge;

(vii) The identification of waste reuse, recycling and disposal procedures;

(viii) A process for overland flow management to prevent the concentration

and diversion of waters onto steep or erosion prone slopes;

(ix) Pollution management measures for stored and stockpiled materials

including waste materials, litter, contaminated run‐off and any other

potential source of pollution to ground or surface waters; Procedures

for the discharge of collected runoff;

(x) Incorporation of pollution control measures outlined in EPA

Publication 480 Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites;

(xi) Siting of concrete batching plant and any on‐site wastewater and

disposal and disposal treatment fields at least 100 metres from any

watercourse;

(xii) Appropriate capacity and an agreed program for annual inspection and

regular maintenance of any on‐site wastewater management system

constructed to service staff, contractors or visitors;

(xiii) A program of inspection and procedures for the immediate remediation

of localised erosion within a specified response time; and

(xiv) Management procedures to prevent pollution of the local waterways,

particularly from wash water and waste concrete materials.

(d) A blasting plan. This plan is only required if blasting is proposed to be

undertaken at the site as part of the construction of the wind energy facility.

The plan must include the following:

(i) Name and qualification of the person responsible for blasting;

(ii) A description of the location of where the explosives will be used, and

the location of every licensed bore on any property with an adjoining

boundary within 1km of the location of the blasting;

Appendix C Page 152


(iii) A requirement for the identification and assessment of any potentially

sensitive site within 1km of the location of the blasting, including the

procedure for pre‐blast and post‐blast qualitative measurement or

monitoring at such site;

(iv) The procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation;

(v) The procedure for the storage and handling of explosives;

(vi) A requirement that blasting only occur after at least 48 hours prior

notification in writing of the intention to undertake blasting has been

given to the occupants of the properties which are located in whole or

in part within 1km of the location of the proposed blasting; and

(vii) A requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the hours of

8am and 4pm.

(e) Native Flora and Fauna Protection

(i) Require fauna habitat to be considered if there are any changes to the

location of wind energy facility infrastructure; and

(ii) Procedures for the rehabilitation of construction zones with appropriate

flora species.

(f) A pest animal management plan to be prepared in consultation with the

Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of

Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these departments.

This plan must include:

• Procedures for the control of pest animals, particularly by avoiding

opportunities for the sheltering of pests; and

• Follow‐up pest animal control for all areas disturbed by the wind

energy facility construction works for a period of two years following

the completion of the wind energy facility.

(g) A pest plant management plan developed in consultation with the owners

of the relevant land, and the Department of Sustainability and Environment

and the Department of Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these

departments. This plan must include:

• procedures to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens from earth

moving equipment and associated machinery including the cleaning of

all plant and equipment before transport to the site and the use of road

making material comprising clean fill that is free of weeds;

• revegetation of disturbed areas; and

Appendix C Page 153


• a protocol to ensure follow up weed control is undertaken on all areas

disturbed through construction of the wind energy facility for a

minimum period of 2 years following completion of the works.

(h) An on‐site landscaping plan. The on‐site landscaping plan must be

prepared within six months of the endorsement of plans under condition 1.

The on‐site landscaping plan must:

(i) Include plans drawn to scale showing the extent and layout of any

landscape plantings to be used to visually screen or otherwise beautify

any on‐site buildings or works other than the wind turbines;

(ii) Provide details of plant species proposed to be used in the landscape

plantings, including height and spread at maturity;

(iii) Provide a timetable for implementation of all landscape plantings; and

(iv) Provide for maintenance and monitoring program such as the health

and condition of planted material, replacement of plants.

(i) Road management plan. Before the development starts a road management

plan must be prepared, in consultation with the relevant road authority and

VicRoads, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning for submission to

and approval by the Minister for Planning.

The road management plan must:

(i) Identify all public roads and access points that will be used in the

construction and operation of the wind energy facility;

(ii) Provide for an existing conditions survey of public roads that will be

used in the construction and operation of the wind energy facility

including details of the suitability, design, construction standards and

condition of the roads to enable, for sealed roads, the calculation of

Total ESA (Equivalent Standard Axles) loading for comparison with the

appropriate Austroads pavement design guide;

(iii) Establish the appropriate existing equivalent renewal pavement design

and associated costs in conjunction with the relevant road authority and

VicRoads and establish the calculated damage (if any) directly

attributable to the wind energy facility and the amount (if any) to be

reimbursed to the relevant road authority;

(iv) Include the designation of routes, operating hours and speed limits for

oversize and overmass vehicles on routes accessing the site so as to

avoid significant interference with the passage of school buses, and to

provide for resident safety and the safe management of stock;

Appendix C Page 154


(v) Provide details of any large over dimensional vehicles to be used (such

as those used for the transport of the nacelles, blades and tower

sections) and details of the routes to be taken, the proposed escort

arrangements and requirements for over dimensional permits from

VicRoads;

(vi) Specify the need for road and intersection upgrades to accommodate

any additional traffic or site access requirements, whether temporary or

ongoing, and the timing of when these upgrades are to be undertaken;

(vii) Include measures to be used to manage traffic impacts associated with

the construction and ongoing operation of the wind energy facility

(including temporary speed zones and times of operation in accordance

with VicRoads ‘Roadworks Signing Code of Practice’) on the traffic

volumes and flows on surrounding roads;

(viii) Identify any areas of roadside native vegetation which need removal or

pruning and the pruning practices to be followed;

(ix) Include identification and timing of any Pre‐Construction works;

(x) Include a program of regular inspections, to be carried out during the

construction period, to identify the need for maintenance works

necessary as a result of construction traffic;

(xi) Include agreed criteria that will trigger repair and maintenance works;

and

(xii) Include a program to repair and maintain roads to the pre‐existing

condition identified by the above surveys during the construction and

operation phases.

(j) Emergency response plan. Before the development starts an emergency

response plan must be prepared.

The emergency response plan must be generally in accordance with

“Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms” (Country Fire

Authority April 2007).

The emergency response plan must be prepared in consultation with and to

the satisfaction of:

(i) Country Fire Authority;

(ii) Victoria Police;

(iii) Rural Ambulance Victoria;

(iv) State Emergency Service; and

Appendix C Page 155


(v) The Ararat Rural City Council and the Northern Grampians Shire

Council.

The emergency response plan should generally conform to “AS 3745‐2002

Emergency control organization and procedures for buildings, structures and

workplaces”, or any subsequent replacement or amendment.

The emergency response plan must include:

(i) Criteria for the provision of static water supply tanks, solely for fire

fighting purposes, including minimum capacities, appropriate

connections and signage;

(ii) Procedures for vegetation management, fuel control and the provision

of fire fighting equipment during declared fire danger periods;

(iii) Minimum standards for access roads and tracks, to allow access for fire

fighting vehicles, including criteria for access to static water supply

tanks for fire fighting vehicles;

(iv) The facilitation by the wind energy facility operator, before or within 3

months after the commencement of operation, of a familiarisation visit

to the site and explanation of emergency services procedures for the

relevant members of the Country Fire Authority, Rural Ambulance

Victoria, Victoria Police, State Emergency Service and Ararat Rural City

Council’s Emergency Management Committee;

(v) Subsequent familiarisation sessions for new personnel of those

organisations on a regular basis and/or as required; and

(vi) If requested, training of Country Fire Authority personnel in relation to

suppression of wind energy facility fires.

(k) Bird and bat management plan. Before the development starts a bird and

bat management plan (BBMP) must be prepared in consultation with the

Department of Sustainability and Environment. The use must accord with

the plan and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

The BBMP must include:

(i) A statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and

mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind

energy facility operations;

(ii) A monitoring program of at least two years duration either

commencing from the commissioning of the last turbine of the first

stage of the approved development and use (if any) or alternatively

such other time of commencement as is to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning;

Appendix C Page 156


(iii) Procedures for the reporting of any bird or bat strikes to the

Department of Sustainability and Environment within 7 days of

becoming aware of any strike identifying where possible whether the

strike was by a lit or unlit turbine;

(iv) Information on the efficacy of searches for carcases of birds and bats,

and where practical, information on the rate of removal of carcases by

scavengers, so that correction factors can be determined to enable

calculations of the total number of mortalities;

(v) Procedures for the regular removal of carcasses likely to attract raptors

to areas near turbines;

(vi) Procedures for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes, of the

findings of the monitoring to the Department of Sustainability and

Environment and the local community;

(vii) Recommendations in relation to a mortality rate for specified species

which would trigger the requirement for responsive mitigation

measures to be undertaken by the operator of the wind energy facility

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning; and

(viii) Implementation measures developed in consultation with the

Department of Sustainability and Environment to offset any impacts

detected during monitoring including turbine operation management

and on‐site or off‐site habitat enhancement (including management or

improvement of habitat or breeding sites).

Following the completion of the monitoring program in accordance with the

BBMP of at least 2 years duration, a report must be prepared by the operator

of the wind energy facility setting out the findings of the monitoring

program to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. If, after

consideration of this report, the Minister for Planning directs that further

investigation of potential or actual impacts on birds and bats is to be

undertaken, the extent and details of the further investigation must be to the

satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the

investigation must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

(l) In the event that impacts detected during the BBMP monitoring

program are considered by the Minister for Planning to be ecologically

significant, a monitoring and mitigation measures strategy must be

prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and

Environment to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When

approved the monitoring and mitigation measures strategy will be

endorsed and will then form part of this permit.

Appendix C Page 157


The monitoring and mitigation measures strategy must include, for

each species for which ecologically significant impacts have been

detected:

• Further monitoring of the ‘targeted’ species;

• Mitigation measures for ‘targeted’ species; and

• all to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

(m) A training program for construction workers, permanent employees

and contractors at the wind energy facility site including a site

induction program relating to the range of issues addressed by the

environmental management plan.

(n) Incident Management

(i) A procedure for the establishment and maintenance of an incident

register for the recording of:

• Environmental incidents

• Non‐conformances,

• Corrective actions.

(ii) The register must contain advice on to whom the reports must be

made and be available for inspection by the public during normal

working hours and its contents should be reported to the

responsible authority as required.

(o) A timetable for Implementation of all programs and works.

(p) A program for reviewing the operational phase of the endorsed

environmental management plan. The environmental management

plan must be reviewed at least once every 5 years in consultation with

the Ararat Rural City Council and the Minister for Planning, and if

necessary amended to reflect operational experience and changes in

environmental management standards and techniques. Any

amendment of the environmental management plan must be submitted

to the Minister for Planning for re‐endorsement.

COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT PLAN

16. A complaints management plan designed in accordance with Australian Standard

Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations (ISO

1002:2006) having regard to the guidance provided in The why and how of

complaints handling HB 229‐2006, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The complaints management plan will include procedures for:

Appendix C Page 158


(i) Readily accessible information on how complaints can be made free of cost to

complainants

(ii) Immediate acknowledgement of complaints and regular and comprehensive

feedback to complainants on actions proposed, their implementation and

success or otherwise

(iii) Closure of complaints by agreement with complainants

(iv) Establishment and maintenance of a complaint register for the recording of

receipt and acknowledgement of complaints, actions taken, success or

otherwise of actions and complaint closure and for the register to be

available to the public during normal working hours

(v) Reporting of the contents of the complaint register to the Ararat Rural City

Council as required, and

(vi) Regular, at least annual, auditing of the implementation of the complaints

management plan with audit results being reported to the responsible

authority.

OFF‐SITE MITIGATION LANDSCAPING PLAN

17.

(a) Within 6 months of the date of endorsement of the plans under Condition 1 a

program for voluntary landscape mitigation works must be made available

to the owners of dwellings built at the time [the planning permit application

is lodged [RES’ position][OR] the permit is granted [DPCD’s position] for the

wind energy facility within 3 kilometres of the nearest turbine.

(b) The offers to landscape dwellings identified in the program referred to in

condition (a) must be made before development starts and available up until

12 months after the commissioning of the last wind turbine of the

development or relevant stage.

(c) If a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works is accepted by one or

more owners under condition (a), as part of that program, an off‐site

landscaping plan must be prepared in consultation with the landowners

specified in condition (a) to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this

permit.

(d) The plan must provide details of planting or other treatments that will be

used to reduce the visual impact of the wind turbines at the dwellings of the

participating landowners.

Substance 24(b) and (c) of original conditions to be included, ie:

Appendix C Page 159


24(b) of original off‐site landscaping condition relates to maintenance of

landscaping for a period of two years. [However, noting that RES cannot be

held accountable for maintenance issues on neighbouring lands outside the

site boundary].

24(c) of original condition relates to a timetable for implementation of

landscaping works.

ROADWORKS REQUIREMENTS (VICROADS)

18. The local roads identified in the Traffic and Transport Assessment Report (ref

01732‐002820) that will be used to exit onto the arterial roads must be constructed

to allow for the vehicle path and sealed back a minimum of 20 metres from edge of

seal of the arterial road.

19. Prior to the start of the development the developer must:

(a) Submit final detailed construction drawings of the altered intersections

including line marking to be approved by VicRoads.

(b) Prepare a specification for the works in accordance with the relevant sections

of the VicRoads’ Standard Specification For Roadworks.

20. RES suggest combining these three roadwork conditions (18, 19 & 20) into a single

condition. All roadworks must be completed to the satisfaction of VicRoads prior

to the commencement of the development. The contractor must be VicRoads

approved or prequalified at R1 level. All works must be at the developers cost.

TELEVISION AND RADIO RECEPTION AND INTERFERENCE

21. Before the development starts a television and radio reception plan must be

prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the

plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit.

The television and radio reception plan must include:

(a) A definition of the area to be covered by the television and radio reception

plan (the defined area) based on the recommendations of a suitably qualified

expert

(b) A Pre‐Construction survey to determine television and radio reception

strength and quality at locations within the defined area, completed prior to

the commissioning of any turbine. The location of such monitoring is to be

determined by an independent television and radio monitoring specialist

appointed by the wind energy facility operator

(c) A procedure for post‐construction survey at any dwelling in the defined area

that existed at the date of the Pre‐Construction survey in response to any

complaint received regarding the wind energy facility having an adverse

effect on television or radio reception

Appendix C Page 160


(d) A procedure for the implementation of mitigation measures at any dwelling

in the defined area that existed at the date of the Pre‐Construction survey if

the post‐construction survey establishes any increase in interference to

reception as a result of the wind energy facility operations. The mitigation

measures shall return the affected reception to Pre‐Construction quality and

be undertaken at the cost of the wind energy facility operator, all to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning

BLADE SHADOW FLICKER

22. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per annum

at any dwelling existing as at the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning. In determining compliance with this condition, the results

of a geometric computer simulation model is evidence of compliance with this

condition.

Any dwelling within the Site Boundary will be exempt from this condition if it is

the subject of an agreement with the landowner and is registered on title.

NOISE LIMITS

23. Except as provided below in this condition, the operation of the wind energy

facility must comply with the noise criteria specified in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics ‐

The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ at

any dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility

as at the date of the issue of this permit, to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

Compliance must be assessed separately for all‐time and night time. For the

purpose of this requirement, night time is defined as 10.00pm to 7.00am.

Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from this condition. This

exemption will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner that

must apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on title. Such

dwellings will be known as host dwellings.

NOISE COMPLIANCE TESTING

Please note RES’ submission that noise compliance testing should only be done in

response to complaints. This is discussed further in RES’ response to the DPCD’s

submission regarding this noise condition and an alternative condition to the existing

condition 24 is proposed.

24. Before the development starts, a noise compliance testing plan must be prepared

by a suitably qualified acoustics expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

Appendix C Page 161


When approved, the noise compliance testing plan will be endorsed be the

Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.

(i) The noise compliance testing plan must include:

(a) A prediction, by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, of the area within

which the noise level from the wind energy facility during full

operation will be 35dB(A) or greater;

(b) Identification of all dwellings, excluding host dwellings, within the area

predicted in (a) above and a statement as to whether consent from the

owner of each of the identified dwellings for compliance testing has

been obtained or refused;

(c) A method or methods of testing compliance with the noise limits

prescribed in Condition 23 of this permit for each dwelling or at a

dwelling that is a representative sample of a group of dwellings

identified in (b) above for which consent for the conduct of compliance

testing has been obtained.

The compliance testing method must be either:

(i) The method described in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the

Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators’ with the following criteria being met:

• The regression curves required must be derived from a data

set:

- Of at least 500 noise level/wind speed data pairs; and

- Including hub height wind speeds. or

(ii) A method, designed by a suitably qualified acoustics expert

(d) A process for compliance testing under which compliance testing at all

dwellings identified under (c) for which consent for such testing has

been obtained is performed at some time in the 14 months following the

commissioning of the last turbine in a stage of the wind energy facility,

if the development is in stages;

(e) A procedure for the assessment, by a suitably qualified acoustics expert,

of the characteristics of the noise from the wind energy facility to

determine if that noise has any special audible characteristics that

require the addition of 5 dB(A) to the measured operating noise levels

as required in Condition 23 of this permit;

(f) A procedure under which all results of compliance testing conducted in

any month are reported to the Minister for Planning for approval by the

15th day of the following month and made available upon request to

Appendix C Page 162


the owners and occupiers of particular dwellings as soon as results

relating to that particular dwelling are available; and

(g) A procedure under which the implementation of the noise compliance

testing plan is directed and supervised by a suitable qualified acoustic

expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

NOISE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

25. If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in Condition 23 of this permit is

detected, the wind energy facility operator must:

(a) Within 30 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, take sufficient actions

to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling as

predicted using the prediction methodology contained in NS6808:1998

‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators’ by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of exceedance

(b) Within 30 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, provide the

responsible authority and the owner/occupier of the dwelling with:

(i) The results of the compliance testing measurements including the

magnitude of the detected exceedance

(ii) Details of the actions taken to reduce the wind energy facility noise

emissions, and

(iii) Evidence that the actions taken will produce a decrease in the wind

energy facility noise level at the dwelling by an amount equal to the

magnitude of the exceedance based on a prediction using the

methodology of NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and

Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’.

(c) Continue to operate the wind energy facility with the implemented actions

until approval for a different mode of operation is given by the responsible

authority under the provision of (d) below

(d) Within 60 days of the detection of an exceedance provide the responsible

authority and owner/occupier of the dwelling with either:

(i) The result of compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in

Condition 24 of this permit that demonstrate compliance, or

(ii) A program for the development and evaluation of an alternative mode

of wind energy facility operation that can be reasonably be expected to

result in continuing compliance with noise levels as allowed in

Condition 23 of this permit.

(iii) The program will:

Appendix C Page 163


• Be developed and implemented under the supervision of a

suitably qualified acoustics expert;

• Include detailed descriptions of proposed actions;

• Include predictions of wind energy facility noise levels at the

dwelling at each stage of the program;

• Not include any actions or combination of actions that are

predicted to result in non‐compliance;

• Include compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in

Condition 24 of this permit; and

• Include a program schedule that specifies the timing of each stage

of the program,

to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

If the responsible authority requires the program to be modified, the wind energy

facility operator may either submit a modified program or immediately withdraw

the program and conduct compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in

Condition 24 of this permit.

Following implementation of the program, the wind energy facility operator may

provide the responsible authority and the owner/occupier with a detailed

description of an alternative mode of operation of the wind energy facility

together with evidence that under that mode of operation compliance can be

expected, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Given such information

and evidence the responsible authority may approve the operation of the wind

energy facility in the alternative mode and such approval will not be unreasonably

withheld.

DECOMMISSIONING

26. The wind energy facility operator must, no later than one month after all wind

turbines have permanently ceased to generate electricity, notify the Minister for

Planning in writing of the cessation of the use. Within a further six months of this

date, the wind energy facility operator, or in the absence of the operator, the

owner of the land on which the relevant turbines(s) is/are located, must prepare a

decommissioning plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When

approved, the decommissioning plan will become part of this permit.

27. The decommissioning plan must provide for the following:

(a) The removal of all above ground operational equipment

(b) The removal and clean up of any residual spills or contamination

Appendix C Page 164


(c) The rehabilitation of all storage, construction, access tracks and other areas

affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise useful to

the on‐going management of the subject land

(d) A decommissioning traffic management plan

(e) A post decommissioning revegetation management plan

The decommissioning plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority within 24 months of approval of the plan or within such

other timeframe as may be specified by the responsible authority.

EXPIRY

28. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(i) the development is not started within 5 years of the date of this permit;

(ii) the development is not completed within 8 years of the date of this permit.

The Minister for Planning may extend the periods referred to if a request is made

in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Notes:

If it is proposed to removal or destroy vegetation that is listed under the Flora and

Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999, further consent in writing must be obtained from the

Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Appendix D Page 165


APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (PREPARED BY THE PROPONENT)

Anna Williams of Freehills (acting for RES Australia) emailed Planning Panels

Victoria on 28 July 2010, attaching a file titled “EMP information final” and with

the following relevant comment in the text of the email:

“In response to your email below, please find attached the EMP (including

the changes requested by the Panel) and the draft permit conditions. In the

draft permit conditions, text in mark‐up (without highlight) and text

highlighted in yellow was discussed during the panel hearing. Text

highlighted in green has been inserted subsequent to the panel and reflects

RES’ further submissions.”

The text of the electronic document is copied below. The copying process has

resulted in text in Appendix B exactly as received electronically by the Panel on

28 July 2010. A hard copy of the same document was provided at the Panel

Hearing (Document No 28) that had tracked changes in blue, but the tracked

changes were accepted in the document emailed to the Panel on 28 July 2010.

Ararat Wind Farm

Environmental Management Plan

(mitigation, monitoring, enforcement and rehabilitation)

Preamble

This Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is at the Panel Hearing stage and

will be added to or revised as further information becomes available. It is

subject to the requirements of the permit conditions and it is anticipated that

should the proposed Ararat Wind Energy Facility be approved, the planning

permit conditions will require the review and updating of this EMP in

accordance with any permit conditions.

Furthermore, as a live document, the EMP will also be revised, where

applicable, in response to any micro‐siting of wind farm infrastructure.

Before the development starts, an environmental management plan (EMP) shall

be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, in consultation with

the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Ararat Rural City

Appendix D Page 166


Council, the Northern Grampians Shire, Country Fire Authority and other

agencies as specified in the Planning Permit conditions or as further directed by

the Minister for Planning. The EMP shall be based on the approach outlined in

Chapter 6.2.9 of the report titled Ararat Wind Farm, Planning Permit

Application Documentation, Volume 1, dated January 2010. The EMP may be

prepared in sections or stages. When approved, the plan will be endorsed by

the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.

The EMP will require progressive development as design and construction

proceed, but will at any point in time, provide a clear statement of the project’s

environmental commitments.

The Directions of the Panel for the Ararat Wind Farm Panel Hearing, dated 31

May, 2010 states:

“… Matters to be addressed at the Hearing

5. In submitting to the Panel, RES Australia should address the following particular matters at the Hearing:

a. A response to the revised Policy and Planning Guidelines for

Wind Energy Facilities (September 2009), both generally and in

particular relating to the preparation of an EMP (see below

under b);

b. Concerning the Pre‐Construction and construction phase, there

is a summary treatment of “Environmental Mitigation and

Management Measures” (pages 85 – 89), but no monitoring

proposals. The application requirements for a Wind Energy

Facility includes “An environmental management plan

including any rehabilitation and monitoring.” (quoted on page

141 of the Main Report). No such plan has been provided for

the operational phase, merely a commitment to make one at a

later date. The proponent is requested to provide further detail

for the EMP at each of the Pre‐Construction and construction

phase, and the operational phase. These EMPs will require

progressive development as design and construction proceed,

but should, at any point in time, provide a clear statement of the

proponent’s commitments. Where the detail is not yet available,

principles or an indicative summary should be provided. The

recommendations in the consultant reports should be listed in

the relevant part of the EMP and clarification provided whether

the proponent commits to them, or merely notes them as being a

matter for reference. Monitoring measures should be detailed

where possible. Turbine noise is one particular area where the

proposed monitoring should be detailed. The points raised in

Appendix D Page 167


submissions, and particularly the requirements of referral

authorities and agencies should also be considered in the EMP

and detailed. …”

In addition to the EMP Framework provided in Section 6.2.9 of the report titled

Ararat Wind Farm, Planning Permit Application Documentation, Volume 1,

dated January 2010, RES Australia commits to the following plans, procedures,

monitoring, enforcement and rehabilitation measures during each of the phases

of development, being:


Construction Phase;



Furthermore, any monitoring programs, complaints and incidents registers will

be provided to the DPCD at a time stipulated by this EMP or upon request by

the DPCD to be made available for public inspection at the Department.

Appendix D Page 168



Pre-Construction Phase (P-C) Content to include Requirement / Recommendation of

P-C Timetable for implementation of all programs and works.

The timetable will be in the form of a Gantt Chart that shows the programs and works to be completed during Pre-Construction phase.

It will be aimed to ensure safety in design principles are upheld throughout all programs and works.

Department of Sustainability and Environment

(Based on the DPCD’s Model Wind Energy Conditions, February 2009)

P-C Flowchart of responsibility The flowchart will show the persons (and their respective titles) responsible for managing the EMP and coordinating the project design

P-C Training and induction program

This program will be provided to the designers and people involved within the design and Pre-Construction phase and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and Pre-Construction issues.



P-C Landscape/visual amenity plan

An on-site landscape will be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan will include:

a) landscaping to screen the substation, switchyard and associated buildings other than the turbines;

b) details of plant species proposed to be used in the landscaping, including height and spread at maturity;

c) a timetable for implementation of all landscaping works;

d) a maintenance and monitoring program; and

e) surfacing of access tracks in a manner which does not unduly contrast


(Based on the DPCD’s Model Wind Energy Conditions, February 2009

Appendix D Page 169



with the landscape.

If an off-site program of voluntary landscape mitigation works is accepted by one or more owners as set out in the permit, RES will prepare an off-site landscaping plan in consultation with those landowners and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

The off-site landscaping plan will provide details of planting or other treatments that will be used to reduce the visual impact of the wind turbines at the dwellings of the participating landowners.

P-C Native Vegetation Offset Management Plan.

Prior to clearing any native vegetation, this plan be prepared by a suitably qualified ecological specialist and will identify appropriate offset options to achieve the offset targets recommended in the Flora and Fauna Assessment.

It will be submitted to the Department of Sustainability and Environment for approval and will include:

a) Details of the proposed offsets which will achieve a net gain in quality and quantity of native vegetation in accordance with the principles and guidelines associated with the Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action (DSE 2002) and the periodic updating of this work as necessary.

b) Fully dimensioned plans (drawn to an appropriate scale), which clearly show the locations, boundaries and title details of all offset sites. The plans must also clearly show the boundaries of any different management zones and the location of any proposed fencing.

c) Type of offsets to be provided for each location.


All of the recommendations in the Flora and Fauna Assessment by Brett Lane and Associates (set out in part 8) will be adopted by RES

Appendix D Page 170



d) Details of revegetation including number of trees, shrubs and other plants, species mix and density.

e) Methods of managing and restoring the vegetation, including revegetation, such as fencing, weed control, enhancement planting and other habitat management actions.

f) A statement of the need for revegetation works to be carried out by a suitably qualified ecological specialist.

g) Persons responsible for implementing and monitoring the offset plan.

h) A time frame for implementing the offset plan

P-C Carry out further Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment

The further assessment will take approximately four to five weeks and will be carried out by a field team comprising two archaeologists and one Registered Aboriginal Party representative. If the fieldwork is unable to satisfactorily identify the nature, extent and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage, additional assessment may be required to fulfil r.61 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. However, this is only to occur if unexpected Aboriginal cultural heritage is found during the further assessment.

The further assessment will involve carrying the following work:

• Carry out detailed mapping and investigation of surface features including:

- quartz outcrops which have some potential or superficial evidence of working; and

- high density scatters of coarse fragments.

• Site investigation will involve the detailed mapping of quartz distribution

All of the recommendations in Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standard Assessment report (set out in part 6.2) will be adopted by RES.

Appendix D Page 171



and detailed sampling and analysis of quartz fragments to determine their cultural / non-cultural status.

• A specialist in quartz quarries and stone artefact analysis will participate in this fieldwork and analysis.

• If any location is assessed to be an Aboriginal site, then subsurface testing may be carried out to determine if there are any subsurface archaeological remains.

• The following subsurface testing will be conducted:

- At depositional landforms assessed as having potential for the presence of subsurface stone artefact scatters. These areas include plains within 100m of watercourses and minor swamps / wetlands.

- A small control sample of subsurface testing at proposed development locations assessed as having very low potential archaeological sensitivity.

• Subsurface testing will comprise a combination of controlled hand excavated 1m x 1m test pits and 50cm x 50cm probes down to underlying substrate. Excavations will be conducted according to proper archaeological practise.

Archaeological works and plans to be monitored and approved by the Registered Aboriginal Party and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

P-C Traffic and transport management plan

The plan will be developed in consultation with Ararat Rural City Council, VicRoads and VicRail and must be approved by DPCD. It will include the following measures and information:

• Traffic movements of over-size and over-mass vehicles minimised during

All of the recommendations in the Traffic and Transport Assessment (set out in section 7) will be adopted by RES.

Appendix D Page 172



peak times.

• Pilot and Escort vehicles will be used in accordance with VicRoads requirements.

• Access routes will be determined in consultation with the local Ararat Rural City Council and VicRoads. All over-size and over-mass vehicles are to use the approved routes.

• Existing and designated tracks and roads will be used for access (unless in an emergency) during all project activities.

• Appropriate signage will be erected, as required by relevant authorities in relation to the proposed Ararat Wind Farm.

• Materials and equipment will be sourced, where practical, from within the subject site and the surrounding local area, thus reducing total haulage traffic.

• Regular inspections of access roads and tracks will be carried out during construction activities and road maintenance work will be completed as required.

• Roads and access will be maintained during the construction phase of the project, and will be carried out in consultation with the Council and VicRoads, and to appropriate road standards.

• Site personnel will be instructed to employ safe driving and operating practices at all times.

• Appropriate public notice should be provided if significant public inconvenience is expected to occur during construction activities.

Appendix D Page 173



• Temporary traffic control measures during the construction phase to accommodate oversize and overmass vehicle access (e.g. one-way operation of certain roads during times used by oversize or overmass delivery vehicles).

• Plans in accordance with VicRail consultations.

P-C Sediment, erosion and water quality management plan.

This plan will be developed in consultation with the relevant Catchment Management Authorities and must be approved by the DPCD. It will include:

• A soil and water management plan, which will outline a strategy for the management of soil and water resources within the project area.

• A water quality monitoring program to ensure erosion prevention measures and remedial actions are maintained and are effective.

• Detailed design of the site drainage system.

• Results of geotechnical investigations to identify soils of erosion or dispersion risk and enable safe and efficient design of turbine foundations, tracks, hardstandings and site buildings.

• Results of construction monitoring program.

• Requirements to:

- identify, prior to the on-ground siting of access tracks and earthworks, areas known to be particularly or potentially prone to erosion and avoid those areas where possible.

- stockpile topsoil requiring removal separately from excavation spoil, with spoil and topsoil backfilled in a manner which does not result in soil inversion (i.e. to ensure soil layers are backfilled in the correct



All of the recommendations in the Geology and Hydrology Assessment (parts 4, 5, 6 and 7) will be adopted by RES

Appendix D Page 174



order) or erosion.

- fit erosion and sediment control devices (e.g. hay bales) down slope of construction-sites (where required) to prevent erosion events and capture potential sediment wash and regularly maintain these devices.

- keep and maintain spill kits at storage areas and works areas where hazardous materials occur or are handled.

- regularly inspect construction sites to detect any erosion events. If such events occur, remedial action will be undertaken. This will include soil stabilisation measures such as revegetation or laying physical stabilisation material followed by revegetation.

- if an incident occurs that adversely impacts on soil or surface water, review management procedures to ensure no recurrence of the incident.

- manage hazardous materials, waste and sewage to ensure no contamination of soils occur.

- appropriately transport and store all hazardous products in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations to avoid release to the environment.

- properly classify and appropriately store all hazardous materials, with incompatible materials stored separately from one another. Fuels and oils will be stored in bunded areas.

- handle and utilise all hazardous materials in accordance with statutory regulations and label instructions. All personnel handling and using hazardous chemicals will be appropriately trained.

Appendix D Page 175



- train employees who handle, transport or utilise hazardous materials in emergency response for spill events.

- regularly inspect hazardous materials storage and usage areas, and equipment utilising hazardous materials, to detect leakage or misuse.

- investigate incidents involving the mishandling, transportation or inadequate storage of hazardous materials and implement appropriate remedial action.

- leave the amount of exposed earth as a result of clearing to a minimum.

- employ, during working times, specified dust suppression techniques to exposed surfaces potentially causing significant dust emissions, including:

- dust mitigation measures; and

- limiting traffic access across exposed surfaces.

- implement remedial action where vegetation is impacted by excessive dust emissions. In this event, also carry out a review of operational procedures and dust suppression techniques to avoid recurrence of the event.

- locate material Stockpiles on cleared agricultural land, wherever possible and no closer than 5m of trees, to avoid the effects of soil compaction upon trees and native vegetation understorey.

- avoid locating stockpiles where they can significantly affect native vegetation associations or in areas that threaten loss of stockpile

Appendix D Page 176



material through natural processes.

- minimise stockpile numbers.

- reinstate compacted areas resulting from the storage of stockpiles, site facilities and wind farm components in consultation with relevant landowners.

P-C Television and radio reception survey

This survey will identify households that will/are experiencing television and/or radio reception difficulties as a result of the wind farm and will include a commitment to provide specified mitigation measures to rectify those difficulties where appropriate.

The survey will be provided to DPCD and will include as a minimum:

a) A definition of the area to be covered by the television and radio reception plan (the defined area) based on the recommendations of a suitably qualified expert

b) A Pre-Construction survey to determine television and radio reception strength at locations within the defined area, completed prior to the commissioning of any turbine. The location of such monitoring is to be determined by an independent television and radio monitoring specialist appointed by the wind energy facility operator

(Based on the DPCD’s Model Wind Energy Conditions, February 2009).

All of the recommendations set out in the Electromagnetic Interference Assessment (section 4.3) will be adopted by RES.

Appendix D Page 177


Construction Phase (C) Content to include Requirement / Recommendation of

C Training and induction program for workers

This program will be provided to the construction workers and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and construction health, safety and quality issues.

The program will also involve providing site rules and enforcement measures to all workers.



C Flowchart of responsibility. The flowchart will show the persons (and their respective titles) responsible for managing the EMP during the construction phase.

C Construction and work site management plan.

The timetable will be in the form of a Gantt Chart that shows the programs and works to be completed during construction phase.

The plan will include details of health, safety and quality management measures.

This plan will identify all EMP obligations that are required during the construction phase and will include:

• procedures for access, noise control, dust emissions, spills and leaks from the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials and pollution management. Such construction and work site procedures are to be in accordance with EPA requirements;

• the identification of all potential contaminants stored on site;

• the identification of all construction and operational processes that could potentially lead to water contamination;



Appendix D Page 178



• the identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational methods to control any identified contamination risks;

• the identification of waste re-use, recycling and disposal procedures;

• appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff in accordance with the EPA Publication 891.1 Septic Tanks Code of Practice;

• a timetable, where practicable for the construction of turbine bases, access tracks and power cabling during warmer months to minimise impacts on ephemeral wetlands, local fauna and sediment mobilisation;

• procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and equipment use designated tracks and works areas to avoid impacts on native vegetation

• procedures to protect, as far as practicable, native fauna and domestic stock from being injured by or entrapped in excavations or trenches and to fill trenches as soon as practical after excavation; and

• the removal of works, buildings and staging area on completion of construction of the project.

C Sediment, erosion and water quality management plan.

Prior to the Construction Phase, where relevant the matters listed for this area in the Pre-Construction phase will be repeated here, together with monitoring and compliance provisions

All of the recommendations in the Geology and Hydrology Assessment (parts 4, 5, 6 and 7) will be adopted by RES.

Appendix D Page 179



C Blasting plan. The plan will include measures to control noise, dust and vibration impact of any blasting. It will also include remedial action where any complaints from blasting impacts are received and will include:

• name and qualification of the person responsible for blasting;

• a description of the location of where the explosives will be used, and the location of every licensed bore on any property with an adjoining boundary within 1km of the location of the blasting;

• a requirement for the identification and assessment of any potentially sensitive site within 1 km of the location of the blasting, including the procedure for pre-blast and post-blast qualitative measurement or monitoring at such site;

• the procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation;

• the procedure for the storage and handling of explosives;

• a requirement that blasting only occur after at least 48 hours prior notification in writing of the intention to undertake blasting has been given to the occupants of the properties which are located in whole or in part within 1km of the location of the proposed blasting; and

• a requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the hours of 8am and 4pm.



C Fire prevention and emergency response plan

This plan will be prepared in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and the Ararat Rural City Council. This plan is to include:

• criteria for the provision of static water supply tanks solely for fire fighting



Appendix D Page 180



purposes, including minimum capacities, appropriate connections and signage,

• procedures for vegetation management, fuel control and the provision of fire fighting equipment during declared fire danger periods;

• minimum standards for access roads and tracks to allow access for fire fighting vehicles including criteria for access to static water supply tanks for fire fighting vehicles;

• the facilitation by the operator, within 1 month prior to the commencement of the operation of the wind energy facility, of a familiarisation visit to the site and explanation of emergency services procedures for the Country Fire Authority, Rural Ambulance Victoria, State Emergency Services, Department of Sustainability and the Environment, the Ararat Rural City Council Municipal Emergency Management Committee and Victoria Police;

• subsequent familiarisation sessions for new personnel of those organisations on a regular basis and/or as required; and

• if requested, training of authority personnel in relation to suppression of wind energy facility fires.

C Hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan.

The plan will include:

• procedures for the control of pest animals, particularly by avoiding opportunities for the sheltering of pests; and

• follow-up pest animal control for all areas disturbed by the wind energy facility construction works for a period of two years following the completion of the wind energy facility.



Appendix D Page 181



C Native vegetation management plan.


• protocols to achieve the required net gains if native vegetation disturbance and removal cannot be avoided for the construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the project;

• procedures for the rehabilitation of construction zones with appropriate pasture species or, if in areas of native vegetation, appropriate indigenous revegetation; and

• procedures for ensuring that native vegetation near turbines, access tracks, underground cabling and other wind farm infrastructure will not be adversely affected by construction and operation of the wind farm.



All of the recommendations in the Flora and Fauna Assessment by Brett Lane and Associates (set out in part 8.1.5) and the BL&A Expert Witness Report (Section 4) will be adopted by RES.

C Pest animal management plan. The plan will include:





The recommendations in Brett Lane’s Expert Witness Statement regarding pest management plan (set out in part 4) will be adopted by RES

Appendix D Page 182



C Pest plant management plan. The plan will include:

• procedures to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens from earth moving equipment and associated machinery including the cleaning of all plant and equipment before transport to the site and the use of road making material comprising clean fill that is free of weeds;

• revegetation of disturbed areas as described in Condition 11 f(ii); and

• a protocol to ensure follow-up weed control is undertaken on all areas disturbed through construction of the wind energy facility for a minimum period of 2 years following completion of the works.



The recommendations in Brett Lane’s Expert Witness Statement regarding pest management plan (set out in part 4) will be adopted by RES

C Incident management plan This register will include any environmental incidents, non-conformances, complaints, corrective actions and notification requirements

The register will be attached to the EMP and provided to DPCD upon request and will include:

• A procedure for the establishment and maintenance of an incident register for the recording of: o Environmental incidents o Non�conformances, and o Corrective actions.

The register must be available for inspection by the public during normal working hours and its contents should be reported to the responsible authority as required.

Records of any complaints received and corrective actions undertaken will also be provided to DPCD upon request.



Appendix D Page 183


Operation Phase (O) Content to include Requirement

O Training and induction program for workers.

This program will be provided to all employees, contractors and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and construction health, safety and quality issues.

The program will also involve providing site rules and enforcement measures to all workers and visitors.



O Flowchart of responsibility The flowchart will show the persons (and their respective titles) responsible for managing the EMP during the operation phase.

O Noise compliance testing plan Prior to operation, this plan will be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

The plan will detail the results from the noise compliance assessment that show the wind farm’s level of compliance with applicable acoustic standards.


O Noise compliance enforcement procedures plan

This plan outline relevant individuals’ responsibilities in ensuring noise compliance, reporting protocols and procedures to investigate and report on noise complaints and require the implementation of corrective and preventative action as appropriate.


O Bat and avifauna management plan

A bat and Avifauna Management Plan (BAM Plan) will be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The BAM Plan will include:

• a statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind energy facility operations;



Appendix D Page 184



• a monitoring program of at least 2 years duration , either commencing upon the commissioning of the last turbine of the first stage of the approved development and use (if any) or alternatively such other time of commencement as is to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

• the monitoring program must include surveys during breeding and migratory seasons to ascertain:

o the species, number, age, sex (if possible) and date of any bird or bat strike;

o the number and species of birds and bats struck at lit versus unlit turbines;

o any seasonal and yearly variation in the number of bird and bat strikes;

o whether further detailed investigations of any potential impacts on birds and bats are warranted.

• any such required further detailed investigations are to be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

• procedures for the reporting of any bird and bat strikes to the Department of Sustainability and Environment within 7 days of becoming aware of any strike identifying where possible whether the strike was by a lit or unlit turbine;

• information on the efficacy of searches for carcasses of birds and bats, and, where practicable, information on the rate of removal of carcases by scavengers, so that correction factors can be determined to enable calculations of the total number of mortalities;

The recommendations in Brett Lane’s Expert Witness Statement regarding Bat and avifauna management plan (set out in part 4) will be adopted by RES

Appendix D Page 185



• procedures for the regular removal of carcasses likely to attract raptors to areas near turbines;

• procedures for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes, of the findings of the monitoring to the Department of Sustainability and Environment;

• recommendations in relation to a mortality rate for specified species which would trigger the requirement for responsive mitigation measures to be undertaken by the operator of the wind energy facility to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning; and

• implementation measures developed in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment to offset any impacts detected during monitoring including turbine operation management and on-site or off-site habitat enhancement (including management or improvement of habitat or breeding sites).

• following the completion of the monitoring program, a report will be prepared by the operator of the wind energy facility setting out the findings of the program to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. If, after consideration of this report, the Minister for Planning directs that further investigation of potential or actual impacts on birds and bats is to be undertaken, the extent and details of the further investigation must be to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the investigation must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

Appendix D Page 186



O Television and radio reception plan

This plan will identify any households that are experiencing television and/or radio reception difficulties as a result of the wind farm and will include a commitment to provide specified mitigation measures to rectify those difficulties where appropriate.

The plan will be provided to DPCD and will include as a minimum:

a) A procedure for post-construction survey at any dwelling in the defined area that existed at the date of the Pre-Construction survey in response to any complaint received regarding the wind energy facility having an adverse effect on television or radio reception

b) A procedure for the implementation of mitigation measures at any dwelling in the defined area that existed at the date of the Pre-Construction survey if the post-construction survey establishes any increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind energy facility operations. The mitigation measures shall return the affected reception to Pre-Construction quality and be undertaken at the cost of the wind energy facility operator, all to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning


All of the recommendations set out in the Electromagnetic Interference Assessment (section 4.3) will be adopted by RES.

O CASA-endorsed nacelle lighting plan, should night lighting of the wind farm be required

This plan will include a revised CASA-endorsed nacelle lighting plan that relates to the approved and constructed turbine layout.

A copy of the revised CASA-endorsed plan will be provided to DPCD, ARCC and NGSC.

All of the recommendations of the Aviation Assessment (particularly section 3) will be adopted by RES.

Appendix D Page 187



O Bushfire mitigation plan This plan will be developed in consultation with the CFA and in accordance with the Electricity Safety Act and will be provided to Energy Safe Victoria for approval.

It will detail operational activities that will employ best practice with regard to fire management.

Country Fire Association (in its submission to PPV).

O Sediment, erosion and water quality management plan.

Refer to content set out in the Pre-Construction phase above. All of the recommendations in the Geology and Hydrology Assessment (parts 5, 6 and 7) will be adopted by RES.

O Complaints and incidents register

This register will include any environmental incidents, non-conformances, complaints, corrective actions and notification requirements.

The register will be attached to the EMP and provided to DPCD upon request.



(Based on the DPCD’s Model Wind Energy Conditions, February 2009

Appendix D Page 188


Decommissioning Phase (C) Content to include Requirement

D Training and induction program This program will be provided to all employees and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and construction health, safety and quality issues.




D Decommissioning plan The timetable will be in the form of a Gantt Chart that shows the programs and works to be completed during decommissioning phase.

The plan will detail the methodology for removing all above-ground infrastructure and will include details on health, safety and quality management measures.

The plan will be submitted for to the Minister for Planning for approval.


D Site rehabilitation plan The plan will detail the methodology for removing infrastructure and return specified lands to pasture (i.e. turbine foundations, anemometer foundations, internal overhead powerline locations and electrical substation location). In particular, the plan will include:

Turbines: Removal of all turbine infrastructure and recycling of materials. Foundations to be covered with topsoil and returned to pasture.

Anemometers: Removal of Anemometer infrastructure. Foundations to be covered with topsoil and returned to pasture.

Underground Cabling: Will remain in-situ.

Proposed by RES

Appendix D Page 189


Decommissioning Phase (C) Content to include Requirement

Overhead Powerlines: Removal of internal powerline infrastructure within the wind farm.

Access Tracks: Will remain for the benefit of the landowner to maintain access throughout property.

Substation: Substation infrastructure to be removed. Foundations to be covered with topsoil and returned to pasture.

Maintenance and Servicing Facility: Decommission communications equipment. Building and storage facility can remain for benefit of landowner.

D Decommissioning traffic management plan

This plan will detail traffic and transport management measures for removal of oversize and overmass turbine components from the site to recycling / re-use and disposal facilities.

It will be prepared in consultation with VicRoads, ARCC and VicRail and will be submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.


All of the recommendations in the Traffic and Transport Assessment (set out in section 7) will be adopted by RES.

D Complaints and incidents register






Appendix E Page 190


APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED PLANNING PERMIT

Note: the permit covering that part of the Ararat WEF within the Northern Grampians

Shire will be identical, save for the property addresses and the number of

turbines being specified as 5 (rather than 70).

PLANNING PERMIT Permit No.: 09/004799

Planning Scheme: Ararat Planning Scheme

Responsible Authority for Administration and Enforcement

of this Permit: Ararat Rural City Council

ADDRESS OF THE

LAND:

Note to DPCD: Repeat the addresses previously provided

THE PERMIT ALLOWS: The use and development of a wind energy facility

comprising 70 generators and associated infrastructure

including access roads, cabling, permanent anemometers,

internal powerlines, substations, excavation of rock

material, earthworks, temporary concrete batching plants,

maintenance and storage facilities, car parking, removal of

native vegetation and alterations to roads and access to

roads within a Road Zone Category 1.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO BE ENDORSED

1. Before the development starts (following Pre‐Construction phase preliminary

investigative works and the carrying out of detailed design works), Development

Plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The plans

must be drawn to scale with dimensions and graphic scale. Three copies must be

provided. The plans may be submitted for approval in stages or for a particular

grouping of wind turbines within the subject land. When approved, the plans will

be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.

The plans must show the location and layout of the wind turbines and all on‐site

buildings and works generally in accordance with Figure 2.2 of the application

plans.

The plans must also include:

Appendix E Page 191


(a) A list of map coordinates for each wind turbine;

(b) The distance of each wind turbine from the nearest point on the site

boundary as depicted in Figure 2.2 of the application plans;

(c) Details of the model and rated capacity of the wind turbines to be installed;

(d) Elevation drawings, showing dimensions, of the wind turbines and other

permanent on‐site buildings (e.g. substation facilities);

(e) Drawings, showing the key physical dimensions, of all on‐site buildings and

works including:

(i) Wind turbines;

(ii) Access tracks;

(iii) Internal collector network trenches;

(iv) Any temporary concrete batching plant(s);

(v) The substation (including designated car parking areas, signage and

landscaping);

(vi) Any ancillary works (e.g. temporary facilities and operations within the

construction compounds); and

(vii) The infrastructure zone.

(f) A description of the materials and finishes of the wind turbine towers,

nacelles, rotor blades and other permanent on‐site buildings. The wind

turbine towers, nacelles and rotor blades must be of a non‐reflective finish

and colour;

(g) A description of the location, type and intensity of any aviation obstacle

lighting to be installed

(h) The locations of scattered native trees and the boundaries of any patches of

native vegetation, in relation to all buildings and works, in all cases where

such trees and patches are within 25 metres of the buildings or works

(i) Drawings demonstrating that the placement of turbine locations will not

interfere with the exclusion zones of any licensed communications links

(j) The location of all host dwellings and non‐host dwellings within 3km of the

nearest turbine.

(k) The permitted use and development must be conducted in accordance with

all plans that are endorsed under this permit

2. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of Pre‐Construction phase

preliminary investigative works is approved and can be carried out before the

plan(s) are endorsed under Condition 1. The preliminary investigative works

include sub‐surface geotechnical investigations for the purposes of gathering data

Appendix E Page 192


or making other assessments necessary or desirable in order to prepare the plan(s)

under Condition 1 or other plans specified in this permit.

SPECIFICATIONS

3. The wind energy facility must meet the following requirements:

(a) The wind energy facility must comprise no more than 70 wind turbines;

(b) The overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the zenith of the sweep

of the rotor blade tip) must not exceed 135 metres above foundation level;

(c) The wind turbines must be mounted on tubular towers;

(d) The diameter of the rotor of the wind turbines must not exceed 104 metres;

(e) The hub height of the of the wind turbines must not exceed 94 metres;

(f) The rotor of the wind turbines must have only three rotor blades;

(g) Access tracks within the subject land must, to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority:

(i) have a surface material that will not unduly contrast with the landscape

except where tracks need to be sealed;

(ii) be designed to minimise impact on the farming activities on the land;

and

(iii) have an effective trafficable width of not less than 3 metres;

(h) The transformer associated with each wind turbine must be enclosed within

the tower / nacelle or be located beside each tower and pad mounted;

(i) All new electricity cabling and powerlines associated with the internal

collector network within the wind energy facility must be underground

unless overhead powerlines are demonstrated to be necessary, and otherwise

in accordance with the endorsed plans except with the further written

consent of the Minister for Planning;

(j) Except in the case of an emergency or to accommodate the requirements of

the network service provider, no external lighting of infrastructure

associated with the wind energy facility, other than low level security

lighting and aviation obstacle lighting as provided for in condition 3(m), may

be installed or operated without the further written consent of the Minister

for Planning;

(k) All spare parts and other equipment and materials associated with the use of

the wind energy facility must be located in locked storage areas that are

inaccessible to the public to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

(l) All turbines must be located within the infrastructure zones shown on the

endorsed plan(s);

Appendix E Page 193


(m) Aviation obstacle lighting must not be installed unless the written consent of

the Minister for Planning has been obtained.

(n) If, following the advice of a Quantitative Risk Assessment or the requirement

of a regulatory authority, the Minister for Planning endorses the use of lights

at Ararat WEF, they should be of the lowest intensity consistent with safety.

Any lighting installed must conform with the requirements of the


STAGING

4. The use and development authorised by this permit may be completed in stages as

shown on the endorsed plan(s) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Any corresponding obligation arising under this permit (including the preparation

and approval of plans) may be similarly completed in stages or parts.

LAYOUT NOT ALTERED

5. The use and development shown on the plan(s) endorsed under this permit must

not be altered or modified unless:

(a) the Minister for Planning has consented to the alteration or modification in

writing; or

(b) the requirements of condition 13 are satisfied and complied with.

6. The use and development shown on the plan(s) endorsed under condition 1 may

be altered or modified with the written consent of the Minister for Planning if:

(a) The Minister for Planning is satisfied that it will not give rise to any material

adverse change in landscape, vegetation, cultural, visual, shadow or noise

impacts compared to the endorsed plan(s);

(b) The turbines and wind energy facility infrastructure are located within the


(c) A turbine is not moved to within 1 kilometre of any non‐host dwelling;

(d) A turbine location is altered by no more than 100 metres; and

(e) No turbine base is located within:

(i) 100 metres from a Road Zone Category 1 or land in a Public Acquisition

Overlay to be acquired for a road;

(ii) 40 metres from a Road Zone Category 2;

(iii) 20 metres from any other road;

(iv) 5 metres from the site boundary;

(v) 100 metres from a dwelling that is not a host dwelling;

Appendix E Page 194


(vi) 50 metres from a waterway, wetlands or designated flood plain; or

(vii) within an exclusion zone of any licensed communications link.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

7. The “Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage” must be

endorsed by the Minister for Planning, and forms part of this permit. Having

regard to the fact that there are permits under each of two Planning Schemes for

this wind energy facility, where a management plan is referred to below it applies

equally to each permit.

The environmental management plan must include a copy of the endorsed plans.

The “Environmental Management Plan at the Pre‐Construction Stage” shall

progressively be developed and renamed:

(a) The Environmental Management Plan at the Construction Stage,

(b) The Environmental Management Plan at the Operation Stage,

(c) The Environmental Management Plan at the Decommissioning Stage,

The “Environmental Management Plan at the Construction Stage” will delete the

section titled “Pre‐Construction Phase” and include the outcomes of the Pre‐

Construction stage investigations and detailed design. It must be endorsed by the

Minister for Planning before any construction work commences.

The “Environmental Management Plan at the Operation Stage” will delete the

section titled “Construction Phase” and will include the outcomes of the

construction stage. It must be endorsed by the Minister for Planning before

operation of the wind energy facility commences.

The “Environmental Management Plan at the Decommissioning Stage” will delete

the section titled “Operation Phase” and will include the outcomes of the

operation stage. It must be endorsed by the Minister for Planning before

decommissioning commences.

Prior to the endorsement of each of these renamed versions of the EMP by the

Minister for Planning, the Department of Planning and Community Development

will ensure that consultation with the relevant authorities including the

Department of Sustainability and Environment, Ararat Rural City Council,

Northern Grampians Shire Council, relevant Catchment Management Authorities

and the Country Fire Authority has been undertaken.

The “Environmental Management Plan at the Construction Stage” is arranged

generally under a series of “plans”, which may include both specific measures

(equivalent to permit conditions) and requirements for further development.

Appendix E Page 195


These plans cover the following (listed generally in the order they are addressed in

the Report):

a training and induction program;

a native vegetation management plan;

a Net Gain Offset management plan;

a pest plant management plan;

a bird and bat management plan;

a pest animal management plan;

an operational noise compliance testing plan;

an operational noise compliance enforcement plan;

a traffic and transport plan;

a landscape and visual amenity plan;

an aviation lighting plan, if lighting is approved by the Minister for Planning;

a fire prevention and emergency response plan;

a bushfire mitigation plan;

a television and radio reception plan;

a sediment, erosion and water quality management plan;

a construction workforce accommodation assessment;

the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment;

a construction and work site management plan;

a blasting plan;

a hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan;

an incident management plan;

a decommissioning plan.

ROADWORKS REQUIREMENTS (VICROADS)

8. The local roads identified in the Traffic and Transport Assessment Report (ref

01732‐002820) that will be used to exit onto the arterial roads must be constructed

to allow for the vehicle path and sealed back a minimum of 20 metres from edge of

seal of the arterial road.

Prior to the start of the development the developer must:

(a) Submit final detailed construction drawings of the altered intersections

including line marking to be approved by VicRoads.

(b) Prepare a specification for the works in accordance with the relevant sections

of the VicRoads’ Standard Specification For Roadworks.

Appendix E Page 196


All roadworks must be completed to the satisfaction of VicRoads prior to the

commencement of the development. The contractor must be VicRoads approved

or prequalified at R1 level. All works must be at the developers cost.

BLADE SHADOW FLICKER

9. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per annum

at any dwelling existing as at the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning. In determining compliance with this condition, the results

of a geometric computer simulation model is evidence of compliance with this

condition.

Any dwelling within the Site Boundary will be exempt from this condition if it is

the subject of an agreement with the landowner and is registered on title.

NOISE LIMITS

10 Construction of the wind energy facility must comply with noise criteria specified

in the Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria,

N3/89. Compliance testing must be undertaken which conforms to State

Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and

Trade) No N‐1 and the ‘Guide to the Measurement and Analysis of Noise’

accompanying the policy. Compliance testing will be activated when a noise

complaint is received during construction of the facility.

11. Except as provided below in this condition, the operation of the wind energy

facility must comply with the noise criteria specified in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics ‐

The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ at

any dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility

as at the date of the issue of this permit, to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

Compliance must be assessed separately for all‐time and night time. For the

purpose of this requirement, night time is defined as 10.00pm to 7.00am.

Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from this condition. This

exemption will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner that

must apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on title. Such

dwellings will be known as host dwellings.

Prior to commencement of operations, an Operational Noise Compliance Testing

Plan and an Operational Noise Compliance Enforcement Plan must be developed.

12. When a final turbine type is selected, the noise assessment, other than background

noise monitoring, must be repeated. The results of the new assessment must

demonstrate compliance with the noise limits described in Condition 11 and be

submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning.

Appendix E Page 197


DECOMMISSIONING

13. The wind energy facility operator must, no later than one month after all wind

turbines have permanently ceased to generate electricity, notify the Minister for

Planning in writing of the cessation of the use. Within a further six months of this

date, the wind energy facility operator, or in the absence of the operator, the

owner of the land on which the relevant turbines(s) is/are located, must develop

the Decommissioning Plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

EXPIRY

14. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(i) the development is not started within 3 years of the date of this permit;

(ii) the development is not completed within 6 years of the date of this permit.

The Minister for Planning may extend the periods referred to if a request is made

in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Notes:

If it is proposed to removal or destroy vegetation that is listed under the Flora and

Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999, further consent in writing must be obtained from the

Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Appendix F Page 198


APPENDIX F RECOMMENDED “ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AT THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION STAGE”

Preamble

This Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is at the Pre‐Construction (Permit

Approval) stage and will be added to or revised as further information becomes

available. It is subject to the requirements of the permit conditions and should the

Ararat Wind Energy Facility permit be amended or endorsed with a secondary

consent, updating of this EMP in accordance with those amendments or

endorsements will be required.

Furthermore, as a live document, the EMP will also be revised, where applicable, in

response to any micro‐siting of wind farm infrastructure.

Before the development starts, the EMP shall be amended to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning, in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and

Environment, the Ararat Rural City Council, the Northern Grampians Shire Council,

Country Fire Authority and other agencies as required as a result of the Pre‐

Construction investigations and detailed design, or as further directed by the

Minister for Planning. The EMP will require progressive development as design and

construction proceed, but will at any point in time, provide a clear statement of the

project’s environmental commitments.

RES Australia commits to the following plans, procedures, monitoring, enforcement

and rehabilitation measures during each of the phases of development, being:


Construction Phase;



Furthermore, any monitoring programs, complaints and incidents registers will be

provided to the DPCD at a time stipulated by this EMP or upon request by the

DPCD, and will be made available for public inspection at the DPCD Ballarat Office.

Appendix F Page 199



Pre-Construction Phase (PC) Content to include

PC Timetable for implementation of all programs and works.

The timetable will be in the form of a Gantt Chart that shows the programs and works to be completed during Pre-Construction phase.

It will be aimed to ensure safety in design principles are upheld throughout all programs and works.

PC Flowchart of responsibility The flowchart will show the persons (and their respective titles) responsible for managing the EMP and coordinating the project design

PC Training and induction program

This program will be provided to the designers and people involved within the design and Pre-Construction phase and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and Pre-Construction issues.

PC Net Gain Offset Management Plan

Following the detailed design of all aspects of the facility, including the micro siting of turbines, the required roadworks on and off-site, and the final selection of access routes, a thorough review of the vegetation to be removed will be undertaken. In relation to clearing on access routes off-site, further route analysis will include trial runs to clearly identify native vegetation to be trimmed or removed. Prior to clearing any native vegetation, this plan will be prepared by a suitably qualified ecological specialist and will identify appropriate offset options to achieve the offset targets recommended in the Flora and Fauna Assessment, as amended by the review.

It will be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and will include:

a) Details of the proposed offsets which will achieve a net gain in quality and quantity of native vegetation in accordance with the principles and guidelines associated with the Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action (DSE 2002) and the periodic updating of this work as necessary.

b) Fully dimensioned plans (drawn to an appropriate scale), which clearly show the locations, boundaries and title details of all offset sites. The plans must also clearly show the boundaries of any different management zones and the location of any proposed fencing.

Appendix F Page 200


c) Type of offsets to be provided for each location.

d) Details of revegetation including number of trees, shrubs and other plants, species mix and density (consistent with the characteristics of the relevant Ecological Vegetation Class).

PC Traffic and transport management plan

A specialist study of the risks associated with unsealed on-site access roads will be prepared, with recommendations for lengths of access roads that should be sealed for stability and safety. A copy of the report will be provided to the Responsible Authority, and its recommendations will be implemented.

A specialist study on the need to adopt minimum slopes for cut and fill of 2H:1V will be prepared, giving special consideration to the height of a number of the cuts and fills, the poor soil conditions, and the existing recommendation for such treatment of borrow pit batters. Its recommendations will be implemented.

A specialist study on the off-site access roads will be prepared, to determine whether alternative access to Site Entries 1 and 2 via Ben Nevis Road is warranted, and the need (taking into consideration both public safety and the likely deterioration of unsealed roads in wet weather) to seal Warrayatkin Road and also the unsealed portion of Buangor-Ben Nevis Road if it is determined that Buangor-Ben Nevis Road will be used for overmass vehicular access. Its recommendations will be implemented.

The Traffic and transport management plan will be guided by the outcomes of the three specialist studies above, and developed in consultation with Ararat Rural City Council, VicRoads and V/Line.

It will include the following measures and information:

• Traffic movements of over-size and over-mass vehicles minimised during peak times.

• Pilot and Escort vehicles will be used in accordance with VicRoads requirements.

• Access routes will be determined in consultation with the Ararat Rural City Council and VicRoads. All over-size and over-mass vehicles are to use the approved routes.

• Existing and designated tracks and roads will be used for access (unless in an emergency) during all project activities.

Appendix F Page 201


• Appropriate signage will be erected, as required by relevant authorities in relation to the proposed Ararat Wind Farm.


• Materials and equipment will be sourced, where practical, from within the subject site and the surrounding local area, thus reducing total haulage traffic.

• Regular inspections of access roads and tracks will be carried out during construction activities and road maintenance work will be completed as required.

• Roads and access will be maintained during the construction phase of the project, and will be carried out in consultation with the Council and VicRoads, and to appropriate road standards.


• Appropriate public notice should be provided if significant public inconvenience is expected to occur during construction activities.

• Temporary traffic control measures during the construction phase to accommodate oversize and overmass vehicle access (e.g. one-way operation of certain roads during times used by oversize or overmass delivery vehicles). In particular, specific provision of early warning signs at Site Entry 4 will be provided and displayed during times when overmass vehicles are anticipated.

• Plans in accordance with V/Line consultations

PC Landscape and visual amenity plan

The Landscape and visual amenity plan will include the on-site program and the off-site program(s).

The on-site landscape program will be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the program will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The program will include:

a) landscaping to screen the substation, switchyard and associated buildings other than the turbines;

b) details of plant species proposed to be used in the landscaping, including height and spread at maturity;

c) a timetable for implementation of all landscaping works;

Appendix F Page 202


d) a maintenance and monitoring program; and

e) surfacing of access tracks in a manner which does not unduly contrast with the landscape.

The off-site landscaping program(s) will provide details of planting or other treatments that will be used to reduce the visual impact of the wind turbines at the dwellings of the participating landowners.

If an off-site program of voluntary landscape mitigation works is accepted by one or more owners as set out in the permit, the wind farm developer / operator will document the program in consultation with those landowners and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved the program(s) will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The developer / operator may leave the implementation of the landscaping works to the owner, providing a sum sufficient to pay for the landscaping works by an independent contractor is provided.

PC Aviation Lighting Plan If consent to install aviation obstacle lighting is obtained, it must be installed under the following conditions.

(i) the aviation obstacle lighting must be installed such that it is activated only at night, when an aircraft is in the immediate vicinity of the wind energy facility; and during low visibility daytime conditions such as the existence of smoke or fog;

(ii) for each lit turbine, the lighting must consist of a pair of lights mounted above the nacelle so that one is visible from an aircraft approaching from any direction;

(iii) each light must be a red medium intensity (or preferably low intensity), flashing light as defined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA); each light must be shielded (baffled) so as to restrict the vertical spread of light to not more than 3 degrees and light spread below the horizon to not more than 1 degree;

(iv) all lights must flash in unison;

(v) the duration of the light flash must be the minimum period recommended by CASA and the duration of the period between the flashes must be the maximum period recommended by CASA;

(vi) aviation lighting must only be installed on those turbines marked on an endorsed drawing;

(vii) The requirements for lighting maintenance must be developed and included in this plan before the wind farm is commissioned.

Appendix F Page 203


PC Fire prevention and emergency response plan

This plan will be prepared having regard to the CFA’s Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms, and in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Ararat Rural City Council and the Northern Grampians Shire Council. This plan is to include:

• criteria for the provision of static water supply tanks solely for fire fighting purposes, including minimum capacities, appropriate connections and signage,

• procedures for vegetation management, fuel control and the provision of fire fighting equipment during declared fire danger periods;

• minimum standards for access roads and tracks to allow access for fire fighting vehicles including criteria for access to static water supply tanks for fire fighting vehicles.

PC Television and radio reception plan

This plan will identify households that may experience television and/or radio reception difficulties as a result of the wind farm and will include a commitment to provide specified mitigation measures to rectify those difficulties where they are found to exist.

The plan will include as a minimum:

a) The area to be covered by the television and radio reception plan (the defined area) which shall include all dwellings shown on Figure 5 (see the Panel Report, Section 10.3.3) together with dwellings in the area within 6 km either side of the line between Ararat and Lookout Hill;

b) Advertisement in the Ararat local paper and in the developer / operator’s newsletter at the appropriate time of the period when signal strengths and quality will be undertaken, and a request that owners or occupiers of the dwellings within the area defined in (a) above, and clearly delineated in the advertisement, contact the proponent if they are concerned about the possibility that the wind farm might have a detrimental effect on their reception.

c) A Pre-Construction survey to determine television and radio reception strength at locations within the defined area, at those dwellings where requests were made in response to (b) above, to be completed prior to the commissioning of any turbine.

Appendix F Page 204


PC Sediment, erosion and water quality management plan.

This plan will outline a strategy for the management of soil and water resources within the project area, be developed in consultation with the relevant Catchment Management Authorities, and must be approved by DPCD. It will include:

• A water quality monitoring program to ensure erosion prevention measures and remedial actions are maintained and are effective.

• Detailed design of the site drainage system.

• Results of geotechnical investigations to identify soils of erosion or dispersion risk and enable safe and efficient design of turbine foundations, tracks, hardstandings and site buildings.

• Results of construction monitoring program.

• Requirements to:

- identify, prior to the on-ground siting of access tracks and earthworks, areas known to be particularly or potentially prone to erosion and avoid those areas where possible.

- include a buffer of 100 metres between temporary concrete batching plants and waterways.

- relocate excess excavated material to avoid impinging on the floodplain, and not change surface water flow patterns.

- stockpile topsoil requiring removal separately from excavation spoil, with spoil and topsoil backfilled in a manner which does not result in soil inversion (i.e. to ensure soil layers are backfilled in the correct order) or erosion.

- fit erosion and sediment control devices (e.g. use of a product such as jute mat in steep drain sections, geotextile silt fences and straw bales) down slope of construction-sites (where required) to prevent erosion events and capture potential sediment wash and regularly maintain these devices.

- keep and maintain spill kits at storage areas and works areas where hazardous materials occur or are handled

- regularly inspect construction sites to detect any erosion events. If such events occur, remedial action will be undertaken. This will include soil stabilisation measures such as revegetation or laying physical stabilisation material followed by revegetation.

Appendix F Page 205


- if an incident occurs that adversely impacts on soil or surface water, review management procedures to ensure no recurrence of the incident.

- manage hazardous materials, waste and sewage to ensure no contamination of soils occur.

- appropriately transport and store all hazardous products in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations to avoid release to the environment.

- properly classify and appropriately store all hazardous materials, with incompatible materials stored separately from one another. Fuels and oils will be stored in bunded areas.

- handle and utilise all hazardous materials in accordance with statutory regulations and label instructions. All personnel handling and using hazardous chemicals will be appropriately trained.

- train employees who handle, transport or utilise hazardous materials in emergency response for spill events.

- regularly inspect hazardous materials storage and usage areas, and equipment utilising hazardous materials, to detect leakage or misuse.

- investigate incidents involving the mishandling, transportation or inadequate storage of hazardous materials and implement appropriate remedial action.

- leave the amount of exposed earth as a result of clearing to a minimum.

- employ, during working times, specified dust suppression techniques to exposed surfaces potentially causing significant dust emissions, including:

- dust mitigation measures;

- limiting traffic access across exposed surfaces;

- implement remedial action where vegetation is impacted by excessive dust emissions. In this event, also carry out a review of operational procedures and dust suppression techniques to avoid recurrence of the event;

- locate material Stockpiles on cleared agricultural land, wherever possible and no closer than 5m of trees, to avoid the effects of soil compaction upon trees and native vegetation understorey;

Appendix F Page 206


- avoid locating stockpiles where they can significantly affect native vegetation associations or in areas that threaten loss of stockpile material through natural processes;

- minimise stockpile numbers;

- reinstate compacted areas resulting from the storage of stockpiles, site facilities and wind farm components in consultation with relevant landowners.

PC Construction Workforce Accommodation Assessment

Before the development starts, an assessment of the accommodation requirements of the construction workforce and the capacity of the local area to cope with the demand, and a plan to ensure that accommodation needs are met without significant social disruption, must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning by the wind energy facility operator in consultation with Ararat Rural City Council and Northern Grampians Shire Council.

PC Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment

The CHMP commenced on behalf of the operator must be completed.

The further assessment required will take approximately four to five weeks and will be carried out by a field team comprising two archaeologists and one Registered Aboriginal Party representative. If the fieldwork is unable to satisfactorily identify the nature, extent and significance of Aboriginal cultural heritage, additional assessment may be required to fulfil r.61 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. However, this is only to occur if unexpected Aboriginal cultural heritage is found during the further assessment.

The further assessment will involve carrying the following work:

• Carry out detailed mapping and investigation of surface features including:

- quartz outcrops which have some potential or superficial evidence of working; and

- high density scatters of coarse fragments.

• Site investigation will involve the detailed mapping of quartz distribution and detailed sampling and analysis of quartz fragments to determine their cultural / non-cultural status.

• A specialist in quartz quarries and stone artefact analysis will participate in this fieldwork and analysis.

• If any location is assessed to be an Aboriginal site, then subsurface testing may be carried out to determine if there are any subsurface archaeological remains.

Appendix F Page 207


• The following subsurface testing will be conducted:

- At depositional landforms assessed as having potential for the presence of subsurface stone artefact scatters. These areas include plains within 100m of watercourses and minor swamps / wetlands.

- A small control sample of subsurface testing at proposed development locations assessed as having very low potential archaeological sensitivity.

• Subsurface testing will comprise a combination of controlled hand excavated 1m x 1m test pits and 50cm x 50cm probes down to underlying substrate. Excavations will be conducted according to proper archaeological practice.

- Archaeological works and plans to be monitored and approved by the Registered Aboriginal Party and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

C Training and induction program for workers

This program will be provided to the construction workers and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and construction health, safety and quality issues.


C Flowchart of responsibility. The flowchart will show the persons (and their respective titles) responsible for managing the EMP during the construction phase.

C Native vegetation management plan.


• temporary fencing or tape must be installed around areas of native vegetation to be retained on-site, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

• procedures for the rehabilitation of construction zones with appropriate pasture species or, if in areas of native vegetation, appropriate indigenous revegetation; and

• procedures for ensuring that native vegetation near turbines, access tracks, underground cabling and other wind farm infrastructure will not be adversely affected by construction and operation of the wind farm.

Appendix F Page 208


Construction Phase (C) Content to include

C Net Gain Offset Management Plan

Update the plan in accordance with the results of Pre-Construction work, and supplement with the following requirements:

Before the vegetation removal starts, the offsets documented in the approved Net Gain Offset Management Plan must be initiated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment

Offsets must be completed according to the schedule of works in the Net Gain Offset Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

Before the vegetation removal starts, the offsets documented in the approved Net Gain Offset Management Plan must be initiated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

All offset sites must be legally secured in accordance with the offset plan

C Pest plant management plan. The plan will include:

• procedures to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens from earth moving equipment and associated machinery including the cleaning of all plant and equipment before transport to the site and the use of road making material comprising clean fill that is free of weeds;

• revegetation of disturbed areas as described in Condition 11 f(ii); and

• a protocol to ensure follow-up weed control is undertaken on all areas disturbed through construction of the wind energy facility for a minimum period of 2 years following completion of the works.

C Pest animal management plan The plan will include:



Appendix F Page 209



C Operational noise compliance testing plan

Prior to operation, this plan will be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic expert.

The plan will detail the results from the noise compliance assessment that show the wind farm’s level of compliance with NZS6808:1998.

The operational noise compliance testing plan must include:

(a) A method or methods of testing compliance with the noise limits prescribed in Permit Condition 11 for the dwellings for which background noise measurements were made.

The compliance testing method must be either:

(i) The method described in NZS6808:1998 with the regression curves required derived from a data set using hub height wind speeds; or

(ii) A method, designed by a suitably qualified acoustic expert;

(b) A process for compliance testing under which compliance testing at all dwellings identified under (a) for which consent for such testing has been obtained is performed at some time in the 14 months following the commissioning of the last turbine in a stage of the wind energy facility, if the development is in stages;

(c) A procedure for the assessment, by a suitably qualified acoustics expert, of the characteristics of the noise from the wind energy facility to determine if that noise has any special audible characteristics that require the addition of 5 dB(A) to the measured operating noise levels as required by NZS6808:1998;

(d) A procedure under which all results of compliance testing conducted in any month are reported to the Minister for Planning for approval by the 15th day of the following month and made available upon request to the owners and occupiers of particular dwellings as soon as results relating to that particular dwelling are available; and

(e) A procedure under which the implementation of the noise compliance testing plan is directed and supervised by a suitable qualified acoustic expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

Appendix F Page 210



C Operational noise compliance enforcement plan

This plan is to be updated to outline relevant individuals’ responsibilities in ensuring noise compliance, reporting protocols and procedures to investigate and report on noise complaints and require the implementation of corrective and preventative action as appropriate

If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in the conditions of the permit under the heading NOISE LIMITS is detected, the wind energy facility operator must:

(a) Within 30 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, take sufficient actions to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling as predicted using the prediction methodology contained in NS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of exceedance

(b) Within 30 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, provide the responsible authority and the owner/occupier of the dwelling with:

(i) The results of the compliance testing measurements including the magnitude of the detected exceedance

(ii) Details of the actions taken to reduce the wind energy facility noise emissions, and

(iii) Evidence that the actions taken will produce a decrease in the wind energy facility noise level at the dwelling by an amount equal to the magnitude of the exceedance based on a prediction using the methodology of NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’.

(c) Continue to operate the wind energy facility with the implemented actions until approval for a different mode of operation is given by the responsible authority under the provision of (d) below

C Traffic and Transport Management Plan

The detailed outcomes of the plans and further reports required under the Pre-Construction Phase will be set out here and implemented.

C Landscape and visual amenity plan

The plans required under the Pre-Construction Phase will be set out here and implemented progressively.

Appendix F Page 211



C Aviation lighting plan The plan will be consistent with the requirements of the Pre-Construction phase plan, and incorporate the outcomes of that plan.

C Fire prevention and emergency response plan

Update the plan in accordance with the results of Pre-Construction work, and supplement with the following additional requirements:

• the facilitation by the operator, within 1 month prior to the commencement of the operation of the wind energy facility, of a familiarisation visit to the site and explanation of emergency services procedures for the Country Fire Authority, Rural Ambulance Victoria, State Emergency Services, Department of Sustainability and the Environment, the Ararat Rural City Council Municipal Emergency Management Committee and Victoria Police;

• subsequent familiarisation sessions for new personnel of those organisations on a regular basis and/or as required; and

• if requested, training of authority personnel in relation to suppression of wind energy facility fires.

C Sediment, erosion and water quality management plan

The plan will be consistent with the requirements of the Pre-Construction phase plan, and incorporate the outcomes of that plan.

C Construction Workforce Accommodation Assessment

The findings of the assessment required in the Pre-Construction phase will be implemented.

C Construction and work site management plan.

The timetable will be in the form of a Gantt Chart that shows the programs and works to be completed during construction phase.

The plan will include details of health, safety and quality management measures.

This plan will identify all EMP obligations that are required during the construction phase and will include:

• procedures for access, noise control, dust emissions, spills and leaks from the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials and pollution management. Such construction and work site procedures are to be in accordance with EPA requirements;

• the identification of all potential contaminants stored on site;

Appendix F Page 212



• the identification of all construction and operational processes that could potentially lead to water contamination;

• the identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational methods to control any identified contamination risks;

• the identification of waste re-use, recycling and disposal procedures;

• appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff in accordance with the EPA Publication 891.1 Septic Tanks Code of Practice;

• a timetable, where practicable for the construction of turbine bases, access tracks and power cabling during warmer months to minimise impacts on ephemeral wetlands, local fauna and sediment mobilisation;

C Blasting plan The plan will include measures to control noise, dust and vibration impact of any blasting. It will also include remedial action where any complaints from blasting impacts are received and will include:

• name and qualification of the person responsible for blasting;

• a description of the location of where the explosives will be used, and the location of every licensed bore on any property with an adjoining boundary within 1km of the location of the blasting;

• a requirement for the identification and assessment of any potentially sensitive site within 1 km of the location of the blasting, including the procedure for pre-blast and post-blast qualitative measurement or monitoring at such site;

• the procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation;

• the procedure for the storage and handling of explosives;

• a requirement that blasting only occur after at least 48 hours prior notification in writing of the intention to undertake blasting has been given to the occupants of the properties which are located in whole or in part within 1km of the location of the proposed blasting; and

• a requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the hours of 8am and 4pm.

Appendix F Page 213



C Hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan.




C Incident management plan The plan will detail procedures for the recording and processing of all environmental incidents, non-conformances and complaints. It will establish protocols for corrective actions and notification of the outcomes to the complainant.

A register will be maintained that documents all environmental incidents, non-conformances, complaints, corrective actions and notification requirements.


Records of any complaints received and corrective actions undertaken will also be provided to DPCD weekly.

The register of complaints and incidents will be available for public inspection at the DPCD Ballarat Office.

Appendix F Page 214


Operation Phase (O) Content to include

O Flowchart of responsibility The flowchart will show the persons (and their respective titles) responsible for managing the EMP during the operation phase.

O Training and induction program for workers.

This program will be provided to all employees, contractors and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and construction health, safety and quality issues.


O Bat and Bird management plan A Bat and Bird Management Plan (BBMP) will be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The BBMP will include:

• a statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind energy facility operations;

• a monitoring program of at least 2 years duration , either commencing upon the commissioning of the last turbine of the first stage of the approved development and use (if any) or alternatively such other time of commencement as is to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

• The monitoring program must include surveys during breeding and migratory seasons to ascertain:

o the species, number, age, sex (if possible) and date of any bird or bat strike;

o the number and species of birds and bats struck at lit versus unlit turbines;

o any seasonal and yearly variation in the number of bird and bat strikes;

o whether further detailed investigations of any potential impacts on birds and bats are warranted.

• any such required further detailed investigations are to be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

• procedures for the reporting of any bird and bat strikes to the Department of Sustainability and Environment within 7

Appendix F Page 215


Operation Phase (O) Content to include days of becoming aware of any strike identifying where possible whether the strike was by a lit or unlit turbine;

• information on the efficacy of searches for carcasses of birds and bats, and, where practicable, information on the rate of removal of carcases by scavengers, so that correction factors can be determined to enable calculations of the total number of mortalities;

O Operational noise compliance testing plan

The plan will be consistent with the requirements of the construction phase plan, and incorporate the outcomes of that plan.

O Operational noise compliance enforcement plan

This plan is to be updated to outline relevant individuals’ responsibilities in ensuring noise compliance, reporting protocols and procedures to investigate and report on noise complaints and require the implementation of corrective and preventative action as appropriate

If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in the conditions of the permit under the heading NOISE LIMITS is detected, the wind energy facility operator must:

(a) Within 30 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, take sufficient actions to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling as predicted using the prediction methodology contained in NS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of exceedance

(b) Within 30 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, provide the responsible authority and the owner/occupier of the dwelling with:

(i) The results of the compliance testing measurements including the magnitude of the detected exceedance,

(ii) Details of the actions taken to reduce the wind energy facility noise emissions, and

(iii) Evidence that the actions taken will produce a decrease in the wind energy facility noise level at the dwelling by an amount equal to the magnitude of the exceedance based on a prediction using the methodology of NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’.

Appendix F Page 216



(c) Continue to operate the wind energy facility with the implemented actions until approval for a different mode of operation is given by the responsible authority under the provision of (d) below

(d) Within 60 days of the detection of an exceedance provide the responsible authority and owner/occupier of the dwelling with either:

(i) The result of compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in “ of this permit that demonstrate compliance, or

(ii) A program for the development and evaluation of an alternative mode of wind energy facility operation that can be reasonably be expected to result in continuing compliance with noise levels as allowed in Permit Condition 11. The program will:

• Be developed and implemented under the supervision of a suitably qualified acoustics expert;

• Include detailed descriptions of proposed actions;

• Include predictions of wind energy facility noise levels at the dwelling at each stage of the program;

• Not include any actions or combination of actions that are predicted to result in non-compliance;

• Include compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in the “Operational noise compliance testing plan” above; and

• Include a program schedule that specifies the timing of each stage of the program,

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

If the responsible authority requires the program to be modified, the wind energy facility operator may either submit a modified program or immediately withdraw the program and conduct compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in the “Operational noise compliance testing plan” above.

Appendix F Page 217



Following implementation of the program, the wind energy facility operator may provide the responsible authority and the owner/occupier with a detailed description of an alternative mode of operation of the wind energy facility together with evidence that under that mode of operation compliance can be expected, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Given such information and evidence the responsible authority may approve the operation of the wind energy facility in the alternative mode and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld.

O Traffic and Transport Management Plan

The detailed outcomes of the plans and further reports required under the Construction Phase, as in other areas, will be set out here, together with monitoring and compliance provisions.

O Landscape and visual amenity plan

Implementation and maintenance of the work specified in the plans required under the Construction Phase will be completed.

O Aviation lighting plan The plan will be consistent with the requirements of the construction phase plan, and incorporate the outcomes of that plan.

O Fire prevention and emergency response plan

Update the plan in accordance with the results of construction experience.

O Bushfire mitigation plan This plan will be developed in consultation with the CFA and in accordance with the Electricity Safety Act and will be provided to Energy Safe Victoria for approval.

It will detail operational activities that will employ best practice with regard to fire management.

O Television and radio reception plan

The results of the Pre-Construction survey of dwellings nominated in that plan will form the basis of post commissioning testing. Post commissioning testing will be undertaken at the cost of the wind energy facility operator, for those households within the area specified in the Pre-Construction phase of the EMP, and who notify the proponent that they are experiencing television and/or radio reception difficulties as a result of the wind farm. Where testing shows that the reception has deteriorated, mitigation measures to rectify those difficulties will be undertaken. The mitigation measures shall return the affected reception to Pre-Construction quality and be undertaken at the cost of the wind energy facility operator, all to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

Appendix F Page 218



O Sediment, erosion and water quality management plan.

Develop from the content set out in the construction phase above.

O Incident management plan The plan will be consistent with the requirements of the construction phase plan, and incorporate the outcomes of that plan, including the maintenance of the Register.

Appendix F Page 219


Decommissioning Phase (D) Content to include

D Training and induction program for workers.

This program will be provided to all employees and contractors, and will detail any relevant site specific matters, such as European heritage, Aboriginal cultural heritage, areas of environmental sensitivity, fire issues, geology and hydrology, traffic and transport issues and construction health, safety and quality issues.


D Traffic and Transport Management Plan

The detailed outcomes of the plans and further reports required under the Construction Phase, as in other areas, will be set out here, together with monitoring and compliance provisions.

This plan will also detail traffic and transport management measures for removal of oversize and overmass turbine components from the site to recycling / re-use and disposal facilities.

It will be prepared in consultation with VicRoads, ARCC and V/Line.

D Complaints and incidents register




D Decommissioning Plan Prior to decommissioning, a Decommissioning Plan will be developed that includes:

(a) A schedule in the form of a Gantt Chart that shows the program of works to be completed during the decommissioning phase

(b) The methodology for removing all above-ground operational equipment and infrastructure (e.g. turbines, anemometers, internal overhead powerlines and electrical substation) and will include details on health, safety and quality management measures, and measures to return the land to sustainable use

(c) The covering of foundations with topsoil

Appendix F Page 220


Decommissioning Phase (D) Content to include

(d) The retention of underground cabling in-situ

(e) The removal and clean up of any residual spills or contamination

(f) The rehabilitation of all storage, construction, access tracks and other areas affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise useful to the on-going management of the subject A post decommissioning revegetation management plan

(g) A post decommissioning revegetation management plan

(h) Details of proposed recycling of materials.

(i) The retention of underground cabling in-situ

(j) The removal and clean up of any residual spills or contamination

(k) The rehabilitation of all storage, construction, access tracks and other areas affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise useful to the on-going management of the subject A post decommissioning revegetation management plan

(l) Details of proposed recycling of materials.

(m) It will include a schedule of revegetation management and works, and a timetable for the implementation of the works.

Subject to the agreement of the landowner:

(a) Access tracks may remain for the benefit of the landowner to maintain access throughout property

(b) Building and storage facility may remain for benefit of landowner.

The decommissioning plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority within 24 months of approval of the plan or within such other timeframe as may be specified by the responsible authority.

Ararat Wind Farm Panel Report - Planning · ararat planning scheme permit application 09/004799 and...

Documents

Transcript of Ararat Wind Farm Panel Report - Planning · ararat planning scheme permit application 09/004799 and...