PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 5.2014.76.1 112077
1074940
Planning Department Assessment Report: Scot Douglas(Printed 24 March 2015)
APPLICATION DETAILS:
Application Received: 12/12/2014
Applicant: Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd
Proposal from Application: Development and use of the land for a 63
turbine wind energy facility and associated
buildings and works including access tracks
and power grid facilities including an ancillary
utility installation and associated native
vegetation removal.
Proposal for “The Permit Allows”: Development and use of the land for a 63
turbine wind energy facility and associated
buildings and works including access tracks
and power grid facilities including an ancillary
utility installation and associated native
vegetation removal.
Address: Various properties and roads in the localities of
Concongella, Bulgana, Great Western, Joel
Joel and Joel South.
Legal Description: Parish of Concongella, Section 3 – Crown
Allotment 8.
Parish of Concongella, Section A – Crown
Allotments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Parish of Concongella, Section Y – Crown
Allotments A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20, 21, 21A,
23, 23A, 23B, 24, 25, 24A, 24B, 27, 28, 34, 37, 29
Parish of Bulgana – Crown Allotments 3, 4, 4A,
4B, 5, 6, 10, 10A, 16, 16A, 16B, 18, 20, 21, 22,
22A, 22B, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 27, 27A, 28, 29, 29A,
30, 31, 32, 33A, 34B, 34C, 35, 36, 37.
Parish of Bulgana, Section 1Z – Crown
Allotments 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26A, 26B, 27,
28.
Parish of Joel Joel - Crown Allotments 123, 124,
125, 126, 127, 161, 164, 172A, 173A, 173B,
173B1, 173C, 197, 197A, 197B, 198, 198A, 201,
201A, 202B, 203, 203A, 203B.
Parish of Watta Wella – Crown Allotments 47,
48, 49, 50, 51, 52A, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
62, 63, 64, 65, 89
LP74943 – Lot 1
TP125417F – Lot 1,
TP332313N – Lot 1,
TP513484B – Lot 1,
TP553304F - Lots 1, 2,
TP568724X – Lots 1, 2,
TP747581W – Lot 1,
TP912469W – Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Government Roads (crossed by tracks,
transmission lines and services)
Zone: Clause 35.07 Farming Zone
Adjoining Zones: Clause 35.07 Farming Zone
Overlays: Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance
Overlay – Schedule 1
Clause 44.06 Bushfire Management Overlay
Particular Provision: Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs
Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation
Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility
Clause 52.47 Planning for Bushfire
Permit requirement: Clause 35.07 Farming Zone - Wind energy
facility is a Section 2 use and must meet the
requirements of Clause 52.32. A permit is
required for use and development.
Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance
Overlay – Schedule 1. A permit is required for
buildings and works.
Clause 44.06 Bushfire Management Overlay.
No permit is required under the overlay and no
development is proposed within the overlay
area.
Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs. All signs
associated with the wind farm will require a
planning permit.
Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation. Removal,
destruction and lopping of native vegetation
requires a planning permit.
Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility. A planning
permit is required for the use and development
of a wind energy facility.
Easements, covenants or
restrictions on Title:
Easements
The titles supplied with the application show
expressed easements for Powerline in favour of
Powercor and easements for a Gas Pipeline in
favour of Gascor. I suspect that there are a
number of overhead powerlines which are not
covered by easements on title.
Caveats
26 titles are affected by caveats, 21 of these
relate to the proposed wind farm and 20 of
these appear to be security for leases to the
applicant.
Covenants
2 titles are encumbered by covenants. Both
are under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act
1972.
Is Site Potentially Contaminated? No reason to suspect contamination and the
proposed use is not a sensitive use.
Is the land on the EPA Priority Sites
Register?
No
Has the EPA recorded an
environmental audit on the land?
No
Is the site in the Heritage Study? Yes, at least one property “Allanvale” is
included in the Heritage Study.
Is the land subject to flooding? Parts of the land will be subject to flooding and
overland flood flows. As the use is not sensitive,
the more likely risk is erosion caused by the
buildings and works rather than flooding of the
use.
Is the land in close proximity to
the proposed Western Highway?
Yes and the application is to be been referred
for comment to VicRoads
Cultural Heritage Management
Plan (CHMP)
The Director Heritage Services, Office of
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, approved the
Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the
Bulgana Wind Farm on 17 March 2015.
Is the land within 500 metres of a
quarry or stone extraction site?
(see Clause 52.09-8) and the
following link
Yes, the Tuckers Hill Hard Rock Quarry is within
the wind farm application area. The
application is to be referred to Energy and
Earth Resources for comment.
Is the land subject to Council’s
Landslide Susceptibility Policy?
No
Current Use and Development: Farming, with isolated rural dwellings mainly
associated with agriculture.
Site Area (hectares): 7,500 hectares approximately
LOCALITY MAP
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Proposal
This is a proposal for the development and use of the land for a 63 turbine wind
energy facility and associated buildings and works including access tracks and
power grid facilities including and including an ancillary utility installation and
associated native vegetation removal.
Utility Installation
The ancillary utility installation comprises the terminal substation, situated in close
proximity to the existing 220kv electricity grid transmission line.
Other Electrical Infrastructure
The electrical infrastructure being the:
• transmission lines between the turbines and the collector substation (33 kV)
• collector substation
• transmission lines between the collector and terminal substations (33 kV)
all fit within the definition of a Minor Utility Installation and are ancillary to the land use
Wind Energy Facility.
Proposal:
The proposal comprises:
• 63 turbines
• 2 to 4 MW capacity
• Maximum hub height 140m
• Maximum overall height to blade tip 196m
• About 50km of internal tracks
• 9 access points from public roads:
o Allanvale Road near Green Hill Lane
o Allanvale Road at Tuckers Hill Road
o Metcalfe Road
o Salt Creek Road
o Bulgana Road
o Salt Creek Road
o Gibson Road (2 entries)
o Joel South Road near Gibson Road
o Joel South Road near Landsborough Road
• 2 permanent anemometers (wind measurement towers) up to 100m high
• About 43.3 kilometres of underground electrical cabling (33 kV)
• A collector substation
• About 11.4 kilometres of overhead powerline, with 15m high poles, for
connection to the grid (33 kV)
• A terminal transformer substation at the existing 220kv transmission line at the
northern end of the site. It includes the on-site operational facility.
The Land
Various properties and roads in the localities of Concongella, Bulgana, Great
Western, Joel Joel and Joel South, as shown below.
The land runs from just east of Great Western, then east into Bulgana and then north
to the east end of the Concongella Hills. It will cross the major gas pipeline to
Horsham and connect to the electricity transmission line at the northern end of the
site. The roads it will cross, abut or use for access are Allanvale Road, Tuckers Hill
Road, Metcalfe Road, Sandy Creek Road, Bulgana Road, Gibson Road, Thomas
Road, Joel South Road, Landsborough Road, Vances Crossing Road, Joel Forest
Road and various unmade roads.
Parish of Concongella, Section 3 – Crown Allotment 8.
Parish of Concongella, Section A – Crown Allotments 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Parish of Concongella, Section Y – Crown Allotments A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, 8A, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20, 21, 21A, 23, 23A, 23B, 24, 25, 24A, 24B, 27,
28, 34, 37, 29
Parish of Bulgana – Crown Allotments 3, 4, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 10, 10A, 16, 16A, 16B, 18, 20, 21,
22, 22A, 22B, 24, 25, 26, 26A, 27, 27A, 28, 29, 29A, 30, 31, 32, 33A, 34B, 34C, 35, 36, 37.
Parish of Bulgana, Section 1Z – Crown Allotments 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26A, 26B, 27,
28.
Parish of Joel Joel - Crown Allotments 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 161, 164, 172A, 173A,
173B, 173B1, 173C, 197, 197A, 197B, 198, 198A, 201, 201A, 202B, 203, 203A, 203B.
Parish of Watta Wella – Crown Allotments 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52A, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 89
LP74943 – Lot 1
TP125417F – Lot 1,
TP332313N – Lot 1,
TP513484B – Lot 1,
TP553304F - Lots 1, 2,
TP568724X – Lots 1, 2,
TP747581W – Lot 1,
TP912469W – Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Government Roads
Note that:
• All application documents can be found in Infoxpert at:
o Land Use and Planning
o Planning Applications
o 5.2014.76.1
o All application documents commence with the word APDOC, the
Layout Plan is named APDOC 20141212 Project Layout_A3
• All application documents have been made available to Councillors
Points of note:
• The pattern of development in the area is for farming with isolated farm
houses. Some smaller lots also have houses. Almost all of the houses are
associated with broad acre cropping and grazing.
• Access is to be taken from existing roads, see notes above.
• Power is the only service available in the area.
• The amenity of the area will be affected in the construction phase and some
amenity impact may continue in the operation phase.
• Materials and colours will be considered for the turbines and blades
• Native flora and fauna will be affected and is a key issue
• The slope of the land relative to erosion is a key issue.
• The land is not subject to Council’s Landslide Susceptibility Policy
• No Section 173 Agreement for flood flow paths is required.
Key Issues
Procedural Matters
1. Owner’s Consent –(procedural) (satisfied)
Other Authority Matters
2. Environment Effects Referral –(other authority) (satisfied)
3. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – (other authority) (satisfied)
4. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Comm.) (EPBC) –
(other authority)(applicant’s responsibility)
5. Flora, Fauna and Native Vegetation – (other authority) (satisfied)
6. Aviation and Aviation Lighting – (other authority)
Compliance Matters
7. Blade glint – (compliance) (satisfied)
8. Shadow Flicker – (compliance) (satisfied)
9. Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) – (compliance) (satisfied)
10. Conservation Covenant – (compliance) (satisfied)
11. Noise – (compliance) (satisfied)
Secondary Consent Matters
12. Decommissioning Provisions – (secondary consent) (satisfied)
13. Emergency Management – (secondary consent) (satisfied)
14. Traffic, Road Upgrades, Maintenance and Rehabilitation –(secondary consent)
15. Environmental Management, Erosion Control and Construction Impact –
(secondary consent) (satisfied)
Non-Planning and Other Matters
16. Reliability of supporting documents – (non-planning)
17. Effect on Land Values – (non-planning)
18. Possibility of Health Impacts – (non-planning)
19. Economic and Social Impacts – (separate discussion)
20. Landscape and Visual Impact – (separate discussion)
21. Environmental Significance Overlay – (separate discussion)
22. Cumulative Impact from this and other Wind Farms - (separate discussion)
23. Aviation Impact – Airport Owner/Manager - (separate discussion)
24. Overall Amenity Impact - (separate discussion)
Utility Installation
25. Utility installation and regulatory framework for power lines
CONSULTATION
Notice
Notice was given pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:
Notice Type Date of Notice Period Ends
mail to immediate and adjoining owners
within 3km of a turbine
18/12/2014 19/01/2014
Hand delivery of notice letters addressed
to the Occupier to all non-participating
dwellings within 3km of a turbine except
those adjudged on-site to be vacant or
derelict
22/12/2014 19/01/2014
Approximately 10 signs around the site at
points prominently visible from the public
domain and a sign at the Great Western
shop.
22/12/2014 19/01/2014
advertisement in the Stawell Times News. 19/12/2014
02/01/2014
09/01/2014
19/01/2014
Customer Service Offices - Stawell 19/12/2014 19/01/2014
By mail to objectors and submitters to the
previous application (withdrawn
12/12/2014)
18/12/2014 19/01/2014
Notice was given by Council, has been satisfactorily completed and 10 objections
have been received up to 11 March 2015. All objections were made available to
Councillors electronically as they were received.
Note that one notice letter was returned to sender and came to me on 8 January
2015. On checking, it was found that the property had changed hands (Assessment
1060377 – Sandy Creek Road, Great Western - new owner Elliott). The original notice
and a covering letter was forwarded to WW and WJ Elliott, 131 Main Street, Great
Western on 9 January 2015.
Summary of Objections
Each objection is summarised below, then the accumulated issues tabulated. Each
attachment is listed after the summary of the objection. Next to each attachment is a
comment as to reliability
Objection 1 (detailed submission)
• Impacts on Stawell Airport operation
• Application Inaccurately describes personal airstrip
• In breach of Environmental Significance Overlay
• Land values will be adversely affected
• Impact on wedge tailed eagles
• Health issues
• Attachments:
o 3 photographs of eagles nests (for information)
o A newspaper article (not reliable as evidence)
o A printed copy of the Environmental significance overlay and the
planning scheme map (for information)
o A media release by an wind farm interest group about a protest
meeting (not reliable as evidence)
o A table purporting to be the electrical output from wind turbines on 5
January 2015 (for information)
Objection 2 (Parts 1, 2 and the correction – detailed submission)
• Criticism about lodgement date
• Objects to two applications being made and accepted
• Independent body of specialists required
• Wind power inefficient and unreliable
• Should not be approved before the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines
brings down its findings
• The application should not be decided on the basis of the current Renewable
Energy Target
• Industry subsidies
• Land values will be adversely affected
• Health issues
• NHMRC biased in favour of the wind industry
• Impacts on roads and responsibility for costs
• Extent of flora and fauna impacts
• Very detail criticism of the flora and fauna assessment in the application. Part 2
of the objections contains further criticism of the flora and fauna assessment
particularly related to the Lace Monitor. (Note that these concerns were
forwarded to DELWP for its consideration).
• Criticism that sound measurement should include low frequency sound
• Great Western should have the 5km buffer afforded to major regional cities
• Visual impact
• Community perception surveys too old
• Turbines will be made larger after the permit is issued
• No electromagnetic interference should be allowed
• Potential impact on fast response emergency services
• Attachments
o Links relating to health, Auckland University, Plympton Wyoming, an
excerpt from a news article, a news article about Moyne Shire (not
reliable as evidence)
o a news article about the Cape Bridgewater report soon to be released
(not reliable as evidence)
o a link to Flora Information Systems about a rare and vulnerable orchid
and raptor bird species (for information)
o link to a Canadian real estate site about land de-valuation around wind
farms (not reliable as evidence)
o links to an American newspaper article about birds deaths relating to
wind farms (not reliable as evidence)
Objection 3 (detailed submission)
• concerned about the effect the turbines will have on their egg producing
chickens. Stress of moving objects above the birds can effect egg production
and bird health.
• Effect on property values, either decrease or depressed/flat due to visual
impact. Reference made to Preston Rowe and Paterson 2009 study and 27%
reduction.
• Visual impact – application indicates objectors house fully screened, when they
will be able to see 11 turbines.
• Objection to potential aircraft obstacle lighting
• Allanvale Road roadside vegetation will be badly affected by the upgrades
required for large loads
• Upgrading the road will be dangerous for owners and staff
• Photomontage is of poor quality and does not show the turbines that will be
visible
Objection 4 (short submission)
• Sound pollution
• Visual impact
• Negative impact on value
• Health issues
Objection 5 (short submission)
• Removal of vegetation
• Risk of erosion
• Reduced farming productivity by reducing shelter, habitat and biodiversity
• Lack of detail in the application about erosion mitigation
Objection 6 (detailed submission)
This is a knowledgeable submission, despite no claims of expertise being made by the
submitter.
• Native vegetation removal will affect flora and fauna habitat and biodiversity
• Affects vegetation protected under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
• The proposed destruction of Buloke Grassy Woodland, multiple species of rare
orchids and multiple faunal species is not acceptable
• The critically endangered Southern Bentwing Bat will be affected by habitat
removal
• Poor flora and fauna study design and limited surveys
• Reference to 19th century studies likely to be inaccurate or poorly written
• Flawed survey methods resulted in many species being missed including the
important growling grass frog
• Biodiversity value of remnant vegetation has been greatly underestimated
• Concerned that offsets for biodiversity loss are to be provided on a distant site,
not close to where the losses will occur.
Objection 7 (Parts 1 & 2 – very detailed submission)
• The application is in draft only
• A lodgement date for objections has not been advertised
• EES and EPBC referrals not done
• Application unprofessional. Inaccurate, misleading and incomplete
• Independent peer reviews required
• Expert panel required
• Erosion risks unacceptable
• Landscape and Visual Impact, loss of view by 20 turbines
• Inaccurate Community Perception Surveys and statements about general
community acceptance
• In breach of the environmental objectives of the Environmental Significance
Overlay
• Vegetation removal on erosion prone areas
• Vegetation removal on at entry points and on roadsides
• Inaccuracies of reference to named features like Concongella Hill
• Wimmera Regional Catchment Strategy challenges
• Breach of Clause 21.10 Objectives on salinity, erosion and fire risk
• Impact of Aviation Obstacle Lighting
• Cumulative Impact – visual, National Assessment Framework, photos included
• Noise assessments, noise issues, compliance, high amenity areas, dwellings with
commercial agreements, precautionary approach, peer review
• Health issues
• Health issues related to house with commercial neighbour agreement
• Health issues related to a house yet to be constructed
• Confidentiality clauses
• Public roads – damage, cost, aboriginal heritage, disruption to local traffic and
stock movements
• Transport routes – to avoid removal of roadside vegetation
• School bus routes
• Aboriginal heritage
• Flora and fauna – inaccuracies and criticism of assessment, peer review
• Aeronautical impact, turbulence
• Planning application before EES and EPBC referrals
• Roadside Vegetation Management Plan
• Permissibility in the Farming Zone
• Negative impact on land values
• Aerial fire fighting
• Aerial agricultural activities
• Son’s house – permit applied for (not found)
• Comments about the Steven Cooper study at Cape Bridgewater and
conclusions drawn from it
• Photomontages inaccurate
• Blade glint will impact
• References to Wind Industry Reform Group statement, Standard newspaper
article, Weekly Times newspaper article, Stock and Land article, The Mail Times
newspaper article, a media release about wind farm fire from the Australian
Industrial Wind Turbine Awareness Group and to the NSW refusal of the Yass
Valley wind farm.
• Social issues, division of communities
• Attachments:
o Photographs of views from objector’s land (for information)
o Extract from visual impact assessment (for information)
o ESO Schedule 1 (part of planning scheme) (for information)
o Concongella Landcare Group document “Identification of Land
Degradation Issues – Draft (Bignell 1998)” – justifies erosion issues (for
information)
o Six Mile Creek Strategic Direction (Project Platypus 2008-2013) – justifies
fragility (for information)
o Extract from The Journey – Project Platypus and Landcare in the Upper
Wimmera Catchment (for information)
o Clause 21.10 Environment (part of planning scheme) (for information)
o Extract from the National Assessment Framework – Wind Farms and
Landscape Values (for information)
o Photographs of erosion on Allanvale Hills (for information)
o Extract from Noise Impact Assessment (part of application)
o Extract from a document on health impact (origin could not be
determined) (not reliable as evidence)
o Extract from ‘The Senate Proof” Questions without notice (not reliable as
evidence)
o Newspaper articles from the Standard (not reliable as evidence)
o Extract from Flora and Fauna assessment (part of application)
o Extract from articles in the Australian criticising a wind farm consultant
(not reliable as evidence)
o A document purporting to be notes for speech to an American Senate
Committee hearing - Bryce: Killing Wildlife in the Name of Climate
Change (not reliable as evidence)
o Newspaper article from the Australian about property values (not
reliable as evidence)
o An article about the hazards of wind farms relating to aerial agricultural
activities (not reliable as evidence)
o A copy of the Windfarm Policy (Aerial Agricultural Association of
Australia - November 2009) (reliable as evidence)
o Letter from AG Airwork relating to provision of aerial services in the area.
(for information)
o Letter from DTPLI advising about the EES referral (for information)
o A flow chart extract from Policy and planning guidelines for
development of wind energy facilities in Victoria July 2012 (for
information)
o An extract from a document purporting to be prepared by the
applicant (for information)
o An extract from the application Planning Report highlighting errors (for
information)
o An extract from the application Noise Impact Assessment highlighting
errors (for information)
o a media release about wind farm fire from the Australian Industrial Wind
Turbine Awareness Group (not reliable as evidence)
o a newspaper article from the Weekly Times (not reliable as evidence)
o a newspaper article from Stock and Land (not reliable as evidence)
o a newspaper article from The Mail-Times (not reliable as evidence)
o photographs with turbines drawn on them(for information)
o a newspaper article from the Standard (not reliable as evidence)
o extracts from the Landscape and Visual Assessment in the application
(for information)
o a Definitive Document about Cape Bridgewater by the Waubra
Foundation (not reliable as evidence)
o three letters about the Steven Cooper Cape Bridgewater study. (not
reliable as evidence)
o A Definitive Document on wind turbine noise by the Waubra Foundation
(not reliable as evidence)
o An open letter by Melissa Ware about the Cape Bridgewater Study (not
reliable as evidence)
o Two newspaper cuttings (not reliable as evidence)
o A newspaper article from the Weekend Australian (not reliable as
evidence)
o A newspaper article from Stock and Land(not reliable as evidence)
o An unsigned copy of the Instrument of Refusal for the Yass Valley Wind
Farm (for information)
o An article of unknown origin about the launch of Wind Energy Reform
Victoria Inc (not reliable as evidence)
o A newspaper cutting of unknown origin (not reliable as evidence)
o A document printed from the internet origin wind-power-problems.org
(not reliable as evidence)
Objection 8 (Parts 1 and 2 – very detailed submission)
• Council bias and lack of transparency
• Application incomplete and inaccurate
• Independent Panel and Peer Reviews
• Criticism of flora and fauna assessor
• Desktop assessment of entry point roadside vegetation
• No community consultation of second application
• Fixed wing fire fighting aircraft cannot be used
• Wind farm footprint not stated
• Environmental Significance Overlay concerns
• Extreme concerns about the erosion risk in the area
• Damage to roads outside the site and responsibility for repairs
• EES and EPBC referrals
• Faunal species affected Red Tailed Black Cockatoo, Yellow Tailed Black
Cockatoo, Kookaburra, Wedged Tailed Eagle, Tawny Frogmouth, Barn Owl,
Koalas, Lace Monitor, Southern Brown Bandicoot, water birds, Dunnarts,
Growling Grass Frog, frogs,
• Avian kills
• Birth Defects. There is now significant amounts of anecdotal evidence that the
proximity to IWEF's is causing problems in livestock. Common side effects of
livestock being subjected to infrasound appear to be spontaneous abortions,
birth deformities together with deformities developing in yearlings, abnormal
behaviour- particularly aggressiveness, weight loss due to sleep deprivation.
The stringent conditions placed on selling stock in today's market place means
that any animal born with a deformity cannot be sold. (Refer open letter to
AMA from World Council for Nature) If this proposal is allowed to proceed, will
the Northern Grampians Shire Council be compensating surrounding farms due
to loss of income for livestock either deformed or not born
• Floral species impacted, Green-striped Greenhood
• Roadside vegetation removal breaches Roadside Vegetation Management
Plan
• Over size over mass vehicle movements, interruptions to traffic by upgrades
required to bridge and other structures
• Cultural Heritage Assessment and inaccuracies
• Electromognetic and communications assessment including their satellite
internet, concerns about CFA comms and NBN interference
• Aircraft Obstacle Lighting
• Cumulative visual impact – no information in the application
• Cumulative noise impact – argues that cumulative impact occurs out to 10 kms
without evidence of that. Refers to Waubra Foundation document and draws
conclusions from the Cape Bridgewater Study by Cooper
• Community perception references not accurate
• Visual impact, lack of photomontages from their house, misleading
photomontages. Disagree D275 partly screened, disagree generally about
screening comments, number of residences in the area, broader landscape of
no consequence, local, sub-regional and regional settings are misleading,
access tracks and pad construction, questions value of screen planting as
mitigation due to height of turbines and the growth rate of plantings, road will
still be visually prominent, all turbines are white but application says ‘grey or off
white’, blight to the landscape
• Tourist numbers to vineyards will decline
• The will be no economic or social benefits to the community and no locals
employed
• Public consultation has been pathetic, proponent secretive, gag clauses, not
open or transparent
• Aerial agriculture hindered or will no longer happen
• Air ambulance limitations
• Micro-siting is it 50 or 100m? 100m will allow turbines to be located within 2km of
dwellings
• Number of turbines - application documents still refer to 67 turbines in some
places
• OSOM movements, Western Highway and Paxton St (memorial trees and
monument), Paxton Street (seal too narrow), Sandy Creek Road (tree removal),
Salt Creek Road (two thirds will require widening, impact on old growth trees),
Bulgana Road (not sealed, no mention of strengthening works, vehicle count
understated), Gibson Road (vegetation removal), Hall Road (vehicle
movements understated), Metcalfe Road (severe upgrades required)
• Operational traffic – does not allow for large traffic movements for repair of
erosion
• Great Western – inaccuracies as to distance from the town, closure of school
after health problems, removal of Anzac Memorial, TV reception destroyed,
proponent to purchase homes unable to be sold.
• Abandoned homes at other wind farms
• Hazards – health, increase in traffic, road damage, road maintenance, stock
movements on roads
• Unused roads
• Easements for power lines and gas mains
• Inefficiencies and intermittent nature of wind generation, reliance on
Government subsidies
• CO² savings overstated, not allowing for CO² cost in building the units and
constructing the wind farm
• Land should be rezoned to industrial zoning
• Notice of intention to initiate legal action against Council, Councillors, the
proponent and turbine hosts is fire damage is suffered because aerial fire
fighting is limited
• Land devalued and unsaleable
• Noise compliance. No built wind farms in close proximity to houses are noise
compliant, what guarantee given by Council. Unreasonable to rely on flawed
noise projections.
• Noise Monitoring Data is flawed and misleading, noise floor of 19 dB
• NZS 6808:2010. Argues that the standard is flawed and Cape Bridgewater study
acknowledges that infrasound is injurious to health so Council should undertake
noise measurements out to 10 kms
• Cape Bridgewater study. Pac Hydro restricted the scope of the study. No
proof that wind farms do not cause health problems
• Collector substation noise – no information in application
• Nuisance – argues that noise from a wind farm which is outside the scope of the
NZ Standard is not regulated by the permit and is therefore subject to the
nuisance provision of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, thus Council is liable
and responsible for monitoring and enforcing.
• Property sales in Great Western difficult and one purchase avoided because of
the proposed wind farm
• Health and Well Being – argues Council has a duty to consider health
• Yass wind farm refusal and peer review pertinent to Bulgana
• Attachments
o Extract from articles in the Australian criticising a wind farm consultant
(not reliable as evidence)
o Map of wind farms in the vicinity – cumulative impact (for information)
o a media release about wind farm fire from the Australian Industrial Wind
Turbine Awareness Group (not reliable as evidence)
o ‘Wake plumes area hazard to aviation safety’ – article by Ralph Holland
– no origin stated (not reliable as evidence)
o Seven pages of photographs headed ‘Damage caused by rain event
7/1/2015 (for information)
o Copy of Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay from the
planning scheme. (for information)
o Extract headed ‘Hamilton Vet care Blog’ (not reliable as evidence)
o An extract purported to be an open letter from the World Council for
Nature to the Australian Medical Association about wind farms and
birth defects. (not reliable as evidence)
o A newspaper article from The Australian about bird kills at Macarthur
wind farm (not reliable as evidence)
o An extract from the Atlas of Australia on Green-striped Greenhood (for
information)
o A map headed ‘Bulgana within the Great Dividing Range’ (for
information)
o A copy of a UK investigation titled ‘The Visual Issue’ by Alan MacDonald
28 April 2007 (for information)
o A newspaper article from the Standard about a wind farm at Mortlake
(not reliable as evidence)
o A map headed ‘Proximity of Concongella Hill to Bulgana’ (for
information)
o Letter from AG Airwork relating to provision of aerial services in the area
o A copy of the Windfarm Policy (Aerial Agricultural Association of
Australia – March 2011) (reliable as evidence)
o An table purporting to be the output of wind farms at 10.55am
22/1/2015 (SA time) (for information)
o A newspaper article from the South Gippsland Sentinel Times about
union action at the Bald Hills wind farm (not reliable as evidence)
o A document appearing to be a newspaper article from the Australian
about a Federal Magistrate’s finding on land values and wind farms
(not reliable as evidence)
o A document appearing to be a newspaper article from the Australian
about devaluation of land near a wind farm and a southern Victorian
Council (not reliable as evidence)
o A document appearing to be a newspaper article from the Courier
about the Waubra Wind Farm owner buying more properties after post
construction noise measurement (not reliable as evidence)
o An article apparently from the ‘Stop These Things’ website about the
Victorian Planning Department and non-compliance cover up. (not
reliable as evidence)
o A copy of an unsigned letter by Ray White Real Estate about the value
of a property (not reliable as evidence)
o A document purporting to be a submission by Ian Tuck to the Planning
Panel for the Bald Hills Wind Farm (not reliable as evidence)
o A document which appears to be an extract from an email attributed
to Steven Cooper which makes comment about noise floor (not reliable
as evidence)
o A document which appears to be an extract from an email attributed
to Les Huson who offers advice about the back ground noise and states
that the measuring instrument was not fit for purpose. (not reliable as
evidence)
o A document titled Introduction to ‘Wind Farm Noise and Economics’
attributed to Rod Elliott (not reliable as evidence)
o A document titled ‘Investigation of the Acoustic Impact of Pacific
Hydro's Wind Turbines at Cape Bridgewater, Victoria, Australia -
Participating Residents' Statement 21st January, 2015’ which draws
conclusions from the study, but no mention is made of the author. (not
reliable as evidence)
o Apparently an extract from the Australian newspaper’s website about
the Steven Cooper study at Cape Bridgewater (not reliable as
evidence)
o A newspaper article from the Hamilton Spectator about the Steven
Cooper study (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘ARE WIND FARMS TOO CLOSE TO COMMUNITIES? -
Steven Cooper - The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, SYDNEY’, which examines
and offers opinion about the adopted standards for wind farm noise
measurement (not reliable as evidence)
o A map headed Cumulative Impacts (for information)
o A map apparently showing the proposed turbine layout of the Ararat,
Bulgana and Crowlands wind farms (for information)
o A map apparently showing the distances to Bulgana turbines from
dwelling D275 (for information)
o A map apparently showing the distances to Bulgana turbines from
dwelling D268 (for information)
o A document apparently extracted from the Waubra Foundation
website titled ‘Definitive Document - Wind Turbine Noise - A Simple
Statement of Facts, August 2014’ (not reliable as evidence)
o An unsigned copy of the Instrument of Refusal by the Planning
Assessment Commission for the Yass Valley Wind Farm (for information)
o A document titled ‘Yass Valley Wind Farm Visual Impact Assessment -
Review of Adequacy - Prepared By: Dr Richard Lamb - Prepared For:
The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’ (for information)
o A document appearing to be a speech to be delivered to the 5th
International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise - Denver 28-30 August
2013 titled ‘ Hiding Wind Farm Noise in Ambient Measurements – Noise
Floor, Wind Direction and Frequency Limitations - Steven Cooper The
Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, 2040’. (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘Wind farms - by acoustics specialist Steven Cooper
discussing the selection of acoustics criteria for wind farms (not reliable
as evidence)
o An article without reference to the author titled ‘Wind Farm A Health
Hazard- Official’ about the Brown County Board of Health (not reliable
as evidence)
o A document appearing to be a speech to be delivered to the 5th
International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise - Denver 28-30 August
2013 titled ‘The Measurement of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise
for Wind Farms (amended version) Steven Cooper The Acoustic Group
Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, 2040’. (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘Wind Turbines can be Hazardous to Human Health’ by
Alec N. Salt, Ph.D., Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory, Washington
University in St. Louis. (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘Modern Wind Turbines Generate Dangerously "Dirty"
Electricity’ by Catherine Kleiber (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘Switch-off will bring relief for Waubra residents’ by Evan
Schuurman (not reliable as evidence)
o An article apparently extracted from the ‘friends against wind’ website
titled ‘Lawrence Solomon: Ill winds blow from wind turbines’ (not reliable
as evidence)
o An article apparently extracted from the Waubra Foundation website
titled ‘Public Statement - Home Abandonment Due to Environmental
Noise Pollution’ (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘Wind farm scam a huge cover-up? by James
Delingpole from The Australian’ (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘James Delingpole on wind farms, fraud and electricity
prices in Australia’ (not reliable as evidence)
o A document apparently sourced from the Waubra Foundation website
titled ‘A comparison of wind turbine acoustic measurements and
analysis, resident responses and wind farm power output during on-off
testing at a South Australian wind farm. - M Morris April 2014’ (not
reliable as evidence)
o Three letters from acousticians to Steven Cooper about his study at
Cape Bridgewater (not reliable as evidence)
o A document titled ‘REASONS WHY UK COUNCILS ARE REFUSING IWEFS’
which does not acknowledge the author (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘Wind turbines - the untold story’ which may or may not
be by Senator Chris Black (not reliable as evidence)
o An article titled ‘One Lawsuit Settled, But No Truce in Wind Energy
Debate- by Jack Spencer (not reliable as evidence)
o An article, probably from a newspaper, titled ‘Huge legal bill looms if
shire ignores new wind farm noise report, Doukas says’ by Mary
Alexander about Moyne Shire and Macarthur wind farm. (not reliable
as evidence)
o An article, without source or author acknowledged, titled ‘Threat of
legal action against wind farm hosts’ about the Collector wind farm in
NSW (not reliable as evidence)
o A document titled ‘The results of an acoustic testing program Cape
Bridgewater wind farm – 44.5100.R7:MSC’ by The Acoustic Group
Objection 9 (detailed submission)
• Highly unlikely that further erosion control measures would be implemented.
• Water quality in the Wimmera River would decline
• There would be a cumulative effect associated with the Ararat and Crowlands
wind farms as all are in the same catchment
• The site not suitable for development due to erosion risk – the Environmental
Significance Overlay supports this argument
• Limitations on aerial fire fighting increase risk of injuring and damage to
property
• Cumulative fire fighting limitations due to Ararat and Crowlands wind farms.
• Potential for difficulties with fire fighting communications, due to size of
proposed turbines
• Great Western township also at greater risk from fire
• Taking fire fighting techniques in the are back 35 years
• Visual impact not accurately shown in the photo montages
• Possible electromagnetic interference – TV reception
• Possible NBN wireless interference
• Properties devalued – see NSW Department of Lands
• Devaluation could have large impact on Great Western, including slowing
population growth and school closure
• Construction traffic will negatively affect farming, particularly droving on local
roads (affected for a total of 14 km on three local roads), and the movement
of large farm machinery
• Metcalfe Road is not suitable for heavy or large loads, due to standard of
construction, topography and vegetation.
• Necessary upgrades to local roads will further interfere with farming
• Dust impact from traffic on house, water supply, shearing shed and sheep yards
• Health and well being
• Attachments:
• Photographs of erosion
Objection 10 (detailed submission, not directly affected)
• Turbine size
• Health – Cooper Report has shown infrasound affects health
• No approvals before further studies
• Property devaluation
• Fire risk
• Fauna
• Decommissioning cost not covered
Table of issues raised in objection including the number of mentions
Issue raised No Refer to Key Issue or Comment
Other Authority
Matters
EES
referral response
not received
before application
considered
2 Now satisfied – see Key Issue Item 2
Aboriginal heritage 2 Now satisfied – see Key Issue Item 3
EPBC
referral response
not received
before application
considered
2 Proponent responsibility, not a matter to be dealt with in
the planning application – see Key Issue Item 4
Flora and Fauna
Impacts on Flora
and Fauna –
including roadside
vegetation
7 About to be satisfied – DELWP matters – see Key Issue
Item 5
Breach of
Roadside
Vegetation Plan
2 Apart from entry points, the application does not
include removal of native vegetation from roadsides
Farming
productivity
1
Criticism of flora
and fauna
assessment
5 Referred to DELWP for its consideration
Bird kills
1 DELWP consideration
Offset planting
offsite
1 Option allowed under the current native vegetation
controls
Compliance
Matters
Blade Glint 1 Impact unlikely – see Key Issue Item 7
Electromagnetic
interference,
tv, radio, NBN
3 Post construction assessment required – see Key Issue
Item 9
Fire fighting
communications
1
Noise impacts
2 The predictions have been made in accordance with
the NZ Standard and background noise measurements
have been supplied – see Key Issue Item 11
Noise assessments
flawed
1 Back ground noise measurements subject to criticism –
see additional Key Issue Item 11A
NZ standard not
appropriate
1 The Standard is mandatory.
Collector
Substation noise
1 Power is not transformed at the substation (33 kV in and
33 kV out), so no noise should be generated
Secondary
Consent Matters
Decommissioning
costs not covered
2 Decommissioning the responsibility of the proponent –
see Key Issue Item 12
Limitations on
aerial fire fighting,
including
cumulative effect
from the adjoining
Ararat and
Crowlands Wind
Farms
4 This is an aspect discussed in Key Issue Item 13. The
decision to be made here is whether the restrictions on
aerial fire fighting (when not opposed by the CFA) are
sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.
Impact of fast
emergency
response due to
potential EMI
interference with
communications
signals.
1
Roads and costs
• Road upgrades
dangerous
• School bus routes
• Transport route
selection
• Disruption to
local traffic
• Disruption to
droving of stock
• Impacts on
unused roads
3
1
1
2
4
2
1
This is a secondary consent matter dealt with in the
draft and model planning permit conditions – see Key
Issue 14, where all the matters mentioned are
considered.
Erosion risk to high 4 This is a secondary consent matter – see Key Issue Item
15
Water quality
Wimmera River
1
Breach of
Environmental
Significance
Overlay
4 This aspect is the primary purpose of the ESO. The
decision to be made here is whether the permit holder
can construct, operate and maintain the site while
managing the risk of erosion and while putting in place
permanent protection measures.
If Council is of the opinion that ongoing erosion is likely
and that the risk cannot be adequately managed,
then it would be reasonable to consider refusal of the
application.
The argument from the applicant’s position, is likely to
be that:
• the land probably did not have a high erosion risk
before it was cleared
• the land could be permanently managed and
revegetated in such a way as to reduce the current
risk of erosion.
• Construction and post construction risks are
manageable
It is reasonable to expect that the current risk of erosion
on the land could be significantly reduced by more
intense management and that the immediate risks
associated with construction
Non-planning and
other matters
Reliability of
documents
supporting
objections
The many attachments to objections are listed in the
summary above.
These have been labelled according to reliability as
evidence as follows:
• (for information)
Information prepared by the objector, documents
prepared by land care groups and the like, signed
letters from other organisations, extracts from the
application and extracts from planning controls.
• (not reliable as evidence)
Newspaper or other articles expressing personal
opinion, with no other justification, and articles
where the author or the source are unknown.
• (reliable as evidence)
Two Windfarm Policy documents from the Aerial
Agricultural Association of Australia.
This is as discussed in Key Issue Item 16.
Devaluation of
land
8 This is discussed in Key Issue Item 17
Health issues
7 This is discussed in Key Issue Item 18
Health issues for
dwellings within 2
km
1 The objector holds that people in dwellings within 2 km
of a turbine, with a commercial neighbour agreement,
could well be affected in the future. However, by
entering into the agreement the owners have
consented to the proximity to turbine.
Health issues for
dwellings yet to be
constructed
1 Only dwellings constructed at the application date 12
December 2014 can be considered in this application.
Cape Bridgewater
study shows health
impact
4 This is covered in Key Issue Item 18
Impact of turbines
on livestock
including health
2 No reliable evidence has been submitted which
supports the contention of birth defects or other
problems in stock close to wind farms.
NHMRC biased in
favour of wind
energy
1 The objector is drawing a personal conclusion, without
evidence to support the contention.
Council has a duty
to consider health
1 Public health is rightly a consideration for health
authorities and it is reasonable for Council rely on the
advice of those authorities.
No economic and
social benefits
1 These issue are discussed in Key Issue Item 19
Impact on tourism 1
Visual impact,
including night
lighting
5 This issue is discussed in Key Issue Item 20
photo montages
not accurate
4
Cumulative
impact, including
visual, noise, water
quality, aerial fire
fighting
2 This issue is discussed in Key Issue Item 22
Airport, aircraft
operation and
aerial agricultural
activity
4 This issue will be discussed in the yet to be prepared Key
Issue Item 23
General Issues
Raised
Should not
approve before
further studies into
health
1 It is reasonable and proper for Council to make a
planning decision based on the evidence available at
the time of the decision. It would be unreasonable for
Council to delay a decision indefinitely, while waiting
for research to be commissioned, undertaken,
reviewed and published and then for State planning
authorities to consider whether the results warranted
changed to regulation.
The Commonwealth and State authorities do not
appear to have commissioned any studies. In its latest
public statement (February 2015), the National Health
and Medical Research Council of Australia said:
‘NHMRC will issue a Targeted Call for Research into
wind farms and human health to encourage Australia’s
best researchers to undertake independent, high
quality research investigating possible health effects
and their causes, particularly within 1,500 m from a wind
farm’.
Council liable for
nuisance and
responsible for
enforcing nuisance
complaints
1 The objector contends that low frequency sound and
infrasound represent, or could represent, a nuisance
regardless of whether these sounds are regulated by
the existing planning controls.
This raises two questions.
First, is there sufficient evidence that low frequency
sound and infrasound generated by a wind farm
causes a nuisance or has impacts on health?
Both the Commonwealth and State peak health bodies
state that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate
a causal link.
Second, if complaints of a nuisance are received about
a wind farm (or any other activity) does Council have a
role or responsibility relating to the complaint?
Yes, Council’s has a responsibility to investigate such
complaints under the provisions of the Public Health
and Wellbeing Act 2008. The consideration of such a
complaint would need to include whether there is a
nuisance, the cause of the nuisance, whether the
matter is injurious to personal comfort and whether it is
reasonably possible to remedy the nuisance. It would
be reasonable for Council to ask the complainant for
evidence of these things.
Council’s planning decision must be made on the basis
of the planning controls in force at the time of the
decision. A decision relying matters not included in the
planning controls, or matters about which there is no
reliable evidence, would be open to challenge.
Breach of local
policy Clause 21.10
1 This issue is covered in the discussion of the State and
Local Planning Policy Frameworks.
Inaccuracies in
application and
application
incomplete
5 Several objectors raised this as an issue, contending
that the intention was to mislead Council and the
community.
There are inaccuracies in the application documents.
This is not unusual in application documentation for
projects of this size.
In most cases, the inaccuracies have little impact on
the facts of the case and have not mislead Council in
the assessment of the application. These generally
relate to lack of local knowledge or errors in the name
of a body or thing.
In the case of alleged inaccuracies related to the flora
and fauna assessment, the matters could be of
concern so have been referred to DELWP as the expert
authority dealing with the subject.
In other case where omissions are alleged, the matters
have been identified and dealt with in the normal
assessment process.
Lodgement date 1 Lodgement date was raised, mainly due to the
proximity to the end of year holiday break. It should be
noted that Council has no control over the date that
an applicant makes application for permit.
Date for objections
not advertised
1 This true, no cut-off date for objections was advertised
as the Planning and Environment Act 1987 does not
provide for it.
In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act
1987, the public notices and advertisements indicated
the date before which Council would not decide the
application.
Several people enquired about a closing date and
were advised that Council must consider any objection
received before Council makes a decision.
The latest objection was received 10 March 2015.
Application should
not have been
accepted
1 Council must accept any application for planning
permit and must consider the application.
The absence of information in an application is not a
legitimate reason for refusing to accept an application.
Things like the Environment Effects referral response and
the Cultural Heritage Management Plan stop Council
from making a decision, but do not allow Council to
cease consideration of the application.
Panel of experts
and peer reviews
required
3 There are matters in this application which are beyond
the expertise of Council officers.
If these are not matters to be considered by another
authority, then Council needs to determine whether
peer reviews are required and at what stage in the
process such reviews should be sought. For example,
the task of assessing noise compliance is probably
beyond Council’s expertise, but this assessment is after
the wind farm is built. Note that the MAV is currently
working towards advice to Councils on this very issue.
In relation to expert panels, this was canvassed before
the application was received. Advice from Planning
Panels was sought, but the conditions and timelines
suggested would not achieve compliance with the
planning system.
Wind power
inefficient and
unreliable
2 The efficiency of wind generation is not an issue for
Council to consider. Commonwealth and State
policies around the matter encourage renewable
energy and it is not Council’s place to act in opposition
to those policies.
CO² savings
overstated
1
Should not be
approved before
Senate Enquiry
completed
1 There is no direct link between the Senate and the
planning system in Victoria, or any other state for that
matter. The outcome of the enquiry could be advice
to the Parliament about suggested changes to
regulation or advice to Commonwealth health bodies
about the desirability of further studies, in turn, possibly
lead to changes in public statements.
It is neither practical nor reasonable to delay a
planning process for an unknown period of time waiting
for the outcomes from an inquiry with no direct bearing
on planning decisions in Victoria.
Should not be
based on current
renewable energy
target – industry
subsidies
1 The Renewable Energy Target is not a matter for
Council to consider in this application.
Commonwealth incentives and subsidies are similarly
outside the planning decision process.
Impacts on existing
services, power
and gas
1 The objector rightfully points out that the interaction
with existing services should be considered. This aspect
has been covered in the assessment of the application.
Advice has been sought from the gas pipeline asset
owner and conditions are proposed to ensure
interactions with and crossings of utility services are
considered before construction commences.
Great Western
should have 5km
buffer
1 Clause 52.32, the Wind Energy Facility Particular
Provision in the planning scheme, the schedule to the
provision and the Policy and planning guidelines for
development of wind energy facilities in Victoria - July
2012, provide for areas in which wind turbines should
not be established. This is includes regional towns and
centres.
Great Western is not one of those places.
Impacts on Great
Western
1 The objector holds that there will be impact on Great
Western based on the belief that residents will be
impacted. This is not proven and no factor in the
assessment of the application leads to any direct
negative impacts on the township.
The unproven negative factors are visual impact and
health and these are discussed elsewhere under the
various key issue discussions.
The positives include the potential development growth
of the township.
Large scale sale of properties, movements of
population and things like closure of schools do not
appear to be reasonable assumptions.
Community
perception studies
not accurate
3 The landscape and visual impact assessment in the
application refers to community perception and survey
around this aspect.
It is reasonable to argue that such surveys are difficult
to justify in accuracy or pertinence.
The assessment of the application does not rely on
community perception or the surveys, as Council must
make its own decision about the extent of visual impact
and whether this is a factor which warrants refusal of
the application.
Applicant will
change turbine
size after approval
2 The propose planning permit conditions, based on the
Minister’s Model Conditions, at Condition 7 set the
specifications for the proposed turbines, including
maximum size and maximum generating capacity.
There is no scope for a secondary consent in the
condition, so any increase in the size or generating
capacity of the turbines would require an amendment
to the permit and consequential public notification of
the application.
Gag clauses in
agreements
2 This is not a matter for Council to consider and, in any
case, these clauses are part of a commercial
agreement between the parties. Council is not a party
to these agreements.
Social issues –
division of
community
1 Some parties are to benefit from the proposal and
others believe they will be impacted by it. This is the
case in most development proposals and is the reason
for the existence of the planning permit process, which
allows those who feel aggrieved to seek redress.
Wrong zone should
be industrial area
2 Despite the views held by any person, the zone
provisions in the planning schemes across Victoria
determine whether a particular land use is permissible
and whether it needs a planning permit or not. The
application site is in the Farming Zone, which allows a
Wind Energy Facility subject to planning permit and
other requirements.
Council bias and
lack of
transparency
1 This view has been strongly put, to Council and to other
forums, and is refuted.
The planning permit process has been followed closely
and officers have been available to discuss any aspect
of the application with any party.
Micro siting will
breach 2 km
1 This is not the case, as the model and draft planning
permit conditions specifically preclude micro-siting
which brings a turbine within 2 km of a dwelling existing
at 12 December 2014.
The only way that a turbine may be re-sited into the 2
km zone is where the permit holder seeks a formal
amendment of the planning permit.
Notice of intention
to sue Council,
Councillors,
proponent and
turbine hosts
regarding
limitations on aerial
fire fighting
1 The assessment of all applications for planning permit is
required to consider the hazards, including that relative
to bushfire.
Where the application potentially increases the risk of
impact from bushfire, referral is made to the CFA and its
expert advice is relied upon.
In this case, the risk of bushfire is not significantly
increased by the proposal, as the number of turbine
fires across Australia is very low and those fires were
contained within the hub or nacelle of the turbine.
The proposal does affect the ability of aerial fire fighting
resources to be deployed in a wind farm and the
application was referred to the CFA for comment.
The CFA responded with no objection and with
recommendations relating to its guidelines for wind
farms and requirements for static water supply on site.
The CFA did not comment or caution Council about
any limitation on the ability to deploy aerial fire fighting
resources. The CFA recommendations have been
included in the draft planning permit conditions.
It is reasonable for Council to rely on the advice of the
CFA as the expert authority and, by including the CFA
recommendations, it is reasonable for Council to
consider that it has exercised its duty of care.
No community
consultation
2 The objector holds that more community consultation
should have been undertaken.
Pre-application consultation is not a formal statutory
requirement of the planning process.
After a planning permit application is lodged, there are
statutory requirements to notify the public of a
proposal. The statutory requirements have been met.
Impact on tourism 1
No economic and
social benefits
1
Applicant’s Response to Objections
Contents of the letter from Enerfin dated 27 February 2015
“Thank you for providing us with copies of the representations on the proposed
Bulgana Wind Farm made to the Council, and allowing us this opportunity to respond
to the issues raised. We are keen to ensure that the Council has all the information in
front of it to reach a fully informed decision on the wind farm.
To that end, in support of our planning permit application we provided the Council
with a suite of documents assessing all likely impacts that may arise from construction
and operation of the wind farm. A large proportion of the comments made in
response to the proposal are already addressed in those documents. In particular
Attachment F considers in full the potential landscape and visual impact of the wind
farm, while Attachments G and L address aviation and electro-magnetic interference,
respectively. Attachment M looks at the feasibility of accessing the wind farm site for
construction and operation, and Attachment N provides a preliminary geotechnical
assessment. In all respects these assessments find that the Bulgana Wind Farm is a
technically robust and appropriately designed development for this site.
We note that Council has sought the expert advice of referral agencies such as
Vicroads, the CFA and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, in
the areas relevant to them. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd also sought the views of these
organisations in the preparation of the supporting documentation submitted with the
planning permit application. Our motivation in doing so was to provide the most
technically robust proposal to Council, and we feel we have achieved that ambition.
In making this statement I refer specifically to the assessments in Attachments B, C, D
and E, along with Attachment M, all of which are fit for purpose.
Furthermore, in the event Council determine to approve a planning permit for the
Bulgana Wind Farm, we will be carrying out additional detailed work which will include
the preparation of detailed development, construction and operational management
plans. Specific management plans will address amongst others, environment, traffic,
vegetation, avifauna; and stipulate restrictions to construction and operational
activities such that the project complies with all statutory regulations and standards.
This would include those that are directed at managing amenity such as noise and
shadow flicker from the operating turbines.
Two particular issues that we will address in depth within the project management
plans are the management of potential site erosion and the removal of native
vegetation. Bulgana Wind Farm Pty Ltd is very aware of the sensitivity of the project
site to erosion. Consequently we will put in place measures to control water flows such
that no new erosion occurs as a result of the construction and operational works, and
ensure any existing erosion is not exacerbated (and is in fact reduced where
practicable). We expect native vegetation removal and re-planting to play an
important role in managing erosion. Therefore, it is our intention to investigate
appropriate opportunities for on-site re-planting to replace native vegetation to be
removed by the project. Any proposals for re-planting will be taken forward in
consultation with local landowners, Project Platypus and Landcare Groups.
Returning to the responses received by Council, we note that a question has been
raised regarding the validity and accuracy of the background noise monitoring.
Specifically in relation to the ability of the background noise recorders to obtain noise
data below 19dB (the so called 19dB “floor level”). In order to address this query we
have sought input from Arup Acoustics Consultation Practice, who prepared
Attachment N of the project planning permit application. Their observations are
attached”.
Contents of the letter from Arup dated 28 February 2015
“You have asked us to respond to the concerns of the objectors in relation to the noise
floor of the noise monitoring equipment used to undertake the background noise
monitoring for the acoustic assessment for the project.
The objectors state that the noise monitoring data is ‘flawed and misleading’ because
the noise floor of the instrumentation is 19 dB and noise levels lower than this are not
accurately shown. This statement is supported by further responses by acoustic
consultants Stephen Cooper and Les Huson.
While it is certainly true that the instrumentation that we used is not able to measure
noise levels below about 19 dB(A) due to its electrical noise floor, this does not mean
that the monitoring data and the subsequent analysis is ‘flawed and misleading’.
All the equipment and the measurement methodology (including calibration) that we
adopted for this project was consistent with the requirements of NZS6808:2010 and
AS1055.
Long-term noise monitoring equipment that is used in the field is necessarily of slightly
lower specification than other precision sound level measurement equipment that
might be used in a laboratory because it must be capable of operating under far
more hostile environmental conditions such as wind, dust and rain. While we used high-
quality noise loggers, they, like most long-term noise loggers have a noise floor limited
by their internal electronics to around 20 dB(A). As noted by the objectors, this means
that they cannot measure noise below this figure.
This is not meant to imply that noise lower than 20 dB(A) does not occur, and our
intention was not to imply that actual noise levels do not go lower than this. However,
the long-term noise level measurements presented in the report are provided for the
purpose of determining the appropriate noise level limit that would apply in
accordance with NZS6808:2010.
The noise level limit to be adopted in accordance with the standard is 40 dB(A) or the
background + 5 dB, where the background is determined from the regression analysis
of individual 10-minute LA90 noise level measurements. Therefore, a regression level
below 35 dB(A) cannot result in a noise limit below 40 dB(A).
This means that actual noise levels below about 25 dB(A) are not significant because
they do not contribute to noise at 35 dB(A) and therefore do not have any significant
influence on the calculation of the noise level criteria that applies to the wind farm.
Actual noise levels below 19–20 dB(A) are only relevant where they might marginally
affect the regression curve to make it lower than 35 dB(A). An analysis of the Figures 2–
13 in our assessment report shows that there are no wind speeds where the regression
curve is above 35 dB(A) where there are also individual noise measurements below 20
dB(A) - which might marginally alter the location of the regression curve if the actual
level were lower than 20 dB(A).
Therefore, despite the fact that the actual noise level may have been below 19 dB(A)
indicated on the meter, this would not result in a reduction of the noise level limit. In
any case, the proponent has adopted the base limit of 40 dB(A) at all locations,
regardless of whether the ‘background + 5 dB’ approach provided in NZS6808:2010
would accommodate a higher limit at elevated wind speeds.
I also note that this issue of noise logger noise floor limitations is common to most wind
farm noise environmental assessments, and criticism of it by objectors has been
rejected in all previous VCAT hearings”.
Referral Authorities
Section 55(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that Council must give a
copy of an application to every person or body that the Planning Scheme specifies as
a referral authority. Clause 66 of the Northern Grampians Planning Scheme requires
such a planning permit application to be referred to the following referral authorities.
Section 55 to Servicing Authorities Date Sent Date Rec’d
DEPI (reco) 19/12/2014 19/3/2015 no objection,
subject to recommended
conditions
Ausnet Services (powerline) (det) 19/12/2014 21/01/2015 no objection,
subject to conditions
GWMWater Potable catchment (det) 19/12/2014 09/01/2015 No objection,
no conditions
Sec 52 to Authorities (Comment) Date Sent Date Rec’d
CFA 19/12/2014 12/01/2015 No objection,
subject to suggested
conditions
WIMMERA CMA 19/12/2014 09/01/2015 No objection,
consideration of erosion
urged
VicRoads 19/12/2014 19/01/2015 No objection,
subject to suggested
conditions
Energy and Earth Resources (proximity to
quarry)
19/12/2014 Telephone response only
concerning notification of
quarry operator. Advice
given that operator
notified by hand delivered
letter 22 December 2014.
Heritage Victoria 19/12/2014 21/03/2015 no objection or
conditions. Alerts Council
to Allanvale’s Heritage
Value
Gas Pipelines Victoria Pty Ltd (Licensee of
the gas pipe line crossing the land)
19/12/2014 2/3/2015 no objection,
subject to recommended
conditions
Energy Safe Victoria by email 12/02/2015 23/02/2015 no objection
and advice offered. No
specific conditions
applicable as electricity
installations and electrical
safety are covered under
other Acts and
regulations.
Internal Business Units (Comment) Date Sent
Infrastructure 19/12/2014 Response received and
matters raised included in
the assessment report
Environmental Health 19/12/2014
Economic Development 19/12/2014 Response received and
matters raised included in
the assessment report
Heritage Advisor 19/12/2014 Response received and
matters raised included in
the assessment report
Cultural Heritage
Section 46 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires a Cultural Heritage
Management Plan to be prepared under certain circumstances.
Section 52 of the Act requires that the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (the Plan)
must be prepared and approved before a Planning Permit is issued.
The following points are of note:
• An application may be lodged before the Plan is prepared.
• The applicant must provide a copy of the Plan.
• Any permit issued must be consistent with the Plan.
• The period for a planning decision does not commence until the Plan is
received.
• Section 52 applies despite anything to the contrary in any other Act.
Aboriginal Cultural Statement
The applicant has determined that a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is
required for this proposal. The Director Heritage Services, Office of Aboriginal Affairs
Victoria, approved the Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Bulgana Wind
Farm on 17 March 2015.
FURTHER INFORMATION BEFORE DECISION
The following further information is required before the application can be decided:
1. A response from the Minister that an Environment Effects Statement is not
required.
The Minister for Planning decided on 9 March 2015 that an Environment Effects
Statement (EES) is not required for the Bulgana Wind Farm.
2. The Cultural Heritage Management Plan and evidence that the proposal is in
accordance with that Plan.
The Director Heritage Services, Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, approved
the Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Bulgana Wind Farm on 17
March 2015.
ASSESSMENT OF PLANNING SCHEME REQUIREMENTS
Relevant Zone, Overlay and Particular Provisions
Before deciding on an application, Council must consider the relevant provisions of
the Planning Scheme, including the zone, overlay and particular provisions.
Statement of Permissibility
Zone Comment
Clause 35.07 Farming
Zone
Wind energy facility is a Section 2 use and must meet the
requirements of Clause 52.32. A permit is required for use
and development.
Overlays
Clause 42.01
Environmental
Significance Overlay –
Schedule 1
Clause 44.06 Bushfire
Management Overlay
A permit is required for buildings and works.
No permit is required under the overlay and no
development is proposed within the overlay area.
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.05 Advertising
Signs
Clause 52.17 Native
Vegetation
Clause 52.32 Wind
Energy Facility
Clause 52.47 Planning
for Bushfire
All signs associated with the wind farm will require a
planning permit.
Removal, destruction and lopping of native vegetation
requires a planning permit.
A planning permit is required for the use and
development of a wind energy facility.
No permit is required
State Planning Policy Framework
The State Planning Policy Framework has been considered in detail in the assessment
of the application. Those policies which are not satisfied or compete in this
application are considered further in the discussion of Key Issues in this report.
Local Planning Policy Framework
The Local Planning Policy Framework, Municipal Strategic Statement and the Council
Plan, Council have been considered in detail in the assessment of the application.
Those matters which are not satisfied or compete in this application are considered
further in the discussion of Key Issues in this report.
Council Plan 2013-2017
The Council Plan has been considered in detail in the assessment of this applications
and it is found that the Plan encourages and supports the establishment of renewable
energy.
Decision Guidelines
The decision guidelines of the Farming Zone, the Environmental Significance Overlay,
the Particular Provision Clause 52.32 of the planning scheme and the General Decision
Guidelines at Clause 65 of the scheme have been considered in detail in the
assessment of this application. Those matters which are not satisfied or compete in this
application are considered further in the discussion of Key Issues in this report.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
The Key issues in the assessment of the application fall into several categories:
• Procedural matters that must be satisfied and that follow a process. These do
not require a decision by Council.
• Other Authority matters, where an expert authority considers the matter, has
the right to object, may set conditions, where Council can rely on the
authority’s advice and/or where Council is not the decision maker.
• Compliance matters, where predictions are made at the application stage
and planning permit conditions require compliance later, either before or
after construction
• Secondary Consent items, where an in-principle decision is to be made by
Council and then the detail provided to the satisfaction of Council later. Note
that any future secondary consent requests are unlikely to be referred to
Council for decision and there is no provision for community consultation.
Secondary consent requests may be several years after Council’s decision on
the planning application.
• Non-Planning and Other matters, where discussion is warranted, but where the
matter is not something to be decided on planning grounds.
• Satisfied or Not Satisfied – whether the issue is satisfied for the purpose of the
planning permit application assessment and Council’s decision.
Model Planning Permit Conditions
These conditions are mentioned first in this summary because they are referred to in
the discussion of each issue below.
The Minister for Planning has prepared model conditions for wind farm permits. These
are included in the Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy
facilities in Victoria (July 2012), which Council is obliged to consider. These conditions
have evolved from previous wind farm cases and show how wind farm planning
decisions are generally made, the range of matters to be considered and where the
permit decision is an "in-principle" decision or relies on a secondary consent. The
draft conditions in the discussion paper are the model conditions marked-up and
edited to approximate the draft conditions which will be presented to Council at
decision time.
List of Matters associated with Wind Energy Facility decision
Procedural Matters
1. Owner’s Consent –(procedural) (satisfied)
Other Authority Matters
2. Environment Effects Referral –(other authority) (satisfied)
3. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – (other authority) (satisfied)
4. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Comm.)
(EPBC) – (other authority)
5. Flora, Fauna and Native Vegetation – (other authority) (satisfied)
6. Aviation and Aviation Lighting – (other authority) (satisfied)
Compliance Matters
7. Blade glint – (compliance) (satisfied)
8. Shadow Flicker – (compliance) (satisfied)
9. Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) – (compliance) (satisfied)
10. Conservation Covenant – (compliance) (satisfied)
11. Noise – (compliance) (satisfied)
Secondary Consent Matters
12. Decommissioning Provisions – (secondary consent) (satisfied)
13. Emergency Management – (secondary consent) (satisfied)
14. Traffic, Road Upgrades, Maintenance and Rehabilitation –(secondary
consent) (satisfied)
15. Environmental Management, Erosion Control and Construction Impact –
(secondary consent) (satisfied)
Non-Planning and Other Matters
16. Reliability of supporting documents – (non-planning)
17. Effect on Land Values – (non-planning)
18. Possibility of Health Impacts – (non-planning)
19. Economic and Social Impacts – (separate discussion)
20. Landscape and Visual Impact – (for decision)
21. Environmental Significance Overlay – (for decision)
22. Cumulative Impact from this and other Wind Farms - (for decision)
23. Aviation Impact – Airport Owner/Manager - (for decision)
24. Overall Amenity Impact - (for decision)
Utility Installion
25. Substation and regulatory framework for power lines
Discussion of Individual Matters
Procedural Matters
1. Owner’s Consent –(procedural) (satisfied)
Clause 52.32-3 of the planning scheme requires the applicant to provide written
consent from every owner of an existing dwelling within two kilometres of a
proposed turbine. The wind energy facility is prohibited if the consent
requirement is not met. All necessary consents were provided with the
application.
Assessment of this matter
This aspect is a crucial consideration in the assessment of the application as a
Wind Energy Facility is prohibited if owners of dwellings within two kilometres of a
wind turbine have not consented.
The requirement is set out in the Wind Energy Facility Particular Provision at
Clauses 52.32-2 and 52.32-3 of the North Grampians Planning Scheme.
Clause 52.32-3 provides:
An application that includes a proposed turbine within two kilometres of an
existing dwelling must be accompanied by:
• A plan showing all dwellings within two kilometres of a proposed
turbine.
• Evidence of the written consent of any owner as at the date of that
application of an existing dwelling located within two kilometres of a
proposed turbine that forms part of a Wind energy facility.
The applicant has submitted:
• a plan of the eight dwellings within two kilometres of a proposed turbine.
• the original, signed consent forms from the owner/s of each dwelling.
The applicant was advised formally by letter on 17 December 2015 as follows:
“This letter relates to Statements of Consent from eight neighbours to the
proposal, where a turbine lies within 2 kilometres of an existing dwelling.
The evidence of consent provided with the application has been
considered in the following ways:
• The consent forms were checked and found to be in accordance
with the format provided for in the ‘Policy and planning guidelines for
development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (DPCD – July 2012)’.
• The name/s on each consent form has been checked against the
certificate of title for each dwelling.
• The name/s on each consent form has been checked against
Council’s records for each property.
As Council’s electronic records system will not maintain the paper records
of these consents, each consent has been scanned into the records system
and the original documents are attached hereto for you to retain.
Please be advised that Council relies on the evidence of consent provided
by the applicant”.
This aspect of the planning scheme provisions is considered to be met and does
not require any further consideration, other than the following comments.
1. As the required evidence of consent has been provided, the proposal is not
prohibited under the provisions of Clause 52.32-2
2. 5 of the 8 dwellings within 2 kilometres of a turbine are owned by parties who
have turbines on land owned by them, so are participating owners
3. The set back from turbines of at least two kilometres from non-consenting,
dwelling owners provides a greater buffer distance than was required before
Clause 52.32 was amended in 2011.
4. Many existing wind farms (Waubra for example) were not subject to this
setback and a number of non-participating or non-consenting dwellings are
within two kilometres of a turbine.
5. The setback reduces the potential for impact on non-participating dwellings.
Conclusion
The mandatory provision of the planning scheme requiring consent of owners of
dwellings within 2 kilometres of a turbine is met.
Other Authority Matters
2. Environment Effects Referral –(other authority) (satisfied)
The applicant’s referral is with the Minister for Planning for decision. Council
cannot decide the application until the Minister responds to the referral or if the
Minister considers that an Environment Effects Statement is required.
The Minister for Planning decided on 9 March 2015 that an Environment Effects
Statement (EES) is not required for the Bulgana Wind Farm.
3. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – (other authority) (satisfied)
This is the applicant's responsibility. The application cannot be decided by
Council until a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is provided and until
it is found that the proposal is in accordance with that plan.
The Director Heritage Services, Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, approved the
Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Bulgana Wind Farm on 17 March
2015.
4. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Comm.) (EPBC) –
(other authority)
This is a separate process to the planning application process and is the
responsibility of the proponent. The referral plays no part in the assessment of the
application. There are risks to the applicant if it does not make the referral early
and the referral response is negative. The worst case scenario for the proponent
is that the development cannot proceed.
5. Flora, Fauna and Native Vegetation – (other authority) (satisfied)
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (formerly
DEPI) is the expert authority in relation to flora and fauna and is a formal referral
authority to the application. DELWP will critically consider and review the
assessments in the application and assess the impacts. DELWP may either seek
more information or give a recommendation and conditions. In this case, it has
sought further information. The submissions in the application also deal with bird
and bat management. I respectfully suggest that Council rely on the advice of
DELWP as the expert authority. Please note that the conditions recommended
by DELWP have been included in the fraft conditions and model conditions have
been amended accordingly.
Please note, objectors to the application have raised concerns over the
accuracy of the assessment provided by the applicant. These concerns have
been forwarded to DELWP for its information and consideration. Note that
referral authorities do not usually see objections, but it was consider appropriate
for DELWP to be informed of the concerns.
See conditions 8 (on-site landscaping), 39 (environmental management plan),
45-47 (bats and avifauna) in the draft planning permit conditions.
6. Aviation and Aviation Lighting – (other authority)
There are many stakeholders in relation to aviation safety around the proposed
wind farm. The list below contains the most pertinent:
• The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) – This is a Commonwealth
Authority which has primary responsibility for maintaining, enhancing, and
promoting the safety of civil aviation in Australia.
• Airservices Australia is Australia's air navigation service provider, providing
air traffic control, aviation rescue and fire-fighting and air navigation
services.
• RAAF Aeronautical Information Service (RAAF AIS) has as its mission ‘To
provide optimised Aeronautical Information in support of the Mission
Objectives of the ADF and Allied Forces’.
• Airport owners and managers (in the case of Stawell Airport – Council)
• Air ambulance services
• Aerial fire fighting authorities and providers
• Commercial agricultural air services – aerial spraying, fertilising and seeding
• Commercial aircraft operators from Stawell Airport
• Private operators from Stawell Airport
• Operators from private airstrips
• All aircraft operating in the area, particularly at low altitude
Aviation Impact
The applicant’s consultant has formed the view that the risk to aviation is low, but
that the following bodies must be notified:
• CASA
• Airservices Australia
• RAAF AIS
The applicant has advised the three bodies about the proposal.
The application has been referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department, with
the request that the potential impact of the wind farm on operation of Stawell
airport be considered. A response is expected and will be dealt with as a
separate discussion item.
Aviation Lighting
Aviation obstacle lighting is not a matter controlled by Council. It is controlled
under Commonwealth Legislation by CASA, which will decide whether lighting is
required or not. The applicant’s consultant has formed the view that obstacle
lighting is warranted, due to risk, and that CASA may well require lighting and
possibly other things.
Aviation lighting is a vexed issue as the impact of aircraft obstacle lighting may
be a visual impact on residents for quite some distance from the wind farm. At
other wind farms, there have been complaints that obstacle lighting extends the
visual impact of the wind farm to 24 hours a day.
For example, the lighting at the Waubra Wind Farm was clearly visible for a
considerable distance along the Western Highway. I understand that the lighting
was turned off after consultation with the Minister for Planning.
The planning permit for the Ararat Wind Farm issued by the Minister for Planning in
2010, neither required nor precluded aviation obstacle lighting. The planning
permit conditions required, in the event aviation obstacle lighting was proposed:
• secondary consent from the Minister for Planning
• the lighting to be the “lowest intensity consistent with safety” and
• a Lighting Plan to be prepared by the applicant and approved by the
Minister.
Note that the Ararat Wind Farm is not yet constructed.
At the time of approval for both Waubra and Ararat, the CASA requirements
were unclear and CASA did not have to make a decision about lighting. The
requirements have now been clarified and CASA will make a determination in
this case.
The Minister’s Model Planning Permit Conditions provide for details of any
proposed lighting to be submitted for approval by Council, as a secondary
consent. Model condition 27, specifies requirements to be met by lighting, if it is
required by CASA. Amongst other things, the condition specifies the vertical
spread of the light, limiting it to 1 degree below horizontal.
See condition 27 in the draft planning permit conditions
Conclusion
If the wind farm is approved and constructed, then decisions about aviation
obstacle lighting are not in Council’s hands. CASA may require lighting and,
even if CASA does not require lighting, the permit holder may choose to install it.
Council can neither require nor prohibit such lighting. The inclusion of condition
27 in the draft planning permit conditions provides a level of amenity protection
in the event that lighting is installed.
Compliance Matters
7. Blade glint – (compliance) (satisfied)
Blade glint is the sun reflecting from the blades and other rotating surfaces of a
turbine. Under Clause 52.32-5 of the planning scheme, Council is obliged to
consider the impact of blade glint on surrounding dwellings. This is a minor
consideration for Council as modern turbines are usually appropriately painted or
surfaced. A prudential condition has been inserted into the draft planning permit
conditions.
The Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in
Victoria (DPCD August 2012), which must be considered when making a
planning decision, provides the following guidance about blade glint.
Blade glint can result from the sun reflecting from turbine blades. Blades
should be finished with a surface treatment of low reflectivity to ensure that
glint is minimised.
Further considerations are provided in the draft National Wind Farm
Development Guidelines (July 2010).
It is noted that the Model Planning Permit Conditions in the above Victorian
guidelines do not contain any specific conditions relating to this matter, but the
model condition for the provision of development plans includes the need to
provide a description of the materials and finishes of the wind turbines.
See condition 1 in the draft planning permit conditions
The draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines (July 2010) provide at Item
3.8 Blade glint:
The issue
Blade glint can be produced when the sun’s light is reflected from the
surface of wind turbine blades. Blade glint has potential to annoy people.
Guidance notes
All major wind turbine blade manufacturers currently finish their blades with
a low reflectivity treatment. This prevents a potentially annoying reflective
glint from the surface of the blades and the possibility of a strobing
reflection when the turbine blades are spinning. Therefore the risk of blade
glint from a new development is considered to be very low.
Proponents should ensure that blades from their supplier are of low
reflectivity.
The Ararat Wind Farm Planning Permit and the Cherry Tree Wind Farm Planning
Permit have been perused and neither contains condition/s relating to Blade
glint.
It is proposed that a condition be inserted into the draft planning permit
conditions for this application with words like:
Turbine blades and all rotating parts of turbines must at all times be finished
with a surface treatment of low reflectivity to ensure that glint is minimised
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Conclusion
The issue of blade glint is resolved if the blades and rotating parts of the turbines
are finished in a non-reflective manner. The inclusion of a materials and colours
condition in any planning permit to issue will provide clarity to the permit holder
and establish a straight forward enforcement path for the Responsible Authority
into the future.
See condition 20A in the draft planning permit conditions.
8. Shadow Flicker – (compliance) (satisfied)
Shadow flicker is caused by the rotating turbine blades passing between the
observer and the sun. Under Clause 52.32-5 of the planning scheme, Council is
obliged to consider the impact of shadow flicker on surrounding dwellings. The
assessment provided by the applicant finds that the predicted and actual
shadow flicker does not exceed the maximum number of hours per year at any
dwelling. Compliance and complaint conditions are included in the draft
conditions.
The following points are noted from the Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment (Urbis - December 2014) provided in the application:
• shadow flicker can be found by calculating the shadow each turbine
throws allowing for sun position, the shape of the land and the location of
dwellings relative to each turbine.
• The application states that the assessment methodology was based on
that recommended in the draft National Wind Farm Development
Guidelines (July 2010).
• There are two measures for the extent of shadow flicker. The first is in the
Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in
Victoria (DPCD August 2012) which specifies a theoretical maximum of 30
hours shadow flicker a year at or near a dwelling. The second is the draft
National Wind Farm Development Guidelines (July 2010), which specifies a
theoretical limit of 30 hours per year and an actual limit of 10 hours per
year.
• The current 63 turbine layout was used in the assessment and it was based
on the maximum size turbine for which permission was sought (196m to the
blade tip).
• Dwellings were considered to be one or two stories
• Results were calculated for shadow flicker at each dwelling and within 50
metres of each dwelling
• No shadow flicker was predicted (theoretical or actual) at any dwelling
• However, shadow flicker was predicted within 50 m of two dwellings. (D276
- 13 hours theoretical and 2 hours actual, D322 – 15 hours theoretical and
2.7 hours actual) Note that both of these dwellings are the subject of
neighbour consent agreements with the applicant.
• Bureau of Meteorology figures for cloud cover and wind direction were
used by the applicant’s consultant in predicting the actual hours of
shadow flicker, so allowance was made for cloud cover and the
orientation of the turbines. No allowance was made for periods of low or
no wind or for vegetation and other shielding.
• The assessor suggests that, even though the figures are low, the prediction
is still higher than that which would actually be experienced.
• If the final turbine type is smaller than the maximum sought, the figures may
need to be reworked and are likely to be lower than predicted.
• Screening or other mitigation measures are available, if required.
The model planning permit condition 18 only invokes the limit of 30 hours per
annum, because that is in the State control. Actual shadow flicker is not
controlled by the condition. The model condition also had a note varying the
condition if there was an agreement with the owner. Even though the ability to
vary seems worthy, it does not appear to be an appropriate use of a note. The
draft planning permit condition has been amended to include the ability to vary
in the condition itself.
The Minister’s model planning permit conditions include a requirement for blade
shadow flicker complaints and responses.
See conditions 18, 19 and 20 in the draft conditions.
9. Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) – (compliance) (satisfied)
At clause 52.32-5 Wind Energy Facility Decision Guidelines in the planning
scheme, Council is obliged to consider the likely impact of the wind farm on
radio and television reception. An assessment has been provided by the
applicant, which indicates little likely effect. Under the model conditions, the
permit holder is obliged to carry out preconstruction measurements within 5 km of
the wind farm. In the event of a complaint, the permit holder is obliged to carry
out post construction measurement at the affected dwelling and, if interference
is found, restore reception to preconstruction levels.
See conditions 21, 22 and 23 in the draft conditions.
10. Conservation Covenant – (compliance) (satisfied)
Part of the land is affected by a conservation covenant in favour of the Trust for
Nature. Council cannot issue a planning permit which would breach such a
covenant. The applicant has advised that no part of the proposed development
will encroach on the covenanted area. However, the area is ill-defined in the
covenant. To ensure compliance with the covenant, prudential conditions have
been included in the draft planning permit conditions,
See conditions 1(a)(xii), 1(b)(xi), 1(h), 2(b), 5(c) and 6 in the draft planning permit
conditions.
11. Noise – (compliance) (satisfied)
This is a very detailed issue, with a great number of technical terms and
principles. It is intertwined with potential health impacts, but it comes down to the
need for the wind farm to comply with a standard noise limit at dwellings after
construction. The steps are:
• predict sound levels at application stage
• demonstrate where dwellings are predicted to be affected
• consider the potentially affected dwellings more carefully
• take background sound measurements at dwellings at application stage
• take post construction measurements to ensure compliance with the noise
limits.
Noise is a Key Issue
Noise from wind farms is a key issue in the planning assessment process and noise
limits are designed to avoid any unreasonable impact on nearby sensitive uses,
typically dwellings.
Noise Limits
The planning scheme mandates standards and limits for noise from wind farms. If
the standards and limits are met, then the proposal is deemed to comply and it is
reasonable to expect that the amenity of the area will not be unduly affected by
unwanted noise.
Please note that various parties have raised adverse health impacts from wind
farm noise as an issue. This is an entirely separate matter, which will be the
subject of separate advice and discussion.
Noise Limits Less Certain in the Past
The noise controls for wind farms have been difficult in the past as there was no
absolute standard for noise. This gave rise to complex argument in every wind
farm assessment as to which standard should be met and which standard was
appropriate.
In the past, there was no required separation distance between turbines and
non-consenting dwellings. This resulted in some turbines being sited quite close to
dwellings. By comparison with older wind farms, the dwellings in this proposal are
much further away from turbines.
Noise Limits Now More Certain
In 2011, when the Minister for Planning gave Councils the responsibility to decide
all wind farm applications (not just the small wind farms), the New Zealand
Standard NZS 6808:2010 – Acoustics – Wind farm noise – was made the
mandatory standard for noise and, since then, no turbine can be placed within 2
km of dwelling, unless the dwelling owner consents. There is no longer the
possibility of any argument about which noise standard is the appropriate one to
use.
So, the noise standard is now clear and unambiguous and the 2 km separation
gives an automatic level of protection to non-participating dwellings.
Under the standard, wind farm noise outside nearby dwellings must be very quiet
at 40 decibels (dB) or background noise level plus 5 dB whichever is the greater.
40 dB is approximately equivalent to sitting in the living room at home, with no
television, radio, stereo, traffic noise or conversation. In the office, it is
approximately the equivalent of no talking, no radio and no typing, just a little bit
of air conditioner hum.
Noise measurements are taken outside a dwelling and it is reasonable to expect
that noise will be less inside the dwelling. The New Zealand Standard indicates
that with partly opened windows, the noise inside is likely to be 10 to 15 dB less
than outside. An example of this with a very basic sound level meter was, a soil
compactor operating outside the office measured 55 to 60 dB inside the front
window and 75 dB outside the window.
The Standard is Complex
The New Zealand standard is complex and contains very detailed technical
terms, formula, measurement methodologies, explanations of types of sounds
and references to numerous other standards and studies.
The most straightforward and easy to understand documents on the subject,
from a reliable source, are the two documents from the Victorian Department of
Health (see links below).
http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/Wind-farms-sound-and-health:-
Technical-information
http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/Wind-farms-sound-and-health:-
Community-information
These provide a mix of technical and plain English explanations, without
oversimplifying the issues.
Council’s Task
Despite the complexity, Council’s task in relation to noise is simply to determine
whether the noise predicted in the proposal meets the standard and, ultimately,
whether the noise limits are achieved by a constructed wind farm. That is
Council needs to:
• be satisfied that the predictions of noise, based on the proposed turbine
type and siting, meets the standard
• after construction, be satisfied that the measured sound outside nearby
dwellings meets the standard
• during operation, monitor noise complaints and ensure compliance
In line with the requirements of the planning scheme, the applicant has provided
the necessary information for these things to be considered by Council.
Applicant’s Tasks
The steps in the process are:
• the applicant decides turbine layout and type.
• the applicant’s acoustics consultant predicts the noise from the turbines
and maps a 35 dB contour around them, using complex computer
modelling
• the applicant selects the maximum noise limit for the predictions in
accordance with the New Zealand Standard. In this case 40 dB.
• the applicant prepares maps of all dwellings within the 35 dB contour
• the applicant measures the existing background noise outside pertinent
dwellings, including those within the 35 dB contour
• the applicant more precisely predicts noise outside dwellings within the 35
dB contour, this time taking into account the turbine types being
considered, the shape of the land between turbines and dwellings, any
special characteristics of sound produced by the candidate turbines and
any cumulative effect from nearby wind farms.
• Council decides whether to seek a second opinion about the predictions.
• after construction, the applicant’s acoustics consultant carries out sound
measurement outside the dwellings within the 35 dB contour, with the
turbines operating. The measurements must meet the New Zealand
Standard to the satisfaction of Council.
• After construction, the applicant must record and advise Council about
noise complaints. Permit conditions lay down a procedure for dealing with
those complaints.
Some of the items in more detail…..
Turbine layout and type
The make and model of turbines is not usually chosen before planning permission
is gained and the final choice by the applicant is likely to be based on
availability, cost and advances in technology. Despite being many thousands of
wind turbines in operation around the world, the technology, size and efficiency
of turbines is constantly being advanced. Examples are:
• blade design and construction is constantly evolving. For example, hinged
or articulated blades are being trialled.
• gearboxes, between the rotor and the generator in the nacelle, are
becoming less common with advances in low revolution speed, high
capacity generators, thus removing gearbox noise
• an 8 MW turbine is in trials (nearly twice the generating capacity of current
turbines)
• fully floating offshore turbines are being developed for operation in deep
water
The layout of a wind farm is influenced by a number of factors including, noise,
distance from dwellings, blade flicker, electromagnetic interference, wind yield,
cultural heritage, impact on flora and fauna, agreement with land owners and so
on. The layout is likely to have been altered many times before an application is
made, with the final layout being the subject of the final noise assessment.
Noise prediction and dwelling mapping
This is required to be done in accordance with detailed parameters in the New
Zealand standard. The 35 dB sound contour picks up all dwellings possibly
affected by wind farm noise, in this case with a safety factor of 5 dB. Dwellings
and other noise sensitive receivers outside that contour do not need to be further
considered.
Dwellings with predicted noise greater than 35 dB In accordance with the required
method in the New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010 (supplied as part of the
application)
Dwelling
ID
Name Address Stakeholder Distance to
the nearest
turbine
Nearest
turbine
D97 Hall 668 Joel South Rd Yes, turbines
on their land
1.8 km BU 14
D127* Hall 1079
Landsborough Rd
Yes, turbines
on their land
1.4 km BU 01
D268* Jamieson 1071 Bulgana Rd No 2.1 km BU 40
D274 K Thomas 1435 Bulgana Rd Yes, turbines
on their land
1.0 km BU 27
D276 CR
Thomas
1380 Bulgana Rd Signed
Neighbour
Agreement
1.1 km BU27
D295* Green 92 Green Hill Lane No 2.1 km BU 55
D322* Clark Bulgana Rd, close
to CR Thomas
Signed
Neighbour
Agreement
0.9 km BU 27
Only seven dwellings fall on or within the 35 dB contour, as shown in the table
above. These generally represent the dwellings which are closest to turbines.
Note, that only the two dwellings (shown bold in the table) do not have
commercial agreements with the applicant.
Existing background noise
Background noise has been measured at the dwellings in the table above
marked with an asterisk (*), plus five other dwellings being:
D190 – 124 Metcalfe Road – participating land owner offsite
D204 - 731 Salt Creek Road – objector
D282 – 424 Delaneys Gap Road
D297 – 1979 Bulgana Road - participating land owner offsite
D298 - 597 Joel South Road – signed neighbour agreement
The purpose of the background noise measurement is to allow post construction,
operating measurements to be compared with the background noise and then
the impact of turbine noise can be determined and for compliance with the
New Zealand Standard to be determined.
Condition 14 in the model and draft conditions is worded to clarify an anomalous
situation arising from the New Zealand Standard. It provides clarity about post
construction compliance and complaint testing to allow for a maximum of 40 dB
at a dwelling existing at 12 December 2014, where background noise levels have
not been measured.
Please note that the background noise at dwellings can often be higher than the
predicted noise from the turbines. This is particularly the case where a dwelling
has a significant number of trees around it and where the wind in the trees may
be louder than any turbine noise. The background noise can also be influenced
by other factors, like traffic noise.
The opposite situation could be where there is little wind at ground level, but
sufficient wind at rotor height for the turbine to operate, thus the turbine is
generating noise with little or no masking from wind in trees.
The New Zealand standard requires the post construction noise measurements to
be plotted against wind speed at turbine hub height and to cover the whole
range of operational wind speeds and conditions.
If the applicant had not supplied the background noise measurements, it would
be required to agree to turn the turbines off and on to establish the wind farm
noise. Wind farms and electricity companies have difficulty dealing with shut
down and start-up of turbines as it disrupts the electricity grid, so these
background noise measurements are desirable for all parties.
More precise noise prediction
The applicant has more precisely predicted noise outside dwellings within the 35
dB contour, taking into account the turbine types being considered, the shape of
the land between turbines and dwellings, any special characteristics of sound
produced by the candidate turbines and any cumulative effect from nearby
wind farms.
All candidate turbines, except the Acciona SW125, are predicted to comply with
the New Zealand Standard.
The Acciona SW125 is predicted to marginally exceed 40 dB outside three
dwellings, all of which are the subject of commercial agreements with the
applicant.
D274 and D322, in the table above, are predicted to receive just over 40 dB and
D276, in the table, is predicted to be affected when topographic sensitivity is
taken into account (i.e. when noise is accentuated by the shape of the land
between turbine and dwelling).
A noise reduction mode is available for the Acciona SW125. Operating in that
mode is predicted to meet the New Zealand Standard.
The applicant acknowledges that its final choice of turbine type must comply
with the New Zealand Standard and that further sound predictions for the chosen
turbine will be needed. Permit conditions can ensure that the permit holder is
aware of and complies with this requirement.
Peer reviews or second opinions
Council officers do not have the expertise, skill or computer programs to
technically review the findings of the acoustics consultant’s assessment and
predictions. However, review of the steps that need to be taken in the
assessments can be checked against the New Zealand standard. Reading of the
standard shows consistency between the assessment methodology and the
standard.
There is no reason to doubt the findings of the consultant and:
• by making the application, the applicant has declared that the
information is true and correct
• the acoustics consultant is of good reputation
• the applicant is well aware of the requirements to meet the standard
• the applicant’s risks associated with inaccurate predictions could weigh
heavily on the viability of the project
• the application is likely to be subject to review by VCAT
• the consultants are likely to be called as expert witnesses and
• expert witnesses at VCAT are obliged to act as ‘friends’ of the Tribunal
rather than consultants to the applicant.
If a peer review or second opinion is to be sought, it would be far better for this to
be at the point where Council must be satisfied about the post construction noise
measurements and operational compliance with the New Zealand Standard and
the planning permit conditions.
Conclusion
It appears that the noise experts have followed the required steps in the
procedure and that the predicted noise at dwellings meets the required
standard.
In the event that a permit is issued, the applicant will need to undertake further
modelling and predictions for the specific turbine type selected.
In the event that the facility is constructed, the applicant will need to
demonstrate, by post construction noise measurements, that the New Zealand
standard is met.
If Council forms the view that a peer review is required, then it would be
appropriate to seek a review of the post construction noise measurements
outside dwellings, rather than the predicted noise.
Draft conditions include measurement, assessment and complaint procedures.
See conditions 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the draft conditions.
Secondary Consent Matters
12. Decommissioning Provisions – (secondary consent) (satisfied)
Council is required to consider the Policy and planning guidelines for
development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (July 2012) in the assessment of
the application. The guidelines provide for decommissioning of the wind farm at
the end of its operating life. The Minister’s model conditions provide sample
conditions, which have been included in the draft planning permit conditions.
The conditions require the applicant to enter into an agreement under Section
173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which obliges the permit holder to
advise Council of the cessation of generation, to remove above ground
infrastructure, to clean up, to remove contamination, to rehabilitate the land, to
submit decommissioning traffic and revegetation management plans and to
provide a timetable of works.
See conditions 54, 55 and 56 in the draft planning permit conditions.
13. Emergency Management – (secondary consent) (satisfied)
Council is required to consider the Policy and planning guidelines for
development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (July 2012) in the assessment of
the application. These guidelines include a model condition requiring a Wildfire
prevention and emergency response plan to be prepared in consultation with
the CFA and DELWP. The application was referred to the CFA for comment and
to DELWP as a formal referral authority. The CFA did not object and its response
recommends that the site be developed in accordance with Emergency
Management Guidelines for Wind Farms - Version 4, CFA February 2012. In
addition, the CFA has made specific recommendations for static water supply for
fire fighting purposes. The model conditions relating to the Wildfire prevention
and emergency response plan will be altered to incorporate the
recommendations. I respectfully suggest that Council ought rely on the views of
the CFA, as the expert authority, and the matter be considered satisfied.
See condition 37 in the draft planning permit conditions.
14. Traffic, Road Upgrades, Maintenance and Rehabilitation –(secondary consent)
(satisfied)
This aspect is likely to have an impact on residents and farmers in the vicinity of
the wind farm, especially during construction, when nearly 1800 vehicle
movements are expected weekly, so about 300 per day spread over the roads
used for access. About a third of these would be heavy or ‘over-size-over-mass’
vehicles. Delays can be anticipated at intersections and entry points for a small
percentage of the ‘over-size-over-mass’ loads.
After construction and during operation, the applicant indicates a maximum of
20 on site staff. Traffic would predominantly be light vehicles spread over a
number of access roads. It is unlikely that this volume of traffic will have a
significant impact.
The responsibility for any road upgrade, maintenance and rehabilitation works
(and the cost associated with them) lie with the permit holder. Objectors have
indicated that other shires have suffered significant costs associated with road
damage. Council’s Infrastructure Department has considered the application
and made recommendations as to conditions and agreements. Further
discussion is required to fine tune the conditions to provide surety and avoid
duplication. The Traffic Management Plan, Security Deposit conditions and the
Decommissioning agreement requirement in the draft planning permit conditions
give an indication of the way in which these matters are controlled. In addition,
the applicant has acknowledged its responsibility for road maintenance and
upgrade costs. Extra surveillance by Council’s Infrastructure Department would
be prudent during the construction phase.
Before the development starts, a Traffic Management Plan must be prepared for
local public roads in the vicinity of the wind energy facility. The plan is to cover a
range of matters from assessing the existing condition of roads, any upgrades
required, maintenance responsibilities, school bus routes and impact on
residents. Council can require additional or more specific matters to be included
in the plan.
See conditions 30 and 31 (traffic management plan) 49 and 50 (security deposits)
and 54 (decommissioning) in the draft planning permit conditions.
15. Environmental Management, Erosion Control and Construction Impact –
(secondary consent) (satisfied)
These matters are important to Council’s decision on the planning permit
application, where Council must decide whether the impacts represent too
great an impact or whether they can be managed to an acceptable level.
These issues are grouped together as they all relate to whether the land can
accommodate the use and development. Should Council decide that the
impacts can be managed, then separate controls should be applied for each
issue. The draft planning permit conditions provide for an Environmental
Management Plan covering things like:
• a Construction Management Plan
• Storage of fuels and contaminants
• Managing spills
• Dust suppression
• Construction noise
• Siting of temporary plant
• Toilet facilities
• Waste management
• Avoiding wet months
• Keeping to designated tracks
• Covering of trenches
• A very detailed Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Plan
• Compliance with EPA guidelines for construction sites
• Waste water discharge
• Specific erosion controls
• Inspection and remediation of localised erosion
• A Wildfire Prevention and Emergency Response Plan including CFA
guidelines for wind energy facilities (with specific CFA conditions about
water for fire fighting).
• A Blasting Management Plan
• A Vegetation Management Plan
• A Bio-Security Management Plan
• A Bat and Avifauna Management Plan
The secondary consent stage for these matters will be a challenge, therefore it is
important to make sure that the planning permit conditions give comprehensive
guidance to the applicant and to the officers who will decide the secondary
consents.
See conditions:
24 and 25 (access tracks)
32 and 33 (environmental management plan)
34 (construction and work site management plan)
35 (sediment, erosion and water quality management plan)
35 (hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan)
37 (wildfire prevention and emergency response plan)
38 (blasting management plan)
39 (vegetation management plan)
40 (biosecurity management plan)
41(environmental management plan training program)
42 (environmental management plan reporting program)
43 (implementation timetable)
44 (review of the environmental management plan)
Non-Planning and Other Matters
16. Reliability of supporting documents – (non-planning)
This aspect is important in considering the application as many documents have
and will be supplied and many strongly held views will be put forward. In many
cases, Council will have to determine which documents and views can be relied
upon.
Assessing the reliability of supporting documents or other material provided by
the applicant or a submitter as evidence is important in:
• assessing the application for planning permit
• any decision by Council
• any subsequent review at VCAT.
Things which are most reliable:
• Acts of Parliament relating to the decision (e.g. Planning and Environment
Act 1987 and the Environment Effects Act 1978)
• Regulations made under pertinent Acts
• Subordinate Legislation (e.g. Victorian Planning Provisions and the Northern
Grampians Planning Scheme)
• Codes, Guidelines and Standards referenced in or required to be
considered by Subordinate Legislation (e.g. Noise Standards and Codes of
Practice)
• Decisions, findings and rulings of Courts or Tribunals of relevant jurisdiction
on related matters
• Advice published by Public Authorities or Government Departments (e.g.
Health statements by the National Health and Medical Research Council of
Australia or the Victorian Department of Health)
• Published and peer reviewed, scientific studies and investigations
(particularly when these have been accepted by a Court, Tribunal or a
Public Authority.
• Expert evidence (when tested by a Court or Tribunal)
• Expert evidence (when peer reviewed)
• Personal evidence (when tested and accepted by a Court or Tribunal)
• Untested expert opinions
Things which are less reliable:
• Newspaper articles
• Anecdotal evidence
• Studies, published or unpublished, without a scientific basis or that have not
been subject to peer, scientific, Court, Tribunal or Public Authority review.
• Unsubstantiated personal statements or opinions
• Questions or speeches in public forums
• Interviews and commentaries
Although less reliable documents may not be acceptable as evidence, they may
be the basis on which a decision is made to study or investigate an issue further.
Application
The application includes a whole range of expert submissions, which are really
untested expert opinions. Council as the decision maker may seek peer reviews
of the expert submissions to test for reliability or, alternatively, rely on the expert
submissions.
In the event that this application is considered by VCAT, it is likely that some or all
of the experts will be called as expert witnesses. The Tribunal process will test the
evidence and the expert is obliged to act as a “friend” of the Tribunal and only
give reliable and accurate evidence.
Note that some of the expert submissions, like the Flora and Fauna submission, will
be considered by an expert authority, like DELWP.
In other cases, the expert submissions are predictions (based on mandated
standards), where the particular issue will be the subject of objective testing if the
facility is constructed. (For example, noise levels at houses must be predicted in
accordance with the New Zealand Standard at the application stage, but the
actual noise levels must be measured and found to be within the prescribed limits
once turbines are constructed).
Objection and Submissions
Objections to the application included a range of documents supporting the
views of the objectors. The objectors appear to consider that the documents
were proof of a particular matter or impact, without regard to reliability as
evidence. Most of the issues raised are likely discussed elsewhere in the
assessment of the application and, in most cases, are Key Issues.
The documents submitted include:
• Statements about land values being affected by wind farms based on:
o opinions of real estate agents (not reliable as evidence)
o Newspaper articles (not reliable as evidence)
o Newspaper reports of finding of a Magistrate in a property settlement
case (not pertinent to this matter)
• Newspaper articles (not reliable as evidence)
• An acoustics expert’s article published on his own website calling for more
investigation and raising doubt as to the mandated standards and
methodology for wind farm noise assessment. (opinion only, not reliable as
evidence)
Other submissions
The sources are likely to be pro and anti-wind farm groups. For example:
• Submissions, warnings and letters from the Waubra Foundation (past
examples of these were not peer reviewed and they drew conclusions and
made statements which were not substantiated by evidence)
• Documents from pro-wind farm groups and industry bodies which may not
be able to be substantiated.
Conclusion
For the assessment of the application, it is proposed to:
• determine the reliability of all documents submitted
• base any recommendations on those which are found to be reliable
• provide comment on the less reliable documents if they have been
provided as part of an objection
17. Effect on Land Values – (non-planning)
There are assertions in some objections that wind farms affect nearby land
values. However, any impact on land values is as a consequence of another
impact and it is that impact which needs to be considered.
The matter of devaluation or negative effect on land values by a wind farm (or a
proposed wind farm) is the subject of much discussion in Australia and around
the world.
Filtering the available information is difficult due to the large volume that has
been publicised or published by parties that are clearly either for or against wind
farms. Such information is not considered to be reliable for the purpose of
assessment or decision and has been disregarded. Only Information that may be
relied upon as evidence has been used to form the conclusion on this matter.
However, Council should consider the information provided in submissions or
objections to this application for planning permit when making its decision.
The supporting documents provided in submissions are:
1. The opinion of a real estate agent (not reliable as evidence)
2. Newspaper articles (not reliable as evidence)
3. Newspaper reports of a finding of a Magistrate in a property settlement
case (not pertinent to this matter)
All of these documents were attached to objections.
In the first two, a case would have to be made by the objector that the impact
on land value was factual and is as a result of a nearby wind farm.
In the third, it was reported in a newspaper article that a Federal Magistrate has
ruled on a property settlement between parties to the effect that land values
were affected by a proposed wind farm. The particular document could be
debated at length in an effort to determine:
• what the Magistrate actually decided
• whether that finding related only to dividing assets between the parties
• whether it could be considered to be a definitive finding about land values
• whether a Federal Magistrate can determine matters related to valuation
of land in the State of Victoria
• whether there is sufficient evidence to support the views of the valuers in
the case and
• whether a proposal can affect values or is it only the wind farm itself that
has the effect
Views and Findings of Panels and Tribunals in Victoria
Ararat Wind Farm Panel Report (Planning Panels Victoria Report to the Minister for
Planning September 2010).
At 4.2.2 of the report under the heading “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 Council 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
longJterm decisionJmaking by Planning Panels Victoria and VCAT, and
has not further considered the issue of Loss of Value”.
(Note that Mrs Stewien and Mr Randell were submitters to the Panel and Mr
Power was the legal representative of the wind farm proponent).
VCAT
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal frequently states in decisions that
the matters which will determine the final outcome of applications for review
must be based on planning considerations and that devaluation of land as a
result of a use and development is not a planning consideration. If there is no
specific evidence in support of decreased property values then the Tribunal will
not rule in favour of objections on that basis.
Numerous Tribunal decisions find or comment to the effect that potential
devaluation relates to loss of amenity and that it is the loss of amenity which
should be considered in planning permit applications, not the potential
devaluation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Example in the following VCAT decision
Vantage Point Projects Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2014] VCAT 633 (28 May
2014)
At Reason 21 of that decision Member Bennett said:
“As noted in a recent Tribunal decision (Urban Solutions v Mornington
Peninsula SC [2012] VCAT 1863)
There is now established case law which holds that a proposed decrease in
property value is an irrelevant consideration. This has been a long standing
position by the Tribunal and other than in exceptional cases, and where
clear evidence can be presented, loss in property value will not be
entertained as a ground of objection”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This can be relied upon as a precedent and Council may choose not to consider
devaluation of land further.
In this current application for a Wind Energy Facility, no specific or clear evidence
of decreased land values has been presented in objection. Should objectors wish
to pursue this ground, then the burden is on the objectors to make and sustain a
case in any review by VCAT.
Formal Studies
Some formal studies by reliable bodies have been carried out. The study below
appears to be the biggest reliable study in Australia and still is only based on a
small sample of sales.
Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Wind Farms on Surrounding Land
Values In Australia - NSW Department of Lands. (Prepared for: NSW Valuer
General August 2009) (sourced from the NSW Valuer General’s Website)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“The aim of this study was to conduct a preliminary assessment on the
impacts of wind farms on surrounding land values in Australia, mainly
through the analysis of property sales transaction data. This included
consideration of the contribution of various factors (including distance to a
wind farm, view of a wind farm, and land use) to any price changes,
positive or negative.
A review of wind farms currently operating in Australia revealed that they
have been developed in locations generally removed from densely
populated areas. As a result the small samples of sales transactions
available for analysis limited the extent to which conclusions could be
drawn.
This study investigated eight (8) wind farms across varying land uses (rural,
rural residential, residential) using conventional property valuation analysis.
Two (2) wind farms were selected in NSW and six (6) in Victoria.
The main finding was that the wind farms do not appear to have
negatively affected property values in most cases. Forty (40) of the 45 sales
investigated did not show any reductions in value.
Five (5) properties were found to have lower than expected sale prices
(based on a statistical analysis). While these small number of price
reductions correlate with the construction of a wind farm further work is
needed to confirm the extent to which these were due to the wind farm or
if other factors may have been involved.
Results also suggest that a property’s underlying land use may affect the
property’s sensitivity to price impacts. No reductions in sale price were
evident for rural properties or residential properties located in nearby
townships with views of the wind farm.
The results for rural residential properties (commonly known as 'lifestyle
prop's') were mixed and inconsistent; there were some possible reductions
in sale prices identified in some locations alongside properties whose values
appeared not to have been affected. Consequently, no firm conclusions
can be drawn on lifestyle properties.
Overall, the inconclusive nature of the results is consistent with other studies
that have also considered the potential impact of wind farms on property
values.
Further analysis (with additional data and expansion of the study area to
other states) may yield more comprehensive results. Notwithstanding this,
further studies are also likely to be limited by the availability of sales
transaction data”.
In an effort to present a study with a larger sample of sales please see the
Conclusion of the US Department of Energy study below.
A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on
Surrounding Property Values in the United States (Prepared for the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind and Water Power
Technologies Office U.S. Department of Energy August 2013) (sourced from
the US Department of Energy website January 2015)
CONCLUSION
“Wind energy facilities are expected to continue to be developed in the
United States. Some of this growth is expected to occur in more-populated
regions, raising concerns about the effects of wind development on home
values in surrounding communities.
Previous published and academic research on this topic has tended to
indicate that wind facilities, after they have been constructed, produce
little or no effect on home values. At the same time, some evidence has
emerged indicating potential home-value effects occurring after a wind
facility has been announced but before construction. These previous
studies, however, have been limited by their relatively small sample sizes,
particularly in relation to the important population of homes located very
close to wind turbines, and have sometimes treated the variable for
distance to wind turbines in a problematic fashion. Analogous studies of
other disamenities (including high-voltage transmission lines, landfills, and
noisy roads) suggest that if reductions in property values near turbines were
to occur, they would likely be no more than 3%–4%, on average, but to
discover such small effects near turbines, much larger amounts of data are
needed than have been used in previous studies. Moreover, previous
studies have not accounted adequately for potentially confounding home-
value factors, such as those affecting home values before wind facilities
were announced, nor have they adequately controlled for spatial
dependence in the data, i.e., how the values and characteristics of homes
located near one another influence the value of those homes
(independent of the presence of wind turbines).
This study helps fill those gaps by collecting a very large data sample and
analyzing it with methods that account for confounding factors and spatial
dependence. We collected data from more than 50,000 home sales
among 27 counties in nine states. These homes were within 10 miles of 67
different then-current or existing wind facilities, with 1,198 sales that were
within 1 mile of a turbine (331 of which were within a half mile)—many more
than were collected by previous research efforts. The data span the
periods well before announcement of the wind facilities to well after their
construction. We use OLS and spatial-process difference-in-difference
hedonic models to estimate the home-value impacts of the wind facilities;
these models control for value factors existing prior to the wind facilities’
announcements, the spatial dependence of home values, and value
changes over time. We also employ a series of robustness models, which
provide greater confidence in our results by testing the effects of data
outliers and influential cases, heterogeneous inflation/deflation across
regions, older sales data for multi-sale homes, the distance from turbines for
homes in our reference case, and the amount of time before wind-facility
announcement for homes in our reference case.
Across all model specifications, we find no statistical evidence that home
prices near wind turbines were affected in either the post-construction or
post-announcement/pre-construction periods. Therefore, if effects do exist,
either the average impacts are relatively small (within the margin of error in
the models) and/or sporadic (impacting only a small subset of homes).
Related, our sample size and analytical methods enabled us to bracket the
size of effects that would be detected, if those effects were present at all.
Based on our results, we find that it is highly unlikely that the actual average
effect for homes that sold in our sample area within 1 mile of an existing
turbine is larger than +/-4.9%. In other words, the average value of these
homes could be as much as 4.9% higher than it would have been without
the presence of wind turbines, as much as 4.9% lower, the same (i.e., zero
effect), or anywhere in between.
Similarly, it is highly unlikely that the average actual effect for homes that
sold in our sample area within a half mile of an existing turbine is larger than
+/-9.0%. In other words, the average value of these homes could be as
much as 9% higher than it would have been without the presence of wind
turbines, as much as 9% lower, the same (i.e., zero effect), or anywhere in
between.
Regardless of these potential maximum effects, the core results of our
analysis consistently show no sizable statistically significant impact of wind
turbines on nearby property values. The maximum impact suggested by
potentially analogous disamenities (high-voltage transmission lines, landfills,
roads etc.) of 3%-4% is at the far end of what the models presented in this
study would have been able to discern, potentially helping to explain why
no statistically significant effect was found. If effects of this size are to be
discovered in future research, even larger samples of data may be
required. For those interested in estimating such effects on a more micro (or
local) scale, such as appraisers, these possible data requirements may be
especially daunting, though it is also true that the inclusion of additional
market, neighborhood, and individual property characteristics in these
more-local assessments may sometimes improve model fidelity”.
Officer’s Conclusion
Objectors have held that land will be devalued in close proximity to a wind farm
and have provided newspaper articles and other documents in support of this.
The NSW Valuer General has studied 8 wind farms and finds no conclusive
evidence, but warns about the small number of sales available for consideration.
The US Department of Energy studied many thousands of sales and was unable
to conclude whether the impact would be positive or negative. It suggested that
the value of houses within 800 metres of a wind farm could be affected by ± 9%.
Planning Panels Victoria indicates agreement that “… property value is not, in
itself, a planning consideration”.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal regularly holds that a potential
decrease in property value is an irrelevant consideration in planning matters.
With regard to the above:
• property values may or may not be affected
• formal studies have not indicated any conclusive trends
• reliable panels and tribunals do not consider this issue in their decisions
• Council is not required to consider this issue further
18. Possibility of Health Impacts – (non-planning)
Objectors contend that wind farms affect the health of nearby residents, due to
high and low frequency noise and infrasound. There is body of information,
including newspaper articles, commentary, claim and counter-claim, supporting
both sides of the issue. No reliable evidence can be found that establishes a
causal link between wind farms and ill health.
This is not a planning issue as it rightly falls with the State and Commonwealth
health authorities to determine.
If those bodies were to determine that there is a health impact, then changes to
regulation relating to noise limits and/or setbacks from dwellings becomes a
matter for the Minister for Planning.
Discussion is warranted to explore the available evidence, as shown below.
The National Health and Medical Research Council public statement Wind
Turbines and Health JULY 2010 indicated that there was no published scientific
evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects. The
Statement was under review.
The Systematic review of the human health effects of wind farms commissioned
by the National Health and Medical Research Council from the University of
Adelaide found similarly.
National Health and Medical Research Council has now reviewed its statement.
Its Public Statement:
Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health February 2015 concludes:
‘After careful consideration and deliberation of the body of evidence,
NHMRC concludes that there is currently no consistent evidence that wind
farms cause adverse health effects in humans.
Given the poor quality of current direct evidence and the concern
expressed by some members of the community, high quality research into
possible health effects of wind farms, particularly within 1,500 metres (m), is
warranted’.
Sourced from the National Health and Medical Research Council website
March 2015, see link below
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh57_n
hmrc_statement_wind_farms_human_health_0.pdf
Another study concentrated on complaints alone.
The Pattern of Complaints about Australian Wind Farms Does Not Match
the Establishment and Distribution of Turbines: Support for the Psychogenic,
‘Communicated Disease’ Hypothesis
Simon Chapman , Alexis St. George, Karen Waller, Vince Cakic University of
Sydney - Published: October 16, 2013 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076584
Sourced from the Public Library of Science website. U.S. Headquarters
1160 Battery Street, Koshland Building East, Ste. 100, San Francisco, CA
94111 US on 3 February 2015 (see link below)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076584
This study sought to look at the numbers and distribution of complaints about
wind farms, without analysis of the nature of the complaints.
The results are interesting and put concerns about potential health impacts into a
different perspective. Points of note extracted from the study are:
• The study looked at all Australian wind farms (51 with 1634 turbines)
operating 1993–2012.
• Records of complaints about noise or health from residents living near 51
Australian wind farms were obtained from all wind farm companies, and
corroborated with complaints in submissions to 3 government public
enquiries and news media records and court affidavits.
• 33/51 (64.7%) of Australian wind farms including 18/34 (52.9%) with turbine
size >1 MW have never been subject to noise or health complaints.
• These 33 farms have an estimated 21,633 residents within 5 km and have
operated complaint-free for a cumulative 267 years.
• Western Australia and Tasmania have seen no complaints.
• 129 individuals across Australia (1 in 254 residents within 5 kms of a wind
farm) appear to have ever complained
• 94 complainants (73%) being residents near 6 wind farms targeted by anti-
wind farm groups (Waubra = 29, McArthur = 21, Hallett 2 = 13, Waterloo =
11, Capital = 10 and Wonthaggi ~10).
• The large majority 116/129(90%) of complainants made their first complaint
after 2009 when anti wind farm groups began to add health concerns to
their wider opposition. In the preceding years, health or noise complaints
were rare despite large and small-turbine wind farms having operated for
many years.
It could be argued that many informal complaints were not part of the official
records, therefore not considered in this study, and many more complaints may
have been received after the study. Simply, the number of complaints is very
low overall and that the distribution of complaints is, at least, inconsistent.
The complaint distribution shown below does not support the argument that
being close to a wind farm causes health impacts.
• 33 wind farms – no complaints
• 12 wind farms – 35 complaints (average 3 each)
• 6 wind farms – 94 complaints (average 16 each)
The next study was raised in objection and held to be evidence of health
impacts.
The results of an acoustic testing program Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm
(The Acoustic Group - 2014)
Sourced from the Pacific Hydro website 3 February 2015
http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/files/2015/01/Cape-Bridgewater-
Acoustic-Report.pdf
This report was commissioned by the Cape Bridgewater operator Pacific Hydro
[Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd]
Note: The electronic version of the report is copy protected, so extracts are not
easily available. The following comments have been drawn from the report.
The wind farm had previously been found to comply with the planning permit
noise limits, but the noise complaints continued.
The size of the study sample certainly does not make it a detailed scientific study.
This is acknowledged by the author of the report. It comprised studying the
effect on a total of six people in a total of 3 houses.
Pacific Hydro commissioned the report to investigate the complaints from three
households near the Cape Bridgwater Wind Farm. The Acoustic Group was the
acoustics consultant chosen by the complainants. Pacific Hydro did not limit the
nature of the study and, in addition, co-operated fully with the acoustics
consultant in terms of access to the wind farm and the provision of operational
data.
Note that Steven Cooper of The Acoustics Group has been involved in wind farm
enquiries in the past and, in those enquiries, has indicated that the current noise
standards need review as, in his opinion, they do not pay sufficient heed to the
full spectrum of sound and the measurement of it.
The complainants, in turn, allowed noise measurements to be taken at their
properties for a period of 9 weeks, including vacating for a few days for
measurements inside their houses. Detailed diaries were kept by the participants
for comparison with sound measurement.
The study, based on the resident’s diaries, identified that “sensation”, rather than
noise, was the main form of disturbance from the wind farm.
The perceived disturbance was found to align with noise measurement when:
• turbines were seeking to start
• there was an increase or decrease of power output in the order of 20%
• turbines were operating at full power and the wind increased above
12m/s (43 kmh)
Low frequency sound (20-200 Hz), infrasound sound (0-20 Hz) and vibration was
recorded by the consultant in and near the dwellings. The measurements of
sound reached the limits of the sound meters.
The study confirmed that infrasound (less than 20 Hz) from the wind farm was not
present when the turbines were shut down, thus ruling out environmental or
background noise factors.
The following points were noted:
• the residents had been feeling effects for in excess of six years
• residents appeared to be sensitised to the wind farm impacts
• the Cape Bridgewater environment meant that ambient noise, at night in
the dwellings and without the turbines operating, was about 15 dB (very
quiet)
The author of the report states that there is not enough data in the study to justify
any change to regulation and made detailed recommendation for future
investigation of wind farm noise and its impacts. He coined the term Wind Farm
Signature and found a vibration in the turbine towers themselves.
The author’s suggestions in the conclusion were:
• for study residents the presence of “sensation” was the major impact (the
author is clear that he believes the residents are experiencing the
reported sensations and that his measurements indicate that the sensation
could result from the wind farm)
• surveys of residents near other wind farms should include questions relating
to sensation
• the use of the A weighted and G weighted dB scales does not
adequately indicate the effects of wind farm noise.
In other words, the author holds that the study indicates that the residents are
experiencing unpleasant and disturbing impacts allegedly from the wind farm,
that the acoustic measurements substantiate that there is sound from the wind
farm that could be causing the impact, that the study has identified
characteristics of sound not currently required to be measured, that the current
sound measurements standards do not adequately assess the potential impact
of a the wind farm and that further investigations should be undertaken.
Conclusion
Council can rely on the advice of the National Health and Medical Research
Council.
There is no requirement for Council to consider this matter further, as every
dwelling owner within 2 kilometres of a proposed turbine has consented to the
proximity of turbines.
19. Economic and Social Impacts
The wind farm will have very significant benefits to the local economy. A
discussion with Council’s specialist officers in this field is warranted.
20. Landscape and Visual Impact
At Clause 52.32-4 Application Requirements in the planning scheme, the
applicant is required to provide:
• Accurate visual simulations illustrating the development in the context of
the surrounding area and from key public view points.
• An assessment of:
o the visual impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape.
o the visual impact on abutting land that is described in a schedule to
the National Parks Act 1975 and Ramsar wetlands and coastal areas.
These things have been provided with the application and can be found in the
application documents available to Councillors.
At Clause 52.32-5 Decision guidelines in the planning scheme, Council is required
to consider the following in relation to Landscape and Visual Impact before
making a planning decision:
• The impact of the development on significant views, including visual
corridors and sightlines
• Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in
Victoria (July 2012).
The Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in
Victoria (July 2012) states:
‘Responsible authorities need to determine whether or not the visual
impact of a wind energy facility in the landscape is acceptable. In doing
so, they should consider planning scheme objectives for the landscape,
including whether the land is subject to an Environmental Significance
Overlay, Vegetation Protection Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay or
a relevant strategic study that is part of the relevant planning scheme’
and
The following measures are suggested to reduce the visual impacts of wind
energy facilities:
• siting and design to minimise impacts on views from areas used for
recreation and from dwellings
• locating arrays of turbines to reflect dominant topographical and/or
cultural features, such as ridgelines, the coastline, watercourses,
windbreaks or transmission lines
• using turbine colour to reduce visual impacts from key public view
points
• limiting night lighting to that required for safe operation of a wind
energy facility and for aviation safety
• reducing the number of wind turbines with obstacle lights while not
compromising aviation safety
• mitigating light glare from obstacle lighting through measures such as
baffling
• selecting turbines that are consistent in height, appearance and
rotate the same way
• spacing turbines to respond to landscape characteristics
• undergrounding electricity lines wherever practicable
• minimising earthworks and providing measures to protect drainage
lines and waterways
• minimising removal of vegetation
• avoiding additional clutter on turbines, such as unrelated advertising
and telecommunications apparatus.
General Discussion
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
There is no laid down or required method for the assessment of landscape and
visual impact. Different models are used in different applications and the
applicant is not required to use any particular method. Cases perused indicate
that, in the United Kingdom a Scottish method is often used, some New South
Wales cases have used method developed in Western Australia and landscape
studies by the Minister for Planning do not describe the method used.
The applicant in this case has chosen to use an American model or
methodology.
The assessment is very detailed and can be found in the application documents
provided to Councillors.
Particular aspects of the assessment are discussed under the headings below.
General Comment
Accurate visual simulations
This has been raised as an issue in objections. There is no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the visual simulations provided in the application as the scale of the
turbines superimposed on the photographs certainly appears to be accurate.
In other cases and in other jurisdictions, there has been much discussion and
debate about photo montages and whether they mislead the viewer. This
debate has brought to the fore that photo montages are a tool only and should
not be the primary basis for decisions on visual impact. Things such as the focal
length of the camera, the width of the field of view and the apparent distance of
the hills/turbines from the viewer are raised as variables which could be
misleading.
For the photo montages provided with this application, it would appear that the
A3 size images should be held about 200mm from the eyes to have the most
realistic view.
The photomontage for the view point from the Ararat side of the Western
Highway overpass of the railway (Viewpoint 21) was chosen as an example
because the view to the turbines from that point is unobstructed, the view point is
elevated and this is a view from the public domain. The visual impact study in the
application notes that the view point is 4.6 km from the nearest turbine and the
overall visual impact is potentially dominant – high. The assessment further notes
that the view from this viewpoint is likely to be from moving vehicles and, where
the moving observer is taken into account, the visual impact ranges from low to
high.
The three versions of the photo montage from Viewpoint 21 below indicate the
apparent changes when the viewer zooms in on the images or holds the
photograph at different distances from the eye. None of the three is more
accurate or more misleading than any other. The three images demonstrate
that the photos are tools only and any judgement should be made on the basis
of comparing the turbine size to the landscape on site at the view point.
Image as presented in the application (original size A3)
Image zoomed in to remove most of the foreground
road (approximately half the width of the original photo)
Zoomed in to show just turbines and hills (approximately
a quarter of the width of the original photo)
The most logical method appears to be to hold the photomontage up while
looking at the view from the view point, then move the photomontage back and
forward until it matches the scale of the view. From this decide how the turbines
appear in the view. Once this is done on site, the photomontage then becomes
a memory aid in the office. After a few exercises of this sort on site, it is possible to
gain an accurate impression without going to the site in every instance.
The application contains a very detailed Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment prepared by Urbis dated 9 December 2014. It finds impact ranging
between low and high.
The State Planning Policy at Clause 19.01 has the following objectives and
strategies:
19.01-1 Provision of renewable energy
Objective
To promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures
appropriate siting and design considerations are met.
Strategies
• Facilitate renewable energy development in appropriate locations
• Protect energy infrastructure against competing and incompatible
uses
• Develop appropriate infrastructure to meet community demand for
energy services and setting aside suitable land for future energy
infrastructure
• In considering proposals for renewable energy, consideration should
be given to the economic and environmental benefits to the broader
community of renewable energy generation while also considering
the need to minimise the effects of a proposal on the local
community and environment
• In planning for wind energy facilities, recognise that economically
viable wind energy facilities are dependent on locations with
consistently strong winds over the year.
The above clause contains strategies to ensure the facilitation of renewable
energy development is considered against both the economic and
environmental benefits to the broader community.
The proposal provides a net community benefit by creating jobs during the
construction phase and during the operation of the wind energy facility. This will
provide a flow-on effect to the local community.
The environmental considerations of the development have been considered by
the applicant and the wind energy facility will provide clean energy generation.
The proponents have identified the environmental constraints and benefits of the
proposed location of the wind energy facility.
The Clause recognises wind energy facilities are only economically viable in
locations with consistent strong winds over the year. The Grampians area has
been modelled by the applicants to be a location suitable for adequate wind
generation to ensure a viable renewable energy source.
On balance, the objectives and strategies of the State Planning Policy override
visual impact consideration in Clause 52.32 and the landscape considerations in
the Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 1.
The model planning permit provide for mitigation measures for dwellings where
the visual impact is high.
Conclusion
There is no apparent reason to doubt the accuracy of the visual simulation in the
application.
The visual simulations should be used as a tool only and decisions should be
based on comparison of the turbines to the landscape.
On balance, the objectives and strategies of the State Planning Policy override
visual impact consideration in Clause 52.32 and the landscape considerations in
the Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 1.
21. Environmental Significance Overlay- Schedule 1
The primary objective of the Schedule is the protection of land from risk of
erosion.
A secondary objective of the Schedule relates to landscape qualities. This
objective is not met.
This aspect is intertwined with the consideration of landscape and visual Impact,
which some published studies indicate is the single biggest basis for complaint
about wind farms. The discussion here will attempt to balance the planning
scheme provisions in support of wind farms against the objective in the
Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1.
The planning scheme mentions of visual impact, views and landscape, pertinent
to this application are Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility Particular Provision,
Clause 12 in the State Planning Policy Framework and Schedule 1 to the
Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1. Other mentions in controls like
the Significant Landscape Overlay are not pertinent to this application.
The planning scheme mentions of wind energy and renewable energy, pertinent
to this application and this aspect, are Clause 19.01-1 Provision of Renewable
Energy and Clause 11.05-4 Regional planning strategies and principles, as quoted
below.
19.01-1 Provision of renewable energy
Objective
To promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures
appropriate siting and design considerations are met.
Strategies
• Facilitate renewable energy development in appropriate locations
• Protect energy infrastructure against competing and incompatible
uses
• Develop appropriate infrastructure to meet community demand for
energy services and setting aside suitable land for future energy
infrastructure
• In considering proposals for renewable energy, consideration should
be given to the economic and environmental benefits to the broader
community of renewable energy generation while also considering
the need to minimise the effects of a proposal on the local
community and environment
• In planning for wind energy facilities, recognise that economically
viable wind energy facilities are dependent on locations with
consistently strong winds over the year.
Clause 11.05-4 Regional planning strategies and principles
Environmental health and productivity
Maintain and provide for the enhancement of environmental health and
productivity of rural and hinterland landscapes by:
• Managing the impacts of settlement growth and development to
deliver positive landuse and natural resource management
outcomes.
• Avoiding development impacts on land that contains high
biodiversity values, landscape amenity, water conservation values,
food production and energy production capacity, extractable
resources and minerals, cultural heritage and recreation values,
assets and recognised uses.
Regional Victoria’s competitive advantages
Maintain and enhance regional Victoria’s competitive advantages by:
• Ensuring that the capacity of major infrastructure (including highways,
railways, airports, ports, communications networks and energy
generation and distribution systems) is not affected adversely by
urban development in adjacent areas.
• Focusing major government and private sector investments in
regional cities and centres on major transport corridors, particularly
railway lines, in order to maximise the access and mobility of
communities.
• Providing adequate and competitive land supply, including urban
regeneration, redevelopment and greenfield sites, to meet future
housing and urban needs and to ensure effective utilisation of land.
• Strengthening settlements by ensuring that retail, office-based
employment, community facilities and services are concentrated in
central locations.
Conclusion
The Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 1 seeks as objectives to
maintain the natural beauty of the ridge system and to maintain the landscape
qualities of the ridge system especially when viewed from surrounding areas, with
its primary objective relating to erosion. Erosion is dealt with elsewhere in this
report.
Other State Planning Policies, mentioned above, and Clause 52.32 in the
planning scheme provide competing imperatives which lower the importance of
landscape and visual impacts in the Overlay.
On balance, the objectives and strategies of the State Planning Policy override
visual impact consideration in Clause 52.32 and the landscape considerations in
the Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 1.
22. Cumulative Impact from this and other Wind Farms
Council is required to consider the Policy and planning guidelines for
development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (July 2012) in the assessment of
the application. The guidelines at 4.3.3 (b) require consideration of cumulative
impact of the proposed and any other planned, approved and constructed
wind farms in the vicinity. The aspects that need to be considered under this
heading include:
• Impacts on birds and bats – as previously stated DELWP, as the expert
authority, has assessed and considered the application and it conditions
have been incorporated into the draft conditions. Advice from DELWP
may be relied upon.
• Visual impact – there is visual impact, specific to this proposal and
cumulatively
• Noise – this matter is satisfied by the application, and the assessment in the
application finds no cumulative impact which exceeds the required
standards
• Blade glint – this matter is satisfied by the application and no further
mention is required – this is a must comply matter
• Blade shadow flicker – this matter is satisfied by the application and no
further mention is required – this is a must comply matter
• Electromagnetic interference – by the applicant’s assessment, there will
be little or no impact on radio and television reception. The permit holder
is required to ensure any impact is rectified.
Conclusion
There will be a cumulative impact of the proposed wind farm in terms of visual
impact.
In relation to noise, there will be cumulative impact at dwellings between the
Bulgana and Ararat wind farms, but the predicted noise levels fall under the
prescribed limits in the New Zealand Standard.
23. Aviation Impact
The advice of the Stawell Airport manager has been sought from Council’s
Infrastructure Department, as the airport is managed by Council. Its advice is
that the proposed wind farm is outside the Obstacle Limitation Surface of the
Stawell Airport and can be held as not impacting the current operation of the
airport at Code 3 standard. The Department urges aviation obstacle lighting of
the turbines to CASA standards.
Any upgrade of the airport to Code 4 standard would require extension of the
runways and this will push the 15 kilometres obstacle limitation surface further out.
It is unlikely that the airport runways could be extended towards the proposed
wind farm sufficiently to create the situation where the proposed turbines would
be within the obstacle limitation surface.
24. Overall Amenity Impact
This is a general consideration in all applications and relates to the impact on the
amenity of areas outside the footprint of the wind farm. The overall amenity
impact depends on the impacts from a number of key issues. As these are
discussed separately, no overall amenity impact discussion is warranted, except
to say that Council’s decision on the application should balance the various
impacts against the overall benefit to the broader community.
Conclusion
The overall amenity impact of the proposal is insufficient to counter the overall
benefit to the broader community.
25. Utility Installion - Substation and regulatory framework for power lines
The terminal substation at the northern end of the proposal adjacent to the 220
kV transmission line is the Utility Installation. The application was referred to
Ausnet Services as a formal referral authority. It has not objected, but has
required conditions to be inserted in any permit to issue. These have been
inserted in the draft conditions. The expert advice of Ausnet Services can be
relied upon.
Minor Utility Installation
The electrical installations in the proposal include the underground connection
from turbines to the collector substation, the substation itself and the overhead
power lines from the collector substation to the terminal substation. All of these fit
the land use definition of Minor Utility Installation, which does not need a planning
permit under the zone provision. Building and works associated with a Minor
Utility Installation is exempted from planning permit by Clause 62 of the planning
scheme.
The electrical installations are considered here as they are ancillary to the Wind
Energy Facility land use and it is prudent to ensure that there is a regulatory
framework for them.
Advice has been sought from Energy Safe Victoria, which has indicated that the
installations are regulated under various other Acts and Regulations. This
framework involves licences, construction and maintenance standards and
inspections.
This aspect does not need to be considered further.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development meets the requirements of the Northern Grampians
Planning Scheme.
This report represents the assessment of the application in accordance with the
Planning and Environment Act, 1987.
The officer’s recommendation is expressed in the report to Council in the agenda.
Top Related