PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 5.2014.76 · PDF file125, 126, 127, 161, 164, 172A, 173A, ... Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, ... Horsham and connect to the electricity transmission line

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)


• 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


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


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


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


o A Definitive Document on wind turbine noise by the Waubra Foundation


o An open letter by Melissa Ware about the Cape Bridgewater Study (not


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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



Heritage Advisor 19/12/2014 Response received and



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





4. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Comm.)

(EPBC) – (other authority)


6. Aviation and Aviation Lighting – (other authority) (satisfied)

Compliance Matters









14. Traffic, Road Upgrades, Maintenance and Rehabilitation –(secondary

consent) (satisfied)







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


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.



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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.




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.



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)



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


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


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.




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.




22. Cumulative Impact from this and other Wind Farms



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.