MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 YALOAK SOUTH WIND ENERGY FACILITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2010
MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 YALOAK SOUTH WIND ENERGY FACILITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
David Blore, Chair
Colin Burns, Member
Ian Harris, Member
SEPTEMBER 2010
Contents
1. SUMMARY...... 1
2. BACKGROUND...... 4 2.1 The Permit Application ...... 4 2.2 The Application for Review...... 4 2.3 The Advisory Committee...... 4 2.3.1 Terms of Reference ...... 5 2.3.2 Hearings and inspections...... 5 2.3.3 Procedural issues...... 6 2.3.4 Public Notice...... 6 2.3.5 Submissions...... 7 2.3.6 Request for further information...... 8
3. WHAT IS PROPOSED? ...... 9 3.1 The subject site and surrounds...... 9 3.2 Background to the proposal...... 11 3.3 The proposal...... 11 3.4 Details of the proposal...... 12
4. PLANNING CONTEXT...... 13 4.1 Policy framework ...... 14 4.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework...... 14 4.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework...... 22 4.1.3 Summary ...... 24 4.2 Planning Scheme provisions...... 25 4.2.1 Applicable zone(s) ...... 25 4.2.2 Applicable overlays...... 26 4.2.3 Particular provisions...... 27 4.2.4 Applicable permit triggers...... 28 4.3 Other legislative requirements ...... 29 4.3.1 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: ...... 29 4.3.2 Environment Effects Act 1978:...... 29 4.3.3 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006:...... 29
5. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ...... 31 5.1 Summary of issues ...... 31 5.1.1 Key issues...... 31 5.1.2 Other issues ...... 31 5.2 Issues dealt with in this Report ...... 31
6. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY ...... 33 6.1 What is the issue? ...... 33 6.2 Policy context ...... 33 6.3 The Planning Application Report ...... 34 6.4 Submissions...... 34 6.5 Discussion...... 34 6.6 Conclusion...... 36
PAGE I
7. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT (INCLUDING AVIATION LIGHTING)...... 37 7.1 What are the issues?...... 37 7.2 Policy context of the issue ...... 38 7.2.1 Landscape impacts ...... 38 7.2.2 Visual amenity impacts ...... 39 7.3 The Planning Application Report ...... 40 7.3.1 Landscape character ...... 41 7.3.2 Visual impact ...... 42 7.3.3 Public attitudes to WEFs...... 43 7.3.4 Assessment of visual impacts...... 43 7.3.5 Cumulative effects ...... 44 7.4 Submissions and evidence ...... 44 7.4.1 Submissions...... 44 7.4.2 Evidence...... 47 7.4.3 Proponent’s concluding position:...... 50 7.5 Discussion...... 51 7.5.1 Current proposal...... 51 7.5.2 Comparison with previous Yaloak WEF proposal...... 59 7.5.3 Cumulative effects of Moorabool and Yaloak South proposals:...... 61 7.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 62
8. NOISE ASSESSMENT...... 63 8.1 What are the issues?...... 63 8.2 Policy context of the issues ...... 63 8.3 What noise standard should apply? ...... 64 8.3.1 Planning Application Report...... 64 8.3.2 Evidence and submissions...... 64 8.3.3 Discussion ...... 66 8.3.4 Conclusion...... 68 8.4 Noise Limits ...... 68 8.4.1 Planning Application Report...... 68 8.4.2 Summary of evidence and submissions ...... 69 8.4.3 Construction noise limits...... 69 8.4.4 High amenity noise limits ...... 70 8.4.5 Special audible characteristics ...... 76 8.4.6 Stable air and wake induced turbulence...... 77 8.4.7 Indoor noise levels ...... 79 8.4.8 Setback distances ...... 80 8.4.9 Cumulative impact assessment...... 82 8.4.10 Low frequency noise and infrasound ...... 86 8.4.11 Conclusions and recommendations...... 89 8.5 The adequacy of the noise assessment provided...... 90 8.5.1 Planning Application Report...... 90 8.5.2 Summary of evidence and submissions ...... 92 8.5.3 Location and height of wind speed measurements...... 92 8.5.4 Background sound monitoring locations...... 94 8.5.5 Sound measuring equipment ...... 95 8.5.6 Positioning of noise monitoring equipment ...... 97 8.5.7 Pre and post measurement calibration...... 99 8.5.8 Correlations of background sound levels with wind speed...... 102 8.5.9 Seasonality ...... 106 8.5.10 Predictions of WEF sound levels ...... 108 8.5.11 Wind direction...... 113
PAGE II
8.5.12 Are the noise assessments provided adequate? ...... 114 8.5.13 Pre-development assessments ...... 116 8.5.14 Conclusions and recommendations...... 122 8.6 Compliance testing and enforcement...... 124 8.6.1 Planning Application Report...... 124 8.6.2 Summary of evidence and submissions ...... 124 8.6.3 Special audible characteristics ...... 125 8.6.4 Testing of compliance with N3/89 limits during construction...... 127 8.6.5 Dwellings at which compliance testing is required...... 128 8.6.6 Hub height wind speeds ...... 129 8.6.7 Wind speed range...... 130 8.6.8 Coefficients of determination (R2 values)...... 131 8.6.9 Action triggers on non-compliance ...... 132 8.6.10 Compliance at dwellings impacted by two or more WEFs...... 133 8.6.11 Evaluation of compliance testing ...... 136 8.6.12 Conclusions and recommendations...... 136 8.7 Improving the framework for the assessment and control of WEF noise..... 137 8.7.1 Conclusion and recommendation...... 141
9. FLORA AND FAUNA (OTHER THAN WEDGE-TAILED EAGLES) ...... 142 9.1 What are the issues?...... 142 9.2 Policy context of the issue ...... 142 9.3 Flora...... 143 9.3.1 The Planning Application Report...... 143 9.3.2 Evidence and submissions...... 143 9.3.3 Discussion ...... 144 9.4 Fauna (excluding Wedged-tailed Eagles) ...... 144 9.4.1 The Planning Application Report...... 144 9.4.2 Evidence and submissions...... 144 9.4.3 Discussion ...... 147 9.5 Conclusions and recommendations...... 148
10. WEDGE-TAILED EAGLES ...... 149 10.1 What is the issue? ...... 149 10.2 Policy context of the issue ...... 149 10.3 Planning Application Report...... 150 10.3.1 Surveys of the site for Wedge-tailed Eagles ...... 150 10.3.2 Collision risk for Wedge-tailed Eagles ...... 151 10.3.3 Effects of mortalities at Yaloak South on the overall WTE population...... 152 10.3.4 Cumulative impact assessment...... 152 10.4 Evidence and submissions ...... 152 10.5 Discussion...... 159 10.5.1 Introduction...... 159 10.5.2 Implications of the 2005 Panel Recommendations and Minister’s decision...... 160 10.5.3 Predicted mortalities of WTEs at the Yaloak South site ...... 163 10.5.4 Impact of WEF on the WTE Population ...... 164 10.5.5 Cumulative impacts on the WTE population ...... 165 10.5.6 WTE deaths and the community ...... 166 10.5.7 Possible measures that could be taken to reduce mortalities...... 168 10.5.8 Ongoing WTE mortality monitoring and survey programs ...... 168 10.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 169
PAGE III
11. ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE...... 171 11.1 What are the issues?...... 171 11.2 Policy context of the issues ...... 171 11.3 Planning Application Report...... 172 11.4 Evidence and submissions ...... 173 11.5 Discussion...... 174 11.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 175
12. SHADOW FLICKER AND BLADE GLINT...... 176 12.1 What are the issues?...... 176 12.2 Policy context of the issues ...... 176 12.3 Planning Application Report...... 176 12.4 Evidence and submissions ...... 178 12.5 Discussion...... 178 12.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 179
13. OTHER ISSUES...... 180 13.1 Fire...... 180 13.1.1 What are the issues? ...... 180 13.1.2 Policy context of the issue...... 180 13.1.3 The Planning Application Report...... 180 13.1.4 Submissions...... 180 13.1.5 Discussion ...... 182 13.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 184 13.2 Aircraft safety ...... 184 13.2.1 What is the issue?...... 184 13.2.2 Policy context of the issues ...... 184 13.2.3 The Planning Application Report...... 185 13.2.4 Submissions...... 185 13.2.5 Discussion ...... 186 13.2.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 186 13.3 Traffic and transport ...... 186 13.3.1 What is the issue?...... 186 13.3.2 Policy context of the issue...... 187 13.3.3 The Planning Application Report...... 187 13.3.4 Submissions...... 188 13.3.5 Discussion ...... 188 13.3.6 Conclusions and recommendations...... 189 13.4 Cultural Heritage...... 189 13.4.1 What is the issue?...... 189 13.4.2 Policy context...... 190 13.4.3 Planning Application Report and submissions...... 190 13.4.4 Discussion ...... 191 13.4.5 Conclusions and recommendations...... 191 13.5 Land values and alternative land uses...... 192 13.5.1 What is the issue?...... 192 13.5.2 Submissions...... 192 13.5.3 Discussion ...... 193 13.5.4 Conclusions...... 194 13.6 Decommissioning...... 194 13.6.1 What is the issue?...... 194 13.6.2 Submissions...... 194 13.6.3 Discussion ...... 195 13.6.4 Conclusion and recommendation...... 196
PAGE IV
13.7 Fixed buffers...... 197 13.7.1 What is the issue?...... 197 13.7.2 Submissions...... 197 13.7.3 Discussion ...... 198 13.7.4 Conclusion...... 199 13.8 Economic contribution...... 199 13.8.1 What is the issue?...... 199 13.8.2 Planning Application Report and submissions...... 199 13.8.3 Discussion ...... 200 13.8.4 Conclusion...... 200 13.9 Potable Water Supply ...... 200 13.9.1 What is the issue?...... 200 13.9.2 PAR and Submissions ...... 200 13.9.3 Discussion ...... 201 13.9.4 Conclusion and recommendation...... 201
14. HEALTH CONCERNS...... 202 14.1 What is the issue? ...... 202 14.2 Policy context ...... 202 14.3 Evidence and submissions ...... 202 14.4 Discussion...... 205 14.5 Conclusions and recommendations...... 207
15. DRAFT PLANNING PERMIT CONDITIONS ...... 208 15.1 Introduction ...... 208 15.2 Submissions...... 208 15.3 Discussion...... 208 15.3.1 Key matters ...... 209 15.3.2 Other issues ...... 209 15.4 Conclusions and recommendations...... 210
16. CONCLUSIONS...... 211
17. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 212
Appendices
Appendix 1 List of all submissions received to Planning Permit and Application for Review...... 215 Appendix 2 List of all documents tabled at hearing ...... 223 Appendix 3 DPCD without prejudice draft Permit ...... 228 Appendix 4 Advisory Committee Recommended Permit ...... 256
PAGE V
List of Figures
Figure 1: Locality plan...... 10 Figure 2: Survey points, turbine locations and nest sites...... 157 Figure 3: Wedge‐tailed Eagle utilisation ...... 162
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Permit triggers under Moorabool Planning Scheme ...... 28 Table 2: Predicted and permitted sound levels ...... 84 Table 3: R‐squared values ...... 106 Table 4: Projected annual average WTE mortality at Yaloak South WEF...... 154 Table 5: Previously projected annual average mortality at Yaloak WEF (2005) ...... 155
PAGE VI
List of Abbreviations Used
CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan
Council Moorabool Shire Council dB(A) Decibels, A weighting
DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development
DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment
EMP Environmental Management Plan
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)
EVC Ecological Vegetation Community
EWS Expert Witness Statement
FFG Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria)
Ha Hectare km Kilometre kV Kilovolt
L90 The sound level equal or exceeded for 90% of the time
L95 The sound level equal or exceeded for 95% of the time
Leq The equivalent sound level (average)
LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework
MRET Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
MSS Municipal Strategic Statement
MW Megawatt
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
PAGE VII
NZS6801:1991 New Zealand Standard NZS6801:1991 Acoustics – Measurement of Sound
NZS6801:2008 New Zealand Standard NZS6801:2008, Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound
NZS6808:1998 New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998, Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators
NZS6808:2010 New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010, Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise
PAR The Planning Application Report in support of the Planning Permit Application 2010/002
Proponent Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd
RA Responsible Authority: Moorabool Shire Council or Minister for Planning as noted
RAP Registered Aboriginal Party
SPPF State Planning Policy Framework
SV Sustainability Victoria
The Act Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Victoria)
The Application Planning Permit Application 2010/002
The Guidelines Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria, DPCD, Sept. 2009
The Planning Moorabool Planning Scheme Scheme
Vpd Vehicles per day
WEF Wind Energy Facility
WTE Wedge‐tailed Eagle
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
PAGE VIII MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
1. Summary
Background
A planning application was submitted to Moorabool Shire Council by Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd in December 2009 for the 14‐turbine Yaloak South Wind Energy Facility. The application was advertised and submissions received.
An application for Review was lodged with VCAT in March 2010 for failure of the Council to decide the application. Council in March 2010 wrote to the Minister for Planning seeking his call‐in of the application and concurrent consideration of the nearby Moorabool WEF proposal for 110 turbines. In May 2010 the Minister wrote to VCAT advising of his assumption of responsibility for the matter. An Advisory Committee was subsequently appointed to hear and consider this matter.
Submissions and Key Issues
Submissions on the proposal raised a number of issues, including the following principal concerns: . the visual and landscape impacts of the proposal; . the potential impacts on Wedge‐tailed Eagles; and . the anticipated noise impacts on nearby residents.
The Advisory Committee conducted a Hearing and heard the submissions of the Department of Planning and Community Development, the proponent, Council, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and nine other submitters. Expert witnesses were called by the proponent, Council, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and other submitters. The Advisory Committee considered all issues raised in evidence and submissions in reaching its decision.
Conclusions
In regard to landscape and visual impacts, the Advisory Committee concludes that: . whilst a few residents in the immediate locality will be exposed to a visual impact ranging from limited to significant, this is not of an order
PAGE 1 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 which would render the proposal unacceptable when compared against the State policies relating to such facilities; . in considering the cumulative effects of this and the Moorabool proposal, the relative effect is dependent on the order of construction given the different scales of the two projects, but again whilst there are some residents affected by the cumulative visual impact, this does not support a rejection of this proposal; and . the proposal’s significantly reduced scale in comparison to a previous proposal for a wind energy facility on the Yaloak Estate and the placement of the turbines has resulted in a commensurate reduction in landscape impacts.
The Advisory Committee’s assessment of the proposal’s noise impacts is that the requirements of the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria under which this proposal is being assessed are likely to be met at all non‐host dwellings. However, deficiencies in the noise assessments provided with the application leads the Advisory Committee to recommend that new assessments be required prior to the start of development, including provision for independent auditing of the results and of compliance testing.
In regard to cumulative noise impacts, the Advisory Committee considers that a strategy to address this can be developed but alternatives need to be provided including an equitable approach between the operators of both the Moorabool and Yaloak South WEFs (assuming both are approved and developed).
The Wedge‐tailed Eagle is not a listed species under either the EPBC Act (1999) or FFG Act (1988) and is thus not afforded any specific consideration under the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria despite its undoubted “iconic” status. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee concludes that in applying the Guidelines, the mortality rate of Wedge‐tailed Eagles that may result from the operation of this wind energy facility is not in itself sufficient grounds on which to reject this proposal.
The predicted average mortality rate of 5.3‐6.7 birds per year is higher than that predicted for the previous proposal, which was refused in part due the predicted impact on Wedge‐tailed Eagles. The different position arrived at by this Advisory Committee is due to the difference in the predicted impact on the Wedge‐tailed Eagle population, which in turn is due to a significant difference in advice on the consequences for the Wedge‐tailed Eagle
PAGE 2 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 population from the Department of Sustainability and Environment and expert witnesses.
Cumulative effects of the Moorabool and Yaloak South WEF projects on the Wedge‐tailed Eagle population could not be assessed due to incompatible data sets between the two proposals.
Recommendation
The Advisory Committee recommends that the proposal should be approved and a planning permit issued which includes specific permit conditions addressing various matters, including those mentioned above, as outlined in the Advisory Committee’s Recommended Permit.
PAGE 3 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
2. Background
2.1 The Permit Application
Planning Permit Application PA2010/002 (the Application) was lodged with Moorabool Shire Council (Council) by Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd (the Proponent) on 2 December 2009. The application proposed a 14‐turbine wind energy facility (known as Yaloak South Wind Energy Facility) at Glenmore Road Mt Wallace approximately 12 kms south of Ballan and to the east of the Geelong‐Ballan Road. The Application was advertised and according to the Council 135 objecting submissions and 8 supporting submissions were received.
2.2 The Application for Review
An Application for Review was lodged by the Proponent with VCAT on 10 March 2010 under s79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) for failure of the Responsible Authority (Council) to decide the application within the required time. At lodgement Council had 148 submissions – mostly objections. Some of the objectors had also been objectors to the Moorabool Wind Energy Facility (proposed 110 turbines 6 kms to the north‐ west of this site). Following lodgement of the Application for Review, 27 Statements of Grounds were lodged with VCAT.
On 22 March 2010 Council wrote to the Minister for Planning seeking the Minister’s call‐in of the Application under s97B of the Act for determination.
Council’s application also sought concurrent consideration of this and the nearby Moorabool WEF proposal. In the event, this did not occur and the Panel Hearing for that matter concluded in June.
On 18 May 2010 the Minister wrote to VCAT advising of his assumption of responsibility under Clause 58(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.
2.3 The Advisory Committee
This Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister on 3 June 2010 pursuant to Section 151 of the Act to hear and consider submissions in respect of the Application.
PAGE 4 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee consisted of: . Chairperson: David Blore; . Member: Colin Burns; and . Member: Ian Harris.
2.3.1 Terms of Reference
The Advisory Committee was appointed under terms of reference which require it to: ..... report on all relevant matters concerning Application for Review P664/2010. In so doing, the Advisory Committee may inform itself in any way it sees fit, but shall consider: · the Application Report and all other documentation prepared by and for Energy Pacific; · all written objections, submission and statements of grounds made in regard to the Application; and · all written reports prepared in respect of the Application by the Council. The Advisory Committee shall hold a public hearing, and maintain a library of written submissions and other supporting documentation. The Advisory Committee must produce a written report for the Minister for Planning providing an assessment of all relevant issues and submissions made and a recommendation and reasons in relation to the determination of the Application for Review.
2.3.2 Hearings and inspections
A Directions Hearing was held on 21 June 2010 at the Greenhills Enterprise Centre, Mt Helen, following which a number of Directions were made. These are discussed as necessary in relevant sections of this report and are thus not reproduced here.
The Advisory Committee Hearings were held on 19 – 27 July at Sails on the Lake, Wendouree Drive Ballarat (19th and 20th July) and Greenhills Enterprise Centre, Mt Helen (21st – 27th July inclusive).
The Advisory Committee inspected the site and surrounding areas, making unaccompanied visits to the general locality prior to the start of the Hearing.
PAGE 5 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee also made an unaccompanied day and night inspection to the nearby Waubra WEF during the course of the Hearing.
An Accompanied Site Inspection was undertaken on Wednesday 28 July 2010 which included the following locations: . the site of the proposed WEF on Yaloak Estate, including an inspection of the proposed site of each array, the locality of “The Bluff” and the site of the proposed substation; . the Parwan Valley locality including Viewpoints 13 and 15 on Glenmore Road, and the locality of several submitters’ dwellings including that of Mr & Mrs Ramholdt and Ms Toni Davey; . the property of Mr & Mrs J Irving, and nearby Viewpoints 8 and 10; . the property of Ms J Skidmore; . the property of Mr S Olsen and Ms E Miller‐Olsen; and . viewpoints 6 and 4 on the Geelong‐Ballan Road.
The Advisory Committee was accompanied on this inspection by representatives of Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd and four submitters. The Advisory Committee took photographs at no particular lens settings for its own use in recalling the various sites pictured. GPS details of specific turbines were taken to assist in correlating against the information provided by the proponent. Of particular note was the current use of the site for lambing activities.
2.3.3 Procedural issues
Early in the Hearing, the Advisory Committee directed that the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD), in conjunction with Council, produce a consolidated agreed list of all submissions (including Statements of Grounds) for the information of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee took this step due to some differences in the quoted numbers of submissions to the Application. The Advisory Committee notes that the information provided did not include responses to the planning application from referral authorities which required further follow‐up.
2.3.4 Public notice
The Application was advertised between 9 February 2010 and 9 March 2010. Notices were placed in the Moorabool News from 9 February 2010 for four consecutive weeks, and letters were sent to 58 properties in the locality.
PAGE 6 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 2.3.5 Submissions
The Advisory Committee has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.
The Advisory Committee heard the parties listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Submitter Represented By Department of Planning and Community Mr. Chubb Fadgyas of the firm Fadgyas Development Planning P/L Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Mr Tim Power of Freehills assisted by Ms Anna Sinclair of Freehills. Mr Power called the following witnesses: Mr Russell Maunder, Operations Manager and visual simulation expert of Truescape Limited, Christchurch New Zealand; Mr Peter Rough, Landscape Architect, of Peter Rough Landscape Architects Ltd, Christchurch New Zealand; Mr Brett Lane, Ecologist of Brett Lane and Associates; Mr Ian Smales, Ecologist, of Biosis Research Pty Ltd; Mr Christophe Delaire, noise expert of Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd. Moorabool Shire Council Mr Peter Jewell of the firm Jewell Partnership, who called the following witness: Mr Andrew McMahon, Ecologist of Ecology Australia Pty Ltd. Department of Sustainability and Mr Stewart Dekker and Mr Richard Hill. Mr Environment Dekker called the following witness: Mr Peter Menkhorst, wildlife ecologist S & L Giddins Themselves S Olsen and E Miller-Olsen Themselves. Mr Olsen also called the following witness: Mr Les Huson, noise expert of L Huson and Associates, Woodend.
PAGE 7 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Submitter Represented By J Irving Himself R Brownell Himself J Skidmore Herself D Thomas Himself K Ramholdt Himself. Mr Ramholdt also called the following witness (by Skype internet connection): Dr S Debus, raptor specialist of the University of New England. Ms T Davey Herself Ms D Davey Herself
Mr B Rowarth and Ms R Borg were to present to the Advisory Committee but advised that they were unable to attend.
A list of names of all those providing written submissions to the Permit Application and Application for Review (collectively the pre‐hearing submissions) is included in Appendix 1.
2.3.6 Request for further information
Prior to the close of the Hearing on 27 July 2010 the Advisory Committee made the following request in relation to additional collision risk modelling to be undertaken by the Proponent: That the modelling of the collision risk for Wedge‐tailed Eagles be undertaken again with all observations from viewpoints 14, 15 and 16 removed from the dataset, and consequently any impacted turbines in this locality removed from the modelling.
The Advisory Committee noted that the response would be circulated to other parties e.g. the Department of Sustainability (DSE) for comment and if in the opinion of the Advisory Committee the response raised any potentially contentious issues, the proponent’s response and any further comments from other parties would then be considered “on the papers” without the need for a further hearing.
PAGE 8 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
3. What is proposed?
3.1 The subject site and surrounds
The site is located within the Moorabool Shire and covers an area of 683 hectares forming part of Yaloak Estate, a large farming enterprise approximately 10 – 14 km south of Ballan. The subject site is located approximately 12 km south of Ballan, approximately 70 km to the west of Melbourne, 30 km from Ballarat and 40 km from Geelong. Small local population centres in the general locality include Gordon (15 km to the northwest) and Meredith (approximately 20 km southwest); nearby localities include Mt Wallace (5 km to the south‐west), and Glenmore and Rowsley (10 km to the east).
The subject site comprises improved pasture that is being cropped or grazed, consistent with land use in the general locality. Turbines 1 ‐ 8 inclusive are located on the flat farming land at the top of the escarpment on the south side of Glenmore Road before the road drops down into the valley. Turbines 9 ‐ 14 inclusive occupy a flattish saddle above the valley to the north of the Brisbane Ranges National Park, which abuts the site in this locality. Vegetation on the site, apart from pasture, is mainly developed shelterbelts of both native species and pines, with several woodlots in the vicinity. There is little native vegetation on the site.
The site is within the Melbourne water supply catchment and Southern Rural Water is the referral authority for this catchment.
The Country Fire Authority’s training facility at Fiskville is located approximately 4 km to the north‐west of the nearest wind turbine (No. 1), on the west side of the Geelong‐Ballan Road. This facility includes an airstrip used for training and fire fighting purposes by CFA and DSE.
PAGE 9 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Figure 1: Locality plan
PAGE 10 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 3.2 Background to the proposal
In 2004 a permit application was made for a WEF development at Yaloak, south of Ballan. The permit application comprised a proposal to use and develop land for construction of 70 wind generators and associated infrastructure. The proposal was said to generate between 112MW and 115MW of electricity. Having a generating capacity in excess of 30MW, the application was made to the Minister for Planning in accordance with the decision making framework set out in the Guidelines.
Forty‐two written submissions were received in relation to the application, with the majority of submissions expressing opposition to the proposal. A Panel was appointed and hearings conducted, with a report to the Minister being submitted in March 2005.
The report found that there would be an unacceptable impact on the population of Wedge‐tailed eagles (WTEs) based on the predicted mortality rate of 3‐4 deaths at the site per year. The Panel also expressed concern at the landscape impact on the Parwan Valley due to the extended “string” configuration along the rim of the escarpment.
In a subsequent Press Release in July 2005 the Minister for Planning advised that the application had been refused based on the recommendations of the independent Panel because the proposed development posed an unacceptable risk to the Wedge‐tailed eagle and raised other concerns about the WEF site and design. He noted that any new application for a WEF in the area would have to go through a new independent environmental assessment and demonstrate that it is sustainable before it could proceed.
3.3 The proposal
The Application proposes the use and development of a WEF comprising 14 turbines and associated aviation safety lighting (on 7 turbines), a substation, access tracks, underground cabling, buildings and works, removal of non‐ native vegetation, and road improvements on a road in Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) and a road in Road Zone Category 2 (RDZ2).
It is anticipated that the installed capacity of the facility will be approximately 29 MW.
PAGE 11 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
3.4 Details of the proposal
The proposed WEF comprises the following principal components and works: . a maximum of 14 wind turbines comprising of: - tapered cylindrical tubular towers up to 80m high; - three blades of up to 46.25m length, making a maximum rotor diameter of 92.5m; and - maximum tip height of 125.25m. . turbine foundations (approximate 6m diameter at surface, 14m diameter sub‐surface); . adjacent hardstand to each turbine (45m x 25m); . external electrical transformer to each turbine (approximate size 4m length x 2m width x 2m height); . approximately 9.1km of on‐site access tracks; . approximately 11km of underground cabling, predominantly adjacent to access tracks; . one on‐site electrical substation (within approximate 40m x 40m compound); . one permanent 80m high metrological mast; . three temporary construction compounds (approximately 50m x 50m); and . road upgrade works comprising: - improvement of the Geelong‐Ballan Road/Glenmore Road intersection; and - vegetation (non‐native) removal as necessary to construct one new access point to the site from Glenmore Road.
PAGE 12 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
4. Planning context
This Chapter considers the policy context for the Proposal and focuses on the strategic and policy issues. It assesses how the Proposal meets the objectives of the Planning Scheme. The following sections include a brief appraisal of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), and the appropriate zone and overlay controls.
There are many planning policies that are in some way applicable to the consideration of the Proposal. The submissions from Mr Fadgyas on behalf of DPCD set out the details of the relevant policies, and the Advisory Committee notes that with a couple of specific exceptions relating to the potential to apply the New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010 – Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (NZS6808:2010) compared with the prior 1998 standard, other submitters did not take issue with what was put forward in this regard.
Accordingly, the Advisory Committee does not propose to set out and discuss the details of all the policies that may be relevant; rather, the Advisory Committee will refer to them as appropriate. Where necessary in order to outline the policy framework context of the Proposal the Advisory Committee has drawn extensively on the material provided by DPCD, as well as that provided by the Proponent, Council and other submitters.
Key documents referenced by DPCD and various submitters include: . Moorabool Planning Scheme; . Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (DPCD; revised Sep 2009); . New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998, Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators; . New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010, Acoustics –Wind Farm Noise; . New Zealand Standard NZS6801:1992, Acoustics – Measurement of Sound; . New Zealand Standard NZS6801:2008, Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound; . Australian National Wind Farm Development Guidelines (draft); . Victorian Government Statement of Intentions 2010; . A Blueprint for Regional Victoria – The Regional Strategic Planning Initiative; . Central Highlands Regional Strategic Plan – DRAFT;
PAGE 13 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . Towns in Time 2006 Analysis – Ballan; . Victorian Wind Atlas 2004; . National Greenhouse Strategy 1998; . Victorian Greenhouse Strategy Action Plan Update 2005; . Victoria’s Renewable Energy Action Plan 2006; . Growing Victoria Together – A Vision for Victoria to 2010 and Beyond (2005); . The Greenhouse Challenge for Energy: Driving investment, creating jobs and reducing emissions Position Paper (2004); . Our Environment Our Future Sustainability Action Statement 2006; . National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996; . Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy 1997; . Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (2002); . Convention of Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar Convention); . Japan‐Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (JAMBA); . China‐Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (CAMBA); and . Corangamite Regional Catchment Strategy 2003‐2008.
4.1 Policy framework
4.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework
Many policy elements of the SPPF, which is contained in clauses 11‐19 of the Planning Scheme, are relevant to consideration of the proposed Yaloak South WEF. Each SPPF clause contains an overall goal or objective and a series of policy statements. The clauses relevant to the Proposal are discussed below.
11.02 Goal:
This statement is part of the introductory clauses of the SPPF and contains the following statement: The State Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.
PAGE 14 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Section 4 of the Act contains overarching objectives for planning that have informed the Advisory Committee’s consideration of the Application. These are: a. to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land; b. to provide for the protection of natural and man‐made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; c. to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria; d. to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value; e. to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community; f. to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); g. to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.
The issues identified by the Advisory Committee as addressed in this report relate to one or more of the objectives of the Act.
11.03 Principles of land use and development planning
This policy contains the following statement: Society has various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic well‐being, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social well‐being affected by land use and development.
The policy highlights requirements to address economic, environmental and social aspects of development.
15.01 Protection of catchments, waterways and groundwater
This policy contains the objective: To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.
PAGE 15 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 This clause requires planning authorities to have regard to relevant aspects of catchment management strategies and catchment issues, including protection of surface and ground waters.
The policies contained in this clause are relevant to the Advisory Committee’s consideration of protection of the drinking water catchment for Melbourne. The policies also apply to control erosion during construction and operation of a project, including the ongoing use of access tracks.
The site is within an Environmental Significance Overlay for the protection of a proclaimed water catchment, designated ESO2 in the Planning Scheme. Southern Rural Water was the referral authority for the Application and made a submission stating that it had no objections to the proposed Yaloak South WEF. The policy document Protecting Water Quality in the Moorabool Shire ‐ Water Catchment Protection Policy (8 July 2003) (Water Catchment Protection Policy) was agreed between Central Highlands Water, Barwon Water, Southern Rural Water and Western Water, and applies to certain special water supply catchments in Moorabool Shire.
The policy basis for the Water Catchment Protection Policy is that ‘300,000 people rely on drinking water supplies harvested from catchments in the Moorabool Shire’, and ‘inappropriate land use and development will undermine the safety and reliability of water supplies in the Shire’.
Provision is made for erosion and sediment control measures by way of specific permit conditions in the Advisory Committee’s Recommended Permit contained in Appendix 4 (the Recommended Permit), should a permit be issued.
15.05 Noise abatement
This policy contains the objective: To assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses.
Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of techniques including building design and separation of land uses.
The relevant noise assessment standard for WEFs in Victoria is New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998, Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators (NZS6808:1998). This standard is referenced directly in the Policy and Planning Guidelines for the Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (the Guidelines) which is the basis for evaluation of wind energy proposals in Victoria.
PAGE 16 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The policies contained in this clause are relevant to the siting and design of wind turbines in proximity to sensitive land uses such as existing dwellings and future house sites. Noise is addressed in Chapter 8.
15.07 Protection from wildfire
This policy contains the objective: To assist the minimisation of risk to life, property, the natural environment and community infrastructure from wildfire.
Fire hazards should be considered in planning decisions affecting wildfire risk environments to avoid intensifying the risk through inappropriately located or designed uses or developments. Although the subject site is not identified as an area of high fire risk in the Planning Scheme, the Brisbane Ranges to the immediate south‐east of the site and the part of the larger landholding in the immediate proximity is covered by a Wildfire Management Overlay.
The policies contained in this clause are relevant to the Advisory Committee’s consideration of any fire response plan that should be required of the project if it is approved. Fire is discussed in Chapter 13.
15.09 Conservation of native flora and fauna
This policy contains the objective: To assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals.
Planning decisions must have regard to legislation protecting native flora and fauna, especially the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the FFG Act), which identifies at‐risk species within Victoria, and must consider any regional catchment plans. Protection of at‐risk species is also an objective of Commonwealth legislation.
Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework sets out principles and a three‐stage process to be followed if native vegetation is to be impacted by a proposal. First, removal should be avoided if possible; second, such removal should be minimised using expert advice; and third, an offset must be identified where removal cannot be avoided. The objective of Net Gain must be achieved in these circumstances.
In addition, planning and responsible authorities should consider the potential impacts of land use and development on the spread of plant and
PAGE 17 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 animal pests from areas of known infestation into natural ecosystems. The Advisory Committee notes that in particular the Serrated Tussock pest plant is a well‐known invasive weed which has been widely present in the locality.
The policies contained in this clause are relevant to the Advisory Committee’s consideration of any adverse impacts on flora, ground fauna and avifauna that could occur as a result of the Proposal. The Application does not include any application for removal of native vegetation. These issues are discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.
Limiting the spread of pest plants and animals through construction and operational activities is addressed by specific permit conditions in the Recommended Permit, should a permit be issued.
15.11 Heritage
This policy contains the objective: To assist the conservation of places that have natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social significance or other special value important for scientific and research purposes, as a means of understanding our past, as well as maintaining and enhancing Victoria’s image and making a contribution to the economic and cultural growth of the State.
Planning and responsible authorities should identify, conserve and protect places of natural or cultural value from inappropriate development. These include places identified within different categories including, amongst other things: . places and sites of geological, paleontological or other scientific importance, including rock formations and fossil sites; . places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, including historical and archaeological sites; and . sites associated with the European discovery, exploration and settlement of Victoria.
Planning and responsible authorities should take account of the findings and recommendations of the Victorian Heritage Council and the provisions of the Heritage Act 1995. Planning and responsible authorities must also take account of the requirements of the Victorian Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972, the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the views of local Aboriginal communities in providing for the conservation and enhancement of places, sites and objects of Aboriginal cultural heritage value.
PAGE 18 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The policies contained in this clause are relevant to the Advisory Committee’s consideration of whether wind turbines and other infrastructure would affect identified places of heritage significance. This issue is discussed in Chapter 13.
15.12 Energy efficiency
This policy contains the objective: To encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions.
This clause does not contain any relevant policy considerations beyond the objective. Of relevance to the Yaloak South WEF is the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions through use of wind‐generated electrical power. This issue is addressed in Chapter 6.
15.14 Renewable energy
This policy contains the objectives: To promote the provision of renewable energy, including wind energy facilities, in a manner that ensures appropriate siting and design considerations are met: Clause 15.14‐1. To increase the security and diversity of Victoria’s energy supply by increasing the proportion supplied by renewable sources including wind energy: Clause 15.14‐2. Planning should contribute to the provision of renewable energy by facilitating wind energy development in appropriate locations: Clause 15.14‐2.
This objective and the consequent policies are central to the Advisory Committee’s assessment of the Application. The clause states: Energy underpins the economy and quality of life of all Victorians. The Government is committed to achieving a more sustainable energy future for all Victorians by: · Contributing to national and international efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions by reducing the long term dependency on energy from fossil fuels. · Increasing the security and diversity of Victoria’s energy supply by increasing the proportion supplied from renewable sources including wind energy.
PAGE 19 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · Encouraging and supporting the development of sustainable industries. Planning should contribute to the provision of renewable energy by facilitating wind energy development in appropriate locations. In particular, planning should: · Facilitate the consideration of wind energy development proposals. · Recognise that economically viable wind energy facilities are dependent on locations with consistently strong winds over the year and that such sites are likely to be close to the exposed coastline and may be highly localised. · Consider the economic and environmental benefits to the broader community of renewable energy generation and the effects on the local environment.
In planning for WEFs, planning and responsible authorities must take into account the requirements of the Guidelines.
The Guidelines are further considered and referred to throughout this report where relevant. Renewable energy issues are addressed in Chapter 6.
17.02 Business
This policy contains the objective: To encourage developments which meet community’s needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provide net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.
Of relevance to the Yaloak South WEF are the employment opportunities that would be created by the Proposal and the likely flow on economic benefits to the local community. Economic issues are discussed in Chapter 13.
17.05 Agriculture
This policy contains the objective: To ensure that the State’s agricultural base is protected from the unplanned loss of productive agricultural land due to permanent changes of land use and to enable protection of productive farmland which is of strategic significance in the local or regional context.
PAGE 20 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 A proposal to subdivide or develop agricultural land requires the following factors to be considered: . the desirability and impacts of removing the land from primary production, given its agricultural productivity; . the impacts of the proposed subdivision or development on the continuation of primary production on adjacent land, with particular regard to land values and to the viability of infrastructure for such production; . the compatibility between the proposed or likely development and the existing uses of the surrounding land; and . assessment of the land capability.
These are set out more completely in the Decision Guidelines to the zone at clause 35.07‐6 of the Planning Scheme.
These requirements are relevant to the Advisory Committee’s consideration of: . the effect of WEFs on farm operations, specifically whether access tracks will benefit land holders and whether turbine locations will create land use conflicts with nearby farm operations; . the continued use of land for agriculture, including any effects on longer term production from additional income gained by stakeholder beneficiaries; and . future use and development proposals on nearby land.
These issues are addressed in relevant chapters of this report.
18.09 Water supply, sewerage and drainage
This policy contains the objective: To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs and protect the environment.
Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that water quality in water supply catchments is protected from possible contamination by urban, industrial and agricultural land uses.
The policy contained in this clause relates to any contamination or polluted runoff associated with the Proposal. The Advisory Committee has considered this aspect of the project as part of its overall catchment
PAGE 21 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 protection evaluation, and relevant permit conditions are included in the Recommended Permit, should a permit be issued.
19.03 Design and built form
This policy contains the objective: To achieve high quality urban design and architecture that: · Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community. · Enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm. · Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.
While normally used in the context of building and site design, the clause does require responsible authorities to consider a range of issues in terms of built form. Responsible authorities should require that all permit applications for non‐residential development include a site analysis and descriptive statement explaining how the proposed development responds to the site and its context. In addition: . development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of its location; . landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or, where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment; and . all building, subdivision and engineering works should promote more efficient use of resources and energy efficiency.
The policy contained in this clause is especially relevant to the siting of wind turbines in the broader rural landscape and the design and siting of related infrastructure. The Advisory Committee has considered this aspect of the Proposal as part of its overall visual impact assessment in Chapter 7.
4.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework
Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)
Clause 21.01 Municipal Context
Moorabool Shire is a peri‐urban municipality located on the western urban/rural fringe of the Melbourne metropolitan area and extending to the outskirts of Ballarat to the west, along the major rail and road transport corridor between the two cities. The Planning Scheme MSS notes that there
PAGE 22 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 are planning challenges in accommodating and servicing residential growth and demand for lifestyle housing while protecting agricultural productivity, and environmental values and significant landscapes.
The MSS further notes that: Moorabool Shire is characterised by its townships in rural settings and its distinctive rural landscapes which comprise a diversity of vast ranges, plains, ancient gorges, and areas of intensive horticulture. The varied and rich topographical features are integral environmental, agricultural, and recreational resources for the Shire. These environmental assets, as well as existing built form, historic buildings and landscapes, contribute to the Shire’s numerous places of natural and cultural heritage significance. Much of the Shire is in Special Water Supply Catchments, which has a significant impact on the development potential of land in the west and north of the Shire. This combined with large areas of National or State Park or State Forest that traverse the Shire limit development opportunities and pose significant land management issues, particularly relating to sediment control and land clearing. Agriculture is the major sector in Moorabool’s economy and also contributes to the rural landscape setting that typifies the Shire. Agricultural production is predominantly broad acre cropping and grazing ...... Council’s economic development strategies encourage new and innovative sustainable agricultural industries and the promotion of value adding industries that can capitalise the agricultural and resource base.
Key issues identified by the MSS which are relevant to this application include: . Environment: the MSS notes the contribution of environmental assets such as the Brisbane Ranges National Park and Werribee Gorge State Park to the Shire’s places of natural and cultural heritage significance; . Economic development: continued productive and sustainable agricultural land use is critical to the Shire’s economy and requires protection from residential development. The MSS notes that: It is important to ensure planning to accommodate demand for rural living opportunities produces enhanced environmental outcomes and also protects agricultural production, particularly highly productive areas in the west of the Shire ......
PAGE 23 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 There is an ongoing need to manage existing and potential conflict between residential, rural residential and agricultural and horticultural production. . Clause 21.01‐3 Strategic Framework Plan: This Plan notes the key growth areas, areas subject to Special Water Supply Catchments, parks and reserves which have limited development potential, and other issues including transport corridors.
Clause 21.02 Natural Environment
This clause identifies a number of key issues and influences impacting upon the Shire, the most relevant of these include: . Biodiversity: the highly significant natural resources are key assets of the municipality, while the impact of human activity on biodiversity is noted; . Wildfire: is noted as an issue for forested areas on steep inclines.
The objective of “Protecting non urban landscapes” to maintain the natural environment and the Shire’s rural identity and character is supported by strategies to: · Recognise and protect the national, state and regional values of Werribee George State Park, Bungal State Forest, Long Forest nature Reserve, Lal Lal State Forest, Lal Lal Falls, Brisbane Ranges Lerderderg State Park, and Wombat State Forest. · Protect the landscape and scenic qualities of forested hill slopes, rural landscapes, and bushland setting of the Shire’s rural and urban areas. · Preserve high quality landscapes by not supporting development on hilltops and ridgelines.
Clause 22.02 Special Water Supply Catchments
This clause applies to all land located within the catchment and seeks to ensure that development does not impact upon the domestic water supply. This clause acts in concert to the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) which addresses Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments in the Planning Scheme.
4.1.3 Summary
The Advisory Committee notes that the DPCD submission in briefly considering the implications of the Moorabool MSS on the Proposal, stated that:
PAGE 24 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 ...... in summary the MSS does not identify the subject site or surrounds for residential growth; as particularly high quality agricultural land; or, of particular landscape significance. The MSS makes no comment on the suitability or otherwise of the subject site for wind energy facility development.1
4.2 Planning Scheme provisions
4.2.1 Applicable zone(s)
The proposed WEF is located on land in the Farming Zone (Clause 35.07) of the Planning Scheme.
In addition, improvements are proposed at the intersection of Geelong‐ Ballan Road with Glenmore Road, maintenance of Glenmore Road between Geelong‐Ballan Road and the required entries to the site, and development of the existing and a new entry to the subject land are also anticipated requirements. The Geelong‐Ballan Road is in the Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) under the management and control of VicRoads, whilst Glenmore Road is in the Road Zone Category 2 (RDZ2) under the management of Council.
Clause 35.07 includes use and development provisions relating to this zone. The purpose of the Farming Zone is: · To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. · To provide for the use of land for agriculture. · To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land. · To ensure that non – agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture. · To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management and practices and infrastructure provision. · To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area.
1 DPCD Submission to Advisory Committee para 36
PAGE 25 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 A wind energy facility is a Section 2 use – Permit Required (Clause 35.07‐1 ‐ Table of uses) in the Farming Zone. Any wind energy facility must also meet the requirements of Clause 52.32 (Wind energy facilities).
Building or works associated with a Section 2 use require a planning permit under Clause 35.07‐4 (Buildings and works) of the Farming Zone.
In addition, a building which is within any of the following setbacks requires a planning permit under Clause 35.07‐4 (Buildings and works) of the Farming Zone: . 100 metres from a Road Zone Category 1 or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a road (specified in the schedule to this zone); . 40 metres from a Road Zone Category 2 and a setback of 20 metres from any other road (both are specified in the schedule to this zone); . 5 metres from any other boundary (specified in the schedule to this zone); . 100 metres from a dwelling not in the same ownership (specified in a schedule to this zone); . 100 metres from a waterway, wetlands or designated flood plain.
The Application does not include any proposed developments (turbines, amenities building or substation) within these setbacks with the exception of blades on turbine 1 which may intrude into the setback from Glenmore Road.
Clause 36.04 (Road Zone) includes the following purposes: · To identify significant existing roads. · To identify land which has been acquired for a significant proposed road.
A permit is required to carry out buildings and works associated with a wind energy facility (Clause 36.04‐2). The proposal includes intersection works on the RDZ1 (Geelong‐Ballan Road) at Glenmore Road, and construction of two entrances on Glenmore Road (RDZ2).
4.2.2 Applicable overlays
The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2, and the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 of the Planning Scheme apply to all or part of the land respectively. The Wildfire Management Overlay applies to a part of the subject land and to land to the immediate south‐east of the site in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, but is not applicable to the site of the proposal.
PAGE 26 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Schedule 1 of the ESO provides for the protection of Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments. A permit is required for building and works and removal of any vegetation under ESO1, which aims to protect quality and quantity of water within the proclaimed water catchment and protect the area from inappropriate development.
Schedule 2 of the DDO provides for the protection of the landscape from the use of reflective surfaces on buildings, roofs and other structures.
4.2.3 Particular provisions
Clause 52.32 of the Planning Scheme is the particular provision dealing specifically with WEFs. Its purpose is: To facilitate the establishment and expansion of wind energy facilities, in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.
At 52.32‐3 the Clause also contains decision guidelines being: Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines of Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: · The effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of noise, blade glint, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference. · The impact of the development on significant views, including visual corridors and sightlines. · The impact of the facility on the natural environment and natural systems. · The impact of the facility on cultural heritage. · The impact of the facility on aircraft safety. · The Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria, 2009.
Clause 65 contains the general decision guidelines which are called up for all decisions on planning permit applications. Clause 65.01 states as follows: Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: · The matters set out in Section 60 of the Act. · The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
PAGE 27 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision. · Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision. · The orderly planning of the area. · The effect on the amenity of the area. · The proximity of the land to any public land. · Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reduce water quality. · Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater within and exiting the site. · The extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its destruction. · Whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or allowed to regenerate. · The degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location of the land and the use, development or management of the land so as to minimise any such hazard.
The particular and general provisions are considered in the discussion of key issues throughout this report.
4.2.4 Applicable permit triggers
Applicable permit triggers for the Proposal were summarised in the DPCD submission to the Advisory Committee in Table 2 of the submission (reproduced below with inclusion of all relevant triggers). Table 1: Summary of Permit Triggers under Moorabool Planning Scheme
Scheme Provision Permit Requirement
Clause 35.07 Farming Zone Use and development of a Wind Energy Facility Buildings and Works for a section 2 use.
Clause 36.04 Road Zone Buildings and works associated with a Wind Energy Facility
Clause 42.01 ESO1 Buildings and works Remove, destroy or lop vegetation, including dead vegetation
Clause 43.02 DDO2 Buildings or structures with reflective surfaces
PAGE 28 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 4.3 Other legislative requirements
4.3.1 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts advised in a letter dated 15 February 2010 that the Yaloak South WEF is not a controlled action and does not require assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).2
4.3.2 Environment Effects Act 1978
The Minister for Planning determined in a letter dated 25 March 2010 that an Environment Effects Statement under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) (EE Act) is not required for the Yaloak South WEF.
4.3.3 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006
The DPCD submission advised that: 46. The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 requires that a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) be prepared for certain developments. 47. The applicant has submitted a notice of intent to prepare a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. 48. No planning permit can be issued until an approved CHMP is provided.
The Proponent advised the Advisory Committee3 that: (b) A mandatory cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) is not required under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (AH Act) and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 (AH Regulations). (c) However, Energy Pacific has elected to prepare a voluntary CHMP under section 45 of the AH Act, and has engaged Australian Cultural Heritage Management (ACHM) to prepare it. The Notice of Intent to prepare a voluntary CHMP was lodged with the Registered Aboriginal Party, the Wathaurung Aboriginal People (WAP), Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and the landowner, on 19 June 2009.
2 Hearing Document 14: Australian Government EPBC Referral Decision 3 Hearing Document 30: Proponent’s Submission Part B p48
PAGE 29 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (d) A standard assessment of the Site was conducted by ACHM and a complex assessment will be conducted and the voluntary CHMP completed prior to the construction of the Yaloak South Wind Farm. The CHMP will detail the mitigation measures to avoid impacts on any cultural heritage within the Site. (e) Energy Pacific has agreed with the Wathaurung Aboriginal People to conduct the complex assessment after planning approval has been given. Following the planning approval for the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm, the detailed design stage may result in the turbine, track and ancillary infrastructure layout being refined or micro‐sited. Carrying out the complex assessment post approval will ensure that there is no duplication, surplus field surveys, or the need to complete a supplementary CHMP4. (f) Contingency plans for the management, during construction, of all registered sites within the activity area, including sites found as part of the standard assessment, will form part of the CHMP.
The Advisory Committee notes that whilst DPCD has suggested that a permit cannot be granted without a CHMP, this appears to relate to a situation where a mandatory CHMP is required.
4 Emphasis added by Advisory Committee
PAGE 30 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
5. Identification of issues
5.1 Summary of issues
5.1.1 Key issues
From the pre‐hearing submissions, the Advisory Committee identified a number of key issues that need to be addressed. These can be summarised as follows: . landscape and visual effects; . noise effects; and . effects on the Wedge‐tailed Eagle species.
5.1.2 Other issues
In addition to the key issues, other relevant issues include: . renewable energy and energy efficiency; . effects on land value and implications for achievement of development policy; . effects on flora and fauna (other than WTEs); . effects of blade glint and flicker; . effects of fire and safety of aviation; . health concerns; . decommissioning concerns; and . Planning Permit conditions.
5.2 Issues dealt with in this Report
The Advisory Committee considered pre‐hearing submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing (the hearing submissions). In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Advisory Committee has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.
This Report deals with the issues under the following headings: . Renewable energy and energy efficiency; . Landscape and visual impact (including aviation lighting);
PAGE 31 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . Noise assessment; . Flora and fauna (other than Wedge‐tailed Eagles); . Wedge‐tailed Eagles; . Electromagnetic interference . Shadow flicker and blade glint . Other issues; . Health concerns; and . Draft Planning Permit conditions.
PAGE 32 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
6. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
6.1 What is the issue?
The issue relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency identified by the proponent, submitters and the Advisory Committee is whether the WEF will make any contribution to greenhouse gas reduction.
6.2 Policy context
The DPCD submission to the Advisory Committee noted that: Victorian Government Statement of Intentions 2010: The Victorian energy sector will be transformed over the next 40 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining a secure and reliable energy supply. This transformation offers many opportunities for further jobs and investment, but also brings with it many challenges. There is ongoing national and international uncertainty about the policy approach to reducing carbon emissions, which will impact on the ability of the energy sector to make decisions to undertake this transformation.5
The Guidelines are premised on supporting the development of renewable energy, specifically wind energy, and hence reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Guidelines state: Wind energy projects contribute significantly to meeting renewable energy targets. Assessing wind energy developments therefore requires that appropriate consideration be given to these broader benefits, while protecting critical environmental, cultural and local values.6
The Advisory Committee has therefore determined that the following measure provides a basis for considering the performance of the project subject to the overriding application of policy: Demonstrable greenhouse gas savings and electrical power production can be identified for this project.
5 DPCD Submission to Advisory Committee, para 42 6 Guidelines Section 3.2.4
PAGE 33 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 6.3 The Planning Application Report
The Planning Application Report (PAR) notes that the project will save over 95,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually.7
6.4 Submissions
Sustainability Victoria (SV) made a submission to the exhibited PAR, advising that typical figures across Victoria suggest that for an output of 30 MW, the greenhouse gas abatement would be of the order of 85,000 tonnes. SV noted that the proponent has used a higher figure of 95,000 tonnes.
The submission concluded: The Yaloak South Wind Farm proposal, as described in the planning permit application by the proponent, offers a quantifiable contribution to reducing Victoria’s greenhouse gas pollution. This type of proposal, constructed in an appropriate location as per the requirements of the planning process, is consistent with State Government policy.8
Other submissions were made asserting that the proposed WEF: . would be inefficient and unreliable; and . would not contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The DPCD and SV submissions, and that of the Proponent, identified the greenhouse gas reduction which would ensue from its development.
6.5 Discussion
No credible peer‐reviewed evidence to support the various contentions made in respect of the claimed inefficiencies and lack of greenhouse gas reduction of wind energy facilities, or the contention that doubts are now emerging about climate change and its implications, was made available to the Advisory Committee in support of these arguments. One submission to the Advisory Committee confused a non‐renewable energy source (natural gas) with wind power in attempting to draw conclusions about relative efficiencies and roles of renewable energy sources. Others drew on various reports from unverified sources or from internet pages of unknown origins or veracity.
7 PAR Executive Summary p ii 8 Sustainability Victoria Submission to Moorabool Shire Council 9 March 2010
PAGE 34 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 ‘Capacity factor’ is a percentage figure of predicted, or actual, electrical energy output of a wind energy facility compared to the output if the wind was such that it was able to operate at full power all the time. Typical figures used and accepted by decision‐makers for WEFs in Victoria are in the range of 37% to 32%, with the lower figure being used by the report to SV from McLennan Magasanik Associates to represent a larger installed generation capacity and hence utilising sites with less than a peak wind capacity9. This report also noted that coal power plants have typical capacity factors of 86 – 95%, whilst gas plants range from 5 – 85% dependent on whether they are open cycle peaking plants or combined cycle intermediate/base load plants.10
The Advisory Committee notes in relation to submissions about claimed more efficient alternatives to wind power that this does not fall within its Terms of Reference and hence this aspect is not canvassed by this report.
The Proponent provided a broad estimate of the amount of energy to be exported from the site, noting (in the PAR Executive Summary) that the output would be below 30 MW and would be sufficient to power 18,000 homes. No capacity factor was identified in the PAR or submissions to the Advisory Committee; in the event, the Advisory Committee relies on the position outlined by SV in regard to typical capacity factors of around 32%, noting nonetheless that the Proponent describes the wind resource at this site as “excellent” and adopted a higher value for greenhouse gas abatement than that applicable for the average state‐wide capacity factor.
It is highly likely that the Proponent would have a predicted capacity factor for the site because it would be essential to assessing the economic viability of the project, but has chosen not to quote it for its own reasons. The Advisory Committee is conscious that the saleable output of the WEF is its electrical energy; hence the Proponent will seek a site which will provide as high a capacity factor and hence saleable product as possible for the capital investment made. Because of this and the Proponent’s comment concerning the excellent wind resource, in the absence of any other information the predicted factor is unlikely to be substantially if indeed any less than the typical figure quoted by SV, and may well be higher based on the logic above. It may therefore be expected that assuming a capacity factor of 33% or 10MW equivalent continuous output, the annualised output will be of the order of (24hrs x 365 days x 10MW) 87,000 MWhrs.
9 Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Abatement from Wind Farms in Victoria, McLennan Magasanik Associates July 2006, Ref: J1201 Report 10 Appendix A2.2 to McLennan Magasanik Associates July 2006 report
PAGE 35 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 6.6 Conclusion
The Advisory Committee concludes that the proposed Yaloak South WEF will make a significant and measurable contribution, possibly up to 95,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per annum, to the reduction of greenhouse gases caused by coal‐fired electricity power generation in Victoria, and can be expected to provide of the order of 87,000 MW/year of electrical power to the Victorian and interstate energy market.
PAGE 36 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
7. Landscape and Visual Impact (Including Aviation Lighting)
Previous Panels and Advisory Committees have generally adopted a common approach to the assessment of visual (amenity) impacts and landscape impact assessments as being two separate (but related) matters. The separation of the two impacts was outlined conceptually by the Bald Hills Panel in the following terms: In the Panel’s mind, this strategic concept of landscape is distinct from more individualised concepts of landscape as being the outlook enjoyed by individuals, which it deals with further under the heading of visual amenity below.11
That report went on to suggest that: All places offer some level of personal visual amenity to those who happen to work locally, whether they are located in a wilderness, in the heart of a great city, or somewhere between these two extremes. There is a public interest in maintaining reasonable standards of personal visual amenity and the planning system undertakes this task. The principal difference is that the landscape values relate largely to views available to the general public from public viewing opportunities, and visual amenity to views available to people privately from their homes, properties or places of work However, these are not mutually exclusive.
This report also follows that logic, subject to an extension to the above argument that personal visual amenity also includes the amenity of those who live as well as work locally (as clearly intended by the second paragraph).
7.1 What are the issues?
Concerns were expressed about: . the impact of the Proposal on significant landscapes in the area including the Parwan Valley and escarpment, and specific components of the escarpment;
11 Bald Hills Wind Farm Project EES and Called-In Permits Panel Report, 24 June 2004, p.96
PAGE 37 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . the impact of the Proposal on the visual amenity of nearby and more distant residents; . the impact of flashing aviation lighting on the amenity of the surrounding area; and . the adequacy or otherwise of the assessment method, sites chosen for representation of landscape and visual impacts, and claimed misrepresentation of the likely outcomes.
7.2 Policy context of the issue
7.2.1 Landscape impacts
The Guidelines outline policy matters for consideration by the responsible authorities when considering an application for a WEF. These matters include: It is accepted that wind energy facilities will have a degree of impact on the landscape. In deciding whether or not the visual impact of a wind energy facility in the landscape is acceptable, it may be useful to consider planning scheme objectives for the landscape, including whether the land is 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. Consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having regard to the Government’s Policy in support of renewable energy development.12
In regard to aviation lighting, Guidelines state that: The visual impact of the development relates to: · the number, height, scale, spacing, colour and surface reflectivity of the wind turbines · the quantity and characteristics of lighting, including aviation obstacle lighting (subject to CASA requirements and advice).13
12 Guidelines p29 13 Guidelines p28
PAGE 38 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 7.2.2 Visual amenity impacts
The Planning Scheme does not provide specific direction on the issue of visual amenity in the context of a WEF, particularly in the Farming Zone, other than at the broader landscape scale, but this is a substantive issue for individuals who find themselves in relatively close proximity to wind turbines.
The Advisory Committee notes that visual amenity is addressed in part by blade glint and shadow flicker (to a degree) evaluation criteria in the Guidelines. Other visual amenity considerations are addressed as noted below. In this case, the Advisory Committee adopts the arguments made by the Panel reviewing the Bald Hills WEF project, and also accepted by the Waubra Panel in its report (and others as well). The Bald Hills Panel concluded that while the guidelines state that: consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having regard to the Government’s Policy in support of renewable energy development
notwithstanding, a WEF development: does not entail the unwarranted or unfair exposure of individuals to unpleasant, unsafe or disorderly visual circumstances, where reasonable attention to siting and design considerations could control such impacts….the planning system does provide an underpinning of basic visual amenity standards.14
Nonetheless, as VCAT has made clear on many occasions, there is no protection under the planning system of an individual “right” to a view such that the view, either in extent or in content, is protected for ever after from change.
The matters which Guidelines note for consideration include: The degree to which a wind energy facility has a visual impact depends on the magnitude of the change to the landscape caused by the development taking into account: · the visibility of the development · the locations and distances from which the development can be viewed
14 Bald Hills Wind Farm Project EES and Called-In Permits Panel Report, 24 June 2004, p.218
PAGE 39 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · the significance of the landscape as described in a planning scheme overlay or a relevant strategic study referenced in the planning scheme · landscape values associated with adjacent National Parks and land subject to the National Parks Act 1975, and · the sensitivity of the landscape to change. The visual impact of the development relates to: · the number, height, scale, spacing, colour and surface reflectivity of the wind turbines · the quantity and characteristics of lighting, including aviation obstacle lighting (subject to CASA requirements and advice) · avoidance of visual clutter caused by turbine layout and ability to view through a cluster or array (visually well ordered series) of turbines in an orderly manner · the removal or planting of vegetation · the location and scale of other buildings and works including transmission lines, and · proximity to sensitive areas, and · proximity to an existing or proposed wind energy facility having regard to cumulative visual effects.
An additional criterion which the Advisory Committee has considered is the avoidance of landscape scale impact on the Parwan Valley – from the 2005 Yaloak Panel Report and subsequent Ministerial decision.
7.3 The Planning Application Report
Chapter 6 of the PAR outlined the basis of the landscape and visual impact assessment undertaken in support of the Application. This work was carried out for the Proponent by Peter Rough Landscape Architects Ltd of Christchurch New Zealand. The purpose of the work undertaken was to address: · Relevant legislation, guidance documents and other background documents referenced · Relevant aspects of the Moorabool Planning Scheme · Consultation undertaken
PAGE 40 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · The character and visual quality of the site and surroundings potentially affected by the proposal · Aspects of the windfarm that will give rise to landscape and visual impacts · Mitigation measures · Public attitudes to windfarms · Visibility of the proposed windfarm and an assessment of its landscape and visual impacts including possible night‐time and cumulative impacts · Overall conclusion.15
7.3.1 Landscape character
In describing the character of the site, the PAR noted that the original Yaloak proposal identified three landscape character units following a peer review and that these units were accepted by the 2005 Panel. These units included: · Basalt plain · Folded sedimentary hills, and · Valley with escarpment edge.16
These three landscape units were also adopted for this assessment, noting that the WEF site is located at the edge of the Basalt Plain, whilst the Brisbane Ranges National Park and White Elephant Reserve in the Parwan Valley are typical elements of the Folded Sedimentary Hills, and the Valley with Escarpment Edge is represented by the top section of the Parwan Valley itself. The PAR noted that the basalt plain would once have been more extensive but that it has been deeply eroded over time by the Parwan Creek and its tributaries.
In regard to the landscape sensitivity of the basalt plain, the PAR noted that: Overall and in regard to wind farm development, the basalt plain has moderate sensitivity. In the context of a landscape that is heavily modified and is of relatively low scenic quality, wind turbines would appear as another, albeit sudden, change.17
15 PAR Chapter 6 p1 16 PAR Chapter 6 p10 17 PAR Chapter 6 p15
PAGE 41 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 By contrast, the assessment noted that the Brisbane Ranges National Park is extremely high in natural character and thus very sensitive to landscape change, but that the heavily treed nature of the Park, the topography and the limited opportunities for views to the site enabled the conclusion to be drawn that the landscape and visual integrity of the Brisbane Ranges National Park would not be adversely affected by the Proposal.
Again by contrast, the assessment noted that turbine components breaking the skyline at the head of the Parwan Valley have the potential to cause adverse visual effects by breaking the outline of the escarpment and flat‐ topped bluffs, which could detract from the visual quality of the escarpment. However, the assessment also noted the somewhat hilly terrain in the valley, with remnant vegetation along roadsides and elsewhere, and the limited public viewing spots to the WEF site, all of which would diminish the extent of visual impact of the Proposal.
7.3.2 Visual impact
The assessment noted that the potential for visual impact is closely related to distance. Table 6.1: Potential visual impacts in relation to viewing distance set out the range of visual impacts for distances from less than 1.5 km (very substantial) through to more than 20 km, at which distance whilst turbines will be discernable, they will be of negligible impact.
Shadow flicker and blade glint impacts were also addressed by the assessment under this topic: these are covered in detail in Chapter 12.
The assessment addressed landscape mitigation measures, noting that many measures related to the use of the site for farming and its existing topography and shelter‐belts, or they relate to the nature of the Proposal itself; for example, the nature of the turbines and the “slow” rate at which the blades would revolve. Other mitigation measures noted included placement of the small kiosks at each turbine, the form of construction for access tracks, the placement of the electrical substation and other actions. The assessment concluded that several factors will result in little of the WEF being visible apart from the turbines and meteorological mast18, these included: · The flat to gently undulating nature of the site · The presence of subtle landforms, stands of trees and shelterbelts in the landscape
18 Advisory Committee emphasis added by underlining
PAGE 42 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · Having distances of 1.4 km and more to the closest dwellings and the closest section of Geelong‐Ballan Road · The lower elevation of the floor of the Parwan Valley (by at least 180m) · The densely forested nature of the Brisbane Ranges National Park and nearby Werribee Gorge State Park.19
In relation to night‐time impacts, the assessment noted that lighting of turbines would introduce a new element into the night‐time environment. However, it was asserted that the type of light proposed would have a very narrow beam and hence there would be a significant reduction in light spill in the surrounding landscape compared with other WEFs operating in Australia.
7.3.3 Public attitudes to WEFs
The assessment included a commentary on the findings of some research into attitudes to WEFs, asserting that the visual impact of a WEF on an individual ultimately depends on the attitude of the viewer.
7.3.4 Assessment of visual impacts
Two techniques were used to assist in describing the visual impact of the Proposal: . mapping of Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) designed to represent locations from which combinations of turbines may be theoretically visible within a radius of 10 km from the site (using different colours for different numbers of turbines) – Figures 6.6 and 6.7 of the PAR; and . preparation of photomontages from viewpoints identified by the ZTV assessment and then field tested, portraying the scale of the landscape and the superimposed WEF in a manner designed to replicate the typical field of view of the human eye when viewed at an appropriate scale and distance (the “Trueview” simulation).
The assessment then described the attributes of the selected “best” viewpoints for which photomontages were prepared and provided commentary on the likely visibility of the WEF or individual components from these locations.
19 PAR Chapter 6 p26
PAGE 43 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 7.3.5 Cumulative effects
The assessment included consideration of the combined effects of both the proposed Yaloak South WEF and the Moorabool WEF proposal by Westwind. The assessment noted that cumulative effects can occur in three ways: · Combined effects (arising from two or more wind farms being visible from one viewpoint in the field of vision ( a 1240 arc horizontally) · Succession effects – resulting from two or more wind farms being seen from one viewpoint but not in the one field of vision, i.e. the observer has to turn to see another wind farm or farms · Sequential effects – resulting from moving to another viewpoint and then seeing another wind farm(s). Sequential effects are most commonly experienced along regularly used routes such as roads and walkways.20
The assessment concluded that should both proposals proceed, cumulative effects of all three types would occur. The Moorabool WEF because of its size and the number of roads which pass beside or through it potentially would have very substantial landscape and visual effects. By contrast it was asserted that the Yaloak South WEF would have generally only slight‐ moderate landscape and visual impacts. Similarly, if Moorabool is constructed first, Yaloak South would then contribute only slight cumulative effects, whereas if the converse applied Moorabool would give rise to a substantial cumulative effect.
7.4 Submissions and evidence
7.4.1 Submissions
Concerns over the impact of the Proposal on the landscape, particularly the Parwan Valley, were prominent in pre‐hearing submissions.
A number of the pre‐hearing submissions, as well as hearing submissions, referred to the National Trust classification of the Parwan Valley and escarpment. Submitters noted that this classification cited the Parwan Valley as being of state significance for aesthetic, historical, social and scientific/technical reasons. The use of Glenmore Road through the Parwan Valley as a touring route, and the scenic attraction of the escarpment and Cut
20 PAR Chapter 6 p48
PAGE 44 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Hill locality in particular, was also drawn to the attention of the Advisory Committee.
In addition, a number of submissions noted the visual amenity impacts of the Proposal (including the proposed switchyard and substation) on the use and enjoyment of their properties and dwellings. A particular concern was raised in relation to the possibility of adverse impacts of moving turbine blades on horses at an adjoining equestrian centre owned by the Olsen family, with consequential impacts on the owners’ capacity to operate this facility in the manner intended.
Submissions were also made on the inadequacy of the photomontages as presenting a realistic or accurate portrayal of the expected views and impacts on the landscape of the WEF.
The Advisory Committee’s attention was drawn to the potential cumulative impacts on some submitters, and on the broader landscape, if both the proposed Moorabool WEF and Yaloak South WEF were to proceed.
Submissions proposed that the visual impact of the Proposal should be considered on the basis of proximity to sensitive areas (these being defined by submitters as the nearby horse stud and the perceived rural residential nature of the area).
Council, as put in the Council Report dated 6 May 2010, recommended against the Proposal on the basis of the: .....detrimental impact on the landscape of the Parwan Valley, including impact on significant views, visual corridors and sightlines.
Council maintained this position in its submission to the Advisory Committee, noting that: Council submits that the information as presented by the permit applicant seeks to compartmentise the visual impact of the process. That is, views of the turbines are defined in discreet viewing angles. This approach does not allow for the totality of the project and the cumulative impact associated with the Moorabool WEF. It is Council’s submission that the proposal will be a dominant feature on the landscape. The facility will irreversibly change the existing landscape conditions. Such dramatic change has no support in any section of the planning scheme. We note the provisions of Clause 21.01‐2 Key Issues includes: The environmental assets (including the Brisbane Ranges National Park, Lerderderg State Park, Werribee Gorge State Park, the
PAGE 45 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Wombat State Forest, and Long Forest Nature Conservation Reserve), as well significant waterways, historic buildings, rural townscapes, and landscapes contribute to the Shire’s numerous places of natural and cultural heritage significance. These features inter‐twine to form the character and lifestyle opportunities that attract people to Moorabool Shire. At Clause 21.02 (21.02‐1) Key Issues and Influences – Non Urban Landscapes: Moorabool Shire’s natural environment, towns, rural landscapes, and forested areas are important elements of the Shire’s character. It should be noted that the Parwan Valley has been nominated by the National Trust as being of State significance. The classification states that the Parwan Valley is significant for aesthetic, historic, social and scientific/technical reasons. The extent of the classification refers to “the valley of the Parwan Creek, and its tributaries Yaloak Creek, Spring Creek and Whitehorse Creek in the area bounded by a prominent basalt scarp. It extends downstream as far as the gorge where Parwan Creek crosses Rowsley fault near the village of Rowsley, 6km SW of Bacchus Marsh, and includes an area extending back from the scarp onto the basalt plateau far enough to protect the views from the valley to the surrounding hills, and vice versa”. The proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the landscape of the Parwan Valley, including impact on significant views, visual corridors and sightlines. Night time impact Seven turbines are proposed to be lit with “medium intensity red flashing lights” mounted on top of the turbine frames and synchronised to flash at the same time. The proposed lighting within 10 km of the proposed Wind Energy facility would visually appear quite significant as the area is not lit with any other form of lighting (other than lighting from existing residences which is somewhat screened from existing trees and associated buildings). The report identified that the visual impact from Glenmore Road would be quite substantial and from Nariel Court slight to moderate. Many citizens enjoy the night sky as it exists (i.e. essentially dark and naturally lit). The proposed turbine lighting will change the night sky in a manner that will find little favour for those around.
PAGE 46 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 It is for the above reasons that the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Parwan Valley, including impact on significant views, visual corridors and sightlines.21
Council also included commentary in its submission concerning the issue of the lack of any Significant Landscape Overlay highlighted by the Proponent in its submissions to the Advisory Committee, stating that: The absence of a Significant Landscape Overlay has been raised by the proponent in submissions as a factor in determining the greater suitability of the site for a WEF. Currently there is only one SLO in the planning scheme and this relates to the escarpment around Bacchus Marsh. This does not mean that rural landscapes are not valued in the Shire. Council has limited resources in which to undertake planning scheme amendments. The shire faces a myriad of planning issues including the ‘overspill’ from growth in Melbourne. The reality is that securing new SLO’s within the shire is an expensive and time consuming process and unfortunately the desire for such changes is frequently overtaken by more immediate planning issues. It is noted that submissions presented on behalf of the applicant have acknowledged that landscapes can be identified as being significant without necessarily being covered by an SLO.22
7.4.2 Evidence
Expert evidence was provided to the Advisory Committee from Mr Russell Maunder, of Truescape Limited, and Mr Peter Rough of Peter Rough Landscape Architects Pty Ltd. Mr Maunder’s evidence included a technical exposition of the methodology used to prepare the visual simulation photomontages provided as part of the PAR. Mr Maunder also provided a response to the Advisory Committee’s Direction concerning a request for examples of assessment modelling following the Truescape methodology where subsequent development has occurred, with before and after montages of a turbine forming part of a recently‐constructed WEF at Project West Wind in New Zealand. Mr Maunder’s evidence was unchallenged by any party through cross‐examination apart from a question about the selection of viewpoints which he advised had been undertaken by Mr Rough.
21 Moorabool Shire Council Submission to Advisory Panel (sic) pp10-11 22 Moorabool Shire Council Submission p21
PAGE 47 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Mr Rough made two corrections to his EWS, noting that (on p25) the overall impact of lighting of turbines would in his opinion be slight rather than his original ranking of moderate due to the lights and baffling proposed. A similar correction applied to the reference on p29 relating to a slight rather than very substantial impact from lighting when viewed from Viewpoint 15. Mr Rough noted that it was his understanding that by contrast to the proposal at Yaloak South, the lights on the nearby Waubra WEF were not baffled and were of a greater light output.
Mr Rough also provided additional clarification on the landscape context and sensitivity of the locality, noting that the Basalt Plain as a landscape character unit had moderate sensitivity but low landscape value, whilst the Folded Sedimentary Hills had high sensitivity to change and high scenic quality.
Mr Rough noted in response to some submissions criticising the selection of viewpoints that this had been done with Council, and that of the 16 sites selected, 13 were in proximity to dwellings. He provided a comprehensive assessment from each of the viewpoints, noting that no viewpoint had been able to be identified from within the Brisbane Ranges National Park; his assessment of the visual impact was that it was negligible for the Brisbane Ranges National Park and nil for the Werribee Gorge State Park.
His assessment of the degree of visual impact of the Proposal on the surrounding major road network was that it would be at most slight from Viewpoint 1 (Western Freeway at Ballan exit) and overall, apart from the Geelong‐Ballan Road, would be negligible. He contrasted this situation with that at Challicum Hills and more latterly at Waubra, where the visual impacts on the nearby highways is much more evident.
Geelong‐Ballan Road has more viewpoints where the impact has been assessed as up to substantial than other roads in the locality, but even in this case Mr Rough drew attention to the degree of interruption of these views provided by shelterbelts along the road and in nearby properties.
The EWS of Mr Rough23 included a review of the Council officer’s report on which the Council’s decision to oppose the Proposal was based; similar arguments were advanced at the Hearing by Mr Jewell as discussed above. That review made the following points: . in relation to landscape and the argument that the National Trust classification had weight, Mr Rough noted that overall the WEF would
23 Expert Witness Statement of Peter Rough, 5 July 2010, pp27-31
PAGE 48 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 have a slight (his emphasis) effect on the landscape and visual amenity of the Parwan Valley, and that no statutory planning control applied notwithstanding the National Trust classification; . in relation to cumulative effects, Mr Rough noted some misinterpretations and inconsistencies between his expert evidence and the original Chapter 6 of the PAR and the Officers Report, concluding that the two WEFs would have substantially different effects when considered in a cumulative assessment; and . a misinterpretation of the differences between the current and original Yaloak proposals by the Officers Report was demonstrated by evaluation of the photomontages 5 and 5A prepared for Viewpoint 13, showing a substantial reduction in visible turbines at this location for the current proposal, and the fact of no turbines on the Bluff or Horseshoe compared with the original proposal.
In summary, Mr Rough noted varying degrees of impact ranging from substantial on Geelong‐Ballan Road to the immediate west of the site at a distance of approximately 1.5 km, through to negligible on Glenmore Road near the property “Glenmore”. In regard to night‐time lighting he noted that the impacts would be generally slight but a potentially moderate impact would occur at the same location on Geelong‐Ballan Road.
Cumulative effects were said by him to be modest arising from the proposed Yaloak South WEF.
Mr Rough acknowledged the National Trust citation for the Parwan Valley, and noted that the fact of no SLO being applied to the location was not significant to his assessment. He also acknowledged the previous Panel report’s recommendations regarding the positioning of turbines on the Bluff and Horseshoe, and noted that the effect of change since European settlement would have been continuous but gradual (in contrast to a WEF) although timber plantations were a more rapid (and recent) development.
In response to questions concerning his statements on public attitudes to WEFs, the Advisory Committee noted that Mr Rough was not a sociologist or social demographer and that this section of his evidence would be weighted accordingly. Mr Rough advised that his comments about the fact of tourism not being significant were based on local research he had undertaken by visiting nearby Visitor Information Centres where he was unable to find any references to the locality.
Mr Power noted the proximity of turbine 14 to the Bluff and sought Mr Rough’s advice on its visibility from the Parwan Valley. Mr Rough advised
PAGE 49 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 that whilst the feature is significant from the Parwan Valley, views to the Bluff would not be impaired by turbine 14.
7.4.3 Proponent’s concluding position
In the closing submission from the Proponent, Mr Power noted that: (a) No part of the Site is subject to a planning control that protects or recognises the landscape values or views in the area, such as a Significance Landscape Overlay or Vegetation Protection Overlay. An Environmental Significance Overlay covers the Site, but this Overlay is directed at the protection of proclaimed water catchments. (b) Furthermore, none of the Farming Zone objectives require or encourage the protection of agricultural landscapes. (c) The value to be attributed to rural landscapes that have not been recognised as of particular value through a regulatory scheme was discussed by the Tribunal in relation to the proposed Drysdale Wind Farm. The Tribunal found that: - Visual amenity and landscape character is very much in the eye of the beholder. These turbines will be prominent in the landscape, but visibility does not by itself mean that they are unacceptable or unreasonably intrusive. Change is a constant factor in our environment. - It is a truism, but I sometimes sense that we as a community idealise our rural landscapes as being more stable and less subject to change than landscapes in our cities and towns. This has never been true, although perhaps the relative vastness of rural landscapes meant that these changes were less obvious. - In one sense, wind energy facilities need to be seen as just another structure in the landscape ‐ yes they need specific regulatory control just like mobile phone towers, major lines, new rural freeways and even large scale timber plantations. But that is all. Relevant policies, codes of practice and guidelines can provide an effective framework for assessment as they have in this case. (d) Despite the understandable and acknowledged affinity some submitters have with the landscape within which they live and work, it is significant that neither the planning scheme nor any
PAGE 50 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 other regulatory scheme identifies the area as of particular visual importance worthy of specific protection.24
7.5 Discussion
7.5.1 Current proposal
Landscape visualisations
The Advisory Committee firstly comments on the Truescape process used to develop photomontages to simulate the likely views of the WEF from the selected viewpoints following construction. This process appears as technically “correct” as any that the combined experience of the Advisory Committee members has seen, in that it is based on a reasonable scientific premise in portraying the “field of view” of the human eye as a visual image which can be reviewed and assessed against the actual view at a selected site.
Having said that, any two‐dimensional representation will fall short in some assessments simply because it is limited by scale and perspective. The Advisory Committee notes for example the comments of Council which described the approach as “compartmentalising” the views and hence by inference the potential impacts of the Proposal. Similarly, it could be argued that some portrayals should have been shifted to the right or left to include another perspective or element of the total view.
During the Accompanied Site Inspection, the Advisory Committee visited all viewpoints with the exception of Viewpoint 16 on Ingliston Settlement Road which was not visited due to adverse weather with low visibility setting in towards the latter part of the day. The Advisory Committee found that the photomontages could be readily reconciled against the actual vista at each of the locations visited. While the constraints of a single “field of view” contrasted with the possibilities of successive fields of view when physically examining landscapes, the representations were satisfactory in the Advisory Committee’s mind on which to base the superimposed images of turbines.
Turning to the adequacy of the superimposed images, the Advisory Committee noted that the scaled representations were based on surveyed locations and distances to ensure that relative scales were accurate. This is a simple mathematical exercise, and was an aspect of the representations which was not subject to any significant challenge in the Hearing, despite
24 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Part B p13
PAGE 51 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 some pre‐hearing submissions alleging inaccuracies. The Advisory Committee is satisfied again with the accuracy of the representations.
The final consideration is whether any effect due to light conditions could have influenced the portrayal, either deliberately as alleged by some submitters or unconsciously. In this regard the Direction that “before and after” photomontages should be provided to assist the Advisory Committee to assess the process at a “real” site resulted in Mr Maunder providing the Advisory Committee with montages of a recent New Zealand development at Project West Wind by Meridian Energy near Wellington. These photos appear to show the simulated turbine more clearly in the photomontage than the photograph of the actual installation.
Whilst the Advisory Committee does not place any great reliance on a single photograph, it is at least of some comfort that the “before and after” images did not display orders of magnitude of difference; if anything, the visual representation overstated the “real thing” in how it was portrayed. Thus the Advisory Committee concludes that the photomontages prepared for the Yaloak South WEF can be said to have sufficient credibility to assist in assessing the likely degree of visual and landscape impact.
In reaching this conclusion on the technical merits of the process used, the Advisory Committee does not imply that the concerns and interests of local residents are not valid considerations, and it is entirely understandable that a very different view of the worth of the photomontages and other technical aides to representing the Proposal will be held by those to whom the wider vista of a panorama unrestrained by two‐dimensional representations is at their “front door”. More comment on community perceptions of visual impact is made below. This disconnect is an unfortunate but inevitable part of the assessment process, and the Advisory Committee keeps firmly in mind the clear differences in views, and the reasons for these differences, whilst at the same time being cognisant of its role in reaching an independent conclusion based on the evidence and submissions made on the matter.
Community perceptions of visual impact
It was clear to the Advisory Committee that many of the submitters placed a high value on the surrounding vistas and landscape as an important part of their residential amenity. They were strongly of the opinion that a WEF would adversely affect that amenity, with consequential impacts on property values and their capacity to enjoy their lifestyles and surroundings. The potential for night lighting was also a cause for added concern, with the example of Waubra quoted as something to be avoided.
PAGE 52 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The particular case of adverse visual impacts to the developing equestrian centre immediately to the west of the site was highlighted to the Advisory Committee by Mr & Ms Olsen, who intimated that the fundamental business objective on which they have undertaken the development of their property would be compromised if the Proposal went ahead due to the claimed adverse impacts on horses of moving turbine blades.
The primary causes of concern to submitters were: . the number and size (height) of turbines which would be visible; . the impacts on rural views; . the permanent substation and switchyard and its appurtenant infrastructure including the overhead gantry; and . to a lesser extent, the permanent tracks, individual transformer kiosks for each turbine and the connection to the electricity grid (the connection is not part of this Advisory Committee’s considerations).
For submitters along the north‐south spine of the Geelong‐Ballan Road, the situation is exacerbated by the fact of the two proposals in relatively close proximity (the Yaloak South WEF and the Moorabool WEF).
Landscape impacts
The Advisory Committee accepts as noted above the three character types for the landscape of the locality, i.e. the Basalt Plains, the Folded Sedimentary Hills and the Valley with Escarpment Edge. Of these, the two most affected character types are the Basalt Plains and the Valley with Escarpment Edge. In terms of landscape impacts, much of the discussion focussed on the Parwan Valley, as opposed to visual amenity impacts on the Basalt Plains.
The Advisory Committee’s assessment of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) mapping25 showing theoretical views of part or all of a turbine, (i.e. the view may include only the tip of a rotor, or may include the full rotor and tower) within a 6 km radius of the site is that: . in the Parwan Valley, of approximately 31 dwellings (including host‐ owned houses): - 1 appears to have a view of 13 – 14 turbines (at approximately 5 km distance to the nearest); - 5 appear to have a view of 10 – 12 turbines; and - 23 appear to have a view of between 0 and 4 turbines.
25 Fig 6.6, Chapter 6 of PAR
PAGE 53 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . by contrast, on the basalt plain to the west, northwest and southwest of the site, of approximately 54 dwellings in total, 95% will have a theoretical view of 13 ‐ 14 turbines.
This ZTV assessment does not take account of the mitigating effects of shelterbelts, trees or other natural or man‐made screening e.g. farm shedding which may be present in the landscape and which may completely or partially mask part or all of a view of turbine(s) from an individual dwelling or viewspot such as a garden.
The Advisory Committee concludes from this and the assessments of individual viewpoints that in practical terms when landscape and man‐made screening is considered, the current proposal will have limited visibility in general from the Parwan Valley, with few dwellings being exposed to significant numbers of turbines. Whilst there will undoubtedly be a change to the view of parts of the ridgelines and escarpment which will be noticeable, particularly to those who seek out evidence of it, that change when viewed either from the few available public viewing points or from the dwellings in the valley will be generally of a minor nature and (in the words of the Bald Hills Panel noted earlier): does not entail the unwarranted or unfair exposure of individuals to unpleasant, unsafe or disorderly visual circumstances.
The Advisory Committee notes the position put by VCAT in relation to the Drysdale WEF (put in the Proponent’s submissions on this issue) that turbines will be prominent in the landscape, but visibility does not by itself mean that they are unacceptable or unreasonably intrusive although in this case it is arguable that apart from a few locations in the valley, they will not in fact be overly prominent. The Advisory Committee notes that this is a significantly different situation from that faced by the 2005 Panel in relation to impacts along the rim of the Parwan Valley – more comment is made on this aspect later in this report.
The Advisory Committee is also cognisant of the policy position outlined in the Guidelines which note that: Consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having regard to the Government’s Policy in support of renewable energy development.26
26 Guidelines, p29
PAGE 54 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Further, the Advisory Committee does not accept the proposition put to it by Council that the proposed use and development will have a detrimental impact on the landscape and visual characteristics of the Parwan Valley, accepting instead Mr Rough’s evidence that the landscape impact on the Parwan Valley will be slight.
In so doing it notes Council’s position that despite the best of intentions it has not been able to undertake the necessary work to implement a Significant Landscape Overlay at this or other potential sites. The only SLO in the Planning Scheme provides landscape protection to the escarpment around Bacchus Marsh.
The quantum and utilisation of resources available to a municipality are not matters on which the Advisory Committee can or should comment. What is clear is that any suggestion that a SLO might be justified at any particular site would need to be backed by appropriate research and a strategic review and weighed against other potential candidate sites in a structured process leading to a planning scheme amendment (which itself would be likely to undergo a Panel Hearing process). The fact of the National Trust citation for the Parwan Valley, whilst of interest in itself, would be simply one fact to be considered among many particularly given the range of grounds on which the citation is based.
The Advisory Committee’s final position on landscape impact is that the degree of impact is not such as would merit any consideration of refusing a permit for the development on this ground alone. Nor does it believe its findings on this matter compromise the local policies relating to protection of landscapes in the Planning Scheme given the limited impact, at the landscape scale, of the Proposal.
Amenity impacts
The Advisory Committee’s approach to considering amenity impacts is to address primarily those matters raised by nearby residents living within relatively close proximity to the proposed WEF in the Geelong‐Ballan Road corridor, i.e. on the Basalt Plains.
It takes this position as although there will be views from the public realm to the WEF particularly from Glenmore Road and the Geelong‐Ballan Road, those views, especially along the Geelong‐Ballan Road, will be interrupted by regular sections of farm shelterbelts, timber plantations or roadside vegetation. Mr Rough estimated that in the otherwise most exposed section of Geelong‐Ballan Road, up to 70% of the length had shelterbelts or other screening which would reduce the visual impact on travellers. No advice to
PAGE 55 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 the contrary was provided to the Advisory Committee, and the site visits confirmed the presence of numerous such elements in the landscape and along roadsides such as the Geelong‐Ballan Road.
Glenmore Road near the entry to the proposal site before the Cut Hill descent will have a significant visual exposure to turbines, with turbines 1 and 5 in very close proximity to the road. The Advisory Committee notes that this road is a local feeder road to the Parwan Valley and will have a lesser traffic volume than the Geelong‐Ballan Road. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee does not place great weight on the visual impacts to the public realm of the proposed WEF, although at the Accompanied Site Inspection the Advisory Committee did raise concerns about the actual setback of turbine 1 from Glenmore Road near the top of Cut Hill which are addressed in the Advisory Committee’s proposed “without prejudice” Recommended Permit. The combined effects of both the Yaloak South and Moorabool proposals are addressed later.
As noted earlier, approximately 54 dwellings (which include a number of host‐owned premises for both the Moorabool and Yaloak South WEFs) are located within 6 km of the site along the north‐south spine of the Geelong‐ Ballan Road in this landscape character unit, and from the ZTV mapping most would have theoretical exposure to multiple numbers of turbines. However, on the evidence and from its own inspections it is clear to the Advisory Committee that of these a significant number will be shielded or screened to some degree from seeing some or all of the turbines by the local topography, shelterbelts or other structures.
Nonetheless it is unarguable that certain dwellings, including those visited during the Accompanied Site Inspection, would have turbines featuring prominently (to a greater or lesser degree) in their views. Mr Rough concurred that in the case of the equestrian property owned by the Olsens (the closest to the WEF) four turbines would be within 2 km of the dwelling and would be highly prominent with a substantial landscape and visual impact; also that all 14 turbines would be visible, although noting they would occupy about a quarter of the human field of view of 1240. Three other dwellings in the immediate vicinity would be in a similar position, although Mr Rough noted that one was oriented to the west away from the Yaloak South proposal and one was a host property. Likewise, the Irving’s property approximately 2 km to the south and at a slight elevation above the WEF site would have a view of the majority if not all of the turbines in its north‐east vista.
PAGE 56 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Similar concerns about the visual impact of the switchyard and substation were raised. The Advisory Committee observed the site and accepts the expert evidence that the necessary infrastructure will largely be out of view, with the exception of the gantry structure which will protrude above the nearby shelterbelt by around 2m. The Advisory Committee notes on this issue that the gantry is not dissimilar to many typical farm structures found in the rural landscape.
The Advisory Committee therefore considers the visual impact of the switchyard and substation will be slight.
Aviation lighting impacts
Aviation lighting was also a matter of concern to submitters in relation to visual amenity, and the Advisory Committee commented earlier that it had visited the Waubra facility at night to get a first‐hand understanding of that particular site. This follows on individual experiences of the members of visits to other sites with aviation lighting.
As with normal visual impact, the likely degree of impact will vary with distance and the likelihood of screening of turbines. The Proponent has noted the intention to use lighting of a lower output than those used elsewhere including Waubra, and this will be complemented with baffling to reduce the lightspill. No local examples of these lights in operation are available, and the Advisory Committee necessarily must accept the information provided to it by the Proponent.
The Advisory Committee finds the vacuum created by the withdrawal of CASA’s previous requirements for night lighting of WEFs to be a difficult situation for WEF proponents, and one which should be resolved as quickly as possible. In the meantime, the fact of no specific statutory requirement for operational obstacle lighting leaves open two alternatives: either not providing lighting at all, or installing lighting but not operating it except possibly under certain agreed circumstances.
The Advisory Committee takes the view that a cautious approach is more appropriate to the installation of lighting in the circumstances and will be addressing relevant permit conditions to reflect this position. Nonetheless, in the circumstances of no requirement for lighting, and the undoubted effect on night‐time amenity (notwithstanding the Proponent’s intention to use lower‐power baffled lights), the Advisory Committee is strongly of the view that lighting should not be operated as a matter of course.
PAGE 57 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Should there be a specific requirement for example from DSE or CFA for lighting at say dusk and dawn when particular operations are under way, then this could be addressed by arrangement with the operator. Similarly, should low visibility suggest a need for lighting then this could also be turned on by arrangement – although the Advisory Committee takes note of the submission which suggested that in such conditions (including for example heavy smoke when there would be no flying anyway), lighting may be ineffective in any case.
If on the other hand CASA introduces a new lighting requirement, or a risk assessment process establishes the need to protect public safety, then the necessary infrastructure will already be in place.
Possible landscape and visual impact mitigating options
Mitigating actions to assist in offsetting visual impacts of the Proposal were identified by Mr Rough including screen planting although he commented that he understood in the case of the most affected property the owners had refused an offer of landscaping assistance from the Proponent.
It is unarguable that one of the key reasons for people to live in a rural location is to enjoy unfettered views; in such circumstances it is understandable that screen planting reduces these views and is thus counter to a key reason for living in the locality.
On the other hand, the shelterbelts seen across the landscape tell their own story of the need to protect both livestock and humans from the extremes of wind and weather and these necessarily constrain views with the benefit of reducing the impact of adverse weather conditions. The decision at the end will be a personal one: whether the personal reaction to the visual impact is such that to protect a resident’s continued enjoyment of his/her immediate environs screen planting is essential (setting aside the issue of effectiveness), or whether acclimatisation will occur and the turbines will simply become part of the landscape over time.
Mr Rough included commentary in his submission to the Advisory Committee on the findings of a number of attitudinal surveys of individuals’ responses to WEFs. Three points were noted from case studies which have some relevance to this issue: . a suggestion that local people become more favourable towards WEFs after construction; . that the degree of acceptance increases with proximity to them; and
PAGE 58 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . that the NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome does not adequately explain variations in public attitudes.
In summary, the Advisory Committee concludes that whilst the visual impact on a small number of residents is agreed to be substantial, it is not of an order to provide sufficient grounds for considering a refusal of the permit. The Planning Scheme does not provide any specific protection from visual impacts from the wide range of permissible activities in the Farming Zone, and the test noted by the Bald Hills Panel and referred to earlier, i.e. that a WEF proposal: does not entail the unwarranted or unfair exposure of individuals to unpleasant, unsafe or disorderly visual circumstances.
cannot be said to apply to support a rejection in this circumstance. VCAT has also made it clear, as noted earlier, that rights to a view are not sacrosanct in the planning system. Finally, considerations of net community benefit and government policy weigh on the side of a proposal which will demonstrably contribute to renewable power generation and the reduction of greenhouse gases in the state.
7.5.2 Comparison with previous Yaloak WEF proposal
Commentary has been made where relevant on particular aspects of the current proposal compared with the previous Yaloak (70 turbines) WEF proposal. It is clear that the current proposal is of a very different scale, being 80% smaller in turbine numbers and with a commensurately reduced footprint. In particular, the deletions of turbines from the significant local features The Bluff and Horseshoe, and from the western and north‐western rim of the escarpment, are very significant changes. The respective photomontages showing both the current and the previous proposals superimposed clearly demonstrate the difference in landscape and visual impact, most notably on the Parwan Valley but also in terms of the numbers of turbines to which residents along the Geelong‐Ballan Road would have been exposed.
The Advisory Committee directed the Proponent to provide a detailed explanation as to the reasons for the selection of the south‐eastern‐most (actually southern) site from all sections which were part of the previous 70‐ turbine proposal. This Direction responded to the original Yaloak Panel’s recommendation concerning landscape and other impacts, which stated: However, whilst the Panel has concluded that the current application should be refused on the basis of predicted Wedge‐tailed Eagle mortality, it has also concluded that an amended proposal could be appropriate.
PAGE 59 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 This would be developed around the findings of a 12 month targeted survey of Wedge‐tailed Eagle utilisation of the site, and potentially be comprised of a smaller number of wind generators arranged in configurations predicted to impact less on Wedge‐tailed Eagles, and possibly focussed more on those parts of the study area where WTE utilisation rates are lower such as the northern and central parts of the site. The Panel considers that this could address concerns in relation to the WTE, and could also substantially address the landscape and visual amenity concerns associated with the current proposal.27 (Underlining added by Advisory Committee).
The Proponent’s response to this issue was that: (b) A number of factors made the southern section of the Yaloak Estate a more appropriate location for a wind energy facility than the central or northern sections of the Yaloak Estate. These factors include: (1) potential impacts on wedge‐tailed eagles; (2) proximity of the turbines to surrounding dwellings and resulting impacts on those dwellings (such as noise and visual impacts); (3) proximity and ease of connecting to the national grid; and (4) logistical considerations. and (e) Developing a wind energy facility on the north or central parts of the Yaloak Estate would have resulted in turbines being closer to non‐stakeholder dwellings than is the case with the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm. By proposing a wind energy facility in the south of Yaloak Estate, there is a 1.5 kilometre separation distance between the turbines and the closest non‐stakeholder dwelling. (f) By contrast, had the wind energy facility been developed in the centre of the Yaloak Estate, the nearest turbines would have been approximately 0.86 kilometre from a dwelling on Geelong‐Ballan Road. (g) If developed in the north, turbines would be approximately 1.28 kilometres from dwellings on Ingliston‐Settlement Road. This is
27 Yaloak Wind Farm Panel Report, March 2005, p129
PAGE 60 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 likely to have increased the visual and noise impacts on a number of dwellings within the proximity of the wind energy facility. further, in relation to the Parwan Valley, that: (j) A northern or central cluster of turbines would have resulted in greater visual impacts on the Parwan Valley. Energy Pacific has produced ZTVIs to demonstrate the visual impacts that would be experienced based on a hypothetical 14 turbine cluster in the north and centre of the Yaloak Estate. It is clear from this model that the number of dwellings visually impacted by the Yaloak South Wind Farm is much lower when it is in the south of the Yaloak Estate.
The Advisory Committee is satisfied that the Proponent has appropriately responded to both the Direction and the concern of the original Yaloak Panel, and that selection of the Yaloak South site has been to the best advantage in terms of the reduction in landscape and visual impact. On this basis therefore the Advisory Committee finds that the issues raised by the Yaloak Panel on this aspect have been laid to rest.
7.5.3 Cumulative effects of Moorabool and Yaloak South proposals
The evidence of Mr Rough in relation to cumulative landscape and visual amenity impacts identified timing as a key determinant to the relative impact of each WEF to the cumulative effects. That is, the order in which the two facilities are built has a significant bearing on how each will contribute to the total effects due to the relative size differences of the Yaloak South and Moorabool facilities at 14 turbines and 110 turbines respectively.
The Advisory Committee accepts that if the Moorabool WEF is built first, the Yaloak South WEF would contribute only a modest effect; conversely, if the Yaloak South WEF is built first, then the Moorabool WEF would contribute a substantial effect to the landscape and visual amenity impact.
Mr Rough noted that the Basalt Plains landscape character unit had moderate sensitivity but low landscape value. It is understood that this landscape character unit is also the predominant landscape type for the proposed Moorabool WEF, i.e. similar to the Yaloak South site. The Advisory Committee notes that this assessment of relative landscape quality is consistent with other experts such as Mr Allan Wyatt who was quoted in relation to the flat to undulating farmland landscape of that locality in the Oaklands Hill WEF Report: The landscape sensitivity of farmland is considered low as it is widespread and includes structures such as farmhouses, sheds, silos and
PAGE 61 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 other structures. Farmland also regularly undergoes major visual change through grazing, cultivation and cropping.28
However, as the Advisory Committee has commented earlier, the views and perspectives of the local landscape are clearly valued and enjoyed by residents and thus, despite the fact that no landscape component of regional, state or national interest is being impacted by the introduction of wind turbines into the viewscape, a clear impact will be felt which will be cumulative given the proximity of the two facilities.
7.6 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that, although recognising that local level impacts will occur, the Proponent’s submission appropriately expresses the position that in the light of the policy context for this issue, the visual amenity concerns of local residents whilst valid and well substantiated cannot carry the overall decision on the permit given the benefits of the project to the wider community. Mitigating measures by way of planting or other screening should, however, be made available.
In regard to aviation lighting, the Advisory Committee concludes that the infrastructure proposed by the Proponent should be allowed to be put in place but should not be operated except under specific circumstances and arrangements.
The Advisory Committee makes the following recommendations:
Conditions be included in any permit that may be issued requiring: . Preparation of an on‐site landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning; . Development of a program of off‐site landscape mitigating works which would be available to owners of existing dwellings within a 3 km radius of the nearest turbine subject to certain conditions regarding timing and visibility of turbines. A condition also be included permitting aviation lighting to be installed but not operated unless under a direction from CASA, arrangements between the WEF operator and relevant authorities, or in response to a risk assessment demonstrating the necessity for lighting to reduce the public risk to an acceptable level.
28 Oaklands Hill Wind Farm Panel Report, April 2008, p60
PAGE 62 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
8. Noise Assessment
8.1 What are the issues?
The issues in regard to noise impacts identified by the Proponent, expert witnesses, submitters and the Advisory Committee include the following: . the appropriate “Noise Standard” to be applied, in particular the choice between NZS6808:2010 and NZS6808:1998; . the noise limits that should be set including: - allowances in recognition of the area being one of high acoustic amenity; - imposition of “penalties” for the characteristics of noise generated by wind turbines; - the translation of internal noise limits to external noise limits; - limits at dwellings potentially affected by noise from more than one WEF; and - limits at dwellings on levels of low frequency noise and infrasound. . the adequacy of the noise assessment provided in support of the application, in terms of: - whether compliance is predicted; - the methodology utilised to measure and analyse background sound levels and wind speeds; and - modelling to provide predictions of WEF sound level for cumulative impact assessment. . compliance, including the need for and form of post‐construction compliance monitoring and enforcement.
8.2 Policy context of the issues
The Planning Scheme states that: . Applications for WEFs must be accompanied by, inter alia, an assessment of the noise impact of the Proposal prepared in accordance with NZS6808:1998 29;
29 Moorabool Planning Scheme Clause 52.32-2
PAGE 63 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . Before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must consider, inter alia, the Guidelines, an incorporated document of the Planning Scheme.30
The Guidelines state that: A wind energy facility should comply with the noise levels recommended for dwellings in the New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generator. During the assessment phase of the noise impact, particular attention to the following matters within the Standard is required: · Separate correlation of background sound levels with the wind speed for different wind directions and/or the time of day (Clause 4.5.5 of the Standard); and · Wind speed measurements at the hub height of the proposed turbines as recommended in the Note to Clause 4.5.6.31
The Guidelines also provide guidance regarding post installation noise compliance, requiring that post installation compliance testing be required by permit condition, and indicating that such testing requires particular expertise. Documentation of such testing should be signed by an independent, appropriately qualified and experienced person, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8.3 What noise standard should apply?
8.3.1 Planning Application Report
In regard to noise standards the PAR makes reference to the requirements of the Planning Scheme and the Guidelines for: . an assessment of noise impacts in accordance with NZS6808:1998; and . permissible noise limits to be those recommended in NZS6808:1998.
8.3.2 Evidence and submissions
A number of pre‐hearing submissions suggested that alternative standards and guidelines were available including: . the revised version of New Zealand Standard 6808, NZS6808:2010;
30 Moorabool Planning Scheme Clause 52.32-3 31 Guidelines Section 4.9.1, sub-section 3 (a)
PAGE 64 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . AS4959:2010 Acoustics—Measurement, prediction and assessment of noise from wind turbine generators; . The Interim Guidelines for the Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria (N3/89); . The draft guideline for Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (DNIRV). . The South Australian EPA document Wind farms environmental noise guideline, July 2009.
Evidence provided at the hearing by Mr Delaire, an acoustic expert called by the Proponent, was that the application of N3/89 to noise from wind energy facilities was inappropriate, as the assessment methods prescribed are only applicable at low wind speeds. Mr Delaire also stated that the Australian standard, AS4959:2010, was similar to NZS6808:1998 in regard to the measurement of background noise levels and wind speeds, but differed in regard to noise prediction and compliance testing, and that noise limits are not specified in the Australian standard.
A number of hearing submissions also suggested that NZS6808:2010 should be preferred over NZS6808:1998 on the basis that the revised standard was more up to date and had superseded NZS6808:1998. It was submitted that support for this view was provided in a VCAT decision on the Sisters WEF vs. Moyne Shire Council (The Sisters Decision) in which VCAT found that: With respect to the appropriate standard to apply we accept Ms Marshall’s submission that under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 the reference to the 1998 New Zealand Standard in the Policy Guideline and the Planning Scheme should be read as a reference to the 2010 New Zealand Standard.32
In addition one submitter provided a copy of an email from Geoff Howard MLA for Ballarat East to one of the submitters stating: I am also advised that the latest New Zealand noise standards will be taken into account as will the National guidelines even though they are yet to be finalised and approved. Regards Geoff Howard MLA Ballarat East33
32 VCAT Reference No. P2107/2009 The Sisters Wind Farm vs. Moyne SC Reasons Para 17 33 Email Geoff Howard MLA to Deeplake Stud, 18th May 2010
PAGE 65 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Expert witnesses in the field of acoustics, Mr Delaire for the Proponent and Mr Huson, called by Ms Miller‐Olsen and Mr Olsen, were directed to meet prior to the hearing to identify areas of agreement and dispute. On the matter of the noise standard to be applied, their joint statement confirmed their agreement that the standard referred to in the Guidelines is NZS6808:1998.
DPCD, representing the Minister for Planning, stated the following: The 1998 New Zealand standard is used in the guidelines on the basis that it was the most comprehensive document that provided an absolute noise level for wind farm performance. As the guidelines are an incorporated document under clause 81.01 of the planning scheme, it is a legal requirement for a wind energy facility to be assessed against the 1998 New Zealand standard.34
The Proponent submitted that it is clear that the noise standard referred to in both clause 52.32 of the Planning Scheme and the Guidelines is NZS6808:1998 and that it was this standard that had been used to complete the noise assessment and determine the noise limits to be applied. It was the Proponent’s submission that the Sisters decision was clearly wrong at law and: ….in accordance with VPP Practice Note ‘Incorporated and Reference Documents’ (August 2000) published by the Victorian Government, changes of substance to a reference document such as NZS6808 must be achieved by amending the Planning Scheme.35
8.3.3 Discussion
In the Advisory Committee’s consideration of the matter of the appropriate noise standard, the first and foremost consideration is any prescription included in the Planning Scheme. There appears to be no doubt that the requirements of the Planning Scheme include an assessment of the noise impacts prepared in accordance with the New Zealand Standard 6808 and that the noise limits to be set are those recommended in that standard.
The Advisory Committee is unable to identify a valid reason why these unequivocal statements should be ignored by the adoption of an alternative standard or guideline such as AS4959:2010, N3/89 or the South Australian EPA Guidelines.
34 Hearing Document 1 - DPCD Submission ,Para 111DPCD Submission ,Para 111 35 Hearing Document 30Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Part B, 7.2 (h)
PAGE 66 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 In any case: . AS4959:2010 does not specify limits; . N3/89 is inappropriate, as is DNIRV which specifically excludes its use in assessing noise from wind energy facilities; and . the adoption of guidelines from another jurisdiction when Victorian guidelines are available is unnecessary and would be inappropriate.
The question remains as to which version of the New Zealand standard should be adopted and applied.
The Advisory Committee does not find the argument that NZS6808:2010 should be preferred because it is more up to date than or even superior to NZS6808:1998 convincing, as it is not a question of the newest or even best standard but what is required by the Planning Scheme. In the absence of a legal determination to the contrary, the Advisory Committee considers that the advice provided by DPCD, representing the Minster for Planning, should be determinative, and that advice is that NZS6808:1998 is the appropriate noise standard.
While the Sisters Decision may be seen by some as a legal determination that is contrary to the advice provided by DPCD, the Advisory Committee does not accept this view because the decision is currently the subject of an appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court and therefore cannot be seen as determined.
While the Advisory Committee notes the Proponent’s submission that the Sister’s Decision was wrong in law, the Advisory Committee does not rely on this submission, nor does it make any determination of its own on the legal question, in adopting NZS6808:1998 as the appropriate noise standard.
The precise meaning of the statement by Mr Geoff Howard MLA that he had been advised that the latest New Zealand standards will be “taken into account” is unclear from two points of view: . the meaning of the term “taken into account” which could mean considered in conjunction with NZS6808:1998 or in preference to that standard; and . the source of the advice received by Mr Howard is unclear.
While the Advisory Committee is strongly of the view that NZS6808:1998 must be applied, it is acknowledged that in some aspects the guidance provided by NZS6808:1998 can be seen as incomplete, and in such circumstances the use of guidance provided in other standards or guidelines may be appropriate. Such guidance should not be used to alter prescriptions
PAGE 67 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 contained in NZS6808:1998 but can be used to achieve the apparent objectives of NZS6808:1998 and the Guidelines.
8.3.4 Conclusion
Having considered the issue of noise standards to be applied, the Advisory Committee concludes that:
The Planning Scheme requires assessment of the application in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the setting of noise limits recommended in that standard.
8.4 Noise limits
8.4.1 Planning Application Report
In regard to noise limits the PAR states: NZS6808:1998 states that the noise level from a wind turbine generator or wind farm at a dwelling should not exceed the pre‐construction background noise level (LA95) by more than 5dBA or a level of 40dBA (LA95), whichever is the greater.36
The noise assessment provided with the PAR, included as Chapter 10, also addressed the cumulative impact of the proposed Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs and a report on the assessment of cumulative impact was included in the PAR as Appendix 10.1. The report on the cumulative impact noted the absence of guidance for such cumulative assessments in NZS6808:1998 but that a draft of a revised version of NZS6808, published for public comment, suggested that each WEF should be required to independently satisfy the established noise limits. Despite this the report on the cumulative impact suggested that: It is considered that the noise limits established for a residential property should be absolute, meaning that the cumulative noise emission from both wind farms should satisfy the NZS6808:1998 noise limits at each dwelling.37
36 PAR, Section 10.1 37 PAR Appendix 10.1, Section 2.2
PAGE 68 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 8.4.2 Summary of evidence and submissions
Mr Delaire’s EWS included the reiteration of the statements in regard to noise limits that were included in the PAR.
The limits suggested in the PAR and by Mr Delaire were challenged in a number of submissions and in the evidence provided by Mr Huson. These challenges were based on the following: . the need to apply lower noise limits due to the high amenity of the area; . the need to apply “penalties” for: - The possibility of higher than predicted noise levels due to the effects of stable air and wake induced turbulence. - The characteristics of the noise emitted from wind energy facilities. . the need to apply controls on internal noise levels; . the protection of acoustic amenity by the imposition of minimum separation distances between turbines and dwellings; . the weighting of contributions from individual wind energy facilities in assessing cumulative impact; and . the need for limits to be placed on levels of low frequency noise and infrasound.
In the “Without Prejudice” consideration of permit conditions, the Proponent proposed that construction noise levels should not be limited to the limits specified in N3/89.
Evidence and submissions provided on each of these matters is summarised below together with the Advisory Committee’s responses to the matters raised.
8.4.3 Construction noise limits
Evidence and submissions
Condition 35 of the Draft Permit provided by DPCD requires that construction of the WEF comply with noise criteria specified in N3/89.
It was the Proponent’s submission that this condition should not be included in any permit issued for the following reason: Compliance with N3/89 limits is very difficult, it is uncommon to see such levels proscribed in planning permits for major infrastructure projects such as wind farms, and noise will be covered off through the
PAGE 69 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 EMP under condition 9. This is because one of the documents which the EMP must comply with is EPA Publication 480 which includes measures which should be implemented to minimise construction noise impacts.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee does not accept the Proponent’s suggestion that N3/89 limits should not apply during construction for the following reasons: . the suggestion that limits should not be applied because they are difficult to comply with is unsound. Such an approach would be highly unlikely to result in limits that represent a balance between the legitimate interests of developers and the community; . the minimum limit on construction noise during the day that can be set under N3/89 is 55 dB(A) Leq, at a residential dwelling, which would not be difficult to comply with; . the suggestion that N3/89 limits are rarely prescribed in planning permits for major developments such as WEFs is wrong. Such limits were included in the permit issued for the Lal Lal WEF and are routinely applied to mining and quarrying developments throughout Victoria; and . while the conduct of construction activities in accordance with EPA Publication 480 could be expected to limit noise emissions, it does not provide a guarantee of performance in terms of impact.
In light of the above, Condition 35 of the Draft Permit has been included in the Recommended Permit as Condition 27.
8.4.4 High amenity noise limits
Evidence and submissions
A number of pre‐hearing submissions expressed the view that the dwellings potentially affected by noise from the proposed WEF should be considered to be in an area of high amenity and should be given additional protection by the application of high amenity noise limits. While reference was made to section 5.3 of NZS6808:2010 it was also noted that section 4.4.4 of NZS6808:1998 enables lower limits to be set to provide additional protection of amenity.
While Mr Delaire’s evidence was that NZS6808:1998 is the noise standard to be applied, he also provided evidence on an assessment completed in accordance with NZS6808:2010 and concluded that high amenity noise limits
PAGE 70 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 could not be justified under the provisions and guidance provided by NZS6808:2010 because: . NZS6808:2010 recommends that a lower minimum noise limit be applied to high amenity areas designated in a planning instrument and no such designation exists; and . the guidance provided in NZS6808:2010 for justifying high amenity noise limits by comparison of pre and post construction noise levels shows that high amenity noise levels are unlikely to be justified.
Mr Huson’s evidence included the following: . no reason is seen why the Advisory Committee should not make reference to NZS6808:2010 or any other standard it sees fit; . under NZS6808:2010, justification of high amenity is not determined by the method applied by Mr Delaire but by the difference between average night time background noise levels and predicted WEF sound level for a given location; . the analysis provided by Mr Delaire utilises what might be underestimates of WEF sound levels due to the inadequacies of the model used; and . the background data for dwelling 38 clearly shows that the area can be considered an area of high amenity with the predicted WEF sound levels being greater than 8 dB above background at night.
Hearing submissions supported the view of Mr Huson that potentially affected dwellings were in a high amenity area and a minimum noise level of 35 dB(A) rather than the standard 40 dB(A) should be applied. This view was based not only on the low background noise levels but also on the current permitted use of the land that it was submitted would be adversely affected by noise from the proposed WEF. Current uses included that by vulnerable community members and it was submitted that the use of nearby land for an equestrian facility to be utilised by young horses and riders would be seriously impacted.
The Proponent relied on Mr Delaire’s evidence, emphasising the following points: . NZS6808:1998 is the appropriate standard rather than NZS6808:2010; . there is nothing in the Planning Scheme that gives the area in question a higher degree of acoustic protection than other parts of rural Victoria as would be required under NZS6808:2010 to consider high amenity noise limits; and
PAGE 71 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . the analysis of comparative pre and post construction noise levels provided by Mr Huson and submitters was not in accordance with the guidance provided in NZS6808:2010, and the analysis provided by Mr Delaire, which showed that high amenity limits were not justified, was correct.
Discussion
As stated previously, the Advisory Committee considers NZS6808:1998 to be the noise standard to be applied, however, it is also recognised that limits other than the 40 dB(A) /Background plus 5 dB(A) recommended in NZS6808:1998 can be applied if additional protection of acoustic amenity is considered necessary.
While NZS6808:1998 enables such high amenity limits to be set, the standard does not provide any useful guidance as to when, where or how such limits should be applied. The Advisory Committee is of the view that: . in the absence of any guidance on this matter in NZS6808:1998, it is appropriate to consider other sources of guidance; and . the guidance provided in NZS6808:2010 is considered to be of value.
In regard to high amenity noise limits NZS6808:2010 states: A high amenity noise limit should be considered when a plan promotes a higher degree of protection of amenity related to the sound environment of a particular area, for example when evening and night time noise limits are more stringent than 40 dB LAeq(15 min) or 40dBA L10.38
NZS6808:2010 defines “plan”, through reference to the New Zealand Resource Development Act, as a “regional plan” or “district plan” which the Advisory Committee interprets to mean Planning Scheme in the current context. It therefore follows that the guidance provided by NZS6808:2010 is that a high amenity noise limit should be considered where the Planning Scheme promotes a higher degree of protection of acoustic amenity.
The dwellings in question are located in the Farming Zone and a review of the purposes of the Farming Zone reveals no reference to the protection of amenity at dwellings. This is understandable when the stated purposes of the zone are mainly concerned with the facilitation of the use of the land for agriculture. The purposes do include the encouragement of the application of sustainable land management practices and the protection and
38 NZS6808:2010, Clause 5.3.1
PAGE 72 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 enhancement of natural resources and biodiversity but the protection of residential amenity is not included.
It might therefore be argued, as the Proponent and Mr Delaire have, that the guidance provided by NZS6808:2010 is that high amenity noise limits should be considered only if the Planning Scheme promotes a higher degree of protection of amenity, and no such promotion is included in the Planning Scheme.
While the Advisory Committee finds this argument quite persuasive, it is also considered informative to consider the other guidance provided by NZS6808:2010 in regard to this matter.
The Advisory Committee notes that Mr Delaire provided calculated values of the “Noise Perception Index” (NPI) which was said by Mr Delaire to be what is recommended by NZS6808:2010, however, it was Mr Huson’s evidence that NZS6808:2010 does not suggest the calculation of the NPI but rather that: Justification of High Amenity is not determined using the Noise Perception Index (NPI) in NZS6808:2010, rather, this version of the standard simply refers to the difference between average night time background noise level compared to predicted wind farm noise level for a given location.39
The guidance actually provided in NZS6808:2010 is as follows: C5.3.1 The following steps provide guidance on whether a high amenity noise limit may be justified: (a) There is no need to consider noise sensitive locations outside the predicted 35dB LA90 (10 min) wind farm sound level contour; (b) Using predicted wind farm sound levels and measured background sound levels relating to a particular noise sensitive location under investigation, calculate for each 10‐minute time interval in the evening or night‐ time prescribed time frames the arithmetic difference between the estimated post‐installation sound level and the background sound level. The post installation sound level should be estimated by an energy addition of the background sound level and predicted wind farm
39 Hearing Document 45 - Expert Witness Statement of William Leslie Huson, Page 19
PAGE 73 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 sound level. The background and wind farm sound levels should be for a range of wind conditions representative of long‐term wind sampling at the wind farm; (c) The differences calculated in (b) for all 10 minute time intervals in the prescribed time frames should be arithmetically averaged (there should typically be in excess of 540 data points at night – see C7.2.1); (d) If the average difference in the evening or night‐time prescribed time frame is less than 8 dB then a high amenity noise limit is unlikely to be justified; (e) If the average difference in the evening or night‐time prescribed time frame is greater than 8 dB then a high amenity noise limit is likely to be justified.40
It is clear from the above that the suggestion by Mr Huson that the parameter to be considered is the average difference between background sound level and WEF sound level is incorrect, as it is in fact the average difference between measured background sound level and estimated post‐construction sound level with the post‐construction sound level including both background and predicted WEF sound levels.
Mr Delaire stated that the calculation of NPI is based on a paper, The use of noise perception index (NPI) for setting of WEF noise limits in New Zealand by Malcolm Hunt. The Advisory Committee has reviewed this paper and finds that the calculation of the NPI prescribed therein is identical to the recommended parameter calculation in NZS6808:2010, save for the number of data point requirements.
The criticism of Mr Delaire’s analysis based on the proposition that the predicted WEF sound levels may be underestimates is not seen as valid as it is accepted that the predictions were made in accordance with NZS6808:2010.
The Advisory Committee therefore concludes that the analysis provided by Mr Delaire is in accordance with the guidance provided by NZS6808:2010 and notes that his analysis shows that high amenity noise limits are unlikely to be justified.
The Advisory Committee acknowledges the fact that this analysis of the existing amenity at dwellings conflicts significantly with the assessments
40 NZS6808:2010, Note C5.3.1
PAGE 74 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 made by the residents. It was made abundantly clear that those residents place an extremely high value on the amenity that they enjoy and existing sound levels are a part of that amenity.
While the Advisory Committee understands and accepts that the acoustic environment in which the residents live and work is of significant importance to those residents, the degree of statutory protection of that environment is limited to that given by the Planning Scheme. This is not a decision the Advisory Committee makes but a circumstance it must accept.
The dwellings under consideration are all in the Farming Zone, and the protection of amenity that is available is defined in the stated purposes and Decision Guidelines of that zone and the provisions of clause 52.32 of the Planning Scheme, which contains the particular provisions for WEFs.
As discussed previously, the purposes of the Farming Zone do not include anything relating to residential amenity and a review of the Decision Guidelines of the zone finds them to also be silent on the matter.
The purpose of the particular provisions relating to WEFs does make reference to amenity, however the Decision Guidelines require responsible authorities to consider the Guidelines in making a decision on an application and those guidelines specify noise limits by reference to NZS6808:1998.
It is evident that the residents’ uses of the land for what are residential purposes is allowed but not protected under the Planning Scheme, save for the requirement on the WEF not to exceed the NZS6808:1998 noise limits. While this may not be seen by the residents as a satisfactory position, the Advisory Committee cannot find an alternative position without amendment of the Planning Scheme, which is not a matter under consideration.
The submission that the use of land for an equestrian facility required the setting of high amenity limits to protect the existing use of the land cannot be supported. The Advisory Committee’s consideration of this submission, and submissions in response by the Proponent, lead to the view that the alleged impacts on the operation of the equestrian facility are not related to impacts on the acoustic environment. The Advisory Committee is of the view that the submitter could be seeking to use the possibility of high acoustic amenity provisions as a device to reduce other impacts of the proposal.
In any case the protection of the acoustic amenity for existing land uses is limited by that provided in the Planning Scheme, which, as discussed above, is limited to a requirement on the WEF not to exceed the NZS6808:1998 noise limits.
PAGE 75 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 8.4.5 Special audible characteristics
Evidence and submissions
A number of pre‐hearing submissions stated that noise from WEFs have special audible characteristics and made reference to the provision in NZS6808:1998 for the application of penalties to WEF sound levels to account for the increased annoyance produced by such characteristics.
It was suggested in submissions that the special audible characteristics of noise from WEFs, in particular amplitude modulation, are known to exist, and as a result, a 5 dB(A) penalty should be applied to predictions of WEF sound levels.
Mr Delaire acknowledged the provisions in NZS6808:1998 in regard to special audible characteristics but stated that while such characteristics are possible for the proposed WEF, they cannot be predicted and therefore cannot be said to be known characteristics.
It was Mr Delaire’s view that in this case, the guidance provided by NZS6808:1998 in regard to special audible characteristics could only be applied during post construction compliance testing when the presence of special audible characteristics may be evident.
It was the Proponent’s submission that penalties should not be applied to predicted WEF sound levels and that, since amplitude modulation was a normal characteristic of noise from WEFs, it could not be considered to be special audible characteristic.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee notes that the main area of contention between the parties relating to special audible characteristics is the question of the application of penalties to predicted WEF sound levels. Resolution of this matter depends on the question of whether the special audible characteristics, if any, are known to exist.
NZS6808:1998 is quite specific in referring to known special audible characteristics and the Advisory Committee notes that the presence of such characteristics depends on a number of factors including the turbine used. The Advisory Committee cannot see how known special audible characteristics can be identified when the final turbine selection has not been made. It is therefore concluded that it would be inappropriate, in this case, to apply special audible characteristic penalties to predicted WEF sound levels.
PAGE 76 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 It is important to note that not imposing penalties for special audible characteristics to predicted sound levels does not place people at risk of being subjected to noise with such characteristics without a commensurate reduction in permissible sound level. If turbines were installed that produced noise with special audible characteristics, then the 5 dB(A) penalty would be applied to the measured WEF sound level. In such circumstances measured WEF sound level at dwellings would have to be below 35 dB(A) or background plus 5 dB(A), whichever is the greater. This may well require a significant reduction in the power generated and hence revenue from the facility. The likelihood of this occurring is in the hands of the operator, who would suffer any consequences arising from the selection of turbines that emit noise with special audible characteristics.
The matter of assessing special audible characteristics post construction is important and is considered in detail later in this report.
8.4.6 Stable air and wake induced turbulence
Evidence and Submissions
It was suggested in both evidence and submissions that WEF sound levels can be significantly higher than predicted due to a both “stable air” and “wake induced turbulence”.
Mr Delaire provided the following description of the effects of stable air, also known as the “van den Berg effect: During periods of stable air conditions, wind speeds at ground levels can be very low compared to wind speeds at the wind turbines hub height. The direct effect of this meteorological condition is that for a given hub height wind speed, hence noise emission, wind generated background noise levels at ground level may be significantly reduced. In such a case, though the noise emission from a wind farm does not change, there may be an increase in audibility at ground level due to lower levels of background masking noise.41
Mr Delaire also stated that: . the effects of stable air have been studied by van den Berg at a German WEF where he found that when air was highly stable, mostly at night, noise emissions from the WEF increased significantly;
41 Hearing Document 28 - Expert Witness Statement of Christophe Delaire, Section 4.2
PAGE 77 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . the study was limited to one WEF site with very specific characteristics such as topography and the wind turbines; and . the effect of stable air on actual WEF sound levels cannot be predicted.
Mr Huson’s evidence was that stable air can be expected to have an effect on WEF sound levels of up to 5 dB(A).
It was also suggested in submissions that wind turbines that are inappropriately located, i.e. too close to each other, can create an effect where turbulence created by one turbine affects the performance of a turbine immediately downwind. This effect, known as wake induced turbulence, is said to result in an increase in noise emissions.
Mr Delaire acknowledged the possibility of wake induced turbulence increasing the turbine sound power level, but stated that it was unlikely to occur if manufacturers’ specifications in regard to layout were followed. Further, since such turbulence could be expected to also reduce power generation, there is good reason for the WEF to be designed to avoid such effects.
Discussion
While the Advisory Committee accepts the submissions and evidence in regard to the possibility of both stable air and wake induced turbulence occurrences affecting the noise emissions from the proposed WEF, it does not consider that the information and evidence presented enables the prediction of the occurrence or magnitude of any such effects.
As a result of this lack of certainty, it is not considered appropriate to either lower the limits or impose a penalty on predicted WEF sound levels to take account for such effects as there is nothing definite on which such adjustments could be based.
The Advisory Committee is not concerned that this will reduce the level of amenity protection because in the event that such effects do result in WEF sound levels exceeding the permitted levels, the compliance testing and enforcement regime will result in appropriate remedial measures being required.
PAGE 78 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 8.4.7 Indoor noise levels
Evidence and submissions
Mr Huson’s evidence included his opinion that the “real” target sound level of NZS6808:1998 is an indoor sound level of 30 dB(A), and that the use of a 10 dB(A) allowance for the attenuation from outdoor to indoor locations was not necessarily appropriate. Evidence was provided of circumstances where the measured attenuation was significantly less than 10 dB(A), and Mr Huson suggested that determination of an outdoor limit requires the application of an attenuation curve in octave bands, preferably obtained from measurements on potentially exposed dwellings, for a typical dwelling.
In response Mr Delaire stated that: It is internationally accepted that noise reduction from outside to inside through an open window is 10dBA. Therefore in accordance with the WHO guidelines, outdoor noise levels should not exceed 40dBA to avoid sleep disturbance.42
The Proponent submitted that: . the noise levels recommended in NZS6808:1998 are clearly outdoor noise levels and this has been accepted by all Panels and Tribunals applying NZS6808:1998; and . applying a fixed indoor standard to a WEF would go against the experience of every other WEF in Victoria and, to the Proponent’s knowledge, the world.
Discussion
While the Advisory Committee accepts Mr Huson’s evidence that the extent of attenuation that occurs from outside to inside a dwelling varies with a number of factors and may be more or less than 10 dB(A), the Advisory Committee does not accept his assertion that the only fixed limit specified in NZS6808:1998 is 30 dB(A) indoor sound level.
While NZS6808:1998 states that the noise limits recommended are based on an internationally accepted indoor sound level of 30 to 35 dB(A) Leq commonly used to protect against sleep disturbance, it is also clear than NZS6808:1998 specifies that the translation of this to an outdoor noise limit results in a limit of 40 dB(A) L95.
42 Hearing Document 28 - Expert Witness Statement of Christophe Delaire, Annexure H – Sleep Disturbance
PAGE 79 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Since the Planning Scheme requirement is that limits be those recommended by NZS6808:1998 and the only limits recommended by NZS6808:1998 are the background sound level L95 plus 5 dB(A) or 40 dB(A) L95, whichever is the greater, then the derivation of those limits is irrelevant to the question of whether an assessment has been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998. To complete such an assessment, measurement or assumption of the attenuation between the outside and inside of dwellings are unnecessary as they were made by the authors of NZS6808:1998 in deriving in the recommended limits and therefore should not be the subject of debate.
Mr Huson’s criticism in this regard is not in fact a criticism of the assessment but a criticism of NZS6808:1998. The Advisory Committee makes no judgement in regard to the validity of Mr Huson’s criticism of NZS6808:1998 as such judgements are unnecessary and irrelevant to the question at hand.
8.4.8 Setback distances
Evidence and submissions
A number of pre‐hearing submissions suggested that a setback between wind turbines and dwellings should be imposed to control noise impacts. The suggested setbacks ranged from 1 km to 5 kms.
In response to these submissions Mr Delaire, in his EWS, stated: The Victorian Wind Energy Guidelines and the NZ Standard do not recommend setbacks between wind turbines and adjoining dwellings. Noise emissions from the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm comply with the NZ Standard noise limits at all residential properties.
At the hearing, the Council’s submission in relation to impacts associated with noise was that: Currently, Council submits there is a lack of appropriate research undertaken regarding the impact on human health from exposure to particular special audible characteristics. Council at the Moorabool WEF hearing submitted that a precautionary separation distance of 2km should be applied between wind turbines and sensitive land uses (e.g. dwellings).43
43 Hearing Document 36 - Moorabool Shire Council Submission, Section 9, Page 17
PAGE 80 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 In support of this submission, reference was made to the report of the NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 – Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms that recommended a 2 km setback between wind turbines and dwellings.
In response to the Council’s submission the Proponent submitted that: It is important for the Committee to understand that this NSW Inquiry undertook no scientific impact assessment, and also included a dissenting statement from 3 of the 7 Standing Committee members on this recommendation.44 Mr Christophe Delaire and Mr Les Huson both stated in their expert evidence that the imposition of a two kilometre buffer, in the context of noise impacts, was too simplistic.45
On the issue of setbacks in general the Proponent submitted that: Importantly, the potential impacts of wind energy facilities vary significantly between locations and layouts, so they cannot be pre‐ determined without thorough assessment. That assessment is required by the Wind Energy Guidelines, and enables the responsible authority to assess the impacts of the proposal before it. It is not appropriate to impose an evidentially unfounded setback distance, despite the potential mileage that may be made from bandying arbitrary numbers about.
Discussion
The suggestions made in submissions that noise impacts at dwellings should be addressed by the imposition of setbacks between turbines and dwellings are not accepted for the following reasons: . no rigorous and logical means by which an appropriate setback could be determined can be identified. It is noted that one submission proposed a setback based on the concepts of nuisance and annoyance “measured” by the complaint history at WEFs in New Zealand and elsewhere. The Advisory Committee notes however that the same submission acknowledged that: - nuisance and annoyance depends on turbine selection and WEF design;
44 Hearing Document 78 - Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission –Reply, 2.1 (m) 45 Hearing Document 78 - Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Reply, 2.1 (n)
PAGE 81 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 - nuisance and annoyance occurs at locations beyond the suggested setback. . while it is noted that in other jurisdictions setbacks have been required, the Advisory Committee is not at all convinced that such setbacks relate directly or solely to the limitation of acoustic impacts. For example it is noted that the extract of the report of NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No 5‐ Inquiry into Rural Wind Farms provided by Council relating to setbacks makes no reference to noise but instead recommends the setbacks as a means of providing certainty for residents that might be expected to reduce stress and anxiety; and . WEF sound levels at dwellings depend on a range of factors which include but are not limited to distance. As a result the WEF sound level at a set distance will vary with direction hence a setback alone would allow dwellings at similar separation distances from a WEF to be subjected to different noise levels.
The Advisory Committee therefore finds that the application of setbacks between turbines and dwellings cannot be justified on acoustic grounds.
8.4.9 Cumulative impact assessment
Evidence and submissions
While there was no disagreement with Mr Delaire’s recommendation that the combined WEF sound level from the proposed Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs should not exceed the NZS6808:1998 recommended limits, the Proponent proposed a condition to be included in any permit issued that: . prescribed a noise limit 3 dB(A) below the NZS6808:1998 recommended limit to apply to the Yaloak South WEF at dwellings potentially affected by both WEFs, if and when both WEFs are commissioned; . specified that compliance is deemed to have been achieved at a dwelling if the combined WEF sound level of the two WEFs at a dwelling is below the NZS6808:1998 recommended limits irrespective of the WEF sound level of the Yaloak South WEF; and . allowed for compliance at host dwellings to not be required.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee notes that Guidelines require applications for WEFs to include a written report providing an explanation of why the site is suitable for the WEF having regard to, inter alia:
PAGE 82 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The cumulative effects of the proposal having regard to other existing or proposed wind energy facilities in the area.46
In response to this requirement the PAR refers to the cumulative noise assessment, and since that assessment is that the combined or cumulative WEF sound level is predicted to be compliant with the NZS6808:1998 recommended noise limits, it can be said that the site is suitable from an acoustic view point.
The Guidelines provide no specific guidance as to the requirements for assessing cumulative acoustic impact, and the noise standard referenced in both the Guidelines and the Planning Scheme is also silent in regard to the assessment of cumulative acoustic impacts.
In the absence of any guidance in the Guidelines and NZS6808:1998 the Advisory Committee considers the guidance provided in other standards to be of value.
NZS6808:2010 includes a section on cumulative effects and states that: The noise limits in 5.2 and 5.3 should apply to the cumulative sound level of all wind farms affecting any noise sensitive location.47; and Where a new wind farm will impact on the same noise sensitive locations as an existing wind farm, the assessment of background sound should exclude wind farm sound generated by all existing wind farms. This means that the wind farm sound from another wind farm shall not be considered as part of the background sound level in determining noise limits for subsequent developments.48
NZS6808:2010 also includes a note to this clause that suggests that where it is not possible or practical to cease operation of an existing WEF to enable background sound levels to be measured, the background sound level can be estimated by subtracting predicted existing WEF sound levels from measured sound levels.
AS4959:2010 provides essentially the same guidance stating: To provide a satisfactory level of protection of amenity against the potential adverse effects of wind farm noise, the cumulative impact of all wind farm development in an area should meet the noise limits derived
46 Guidelines, Section 4.8 47 NZS6808:2010, Clause 5.6.1 48 NZS6808:2010 Clause 5.6.3
PAGE 83 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 from measurements of the background noise environment at relevant receivers prior to any wind farm development taking place. Where it is not possible to satisfactorily demonstrate that existing developments are not influencing measured background noise levels, predicted noise levels from the wind farm should not be permitted to exceed the minimum noise level limit.49
It is clear from the above that both NZS6808:2010 and AS4959:2010 suggest that the limits placed on cumulative acoustic impact should be the same as those limiting the impact from a single WEF. This suggestion is in agreement with Mr Delaire’s recommendation and the Advisory Committee is of the view that Mr Delaire’s recommendation should be accepted.
The Proponent has suggested that it is prepared to accept the imposition of a lower limit, i.e. NZS6808:1998 recommended limits less 3 dB(A), on the operation of the Yaloak WEF, however the Advisory Committee does not see this as necessarily providing an equitable result.
The Proponent’s suggestion would effectively impose the same lower limit on the Moorabool WEF. While this could have a significant impact on the operation of the Moorabool WEF, it is being considered without the proponent of the Moorabool WEF being provided the opportunity to present views on the matter.
Under the Proponent’s proposal the two WEFs would be limited to the same noise level but the effort, and probably expenditure and loss in revenue, required to reach that limit may be very different. The table below illustrates this point. Table 2: Predicted and Permitted Sound Levels
Non-Host Dwelling WEF Sound Level dB(A) Designation Predicted Permitted Yaloak South Moorabool Yaloak South Moorabool Combined Individual 37 BC21aa 35 40 41 38 39 BD21ab 36 38 40 37 40 BD22aa 36 38 53 50
It can be seen from the above table that at all non‐host dwellings, the predicted WEF sound level from the Yaloak South WEF is below the limit that would apply under the Proponent’s proposal, but at two of the three
49 AS4959:2010 Clause 4.2
PAGE 84 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 dwellings the predicted WEF sound level from the Moorabool WEF is above the limit.
Imposing a lower limit on the Moorabool WEF because the Yaloak WEF contributes to the combined WEF sound level could well be seen as unfair.
Consider the following situation: NZS6808:1998 recommended limit 40dB(A) Yaloak South WEF sound level: 37dB(A) i.e. 1 dB(A) above that predicted Moorabool WEF sound level: 38dB(A) i.e. as predicted Combined WEF sound level: 41dB(A) by energy addition
Using the Proponent’s approach in this situation, the Moorabool WEF would need to lower its noise emission as a result of the Yaloak South WEF producing more noise than predicted, which would not be fair and reasonable.
The Advisory Committee is also greatly concerned with the difficulty that would be involved in measuring the sound level from the WEFs individually (once both are operational) and cannot see how this could be done without turning all or part of one WEF off. Such an approach would be to the serious detriment of one of the two WEF operators, is highly likely to be the cause of considerable argument, and may lead to the situation where the two operators both claim the other to be non‐compliant with no way of resolving the matter.
The Advisory Committee is of the view that if a non compliance occurs at one of the dwellings affected by both WEFs, then the two WEF operators should both be required to contribute to the actions necessary to reduce the WEF sound level by the required amount. Ideally this would occur by agreement between the two operators, however while the making of such agreements can and should be encouraged, they cannot be mandated by a single WEF’s permit condition. It is therefore necessary to specify a default position to cover the situation where an agreement between the operators cannot be reached. The Advisory Committee considers that the default should be that both WEF operators be required to take responsibility for reduction of the WEF sound level by 50% of the required amount.
Under such a system there would be no need to set noise limits at the dwellings other than the NZS6808:1998 recommended limits.
The Advisory Committee also has concerns with the Proponent’s proposal for exemption from conditions requiring compliance at host dwellings. The
PAGE 85 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 difficulty arises when a dwelling is a host dwelling for one of the WEFs but not the other. While it would be possible for an agreement between a landowner and WEF operator to make reference to include sound from the other WEF, it should not be assumed that because a landowner has entered into an a agreement with one WEF operator, then agreement to accept a greater sound level from the other WEF exists.
In this case, five dwellings at which the predicted WEF sound level from the two WEFs is greater than 35 dB(A) were identified. Of the five dwellings, one is a host dwelling of the Yaloak South WEF, one a host dwelling of the Moorabool WEF and the remaining three are non‐host dwellings. In such circumstances where the number of dwellings is small and the predictions are that compliance will be achieved at all the dwellings, the Advisory Committee considers that to avoid confusion none of the dwellings should be exempted.
8.4.10 Low frequency noise and infrasound
Evidence and submissions
The Advisory Committee understands that health issues are considered by some to be related to the issues of low frequency and infrasound , and these matters are considered in detail elsewhere in the report. This section of the report is focused on what might be considered the technical issues relating to low frequency noise and infrasound.
The PAR provided definitions of low frequency noise (20 to 100 Hz) and infrasound (below 20 Hz), and noted that: . low frequency noise can be considered to be in the audible range; . despite the inference of the term infrasound, infrasound can be audible at high enough levels. The following quotation from a United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry report states: - Human perception of sound energy in the infrasound frequency range is much less acute than other frequency bands. Significant energy is required to produce levels of infrasound which are high enough to be perceived by humans. - However, once low frequency noise or infrasound is perceived, changes in the sound level are more readily observed. 50 . infrasound is created by a wide range of different sources, both natural and anthropogenic; and
50 PAR Section 10.4.11
PAGE 86 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . in relation to WEFs, an article in the Acoustic Bulletin entitled Agreement about relevant factors for noise assessment from wind energy projects and published in April 2009 states: A report for the DTI in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie concluded that neither infrasound nor low frequency sound was a significant factor at the separation distances at which people lived. This was confirmed by a peer review by a number of consultants working in the field.51
The PAR stated that NZS6808:1998 is not designed to assess emissions beyond the audible range, and therefore provides no methodology for assessment of infrasound.
A considerable number of pre‐hearing submissions referred to the potential impacts of both low frequency noise and in particular infrasound. Some of these submissions suggested that the alleged health effects on people living in the vicinity of wind turbines were the result of infrasound emissions.
Mr Delaire’s evidence reiterated the statements made in the PAR and also included the following: The available literature indicates that wind turbines produce low levels of low frequency noise and infrasound52.
The evidence included quotations from a paper by Jakobsen, NZS6808:2010 and the South Australian EPA guidelines, both of which support the view that infrasound emissions from WEFs are low, as examples of the information available in published literature.
Mr Huson’s evidence included the following: . a reference to Community Noise Guidelines, Bergland and Lindvall, where it is stated that low frequency sound is considered to be a significant factor in increased annoyance to sound; . the results of measurements of infrasound from a WEF in Britain that show levels up to 35dB(G); and . information on the possibility of the detection of infrasound other than via the cochlea.
Submissions by the Proponent included the following: . a restatement of the evidence provided by Mr Delaire; and . expression of the views that:
51 PAR Section 10.4.11 52 Hearing Document 28 - Expert Witness Statement of Christophe Delaire, Annexure F, item (d)
PAGE 87 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 - the reliable evidence available to the Advisory Committee is that low frequency noise emissions from contemporary WEFs either do not occur, or occur at low levels; and - it should be noted that data on infrasound levels provided by Mr Huson show that the measured levels are below the internal limits that have been set by Danish environmental authorities.
Discussion
While the potential for impacts of low frequency noise and infrasound on human health are discussed elsewhere in this report, the questions requiring resolution at this stage include the following: . Will low frequency noise and infrasound be emitted from the proposed WEF, and if so what levels might be expected?; . Will the low frequency noise and infrasound emitted be perceptible at sensitive receptors?; and . Is there a need to control (i.e. impose limits on) low frequency noise and infrasound levels at sensitive receptors, and if so how would such levels be set?
The Advisory Committee finds that there is little doubt that both low frequency noise and infrasound will be emitted from the proposed WEF, but is unable to make a definitive determination of what the level of low frequency noise and infrasound will be at sensitive receptors (dwellings).
Mr Delaire’s evidence that low frequency noise is accounted for in the A weighting used in the NZS6808:1998 assessment methodology was not challenged and is accepted.
While a significant amount of qualitative evidence has been provided indicating that the levels of infrasound will be “low”, “not significant” or “imperceptible”, little evidence has been provided on what might be considered to be an acceptable level. The Advisory Committee is aware that one of the few jurisdictions in which a limit has been set on infrasound levels is in Denmark, where an indoor level of 85 dB(G) has been set and generally accepted as appropriate. By way of comparison, the data from a British WEF provided by Mr Huson indicates that in that case, the measured level of infrasound from the WEF was of the order of 35 dB(G). Estimates of infrasound levels at sensitive receptors in the literature are generally less than 60 dB(G), so on balance it is considered reasonable to conclude that the infrasound levels at sensitive receptors in this case will be well below the Danish limit.
PAGE 88 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee is therefore of the view that there is little to be gained by setting a limit on infrasound levels at sensitive receptors to protect amenity. If such a limit was set it would be similar to the Danish limit and it can be taken as given that such a limit would be adhered to.
This is not to say that there will be no impact from infrasound, as it is clear that human perception of infrasound is highly variable, however, in the same way that noise limits are not set to provide inaudibility, limits on infrasound should not be set to prevent perception.
8.4.11 Conclusions and recommendations
It is concluded that:
The applicable noise limits should be those recommended in NZS6808:1998.
The setting of noise limits below those recommended in NZS6808:1998 for reasons based on the existing acoustic amenity or land use at dwellings cannot be justified.
WEF sound cannot be said to have known special audible characteristics prior to assessment of the sound actually emitted from the WEF post construction, therefore the imposition of a penalty on predicted WEF sound levels would be inappropriate.
Potential impacts on WEF sound levels due to stable air and wake induced turbulence cannot be predicted and it is therefore inappropriate to apply penalties to predicted WEF sound levels to account for such effects.
The noise limits recommended in NZS6808:1998 are outdoor noise limits of background sound level L95 plus 5 dB(A) or 40 dB(A) L95, whichever is the greater.
The application of setbacks between turbines and dwellings cannot be justified on acoustic grounds.
Limits on the combined WEF sound level from the Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs should: Be the NZS6808:1998 recommended limits for an individual WEF.
PAGE 89 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Apply at all dwellings where the predicted combined WEF sound level is 35 dB(A) with no exemption of host dwellings available.
Responsibility for compliance at dwellings where the WEF sound level is a product of noise emissions from the Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs should be shared between the WEF operators, either by agreement or by each WEF operator being responsible for 50% of the amount of any non compliance.
While emissions of low frequency noise and infrasound from the proposed WEF can be expected, the levels at sensitive receptors will be well below any limits that might be set.
It is recommended that:
Any permit that may be issued include conditions that require: . Compliance with the NZS6808:1998 recommended noise limits, i.e. outdoor WEF sound levels of background sound level L95 plus 5 dB(A) or 40 dB(A) L95, whichever is the greater. . Compliance with these limits determined for both 24 hour and night‐time. . Compliance with these limits by the combined WEF sound levels of all WEFs at all dwellings at which the predicted WEF sound from the two WEFs is 35 dB(A) or greater.
8.5 The adequacy of the noise assessment provided
8.5.1 Planning Application Report
Two noise impact assessments, one for the proposed Yaloak South WEF and one for the cumulative impact with the proposed Moorabool WEF, were completed by Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd. A report on Yaloak South WEF assessment was included as Chapter 10 of the PAR, while that on the cumulative impact was included as Appendix 10.1 to the PAR.
Yaloak South WEF assessment
The noise assessment of the proposed Yaloak South WEF (the Yaloak South Assessment), which is purported to be in accordance with the requirements of NZS6808:1998, consisted of the following: . identification of 3 dwellings for which the predicted WEF sound level was 35 dB(A) or greater as assessable dwellings;
PAGE 90 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . measurements of background sound levels in the vicinity of 2 of the 3 assessable dwellings with simultaneous measurement of wind speed, with the background sound levels at the third assessable dwelling said to be represented by those at one of the dwellings at which measurements were made; . regression analysis of measured background sound levels and wind speed for both 24 hour periods and night‐time, defined as 10:00 pm to 7:00 am; . prediction of the WEF sound level at each of the 3 assessable dwellings over a range of wind speeds; and . comparison of predicted WEF sound level at each assessable dwelling with the noise limits recommended in NZS6808:1998.
Assessment results showed predictions of compliance with 24 hour and night‐time NZS6808:1998 recommended noise limits at all assessable dwellings.
Cumulative impact assessment
The noise assessment of the combined operation of the proposed Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs (the Cumulative Assessment): . identified 5 dwellings that have the potential to be impacted by both proposed WEFs; . combined data on background sound levels and wind speeds measured for the assessments of the individual facilities, with adjustments for wind speed measurement height, to establish noise limits in accordance with NZS6808:1998; and . provided predictions of WEF sound level at each dwelling with both WEFs in operation using the model described in NZS6808:1998, with air absorption being based on the spectral content of the noise emitted from wind turbines in accordance with ISO9613‐1:1993.
The predicted WEF sound levels at the five dwellings were found to be below the NZS6808:1998 recommended 24 hour limits, while the predicted WEF sound level at one dwelling was above the night‐time limit.
The PAR highlighted the fact that the NZS6808:1998 noise prediction methodology assumes that dwellings are downwind from all turbines, and while such an assumption may be appropriate in the assessment of a single WEF, it is overly conservative when the dwelling is between two facilities. The prediction method was refined by the use of aspects of the CONCAWE methodology to account for the difference in noise propagation with wind
PAGE 91 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 directions. Additional predictions were made assuming both easterly and westerly winds, that is, from one WEF to the dwellings and on to the other WEF. The results of these additional predictions showed reductions from the initial predictions and WEF sound levels below all relevant limits at all dwellings.
8.5.2 Summary of evidence and submissions
The claim of accordance with NZS6808:1998 was challenged in evidence and submissions on a wide range of grounds including: . the location and height of the wind speed measurements; . the selection of locations for background sound level monitoring; . the positioning of the noise monitoring equipment; . the measurement capabilities of the noise monitoring equipment used; . the pre and post measurement calibration of the noise measuring equipment; . the methods applied to determine correlations of background sound level with wind speed; . the number of data pairs used to determine correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for night‐time; . the attention paid to separate correlations of background sound levels with wind speeds for different wind directions; . the elimination of measurement results for periods of rainfall; . the need to account for seasonal differences in background sound levels; and . the model used to predict WEF sound levels.
Evidence and submissions provided on each of these matters is summarised below together with the Advisory Committee’s responses to the matters raised.
8.5.3 Location and height of wind speed measurements
Evidence and submissions
It is stated in the PAR that wind speed measurements were made at a height of 50 metres at a location approximately 2 km from the proposed WEF site. The PAR acknowledges that this is not in strict accordance with NZS6808:1998 but expressed the view that, of the sites available for the measurements, the one used provided the best available representation of wind speeds at the proposed WEF site.
PAGE 92 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Wind speeds measured at a height of 50 metres were used to estimate hub height wind speeds by extrapolation using an average wind shear factor of 0.17.
Mr Huson questioned the appropriateness of measuring wind speed well away from the location of the sound level measurement, but was unable to provide an assessment of any possible implications in this case as the access to wind data had not been provided.
Discussion
It is noted that the Guidelines require that, during the assessment of noise impact, particular attention is required to: Wind speed measurements at the hub height of the proposed turbines as recommended in the Note to Clause 4.5.653 (of NZS6808:1998)
The Note to Clause 4.5.6 of NZS6808:1998 states: The windspeed should be monitored on the windfarm site and measured preferably at the WTG hub height.
It is apparent that in this case the suggestions made in NZS6808:1998 of wind speed measurement at hub height and on the proposed WEF site have not been followed. The question is whether this constitutes a failure to complete the assessment in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the Guidelines as is required by the Planning Scheme.
The Advisory Committee notes that the language used in NZS6808:1998, with the use of “should” rather than “must”, and “preferably”, means that no absolute requirements for wind speeds to be measured on the proposed WEF site or at hub height are created by the standard itself. On the other hand, the fact that the Guidelines make particular reference to hub height wind speed measurements can be interpreted as creating a requirement for such measurements.
It is noted that the particular reference to hub height wind speed measurements is an addition to the original Guidelines resulting from the revision completed in September 2009. It is considered safe to assume that the addition made during the revision of the Guidelines is the result of an identification of the need for hub height wind speed measurements, and that if those revising the Guidelines had not considered that such measurements should be required then the addition would not have been made.
53 Guidelines Section 4.9.1
PAGE 93 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee is of the view that the requirements of the Guidelines include a noise assessment that is based on wind speed measurements at hub height. Therefore the assessments provided with the PAR do not satisfy this requirement.
8.5.4 Background sound monitoring locations
Evidence and submissions
It was accepted by all parties that noise assessments are required at all dwellings at which the predicted WEF sound level is 35 dB(A) or greater and that, in this case: . the Yaloak South Assessment identified three such dwellings and the PAR states that background sound level measurements were made at two of the three dwellings and that the background sound levels at the third dwelling are fairly represented by those at a dwelling at which measurements were made; and . the Cumulative Assessment identified five dwellings, with background sound levels having been measured at each of the five.
A number of submitters expressed the view that for the Yaloak South Assessment, background sound level measurements should have been made at all three dwellings, and presented information purporting to demonstrate that it was unsafe to assume that measurements made at one dwelling could be used to represent background sound levels at another.
In response it was Mr Delaire’s evidence that, at the particular dwelling the predicted WEF sound level was less than 40 dB(A) and as a result a prediction of compliance was provided irrespective of background sound levels.
Discussion
The guidance provided by NZS6808:1998 in regard to locations for measurement of background sound levels is as follows: This Standard recommends that background sound level measurements be carried out where predicted sound levels of 35dBA or higher are calculated for the relevant locations. It is recommended that measurement positions be selected to include locations at or within the nearest affected residential property boundary, (the notional boundary – if a rural property), and near the location of representative positions for
PAGE 94 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 any other residential locations within the vicinity of a WTG or windfarm.54
While the proposition that the selection of dwellings for background sound monitoring satisfies the requirements of NZS6808:1998 is accepted, the Advisory Committee has significant concerns in regard to the practice of using the results of background sound level measurements made at one dwelling to represent the background sound levels at another.
Background sound levels are largely a function of the interaction of the wind with obstacles such as buildings and vegetation, which are unique to each dwelling. The classification of dwellings as being the same with respect to the interaction of the wind with buildings and vegetation is somewhat subjective and as a result risky, and can be expected to be an ongoing topic of debate, particularly in regard to the post‐construction compliance testing.
The Advisory Committee is of the view that ideally, an adequate noise assessment must include measurement of background sound levels at all dwellings at which the predicted wind turbine sound level is 40 dB(A) or greater. Without such measurements, a definitive prediction of compliance cannot be made.
The only acceptable circumstance where a noise assessment in which background sound level measurements are not made at all dwellings at which the predicted maximum WEF sound level is 40 dB(A) or greater is when access to such a dwelling is refused by the owner and/or occupier of the dwelling.
It is noted that in this case, the selection of locations for background sound level measurements was in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and would also satisfy what the Advisory Committee considers to be that required to produce an adequate assessment.
8.5.5 Sound measuring equipment
Evidence and Submissions
A number of submissions included the observation that examination of the background sound level/wind speed scatter diagrams included in the PAR showed that the equipment used was not able to measure sound levels below approximately 24 dB(A) and that, as a result, the data used to determine correlations was corrupted.
54 NZS6808:1998 Clause 4.5.1
PAGE 95 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 It was Mr Huson’s evidence that: . noise loggers have what is known as a noise floor, below which reliable measurements of sound levels cannot be made; . the noise logger used, an EL‐316, has a noise floor of 23 dB(A) and a manufacturer’s recommended measurement range of 30 – 120 dB(A); . the use of sound measuring equipment with a noise floor around 23 dB(A) in rural areas where ambient sound levels are very low, often below 16 dB(A) in low wind conditions, can produce misleading results; . data influenced by the instrument noise floor, if not removed, can have a significant effect on the correlations required by NZS6808:1998; and . reporting results of measurements made with an EL‐316 noise logger that are below 30 dB(A) is not advised, since the results may not be compliant with approved measurement standards required in NZS6808:1998. It was Mr Delaire’s evidence that: . background sound levels have been measured in accordance with NZS6808:1998 as is required, and in any case, predicted WEF sound levels at residences are less than the lowest limit that can be set i.e. 40 dB(A), therefore compliance is predicted irrespective of background sound levels; . the noise monitoring equipment used is in accordance with NZS6808:1998, which does not specify a minimum instrument noise floor; and . exclusion of data affected by the noise floor, as suggested by Mr Huson, would result in higher background levels and hence higher limits.
Discussion
Examination of the data provided with the PAR clearly demonstrates that the results of background sound levels were at times influenced by the noise floors of the noise loggers used.
There was no challenge made to this proposition but the matters that were subject to debate included: . whether the equipment used was different to that required to be in accordance with NZS6808:1998; and . the impact of what are considered to be the invalid data at low background noise levels on the assessments.
On the first of these matters, it is noted that NZS6808:1998, at Clause 4.5.6, states that background sound level measurements shall be conducted in
PAGE 96 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 accordance with NZS6801. NZS6801 makes no reference to the noise floors of instruments, but in regard to sound level meters states that: Sound level metres shall comply with the relevant IEC specifications, preferably class 1, but at least class 2, as given in IEC specifications relevant for each instrument.55
The instruments used for the measurement of background sound levels included both class 1 and class 2 (previously referred to as Type 1 and Type 2) instruments and therefore meet the requirements of NZS6808:1998 as far as the noise monitoring equipment used is concerned.
In regard to the impact of the measurement range of the sound level meters used, the Advisory Committee notes that the Yaloak South Assessment shows the maximum predicted WEF sound level at a dwelling to be 36 dB(A) and the Cumulative Assessment predicts a maximum WEF sound level at a dwelling of 39 dB(A). It is therefore apparent that both assessments provide a prediction of compliance at all dwellings irrespective of the background sound levels, therefore, in this case, errors in the measurement of background sound levels due to the noise floor of the instruments have no impact on the results of the assessment.
8.5.6 Positioning of noise monitoring equipment
Evidence and submissions
It was suggested in hearing submissions that in at least one case, the positioning of the noise monitoring equipment was not in accordance with NZS6808:1998, in that the microphone was in close proximity to a bush and the noise created by the action of the wind on the bush would have resulted in elevated noise levels.
During the Hearing Mr Huson was shown photographs of the equipment at the particular location, and he expressed the view that its positioning was probably not in accordance with the requirements of NZS6808:1998.
It was Mr Delaire’s evidence that: . the siting of the noise monitoring equipment at the particular dwelling was limited by the landowner’s requirements and the necessity to secure the equipment; and . the data collected at the dwelling does not indicate any effect of the close proximity to a bush.
55 NZS6801:2008 Clause 5.1.1
PAGE 97 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Mr Delaire’s evidence in regard to options for the siting of the noise monitoring equipment being limited by the landowner’s requirements was strongly disputed by the landowner in question who made the point, which was supported by Mr Huson’s evidence, that responsibility for siting of monitoring equipment belonged to the acoustic expert and should not be passed to anyone else.
Mr Delaire’s evidence that there was no indication of impact of the siting of the equipment on the results obtained was also disputed, based on the fact that background sound levels recorded at another dwelling were lower than that at the particular dwelling, despite the close proximity of the two dwellings.
The Proponent suggested that Mr Delaire’s evidence on these matters should be relied on and submitted that: . the background sound levels recorded at the particular dwelling are comparable to those measured at a neighbouring dwelling, and Mr Huson agreed that the siting of equipment at the neighbouring dwelling was in accordance with the relevant standards; and . there is a good correlation between background sound levels and wind speed at the neighbouring dwelling, and in light of this: It is therefore submitted that even if there was a technical non‐ compliance with clause 4.5.2 (of NZS6808:1998), the evidence available to the Committee suggests that this non‐compliance had little if any impact on the quality of the background noise monitoring conducted at House 38.56
Discussion
The relevant section of NZS6808:1998 is in Clause 4.5.2, which states: The locations for selected sound level measurements shall be more than 5 metres from any significant vertical reflecting surface, or other structures or objects (such as trees, powerlines etc) so that the natural wind sound generated at or near the microphone is excluded as far as possible from the measurements.
Having viewed the photographs of the installed noise monitor and inspected the location, the Advisory Committee is satisfied that the noise monitor was not located in accordance with the above clause.
56 Hearing Document 78 - Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Reply, 4 (f)
PAGE 98 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Proponent sought to place responsibility on the landowner for the siting of the equipment and to characterise this as a “technical non‐compliance” that on the evidence of Mr Delaire did not have any significant bearing on the results obtained. The Advisory Committee does not accept the Proponent’s view for the following reasons: . while the Advisory Committee will not be drawn into a “he said, she said” argument about a discussion between the acoustic technician and the landowner, there is no doubt where responsibility for the siting of the equipment lies. It must be assumed that the acoustic technician possessed the knowledge required to know whether the siting was appropriate and since there is no mention of any limitation on siting in the report on the assessment, the reader should be able to assume that the siting was satisfactory to the acoustic technician; . the Advisory Committee does not believe that any judgement as to the validity of the results can be made by comparison with background sound levels recorded at another dwelling. The variation in background sound levels between dwellings can be significant due to a range of factors, so the difference or lack of difference due to one of those factors cannot be determined; . a technical non‐compliance is still a non‐compliance; and . the credibility of the assessment in the eyes of both regulators and the community is of critical importance to the application of the planning framework. What might be seen as a minor matter could have a serious effect on the confidence of the community in the system.
8.5.7 Pre and post measurement calibration
Evidence and submissions
It was Mr Huson’s evidence that: . NZS6808:1998 requires background sound level measurements to be made in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS6801:1991 Measurement of Sound (NZS6801:1991), which requires calibration checks on the monitoring equipment to be performed immediately before and after measurements; and . sound logging data that had been provided to Mr Huson showed that, at least in one case, post measurement calibration had not been performed.
It was Mr Delaire’s evidence that the post measurement calibration in the particular case had not been conducted because of a failure in the equipment power supply, but the standard procedure which was used is to perform the pre‐measurement check in the office of Marshall Day Acoustics before
PAGE 99 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 transport and set up on site and then, following measurements being taken, transport of the equipment back to the office where a post measurement check is performed.
Mr Delaire also stated that no unacceptable drift was detected.
It was Mr Huson’s evidence that the procedure used was not compliant with the relevant standard.
The Proponent submitted that: . the requirement for pre and post measurement calibration is that contained in the New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2008 Acoustics – Measurement of Environmental Sound (NZS6801:2008), rather than the 1991 version of that standard referred to be Mr Huson; and . NZS6801:2008 requires that a ‘check of the sensitivity of the instrument shall be made by the user at least before and after each set of measurements” and asserted: Based on the evidence of Mr Delaire, Marshall Day’s calibration of the loggers complied with this clause of NZS6801:2008. Mr Huson’s evidence alleging non‐compliance with NZS6801 is therefore wrong.57
Discussion NZS6808:1998 states, in Clause 4.5.3:
Background L95 levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS6801 at positions indicated in 4.5.1.
The Advisory Committee also notes that the reference to New Zealand Standard 6801 Measurement of Sound (NZS6801) is not dated and while the “Related Document” section of NZS6808:1998 lists NZS6801:1991, the same section includes the following: The users of this Standard should ensure that their copies of the above mentioned New Zealand Standards or of overseas Standards approved as suitable for use in New Zealand are the latest revisions or include the latest amendments.
It is therefore evident that in this case NZS6801:2008 is the relevant standard.
57 Hearing Document 78 - Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Reply, 4 (i)
PAGE 100 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
NZS6801:2008 includes the following: 5.3 Field Checks 5.3.1 A check of the instrument sensitivity of the system shall be made by the user at least before and after each set of measurements. The results of these checks should be stored with measurement data. 5.3.2 For extended measurement periods (for example greater than one day) field checks may be required at regular intervals depending on the type of instrumentation and its reliability. If there is a difference of more than 1 dB between consecutive checks, any measurement in the interval between the two checks shall be considered invalid.
“Field Check” is defined in NZS6801:2008 as: Verification by the application of a known sound level that the overall sensitivity of a measuring system is within tolerance58
It is understood that Marshall Day Acoustics’ normal procedure is to complete field checks in their office, with the microphone being removed from the logger during transport to and from the site. The evidence of the two acoustic experts on whether such a procedure is in accordance with NZS6801:2008 differed, with Mr Delaire stating that it is and Mr Huson stating that it is not.
The Advisory Committee finds Mr Huson’s view to be correct, for the following reasons: while NZS6801:2008 does not specify where a field check should be made, the use of the term “field check” rather than pre and post measurement check or some other term indicates an expectation that such checks should be done “in the field”; and it is understood that the performance of such checks in the field is not difficult, and had they been done in the field then doubts about compliance with the relevant standard would not arise.
Another matter of some concern to Advisory Committee is that while Mr Delaire’s evidence was that pre and post measurement checks were performed and the Advisory Committee has no reason to question that evidence, the fact is that no records of such checks being done or the results
58 NZS6801:2008 – Section 3 Definitions
PAGE 101 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 of those checks is available to either the Advisory Committee or anybody else other than Marshall Day Acoustics and the Proponent. There is a need for a greater degree of transparency in such matters to ensure the credibility of the process is not compromised.
8.5.8 Correlations of background sound levels with wind speed
Evidence and submissions
It is evident from the PAR that the determinations of correlations of background sound levels with wind speeds were based on the following: . generation of 1755 or more data pairs for each dwelling; . exclusion of an unstated number of data pairs corresponding to periods of rainfall measured in Ballarat; . fitting of a 3rd order polynomial equation to 24 hour and night‐time only to generate a regression curve describing the relationship between background sound levels and wind speed; and . calculation of coefficients of determination (R2 values) for each regression.
Mr Huson criticised the approach taken on the following grounds: . the inclusion of data corrupted by the noise floor of the measuring equipment, as discussed previously; . an insufficient number of valid data pairs, after exclusion of invalid pairs, to satisfy the requirement of NZS6808:1998 for 1440 data pairs and for correlations of night‐time only data; . more sophisticated data analysis is required. Mr Huson recommended the use of “bin analysis”, which enables errors due to low numbers of data points at particular wind speeds to be quantified and a better representation of the relationship to be obtained; . the apparent automatic use of a 3rd order polynomial to describe the relationships. While acknowledging that NZS6808:1998 does not specify the type of regression Mr Huson noted that other standards specify 2nd order polynomials; . the use of rainfall records from Ballarat rather than from a local weather station; and . the quality of the correlations as indicated by the coefficients of determination was poor, and such values should be the subject of further investigation.
Mr Huson identified a number of what he considered to be anomalies in the scatter plots included in the PAR, and stated that a preliminary data
PAGE 102 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 investigation would have identified such anomalies and enabled significantly higher quality data sets and hence higher quality correlations to be obtained.
While Mr Huson retained his views on the above matters there was agreement between Mr Huson and Mr Delaire that NZS6808:1998: . does not specify a minimum instrument noise floor; . requires a regression line to be fitted through correlated data points; . does not specify the type of regression curve to be fitted; . does not require local measurements of rainfall; . does not specify a minimum number of data pairs for correlations of data sub sets (day/night or wind direction); and . does not require a minimum coefficient of determination.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee is in no doubt that the correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for night‐time have been derived from less data pairs than is mentioned in NZS6808:1998, however, examination of NZS6808:1998 shows that the number of background sound level/wind speed data pairs that are required is not in fact specified and the only specific requirement is that: Data should be obtained for the windspeed range of 5 m/s – 8 m/s, i.e. slightly above the typical cut‐in windspeed of currently commercially available WTGs59
In the Note to Clause 4.5.6 of NZS6808:1998, the suggestion is made that: It is expected that, at least, 10 to 14 days of continuous monitoring will be required to give a suitable range of data. Typically, this will result in excess of 1440 data points which should be plotted against the appropriate corresponding windspeed data.
In the Advisory Committee’s view, this suggestion does not amount to a prescription of 1440 or any other number of data pairs but is rather an indication of the amount of data pairs required in the typical situation.
It is therefore concluded that the number of data pairs used does not result in a lack of conformance with NZS6808:1998.
59 NZS6808:1998 Clause 4.5.6
PAGE 103 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The suggestions made by Mr Huson in regard to the use of bin analysis to define the relationships, the form of the regression equation used, local measurement of rainfall and low R2 values are also matters that need not be addressed if the only question is whether what has been done is in accordance with NZS6808:1998.
It is therefore concluded that the correlations of background sound levels with wind speed determined for the assessments have been determined in accordance with NZS6808:1998.
Mr Huson’s suggestions are of what he considers a better means by which the required correlations could be determined, rather than what needed to be done to achieve conformance with NZS6808:1998, and the Advisory Committee acknowledges the probable validity of the majority of Mr Huson’s suggestions.
While the Advisory Committee is satisfied that this aspect of the noise assessments is adequate for the purpose of considering the Application, it is not convinced that the correlations are adequate for the purposes of setting of limits and compliance testing.
It is evident that despite compliance with NZS6808:1998 being achieved, the situation can be created where statistically meaningless correlations between sound levels and wind speed can be used to determine permissible noise levels and WEF sound levels. The Advisory Committee considers such a situation to be unsatisfactory, and sees the need for a degree of quality control on the correlations to be used for these critical purposes.
The Advisory Committee believes that aspects that require quality control are the range of wind speeds covered and the quality of the correlation as indicated by the R2 value.
NZS6808:1998 requires the data used to cover the 5 to 8 m/s wind speed range however there is no indication of the precise meaning of “cover” as it may mean a single data pair at each of 5 m/s and 8 m/s and more than 1000 data pairs between 6 and 7 m/s. The Panel considering the Lal Lal WEF (the Lal Lal Panel) addressed this issue and determined that data sets used to determine correlations should include at least: . 10 data pairs, or 1% of the total number of data pairs, whichever is the greater, at wind speeds greater than 8 m/s; and
PAGE 104 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . 10 data pairs, or 1% of the total number of data pairs, whichever is the greater, at wind speeds less than 4 m/s.60
The Advisory Committee considers the approach recommended by the Lal Lal Panel to be appropriate.
Given that the data provides adequate coverage of the wind speed range, the adequacy of the relationship is best measured by the R2 value which provides an indication of the how well the relationship is defined. The greater the impact of wind speed on background noise level relative to the impact of other factors, the smaller number of data pairs required to give a particular R2 value.
No guidance on appropriate R2 values is available from NZS6808:1998 or NZS6808:2010, or any other standard or guideline that the Advisory Committee is aware of, however the Lal Lal Panel report states: As noted previously NZ6808:1988 does not contain any requirements of the quality of the regression curve as indicated by the R2 value. As can be seen from that data provided in the PAR, this can lead to a situation where statistically meaningless correlations are relied upon to establish limits and test compliance. We are of the view that this is unacceptable and recommend that regressions with a R2 value of less than 0.5 should not be used.61
Once again, the Advisory Committee considers this approach to be appropriate.
The R2 values for the correlations used for the Yaloak South Assessment and the Cumulative Assessment are shown in the following table.
60 Lal Lal Wind Energy Facility Planning Application Nos. PL-SP05/0461 & PL07/067 – Panel Report-February 2009, Page 89 61 Lal Lal Wind Energy Facility Planning Application Nos. PL-SP05/0461 & PL07/067 – Panel Report-February 2009, Page 89
PAGE 105 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Table 3: R‐squared values
R2 Value Dwelling Source 24 Hour Night 36 0.67 0.63 Moorabool noise assessment 37 0.72 0.57 Moorabool noise assessment 38 0.46 0.49 Yaloak South assessment 39 0.44 0.34 Yaloak South assessment 40 0.69 0.70 Moorabool noise assessment
It can be seen from the table above that the correlations determined for the Yaloak South Assessment do not satisfy the criteria proposed by the Advisory Committee for correlations to be used for the setting of noise limits and compliance testing. The reason for the lower R2 values cannot be determined, however, the Advisory Committee suspects that it may be related to the fact that wind speed measurements were made at a considerable distance from the dwellings.
In summary it can be said that: . the correlations of background sound level with wind speed used in the assessments have been determined in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and are therefore valid for the purpose of the assessments.
However: . some are not considered adequate for the purposes of setting of noise limits and compliance testing.
8.5.9 Seasonality
Evidence and submission
A pre‐hearing submission noted that the results of background sound level measurements were impacted by the month in which the measurements were made, and that this indicated a seasonal variation in background sound levels that should be taken into account in determining noise limits. This view was restated by the submitter at the Hearing.
Mr Huson’s EWS included the following: Comparing data for Houses 38, 39 and 40, that are all a similar distance from the main road and reasonably close to each other, shows there appears to be a seasonal background noise effect. For example, the background data for house 38 at night is much lower in October than the
PAGE 106 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 data for house 39 shows in November. Likewise, of the data for House 40/Bd22a is to be believed then the measured data shown in figure 56 of the Moorabool report for July is much higher than that for the “deemed to be representative” House 39/Bd21ab in November (Figure 10.8 in the Yaloak South report).62
Mr Huson and Mr Delaire agreed that while background sound levels may be affected by seasonal variations, NZS6808:1998 does not require seasonal background noise monitoring.63
Discussion
While it is acknowledged that in the examples provided, background sound levels recorded in November were lower than those recorded in July and October, the Advisory Committee is not convinced that this difference necessarily demonstrates a seasonal effect.
The Advisory Committee notes that NZS6808:1998 has no requirement to consider seasonal variations in background sound levels and while the Guidelines provide guidance on factors that should be considered in particular, including wind direction and time of day, those factors do not include seasons. It is therefore apparent that the fact that seasonal variations in background sound levels have not been taken into account presents no challenge to the proposition that the assessments have been conducted in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the Guidelines.
The reason why there is no requirement to consider seasonal variations in background sound levels could be that no such variations exist. This proposition is supported by the evidence of Mr Delaire concerning the results of an investigation conducted at Portland and reported in a paper presented at a conference in Denmark.
The possible reasons for the differences in background sound levels at different dwellings are many and varied, and making comparisons to identify the impact of a particular variable, in this case the season, is of questionable validity. While the information presented shows that lower background sound levels were recorded in November, the reason for this cannot be definitively identified.
62 Hearing Document 45 - Expert Witness Statement of William Leslie Huson, Page 17 63 Hearing Document 18 - Joint Report of Acoustic Experts, Section 2.2.8
PAGE 107 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 While the above does not necessarily provide definitive proof that there is no seasonal variation in background sound levels, the mechanisms by which seasonal variations may occur requires further consideration.
Background sound levels at dwellings are largely determined by the following: . wind speed; . wind direction; and . the extent of leafy vegetation.
There is no doubt that each of these factors vary with the season, however it is noted that: . the assessments take account of variations in wind speed; . while the Yaloak South Assessment does not take account of wind direction, it is a requirement of the Guidelines that wind direction should be the subject of particular attention; and . the extent of leafy vegetation is expected to be greater in spring and summer than in winter but the higher background sound levels were recorded in winter.
The Advisory Committee therefore finds that, providing an assessment takes appropriate account of wind direction, any seasonal variations in background sound levels will also be taken into account.
8.5.10 Predictions of WEF sound levels
Evidence and submissions
The Yaloak South Assessment utilised the following for prediction of WEF sound levels at dwellings: . the sound propagation model provided in NZS6808:1998; . turbine sound power levels of the REpower MM92 turbine, provided and guaranteed by the turbine manufacturer; . the octave band sound power level spectrum of the REpowerMM92 turbine; and . air absorption coefficients for each octave band specified in ISO9613‐ 1:1993.
The Cumulative Assessment utilised the following for predictions of WEF sound levels at dwellings resulting from emissions from the combination of both of the proposed Moorabool and Yaloak South WEFs:
PAGE 108 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . turbine sound power levels of the REpower MM92 and Enercon E82 turbines, provided and guaranteed by the turbine manufacturers; . the octave band sound power level spectrums of the REpower MM92 and Enercon E82 turbines; . air absorption coefficients for each octave band specified in ISO9613‐ 1:1993; . the sound propagation model provided in NZS6808:1998 for initial predictions; and . the sound propagation model provided in NZS6808:1998 but modified by aspects of the CONCAWE model to account for the effect of wind direction.
Pre‐hearing submissions stated that: . the sound level prediction model used was inappropriate and not conservative; . the predictions of WEF sound levels were inaccurate because they take no account of stable air or wake induced turbulence; and . other potential effects such as topography and the prevailing wind directions may be underestimated by the prediction model and as a result WEF sound levels in the Parwan Valley and to the south of the proposed WEF site could be greater than predicted.
It was Mr Delaire’s evidence that the sound propagation model used was that specified in NZS6808:1998 and that it is generally accepted as being conservative due to: . the assumption that the dwelling is directly downwind of all turbines; and . there being no allowance for attenuation other than air absorption.
Mr Delaire expressed his view that the potential effects of topography and wind direction does not change the inherent conservatism of the model used.
It was Mr Huson’s evidence that: . the model used does not account for meteorological conditions and turbulence from adjacent turbines and as a result is not conservative; . a more appropriate model such as the Environmental Noise Model (ENM) should have been used in preference to the simple model described in NZS6808:1998; and . assessment of the cumulative impact required modification of the model used to enable wind direction to be accounted for.
PAGE 109 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Mr Huson’s EWS included the following: I agree that further adjustments to the noise model will provide a better representation of the noise impact, however the choice of CONCAWE as a basis for modelling improvements warrants a little caution since it is an empirical model based on measured sound propagation from three petroleum refineries in the UK in 1991 and sound sources between 3.2m and 25m.64
Mr Huson pointed out that the use that had been made of the CONCAWE model was not in accordance with prescriptions of its use and suggested: An alternative to the use of CONCAWE is the Australian developed Environmental Noise Model (ENM). This model allows the inclusion of wind speed and direction and provides an assessment of ground adsorption effects.65
Mr Huson presented the results of a modelling exercise using the ENM to predict the WEF sound level at one dwelling assuming the following: . a wind speed of 8 m/s from the WEF to the dwelling; . ground absorption of “Grass: rough pasture”; and . slightly higher air absorption than used in the Yaloak South Assessment.
Mr Huson’s prediction was of a WEF sound level of 46.9 dB(A), compared with that of the Yaloak South Assessment of around 36 dB(A).
Mr Huson and Mr Delaire agreed that: . the potential turbulence caused by wake effects is dependent on the turbine layout; . effects of turbulence on turbines’ sound power levels cannot be quantified using NZS6808:1998; . NZS6808:1998 recommends the use of the simple prediction method but does not preclude the use of other methods; . the model used in the Yaloak South Assessment is compliant with NZS6808:1998, as is the use by Mr Huson of the ENM; and . NZS6808:1998 does not preclude the use of CONCAWE or any other noise prediction method.66
64 Hearing Document 45 - Expert Witness Report of William Leslie Huson, Page 8 65 Hearing Document 45 - Expert Witness Report of William Leslie Huson, Page 9 66 Hearing Document 18 - Joint Report of Acoustic Experts, 2.2.1, 2.2.4 & 2.2.5
PAGE 110 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 It was Mr Delaire’s evidence that impacts due to wake induced turbulence and stable air could not be predicted, but if such effects meant that permissible sound levels were exceeded, then such exceedances would be detected and actions required to reduce WEF sound level to achieve compliance.
It was the Proponent’s submission that: (j) Mr Delaire’s noise predictions relied on the ‘simple’ method recommended in NZS6808:1998. Mr Huson used a more complex model, which is reliant on a data set regarding terrain, ground absorption and meteorological conditions. (k) This was one of the reasons why the ETSU Joule Report found that there was a wide divergence between wind farm noise levels predicted by the ENM used by Mr Huson. It is, as the authors of that report concluded, very sensitive to meteorological conditions in particular. That is why the report did not recommend the use of ENM, and it may explain why: (1) ENM has not to our knowledge (or the knowledge of Marshall Day Acoustics) been used to predict noise levels from wind energy facilities in Victoria or Australia – certainly Mr Huson could not point to any; and (2) The author of ENM, Mr Renzo Tonin, did not try and use it when he gave evidence against the Winchelsea wind farm proposal in VCAT.
Discussion
While Mr Huson’s evidence that more complex models, of which there are a considerable number, can be used to more completely represent sound propagation is accepted, the primary question is not which model should be used, but whether the modelling has been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998.
The Advisory Committee is in no doubt that the use of the “simple model” described in NZS6808:1998 in the assessments satisfies this primary requirement.
The Advisory Committee’s review of Mr Huson’s evidence indicates that the variation between his prediction and that of the Yaloak South Assessment is due in large part to the assumptions made in regard to inputs to the model including wind speed, wind direction and ground absorption rather than the
PAGE 111 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 model itself. This illustrates a disadvantage of more complex models in that there is more scope for variation in the model output as a result of the scope provided to the modeller to determine the inputs.
In contrast, the simple model provides little scope for inputs to be varied and can therefore be expected to produce consistent results irrespective of the modeller. While a model with such characteristics may not produce the most accurate predictions, the consistency provided enables WEFs to be assessed consistently.
In the context of setting the requirements for approval, consistency is more important than accuracy. The consequence of any lack in accuracy will ultimately be borne by the developer of the WEF as they will be required to comply with the prescribed limits, irrespective of the accuracy of the predictions. The use of a simple model providing consistent predictions means that all WEF proponents need to jump the same hurdle. Arguments about the accuracy of the model and whether it is conservative or not are about the height of the hurdle and are matters for discussion in relation to the provisions of the Planning Scheme rather than the merits of an application for a planning permit.
The Advisory Committee therefore finds that the sound propagation model used in the Yaloak South Assessment is appropriate for the purpose.
Mr Delaire’s evidence that predicting WEF sound levels using the method described in NZS6808:1998, which assumes wind from all turbines to the dwelling simultaneously, is not suitable for a dwelling located between two WEFs is accepted. This acceptance, combined with the knowledge that downwind noise propagation is greater than upwind propagation, means that predictions made using the method described in NZS6808:1998 must be higher than those made using a model that utilises the method described in NZS6808:1998 but also takes account of the variation of noise propagation with wind direction.
While Mr Huson raised the issue of the use of CONCAWE in the context of the Cumulative Assessment, his suggestion of the use of an alternative model is not of specific relevance to the cumulative impact but the more general question of the appropriate model to be used for any WEF sound level prediction.
The Advisory Committee accepts the modelling completed for the Cumulative Assessment as using the method described in NZS6808:1998 with appropriate adjustment to take account of the influence of wind
PAGE 112 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 direction on noise propagation and considers such an approach to be appropriate.
8.5.11 Wind direction
Evidence and submissions
While not raised in evidence or submissions, the Advisory Committee questions whether the particular attention to the correlation of background sound levels with wind speed for different wind directions required by the Guidelines has been given.
The Guidelines state: During the assessment phase of the noise impact, particular attention to the following matters within the Standard is required: · Separate correlation of background sound levels with the wind speed for different wind directions and/or the time of day (Clause 4.5.5 of the Standard);….67
While the assessments include particular attention to correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for different times of the day, in that separate correlations for 24 Hour and night‐time periods have been determined, there is no evidence or suggestion that particular attention has been given to separate correlations for different wind directions.
Discussion
The apparent lack of attention to separate correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for different wind directions must be seen as a failure to adhere to the Guidelines, and therefore presents a challenge to the adequacy of the assessments.
The Advisory Committee understands that evidence has been given on other matters that in some circumstances, the need or otherwise for separate correlations for different wind directions can be identified from the data available from measurements taken without consideration of wind direction. In some cases it has been accepted that where an analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that correlations are unlikely to be influenced by wind direction, then separate correlations for different wind directions are not required.
67 Guidelines Section 4.9.1, sub-section 3 (a)
PAGE 113 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee agrees with this proposition but in order for an assessment to be in accordance with the Guidelines, the details of the analysis resulting in a determination that separate correlations are not required would need to be included in the report on the assessment.
Condition 37 of the Draft Permit at item e) i and item (f) specifies criteria that background sound level/wind speed correlations must satisfy in order to be used for compliance testing using the method described in NZS6808:1998. The criteria include the regression curves being derived from data sets in which a particular percentage of the data pairs are the results of measurements made when the wind direction is from the WEF to the dwelling, a criterion accepted by the Proponent.
The purpose of this criterion is to provide correlations that can be used for compliance testing in the periods of time in which the likelihood of the wind direction being from the WEF to the dwelling is at a maximum and hence the WEF sound level at the dwelling is also at a maximum. This enables compliance testing under likely worst case conditions which can then provide demonstration of compliance under all conditions.
While such a requirement need not necessarily be imposed on the correlations used for a pre‐development assessment, if the correlations do not satisfy the requirement then, at the least, the data will need to be re‐ analysed, and it is possible that additional measurements of background sound levels, wind speed and wind direction may be necessary to produce correlations that can be used in compliance testing.
8.5.12 Are the noise assessments provided adequate?
Tests for adequacy
The requirements of the Planning Scheme in regard to noise assessment are: . the requirements created by Clause 52.32‐2 of the Planning Scheme for noise assessment completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998; and . through the reference in Clause 52.32‐3 of the Planning Scheme to the Guidelines: - the assessment must pay particular attention to separate correlation of background sound levels with wind speed for different wind directions and time of day and measurements of wind speed at hub height; and - the assessment must provide a prediction of compliance.
PAGE 114 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 It is the Advisory Committee’s interpretation that the aim of the provisions of the Planning Scheme in regard to noise assessment is to prevent a WEF from being constructed and operated unless there is a reasonable expectation that compliance can and will be achieved. Furthermore, the Planning Scheme defines what must be done to achieve this aim, that is, an assessment in accordance with NZS6808:1998, paying particular attention to the matters referred to the Guidelines, which provides a prediction of compliance. It therefore follows that if such an assessment is provided then the required reasonable expectation is created.
In determining whether an assessment is adequate there are two fundamental questions: . Has the assessment been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the requirements of the Guidelines?; and . Does the assessment include a prediction of compliance with NZS6808:1998 recommended limits?
The requirements of the assessment are that both of these questions are able to be answered in the affirmative.
Have the assessments been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the requirements of the WEF Guideline?
Evidence and submission
While the Proponent and its acoustic expert consider that the Yaloak South Assessment is in accordance with NZS6808:1998, it has been submitted by others that for a variety of reasons detailed previously this is not the case.
Discussion
Having considered the various criticisms of the assessments the Advisory Committee finds the assessments to be inadequate due to the following: . the Guidelines have not been followed with respect to the particular attention required to: - wind speed measurements at hub height; and - separate correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for different wind directions. . non‐conformance with NZS6808:1998 due to: - inappropriate positioning of noise measurement equipment and - failure to perform field checks on noise measurement equipment as required.
PAGE 115 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Do the assessments include predictions of compliance?
While it is accepted that the assessments include predictions of compliance at all dwellings, the validity of these predictions cannot be accepted due to the fact that the assessments have not been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 or the requirements of the Guidelines.
The Advisory Committee understands that the determination that the noise assessments are inadequate provides grounds for a recommendation to refuse the Application. When this proposition was put to the parties at the Hearing, the following views were expressed: . the Proponent submitted that if the assessments were found to be inadequate, it would be appropriate to include a condition in any permit issued that required new assessments to be completed prior to the start of the development; and . it was Council’s submission that if the assessments were found to be inadequate then refusal of the Application should be recommended.
In determining the appropriate course of action the Advisory Committee returned to its interpretation of the aim of the provisions of the Planning Scheme, i.e. “To prevent a WEF from being constructed and operated unless there is a reasonable expectation that compliance can and will be achieved.”
It is clear that this aim can be satisfied by requiring adequate assessments to be provided prior to the start of development, and as a result, this is the Advisory Committee’s recommended course of action.
The Advisory Committee is mindful that this approach will require some type of secondary consent, which is not a preferred approach; however, careful consideration has been given to how the matter of consent could be dealt with, and the Advisory Committee considers a practical and workable solution has been devised.
8.5.13 Pre-development assessments
Two pre‐development assessments should be required: . an assessment of the proposed Yaloak South WEF alone, the Pre‐ Development Assessment (PDA); and . an assessment of the proposed Moorabool and Yaloak South WEFs with both in operation, the Pre‐Development Cumulative Assessment (PDCA).
PAGE 116 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Requirements of the Pre‐Development Assessment
The PDA needs to be completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and to address the following additional matters: . all aspects of the PDA must be conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic expert; . the PDA must use the model described in Clause 4.3 of NZS6808:1998 for: - identification of all dwellings at which the predicted maximum WEF sound level is 35 dB(A) or greater; and - predict WEF sound levels at dwellings so identified over a range of wind speeds of at least 4 to 12 m/s. Attenuation due to air absorption may be determined by a method that accounts for the spectral content of the turbine noise emissions providing the method used does not predict an overall attenuation rate greater than 0.005 dB(A) per metre. . the PDA must utilise the results of wind speed measurements made at hub height; . background sound level measurements should be required to be made at, at least, all locations where the predicted maximum WEF sound level is 40 dB(A) or greater except if the owner of a dwelling refuses permission for such measurements to be taken; . since the PDA would not be required to be completed until the development is about to be commenced, it can be expected that the final turbine selection would have been made and the WEF layout finalised. The PDA should therefore be based on the actual turbine and WEF layout; . if it is necessary to apply a noise management plan to obtain a prediction of compliance, then the PDA needs to include details of the proposed plan including evidence of the predicted impact of its application; and . the PDA should be required to either: - specifically address the matter of separate correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for different wind directions by determining such correlations or providing an explanation of why such correlations are not required; or - include correlations of background sound levels with wind speed suitable for the purpose of compliance testing as defined later in this report.
PAGE 117 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Requirements of the Pre‐development Cumulative Assessment
The requirement for a PDCA is, of course, subject to the grant of a permit for the Moorabool WEF. If and when such a permit is granted, then the need of a PDCA is triggered and the requirements of the PDCA include all of those listed above for the PDA with the modifications listed below: . the sound propagation model described in Clause 4.3 of NZS6808:1998 may be modified to account for the effect of wind direction on sound propagation so that predictions of WEF sound levels are with the wind direction being from the Moorabool WEF to dwellings; . correlations of background sound level with wind speeds used to determine limits must be determined from data sets in which the percentage of data pairs for which the wind direction is from the Moorabool WEF to the dwellings is equal to or greater than the maximum monthly proportion of the wind direction distribution in that direction, plus or minus 22.5 degrees; . allowance is required for the situation where the Yaloak South WEF is to be developed and the turbine selection and WEF layout for the Moorabool WEF has not been finalised. In such circumstances the turbine sound power levels and WEF layout for the Moorabool WEF specified in the Cumulative Assessment included in the PAR could be used; . compliance at all dwellings at which the predicted maximum WEF sound level from the two WEFs is 35 dB(A), irrespective of the ownership of the dwelling.
Responsibility for completing the Pre‐development Cumulative Assessment
Since the PDCA requires input from two WEF proponents and may be required by both proponents, it would seem fair and reasonable that the responsibility for completion of the PDCA should be shared between the two proponents.
The Advisory Committee has given considerable thought to the development of a regime under which such sharing of responsibility is required. All attempts have failed to devise such a regime, because a means by which requirements can be placed on the proponent of the Moorabool WEF through a permit for the Yaloak WEF cannot be identified.
While the Advisory Committee is aware that an application for a permit for the Moorabool WEF is currently being considered and it is possible that a permit issued for the Moorabool WEF could include a requirement for a PDCA, the assumption of such a condition would be inappropriate. It is
PAGE 118 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 therefore necessary to include requirements for a PDCA in any permit issued for the Yaloak South WEF that ensure a PDCA can and will be completed irrespective of whether input from the Moorabool WEF proponent is provided.
On the other hand, the quality of the PDCA completed would be enhanced by cooperation between the two WEF proponents and the proponent of the Yaloak South WEF should be encouraged to use its best endeavours to obtain such cooperation.
If the proposed Yaloak South WEF is the first to be developed, then in order to complete the PDCA, the Yaloak South WEF proponent would require at a minimum the following from the Moorabool WEF proponent: . specification of the make and model of the turbines to be installed at the Moorabool WEF; and . specification of the Moorabool WEF layout (turbine locations).
While information on these aspects is available from the Moorabool WEF application material, the possibility exists for the details to change as a result of conditions included in any permit issued for the Moorabool WEF or by a decision of the Moorabool WEF proponent on turbine selection or micro‐ siting of turbines. Ideally, the specifications would be as close as possible to that which will be built at Moorabool; however, such information would be only available by agreement between the proponents.
It is considered necessary to provide a default position for the situation where agreement between the proponents cannot be reached, and that position is use of the turbine and WEF layout specified in the Moorabool WEF application, as modified by any condition included in the permit issued for the Moorabool WEF.
This information would enable the modelling to be performed to identify assessable dwellings, i.e. those at which the predicted combined WEF sound level is greater than 35 dB(A) and at which measurement of background sound levels must be made.
It would then be the responsibility of the Yaloak South WEF developer to obtain the required results of measurements of background sound levels, wind speeds and wind direction, and this could be achieved by a combination of: . the results of measurements made for the PDA of the Yaloak South WEF; . the results of measurements made by the Moorabool WEF proponent; and
PAGE 119 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . additional measurements performed for the purpose of the PDCA.
While it is might be expected that the provision of data by the Moorabool WEF proponent would be made possible by agreement between the proponents, the responsibility for obtaining all the required data would remain with the Yaloak South WEF developer with any shortfall of data being made up by additional measurements.
If the proposed Moorabool WEF is the first to be developed then the requirements placed on the Yaloak South WEF developer will depend on the conditions included in any permit issued for the Moorabool WEF.
If the permit for the Moorabool WEF contains equivalent conditions requiring a pre‐development cumulative impact assessment, a PDCA would have already been completed and the Yaloak South WEF developer may be able to gain access to the completed PDCA through negotiation with the Moorabool WEF operator.
If such access cannot be negotiated or a PDCA has not been completed by the Moorabool WEF developer, the possibility exists that a dwelling or dwellings may be identified at which background sound level measurements are required but cannot be made without shutting down part or all of the Moorabool WEF.
As NZS6808:1998 does not provide any guidance on this matter, this absence leads the Advisory Committee to the guidance provided in NZS6808:2010, which at Clause 5.6.3 states: Where a new wind farm will impact on the same noise sensitive locations as an existing wind farm, the assessment of background sound should exclude wind farm sound generated by all existing wind farms. This means that the wind farm sound from another wind farm shall not be considered as part of the background sound level in determining noise limits for subsequent developments. C5.6.3 Where it is not possible or practical to cease operation of an existing wind farm for the purposes of measuring background sound levels to satisfy 5.6.3, the background sound level can be estimated by subtracting the predicted existing wind farm sound level from measured sound levels. In some instances there may be publicly available information on the existing wind farm sound level and pre‐existing background sound levels, which may assist this estimation.
PAGE 120 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 If this guidance is followed, which would be appropriate, sound level measurements could be made at a dwelling or dwellings, and the correlation of those measurements with wind speed, together with the predicted Moorabool WEF sound levels, could be used to calculate the background sound level/wind speed equation required to establish limits.
Overall it can be said responsibility for the PDCA must be taken by the Yaloak South WEF proponent and that the PDCA must be based on the best available information. This does not remove the possibility of contributions by the Moorabool WEF proponent; in fact the requirement to use the best available information places an obligation on the Yaloak South WEF proponent to do what it can to obtain such contributions.
Evaluation of pre‐development assessments
It is essential that pre‐development assessments are completed in strict compliance with the conditions included in any issued permit. To ensure that this is the case such assessments must be subject to evaluation.
A frequently used means of ensuring the quality of such assessments is to require them to be completed by a suitably qualified and experienced person to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Advisory Committee notes however that in this case this approach has failed to produce adequate noise assessments for inclusion in the PAR.
There is no doubt that Marshall Day Acoustics staff would be considered to be suitably qualified and experienced, but the testing of their assessment through review by other acoustic experts and consideration by submitters has shown the assessment to be inadequate.
While it would be normal to require pre‐development assessments to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, whether that is the Minister or Council, the Advisory Committee notes the submissions by DPCD and Council in regard to the lack of resources available to them, and it also has significant concerns in regard the capability of the Responsibility Authority to make a rigorous evaluation of what in some parts is a highly technical matter. As a result there would be a significant risk that the rigorous evaluation considered necessary would not be undertaken.
To overcome this problem, the Advisory Committee believes that the pre‐ development assessments should be the subject of audits by a second independent acoustic expert, with that expert being required to certify that the pre‐development assessments provide predictions of compliance and
PAGE 121 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 have been completed in accordance with the appropriate standards and specifications included in the permit.
The suggested framework is a follows: . the conduct of the assessments be subject to audits and an audit report(s) be submitted to the Minster with the assessments; . the audits be conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced employee or associate of a member of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants or a Fellow of the Australian Acoustical Society, not associated with the people or companies completing the assessments; and . the audits must include but not be necessarily limited to: - sound Power data utilised for prediction of WEF sound levels at dwellings; - selection of dwellings for assessment; - compliance with NZS6808:1998 in regard to background sound level measurement including the requirement of compliance with NZS6801; - the noise propagation model utilised; and - satisfaction of the criteria specified for the background sound level/wind speed correlation data. It is considered that pre‐development assessments that provide predictions of compliance and have been audited and certified by an independent acoustic expert could be taken as adequate, without technical evaluation by the Responsible Authority.
8.5.14 Conclusions and recommendations
The noise assessments provided with the Application do not satisfy the requirements of the Planning Scheme and the Guidelines for the following reasons: . The positioning of noise monitoring equipment relative to that of trees and vegetation was not in accordance with NZS6808:1998. . The method used for pre and post measurement instrumentation checks was not in accordance with the appropriate standard. . Wind speed measurements were not made at hub height as required by the Guidelines. . There was no particular attention to correlations of background sound level with wind speed for different wind directions required by the Guidelines.
PAGE 122 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee does not accept that the matters listed below are reasons to conclude that the noise assessment provided has not been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998: . Inappropriate selection of locations for background sound level measurements. . The inability of the measurement devices used to measure low sound levels. . The adequacy of the technique used to determine correlations of background sound levels with wind speed. . The fact that no account has been taken of seasonal variations in background sound levels. . The adequacy of the technique used to predict WEF sound levels.
A noise assessment completed in accordance with the Guidelines, NZS6808:1998 and criteria described above, that includes a prediction of compliance, is required prior to the start of the development.
A cumulative noise assessment utilising background sound level measurements made in accordance with NZS6808:1998 that includes a prediction of compliance is required prior to the start of development.
It is recommended that:
Any permit that may be issued includes conditions requiring that, prior to the start of development: . A pre‐development noise assessment be completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 with the modified and additional criteria specified in Condition 24 of the Recommended Permit. . A pre‐development cumulative noise assessment be completed in general accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the modified and additional criteria specified in Condition 25 of the Recommended Permit. . Both the assessments referred to above be the subject of audits by an acoustic expert as specified in Condition 26 of the Recommended Permit.
PAGE 123 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
8.6 Compliance testing and enforcement
8.6.1 Planning Application Report
The PAR makes virtually no reference to compliance testing.
8.6.2 Summary of evidence and submissions
A number of pre‐hearing submissions expressed concern that noise limits would not be complied with and that noise impacts would be unacceptable.
Mr Delaire’s evidence made little reference to compliance testing beyond acknowledgment that it would be required to be completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998.
While evidence and submissions on the matter of compliance testing were limited to the above, during the “Without Prejudice” consideration of permit conditions the Proponent proposed a number of modifications to the Draft Permit provided by DPCD. The Proponent’s submissions on the conditions relating to compliance testing included a number of changes that could be considered substantial; these submissions related to: . the removal of the requirement for the noise compliance testing plan to include matters relating to compliance with N3/89 limits during construction; . the addition of provisions for identification of dwellings subject to acoustic impacts from the proposed Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs; . a change in the specification of the dwellings at which compliance testing is required from all those at which a WEF sound level of 35 dB(A) is predicted to enable testing at a dwelling to represent a group of dwellings; . a change from the requirement for wind speeds to be measured at hub height to one requiring wind speeds to be referenced to hub height; . modifications to the criteria for data sets to be used to determine correlations of sound levels with wind speed; . a modification to the requirement for R2 values of 0.5 or greater to enable a lower value if approved by the Minister for Planning; . the trigger for actions to bring operations into compliance changed from the detection of non‐compliance to a noise related complaint; and . changes to the time periods provided for actions to bring operations into compliance.
PAGE 124 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 In addition to the matters raised by the Proponent in regard to the compliance testing regime, the Advisory Committee has identified the following matters that require consideration: . the assessment of the presence of special audible characteristics; . responsibilities for the testing and maintenance of compliance at dwellings at which the WEF sound levels are the product of the Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs; and . evaluation of compliance testing.
Each of the matters raised by the Proponent and those identified by the Advisory Committee are discussed below.
8.6.3 Special audible characteristics
Evidence and submissions
Much of the evidence and information in submissions provided in relation to special audible characteristics were detailed previously, and while there was considerable debate on the application of a 5 dB(A) penalty to predicted WEF sound levels, there was general agreement that if special audible characteristics are present in the WEF sound post construction, then the penalty should be applied to measured WEF sound levels.
Discussion
While NZS6808:1998 makes it clear that a 5 dB penalty is to be applied to measured WEF sound levels if special audible characteristics are present, the guidance provided in regard to determining whether such characteristics are present is much less definitive. NZS6808:1998 states that: At present there is no simple objective procedure available to quantify special audible characteristics, and subjective assessment is therefore necessary, supported by objective evidence (e.g. frequency analysis) where appropriate68
In a note to Clause 5.3.2, NZS6808:1998 states that: The objective method for determining whether a sound exhibits a tonal character shall be that used in IEC DIS 1400‐11 for assessing wind turbine tonal character close to the turbine, i.e. The Joint Nordic Method.
68 NZS6808:1998, Clause 5.3.1
PAGE 125 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 No guidance in regard to objective assessment of amplitude modulation is provided in NZS6808:1998.
While the approach commonly applied to this matter is to require an assessment of the characteristics of the WEF sound by a suitably qualified and experienced person, which is the approach taken in the Draft Permit, the Advisory Committee is concerned with the subjective nature of such assessments.
In the absence of guidance in NZS6808:1998, NZS6808:2010 is considered to be a potential source of appropriate guidance as the revised standard is considerably more expansive on the matter than NZS6808:1998.
NZS6808:2010 has similar provisions to NZS6808:1998 that recognise the possibility of special audible characteristics and provide for a penalty of up to 6 dB to measured WEF sound levels if such characteristics are present. Unlike NZS6808:1998, NZS6808:2010 specifies how assessments for special audible characteristics shall be conducted in its Appendix B.
With respect to tonality NZS6808:2010 offers a simplified test method and a reference test method. In regard to the simplified test method it is stated that it may be carried out using one‐third octave‐band measurement equipment but if it does not indicate tonality it may still be necessary to use the reference method to confirm the presence or absence of tonality.
The reference method is that prescribed in Annex C to ISO 1996‐2:2007 or an equivalent method.
It is stated in NZS6808:2010 that no appropriate objective test for amplitude modulation has been standardised however an “Interim test method” is offered. The interim test method is described as follows: B3.2 Interim test method …. modulation special audible characteristics are deemed to exist if the A‐weighted peak to trough levels exceeds 5 dB on a regular varying basis, or if the measured third‐octave band peak to trough levels exceed 6 dB on a regular basis in respect of the blade pass frequency.69
The note to this clause states: This method is considered to be an adequate interim test that has been used in New Zealand. It is envisaged that appropriate objective tests for
69 NZS6808:2010 – Appendix B, Clause B3.2
PAGE 126 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 modulation special audible characteristics will be developed in the future to replace B3.2 or provide a more robust objective method than B3.270
The Advisory Committee is of the view that, as far as is possible, the presence of special audible characteristics should be determined by objective measures and considers that: . in regard to tonality the assessment method used in IEC DIS 1400‐11, as suggested in NZS6808:1998 or the method prescribed in Annex C to ISO 1996‐2:2007, as suggested in NZS6808:2010, would be suitable for such assessments The simplified test method described in NZS6808:2010 is not suitable because, as is indicated in the standard, the results of this test are not definitive; and . in regard to modulation the “Interim Test Method” provided in NZS6808:2010 provides an appropriate means by which the presence of modulation can be tested.
8.6.4 Testing of compliance with N3/89 limits during construction
Proponent’s Submissions
The Proponent’s suggestion that conditions requiring testing of compliance with N3/89 limits during construction flows from the suggestion that those limits should not apply.
Discussion
For the reasons detailed previously, the Advisory Committee believes N3/89 limits should be applied during construction, and as a result is in no doubt that testing of compliance with those limits should be required.
The Conditions in the Draft Permit relating to compliance testing during construction have been included in the Recommended Permit.
70 NZS6808:2010 – Appendix B, Note C5.3.1
PAGE 127 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
8.6.5 Dwellings at which compliance testing is required
Proponent’s submissions
Condition 37 of the Draft Permit specifies what must be included in the noise compliance testing plan, including: c) A prediction, by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, of the area within which the noise level from the wind energy facility during full operation will be 35dB(A) or greater d) Identification of all dwellings, excluding host dwellings, within the area predicted in (c) above and a statement as to whether consent from the owner of each of the identified dwellings for compliance testing has been obtained or refused e) A method or methods of testing compliance with the noise limits prescribed in Condition 41 of this permit for each dwellings identified in (d) above for which consent for the conduct of compliance testing has been obtained.
The Proponent proposed that item (e) above be changed to (proposed change underlined): A method or methods of testing compliance with the operational noise limits prescribed in Condition 41 of this permit for each dwelling or at a dwelling that is a representative sample of a group of dwellings identified in (d) above for which consent for the conduct of compliance testing has been obtained.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee accepts the addition of the word “operational” since it adds clarity.
In order to accept the Proponent’s other suggested modification of the Draft Permit condition, it is necessary to accept the proposition that both the background sound level measurements and operational sound level measurements at one dwelling can be taken as representative of the sound levels at another dwelling.
The Advisory Committee is convinced by the evidence and information presented to it that background sound levels and hence limits applying at different dwellings within a group of dwellings can be significantly different. It does not accept the proposition that the results of background sound level measurements made at one dwelling can be said to represent the background sound levels at another dwelling.
PAGE 128 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Compliance testing at only one dwelling in a group of dwellings would therefore only be acceptable if background sound level measurements have been made at each of the dwellings in the group.
It is accepted that there may well be less difference between WEF sound levels at dwellings in close proximity since the main variable producing the difference is distance from the noise source and there may be very small differences in that variable. It is considered however that some quantification is required to determine the circumstance where WEF sound levels can be said to be the same at two or more dwellings. The Advisory Committee believes that the best way to determine this is on the basis of predicted WEF sound levels at the dwellings.
It is considered that for the purpose of compliance testing, the WEF sound level at a particular dwelling may be assumed to be the same as that at another dwelling at which operating sound levels have been measured, if: . the predicted WEF sound level at the dwelling is less than the predicted WEF sound level at the dwelling at which operating sound levels have been measured; or . the difference between the predicted WEF sound level the dwelling and that at which operating sound levels have been made is less than 0.25 dB(A).
These criteria would allow for the operating sound level measurements required for compliance testing at a group of dwellings to made at one dwelling, providing the dwelling at which the measurements is made is the dwelling at which WEF sound levels will be the maximum, or close to it, for the group of dwellings.
The relevant criteria have been included in Condition 29, item (h) of the Recommended Permit.
8.6.6 Hub height wind speeds
Proponent’s submissions
Condition 37, item (e) of the Draft Permit specifies the criteria to be met by regression curves describing the correlations of sound levels (both background and operational) with wind speed, which include derivation from a data set: Including wind speed measurements made at turbine hub height
The Proponent suggested that this should be changed to:
PAGE 129 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Including wind speed measurements referenced to turbine hub height.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee notes that all references to wind speed at hub height in both the Guidelines and NZS6808:1998 are references to wind speed measured at hub height rather than measurements referenced at hub height.
While the Advisory Committee is aware that wind speeds at hub height can be estimated by calculation from wind speeds measured at a different height, it is also aware that such calculations are not universally accepted as providing reliable estimates of hub height wind speed.
On balance the Advisory Committee believes that wind speed measurements at hub height should be required because: . it is the most straight forward logical interpretation of both the Guidelines and NZS6808:1998; and . it removes any doubt and hence debate about the methodology to be applied for estimation of hub height wind speed.
8.6.7 Wind speed range
Proponent’s submissions
Condition 37, item (e) of the Draft Permit specifies the criteria to be met by regression curves describing the correlations of sound levels (both background and operational) with wind speed, which include derivation from a data set: Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds greater than 8 m/s Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds less than 4 m/s,
The Proponent proposed the removal of the second of the above items and the modification of the first item to: Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds greater than the ‘cut in’ wind speed of the turbine.
PAGE 130 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
The Proponent’s submission on this matter was that: Data below the cut in wind speed of operating wind farm is not relevant to compliance and the turbine may have a different cut‐in wind speed to 8 m/s.
Discussion
It is apparent from the Proponent’s submission that the purpose of the criteria in the Draft Permit, which is to ensure that the appropriate range of wind speeds is covered by the data used to determine correlations of sound levels with wind speed, was misunderstood. Under the Proponent’s proposal a data set containing 500 data pairs, 450 of which are for wind speeds below the cut‐off wind speed, would be acceptable, however this is clearly inappropriate because the coverage of the operating wind speed range would be extremely poor.
The Advisory Committee believes that if the criteria in the Draft Permit are satisfied then an appropriate wind speed range will be covered by the data and has therefore included those criteria in the Recommended Permit.
8.6.8 Coefficients of determination (R2 values)
Proponent’s submissions
Condition 37, item (e) of the Draft Permit specifies the criteria to be met by regression curves describing the correlations of sound levels (both background and operational) with wind speed, which include: The coefficient of determination for regression curves will be 0.5 or greater
The Proponent proposed that this be changed to: The coefficient of determination for regression curves will be 0.5 or greater unless otherwise approved by the responsible authority
The Proponent submitted that the setting of an absolute number was inappropriate because it did not provide a reasonable degree of flexibility, citing an example of where the R2 value might be marginally below 0.5.
Discussion
The Advisory Committee does not accept the Proponent’s view on this matter. No reason can be seen why the Responsible Authority, which in all likelihood has little relevant expertise, should be responsible for deciding if
PAGE 131 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 an R2 value is high enough or not. The same logic could be used to enable the Responsible Authority to determine that an R2 value of 0.5 or marginally higher was unacceptable.
It is the Advisory Committee’s view that a criterion needs to be set without any need for interpretation. The Proponent’s proposal would require the Responsible Authority to determine the tolerance that should be given and in effect set a different criterion.
8.6.9 Action triggers on non-compliance
Proponent’s submissions
Condition 38 of the Draft Permit begins: If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in Condition 37 of this permit is detected the wind energy facility operator must:
And then goes on to prescribe what and when actions must be taken.
The Proponent proposed that the commencement to Condition 38 be changed to: If there is a complaint that there has been an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in Condition 37 of this permit the wind energy facility operator must:
Discussion
It is implicit in the Proponent’s suggestion that action will only be required if a complaint is received, or in other words, if an exceedance is detected by for example compliance testing, nothing need be done unless somebody complains. This assumes that everybody that is annoyed by a non compliant noise level will automatically complain. This is a proposition that the Advisory Committee does not accept. The absence of complaint is not necessarily an absence of annoyance and if the annoyance is the result of the WEF sound levels exceeding the limits then it would be totally unacceptable.
The Advisory Committee is firmly of the view that action should be required whenever an exceedance is detected.
While the Proponent also proposed modifications to Clause 37 that changed the actions required and the times within which such actions must be taken, the changes proposed relate to the action required in response to a complaint. The Proponent proposed that:
PAGE 132 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . within five days of a complaint, the operator must start investigating whether the noise levels are in exceedance at the subject dwelling; and . the actions and time periods prescribed in Condition 38 of the Draft Permit remain the same but the trigger point to commence the periods allowed is the confirmation of an exceedance by the operator’s acoustic advisor rather than the exceedance itself.
The only fundamental difference between the Proponent’s proposal and the Draft Permit is therefore whether action should be triggered by complaint or detection of an exceedance.
Since complaint management requirements are dealt with elsewhere in the permit, the Advisory Committee finds the requirements of Conditions 37 and 38 of the Draft Permit to be appropriate and has included them in the Recommended Permit.
8.6.10 Compliance at dwellings impacted by two or more WEFs
The Cumulative Assessment considered the potential impact on the acoustic environment of the combination of the proposed Moorabool WEF and the proposed Yaloak South WEF. The assessment produced the following conclusion and recommendation that were not the subject of challenge and which are accepted: . five dwellings, one a Moorabool WEF host, one a Yaloak South host and three non‐host dwellings were identified as being potentially affected by the two WEFs; and . limits applied to the combined WEF sound level at dwellings potentially impacted by the two WEFs should be the NZS6808:1998 recommended limits.
The questions that are of concern are related to the determination of the individual components of what must be a shared responsibility for compliance, including compliance tests, at the relevant dwellings.
Ideally the work required and any financial impact that results from the conduct of compliance testing and maintaining compliance should be shared equitably between the two WEF operators.
The areas of shared responsibility that need to be considered are: . compliance testing; and . actions to be taken on detection of a non compliance.
PAGE 133 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Compliance testing
While NZS6808:1998 is not directly applicable to compliance testing of the cumulative impact of more than one WEF, the fact that it is proposed to apply the same limits at dwellings that are subject to impacts from the two WEFs as are to be applied at dwellings impacted by a single WEF suggests the compliance testing requirements for the former case should be similar to that in the latter. Those requirements include measurement of background sound levels at all dwellings where the predicted WEF sound levels are 35 dB(A) or greater, and measurement of operating sound levels at the same locations or at one dwelling in a group of dwellings.
The conditions proposed in regard to the completion of a PDCA will result in background sound level measurements being made at some of the relevant dwellings, however such measurements may not be suitable for compliance testing because the conditions relating to the PDCA: . only require background sound levels to be measured at dwellings at which the predicted WEF sound level is 40 dB(A) or greater, rather than 35 dB(A) or greater; and . the specification of the data sets to be used in determining correlations of background sound level with wind speed differs to that required for compliance testing.
This could create a situation where compliance testing is required at a dwelling and correlations of background sound levels with wind speed are not available and cannot be determined without shutting down at least part of a WEF.
The Advisory Committee considers that the most appropriate way of avoiding this situation is to modify the requirements of the PDCA described previously to include: . a requirement for background sound level measurements at all dwellings at which the predicted combined WEF sound level is 35 dB(A) or greater; and . a requirement for the data sets used to determine the correlations between background sound level and wind speed to meet the criteria set for the data sets to be used to determine correlations to be used for compliance testing.
The question of responsibility for compliance testing is complicated by the fact that the conditions of any permit that may be issued for the Moorabool WEF are unknown, and a means of placing an obligation on the operators of
PAGE 134 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 the Moorabool WEF by way of a permit for the Yaloak WEF cannot be identified.
The Advisory Committee sees no option but to place the responsibility for compliance testing at all dwellings impacted by the two WEFs on the operator of the Yaloak South WEF.
It may well be that any permit issued for the Moorabool WEF will also include conditions requiring compliance testing at the dwellings impacted by both WEFs and if this turns out to be the case then shared responsibility is likely to be negotiated.
The essential requirement is that the compliance testing be done, and the only available means to this Advisory Committee of ensuring that it is done is to place a requirement on the operator of the Yaloak South WEF.
Actions on detection of non‐compliance
The Advisory Committee is of the view that since the WEF sound level at a dwelling is the product of noise of both WEFs then the operators both WEFs should be required to take responsibility and action if a reduction of the WEF sound level is required.
Condition 38 of the Draft Permit, which is also included in the Recommended Permit, prescribes the actions required of a WEF operator in the event of detection of a non compliance. The same actions should be required if a non compliance is detected at a dwelling at which the WEF sound level is contributed to by both WEFs, the only difference being that the responsibility for the action should be shared between the two WEF operators.
The Advisory Committee is of the view that the conditions in any permit issued should provide the opportunity for the two WEF operators to come to agreement as to the actions that need to be taken and report jointly as required, however, the conditions must also allow for the event of a failure of the operators to come to such an agreement.
In such circumstance it is considered appropriate that both WEF operators take responsibility for half of the magnitude of the non‐compliance.
PAGE 135 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
8.6.11 Evaluation of compliance testing
The Advisory Committee notes that the Guidelines specify that: . compliance assessments must be certified by an acoustic engineer; . appropriate documentation signed by an independent, appropriately qualified and experienced person must be provided; . the certifier must be able to demonstrate the necessary independence, qualifications and experience for the task to the Responsible Authority.
While the above must and is accepted as a requirement, in light of the problems identified with the application assessments, the Advisory Committee is concerned that satisfying these requirements may not be sufficient to ensure adequate compliance testing and provide the necessary confidence in the result obtained.
The Advisory Committee is aware that the Responsible Authority may not possess the expertise and resources to determine whether compliance testing has been conducted in the manner required, and therefore believes that the work involved in conducting compliance testing should be subject to an independent audit, in a similar way to that recommended in relation to pre‐ development assessments.
8.6.12 Conclusions and recommendations
It is concluded that:
Assessment of the presence of special audible characteristics in WEF sound at dwellings should as far as is possible be assessed by objective methods, and suitable objective methods for assessment of tonality and modulation are available from the New Zealand Standards.
The conditions relating to compliance testing contained in the Draft Permit provide an appropriate compliance testing regime for a single WEF.
The requirements of the pre‐development cumulative noise assessment should include correlations of background sound levels with wind speed that are suitable for use in compliance testing for all dwellings at which the predicted WEF sound level is 35 dB(A) or greater.
PAGE 136 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The development and implementation of the compliance testing plans should be subject to an independent audit.
It is recommended that:
Any permit that may be issued should provide that: . Before the development starts a noise compliance testing plan be prepared that includes all the items specified in Condition 29 of the Recommended Permit. . Before the development starts the noise compliance testing plan be reviewed by an independent acoustic expert as specified in Condition 30 of the Recommended Permit with plan and a report on the review to be submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval. . Implementation of the noise compliance monitoring plan be the subject of an audit by an independent acoustic expert as specified in Condition 31 of the Recommended Permit.
8.7 Improving the framework for the assessment and control of WEF noise
The Advisory Committee understands its primary task is to provide recommendations in regard to the Application for the Yaloak South WEF and that assessment of the Application must be completed in compliance with the provisions of the Planning Scheme, which include the Guidelines. This task has been fulfilled but, in addition, the Advisory Committee wishes to provide some comment on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the regulatory framework in relation to noise from WEFs. The comments provided below are not meant to and should not affect the consideration of the Application; however they may be of use in any future consideration of the regulatory framework for WEFs.
The specific requirements for development and use of land for WEFs are contained in Clause 52.32 of the Planning Scheme. The particular noise related requirements are: . an assessment of the noise impacts of the Proposal on existing dwellings prepared in accordance with NZS6808:1998 must accompany an application; and . that the Responsible Authority considers the Guidelines before deciding on an application.
PAGE 137 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Guidelines repeat the application requirement in regard to noise and provide guidance on the assessment of applications including the need for WEFs to comply with the limits recommended in NZS6808:1998.
During the Advisory Committee’s consideration of the Application, extensive evidence and information in submissions have been received that question the validity of some aspects of NZS6808:1998, as well as suggestions that application of the limits recommended in NZS6808:1998 would not provide adequate protection of acoustic amenity.
While such challenges to the validity and effectiveness of NZS6808:1998 are considered to be challenges to the Planning Scheme, and therefore irrelevant to the consideration of the Application, the validity of some of the criticism of NZS6808:1998 should not be dismissed lightly.
The evidence and information provided was not sufficient for determinations as to the validity or effectiveness of NZS6808:1998 to be made, as only one side of the argument was presented. In the main, the Proponent, justifiably, took the position that such matters were irrelevant to the consideration of the Application. The comments made below are therefore limited to the framework provided by the Planning Scheme.
It is understood that the application of NZS6808:1998 in Victoria originates in its use being advocated by proponents of early wind energy developments. This was followed by its acceptance as a useful standard, capable of protecting acoustic amenity, by VCAT, Panels and Advisory Committees. Subsequently NZS6808:1998 became a reference document in Victorian planning schemes and the Guidelines.
While this explains how and why the references to NZS6808:1998 are now part of the regulatory framework, the time that has passed since the publication of NZS6808:1998 and its adoption in Victoria means that its use should be the subject of a review to determine if it remains appropriate or a better alternative is now available.
There is no doubt that since the publication of NZS6808:1998 there have been considerable advancements in the techniques available for the prediction of WEF sound at sensitive receptors, as evidenced by the fact that the revision of the standard, NZS6808:2010, suggests a more sophisticated modelling technique. In addition various other models are available that purport to provide more accurate predictions.
In addition, it should now be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the limits recommended in NZS6808:1998 in providing the balance required
PAGE 138 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 between the needs of the wind energy industry and the protection of amenity.
A review of the appropriateness of NZS6808:1998, which it is expected would include consideration of other approaches, could well result in the identification of an approach that is considered to be superior. This, however, would not be enough. It would not in itself change the current situation in which assessment and enforcement of what are highly technical issues is left to planning authorities that do not have the required expertise and resources to fulfil these roles. In fact the situation may be worsened if more sophisticated and complicated techniques are adopted.
The current situation should be compared with that applying to the control of noise from industry other than WEFs.
In the case of industry in metropolitan Melbourne, permissible noise levels from industry are specified in SEPP N1 which also provides methods for establishing those levels and testing compliance. While it could be said that in the case of WEFs NZS6808:1998 does the same, the significant difference is that SEPP N1 is the law and the Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has the responsibility and expertise required for enforcement.
It is also noted that, under Clause 62.02‐8 of the Planning Scheme, the EPA is a referral authority for an application for an Industry or Workshop with adverse amenity potential, whereas the EPA is not a referral authority for WEF applications.
Outside metropolitan Melbourne, noise from industry is not controlled by a State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP), however, the EPA has published N3/89, which provides guidelines for setting permissible noise levels from industry in rural areas. It is understood that N3/89 will be replaced by guidelines for Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (NIRV), a draft of which has been issued by the EPA for public comment and review. N3/89 and the NIRV, when issued, do not and will not have the force of law of SEPP N1 but will be applied by approval bodies when considering statutory applications and approvals. This is a similar circumstance to that now applying to WEFs, but N3/89, and the NIRV when issued, have greater relevance to Victoria than a New Zealand standard is likely to have. In addition the EPA is local, hence readily accessible, and can be called on to provide advice on the application and enforcement of the guidelines.
There are two major components missing from the framework currently available for the control of noise from WEFs in Victoria:
PAGE 139 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . prescribed methodologies for setting noise limits, assessing applications and testing compliance, developed for Victorian conditions; and . the involvement of the main government authority with acoustic expertise, i.e. the EPA, in the assessment of proposals and compliance testing and enforcement.
The Advisory Committee sees a significant need for the development of procedures to be applied for the control of noise from WEFs in Victoria. This would provide the opportunity for the development of best practice, the balancing of the needs of the industry and community, would increase the level of confidence within the community in the regulatory process, and would put the updating of procedures in the hands of the State.
It is suggested that the development of such procedures would be led by a government department or authority with expertise in acoustics, in all likelihood the EPA, and the development process would involve: . evaluation of the effectiveness of the limits recommended in NZS6808:1998 in providing the appropriate degree of protection of acoustic amenity; . investigation of the procedures applied in other jurisdictions in Australia and throughout the world; and . consultation with a wide range of stakeholders including the wind generation industry, acoustic professionals, local government and the community.
Ideally the product of this development would be a SEPP for the control of noise from WEFs in Victoria, providing clear and unequivocal instruction as to the requirements to be met, and assessable and enforceable by the EPA.
An alternative, that is not favoured but may be considered, would be the publication by the EPA of a guideline, and references to that guideline in the Planning Scheme and the Guidelines in place of the existing references to NZS6808:1998.
It is also suggested that the Planning Scheme requires amendment to make the EPA a referral authority for all WEF applications. If a SEPP is produced then the EPA would take primary responsibility for enforcement, however, if the requirements are published as an EPA guideline, then it may be necessary to require by way of permit condition that compliance testing be conducted to the satisfaction of the EPA. These modifications would ensure the adequate involvement of the EPA.
PAGE 140 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 These changes would relieve the significant burden on local government for which they have neither the resources nor expertise, as has been submitted before this Advisory Committee and previous Panels and Advisory Committees dealing with wind energy proposals. The Advisory Committee also notes the DPCD’s comment to the effect that resources and skills in this area of highly specialised technical knowledge are not available in that Department. It appears clear to the Advisory Committee that within government this expertise is likely to reside only in the EPA.
8.7.1 Conclusion and recommendation
The Advisory Committee concludes that there is both a need and opportunity to improve the framework within which noise issues associated with WEFs are considered in Victoria, and that the EPA should play a significant role in this process.
It is recommended that
The Minister gives consideration to requiring: . The development of a State Environment Protection Policy on noise from WEFs in Victoria. . The amendment of Victorian planning schemes and the Guidelines to ensure the direct involvement of the EPA in the assessment of WEF applications and the enforcement of SEPP and/or permit conditions relating to noise.
PAGE 141 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
9. Flora and fauna (other than Wedge-tailed Eagles)
9.1 What are the issues?
The flora and fauna (other than Wedged‐tailed Eagles) issues identified by the Proponent, expert witnesses, submitters and the Advisory Committee include the following: . impacts on native vegetation; and . impacts on species of flora and fauna listed under the EPBC Act or the FFG Act (listed species), or their habitat.
9.2 Policy context of the issue
The Guidelines indicate that WEF developments should not lead to unacceptable impacts on critical environmental values. Such values are indicated as those protected under Commonwealth or Victorian legislation. The key Acts to which the Guidelines refer and indicate are relevant to flora and fauna considerations at any proposed WEF site, are the Commonwealth EPBC Act and the State FFG Act. In addition, although not specifically referred to in the Guidelines, the State Wildlife Act 1975 may also be relevant as it provides protection for native fauna in Victoria.
The sections of the Planning Scheme relevant to flora and fauna are: . The SPPF (Clause 15.09 – conservation of native flora and fauna) which has the objective to: “assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native animals and control of pest plants and animals.”
. LPPF (Clause 21.02 Natural Environment) which: “aims to positively enhance biodiversity in the Moorabool Shire by, inter alia: requiring land use change and development to retain native vegetation and minimise topsoil disturbance “ . Farming Zone Clause 35.07 has as one of its purposes to: “protect and enhance natural values and the biodiversity of the area.”
It also indicates (under 35.07‐6 Decision Guidelines), that before deciding on an application to use or subdivide land (in the Farming Zone), the Responsible Authority must consider as appropriate:
PAGE 142 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 “the impact of the use or development on the flora and fauna of the site and its surround,” and “the need to protect and enhance biodiversity of the area.”
9.3 Flora
9.3.1 The Planning Application Report
The PAR (Chapter 7) stated that Brett Lane and Associates (BLA) undertook flora surveys of the study area71 in April and August 2009. Searches for threatened flora species were undertaken during these surveys based on random intuitive sampling methods. No listed species were recorded within the study area during the survey, although one species (Cover Glycine) was considered potentially to occur within a limited area of mapped native grassland along Glenmore Road. Also, two listed flora species (Sun Orchid and Scaly Buttons) were recorded in this area. However as no disturbance is proposed to this grassland area, BLA indicated that there would be no implications for these species.
BLA also recorded six patches of remnant native vegetation occurring within the study area (comprising either Grassy Woodland or Lighter‐soils Plains Grassland EVC). However as no disturbance was proposed to any of these areas, BLA indicated that there would be no implications for any of these remnant native vegetation areas.
BLA recorded one large scattered tree (Drooping Sheoak) which would have once been part of the canopy of the Grassy Woodland EVC, and the tree was considered by BLA to have “high conservation significance”. No development is proposed in the vicinity of this tree.
9.3.2 Evidence and submissions
Although some general concerns were raised, neither the pre‐hearing submissions nor the hearing submissions raised any specific issues relating to flora on the site.
DSE did not raise any issues relating to the impact of the Proposal on either native vegetation or individual species of flora in its submission to the Hearing.
71 The study area indicated in the BLA report in the PAR (Chapter 7) is the WEF site plus an additional area north of Glenmore Road
PAGE 143 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 9.3.3 Discussion
The Advisory Committee notes that, as indicated in Section 0., the Australian Government’s Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has determined that no action was required in relation to any species of flora listed under the EPBC Act.
On the evidence provided, the Advisory Committee considers that it is unlikely that the proposed WEF will have a detrimental impact on any areas of remnant areas of native vegetation, on any individual species of threatened flora or on the large remnant tree on the site. However in order to ensure that no inadvertent damage occurs, conditions to mark and protect such areas and the remnant tree are included in the Recommended Permit.
9.4 Fauna (excluding Wedged-tailed Eagles)
9.4.1 The Planning Application Report
The PAR (Chapter 7) indicated that BLA undertook fauna field surveys in the study area in April and August 2009 which included searches for evidence of mammals, reptiles and frogs and day time bird observations.
The PAR also stated that Biosis Research undertook a survey in October and November 2009 to determine the presence of Barking Owls (listed as threatened under the FFG Act) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed WEF site. If the species was found to inhabit the forest area of the Brisbane Ranges National Park adjacent to the WEF site, Biosis Research indicated that there could be a possibility of birds flying into the WEF site and therefore a potential for collisions with the turbines. No Barking Owls were recorded by this survey and as a result, Biosis Research concluded that it is unlikely that Barking Owls occurred in the potential habitat adjacent to the proposed WEF site.
9.4.2 Evidence and submissions
Mr Lane in his EWS advised that based on BLA’s field assessment and review of existing information, the study area was considered likely to support 147 species of fauna, including 14 species of mammals (six introduced), 99 species of birds (six introduced), 10 species of reptiles and six species of frogs. No listed species were recorded during the surveys. The fauna species indicated in pre‐hearing or hearing submissions to be of possible concern are discussed below.
PAGE 144 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Raptors excluding Wedge‐tailed Eagles
Mr Lane in his EWS indicated that he considered that suitable habitat existed in the study area for only one listed species, i.e. the Black Falcon. However this species was more common in arid regions of Australia and was unlikely to be a regular component of the study area’s avifauna.
DSE did not consider that the Proposal would have significant impact on any higher order raptor species (other than WTEs).
Swift Parrot
The issue of Swift Parrot, a listed species, was raised by Mr Ramholdt, in his cross‐examination of Mr Lane. Mr Lane stated that although the Brisbane Ranges National Park to the south of the site was understood to support a population of this species, as there was no habitat of significance on the site it was unlikely these birds would regularly fly across the site.
DSE did not raise any issues of concern relating to this species.
Barking Owls
DSE did not consider that this proposed WEF would have a significant impact on owl populations such as the Barking Owl.
Bats
The lack of targeted surveys of bat species was raised as an issue by Mr McMahon in his EWS.
Mr Lane’s EWS stated that subsequent to the general fauna survey and the lodging of the Application, a targeted bat survey was conducted over 10 nights between 30 October and 9 December 2009 using automated Anabat® detectors. A total of nine species of bats were recorded during this survey period from four recording sites with eight being widespread and common species. One species detected, the Eastern Bent‐wing Bat is listed as threatened in Victoria under the FFG Act. The Eastern Bent‐wing Bat is one of two sub‐species within the species of Common Bent‐wing Bat; the other sub‐species, the Southern Bent‐wing Bat is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act and threatened under the FFG Act72. For the purpose of this report the term Bent‐wing Bat will be used to apply to the Eastern Bent‐ wing Bat and/or the Southern Bent‐wing Bat sub‐species.
72 Expert Witness Statement of A McMahon on behalf of Moorabool Shire, July 2010
PAGE 145 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Mr Lane’s evidence was that the bat fauna at the site of the proposed WEF was typical of what would be expected in farmlands and the dominant species found were common widespread species.
Mr McMahon expressed concern with the extent of the surveying undertaken and submitted that there was potential habitat in the area for over‐ wintering/roosting sites suitable for the Bent‐wing bat.
At the meeting of experts held at the direction of the Advisory Committee prior to the Hearings, Mr Lane and Mr McMahon discussed their professional views in relation to the impact assessment and potential for impacts on threatened bat species at the project site. The outcomes of this meeting were that: . both experts agreed that the Anabat ® bat surveys undertaken in late 2009 were appropriate, that most species recorded on the site were common species, there were records at one site of a number of calls of the Eastern Bent‐wing Bat, there was potential for Eastern Bent‐wing Bat to use fissures in the basalt escarpment adjacent to the site for day time roosting and that there were treed bat habitat areas on the site; . Mr McMahon considered that as the detectors were not placed as specified in DSE’s bat sampling guidelines73 and were set on the ground, they would not have adequately sampled the air space impacted by the turbine blades. In response Mr Lane stated that the lack of recording at height may have missed species of bats that fly at height, but was unlikely to have missed regular movements of Bent‐wing Bats as this species confines its activities to a zone closer to the ground in tree‐less habitats; and . Mr McMahon also indicated that further work was required to adequately assess the site’s use by the Bent‐wing Bat. In response Mr Lane submitted that the results of the survey indicated the use of the site by Bent‐wing Bats was very low.
In response to questions from the Advisory Committee, Mr Lane stated that, if further survey work was determined to be necessary, then searching the basalt escarpment for signs of Bent‐wing Bats and sampling of treed habitat on the site and in the immediately adjoining habitat of the Brisbane Ranges National Park could be undertaken.
73 Hearing document 39: Guidelines for Bat Surveys in Relation to Wind Farm Developments, L Lumsden, DSE Jan 2001
PAGE 146 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 DSE did not raise any concern in relation Bats arising from this proposed WEF and stated that: . the DSE guidelines for bat surveys in relation to WEF developments referred to by Mr McMahon had no formal standing; . DSE had no concerns in relation to the impact of the Proposal on the Bent‐ wing Bat population; and . specific conditions were not required to be included in any permit that may be issued to assist its protection.
9.4.3 Discussion
The Advisory Committee notes that, as indicated in Section 0, the Australian Government’s Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has determined that no action was required in relation to any species of fauna listed under the EPBC Act.
In relation to high order raptors (other than WTEs) and Barking Owls it is possible that an occasional mortality may occur from development of this WEF. However the Advisory Committee considers that on the evidence provided it is unlikely that the Proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the overall population of any higher order raptor species (other than WTE) or the Barking Owl.
In relation to the Swift Parrot, the 2005 Panel concluded that the level of risk from the impacts associated from the then proposed WEF (much larger than the current proposal) would be negligible because of the lack of suitable habitat in the area74. As nothing contrary was provided in evidence or submissions, the Advisory Committee considers that, although it is possible that an occasional mortality of Swift Parrot may occur, the risk of the Proposal to the overall population would be negligible.
In relation to Bats, the Advisory Committee is surprised that no targeted surveys were undertaken for bats prior to the lodgement of the Application despite the need for further survey being raised as an issue by the 2005 Panel considering the then WEF proposal, with the report of that Panel stating: the Panel considers that further survey work is needed in order to confirm the presence of nocturnal avifauna and bat species that may be impacted by the windfarm Development Envelope’75.
74 Moorabool Planning Scheme Planning Application - Yaloak Wind Farm, Planning Panel Report, March 2005, p 47 75 Moorabool Planning Scheme Planning Permit Application – Yaloak Windfarm, Panel Report, March 2005, p49
PAGE 147 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee also considers that further surveying, including searching the basalt escarpment for signs of Bent‐wing Bats and sampling of treed habitat on the site and in the immediately adjoining habitat of the Brisbane Ranges National Park, would have been useful for a more rigorous assessment of the site’s use by Bent‐wing Bats.
However on the evidence provided and especially in view of DSE’s position that it did not have any concerns in relation to any Bat species, the Advisory Committee does not consider it likely that the Proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on any Bat species, and particularly the Bent‐ wing Bat. The Advisory Committee also does not consider that specific conditions in relation to Bent‐wing Bats are required to be included in any permit that may be issued, other than as part of the Bird and Bat Management Plan included in the draft permit as modified by the Advisory Committee.
The Advisory Committee considers however that ongoing monitoring of bird and bat mortalities is required in order to verify that significant impacts do not occur to any listed bird or bat species as a result of this WEF development, and any mitigation measures, if necessary, are implemented. Conditions to this effect are included in the Recommended Permit.
9.5 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that: In relation to flora, it is unlikely that the Proposal would have a detrimental impact on any remnant areas of native vegetation or any individual species or specimen of listed flora (subject to incorporation of appropriate permit conditions regarding the protection of noted locations). In relation to fauna (other than Wedge‐tailed Eagles), although it may be possible for an occasional bird or bat mortality to occur, it is unlikely that the Proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the population of any species of native fauna.
The Advisory Committee recommends that any permit issued includes a requirement for: A modified Bird & Bat Management Plan as included in the Recommended Permit).
PAGE 148 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
10. Wedge-tailed Eagles
10.1 What is the issue?
The issues related to WTEs identified by the Proponent, expert witnesses, submitters and the Advisory Committee include the following: . the number of WTEs that might be killed as a result of collision with turbines and the impact of such mortalities on: - local and regional populations; and - the community . the cumulative impact on WTEs of proposed WEFs: and . the lack of guidance available for the assessment of impacts on non‐listed species.
10.2 Policy context of the issue
The Guidelines indicate that ‘WEF’s should not lead to unacceptable impacts on critical environmental or cultural values. Critical values are those protected under Commonwealth or Victoria legislation76. Although WTEs are not listed under either the EPBC Act or the FFG Act they are protected under the State Wildlife Act 1975 which provides protection for species of native fauna in Victoria.
The sections of the Moorabool Planning Scheme relevant to WTEs are: . The SPPF (Clause 15.09 – conservation of native flora and fauna) which has the objective to: “assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native animals and control of pest plants and animals.” . Farming Zone Clause 35.07 which has as one of its purposes to: “protect and enhance natural values and the biodiversity of the area.”
It also indicates (under 35.07‐6 Decision Guidelines), that before deciding on an application to use or subdivide land (in the Farming Zone), the Responsible Authority must consider as appropriate:
76 Guidelines, Section 3.2, Policy Context, p13
PAGE 149 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 “the impact of the use or development on the flora and fauna of the site and its surrounds” and “the need to protect and enhance biodiversity of the area.”
It should also be noted that The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biodiversity 1996 and Victoria’s Biodiversity Strategy 1997 are relevant strategies under Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Victoria’s biodiversity strategy is complementary to the National strategy, and the goal of the National strategy includes the protection of biodiversity. Principles contained in the Strategy include: . to anticipate, prevent and attack at source the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity; and . a lack of full knowledge should not be an excuse for postponing action to conserve biological diversity77.
10.3 Planning Application Report
The PAR (Chapter 8) indicated that the topography and local environment in the vicinity of the Yaloak South site is highly suitable for WTEs particularly due to the proximity of the forested Brisbane Ranges National Park, the open agricultural land and the escarpment and plateau complex. These factors combine to offer potential nest sites in large trees, prey sources especially rabbits (but also sheep, kangaroo and lamb carcasses), and consistently available updrafts from the escarpment which provide reliable aerial environments for soaring eagles. These conditions facilitate a relatively high density of WTEs at the proposed Yaloak South WEF site78.
10.3.1 Surveys of the site for Wedge-tailed Eagles
The PAR stated that WTE utilisation surveys were undertaken at the proposed previous Yaloak WEF site by BLA and Biosis Research between January and November 2006, and further surveys were undertaken by Biosis Research at the Yaloak South site from July to October 2009.
During the 2006 survey, an active nest was located in Coffey Gorge, outside the boundary of the proposed WEF site and about one kilometre north of proposed turbine 9, and three inactive nest nests were located about one kilometre east of proposed turbine 14.
77 Moorabool Planning Scheme Planning Application Yaloak Wind Farm, Planning Panel Report, March 2005 78 Expert Witness Statement of I Smales, Section 6, WTE Turbine Collision Risk Modelling – Yaloak South Wind Farm, Biosis Research, June 2010
PAGE 150 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 During the 2009 survey, Biosis Research observed a number of kangaroo carcasses and on one occasion 15 WTEs were observed near one carcass. Biosis Research concluded that the number of birds using the site was directly related to the availability of carcasses.
Both the 2006 and 2009 surveys utilised point count methods designed to obtain a representative sample of WTE activity in the area of the proposed WEF. During each point count an ornithologist recorded all WTE activity observed during a 20 minute period. Counts were carried out during all seasons, in all daylight hours and regardless of weather conditions. Data was used from eight point count sites that were used during the 2006 survey and two additional point count sites used during the 2009 survey. The additional point count sites ensured that data was available for the entire proposed WEF site.
The PAR stated that a total of 463 twenty minute counts (9260 minutes in all) recorded 1699 WTE flights. The majority of birds were observed flying over the Parwan/Yaloak Creek system north of the site or over the Brisbane Ranges National Park south of the site. Of the flights observed over the site, 211 flights were observed at or below 130 metres above ground level and therefore could have been at some risk of collision with turbine rotors. These 211 records were used as input for the collision risk modelling (see below).
10.3.2 Collision risk for Wedge-tailed Eagles
The PAR stated that collision risk modelling for WTEs was undertaken using a model developed by Biosis Research. Inputs to the model included an estimate of the number of individuals making movements that could be at risk, i.e. the population size at the site. This was done in order to estimate the maximum number of individual birds that might interact with the turbines at the site. A figure of 15 birds was used based on the observations indicated above79.
The model also provided for the capacity of birds to avoid collisions, such as by changing flight direction. Different species have different avoidance capacities, and as there is minimal evidence for WTEs from operating WEFs, a range of avoidance rates were used. The modelling for the PAR used avoidance rates of 95%, 98% and 99%80.
79 Note - later modelling was based on 15 birds using the site for 10% of the year and 6 birds using it for 90% of the year 80 Note – Later modelling used a 90% avoidance rate
PAGE 151 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The results of this modelling were expressed in terms of an average annual mortality rate.
The PAR also stated that WTE monitoring had been undertaken at Pacific Hydro’s Challicum Hills WEF located southeast of Ararat which has 35 turbines and has been operating since 2003. Despite five individuals known to have used the site in 2009, a pair observed to have nested within 300 metre of a turbine and monthly searches undertaken between 2005 and 2007, there has been no evidence of any WTE collision with a turbine.
10.3.3 Effects of mortalities at Yaloak South on the overall WTE population
The PAR stated that the most widely used and accepted process to predict the effect of mortalities on the ecological functioning of the wider population of a species is the Population Viability Analysis (PVA) technique. To use this approach, inputs such as overall population dynamics need to be known, defined and analysed. As stated in the PAR, WTEs have been recorded to range over distances of up to 821 kilometres, so a PVA would need to assess the effect of mortalities at the proposed WEF on the wider WTE population comprising many thousands of individuals. As the variables of such a large population are almost impossible to determine, the use of PVA was not considered to be practicable.
10.3.4 Cumulative impact assessment
The PAR stated that the impact on the population of WTEs from the proposed WEF should be ideally viewed in the context of other anthropogenic causes of WTE mortality such as road traffic accidents and secondary poisoning. Unfortunately these could not be accurately assessed (although data relating to Tasmanian WTEs was presented later – see below). Assessing the cumulative effects arising from a number of WEF’s was theoretically possible if the collision risk data from other proposed WEFs was available and the data used in each case was compatible.
10.4 Evidence and submissions
The majority of pre‐hearing submissions and many of the hearing submissions raised concerns relating to WTEs. While most made only brief reference to this issue, some considered it in detail.
The Advisory Committee directed the relevant expert witnesses to meet to discuss points of agreement and disagreement and as a result Mr Menkhorst,
PAGE 152 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Mr Smales and Mr McMahon met prior to the Hearing (Dr Debus was also invited but was unable to attend). The participants at this meeting agreed on the following matters:81 . the methods that were used for collecting bird utilisation data and the reference sites used. However there was a potential issue raised regarding the time gap between the initial data collection (2006) and envisaged start up date (2012 or later); . the age and social structure of birds at risk i.e. that the established resident pairs were the most important birds but if lost would be quickly replaced by ‘floater’ adults. First year juvenile offspring of the resident pair may be at highest risk due to lower manoeuvrability and inexperience, but such birds have a low survival rate even where there are no WEFs, so the predicted rate on mortality is unlikely to be of conservation significance, i.e. insignificant in comparison with the background mortality rate; . that there was no need for grade (inferred to actually refer to gradient) analysis across the site (however it was considered that spatial data would help in developing mitigation strategies); . that the collision risk model should be run again including 15 WTEs on site all year round using a collision avoidance rate of 90% given the experience at the Woolnorth WEFs in Tasmania (results of this modelling are shown in Table 4); . that the population‐level effects are unlikely to be of a magnitude to constitute a conservation problem; and . that a formal PVA, if it could be undertaken, would be an appropriate mechanism to quantify effects, particularly for the purpose of contributing to evaluation of cumulative impact from neighbouring WEFs.
Evidence provided by Mr Smales included advice that additional work had been undertaken since the submission of the Application in December 2009, as follows: . further surveying of WTE utilisation, carried out between November 2009 and March 2010; . further modelling based on an average of six WTEs inhabiting the site for 90% of the year and 15 WTEs inhabiting the site for 10% of the year (these figures were apparently based on advice from DSE); and
81 Agreed Statement re Wedge-tailed Eagles (WTE’s) – P Menkhorst, I Smales & A McMahon
PAGE 153 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . obtaining information of fatalities of WTEs at operating WEF’s in south eastern Australia.
Mr Smales also presented an update on WTE turbine collision risk modelling using 243 flight records (compared with the 211 used for the modelling for the PAR). Mr Smales indicated that it was reasonable to assume that the site was inhabited by one adult pair of WTEs and their immediate offspring, with additional visiting birds, and that a maximum of 15 individual birds had been observed simultaneously at the site. The results of this modelling assuming various populations and avoidance factors are shown in Table 4 below. Table 4: Projected annual average WTE mortality at Yaloak South WEF
Dynamic Avoidance Rate 90% 95% 98% 99% 99.8%
Average annual projection based on 6 birds at risk 5.3 3.7 2.3 1.7 0.3 90% of year and 15 birds at risk for 10% of year
Average annual projection based on 15 birds at risk 6.7 4.3 2.5 1.8 0.4 for 100% on year
Mr Smales presented evidence that the annual average number of fatalities of Tasmanian WTEs caused by WEF’s was very low i.e. 0.5/year or one every two years, compared with a total of 12.5 annually caused by all anthropogenic causes in the period 2000‐05.
He also indicated that the predictions of mortalities for the Yaloak South WEF lay within the expected range which could be expected by analysing the information of WTE fatalities experienced over 10 operating WEF’s in south eastern Australia.
It is useful to compare the data in Table 4 with Table 5 below which shows the information presented to the Yaloak WEF Planning Panel in 2005.
PAGE 154 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Table 5: Previously projected annual average mortality at Yaloak WEF (2005)
Dynamic Avoidance Rate 90% 95% 98% 99% 99.8%
Population of 12 WTEs on ‐ 11.9 11.0 8.9 2.8 site (Biosis Nov 2004)
Population of 12 WTEs on ‐ 9.6 6.3 4.4 1.0 site (Biosis revised modelling Mar 2005)
Population of 7 WTEs on ‐ 6.6 5.0 3.8 1.0 site (Biosis revised modelling Mar 2005)
The Proponent submitted that based on these figures, the predicted mortality on WTEs of the current project had been halved from that predicted for the 2004 proposal (i.e. presumably comparing the rate of 6.6 to 9.6 predicted mortalities in Table 5 with 3.7 to 4.3 predicted mortalities as per Table 482.
Mr Smales stated that a lower rate of WTE use of the proposed Yaloak South site was observed between November 2009 and March 2010 than in 2006, which may in part be due to a lack of kangaroo carcasses in the latter period. He indicated that the prompt removal all large fauna carcasses could reduce the number of WTEs attracted to the site and therefore reduce WTE mortalities below the predicted levels.
Mr Smales discussed the concept of a WTE ‘sink’ i.e. an area where mortalities due to turbine collisions (or any other cause) exceeded the birth rate in the area, thus allowing new more vulnerable birds (floaters) to “immigrate” into the area.
As WTEs do not reach maturity and settle into a breeding pair with territory until they are about five years old, the natural population has a high proportion of ‘floater’ birds” (1 to 5 years old) and these birds could be expected to replace birds killed by turbines. Thus Mr Smales indicated that it seemed unlikely that any mortality at Yaloak South would have a significant impact on the overall population of WTEs.
It was Mr Smales’ evidence that the WTE population on the Australian mainland is secure, that the birds are long‐lived (20+ years) and the natural mortality of immature individuals is high (about 95%). He indicated that the
82 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Reply
PAGE 155 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 ‘local’ population could mean an area of about 10 km radius which was estimated to contain about 31 pairs.
Mr Smales tabled a document83 that indicated that 55.6% of WTE fights observed during the July 2009 to March 2010 survey were recorded within 250 metre of three of 10 survey points, i.e. numbers 14, 15 and 16. The closest turbines to these survey points were numbers 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 being five of the six proposed on the narrow plateau lying between the Parwan Valley and the Brisbane Ranges National Park.
This appears to correlate in part with the information contained in the report Yaloak Estate WTE Age Structure Survey, BLA, January 2007 which indicated that large numbers of young birds were observed using the southern section of the Yaloak Estate. Although no nests were found in the forest on the southern boundary of the Yaloak Estate or in Brisbane Ranges National Park, the report indicated that it was highly likely that a more exhaustive search would reveal that the northern part of the Park was the potential source of the majority of these young birds.
The potential cumulative impact arising from the adjacent proposed Moorabool WEF was addressed by Mr Smales in his EWS and a further evaluation requested by the Advisory Committee84. Both these documents indicated that it was not feasible to directly compare or validly combine the results of the modelling exercises undertaken for the two proposed WEFs to determine a cumulative effect on the WTE population. The reasons for this related to the uncertainties arising from any possible ‘doubling up’ of birds using both sites and the differences between the models and the data collection methods used at each site.
Council85 submitted that the Application should be refused in part due to the impact on WTEs.
83 Hearing document 23: Summary comparison WTE utilisation 2009-2010 84 Hearing Document 68: Evaluation of the potential to compare WTE collision risk for Yaloak South & Moorabool WF’s using the Biosis Research Risk Model, 26 July 2010 85 Hearing document 36: Moorabool Shire Council Submission to Advisory Committee
PAGE 156 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Figure 2: Survey points, turbine locations and nest sites86
86 Hearing Document 21: I Smales EWS Figure 1
PAGE 157 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Mr Hill’s submission on behalf of DSE87 stated that DSE had opposed the 2005 WEF proposal due to the predicted scale of its impact on WTEs and as the Proposal was predicted to have a similar impact, DSE also opposed the Application. DSE was also concerned with the cumulative impact of this and the adjacent proposed Moorabool WEF on the regional WTE population. Mr Hill indicated that in DSE’s opinion, the concerns expressed in the 2005 Panel Report in relation to the impact on WTEs including how the proposed turbine placements avoided identified areas of high WTE utilisation had not been adequately addressed. His opinion was that the potential impact of the Proposal (i.e. a mortality rate of up to 5.3 – 6.7 WTEs per year) would impact on the local WTE population although he agreed that it would be unlikely to affect regional or state‐wide populations.
Mr Menkhorst’s EWS stated the view that the observation of 15 WTEs congregating at a carcass indicated that 15 birds may routinely occur at this site. He supported the use of a 90% avoidance rate given the experience at the Woolnorth WEFs. During cross examination Mr Menkhorst stated that the ‘discussion of experts’ held on 15 July 2010 was the closest approximation that could be made to a PVA and that the discussion also indicated that the impact of the proposed WEF on the overall WTE population would be negligible, a proposition which he did not reject.
Dr Debus, in his EWS and evidence, stated that the escarpments and rocky outcrops near the site were likely to be prime eagle soaring habitat and the ridges could be movement corridors. He indicated that avoidance rates used for model should be in the range 90‐95%, but that it was not clear to him why the number of six birds (occurring on the site 90% of the time) and 15 birds (occurring on the site 10% of the time) had been used for the modelling. He indicated that if the adult mortality of WTEs increased (i.e. was additive), then the long‐term population vitality would decline.
His evidence was that even mortality rates up to 6.7 bird deaths per year would have a negligible impact on the current mainland or Victorian WTE population, and that any deaths at the WEF should be considered in the bigger picture (i.e. in terms of all anthropogenically caused deaths). However he considered that the cumulative impact of all proposed WEFs in Victoria could eventually become a problem in the future and needed to be addressed by DSE. This was especially important as regional extinctions start with local extinctions.
87 Hearing document 40: DSE Submission to Advisory Committee
PAGE 158 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Dr Debus stated the WTE is an ‘umbrella’ species for ecosystem conservation and an iconic species with a strong community sense of ‘ownership’. He raised the issue that WTEs injured by WEFs could be an animal welfare issue and maybe injured birds could be rehabilitated. He also recommended exploring techniques such as turbine marking (at least at collision black spots) to make turbines more visible to WTEs.
Many of the hearing submissions indicated that the killing of WTEs by turbine collision was an important issue for the local community. As the Olsen family stated in their submission: We love seeing the birds and will feel stressed every time we see them knowing such a high statistic exists88 (i.e. a possible mortality rate of up to 6.7 bird deaths per year).
The issue was also raised by Mr Ramholdt in his submission where he stated: One vital issue that has been raised with me on several occasions by many is the amenity impact. By this I mean that WTEs that were once a source of joy and admiration will become a vision of dread and concern that they will not be killed by the trap set for them should they choose to cross the site. I cannot overestimate the experience of the vision of these icons soaring effortlessly over the landscape. 89
Several of the submissions also raised the point that up to 6.7 WTE mortalities per year was a much higher figure than the 3‐4 mortalities which formed part of the reason for the Panel and Minister rejecting the 2004 WEF proposal.
10.5 Discussion
10.5.1 Introduction
The Advisory Committee notes that the WTE is not a listed species under either Act to which the Guidelines specifically refer in relation to the consideration of flora and fauna. However the Guidelines state that ‘WEF’s:
should not lead to unacceptable impacts on critical environmental or cultural values. Critical values are those protected under Commonwealth or Victoria legislation90.
88 PowerPoint Presentation to the Hearing by E & S Olsen 89 Submission to Advisory Committee – Mr K Ramholdt 90 Guidelines, Section 3.2, Policy Context, p13
PAGE 159 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The WTE is however a protected species under the State Wildlife Act 1975.
The Advisory Committee also notes that the Planning Scheme, at Clause 15.09 – conservation of native flora and fauna, has the objective of assisting the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including provision of habitats for native animals, and Clause 35.07 – Farming Zone has as one of its purposes, to protect and enhance natural values and the biodiversity of the area. Under Clause 35.07‐6 the Responsible Authority is required to consider the impact of the development on the flora and fauna of the site and its surrounds.
The Advisory Committee accepts the evidence that proximity of the forested Brisbane Ranges National Park, the open agricultural land and the escarpment which provides updrafts giving reliable aerial environments for soaring eagles, together combine to provide a highly suitable WTE habitat area. The evidence indicates that the Yaloak South WEF site appears to sustain a relatively high density of WTEs.
The Advisory Committee therefore considers the extent of the impact of the proposed WEF on WTEs is a critical factor in determining its recommendation on the Proposal.
10.5.2 Implications of the 2005 Panel recommendations and Minister’s decision
In light of the fact that one of the key issues considered during the 2005 Panel Hearing related to the potential impact of the proposal on WTEs it is not surprising that the majority of pre‐hearing submissions and many of the hearing submissions raised concerns relating to WTEs.
The 2005 Panel recommended that on the basis of the potential impacts on the WTE (3‐4 WTE deaths per year) and also on the visual impacts on the Parwan Valley, the application for the proposed WEF should be refused.
The Panel, in its report, stated: “that a new application may be acceptable which comprises a windfarm development informed by a 12 month targeted survey of WTE utilisation on the site, and redesigned to avoid WTE mortality and those parts of the study area which experience high and frequent use by WTE and which may comprise a smaller number of turbines potentially arranged in clusters, and possibly confined to the northern and central parts of the site .”
PAGE 160 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 In 2005 the Minister for Planning determined not to issue a permit and advised: ‘that future proposals on the site would be considered provided that the visual impact on the Parwan Valley and the potential impact on WTEs were reduced to an acceptable level’91.
In response to the recommendations of the 2005 Panel, the Proponent submitted in its opening submission that it had halved the predicted WTE mortality rate by: . reducing the size of the project by 80%; . setting the turbines back from the escarpment; and . removing turbines from the Bluff.
The Advisory Committee accepts the Proponent’s submission that there are significant differences between the proposal considered in 2005 and the current proposal including a reduction in the number of turbines from 70 to 14, that the project is now only located on the southern part of the Yaloak Estate and that all proposed turbines have been removed from the Bluff. The impact of the changes on predicted WTE mortalities is considered below.
The Advisory Committee notes that the estimated number of WTEs using the proposed 2004 site from the surveys at that time was 7‐12, whereas the number estimated to use the much smaller currently proposed site (which lies almost entirely within the area of the 2004 site) using information from all the surveys lies in a very similar range (and with a higher maximum) i.e. 6‐15. Even though in 2005 it was indicated that many of the WTEs surveyed were believed to use the south western part of the 2004 site (i.e. the vicinity of the current proposal), this apparent anomaly in the estimates causes some concern to the Advisory Committee in relation to the reliability of the estimates and/or surveys.
The Advisory Committee noted that although the number of turbines has been reduced from 70 in 2004 to 14 in the current proposal, six of these 14 turbines (compared with an estimated 22 out of 70) were proposed to be located in the mapped High WTE Habitat Areas on the plan PH‐0609 which was presented at the Hearing and is reproduced as Figure 3.
91 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Part A Section 2.3
PAGE 161 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Figure 3: Wedge‐tailed Eagle utilisation92
92 Hearing Document 6: Turbine Layout Comparison PH-0609
PAGE 162 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee accepts the Proponent’s submission that the number of WTE mortalities predicted for the current proposal had been reduced (halved) from the number predicted for the 2004 WEF proposal. However it needs to be highlighted that this comparison can be made only on an assumed avoidance rate of 95% (as the 2004 prediction did not use a 90% avoidance rate). The important factor considered by the Panel in 2005 was the total number of predicted mortalities i.e. about 3‐4 using a 99% avoidance rate. If a 90% avoidance rate had been used for the modelling, it obviously would have indicated a significantly higher level of mortalities. The appropriate comparison is thus between the 3‐4 mortalities predicted in 2005 for the proposed WEF proposal, which was considered unacceptable by the Panel (and Minister), and the 5‐6 predicted for the much smaller current proposal.
However it is important to note that the number of mortalities which was considered to be critical by the 2005 Panel was clearly informed by DSE’s advice at the time that the WTE: ‘although not listed as threatened (because there is no evidence of a declining population), it is numerically rare and could easily fall into the threatened category if mortality levels increased93.
This should be compared with information presented to the Advisory Committee by DSE and all the expert witnesses indicating that the predicted number of mortalities (as high as an average of 6.7 per year) would not have an impact on the viability of the regional or state‐wide WTE population (see below).
10.5.3 Predicted mortalities of WTEs at the Yaloak South site
The expert witnesses (Smales, Menkhorst and McMahon) agreed with the methods used for collecting bird utilisation data, the reference sites used, that there was no need for a gradient analysis across the site and on the age and social structure of the WTEs at risk. Also Dr Debus in his EWS did not raise any significant concerns with the data collection methods. The Advisory Committee is therefore satisfied with the data that was collected on WTE utilisation and used as input for the collision risk modelling. The Advisory Committee is also satisfied that the Biosis Research collision risk model is an appropriate technique to predict the risk of WTE collisions with turbines.
93 Moorabool Planning Scheme Planning Application Yaloak Wind Farm, Planning Panel Report, March 2005, p55
PAGE 163 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee notes the differing opinions of the expert witnesses in relation to the number of birds that could be using the site including Mr Menkhorst who estimated that up to 15 birds could be using the site for the whole of the year and Dr Debus who indicated that there were enough reports to suggest that up to 12 (or more) birds could be using the site for more than 10% of the time. However on balance, the Advisory Committee considers that on the evidence presented, the estimate of six birds using the site for 90% of the year and 15 birds for 10% of the year is a realistic estimate.
The Advisory Committee also considers that given the experience with the Woolnorth WEFs it is prudent to use a 90% avoidance factor unless and until further experience indicates that a higher avoidance rate can be adopted.
Therefore the Advisory Committee considers that, as predicted, WTE mortalities could average 5 ‐ 6 birds per year. It acknowledges that as this is an average, the number of birds killed in any one year could be higher or lower.
10.5.4 Impact of WEF on the WTE population
The Advisory Committee notes the agreed position of Mr Smales, Mr Menkhorst and Mr McMahon that the first year juvenile offspring of the resident pair of WTEs may be at highest risk due to lower manoeuvrability and inexperience, but such birds have a low survival rate even where there are no WEFs, so the predicted rate on mortality would be insignificant in comparison with the background mortality rate. The Advisory Committee also accepts that any deaths would be only be a small proportion of birds killed by all anthropogenic causes and that replacement birds may well be sourced from the estimated 95% of the young birds that do not survive to adulthood.
However it is not entirely certain that the predicted mortalities would not have some (even if temporary) impact on the local WTE population. The predicted death rate is likely to be significantly higher than the birth rate in the local area, i.e. the site could become ‘a sink’ for birds. Maintaining the local population would then depend on immigration, probably by young birds or ‘floaters’ from the wider area. However whether periodic fluctuations did or did not occur in the local population would only be known for certain after commencement of the operation of the WEF.
The Advisory Committee accepts the evidence of the expert witnesses that a PVA would be theoretically the most appropriate technique to assess the impact of predicted mortalities caused by the WEF on the ecological
PAGE 164 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 functioning of the wider WTE population. The Advisory Committee also accepts that in order to be useful, any analysis would need data on the wider WTE population of many thousands of individuals, and that this is not practicable. Therefore PVA cannot be meaningfully undertaken in this case. The Advisory Committee notes the evidence given by Mr Menkhorst that the ‘discussion of experts’ was the closest approximation that could be made to a PVA for WTEs and this discussion indicated that the impact of the proposed WEF on the overall WTE population would be negligible.
The Advisory Committee accepts DSE’s position and the opinions of the expert witnesses (Mr Smales, Mr McMahon, Mr Menkhorst and Dr Debus), that the number of mortalities predicted (an average of 5.3 – 6.7 per year) would have a negligible ecological impact on the regional or state‐wide WTE population. It also considers that any impact on the local population, if it occurred, would most likely be temporary.
10.5.5 Cumulative impacts on the WTE population
Although the Advisory Committee accepts that the proposed WEF in itself is unlikely to have an impact on the regional or state‐wide WTE population, Dr Debus’ evidence that the cumulative impact of all the WEF’s proposed in Victoria could eventually become a problem is also accepted. This is especially important as regional (and presumably state‐wide) extinctions start with local extinctions. This issue needs to be addressed by DSE.
The Advisory Committee is extremely disappointed that it was not feasible to directly compare or validly combine the results of the collision risk modelling for the adjoining proposed Moorabool and Yaloak South WEF projects because different data collection methods and different models were used. This situation should not be accepted in the future given the probability of further development of WEFs in areas inhabited by WTEs. The Advisory Committee considers that is essential that DSE develop guidelines for data collection and population impact assessment, in particular for species for which cumulative impacts may need to be considered. The Advisory Committee understands that the issue of the proprietary nature of the currently available collision risk models would need to be addressed.
As further development of WEFs may impact on the WTE population it would be prudent to try to avoid areas with high WTE utilisation without compromising access to locations with good wind resources. Areas of high WTE utilisation areas should be identified and avoided wherever possible.
PAGE 165 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 10.5.6 WTE deaths and the community
The Advisory Committee accepts Dr Debus’ evidence that the WTE is an ‘iconic’ species with a strong sense of community ‘ownership’. In some ways there may be a parallel with the community’s attitude to other ‘icon’ species such as the Koala. Parks Victoria has treated Koalas with contraceptive implants at a cost of $1 million over four years at the Mount Eccles National Park to address the Koala over‐population problem in the Park94. It is understood that this technique has been used because Parks Victoria considers that the far cheaper method involving the euthanasia of Koalas would not be acceptable to the community. Clearly this approach is not based on a species conservation considerations, but rather community concern for the lives of individual animals.
It is difficult to separate those submissions which express genuine concern for the welfare of WTEs from those which use the issue as just another argument against the development of the WEF. The Advisory Committee considers that in many of the submissions the latter is the case, but in some cases genuine concern appeared to have been expressed.
For example the Advisory Committee believes that Mr Ramholdt was sincere when he stated that: WTEs were once a source of joy and admiration that will become a vision of dread and concern that they will not be killed by the trap set for them should they choose to cross the site. I cannot overestimate the experience of the vision of these icons soaring effortlessly over the landscape.95
The Advisory Committee notes the concern of a number of submitters that the predicted 5‐6 WTE deaths per year would be higher than the 3‐4 deaths per year which was a major factor in the rejection of the previous WEF proposal by the Panel and Minster, and that this level of mortalities will cause ongoing community concern.
The Advisory Committee also notes that the reduction from 70 to 14 proposed turbines has not resulted in a reduction in the number of predicted mortalities, even though the evidence now indicates that the number of mortalities will not impact the overall viability of the WTE population. A key reason for this difference is that a significantly lower collision avoidance rate of 90% has been used for modelling for the current project compared
94 DSE National Parks Act Annual Report 2009 p8 & DSE National Parks Advisory Council Annual Report 2008-2009 p7 95 Hearing document 71: Submission by K Ramholdt
PAGE 166 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 with the avoidance rate of 99% which was used for modelling for the previous Yaloak WEF proposal.
The Advisory Committee is concerned that the predicted mortality rate for the 14 turbines of 0.38 birds per year per turbine would average more than one bird death per turbine every three years (based on overall average morality rate of 5.3 birds per year). It also notes that six of the 14 turbines are proposed to be located in mapped high WTE utilisation areas96 (Figure 3).
The Advisory Committee is concerned that there is no clear policy framework in Victoria (other than broad biodiversity principles and strategies) for decision‐making for species other than for those that are listed under the EPBC Act or FFG Act. This makes it difficult to achieve consistent decisions and leads to the potential for ad hoc decisions which may vary between projects. The Advisory Committee considers that DSE needs to develop policy guidelines for priority fauna species that are not currently listed but are ‘iconic’ species and have a strong sense of community ‘ownership’.
As the Guidelines give specific guidance in relation to listed species but no guidance in relation to other species, the Advisory Committee considers that the intention of the Guidelines appears to be that the latter species should not be given the same weighting when considering WEF planning applications. The Advisory Committee considers that the implication can be drawn that ecological considerations are critical in making WEF planning decisions relating to fauna, and not necessarily community concerns.
The Planning Scheme SPPF (Clause 15.09 – conservation of native flora and fauna) has the objective to assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity. The Farming Zone (Clause 35.02) in which the proposed WEF is located (in particular Farming Zone Clause 35.07) indicates that the natural values and biodiversity of the area should be protected and enhanced. Under Clause 35.07‐6 Decision Guidelines, the Planning Scheme also indicates that the impact of a proposed use or development on fauna of the site and its surrounds and the need to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area must be considered by the responsible authority when making planning decisions.
However the wording in both Clause 15.07 and Clause 35.07 is very broad and there is an absence of more specific guidance in relation to non‐listed fauna anywhere in the Planning Scheme. The Advisory Committee
96 Hearing document 6B, Plan of Turbine Layout Comparisons
PAGE 167 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 considers that it is obliged under these clauses to consider the impact of the proposed WEF in terms of the ecological impact on the WTE population. As indicated above, although the Proposal may have a temporary impact on the local WTE population, all the evidence presented to the Advisory Committee indicated that the Proposal would have negligible impact on the overall WTE population. This approach is obviously in line with the guidance provided by the Guidelines.
10.5.7 Possible measures that could be taken to reduce mortalities
The Proponent indicated that 55.6% of WTE flights during the July 2009 to March 2010 survey were recorded within 250 metre of three out of 10 survey points, i.e. numbers 14, 15 and 1697. The closest turbines to these survey points were numbers 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 being five of the six proposed on the plateau lying between the Parwan Valley and the Brisbane Ranges National Park. Also four of these six turbines were located in the area mapped as ‘High Wedge‐tailed Eagle Habitat’(Figure 3). If the five turbines 9, 10, 11, & 16 were not constructed, then theoretically the number of flights that may be impacted by turbines could be reduced by 55.6%. However this option was not pursued as the Proponent indicated and the Advisory Committee accepts that such a reduction would effectively be a refusal as it would be uneconomic to develop the remaining nine turbines (or 8 given the isolation of turbine 14).
Mr Smales also indicated that kangaroo, lamb and other animal carcasses appeared to encourage the congregation of WTEs, so the prompt removal of all carcasses could reduce the number of WTE flights through the site. The Advisory Committee supports this initiative and given the number of lamb deaths that can occur during the lambing season, considers that the paddocks in the vicinity of the turbines should not be used for lambing.
The Advisory Committee also supports Dr Debus’ recommendation of the need to explore techniques such as blade marking that could make the turbines blades more visible to WTEs.
10.5.8 Ongoing WTE mortality monitoring and survey programs
In the discussions at the Hearing relating to the permit conditions, it was accepted by the Proponent and supported by DSE that there was a need for ongoing monitoring of WTE mortalities and a need for future surveying of the WTE population on the site. Although both parties agreed that it would
97 Hearing document 23: Proponent – Summary comparison of WTE utilisation, 2009-2010
PAGE 168 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 be appropriate that surveys should be carried in three of the first five years of the operation of the WEF, there were different views on the actual timing of the surveys.
The Advisory Committee considers an ongoing monitoring program is required to compare the actual mortality rate of WTEs arising from the operation of the WEF with the predicted mortality rate. This monitoring program should include procedures for detecting, recording and reporting strikes of WTEs, and recommendations of mortality rates that would trigger responsive mitigation measures, and what those measures would be.
In addition the Advisory Committee considers that a survey program should be carried out in at least three of the first five years of the operation of the WEF, with the timing to be to the satisfaction of DSE. This program is required to assess the impact of the operation of the WEF on the local WTE population (if any).
The requirements for monitoring and survey programs are included in the Recommended Permit.
10.6 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes in relation to WTEs that:
The Yaloak South site lies within an area with relatively high WTE utilisation and from a WTE perspective it is not an ideal location for a WEF due to a relatively high predicted mortality rate and an extremely high mortality rate per turbine.
The number of predicted WTE mortalities is well above the level of 3‐ 4 per year which was considered unacceptable by the Panel (and Minister) in 2005, however on the advice received from DSE and the expert witnesses, the predicted mortality rate for this Proposal is not considered to have more than a negligible impact on the WTE population.
The predicted impact on the WTE does not provide a basis for refusal of this Application.
The community considers that the WTE is an icon species and the death of any bird is of concern. The rate of the mortalities predicted (5‐6 per year) would cause considerable ongoing community concern.
PAGE 169 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The cumulative impacts arising from further WEF developments could adversely impact on the WTE population in the future and the precautionary principle should be applied when planning future WEFs by avoiding areas of high WTE utilisation if possible.
The Guidelines give clear guidance to planning authorities in relation to species listed under the EPBC Act and/or the FFG Act, but virtually no guidance in relation to non‐listed ‘icon’ or highly regarded species i.e. ecological considerations appear to be the critical factors intended to underpin recommendations relating to fauna species.
The Advisory Committee recommends in relation to WTEs that:
Any permit that may be issued include conditions requiring: . Regular removal of kangaroo, lamb and other animal carcasses. . Prohibiting by agreement with the landowner the use of paddocks in the vicinity of turbines for lambing. . Exploration of techniques aimed at increasing the visibility of turbine blades to Wedged‐tailed Eagles. . The development and implementation of a monitoring program to enable comparison of actual and predicted Wedge‐tailed Eagle mortality rate and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of DSE. . The development and implementation of a program for Wedge‐ tailed Eagle surveys to be conducted in at least three of the first five years of operation to enable assessment of impacts on the Wedge‐tailed Eagle population, to the satisfaction of DSE.
DSE should undertake investigations and research to: . Complete regional mapping of Wedge‐tailed Eagle utilisation. . Develop guidelines for data collection, collision risk modelling and population viability analysis for Wedge‐tailed Eagles.
The Minister consider the revision of the Guidelines with the aim of including guidance on: . The consideration of non‐listed species, especially ‘icon’ species and/or those highly regarded by the community. . The avoidance of areas of high utilisation by icon species such as the Wedge‐tailed Eagle when planning for future wind energy facilities.
PAGE 170 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
11. Electromagnetic Interference
11.1 What are the issues?
The issues relating to electromagnetic interference (EMI) identified by the proponent, submitters and the Advisory Committee are: . the potential for EMI to telecommunications including: - television; - radio.; - microwave signals; - differential geographical positioning systems (DGPS); - radar; and - mobile telephony. . ensuring that action is taken to mitigate, if not eliminate any EMI that does occur.
11.2 Policy context of the issues
The Guidelines state that the application requirements include, amongst other things, an explanation of: Likely amenity effects on the surrounding area due to blade glint, shadow flicker, overshadowing and electromagnetic interference.98
The Guidelines also include the following guidance in regard to evaluation by responsible authorities: The potential for electromagnetic interference from the generation of electricity from a wind energy facility should be minimised, if not eliminated, through appropriate turbine design and siting. Evaluation by the Responsible Authority The siting of wind turbines in the ‘line of sight’ between transmitters and receivers should be avoided.99
98 Guidelines, Section 4.8 page 26 99 Guidelines, Section 4.9.1, sub-section 3 (d)
PAGE 171 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 11.3 Planning Application Report
The PAR included consideration of the potential effects of EMI on telecommunications in section 12.2. The investigations into this matter were conducted by the Proponent and included: . identification of the potential impacts including: - fluctuations in picture quality and ghosting created by scattering and reflection of analogue television signals while digital television services are unlikely suffer any degradation in picture quality but a reduction in service areas may occur; - disruption to AM and FM radio signal quality or strength with such effects being limited to locations within tens of meters of the WEF site; - interference to microwave links where a turbine is in the direct path between two radio microwave stations; - disruption of DGPS signals where there is a direct obstruction between differential transmitters and receivers; and - production of false images or shadowing or a false targets on radar systems. . a desktop study to identify: - the analogue television and radio stations broadcasting to the area, with five television and ten stations being identified; - all licensed point to point and point to multipoint microwave links within 20 km of the site with 12 such licenses being identified but only one of which crosses the proposed WEF site; - registered aerodromes within 30 km of the site that may have aeronautical or defence radar systems with no such aerodromes being identified; - unlicensed aerodromes within 30 km of the site with three such aerodromes being identified, none of which have radars or navigational aids to assist aircraft; and - other radar systems with the Bureau of Meteorology’s Laverton weather radar identified as being 45 km east of the site. . extensive consultation with analogue television and radio broadcasters, microwave link licensees and operators of radar systems; . identification and description of mitigation measures available if the WEF is found to cause EMI, including: - for television interference, a pre‐construction assessment of television reception at specific dwellings where the potential for EMI
PAGE 172 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 exists and, if adverse impacts from EMI is identified post‐ construction then the application of one, some or all of the following: - adjusting antenna directly toward the transmitter; - antenna relocation; - installation of more directional or higher gain antenna; - installation of an amplifier; - installation of a digital set top box; and - installation of cable/satellite television. - for radio, antenna or cable length optimisation; and - for radar, inform radar users of turbine locations and possible effects. . assessments that: - VHF and UHF signals are generally unaffected by wind turbines; - DGPS signals are unlikely to be affected except in the immediate vicinity of the WEF, i.e. when moving between turbines; and - the only radar system that could be affected is Bureau of Meteorology’s Laverton weather radar but providing information on turbine locations is provided, weather forecasters use of the system will not be limited.
11.4 Evidence and submissions
The only submissions received on the matter of EMI were from the Proponent who restated some of the contents of the PAR and noted that: b) A desk top assessment of the impacts of the Proposal on telecommunications and TV reception has been included in the Application Report. Energy Pacific has consulted all known analogue TV broadcasters, analogue radio broadcasters and microwave link licensees with regards to their licence broadcasting and potential impacts from the proposed Wind Farm. From this consultation process, Energy Pacific has sought to avoid all links which cross the Site, including avoiding one link licensed to Powercor Australia Ltd, through design modification. c) Broadcast Australia considers that it is highly unlikely that the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm will interfere with analogue television reception. However, Energy Pacific commits that prior to construction it will engage a consultant to undertake television reception analysis to identify any specific houses potentially impacted. In the event that the wind farm causes the
PAGE 173 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 deterioration in radio and television reception, Energy Pacific will undertake mitigation measures outlined in Section 12.2.3 of the Application Report. d) Energy Pacific submits that this is standard practice in Victoria and throughout Australia, and that it is appropriate that a condition reflecting these commitments be included in any planning permit. 100
In addition to the above submission the Proponent suggested that the requirement of Condition 1 item (i) of the Draft Permit, which requires the endorsed plans to include turbine exclusion zones with certain specifications based on the paths of point to point links across the site, was too prescriptive and proposed alternative specifications.
The Draft Permit requires that, before development starts, development plans to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning with the plans to include, inter alia: Turbine exclusion zones centred on the transmission vectors for fixed licences of point to point transmissions to which there is a possibility of electromagnetic interference with a width equal or grater(sic) than twice the sum of the blade length and 60% of the radius of the first Fresnel zone of any licensed link. The transmission vectors and the widths of the first Fresnel zones will be determined by a suitably qualified telecommunications expert.
The proponent submitted that this be replaced by: Drawings demonstrating that the placement of turbines locations will not interfere with exclusion zones of any licensed communications links.
11.5 Discussion
The Advisory Committee is satisfied that: . the assessment of potential impacts of EMI on television, radio, microwave, DGPS and radar provided with the PAR is adequate; and . the expected impacts of EMI to the telecommunications considered are minor and the mitigation measures available are sufficient to reduce any impacts to a negligible level.
It is noted however that no consideration has been given to the potential for impacts on mobile telephony and the Advisory Committee sees this as a gap
100 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Part B, 8.2
PAGE 174 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 in the assessment. While it could be that there would not be any impact on such communications, it would have been helpful if such an assessment had been made and was able to be tested.
The Advisory Committee considers that the solution in this situation is for the requirement for a television and radio reception plan of the Draft Permit to include telephone in addition to television and radio.
The corresponding condition in the Recommended Permit, Condition 21, has been modified accordingly.
The Advisory Committee sees a fundamental problem with the Proponent’s suggested change to means by which the placement of turbines is prevented where they may interfere with point to point communication links.
While the Proponent’s suggested wording refers to “exclusion zones” there is no definition of what such zones might be. Since the development plan must be to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, the Minister would need to be satisfied that the exclusion zones defined are appropriate without any real means of making such a determination. On the other hand, the Draft Permit specifies what the exclusion zones are to be and that they are determined by a suitably qualified telecommunications expert. Under this requirement the Minister needs only to determine whether the exclusion zones have been established by a suitably qualified telecommunications expert.
The Advisory Committee is therefore of the view that wording in the Draft Permit should be favoured over that proposed by the Proponent and it has been included in the Recommended Permit.
11.6 Conclusions and recommendations
Having considered this issue the Advisory Committee concludes that: Adverse impacts of electromagnetic interference from the proposed WEF are expected to be minimal, and effective mitigation is available and forms part of the Proposal.
It is recommended that: Any permit that may be issued should include: . A requirement for specification of turbine exclusion zones as defined in Condition 1, Part (i) of the Recommended Permit. . Condition 21 of the Recommended Permit, which specifies the requirement for a Television, Radio and Telephone reception plan.
PAGE 175 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
12. Shadow Flicker and Blade Glint
12.1 What are the issues?
The issues in regard to shadow flicker and blade glint identified by the proponent, submitters and the Advisory Committee are: . the potential impacts on residential amenity of shadow flicker and blade glint; and . the Proposal’s compliance with the requirements of the Planning Scheme specified by reference to the Guidelines.
12.2 Policy context of the issues
The Guidelines state that the application requirements include, amongst other things, an explanation of: Likely amenity effects on the surrounding area due to blade glint, shadow flicker, overshadowing and electromagnetic interference.101
The Guidelines include the following guidance in regard to evaluation by responsible authorities: The shadow flicker experienced immediately surrounding the area of a dwelling (garden fenced area) must not exceed 30 hours per year as a result of the operation of the wind energy facility.102 Blades should be finished with a surface treatment of low reflectivity to ensure that glint is minimised.103
12.3 Planning Application Report
The PAR included consideration of the potential effects of shadow flicker and blade glint in sections 12.4 and 12.5.
In regard to shadow flicker the PAR provided a description of the phenomenon and the results of an assessment of the extent of shadow flicker using the WindPRO 2.5 model. Inputs to the model included:
101 Guidelines, Section 4.8 page 26 102 Guidelines, Section 4.9.1, sub-section 3 (c) 103 Guidelines, Section 4.9.1, sub-section 3 (b)
PAGE 176 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . turbine locations, hub height (80 m) and rotor diameter (92.5 m); . dwelling locations; . geographic position of the proposed WEF site; . the time zone and daylight savings times; . information relating to the earth’s orbit and rotation relative to the sun; and . localised information such as the number of sunshine hours per day and wind direction distribution.
Other than the locations of dwellings and turbine locations and dimensions, values for the modelling inputs were not provided in the PAR.
Modelling output was provided as a plan (Figure 12.3 of the PAR) showing topography, turbine locations, dwelling locations and the area predicted to receive 30 or more hours of shadow flicker per annum.
The PAR concluded that:
Figure 12.3 demonstrates that no properties will experience shadow flicker for more than 30 hours per year as a result of the proposed wind farm development. The final wind farm layout will be designed in order to continue to meet this assessment criterion.104
The PAR, in section 12.5, provided a description of the phenomenon of blade glint and stated that:
Blade glint is briefly listed in most available best practice guidelines for wind energy developments as a possible issue to be discussed. However operating wind farms throughout the world have not shown blade glint to be a significant issue due to the mitigation measures put in place by manufacturers during the development of wind turbines.
The tower and blades of the turbines are finished with a matt non‐reflective coating. The blades also have a matt PVC non‐reflective coating along the leading edge of the blade. This is the standard international practice for minimising the effect of blade glint. Blade glint is not expected to cause nuisance to any nearby residence.105
104 PAR Section 12.4, page 12 105 PAR Section 12.5, page 13
PAGE 177 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 12.4 Evidence and submissions
A large number pre‐hearing submissions made mention of shadow flicker as a potential adverse impact of the proposed WEF but none included a challenge in any form to the predictions of shadow flicker duration contained in the PAR.
The only submission put to the Hearing in regard to shadow flicker was that of the Proponent that restated the findings of the PAR and added: Energy Pacific’s modelling clearly demonstrates the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm will comply with the 2009 version of the Wind Energy Guidelines at all stakeholder and non‐stakeholder dwellings in the vicinity of the wind farm. A number of submitters have raised concerns in their submissions that there is no plan to ensure residents within a 5 kilometre radius of the Proposal are protected from shadow flicker impacts. It is submitted that, in relation to shadow flicker, the Proposal complies with the Wind Energy Guidelines at all stakeholder and non‐stakeholder dwellings. No dwelling (garden fenced area) in the surrounding area of the wind farm will experience more than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year.106
12.5 Discussion
On first examination of the information on shadow flicker provided in the PAR, the Advisory Committee was surprised at the lack of detail provided on the inputs to the modelling. After examination of the results of the modelling, which show compliance by a large margin, the Advisory Committee is comfortable in accepting the prediction that no dwelling or surrounding “garden fenced area” will be subject to 30 or more hours of shadow flicker per year.
The fact that the modelling is said to be conservative and was not subject to challenge adds additional comfort in accepting the prediction.
In light of the fact that, in the case of shadow flicker, the Guidelines provide clear specification of the standard that must be achieved and, in this case, it is accepted that that standard will be achieved, the Advisory Committee is confident that adverse impacts from shadow flicker would be negligible.
106 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission – Part B, 8.1
PAGE 178 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 It is also apparent that surface finish on blades that is proposed meets the requirements of the Guidelines and, as a result, the Advisory Committee concludes that adverse impacts from blade glint would also be negligible.
12.6 Conclusions and recommendations
It is concluded that:
Limiting exposure to shadow flicker at non‐host dwellings to less than 30 hours per annum would provide adequate protection from such effects and there is no discernible reason why compliance would not be achieved.
The coverage of blades with a non‐reflective surface finish would eliminate any significant adverse impacts of blade glint.
It is recommended that:
Any permit that may be issued include: . Condition 22 of the Recommended Permit, which requires exposure of any non host dwelling to not exceed 30 hour per annum; and . Item (e) of Condition 2 of the Recommended Permit, which specifies that blades must have a non‐reflective surface finish.
PAGE 179 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
13. Other Issues
13.1 Fire
13.1.1 What are the issues?
The issue in regard to fire risk identified by the proponent and submitters include the following: . the general bushfire risk at the site; and . any specific fire risk associated with the operation of the WEF.
13.1.2 Policy context of the issue
The Guidelines are silent on the matter of specific policy issues associated with fire risk at WEFs. The site is not in a Wildfire Management Overlay (although the Brisbane Ranges National Park to the immediate south‐east of the site is covered by a WMO), hence no specific requirement is triggered by the Planning Scheme.
13.1.3 The Planning Application Report
The PAR sets out the actions that the Proponent commits to taking in relation to management of fire risk at the site. Subsequent to the lodgement of the Application, an updated Fire and Emergency Management Plan has been submitted to and accepted by the CFA.
13.1.4 Submissions
Several submissions noted the proximity of the site to the Brisbane Ranges National Park and the Werribee Gorge State Park and the vulnerability of these locations to wildfire attack. Several submissions also made reference to the “many instances of turbine fires in the world”. The submissions contended that if a fire was to originate in a nacelle, likely weather conditions would contribute to its rapid spread into the difficult terrain of the nearby parks.
The Advisory Committee directed the Proponent to: provide details of any reviews of the causes and frequencies of fires associated with wind energy facilities from world wide experience, and
PAGE 180 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 the measures to be taken to combat the potential for any such incidents at this facility.
In response to this direction, the Proponent engaged Garrad Hassan, a renewable energy consultancy, to undertake the review and prepare a technical report on its findings.107
The Proponent noted that the key findings of that review were: (1) The potential for fires occurring in wind turbines or fire caused by the operation of a wind farm is extremely low due to a variety of factors, including: · wind farms do not store or use combustible fuels (i.e. coal, diesel, petrol, natural gas); · the main components of wind turbines are non‐combustible; · turbines are manufactured with high quality mechanical and electrical components which rarely cause fire (the electrical components are appropriately insulated, grounded and electrically protected); and · electrical protection equipment cuts‐off power to the turbine if electrical faults occur. (2) World wide, there are now approximately 150,000 large wind turbines in operation. Garrad Hassan is aware of 143 wind turbine fires since 1995. The number of fire incidents in comparison to the number of turbines and number of turbine operational days shows that turbine fires are quite a rare event. (3) There are currently 834 commercial sized wind turbines operating in Australia. Garrad Hassan is aware of a fire occurring in two turbines, at two different wind farms in South Australia. (4) The most common causes of fires include lightning strikes, failure in electrical equipment in wind turbines, hot surfaces fire hazards (e.g. flying sparks from mechanical brakes), and work involving fire hazards (e.g. welding or cutting sparks). (5) The risks of an outbreak of fire could be limited effectively by: · use of non‐combustible or difficult to ignite materials; · early fire detection with automatic fire detection/alarm systems; · frequent, professional maintenance;
107 Hearing Document 32: Review of Turbine Fires Garrad Hassan, July 2010
PAGE 181 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · automatic shut down and electrical disconnection of a turbine when any electrical fault or fire risk is identified; and · training of employees with respect to handling dangerous situations and in‐house regulations with respect to work involving fire hazards such as a welding permit procedure.
The Proponent also submitted that it proposes technology and practices which will reduce the potential for any such fires; measures to be implemented would include the following: · All major components within the wind turbine are fitted with temperature sensors. These sensors ensure turbines are closely monitored (24 hours a day) to ensure they remain within their designed operating range. If any of the settings are exceeded (e.g. because of fire, overheating, smoke), the turbine controller automatically shuts down the turbine and sends an alarm, via the control system, to a technician. Following a detailed inspection of the systems which caused the particular fault, the turbine will then be restarted as appropriate. · Fire extinguishers are fitted in every turbine in the nacelle and at the entrance in order to comply with the relevant Australian Standards and regulations. · Pacific Hydro’s operating procedures, emergency evacuation/management procedures and up to date training of all personnel ensures that all operating and safety measures are adhered to.
A copy of a letter from the CFA was provided to the Advisory Committee 108 which noted that the Fire and Emergency Management document from Pacific Hydro dated 8 July 2010 as amended appeared to meet the base level requirements for environmental management.
13.1.5 Discussion
The Garrad Hassan report indicates that over the measurement period (1995 – 2009 inclusive), fires occurred at an average rate of one fire per 7,350 operating turbine years.109 At Yaloak South, if this trend was repeated, there would be one turbine fire every 525 years. On any measure, this is a very
108 Hearing Document 15: Proponent correspondence with CFA 109 Table 1 Fire incidents for wind turbines worldwide, Garrad Hassan Pacific Ltd Issue B 13 July 2010, p4
PAGE 182 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 low frequency; indeed it is so low as to be meaningless. In the local context, the Garrad Hassan report notes that they are aware of two wind turbine fires in two different WEFs in South Australia, where their understanding is that across the nation 834 turbines are currently operating.
The report further notes that lightning strikes although themselves infrequent are among the most numerous causes of wind turbine fires. However, with appropriate protection facilities in place, this risk is reduced. Other causes include electrical fire risk, hot surfaces and work involving fire hazards (e.g. welding).
Insofar as other sources of fire are concerned, the site is susceptible to the same risk of wildfire as other farming properties but is largely cleared, and is bisected by a network of formed and graded hard surface tracks. With the existing and proposed infrastructure noted it would be likely to have a better than usual chance of addressing and controlling a breakout if one was to occur.
The Advisory Committee does not consider that the risk of a turbine fire (as opposed to normal wildfire) is a significant consideration based on worldwide experience. The data which is available clearly demonstrates that the frequency of such events is very low. The CFA’s own guidelines for wind energy facilities acknowledge that WEFs are a low fire risk, and indeed are a lower risk than other forms of energy generation.
While submissions argued that a small fire developing in a nacelle from whatever cause would rapidly spread and develop into a large conflagration which would be extremely difficult to handle, the Advisory Committee is of the view that appropriate prevention, detection and suppression measures, such as are proposed, can satisfactorily address this issue. Similarly, the danger of combustible oil in transformers in the proposed switchyard is no more significant than that presented in many other such installations which are a necessary part of our energy infrastructure across the landscape. No suggestion has been made that these installations pose any form of unacceptable risk to the community, and the Advisory Committee discounts the suggestion that there is a higher risk at this site than elsewhere.
This is not to say that the consequences of a fire spreading into the Brisbane Ranges National Park are not recognised, but such a fire might originate from any number of activities and locations in the district. It is an unfortunate fact that farm machinery and related activities have been shown in the past to be significant risk factors when fire danger is high, and many
PAGE 183 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 other sources apart from natural causes such as lightning are also evident from recent experience.
An appropriate management strategy together with the implementation and upgrading as required by the CFA of the Fire and Emergency Management Plan will address the management of the risk associated with the development of this WEF.
13.1.6 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee is satisfied that the fire risk associated with wind turbines does not have a significant bearing on the decision to issue a permit, subject to the preparation of an Emergency Response Plan which is satisfactory to the CFA.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
Any permit that may be issued include a requirement for an Emergency Response Plan to be prepared in accordance with CFA requirements to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
13.2 Aircraft safety
13.2.1 What is the issue?
The issue in regard to aviation identified by several submitters is the risk to aircraft represented by the development of a WEF at the site.
13.2.2 Policy context of the issues
The Guidelines require that a proponent consults with CASA when the wind energy proposal: . is within 30 km of a declared aerodrome or airfield; . infringes the obstacle limitation surface (OLS) around a declared aerodrome; and . includes a building or structure the top of which will be 110 metres or more above natural ground level (height of a wind turbine is that reached by the tip of the turbine blade above ground level).
In regard to aviations safety issues, the Guidelines note that: Upon consultation, CASA may require appropriate safeguards to ensure aviation safety. These may include changes to turbine locations, turbine heights and/or the provision of aviation safety lighting.
PAGE 184 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.2.3 The Planning Application Report
The PAR notes that in relation to the matters identified in the Guidelines, the following applies at this site: . the proposed WEF is not within 30 km of a registered aerodrome or airfield; . the proposed WEF does not impact on the obstacle limitation surface around a registered aerodrome; and . the proposed WEF will include structures of greater than 110m above natural ground surface.110
The PAR noted that consultation with CASA had been initiated but without any reply.
13.2.4 Submissions
The submissions, including one by a local resident who is a qualified pilot, and one from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (AOPA), expressed concerns about aircraft safety and noted the general locality as a transit route for east‐west air traffic between the Melbourne airports and western Victoria. The principal claim was that such aircraft in deteriorating weather might be forced to low altitudes with the potential to confront turbines, with obvious safety consequences. In such a circumstance of limited visibility it was claimed that obstacle lighting would be of little use. The AOPA submission, which noted that it was not a formal objection, also drew attention to the downstream effects of turbulence from wind turbines and the potential implications for local agricultural and fire fighting aerial operations.
The PAR included a table outlining the consultations undertaken and the advice received from various agencies with aviation responsibilities111. This table and the commentary in the PAR indicated that no responsible body had any concerns with the proposed development, i.e. either no response was received (CASA, Lethbridge Air Park YLED), or written or verbal advice was that no interference with the Obstacle Landing Surface (Bacchus Marsh Airfield YBSS) or aircraft operations (RAAF, CFA Fiskville) was envisaged.
The Proponent confirmed at the Hearing that despite their attempts no formal response had yet been received from CASA (the Advisory Committee
110 PAR Ch 12 111 PAR Ch 12, Table 11.5
PAGE 185 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 notes that Table 11.5 makes reference to a personal communication with an officer in CASA).
13.2.5 Discussion
The Advisory Committee has no basis on which to draw any other conclusion than that the proposed development of a WEF at this locality does not raise any issues or concerns with the bodies directly responsible for aviation matters including aircraft safety. Whilst it accepts on face value that the concerns expressed in the submissions are well‐meant and genuine, this does not provide an adequate basis for assuming per se that a safety issue then exists where no relevant authority has given any indication that this is so.
In relation to both DSE and CFA concerning fire fighting operations, the Advisory Committee understands that both organisations have indicated that they have no concerns with the presence of the WEF.
13.2.6 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that this matter is not of any consequence to the decision on whether a permit should be issued.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
Any permit that may be issued include a permit condition requiring the endorsed plans be provided to enable updating of aeronautical charts prior to construction of the WEF.
13.3 Traffic and transport
13.3.1 What is the issue?
Concerns about the safety of the proposed access points onto the local road network, and the issues associated with the increased traffic generation from the project (particularly from the heavy loads required).
PAGE 186 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
13.3.2 Policy context of the issue
The Guidelines require that: Wind energy facilities need to be located on sites that have strong, steady winds throughout the year, good road access and proximity to the electricity grid112 (Advisory Committee emphasis).
As part of the application process a written report detailing traffic movements is required.
13.3.3 The Planning Application Report
Chapter 4.7.2 of the PAR details the matters which would be included in the Traffic Management Plan to be developed should the project proceed. The matters to be addressed are identified as: . ensure the safe movement of necessary vehicles to and from the site during construction and operation; . minimise the number of vehicle movements where possible; . maintain the existing road surface quality; . comply with VicRoads’ requirements for movement of over‐dimensional loads; . undertake appropriate design of required intersection modifications for safe movement of vehicles to and from the site; . obtain construction materials from site wherever possible; . consult with Moorabool Shire regarding road maintenance; . improve roads for safe access; . minimise impact on land and environmental values; and . minimise cut and fill to avoid visual impact and environmental risk.
The PAR provides further information on the issues associated with traffic management at Chapter 11, including details of consultations with VicRoads and Council on the likely requirements should the project proceed. The report notes the type of vehicles to be used, the routes to be followed (particularly in relation to the over‐dimensional loads associated with tower and turbine blade transport), current and projected traffic volumes and relevant actions to be taken to meet VicRoads’ and Council’s requirements.
112 Guidelines Section 2.1.2 p6
PAGE 187 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.3.4 Submissions
Traffic issues were not the primary focus of submitters however a number of comments were made about the issue, with two primary considerations evident: . the inappropriateness of Glenmore Road through the Parwan Valley for any construction traffic; and . the need to address safety and access issues at the Geelong‐Ballan Road – Glenmore Road intersection.
13.3.5 Discussion
Geelong‐Ballan Road is a C class road under VicRoads management and is designated a Road Zone Category 1 (RDZ1) in the Planning Scheme, whilst Glenmore Road is a local road under the control of Council and is within a Road Zone Category 2 (RDZ2).
The Advisory Committee notes that construction traffic generation during the project would be of the order of 2000 truck movements, 212 over‐ dimensional vehicle (Restricted Access Vehicles‐ RAVs) movements and under 100 light vehicle movements. This will occur over the anticipated construction duration of 15 months, but the bulk of the traffic will occur in two shorter periods. The truck movements would be significantly reduced if rock anchors are able to be used for tower foundations, and on‐site rock for construction purposes. Routes for over dimensional loads will be subject to permit requirements of VicRoads but will nonetheless be limited to certain high‐standard routes and times of operation in accordance with usual practice.
To put this traffic into context, the count undertaken by Council in 2006 showed that typical daily traffic volumes along Glenmore Road in this locality are between 110 and 120 vehicles per day, with the large majority being cars.
All construction vehicle movements are to be via Geelong‐Ballan Road and then Glenmore Road to the existing property access east of Geelong‐Ballan Road or a new access near Turbine 1 (before Cut Hill). This can be formalised by being stipulated in the Traffic Management Plan, and addresses the concern that large vehicles will attempt to use the route through the Parwan Valley and up Cut Hill, which is narrow and tortuous and has grades of around 20% on the steeper sections.
PAGE 188 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 In relation to the question of traffic safety at the intersection of Geelong‐ Ballan Road and Glenmore Road, the Advisory Committee notes that an upgrading of this intersection is clearly both necessary and planned and will need to be undertaken in accordance with VicRoads’ requirements. This is a normal circumstance for such developments and the Advisory Committee has no qualms about the ability to ensure that an appropriate outcome in terms of both safety and operational effectiveness can be achieved.
Similarly, the Advisory Committee considers that a before‐and‐after road condition survey of Glenmore Road with Council will adequately address any possible infrastructure damage which is not otherwise immediately addressed in accordance with the Traffic Management Report requirements during the course of the project.
13.3.6 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that this matter is not of any consequence to the decision on whether a permit should be issued.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
Any permit that may be issued include appropriate permit conditions including requirements for a Traffic Management Plan to be prepared, VicRoads referral authority requirements, and a requirement for road infrastructure improvements at the cost of the Proponent.
13.4 Cultural heritage
13.4.1 What is the issue?
The issues in regard to cultural heritage identified by the proponent and submitters and the Advisory Committee include the following: . the potential impact on aboriginal cultural heritage sites of the WEF development; and . the potential impact on a relic of apparently European origin that has been identified near proposed turbine 14.
PAGE 189 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
13.4.2 Policy context
Section 3 of the Guidelines notes that Wind energy facilities and associated infrastructure have the potential to impact on Aboriginal heritage values. These values are protected under Victoriaʹs Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. It is important that any impacts and the views of relevant Aboriginal people are considered in the early planning stages of a wind energy facility.113
The Guidelines further state that as part of any application for a WEF proposal, a written report including “An assessment of the impacts upon Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage” must be provided to the Responsible Authority as part of a design response to the relevant issues.
13.4.3 Planning Application Report and submissions
Submissions noted the locality of the Bluff and surrounds as having the most potential for sites of aboriginal cultural heritage apparently based on some previous identification work.
The PAR states that the site of the Yaloak South WEF has no cultural heritage sites presently registered with AAV, nor are there any waterways named in the Geographical Place Name Register.114 Nonetheless the Proponent has undertaken to prepare a voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) in consultation with the Wathaurang Aboriginal Corporation, the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the area.
This process has been initiated in accordance with the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (AHA), and the in‐principle agreement of the RAP was given by letter dated 26 November 2009. The complex CHMP will be undertaken when the detailed design of the facility has been completed and precise locations of turbines confirmed. The Proponent noted as part of the submissions to the Advisory Committee that:
(f) Contingency plans for the management, during construction, of all registered sites within the activity area, including sites found as part of the standard assessment, will form part of the CHMP.
113 Guidelines Sec 3, p14 114 PAR Chapter 9 p1
PAGE 190 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The PAR further notes that the initial field survey identified a number of sites, mostly isolated artefacts but also including artefact scatters. Some are located within close proximity to the project footprint, mainly associated with access tracks. Agreed measures are established to address any such sites either during the detailed design or (if newly discovered) during actual construction activities).
The PAR noted that the place of European origin and “historic interest” will be considered for registration by Heritage Victoria, and although in proximity to turbine 14 will be able to be appropriately protected.
13.4.4 Discussion
The Proponent noted as part of the submissions that: it has complied with the requirements of the AH Act and the AH Regulations. Energy Pacificʹs commitment to prepare a voluntary CHMP will ensure that any Aboriginal cultural heritage sites are adequately protected and managed.
The relevant mitigation measures to protect the sites of both Aboriginal and European heritage are reasonable responses to the importance of the relics.
The Advisory Committee agrees with the Proponent’s submission on this matter and considers that no issues are raised in relation to cultural heritage which are of any concern to a decision on whether to issue a permit for the Proposal.
13.4.5 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that no issues have been identified in relation to the protection of indigenous or European heritage.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
Any permit issued should include a condition relating to protection of the heritage site located near proposed turbine 14 and any other identified cultural heritage sites in accordance with the recommendations of any voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan.
PAGE 191 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.5 Land values and alternative land uses
13.5.1 What is the issue?
The impact of the proposed WEF on land value, and limitations on future land uses including the potential of the Ballan locality to contribute to achieving the Government’s Transit Oriented Development objectives.
13.5.2 Submissions
Several submissions claimed that land values were likely to be adversely affected by the development of the WEF; some also noted the failure of several recent land sales as examples of the adverse impacts on the local community.
The Olsen family submitted that development of a WEF would negate the opportunities for the locality and municipality to contribute to achieving the planning objectives of the Transit Oriented Development program. Comment was also made by the Olsens and others about the experience at Waubra windfarm near Ballarat where it was claimed that several nearby non‐host landowners had been compensated or bought out by the operator.
Mr Irving quoted his experience of a subdivision of his property for which a sale for one parcel fell through once the proposed Yaloak South WEF became public knowledge.
The Proponent noted as part of its submissions to the Advisory Committee that: (b) The Transit Cities project has been implemented by the Department of Planning and Community Development, and it is based on the principles of Transit Oriented Development. The main aim of the project is to limit outward expansion of the metropolitan area and to create opportunities for people to live and work in the same area. To achieve this aim, the transport node of the transit city is designed to be the focus for development and to become the ‘heart’ of the community. In Ballarat, the Transit City developments will focus on improving access, facilities and amenities in and around Ballarat Central Station. Similarly, in Geelong the developments will focus on the areas around the Geelong Railway Station Precinct and central Geelong. (c) The Ballan area is a significant distance from Ballarat, Geelong and Melbourne (with the proposed sites for the wind farms even further away), and is definitely not within the central areas that the
PAGE 192 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Transit Cities project has targeted for development. As such, the constructions of the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm (and Moorabool Wind Farm) are unlikely to impact the ability of Geelong or Ballarat from being Transit Cities, and will not stop Moorabool Shire from adequately working towards a successful Transit Oriented Development model or prevent the objectives of Transit Oriented Development from being met.115
13.5.3 Discussion
The general issue of land value has been canvassed in many WEF Panels. In some cases opinion has been provided by real estate agents, often in support of objecting submissions, to the effect that there is a significant devaluing of properties affected by the presence of a WEF.
No expert evidence was provided to this Advisory Committee in relation to the Yaloak South proposal, although the Advisory Committee notes that evidence was provided at the Bald Hills Panel hearing by Mr Tim Offor of Offor Sharp who submitted that impacts on property prices are primarily experienced during the construction and commissioning phase. He also suggested that once the WEF was established and uncertainty removed there appeared to be little or no adverse impact on property prices.
In relation to any suggestion that land value considerations were tacitly or otherwise acknowledged by the purchase of properties at Waubra, the Advisory Committee notes that if this has occurred (the purchases), this is a commercial arrangement reached by that operator and individuals for reasons on which other parties can only speculate. It does not provide any precedent or guidance for other situations elsewhere, and is not the outcome of a legal determination or any policy provision of the Guidelines.
In any case the Advisory Committee is cognisant of the general position that there is no basis in planning law or policy for compensation to surrounding landowners, and that various VCAT cases make it clear that residents of rural zones are not entitled to have the same amenity expectations as those in residential zones. Further, it is accepted that land value is not in itself a planning consideration.
115 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission Part B para 15.3
PAGE 193 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
13.5.4 Conclusions
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
Land value impacts are not a consideration in this matter.
The concern about adverse impacts on the Transit Oriented Development model has no foundation.
13.6 Decommissioning
13.6.1 What is the issue?
The removal of redundant infrastructure following the final cessation of power generation at this site.
13.6.2 Submissions
Several submissions claimed that on the cessation of wind power generation, on the basis of experience world‐wide, the community will be left with the visual eyesores of inoperative and decaying wind turbine towers, as it will be uneconomic for the operator (even if still in business) to remove towers even if the generators have some salvage value.
The Proponent noted as part of its submissions to the Advisory Committee that: ..... it is a standard condition in all Victorian wind energy facility permits that the operator must prepare and implement a decommissioning plan, within a specified period after the turbines are no longer operational. The decommissioning plan must provide for a range of things, including: • the removal of all operational equipment; and • rehabilitation and remediation of the Site. (c) Energy Pacific will be required to comply with this condition under any planning permit it is issued. This condition is legally enforceable against Energy Pacific, and if breached, Energy Pacific can be directed to comply with the condition. It is also an offence under the Planning and Environment Act, and Energy Pacific can
PAGE 194 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 face a substantial monetary penalty. A person in management of the company can also face imprisonment.116
This draft condition was included in the DPCD’s submitted draft permit which noted in relation to the general issue of landscape and visual impact that: The draft permit conditions prepared for the Advisory Committee address potential measures to reduce the impact of the turbines on the landscape, should a permit be granted. 117
13.6.3 Discussion
Decommissioning has been a matter of concern (albeit secondary to the matters already discussed) to communities in most if not all previous Hearings considering WEF development proposals. The Advisory Committee does note that nothing in the way of substantive evidence was provided in support of these contentions. The typical argument by applicants is that there will undoubtedly be a salvage value in the various components of the facility, and this will more than compensate for the removal costs involved.
There is clearly a concern that a permit condition requiring removal of above‐ground infrastructure at time of cessation of power generation (perhaps 25 years or more away) will be very difficult for a small rural municipality to enforce. On a number of occasions during the consideration of other WEF proposals, the suggestion has been put forward that a bond should be applied in addition to the permit condition to give a further assurance that redundant facilities will be removed even if salvage values are not sufficient to otherwise warrant removal.
The most recently published report (for Berrybank WEF in Corangamite and Golden Plains Shires) noted that: This issue was investigated and reported on thoroughly in the Lal Lal Wind Farm Panel Report at Chapter 13.3. The Panel in that case suggested that such a bond is desirable but that the administrative framework does not currently exist to enable its application. The Panel in that instance analysed the model used in the mining industry and suggested it had many elements that might be used in developing such a system for wind farms. This Panel supports the
116 Energy Pacific (Vic) Pty Ltd Submission Part B, p15 117 DPCD Submission para 115
PAGE 195 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 discussion and analysis in that report and considers a decommissioning bond should be provided for the Berrybank Wind Farm. The Panel has recommended that such a bond should be provided. The timing of its application and the method of its introduction the Panel is suggesting be left at the discretion of the Minister, allowing for the development of an appropriate administrative framework prior to its application.118
This Advisory Committee also supports the concept of a bond as proposed by the Lal Lal Panel for the reasons outlined by that Panel. There are several additional dimensions to this issue, one being the applicability of a planning permit and associated penalties for non‐performance to an operator which may have ceased to exist, and the other being the role and responsibility of the landowner who has benefited by the financial arrangements associated with the presence of the infrastructure. The Advisory Committee considers that there may also be a role for applying a Section 173 agreement to address these aspects, but this needs further exploration at an appropriate time.
In the meantime the Advisory Committee supports the recommendations of the Berrybank and other Panels which proposed the application of a bond by the Minister, and considers that such an approach should also apply at Yaloak South.
The Advisory Committee also considers that cessation of operation needs to be defined in additional terms, and believes that future permit conditions relating to decommissioning should include the additional requirement that “... cessation is considered to have occurred when no power has been generated from the site for a consecutive twelve‐month period.....”.
13.6.4 Conclusion and recommendation
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
A bond should be held against the possible failure of the Proponent or operator at the time of cessation of operation to decommission the facility.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
A bond of appropriate value should be applied to this project on such terms as the Minister for Planning directs.
118 Berrybank Wind Energy Facility Panel Report Section 7.5, May 2010
PAGE 196 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.7 Fixed buffers
13.7.1 What is the issue?
The use of fixed buffers to address the impacts of a WEF.
13.7.2 Submissions
A number of submissions proposed that fixed minimum separation distances of various distances up to 5 km should be applied between a WEF and adjoining properties. References were made to the recommendations of a recent NSW Parliamentary Inquiry which has apparently recommended such an approach.
The Proponent noted that this issue has been comprehensively dealt with by a number of forums including Panels and VCAT. It was further noted that (g) The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) is in the process of finalising National Wind Farm Development Guidelines (draft National Guidelines). These have been the subject of significant consultation with relevant departments and agencies, and extensive consultation with the community and wind energy developers. It is relevant to note that the draft National Guidelines published for public consultation in early July 2010 did not include a recommendation for setback distances. Rather, the draft National Guidelines proposes thorough assessment of the potential impacts of wind farm projects. (h) The draft National Guidelines specifically consider the issue of setbacks to address potential noise impacts. The draft National Guidelines recognise that compliance with reasonable noise limits should provide for reasonable buffers between the wind farm and noise‐sensitive sites. While it is noted that ‘large wind farms generally should be sited where significant buffer areas exist, so that the noise levels imposed on neighbours may be limited to a reasonable level’, the draft National Guidelines do not specify an arbitrary distance from dwellings to which turbine placement must conform. The preferred approach according to the draft National Guidelines is to determine reasonable distances from dwellings based on the outcome of predictive testing and compliance with reasonable noise limits.
PAGE 197 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.7.3 Discussion
Whenever this issue arises, it does so with varying views and proposals as to which is the appropriate distance for a buffer. It is clear that even if this approach was adopted with whichever distance was chosen, there would be parties who would argue for something different, simply because any arbitrary determination will always be subject to challenge and manipulation.
The key failing of the fixed distance buffer approach was pointed out by the Proponent when it was noted that the potential impacts of wind energy facilities vary significantly between locations and layouts, so they cannot be pre‐determined without thorough assessment. This is relevant whether the concern is noise, visual or landscape impact, ecological considerations or other matters. Two simple examples of this complexity are shown by considering the noise contours produced for the Proposal, or the wide variation in assessed visual impact between different locations at similar distances from the WEF (e.g. some dwellings in the Parwan Valley versus those at similar distances from the WEF located along the Geelong‐Ballan Road).
The Advisory Committee concurs with the views expressed previously that a rigorous, evidence‐based analysis is the only mechanism which can effectively address site layout, topographical influences, wind direction and other considerations which together or separately will result in widely different impacts on individual dwellings at notionally similar distances from a turbine or WEF. It is this approach which is given force in the Guidelines in order to best protect amenity from unreasonable impacts, for example by requiring compliance with NZS6808:1998. The approach adopted of requiring assessment against criteria is both defensible and transparent.
The only means by which an arbitrary buffer could ensure protection of amenity from impacts would be to adopt an ultra‐conservative figure which if applied would effectively preclude such developments from most areas of the state. This approach is not used for any other difficult planning decision (e.g. location of offensive industries, selection of transport routes) and in the Advisory Committee’s view is simply an abrogation of responsibility from undertaking assessments with an appropriate degree of rigour capable of withstanding detailed scrutiny.
PAGE 198 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.7.4 Conclusion
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
Setting an arbitrary buffer distance is neither feasible nor practical and could not guarantee appropriate protection of amenity.
13.8 Economic contribution
13.8.1 What is the issue?
The contribution of the proposal to the local economy.
13.8.2 Planning Application Report and submissions
The PAR and the Proponent’s submission Part A stated that: (4) During construction, the proposed Yaloak South Farm is expected to provide an injection of capital into the region and result in up to 160 workers and 50 businesses being engaged at the Site; and (5) During operation, the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm will continue to financially contribute to the local economy and local government rate revenue, and is expected to generate 4 full‐time jobs. There may also be a need for larger on‐site crews for major routine maintenance work.119
The PAR noted that during construction the Proponent aims to use at least 30% local content and will endeavour to use local contractors and suppliers by the inclusion of a relevant clause in its contracts. Employment opportunities would be created by various activities such as road and foundation construction and electrical works. Associated benefits would also arise from agricultural diversification, and additional rate revenue.
Several submissions queried the real contribution to the local economy in passing, suggesting that the skill set required would not result in any significant local employment, apart from, as one submission colourfully put it, “selling of pies.....”. No detailed supporting assessments were however provided.
Several supporting submissions noted the economic benefits which would flow to the region from the Proposal. One such submission noted that a petition in support of the Proposal had been presented to the Council.
119 Hearing Document 5: Proponent’s Opening Submission Part A
PAGE 199 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 13.8.3 Discussion
A common feature of submissions to WEF proposals are claims doubting the real benefit which might be realised at the local community level. The Advisory Committee accepts that there will be economic benefits to the state and local economy from the Proposal. The extent of the benefits to the local economy is highly dependent on the degree to which the Proponent implements the “employ locally and buy locally” policies referred to in the PAR during the construction phase, and the availability of the necessary skills locally for ongoing employment during and after construction.
The Advisory Committee also notes the Sustainable Communities Fund proposal by the Proponent which would see a proportion of the revenue from the sale of power directed back into the community to support projects across the areas of health and welfare, education and training, environment, sporting or recreation and culture and the arts. Whilst it has been argued by some that this is simply a divisive tactic and a form of bribery, the Advisory Committee takes the view that such direct and tangible benefits to the community should assist in overcoming in time the divisions which can result from the onset of such proposals.
13.8.4 Conclusion
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
The development of a WEF at Yaloak South will result in a significant economic contribution and flow‐on stimulus, the proportion of which directly benefits the local area being however less clear.
13.9 Potable Water Supply
13.9.1 What is the issue?
Avoidance of impacts to potable water supply.
13.9.2 PAR and submissions
The PAR and the Proponent’s submission Part A noted that the site is within a Proclaimed Water Protection Area and accordingly under the Moorabool Planning Scheme: (1) Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 1) – Proclaimed Water Supply Catchments (ESO1) in the Moorabool Planning Scheme (Clause 42.01). A permit is required for building and
PAGE 200 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 works and removal of any vegetation under ESO1, which aims to protect quality and quantity of water within the proclaimed water catchment and protect the area from inappropriate development. ESO1 applies to the whole of the Site.
13.9.3 Discussion
The Application was referred to the water supply authority, Southern Rural Water, which advised that it had no objections to the issue of a permit for the Proposal. No permit conditions were proposed by the water authority for inclusion in any permit issued.
The site topography of flat to gently undulating terrain is such that any earthworks should have minimal impact on overland flows providing reasonable precautions are taken. Normal permit requirements and good construction practice will address any issues of siltation and discharge which might arise under adverse weather conditions.
13.9.4 Conclusion and recommendation
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
Given the inclusion of appropriate conditions in any permit that may be issued, the Proposal will not result in any impacts to potable water quality or quantity.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
Any permit that may be issued incorporates conditions within an Environmental Management Plan as included in the Recommended Permit.
PAGE 201 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
14. Health Concerns
14.1 What is the issue?
The potential health effects of the Yaloak South WEF.
14.2 Policy context
The Guidelines do not include any reference to health issues associated with WEFs.
Under s4 Objectives of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, it states: The objectives of planning in Victoria are: (c) to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;
This general objective provides some guidance for consideration of this matter although without any definitional or structural outlines of where or how the objective might be applied.
14.3 Evidence and submissions
A number of submissions noted concerns with health effects, often quoting from the experiences of some Waubra residents; overseas experiences and research were also cited by some.
At the start of the Hearing as part of its submission DPCD provided the Advisory Committee with a copy of the recent National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Public Statement dated July 2010 titled Wind Turbines and Public Health 120 and the accompanying Wind Turbines and Public Health – A Rapid Review of the Evidence 121also dated July 2010.
The Advisory Committee heard from one Waubra resident, Mr D Thomas, who recounted his own experience of health issues following the commencement of the Waubra facility. Other submissions expressed concerns about the potential for effects on health of those living in close
120 Hearing Document 2: Wind Turbines and Health – A Rapid Review of the Evidence, Aust Govt, July 2010 (from DPCD) 121 Hearing Document 3: Wind Turbines and Health, NHMRC Public Statement, July 2010
PAGE 202 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 proximity to the Proposal. At the end of his submission Mr Ramholdt submitted a document122 which was a USA‐prepared paper which reviewed literature on the topic.
The concerns outlined related to noise effects from both audible and low frequency inaudible noise claimed to be causing symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness, sleep deprivation and others.
Mr Delaire in his expert evidence included the following matters relating to the effects of noise and vibration: . in Annexure D – Vibration to his EWS, he noted that: The Eskdalemuir study (Microseismic and infrasound monitoring of low frequency noise and vibration from wind farms, 2005) provided evidence that wind turbines generate measurable vibrations in the ground at predictable frequencies. However, this study was designed to measure the effects of extremely low levels of vibration at a very quiet site, using some of the most sensitive equipment available. . in Annexure E he included a copy of the WorkSafe Victoria letter to the Berrybank WEF Panel123, which stated (in summary) that: Numerous international reviews on low frequency and infrasound noise, and case studies of actual wind farm noise emissions, have demonstrated that: · There is insignificant infrasound generated by modern turbines; and · Levels of low frequency sound emitted from modern turbines are not at a level which would lead to direct health effects.
The letter also indicated that the Chief Medical Officer had referred the matter to the NHMRC. . in Annexure F he noted that: Whilst I do not have expertise in human health effects, I am aware that an expert panel review (Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects, An Expert Panel Review, December 2009) concluded the following:
122 Hearing Document 73: An Analysis of the Epidemiology & Related Evidence on the Health Effects of Wind Turbines on Local Residents, C Philips, 3 July 2010 123 Letter from the Chief Executive Victorian WorkCover Authority dated 10 February 2010
PAGE 203 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 · Sub‐audible, low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health.
The Proponent’s closing submission noted that, in relation to sleep disturbance: (a) The expert witness statement of Christophe Delaire has addressed concerns raised by submitters that noise from wind farms can cause sleep disturbance, and thus adverse health impacts. His evidence is that it is internationally accepted that indoor continuous noise levels of 30dBA (outdoor 40dBA) should not be exceeded if negative effects on sleep are to be minimised. (b) Mr Delaire’s evidence is that, during periods of low wind speed, wind farm noise levels will be below 40dBA outdoors at non‐ landholder residences. During periods of high wind speed, the higher wind farm noise will be masked by the consequently higher background noise level. Mr Delaire’s opinion is that ‘compliance with the NZS6808:1998 noise limits will mean that the proposed Yaloak South Wind Farm is not likely to cause sleep disturbance for most people’.
In relation to “wind turbine” syndrome, the Proponent noted that: (e) In regard to ʹwind turbine syndromeʹ, this alleged phenomenon has also been the subject of some investigation. In August 2009 the UK National Health Service provided the following statement in relation to the Pierpont (USA – Advisory Committee addition) study: No firm conclusions can be drawn from this study as the design was weak and included only 38 people. Participants were asked about these symptoms before they were exposed to wind turbines to provide a control for their symptoms after exposure. This was not a sufficient control as many of the participants were reportedly already convinced that wind turbines caused their symptoms and were actively trying to move out of their homes or had already moved. Further study is needed. (f) The Canadian and American Expert Panel Review also concluded the following: In the case of wind turbine noise and its hypothetical relationships to ʺwind turbine syndromeʺ and vibroacoustic disease, the weakest type of evidence ‐case studies ‐ is available, from only a single
PAGE 204 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 investigator. These reports can do no more than suggest hypotheses for further research. Nevertheless, if additional and independent investigations begin to report adverse health effects in people exposed to wind turbine noise, in excess of those found in unexposed groups, and if some consistent syndrome or set of symptoms emerges, this advice could change. Thus, at this time, ʺwind turbine syndromeʺ VVVD [Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance] are unproven hypotheses (essentially unproven ideas) that have not been confirmed by appropriate research studies, most notably cohort and case control studies. (g) The key failing of the Pierpont study is that it is reliant on self‐ selecting case studies from people who typically opposed the wind farms of which they complain.
The submission also responded to concerns about infrasound and low frequency sound, quoting the evidence of Mr Delaire as noted already above.
The Proponent also quoted the case which came before VCAT on this issue124, noting that VCAT made the following comments: There is no evidence of health impacts that persuades us that rejection of the permit application is warranted given the proposalʹs compliance with the applicable standards. If there are significant issues arising then there needs to be some independent assessment and documentation leading, if required, to variations in the standards applied in Victoria.
In closing, the Proponent’s submission was that: (r) We submit that there is no credible evidence to suggest that the operation of the Proposal will affect the health of people through ʹwind turbine syndromeʹ, nor that low frequency sound emissions either occur or are likely to affect peopleʹs health.
14.4 Discussion
The NHMRC report concluded that: ...there are no direct pathological effects from wind farms and that any potential impacts on humans can be minimised by following existing planning guidelines.
124 Acciona Energy Oceania Pty Ltd -v- Corangamite Shire Council
PAGE 205 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The Advisory Committee accepts that noise from WEFs (or any other source for that matter) can be annoying and by extension potentially give rise to symptoms such as sleep disturbance, stress and so on, which may ultimately manifest themselves as medical concerns. That is why there are noise limits and criteria established for WEF developments through NZS6808:1998 and applied through the Guidelines and the Planning Scheme.
It is also self‐evident that even when noise criteria are met, the existence of the noise itself, rather than the level, may be unsatisfactory for nearby residents, particularly if those residents were pre‐disposed against the source of the noise emissions. Noise standards are not designed to eliminate all noise but to regulate emissions to a level which is considered satisfactory by relevant authorities. The Advisory Committee has addressed this issue in Chapter 8.
In regard to the paper from Dr Phillips, the Advisory Committee simply notes that this appears to be a critique of other work in the field. It is not clear if any peer review has been undertaken or in fact is even possible given the apparent lack of factual research data in the paper. No weight is therefore ascribed to the paper.
The Advisory Committee accepts that the concerns expressed by submitters including Mr and Mrs Giddins and Mr Thomas on this issue are genuine and heartfelt. Clearly there are individual experiences which appear to have some connection to the presence of, or proposed development of, a wind energy facility in their locality. However, the submissions cannot be accorded the status of evidence of a direct causal relationship between the WEFs and the experiences related, other than the fact of proximity. The range of possible causes was commented on by the NHMRC Public Statement which noted that: However, there is also the argument that if people are worried about their health they may become anxious, causing stress‐related illnesses which are genuine health effects arising from their worry, but not from the wind turbine itself.
In this regard the Advisory Committee notes that several submitters identified a wide range of literature on this matter they had discovered through the internet. The Advisory Committee has perused some of these documents and has grave concerns that some are unsubstantiated, non‐ expert opinion from unknown or unqualified sources with unknown agendas. In such circumstances the effects of reading what purport to be authoritative accounts of scientific analysis of the issues are highly likely in the Advisory Committee’s view to inflame a situation where stress levels are
PAGE 206 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 already high. This may result in a self‐fulfilling outcome of stress‐related illness seemingly as a result of the wind turbines but in reality fuelled by unsubstantiated allegations.
The Advisory Committee takes the view expressed by VCAT that there is no evidence of any link which would warrant the rejection of the Application. It follows that it is impossible to define mitigating measures for an unknown set of circumstances which produce unquantifiable outcomes. However, the Advisory Committee also supports the contention by VCAT that further analysis of the available evidence would be highly beneficial. In this regard it notes that the NHMRC’s Rapid Review report would provide a platform for such further detailed review and analysis. Such a review should ideally be part of the present work on the national set of guidelines but if this is not possible due to timing it should nonetheless be accorded a high priority by all levels of government.
14.5 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
It has not been provided with clear evidence demonstrating a relationship between the operation of a WEF and health concerns exhibited by some residents in the locality which would support a rejection of this application.
Further more detailed research into the issue by an independent appropriately accredited research body should be undertaken.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
The Minister should initiate a whole‐of‐government response to this issue, with the objective of enabling the inclusion of health issues in the national guidelines for wind energy facilities currently under development.
PAGE 207 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
15. Draft Planning Permit Conditions
15.1 Introduction
A draft Permit is a necessary outcome of the Call‐in Advisory Committee process, regardless of the Advisory Committee’s recommendation either for or against the Proposal. DPCD prepared a set of standard permit conditions for this project as a result of a Direction of the Advisory Committee, and these permit conditions were the basis for considering the necessary conditions which would apply if the Application is approved.
15.2 Submissions
The draft conditions provided by DPCD were discussed at the close of the Hearing in a ‘without prejudice’ session, with parties having the opportunity to comment on the wording of conditions. Submissions on the draft conditions were also provided by some submitters as part of their submission to the Hearing. A redrafted permit was provided as part of the Proponent’ submissions to the Advisory Committee. From this session and the various submissions the Advisory Committee has considered the requirements for permit conditions and its recommendations on a range of issues discussed throughout this report.
15.3 Discussion
Advisory Committee recommendations on various issues associated with the main issues dealt with are identified in the relevant chapter of this report. These recommendations have been developed after consideration of all submissions and evidence, and have subsequently been integrated into the Recommended Permit.
In some submissions, whilst comment was provided on desirable permit conditions, these have essentially been phrased as a refusal of the Proposal. If the Proposal is refused, there is no need for a permit to be issued to this effect. The Advisory Committee has therefore not dealt with these submissions in any detail.
PAGE 208 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 15.3.1 Key matters
After consideration of the DPCD and Proponent’s draft conditions and various submissions made on the issues, the Advisory Committee’s Recommended Permit includes: . a modified Bird and Bat Management Plan which clearly defines the differences between the monitoring program and the targeted surveys, and includes a requirement for continuous monitoring of the site at regular (no more than weekly) intervals to identify, record and report appropriately any WTE or other mortality at the site, this monitoring being continuous for the first five years of operation of the WEF; . new noise conditions including: - a condition that specifies dwellings subject to noise impacts from the Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs as non‐host dwellings; - requirements for a new pre‐development noise assessment and a pre‐development cumulative noise assessment; - requirements for independent auditing of pre‐development noise assessments and compliance testing; and - specification of actions required for compliance testing and the maintenance of compliance at dwellings subject to noise impacts from the Yaloak South and Moorabool WEFs. . tighter controls on micro‐siting and setbacks to turbines to protect residents’ amenity; and . inclusion of mobile telephones in the consideration of interference from the WEF.
15.3.2 Other issues
A number of other more minor but nonetheless important matters were outlined by the various submissions on the content of the draft permit. The main matters are discussed below: . minor changes to “The Permit Allows” to include descriptive material from the application, and reference to alterations to roads within the Road Zone Category 2 (Glenmore Road); . more targeted Conditions 1a), 1i) and 23) referring to turbine locations, use of non‐reflective finishes on buildings etc, and EMI impacts. Specific comments are: - Condition 1a) extended to ensure turbine locations are as per application, and hence assessment for visual and noise impacts, unless subject to micro‐siting as per Condition 3 below; and
PAGE 209 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 - Condition 2e) extended in recognition of the effect of the DDO, whilst not being applicable to small fittings and fixtures. . transformers associated with each tower to be placed in an inconspicuous position (Condition 2g)); . Condition 3a) includes additional requirements to ensure no turbine is located closer than as shown in the PAR to non‐host dwellings or the edge of the escarpment; . Condition 7 includes a requirement for the EMP to include a copy of the endorsed development plan(s); . Conditions 7a) (vii) and (viii) include minor changes to address sites identified in any CHMP or sites identified as of heritage interest, and protection against falls into excavations; . Condition 7g) is included, as while it is accepted that any batching plant will be operated by its owner under EPA licence conditions, the Proponent still has overall responsibility for siting and potential impacts beyond the actual operation of the plant; . Condition 18 includes reference to Australian/New Zealand Standard “AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management ‐ Principles and guidelines” which supersedes the document required by the CFA; . the complaints management plan is now a separate condition.; and . a note is also included at the rear of the permit outlining the general process which should be followed by the Responsible Authority in managing complaints received concerning the operation of the WEF.
15.4 Conclusions and recommendations
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
The Recommended Permit adequately addresses the matters of concern as reviewed in accordance with the Guidelines, and provides appropriately for the Proposal’s requirements.
The Advisory Committee recommends that:
The draft Recommended Permit attached at Appendix 4 should be issued.
PAGE 210 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
16. Conclusions
The Advisory Committee concludes that:
1. The Proposal will result in a significant and measurable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and will contribute to renewable energy production in the state. The Proposal is therefore consistent with the State Government’s policies and objectives for renewable energy.
2. The Proposal has been assessed in accordance with the relevant Guidelines, and under that assessment the impacts of the Proposal are considered to be insufficient to warrant its rejection. The matters of concern which have been raised are able to be addressed by way of relevant permit conditions as are included in the Recommended Permit.
3. A review of some elements of the framework under which such proposals are evaluated is also considered appropriate, addressing in particular the matters discussed in this report. Other work is also identified as necessary and specific recommendations for the relevant authority are made on this matter.
PAGE 211 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
17. Recommendations
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Advisory Committee recommends that:
1. A Planning Permit should be issued for the Yaloak South Wind Energy Facility subject to the following specific recommendations on conditions to be included: . requiring preparation of an on‐site landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning; . requiring development of a program of off‐site landscape mitigating works which would be available to owners of existing dwellings within a 3 km radius of the nearest turbine subject to certain conditions regarding timing and visibility of turbines; . permitting aviation lighting to be installed but not operated unless under a direction from CASA, arrangements between the WEF operator and relevant authorities, or in response to a risk assessment demonstrating the necessity for lighting to reduce the public risk to an acceptable level; . requiring that a pre‐development noise assessment be completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 with the modified and additional criteria specified in Condition 24 of the Recommended Permit; . requiring that a pre‐development cumulative noise assessment be completed in general accordance with NZS6808:1998 and the modified and additional criteria specified in Condition 25 of the Recommended Permit; . requiring that both the assessments referred to above be the subject of audits by an acoustic expert as specified in Condition 26 of the Recommended Permit; . requiring that before the development starts a noise compliance testing plan be prepared that includes all the items specified in Condition 29 of the Recommended Permit; . requiring that implementation of the noise compliance monitoring plan be the subject of an audit by an independent acoustic expert as specified in Condition 31 of the Recommended Permit; . requiring that in regard to minimising impacts on Wedge‐tailed Eagles, requiring regular removal of kangaroo, lamb and other
PAGE 212 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 animal carcasses, and prohibiting the use of paddocks in the vicinity of turbines for lambing by agreement with the landowner; . requiring the exploration of techniques aimed at increasing the visibility of turbine blades to Wedged‐tailed Eagles; . requiring the development and implementation of a monitoring program to enable comparison of actual and predicted Wedge‐tailed Eagle mortality rate and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of DSE; . requiring the development and implementation of a program for Wedge‐tailed Eagle surveys to be conducted in at least three of the first five years of operation to enable assessment of impacts on the Wedge‐tailed Eagle population, to the satisfaction of DSE; . a requirement for an Emergency Response Plan to be prepared in accordance with CFA requirements to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning; . requiring the endorsed plans be provided to enable updating of aeronautical charts prior to construction of the wind energy facility; . including requirements for a Traffic Management Plan to be prepared, including VicRoads referral authority requirements and a requirement for road infrastructure improvements at the cost of the Proponent; . including requirements relating to protection of the heritage site located near proposed turbine 14 and any other identified cultural heritage sites in accordance with the recommendations of any voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan; and . conditions within an Environmental Management Plan as included in the Recommended Permit.
2. The Minister consider the revision of the Guidelines with the aim of including guidance on: . the consideration of non‐listed native species, especially ‘icon’ species and/or those highly regarded by the community; and . the avoidance of areas of high Wedge‐tailed Eagle utilisation in planning for future wind energy facilities.
3. The Minister give consideration to requiring: . the development of a State Environment Protection Policy on noise from wind energy facilities in Victoria; and . The amendment of Victorian planning schemes and the Guidelines to ensure the direct involvement of the EPA in the assessment of WEF
PAGE 213 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 applications and the enforcement of SEPP and/or permit conditions relating to noise.
4. The Minister consider requiring a bond of appropriate value to be applied to this project against future decommissioning costs, on such terms as the Minister directs.
5. The Minister consider initiating a whole‐of‐government response to the issue of health concerns arising from the development and operation of wind energy facilities, with the objective of enabling the inclusion of health issues in the national guidelines for wind energy facilities currently under development.
6. DSE should undertake investigations and research to: . Complete regional mapping of Wedge‐tailed Eagle utilisation. . Develop guidelines for data collection, collision risk modelling and population viability analysis for Wedge‐tailed Eagles.
7. The Recommended Permit attached at Appendix 4 covering the above recommended conditions and other matters should be issued.
PAGE 214 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Appendix 1 List of all submissions received to planning permit and Application for Review
Name Issues Raised L Edmonston C/- Waubra & 1 Visual & Health Impacts District Landscape Guardians Noise Levels, Visual Impacts, Wildlife 2 E Miller-Olsen & S Olsen Concerns & potential conflicts of land use Noise Levels, Visual & Health Impacts, 3 L Vella Wildlife Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 4 L D Irving Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 5 J W Irving Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 6 E A Wallace Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 7 Cy Murray Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 8 D Kirk Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 9 J Murray Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 10 M Cassar Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 11 E Cassar & Community Consultation
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 12 L Forbes Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Noise Levels, Health Impacts & Challenge of 13 R Brownell M Ec Pacific Hydro's claims
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 14 B Cini Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 15 E Cini Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
16 A J & M Fish Location of two wind turbines & Visual Impacts
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 17 L S Giddins Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
PAGE 215 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 18 S Giddins Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 19 G R Gibbs Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Visual Impacts, Fire Risk, Fauna Concerns & 20 D Boylan Potential Increases in the future
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 21 C Mavity Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 22 L Batchelor Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 23 G & P Wallis Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 24 G McGuire Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 25 R McGuire Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 26 D Frigo Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 27 J Frigo Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 28 R Calleja Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 29 J Camilleri Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 30 J Skidmore Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 31 M R Skidmore Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 32 A Kearns Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 33 Ch Murray Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 34 M Bevern Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
PAGE 216 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 35 D Calleja Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 36 R J Read & Community Consultation Noise Levels, Visual Impacts, Wildlife 37 K & S Ramholdt Concerns, Turbine fires, Cultural heritage Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 38 R S Baird & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 39 I Baird & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 40 L Watson & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 41 K H Saathoff & Community Consultation 42 G Millsteed Noise Levels Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 43 T & M Frost & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 44 B Nicholls & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 45 D J Sewell & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 46 L J Sewell & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 47 M Hall & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 48 D J Hall & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 49 T Erwin & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 50 D McCallum & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 51 Y Erwin & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 52 D Kerr & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 53 G Brown & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 54 P Brown & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 55 R Sullivan & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 56 L Sullivan & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 57 T Edney & Community Consultation
PAGE 217 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 58 J Bruty & Community Consultation
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 59 C Cowan Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 60 R Spooner & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 61 S O'Brien & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 62 M O'Brien & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 63 E Elsworth & Community Consultation
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 64 S Bekal Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 65 A Siddoji Rao Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 66 J E Mitchell & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 67 M Panes & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 68 J Jackson & Community Consultation Wedge-tailed eagles, Community 69 M Evans Segregation, Noise Levels & Visual & Health Impacts
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 70 J Hall Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
71 R Taylor & R Forbes Noise Levels & Visual Impacts 72 J B & E C Ranken In favour of Wind Farms Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 73 A Smith & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 74 B Smith & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 75 P Smith & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 76 T Katz & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 77 J Smith & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 78 G Smith & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 79 P Clark & Community Consultation
PAGE 218 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 80 T J Fullerton & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 81 E Smith & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 82 R Scott & Community Consultation 83 S McLeod Visual Landscape Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 84 D Van Zuylen & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 85 S Van Zuylen & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 86 R F Nason & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 87 J L Nason & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 88 N Sullivan & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 89 D Sullivan & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 90 S Raymond & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 91 J Marshall & Community Consultation K Russell C/- Australian Noise Levels, Health Impacts, Siting Issues & 92 Landscape Guardians Cost Benefit Analysis Noise Levels, Visual & Health Impacts, Fire 93 A Barnes Risk & Pacific Hydro's Conduct Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 94 G Baxter & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 95 L Micallef & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 96 J Baxter & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 97 A Baxter & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 98 D R Thomas & Community Consultation
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 99 J Murray Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 100 C Murray & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 101 B Manly & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 102 M Davey & Community Consultation
PAGE 219 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 103 B Bourke & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 104 E Turner & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 105 A Everard & Community Consultation Noise Levels, Visual & Health Impacts, 106 R & D Davey Wildlife Concerns Noise Levels, Visual & Health Impacts, 107 T Davey Wildlife Concerns
Noise Levels, Visual & Health Impacts, Fauna 108 J & K Lindorff Concerns & Potential Increases in the Future
109 I Donovan Air Navigation Hazard Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 110 D Saric & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 111 V Saric & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 112 M Saric & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 113 A Saric & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 114 R Saric & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 115 H & A Just & Community Consultation
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 116 B Graham Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 117 E Graham Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 118 P Hodge Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 119 L Evans Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 120 J Elsworth Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 121 W Elsworth Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
G & S Dickinson C/- Australian 122 Pacific Hydro's conduct & lack of evidence Landscape Guardians Threats to Landscapes, Health 123 P Mitchell Considerations, No Community Benefit
PAGE 220 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Generic Letter - Noise Levels, Visual & Health 124 J Cowan Impacts & Flora & Fauna Concerns
Noise Levels, Lighting Visibility, Wedge-Tailed 125 B Rowarth & R Borg Eagles & Fire Risk R J Bell C/- Victorian Landscape No Community Benefit, Visual & Health 126 Guardians Impacts & Fire Risk Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 127 N Sher & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 128 V Sher & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 129 A Farrell & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 130 K A Bray & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 131 K Mudford & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 132 B F Bush & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 133 J Lamont & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 134 J Noble & Community Consultation 135 S Ranken Sustainable Alternative & Economic Prosperity 136 J Ranken Sustainable Alternative Suitable Location & previous misinformation 137 K Sheehan regarding Wedge-tailed Eagles Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 138 M Duerden & Community Consultation Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 139 A M Macdonald & Community Consultation Contribution to Environment, economic gains 140 G Allgood C/- Ararat Rural City & positive relationship with Pacific Hydro & the community S Holmes a Court C/- Hepburn 141 Sustainable Alternative & Economic Prosperity Community Wind Park Coop. Ltd M Williamson C/- Sustainability Assists in reducing Victoria's Greenhouse Gas 142 Victoria amount Newspaper Extract - Incomplete Investigation 143 S Gardner & Community Consultation 144 C Krogh Adverse Health Effects 145 B Hannan C/-AOPA Australia Flight Safety within the Shire A Vance C/-Melbourne Girls' 146 Renewable Energy College M Duchamp C/- Save the Eagles 147 Fauna Concerns & Setback from habitats International
PAGE 221 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
148 D Whelan Impacts upon Wedge-tailed eagles
PAGE 222 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Appendix 2 List of all Documents Tabled at Hearing
Document No From: Description or Title 1 DPCD Submission to Advisory Committee 2 DPCD Wind Turbines & Health – A Rapid Review f the Evidence, Aust Govt, July 2010 3 DPCD Wind Turbines & Health, NHMRC Public Statement, July 2010 4A Energy Pacific Draft Site Visit Route 4B Energy Pacific Modelled 35dB(A) Noise contour Map 5 Energy Pacific Freehills Opening Submission (Part A) 6 Energy Pacific Turbine Layout Comparisons – Three Plans 7 Energy Pacific Moorabool News Advertisement, Moorabool Anti‐Wind Farm Action Group, 2 March 2010 8 R Maunder EWS – Visual Simulations (Truescape Ltd) 9 R Maunder EWS ‐ Powerpoint presentation (Truescape Ltd) 10 Energy Pacific ‐ A3 Before and After Visual Truescape Representations 11 K Ramholdt David Whelan’s CV 12 P Rough EWS – Landscape & Visuals Simulations 13 P Rough EWS ‐ Powerpoint presentation 14 Energy Pacific Aust Gov EPBC Referral Decision 15 Energy Pacific Correspondence with CFA 16 Energy Pacific Agreed Statement re Bat Studies & Impacts ‐A McMahon & B Lane 17 Energy Pacific Agreed Statement re Wedge‐tailed Eagles (WTE’s) – P Menkhorst, A McMahon & I Smales
PAGE 223 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
18 Energy Pacific Joint Report of Acoustics Experts – Delaire & Huson 19 B Lane EWS – Flora & Fauna 20 Energy Pacific BLA Bat Survey, May 2010 21 I Smales EWS – WTE’s 22 I Smales EWS – Powerpoint Presentation 23 Energy Pacific Summary comparison WTE utilisation 2009‐2010 24 Energy Pacific Plan showing distances of house from turbines 25 Energy Pacific Yaloak Estate WTE Age Structure Survey, BLA, January 2007 26 Energy Pacific Collision risk Modelling for Population of 15 WTE’s 27 K Ramholdt CV of S J S Debus 28 C Delaire EWS – Noise Assessment 29 C Delaire EWS – Powerpoint Presentation 30 Energy Pacific Freehills Submission Part B 31 Energy Pacific Plan showing Shadow Flicker Compliance 32 Energy Pacific Review of Turbine Fires, Garrad Hassan, July 2010 33 Energy Pacific Assessment of Cumulative Traffic Impacts, July 2010 34 Energy Pacific Infrasound Emission from Wind turbines, J Jakobsen, August 2005 35 Energy Pacific Wind turbine Sound and Health Effects, An Expert Panel Review, December 2009 36 Moorabool Shire Submission Council 37 A McMahon EWS – Review of WTE Assessment 38 A McMahon EWS – Plan Bat Recording Sites and accompanying photos
PAGE 224 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
39 A McMahon Guidelines for Bat Surveys in Relation to Wind Farm Developments, L Lumsden, DSE, January 2001 40 DSE Submission regarding Flora & Fauna 41 P Menkhorst EWS – WTE’s 42 P Menkhorst EWS – Comparison of projected average annual WET mortalities assuming two different population levels 43 S & L Giddins Submission 44 S & L Giddins The Great Renewable Energy Rort, K Russell, Quadrant – July August 2010 45 W L Huson EWS ‐ Noise 46 W L Huson EWS (Supplement) – Noise 47 W L Huson EWS – Presentation 48 Energy Pacific Winchelsea WF – Joint Report of Acoustics Experts, 27 February 2009 49A Energy Pacific Development of WF Noise Propagation Prediction Model, The European Commission, Jan‐ May 1998 49B Energy Pacific Development of WF Noise Propagation Prediction Model, The European Commission, Jan‐ May 1998 (replacement document) 50 E & S Olsen Photos of Logger at House 39 51 E & S Olsen Powerpoint Presentation 52 E & S Olsen Connecting Generator Cluster to the Victoria Electricity Transmission Network: A Technical Perspective, AEMO, 17 June 2010 53 E & S Olsen Three maps of Fiskville Training College 54 E & S Olsen Turbines do more than produce power, Article in The New Zealand Farmers Weekly, 5 July 2010
PAGE 225 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
55 E & S Olsen Haste Makes Waste, The Society for Wind Vigilance, 19 July 2010 56 E & S Olsen Submission to Advisory Committee, 23 July 2010 – Permit Conditions 57 Energy Pacific Proposed Planning Permit Conditions 58 Energy Pacific Analysis of Turbines Viewed at each Photo‐simulation Points 59 J Irving Submission to Advisory Committee 60 J Irving Responses to the Ear to Infrasound and Wind Farms, Cochlear fluids Research laboratory, 17 June 2010 61 J Irving Some health impact for wind driven industrial turbines, A & C Society 62 J Irving Emails relating to submission 63 R Brownell Submission to Advisory Committee 64 R Brownell Summary submission 65 J Skidmore Submission to Advisory Committee 66 D Thomas Wind Farm Noise, What Audiologists should Know, Audiology today, Jul‐ Aug 2010 67 DPCD Summary of Pre‐Hearing submissions 68 Energy Pacific Evaluation of the potential to compare WTE collision risk for Yaloak South & Moorabool WF’s using the Biosis Research Risk Model, 26 July 2010 69 DSE DSE’s Comments on Draft Permit Conditions Relating to the Bat & Bird Management Plan 70 S Debus EWS – WTE’s 71 K Ramholdt Submission to Advisory Committee 72 K Ramholdt Noise Impact Assessment Report, Waubra WF, Mr & Mrs Dean, July 2010
PAGE 226 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
73 K Ramholdt An Analysis of the Epidemiology & Related Evidence on the Health Effects of Wind Turbines on Local Residents, C Philips, 3 July 2010 74 Toni Davey Submission to Advisory Committee 75A &B Toni Davey Aerial and other photographs 76 Moorabool Shire Comments on Draft Planning Permit Council Conditions 77 Moorabool Shire Three Submissions missing from Council original documentation 78 Energy Pacific Submission in Reply 79 Energy Pacific Eastern Bent‐wing Bats Occurrence at Yaloak South WF site, BLA letter, 23 July 2010 80 Energy Pacific Letter from Freehills regarding follow up matters, 5 August 2010 81 E & S Olsen Email regarding WTE monitoring, 5 August 2010 82 DSE Letter in response to question on notice re bird and bat permit condition monitoring, 30 July 2010 83 K Ramholdt Email regarding WTE monitoring, 2 August 2010 84 Energy Pacific Email response 13 Aug 10 regarding erection of new anemometer mast
PAGE 227 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Appendix 3 DPCD Without Prejudice Draft Permit
PAGE 228 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING Permit No: 2001/002 PERMIT Planning Scheme: Moorabool Planning Scheme
Responsible Authority for Administration and Enforcement of this Permit: Moorabool Shire Council
ADDRESS OF THE LAND: Certificate of Title Vol 03158 Fol 467 (TP 394862C)
Vol 05254 Fol 773 (TP 274780A – Crown Allotment 2B only).
Vol 08393 Fol 788 (TP 387669L – Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22 ‐ 35 inclusive, and 37 – 41 inclusive).
Vol 10863 Fol 734 (Lot 2 on PS 514040X)
THE PERMIT ALLOWS: The use and development of a wind energy facility comprising 14 generators and associated infrastructure including aviation safety lighting, access roads, cabling, permanent anemometers, internal powerlines, substations, excavation of rock material, earthworks, temporary concrete batching plants, maintenance and storage facilities, car parking, business identification signs and alterations to roads within a Road Zone Category 1.
PAGE 229 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:
DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO BE ENDORSED
1. Before the development starts, development plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans may be submitted for approval in stages or for a particular grouping of wind turbines within the subject land. When approved, the plans will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit. The plans must show the location and layout of the wind turbines and all on‐site buildings and works generally in accordance with the application plans. The plans must also include: a) A list of map coordinates for each wind turbine b) The distance of each wind turbine from the nearest point on the boundary of the subject land c) Details of the model and rated capacity of the wind turbines to be installed d) Elevation drawings, showing dimensions, of the wind turbines and other permanent on‐site buildings (e.g. substation facilities) e) Drawings, showing the key physical dimensions, of all on‐site buildings and works including: (i) Wind turbines (ii) Access tracks (iii) Internal collector network trenches (iv) Any temporary concrete batching plant(s) (v) The substation (including designated car parking areas, signage and landscaping), and (vi) Any ancillary works (e.g. construction compounds and water tanks). f) A description of the materials and finishes of the wind turbines and other permanent on‐site buildings g) A description of the location, type and intensity of any aviation obstacle lighting to be installed
PAGE 230 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 h) The locations of scattered native trees and the boundaries of any patches of native vegetation, in relation to all buildings and works, in all cases where such trees and patches are within 25 metres of the buildings or works i) Turbine exclusion zones centred on the transmission vectors for fixed licences of point to point transmissions to which there is a possibility of electromagnetic interference with a width equal or greater than twice the sum of the blade length and 60% of the radius of the first Fresnel zone of any licensed link. The transmission vectors and the widths of the first Fresnel zones will be determined by a suitably qualified telecommunications expert.
SPECIFICATIONS
2. The wind energy facility must meet the following requirements: a) The wind energy facility must comprise no more than 14 wind turbines b) The overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the zenith of the sweep of the rotor blade tip) must not exceed 126.25 metres above foundation level c) The wind turbines must be mounted on tubular steel and/or concrete towers. d) The diameter of the rotor of the wind turbines must not exceed 92.5 metres e) The hub height of the wind turbines must not exceed 80 metres. f) The rotor of the wind turbines must have only three rotor blades g) The wind turbine towers, nacelles and rotor blades must be of a non‐ reflective finish and colour that blends with the landscape to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority h) The colours and finishes of all other buildings and ancillary equipment on‐site must be non‐reflective to minimise the impact of the development on the landscape to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority i) Access tracks within the subject land must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: i. have a surface material that will not unduly contrast with the landscape, and ii. be designed to minimise impact on the farming activities on the land, and
PAGE 231 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 iii. have an effective trafficable width of not less than 4 metres. j) The transformer associated with each wind turbine must be enclosed within the tower or be located beside each tower and be pad mounted. k) All new electricity cabling associated with the internal collector network within the wind energy facility must be installed in accordance with the endorsed plans except with the written consent of the Minister for Planning l) All wind turbines must be located such that the distance between turbines and transmission vectors for fixed licences of point to point transmissions is equal to or greater than the sum of the blade length and 60% of the radius of the first Fresnel zone of any licensed link. m) Except in the case of an emergency, no external lighting of infrastructure associated with the wind energy facility, other than low level security lighting and/or aviation obstacle lighting may be installed or operated without the further written consent of the Minister for Planning n) All spare parts and other equipment and materials associated with the use of the wind energy facility must be located in screened, locked storage areas that are inaccessible to the public to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority o) All turbines must be located outside the turbine exclusion zones shown on the endorsed development plan(s)
NATIVE VEGETATION
3. No native vegetation may be removed without the prior consent of the Minister for Planning, and prior to such removal a report by a suitably qualified ecological specialist must be submitted to the Minister for Planning and the Department of Sustainability and Environment that sets out the findings of the spring survey and, if vegetation listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is identified, measures to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on that vegetation must be set out. The report must also review the net gain offset requirements in accordance with Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action (DSE 2002).
PAGE 232 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
FURTHER CONSENT
4. If it is proposed to removal or destroy vegetation identified in the surveys required by condition 3 of this permit that is listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, further consent in writing must be obtained from the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
VEGETATION REMOVAL WORKS
5. Before works start, temporary fencing or tape must be installed around areas of native vegetation to be retained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. Works must not cause damage to native vegetation stands to be retained. Vehicular access beneath large trees and habitat trees must be prevented.
7. Tree trimming operations must be undertaken using the natural target pruning ‘three cut method’ as described in the ‘Roadside Handbook: An Environmental Guide for Road Construction and Maintenance’ (VicRoads 2006).
NET GAIN OFFSET PLAN
8. Prior to the commencement of native vegetation removal, all offset sites must be legally secured by means of the registration of an on‐title agreement or covenant to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Responsible Authority.
9. All actions specified in the endorsed offset plan must be completed within the specified timeframes, to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Responsible Authority.
10. The disturbed roadside areas shall be revegetated as soon as practicable to minimise soil erosion.
STAGING
11. The use and development authorised by this permit may be completed in stages as shown on the endorsed development plan(s) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any corresponding obligation arising under this permit (including the preparation and approval of plans) may be similarly completed in stages or parts.
PAGE 233 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 LAYOUT NOT ALTERED
12. The use and development as shown on the endorsed development plan(s) or other plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Minister for Planning save that the micro‐siting of turbines and the related tracks and reticulation lines will be regarded as generally in accordance with the endorsed development plan(s) if the Responsible Authority is satisfied that it will not give rise to any material adverse change in landscape, vegetation, cultural, visual, shadow or noise impacts compared to the endorsed development plan(s) and: i. A turbine within 1 kilometre of any non‐host dwelling is not moved closer to that dwelling, and ii. The turbine location is altered by no more than 100 metres, and iii. No turbine is located within: a. 100 metres from a Road Zone Category 1 or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a road b. 40 metres from a Road Zone Category 2 c. 20 metres from any other road d. 5 metres from any other boundary. e. 100 metres from a dwelling not in the same ownership f. 100 metres from a waterway, wetlands or designated flood plain or g. within a turbine exclusion zone.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE WORKS
13. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of preliminary investigative works, including geotechnical investigations, for the purposes of gathering data or making other assessments necessary or desirable in order to prepare the development plan or other plans specified in this permit, is not considered to be commencement of the development.
UPDATE OF AERONAUTICAL CHARTS
14. Not less than thirty days before the construction of any of the wind turbines starts, copies of the endorsed development plan(s) must be provided to the Royal Australian Air Force’s Aeronautical Information Service to enable details of the wind energy facility to be shown on
PAGE 234 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 aeronautical charts of the area. Confirmation of this action being taken is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
15. Before the development starts, an environmental management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning by the wind energy facility operator in consultation with the relevant authorities including at least EPA, DSE, DPI, Corangamite CMA, Southern Rural Water, Moorabool Shire Council, and the relevant waste management authority. The environmental management plan should be based on the approach outlined in Chapter ?? of the exhibited planning application report dated January 2010. The environmental management plan may be prepared in sections or stages. The environmental management plan must include a copy of the development layout plans as endorsed by the Minister for Planning. When approved, the environmental management plan will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit. The environmental management plan must consider and generally be in accordance with: . EPA Publication 480: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites . EPA Publication 275: Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control . EPA Publication 891.1: Code of Practice, Onsite Wastewater Management . EPA Publication 628: Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry . EPA Publication 347: Bunding Guidelines . Australian Standard Customer Satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations (ISO 1002:2006), and . Australian Standards Handbook HB 229 2006 The Why and How of Complaints Handling. The environmental management plan should, where appropriate, address and include: a) A construction and work site management plan which must include:
PAGE 235 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 i. Procedures for access, construction, noise control, dust emissions, spills and leaks from the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials and pollution management. Such construction and work site procedures are to be in accordance with Environment Protection Authority (EPA) requirements; ii. The identification of all potential contaminants and hazardous materials used and/or stored on site in connection with the development and use; iii. The identification of all construction and operations processes that could potentially lead to water contamination; iv. The identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational methods to control any identified contamination risks; v. The identification of waste re‐use, recycling and disposal procedures; vi. Appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff in accordance with the EPA Publication 891.1 Septic Tanks Code of Practice; vii. A timetable, where practicable for the construction of turbine bases, access tracks and power cabling during warmer months to minimise impacts on local fauna and sediment mobilisation; viii. Procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and equipment use, designated tracks and works area avoid impacts on native vegetation; ix. Procedures to ensure the covering of excavations, trenches and holes at night time and to fill trenches as soon as practical after excavation, to protect, as far as practicable, native fauna and domestic stock from being injured by or entrapped; x. The removal of works, buildings and staging area on completion of construction of the project. b) Hazardous Materials xi. The identification of all hazardous materials used and or stored on‐site in connection with the development and use xii. Procedures for the proper handling and storage of hazardous materials on‐site xiii. Design criteria for any hazardous materials storage facilities on‐ site, and
PAGE 236 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 xiv. Contingency measures to ensure that any spills or leaks of hazardous materials are contained on‐site and cleaned up in accordance with Environment Protection Authority requirements. c) Water Contamination, Sediment and Erosion Control i. The identification of all construction and operational processes that could potentially lead to water contamination ii. The identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational methods to control any identified contamination risks iii. Procedures for the management of contaminated waste water iv. Procedures for the discharge of collected runoff v. Procedures to ensure that silt from batters, cut‐off drains, table drains and road works is retained on the site during and after the construction stage of the project. To this end: . All land disturbances must be confined to a minimum practical working area and to the vicinity of the identified works areas . Soil to be removed must be stockpiled and separate soil horizons must be retained in separate stockpiles and not mixed, and . Stockpiles must be located away from drainage lines vi. The installation of geotextile silt fences (with sedimentation basins where appropriate) on all drainage lines from the site which are likely to receive runoff from disturbed areas vii. Procedures to ensure that steep batters are treated appropriately for sediment pollution control viii. A process for overland flow management to prevent the concentration and diversion of waters onto steep or erosion prone slopes, and ix. A requirement for immediate remediation of localised erosion (specifying a response time).
PAGE 237 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 d) Waste Control i. The identification of waste reuse, recycling and disposal procedures, and ii. Pollution management measures for stored and stockpiled materials including waste materials, litter and any other potential source of water pollution. e) Sanitation and Wastewater i. Appropriate sanitary facilities and management of the wastewater at the temporary construction compound and permanent facilities for construction works, maintenance staff, operations personnel and visitors is required. f) Construction Practices ii. Procedures, where practical, to construct wind turbine bases, access tracks and power cabling during warmer months to minimise impacts on ephemeral wetlands, local fauna and sediment mobilisation iii. Procedures to protect, as far as practicable, native fauna and domestic stock from being injured by or entrapped in excavations or trenches and to fill trenches as soon as practical after excavation, and iv. Procedures for the removal of works, buildings and staging areas on completion of construction of the development. g) Concrete Batching Plants i. Criteria for the design of the temporary concrete batching plants ii. Management procedures to prevent pollution of the local waterways, particularly from wash water and waste concrete materials, and iii. Procedures for the operation and removal of any temporary concrete batching plants and for the reinstatement of the site once its use finishes. h) Dust Procedures to suppress dust from construction related activities.
PAGE 238 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 i) A blasting plan This plan is only required if blasting is proposed to be undertaken at the site as part of the construction of the wind energy facility. The plan must include the following: i. Name and qualification of the person responsible for blasting; ii. A description of the location of where the explosives will be used, and the location of every licensed bore on any property with an adjoining boundary within 1km of the location of the blasting; iii. A requirement for the identification and assessment of any potentially sensitive site within 1km of the location of the blasting, including the procedure for pre‐blast and post‐blast qualitative measurement or monitoring at such site; iv. The procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation; v. The procedure for the storage and handling of explosives; vi. A requirement that blasting only occur after at least 48 hours prior notification in writing of the intention to undertake blasting has been given to the occupants of the properties which are located in whole or in part within 1km of the location of the proposed blasting; and vii. A requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the hours of 8am and 4pm. j) Native Flora and Fauna Protection i. Surveys by an appropriately qualified ecological specialist at an appropriate time of the year before development starts to confirm that construction footprint does not have an adverse impact on native vegetation ii. Require fauna habitat to be considered if there are any changes to the location of wind energy facility infrastructure k) l) Pest Management i. A pest animal and carrion management plan to be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these departments. This plan must include:
PAGE 239 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . procedures for the ongoing management of pest animal populations (e.g. rabbits) and carrion (including livestock, native animals and pest animals), to lessen the availability of potential prey for raptors within the wind energy facility site, and . a program of early identification and eradication of pest animal populations and carrion. ii. A pest management plan developed in consultation with the owners of the relevant land that includes: . procedures to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens from earth moving equipment and associated machinery including the cleaning of all plant and equipment before transport to the site and the use of road making material comprising clean fill that is free of weeds . sowing of disturbed areas with perennial grasses or returned to cropping . a protocol to ensure follow up weed control is undertaken on all areas disturbed through construction of the wind energy facility for a minimum period of 2 years following completion of the works, and . procedures for the ongoing management of pest animal populations including a programme of early identification and eradication. m) Training A training program for construction workers, permanent employees and contractors at the wind energy facility site including a site induction program relating to the range of issues addressed by the environmental management plan. n) Complaints Management A complaints management plan designed in accordance with Australian Standard Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations (ISO 1002:2006) having regard to the guidance provided in The why and how of complaints handling HB 229‐2006. The complaints management plan will include procedures for: i. Readily accessible information on how complaints can be made free of cost to complainants
PAGE 240 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 ii. Immediate acknowledgement of complaints and regular and comprehensive feedback to complainants on actions proposed, their implementation and success or otherwise iii. Closure of complaints by agreement with complainants iv. Establishment and maintenance of a complaint register for the recording of receipt and acknowledgement of complaints, actions taken, success or otherwise of actions and complaint closure and for the register to be available to the public during normal working hours v. Reporting of the contents of the complaint register to the Responsible Authority as required, and vi. Regular, at least annual, auditing of the implementation of the complaints management plan with audit results being reported to the Responsible Authority. o) Incident Management i. A procedure for the establishment and maintenance of an incident register for the recording of: . Environmental incidents . Non‐conformances, and . Corrective actions. ii. The register must be available for inspection by the public during normal working hours and its contents should be reported to the Responsible Authority as required.
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
16. The environmental management plan must be reviewed at least once every 5 years, and if necessary amended, in consultation with the Municipal Council and the Minister for Planning, to reflect operational experience and changes in environmental management standards and techniques. Any amendment of the environmental management plan must be submitted to the Minister for Planning for re‐endorsement.
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
17. The use and development must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed environmental management plan described in condition 7 above to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
PAGE 241 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
SOUTHERN RURAL WATER REQUIREMENTS
COMPLAINTS MADE TO THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY
18. If a complaint is received by the Responsible Authority in regard to the wind energy facility the Responsible Authority will: a) After consideration of the views of the complainant and the wind energy facility operator, determine if a dispute exists with a dispute being defined as a matter remaining unresolved after application of the complaints management plan b) If a dispute is not identified, advise the complainant and the wind energy facility operator that the provisions of the complaint management plan should be utilised, and c) If it is determined that a dispute exists, determine if there is a breach of the permit and if such a breach exists take action to enforce compliance with the permit. In determining whether a breach exists the Responsible Authority may require the wind energy facility operator to: i. Commission a suitably qualified expert to provide an opinion as to whether a breach exists, and/or ii. Conduct compliance testing.
ON‐SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN
19. Within six months of the endorsement of the development plan referred to in Condition 1 and before the development starts, an on‐site landscaping plan must be prepared and approved by the Minister for Planning. When approved, the on‐site landscaping plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The on‐site landscaping plan must: a) Include plans drawn to scale showing the extent and layout of any landscape plantings to be used to visually screen or otherwise beautify any on‐site buildings or works other than the wind turbines b) Provide details of plant species proposed to be used in the landscape plantings, including height and spread at maturity c) Provide a timetable for implementation of all landscape plantings, and d) Provide for maintenance and monitoring program.
PAGE 242 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 OFF‐SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN
20. Within six months of the endorsement of the development plans under Condition 1 of this permit, offers to carry out landscape works to mitigate the visual impact of turbines must be made available to the owners of all dwellings within 3 km of a turbine where a turbine is visible. The offers must be available up until 12 months after the commissioning of the last wind turbine of the development or relevant stage.
21. If an offer of landscape mitigation works is accepted, an off‐site landscaping plan must be prepared for the particular dwelling, by a suitably qualified person, in consultation with the owner of the property to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must provide details of planting and other treatments that will be used including: a) Details of the landscaping necessary to mitigate visual impacts of the wind energy facility, including plant species to be used and the expected height and spread of plants at maturity b) The maintenance of landscaping for a period of two years, and c) A timetable for implementation of the landscaping works. The landscaping as shown on the endorsed off‐site landscape plans must be completed within 12 months of the endorsement of the particular plan unless otherwise agreed by the landowner. The wind energy facility operator or developer must pay the full cost for design, implementation and maintenance of the off‐site landscaping plans but any of these tasks may be undertaken or arranged by the landowner. The cost must first be agreed between the wind energy facility operator and the relevant landowner.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
22. Before the development starts a traffic management plan must be prepared, in consultation with Moorabool Shire Council and VicRoads, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning for submission to and approval by the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will form part of this permit. The traffic management plan must: a) Identify all public roads and access points that will be used in the construction and operation of the wind energy facility.
PAGE 243 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 b) Provide for an existing conditions survey of public roads that will be used in the construction and operation of the wind energy facility including details of the suitability, design, construction standards and condition of the roads to enable, for sealed roads, the calculation of Total ESA (Equivalent Standard Axles) loading for comparison with the appropriate Austroads pavement design guide c) Establish the appropriate existing equivalent renewal pavement design and associated costs in conjunction with Moorabool Shire Council and VicRoads and establish the calculated damage (if any) directly attributable to the wind energy facility and the amount (if any) to be reimbursed to Moorabool Shire Council d) Include the designation of routes, operating hours and speed limits for oversize vehicles and other heavy vehicles on routes accessing the site so as to avoid interference with the passage of school buses, and to provide for resident safety and the safe management of stock e) Provide details of any large over dimensional vehicles to be used (such as those used for the transport of the nacelles, blades and tower sections) and details of the routes to be taken, the proposed escort arrangements and requirements for over dimensional permits from VicRoads f) Specify the need for road and intersection upgrades to accommodate any additional traffic or site access requirements, whether temporary or ongoing, and the timing of when these upgrades are to be undertaken g) Include measures to be used to manage traffic impacts associated with the construction and ongoing operation of the wind energy facility (including temporary speed zones and times of operation in accordance with VicRoads ‘Roadworks Signing Code of Practice’) on the traffic volumes and flows on surrounding roads h) Identify any areas of roadside native vegetation which need removal or pruning and the pruning practices to be followed i) Include identification and timing of any pre‐construction works j) Include a program of regular inspections, to be carried out during the construction period, to identify the need for maintenance works necessary as a result of construction traffic k) Include agreed criteria that will trigger repair and maintenance works, and
PAGE 244 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 l) Include a program to rehabilitate roads to the pre‐existing condition identified by the above surveys.
ROADWORKS REQUIREMENTS (VICROADS)
23. Prior to the start of the development the developer must: a) Submit final detailed construction drawings of the altered intersection (Geelong‐Ballan Road and Glenmore Road) including line marking to be approved by VicRoads. b) Prepare a specification for the works in accordance with the relevant sections of the VicRoads’ Standard Specification For Roadworks.
24. Prior to commencing any works in, on, under or over the arterial road reserve, the developer must first apply for, and receive written consent from VicRoads for those works in accordance with section 63 of the Road Management Act 2004.
25. All roadworks must be completed to the satisfaction of VicRoads prior to the commencement of the development.
26. All works must be at the developers cost.
27. The contractor must be VicRoads approved or prequalified at R1 level.
COMPLIANCE WITH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
28. The traffic management and road upgrade and maintenance works associated with the wind energy facility must be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the cost of any works including maintenance are to be at the expense of the wind energy facility operator.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
29. Before the development starts an emergency response plan must be prepared and approved by the Minister for Planning. When approved the emergency response plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The emergency response plan must be generally in accordance with “Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms” (Country Fire Authority April 2007). The emergency response plan must be prepared in consultation with:
PAGE 245 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 . Moorabool Shire Council . Country Fire Authority . Victoria Police . Rural Ambulance Victoria . State Emergency Service, and . Any other relevant members of the Moorabool Shire’s Municipal Emergency Response Management Committee. The emergency response plan should generally conform to “AS 3745- 2002 Emergency control organization and procedures for buildings, structures and workplaces”, or any subsequent replacement or amendment. The emergency response plan must include: a) Criteria for the provision of static water supply tanks, solely for fire fighting purposes, including minimum capacities, appropriate connections and signage b) Procedures for vegetation management, fuel control and the provision of fire fighting equipment during declared fire danger periods c) Minimum standards for access roads and tracks, to allow access for fire fighting vehicles, including access to static water supply tanks d) The facilitation by the wind energy facility operator, before or within 3 months after the commencement of operation, of a familiarisation visit to the site and explanation of emergency services procedures for the relevant members of the Country Fire Authority, Rural Ambulance Victoria, Victoria Police, State Emergency Service and Moorabool Shire’s Emergency Response Management Committee e) Subsequent familiarisation sessions for new personnel of those organisations as required, and f) If requested, training of Country Fire Authority personnel in relation to suppression of wind energy facility fires.
BAT AND BIRD MANAGEMENT PLAN
30. Before the development starts a bat and bird management plan (BBMP) to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning must be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit.
PAGE 246 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
The BBMP must include: a) A statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind energy facility operations b) A monitoring program of at least two years duration from the commissioning of the last turbine including surveys during the breeding and migratory seasons to ascertain: (i) The presence, behaviour and movements of any Wedge‐ tailed Eagles, Brown Falcons or Swamp Harriers, especially breeding pairs in the vicinity of the wind energy facility (ii) The species, number, age, sex (if possible) and date of bird and bat strikes (iii) Procedures for the reporting of any bird or bat strikes to the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Any bird strikes affecting the priority species named in condition 19(b)(i) must be reported to the DSE within 7 days of becoming aware of any strike (iv) Seasonal and yearly variation in the number of bird and bat strikes (v) The efficacy of searches for carcases of birds and bats, and where practical, information on the rate of removal of carcases by scavengers, so that correction factors can be determined to enable calculations of the total number of mortalities. c) Procedures for the regular removal of carrion (including livestock, native animals and pest animals) likely to attract raptors to areas near wind turbines d) Requirements for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes of the findings of the monitoring to the Department of Sustainability and Environment e) Recommendations in relation to a mortality rate for specified species which would trigger the requirement for responsive mitigation measures to be undertaken by the proponent to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, and f) Details of any responsive mitigation measures which may be implemented if the trigger mortality rate for a specified species is exceeded.
PAGE 247 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 31. Following the completion of the monitoring program in accordance with the BBMP, a bat and avifauna monitoring report must be prepared by the applicant setting out the findings of the monitoring program to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
STRATEGY FOR MONITORING AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR IMPACTS ON ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT BATS AND BIRDS
32. In the event that impacts detected during the BBMP’s monitoring program are considered by the Minister for Planning to be ecologically significant, a monitoring and mitigation measures strategy must be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved the monitoring and mitigation measures strategy will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The monitoring and mitigation measures strategy must include, for each species for which ecologically significant impacts have been detected: a) Further monitoring of the ‘targeted’ species, and b) Mitigation measures for ‘targeted’ species. all to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
TELEVISION AND RADIO RECEPTION AND INTERFERENCE
33. Before the development starts a television and radio reception plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The television and radio reception plan must include: a) A definition of the area to be covered by the television and radio reception plan (the defined area) based on the recommendations of a suitably qualified expert b) A pre‐construction survey to determine television and radio reception strength at locations within the defined area, completed prior to the commissioning of any turbine. The location of such monitoring is to be determined by an independent television and radio monitoring specialist appointed by the wind energy facility operator c) A procedure for post‐construction survey at any dwelling in the defined area that existed at the date of the pre‐construction survey in response to any complaint received regarding the wind energy facility having an adverse effect on television or radio reception
PAGE 248 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 d) A procedure for the implementation of mitigation measures at any dwelling in the defined area that existed at the date of the pre‐ construction survey if the post‐construction survey establishes any increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind energy facility operations. The mitigation measures shall return the affected reception to pre‐construction quality and be undertaken at the cost of the wind energy facility operator, all to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning
BLADE SHADOW FLICKER
34. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per annum at any dwelling existing as at the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from this condition. This exemption will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner that will apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on title.
NOISE LIMITS
35. Construction of the wind energy facility must comply with noise criteria specified in the Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria, N3/89 at any dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility as at the date of the issue of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
36. Except as provided below in this condition, the operation of the wind energy facility must comply with the noise criteria specified in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics ‐ The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ at any dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility as at the date of the issue of this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In determining compliance the following requirements apply: a) The sound level from the wind energy facility within 20 metres of any dwelling must not exceed a level of 40dBA (L95) or where the relationship between background noise levels and wind speed has been determined by the method specified in Condition 37 of this permit, the background noise level by more than 5dBA, or a level of 40dBA L95, whichever is the greater
PAGE 249 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 b) Compliance must be assessed separately for all‐time and night time. For the purpose of this requirement, night time is defined as 10.00pm to 7.00am, and c) If the noise has a special audible characteristic and measured sound level must have a penalty of 5dBA applied. Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from this condition. This exemption will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner that must apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on title. Such dwellings will be known as host dwellings.
NOISE COMPLIANCE TESTING
37. Before the development starts, a noise compliance testing plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustics expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the noise compliance testing plan will be endorsed be the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit. The use must be carried out in accordance with the noise compliance testing plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The noise compliance testing plan must include: a) A determination of the noise limits to be applied during construction using the methodology prescribed in the Interim Guidelines for the Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria, N3/89 b) A program of compliance testing to be implemented during the construction of the wind energy facility that: (i) Is designed by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, and (ii) Utilises the methodology prescribed in State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N‐1, to demonstrate compliance with the limits determined in (a) above. c) A prediction, by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, of the area within which the noise level from the wind energy facility during full operation will be 35dB(A) or greater. d) Identification of all dwellings, excluding host dwellings, within the area predicted in (c) above and a statement as to whether consent from the owner of each of the identified dwellings for compliance testing has been obtained or refused.
PAGE 250 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 e) A method or methods of testing compliance with the noise limits prescribed in Condition 41 of this permit for each dwellings identified in (d) above for which consent for the conduct of compliance testing has been obtained. The compliance testing method must be either: (i) The method described in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ with the following criteria being met: The regression curves required must be derived from a data set: o Of at least 500 noise level/wind speed data pairs o Including wind speed measurements made at turbine hub height o Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds greater than 8 m/s o Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds less than 4 m/s, and o With the percentage of data pairs that are the results of measurements made with the wind in the direction from the wind energy facility to the dwelling being equal or greater than values determined in (f) below, and The coefficient of determination for the regression curves will be 0.5 or greater, or (ii) A method, designed by a suitably qualified acoustics expert, in which measurements of operating and background noise levels are measured with: Background noise levels being measured with all turbines that, when operating, influence the noise level at the dwelling, shut down, and The wind in the direction from the wind energy facility to the dwelling for at least 50% of the measurement period.
PAGE 251 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 f) For each dwelling at which compliance testing is to be performed, determination of the maximum monthly proportions of the wind direction distribution that is from the wind energy facility to the dwelling, plus or minus 22.5 degrees g) A schedule for compliance testing under which compliance testing at all identified dwelling for which consent for such testing has been obtained is performed in the 14 months following the commissioning of the last turbine in a section of the wind energy facility or a stage of the wind energy facility, if the development is in stages, and repeated between 10 and 14 months after the first compliance test h) A procedure for the assessment, by a suitably qualified acoustics expert, of the characteristics of the noise from the wind energy facility to determine if that noise has any special audible characteristics that require the addition of 5 dB(A) to the measured operating noise levels as required in Condition 41 of this permit i) A procedure under which all results of compliance testing conducted in any month are reported to the Minister for Planning for approval by the 15th day of the following month and made available upon request to the owners and occupiers of particular dwellings as soon as results relating to that particular dwelling are available, and j) A procedure under which the implementation of the noise compliance testing plan is directed and supervised by a suitable qualified acoustic expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
NOISE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT
38. If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in Condition 37 of this permit is detected the wind energy facility operator must: a) Within 5 days of the confirmation of the exceedance, take sufficient actions to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling as predicted using the prediction methodology contained in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of exceedance b) Within 7 days of the detection of the confirmation of the exceedance, provide the Responsible Authority and the owner/occupier of the dwelling with: (i) The results of the compliance testing measurements including the magnitude of the detected exceedance
PAGE 252 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (ii) Details of the actions taken to reduce the wind energy facility noise emissions, and (iii) Evidence that the actions taken will produce a decrease in the wind energy facility noise level at the dwelling by an amount equal to the magnitude of the exceedance based on a prediction using the methodology of NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’. c) Continue to operate the wind energy facility with the implemented actions until approval for a different mode of operation is given by the Responsible Authority under the provision of (d) below d) Within 60 days of the detection of an exceedance provide the Responsible Authority and owner/occupier of the dwelling with either: (i) The result of compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in Condition 42 of this permit that demonstrate compliance, or (ii) A program for the development and evaluation of an alternative mode of wind energy facility operation that can be reasonably be expected to result in continuing compliance with noise levels as allowed in Condition 41 of this permit. The program will: Be developed and implemented under the supervision of a suitably qualified acoustics expert Include detailed descriptions of proposed actions Include predictions of wind energy facility noise levels at the dwelling at each stage of the program Not include any actions or combination of actions that are predicted to result in non‐compliance Include compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in Condition 42 of this permit both as the final step in the program and with that compliance testing being repeated after between 10 and 14 months, and Include a program schedule that specifies the timing of each stage of the program
PAGE 253 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Within 10 days of receipt of the program the Responsible Authority will either: a) Approve the implementation of the program, or b) Advise the wind energy facility operator of modifications to the program that are required before approval will be granted. If the Responsible Authority requires the program to be modified, the wind energy facility operator may either submit a modified program or immediately withdraw the program and conduct compliance testing using the procedures prescribed in Condition 42 of this permit. Following implementation of the program, the wind energy facility operator may provide the Responsible Authority and the owner/occupier with a detailed description of an alternative mode of operation of the wind energy facility together with evidence that under that mode of operation compliance can be expected, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Given such information and evidence the Responsible Authority may approve the operation of the wind energy facility in the alternative mode and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
DECOMMISSIONING
39. The wind energy facility operator must, no later than one month after all wind turbines have permanently ceased to generate electricity, notify the Minister for Planning in writing of the cessation of the use. Within a further six months of this date, the wind energy facility operator, or in the absence of the operator, the owner of the land on which the relevant turbines(s) is/are located, must prepare a decommissioning plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the decommissioning plan will become part of this permit.
40. The decommissioning plan must provide for the following: a) The removal of all above ground operational equipment b) The removal and clean up of any residual spills or contamination c) The rehabilitation of all storage, construction, access tracks and other areas affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise useful to the on‐going management of the subject land d) A decommissioning traffic management plan
PAGE 254 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 e) A post decommissioning revegetation management plan The decommissioning plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within 24 months of approval of the plan or within such other timeframe as may be specified by the Responsible Authority.
BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
41. The total advertisement area to each business identification sign must not exceed 3 square metres.
EXPIRY
42. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (i) the development is not started within 4 years of the date of this permit; (ii) the development is not completed within 8 years of the date of this permit. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
Notes: For the purpose of this permit, a host means the land holder of a property with a contract in respect of the installation of associated wind energy facility infrastructure on that person’s property.
PAGE 255 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
Appendix 4 Advisory Committee Recommended Permit
PAGE 256 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING Permit No: 2001/002
PERMIT Planning Scheme: Moorabool Planning Scheme
Responsible Authority for Administration and Enforcement of this Permit: Moorabool Shire Council unless specifically noted as the Minister for Planning
ADDRESS OF THE LAND: Certificate of Title Vol 03158 Fol 467 (TP 394862C).
Vol 05254 Fol 773 (TP 274780A – Crown Allotment 2B only).
Vol 08393 Fol 788 (TP 387669L – Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22 ‐ 35 inclusive, and 37 – 41 inclusive).
Vol 10863 Fol 734 (Lot 2 on PS 514040X).
Geelong‐Ballan Road‐ Road reserve at the Glenmore Road junction/ intersection.
Glenmore Road‐ Road reserve between Geelong‐Ballan Road and “Cut Hill”.
Road reserve to south of Glenmore Road reserve and abutting Lots 9 to 14/TP387669 as shown in Activity Area Map.
Road reserve to east of Geelong‐Ballan Road‐ Road reserve and abutting from Lot 6a‐2/PP2281 at western extent to 2/PS514040 at eastern extent as shown in
PAGE 257 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Figure 2.1.
Road reserve abutting Lot 2B‐4/PP2281, 7C‐3/PP2281 and 34/TP287669 as shown in Figure 2.1.
Road reserve abutting and between Lots 2B‐4/PP2281 and 7C‐3/PP2281 as shown in Figure 2.1.
Road reserve abutting and between Lot 40/TP387669 and 38/TP387669 as shown in Figure 2.1.
THE PERMIT ALLOWS: The use and development of a wind energy facility comprising 14 wind turbine generators and associated infrastructure including aviation safety lighting, access tracks, a permanent anemometer, underground cabling, a substation, excavation of rock and soil material, earthworks, temporary concrete batching plants, maintenance and storage facilities, car parking, and alterations to roads within the Road Zones Category 1 and 2.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:
PLANS TO BE ENDORSED
1. Before the development starts, plans must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans may be submitted for approval in stages or for a particular grouping of wind turbines within the subject land. When approved, the plans will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit. The plans must show the location and layout of the wind turbines and all on‐site buildings and works generally in accordance with the application plans. The plans must also include: a) A list of map coordinates for each wind turbine which is consistent with the positions shown in the Planning Application and accompanying plans.
PAGE 258 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 b) The distance of each wind turbine from the nearest point on the boundary of the subject land. c) Details of the make, model and rated capacity of the wind turbines to be installed. d) Elevation drawings, showing dimensions, of the wind turbines and other permanent on‐site buildings (e.g. substation facilities). e) Drawings, showing the key physical dimensions, of all on‐site buildings and works including: (i) Wind turbines. (ii) Access tracks. (iii) Internal collector network trenches. (iv) Any temporary concrete batching plant. (v) The substation (including designated car parking areas, signage and landscaping). (vi) Any ancillary works (e.g. temporary facilities and operations within construction compounds). f) A description of the materials and finishes of the wind turbines and other permanent on‐site buildings. g) An aviation obstacle lighting plan which includes a description of the location, type, baffling and intensity of any aviation obstacle lighting to be installed which is consistent with the details shown in the Planning Application and accompanying plans. h) The locations of scattered native trees and the boundaries of any patches of native vegetation. i) Turbine exclusion zones centred on the transmission vectors for fixed licences of point to point transmissions to which there is a possibility of electromagnetic interference with a width equal or greater than twice the sum of the blade length and 60% of the radius of the first Fresnel zone of any licensed link. The transmission vectors and the widths of the first Fresnel zones will be determined by a suitably qualified telecommunications expert.
PAGE 259 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
SPECIFICATIONS
2. The wind energy facility must meet the following requirements: a) The wind energy facility must comprise no more than 14 wind turbines. b) The overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the zenith of the sweep of the rotor blade tip) must not exceed 126.25 metres above foundation level. c) The wind turbines must be mounted on tubular steel and/or concrete towers. d) The diameter of the rotor of the wind turbines must not exceed 92.5 metres. e) The wind turbines, towers, nacelles and rotor blades and buildings, transformers and other significant structures must be of a non‐ reflective finish and colour. f) Access tracks within the subject land must, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning: (i) Have a surface material that will not unduly contrast with the landscape. (ii) Be designed to minimise impact on the farming activities on the land. (iii) Have an effective trafficable width of not less than 4 metres. g) The transformer associated with each wind turbine must either be enclosed within the tower, or be located beside each tower in an inconspicuous position when viewed from non‐host properties or the public road network and be pad mounted. h) All new electricity cabling associated with the internal collector network within the wind energy facility must be installed underground in accordance with the endorsed plans except with the written consent of the Minister for Planning. i) Except in the case of an emergency, no external lighting of infrastructure associated with the wind energy facility, other than low level security lighting and aviation obstacle lighting as provided for in condition 2(k), may be installed or operated without the further written consent of the Minister for Planning.
PAGE 260 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 j) All spare parts and other equipment and materials associated with the use of the wind energy facility must be located in screened locked storage areas that are inaccessible to the public. k) All turbines must be located outside the turbine exclusion zones shown on the endorsed development plan(s). l) If aviation obstacle lighting is to be installed, the minimum number and type of lights must be installed in accordance with an aviation obstacle lighting plan that has been endorsed by the Minister for Planning. Aviation obstacle lighting must not be activated unless: endorsed by the Minister for Planning on the advice of a risk assessment prepared for the operator by a member of the Risk Management Institution of Australasia, or obstacle lighting is required by CASA, or obstacle lighting is required for a specific purpose or period by a relevant authority.
LAYOUT NOT ALTERED
3. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Minister for Planning save that the micro‐siting of turbines and the related tracks and reticulation lines will be regarded as generally in accordance with the endorsed plan(s) if the Minister for Planning is satisfied that it will not give rise to any material adverse change in landscape, vegetation, cultural, visual, shadow or noise impacts compared to the endorsed development plan(s) and: a) The turbine location is altered by no more than 100 metres and, i. for turbines 5‐14, is not moved any closer to the Parwan Valley escarpment; ii. for turbines 1‐14, is not moved any closer to the nearest non‐ host dwelling to that turbine. b) No part of a wind turbine is located within: (i) 100 metres from a Road Zone Category 1, or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a road. (ii) 50 metres from any other road. (iii) 50 metres from any other property boundary. (iv) 1000 metres from a dwelling that is not a host dwelling.
PAGE 261 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (v) 100 metres from a waterway, wetlands or designated flood plain. (vi) Within an exclusion zone of any licensed communications links.
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE WORKS
4. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of preliminary investigative works, including geotechnical investigations, for the purposes of gathering data or making other assessments necessary or desirable in order to prepare any plans specified in this permit, is not considered to be commencement of the development.
NATIVE VEGETATION PROTECTION
5. Before works start at a work area within 100m of native vegetation or remnant trees, temporary fencing or tape must be installed around those areas of native vegetation or trees, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. Vehicular access within 20m of remnant trees must be prevented.
UPDATE OF AERONAUTICAL CHARTS
6. Not less than thirty days before the construction of any of the wind turbines starts, copies of the endorsed plan(s) must be provided to the Royal Australian Air Force’s Aeronautical Information Service to enable details of the wind energy facility to be shown on aeronautical charts of the area. Confirmation of this action having been taken is to be submitted to the Minister for Planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
7. Before the development starts, an environmental management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning in consultation with the relevant authorities or as directed by the Minister for Planning. The environmental management plan should be based on the approach outlined in Section 4.7 (Chapter 4) of the exhibited planning application report dated December 2009. The environmental management plan must include a copy of the development layout plan(s) as endorsed by the Minister for Planning. When approved, the environmental management plan will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.
PAGE 262 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 The environmental management plan must consider and generally be in accordance with: . EPA Publication 480: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites . EPA Publication 275: Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control . EPA Publication 891.1: Code of Practice, Onsite Wastewater Management . EPA Publication 628: Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry, and . EPA Publication 347: Bunding Guidelines The environmental management plan should, where appropriate, address and include: a) A construction and work site management plan which must include: (i) Procedures for access, construction, noise control, dust emissions, spills and leaks from the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials and pollution management. Such construction and work site procedures are to be in accordance with Environment Protection Authority (EPA) requirements. (ii) The identification of all potential contaminants and hazardous materials used and/or stored on site in connection with the development and use. (iii) The identification of all construction and operations processes that could potentially lead to water contamination. (iv) The identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational methods to control any identified contamination risks. (v) The identification of waste re‐use, recycling and disposal procedures. (vi) Appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff in accordance with the EPA Publication 891.1 Septic Tanks Code of Practice and the Land Capability Statement (Appendix 3.1) that accompanied the permit application. (vii) Procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and equipment use designated tracks and works areas to avoid impacts on native vegetation and on any areas identified by a Cultural
PAGE 263 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Heritage Management Plan or a site identified as of heritage interest. (viii) Procedures to ensure that excavations, trenches and holes that do not allow fauna and domestic stock egress are covered at night, and any trench, hole or excavation edge is protected by appropriate fencing against falling injury to stock or humans. (ix) The removal of temporary buildings and works on completion of construction of the project. b) Hazardous Materials. This plan must include: (i) The identification of all hazardous materials used or stored on‐ site in connection with the development and use. (ii) Procedures for the proper handling and storage of hazardous materials on‐site. (iii) Design criteria for any hazardous materials storage facilities on‐ site. (iv) Contingency measures to ensure that any spills or leaks of hazardous materials are contained on‐site and cleaned up in accordance with Environment Protection Authority requirements. c) Water Contamination, Sediment and Erosion Control This plan must be prepared in consultation with the Catchment Management Authority and other authorities as may be directed by the Minister for Planning. This plan must include (as appropriate to the site conditions): (i) The identification of all construction and operational processes that could potentially lead to water contamination. (ii) The identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational methods to control any identified contamination risks. (iii) Procedures for the management of contaminated waste water. (iv) Procedures for the discharge of collected runoff. (v) Procedures to ensure that silt from batters, cut‐off drains, table drains and road works is not washed into watercourses and is retained on the site during and after the construction stage of the project. To this end:
PAGE 264 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (a) All land disturbances must be confined to a minimum practical working area and to the vicinity of the identified works areas. (b) Soil to be removed must be stockpiled. Top soil should be retained in a separate stockpile and not mixed. (c) Stockpiles must be located away from drainage lines. (vi) The installation of geotextile silt fences (with sedimentation basins where appropriate) on all drainage lines from the site which are likely to receive runoff from disturbed areas. (vii) A process for overland flow management to prevent the concentration and diversion of waters onto steep or erosion prone slopes. (viii) A requirement for timely remediation of localised erosion. d) Waste Control. This plan must include: (i) The identification of waste reuse, recycling and disposal procedures. (ii) Pollution management measures for stored and stockpiled materials including waste materials, litter and any other potential source of water pollution. e) Sanitation and Wastewater. This plan must include appropriate sanitary facilities and management of the wastewater at the temporary construction compound and permanent facilities for construction works, maintenance staff, operations personnel and visitors is required. f) Construction Practices that include: (i) Procedures to protect, as far as practicable, native fauna and domestic stock from being injured by or entrapped in excavations or trenches and to fill trenches as soon as practical after excavation. (ii) Procedures for the removal of temporary works, buildings and staging areas on completion of construction of the development. g) Concrete Batching Plant (i) Procedures to prevent pollution of the local waterways, particularly from wash water and waste concrete materials.
PAGE 265 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (ii) Procedures for the operation and removal of any temporary concrete batching plants and for the reinstatement of the site once its use finishes. h) Dust Control Procedures to suppress dust from construction related activities. i) A blasting plan. This plan must include: (i). The name, qualification and company of the person responsible for blasting. (ii). A description of the location of where the explosives will be used, and the location of every licensed water bore on any property with an adjoining boundary within 1km of the location of the blasting. (iii). A requirement for the identification and assessment of any non‐ host dwelling within 1.5 km of the location of the blasting, subject to the landowner’s agreement, including the procedure for pre‐blast and post‐blast qualitative measurement or monitoring at such site(s). (iv). The procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation. (v). The procedure for the storage and handling of explosives. (vi). A requirement that blasting only occur after at least 48 hours prior notification in writing of the intention to undertake blasting has been given to the occupants of the properties which are located in whole or in part within 1 km of the location of the proposed blasting. (vii). A requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the hours of 8am and 4pm. j) Pest Management (i) A pest animal management plan, to cover the construction period, to be prepared in consultation with the landowners, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these departments. This plan must include: (a) Procedures for the management of pest animal populations (e.g. rabbits), particularly by avoiding opportunities for sheltering of pests during the construction period.
PAGE 266 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (b) Follow‐up pest animal control for all areas disturbed by the wind energy facility construction works for a period of two years following the completion of the wind energy facility. (ii) A weed management plan developed in consultation with the landowners, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these departments, that includes: (a) Procedures to prevent the spread of weeds from earth moving equipment and associated machinery. (b) A requirement for sowing of disturbed areas with perennial grasses or returned to cropping. (c) A procedure to ensure follow up weed control is undertaken on all areas disturbed through construction of the wind energy facility for a minimum period of 2 years following completion of the works. (d) Procedures for the ongoing management of pest animal populations including a programme of early identification and eradication. k) Training A training program for construction workers, permanent employees and contractors at the wind energy facility site including a site induction program relating to the range of issues addressed by the environmental management plan for the construction and post‐ construction phases. l) Incident Management (i) A procedure for the establishment and maintenance of an incident register for the recording of: (a) Potential or actual breaches of this planning permit. (b) Corrective actions. (ii) The register must contain advice as to whom the reports must be made and be available on request for inspection by the public during normal working hours and its contents should be reported to the Responsible Authority as required. m) Modifications
Minor modifications to the environmental management plan may be made without the need for that modification to be endorsed by the
PAGE 267 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Minister for Planning, subject to advice of any such modification being provided to the Minister for Planning and Responsible Authority.
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
8. The environmental management plan must be reviewed at least once every 5 years in consultation with the Responsible Authority, and if necessary amended to reflect operational experience and changes in environmental management standards and techniques. Any such amendment of the environmental management plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for endorsement.
COMPLAINTS MANAGEMENT PLAN
9. Before the development starts, a complaints management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The complaints management plan will be designed in accordance with Australian Standard Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organizations (ISO 1002:2006) having regard to the guidance provided in The why and how of complaints handling HB 229‐2006. The complaints management plan will include procedures for: a) Providing readily accessible information on how complaints can be made free of cost to complainants. b) Immediate acknowledgement of complaints and regular and comprehensive feedback to complainants on actions proposed, their implementation and success or otherwise. c) Closure of complaints by agreement with complainants. d) Establishment and maintenance of a complaint register for the recording of receipt and acknowledgement of complaints, actions taken, success or otherwise of actions and complaint closure and for the register to be available to the public during normal working hours. e) Reporting of the contents of the complaint register to the Responsible Authority as required. f) Regular, at least annual, auditing of the implementation of the complaints management plan with audit results being reported to the Minister for Planning and the Responsible Authority.
PAGE 268 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
ON‐SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN
10. Within six months of the endorsement of the plans referred to in Condition 1 and before the development starts, an on‐site landscaping plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the on‐site landscaping plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The on‐site landscaping plan must: a) Include plans drawn to scale showing the extent and layout of any landscape plantings to be used to visually screen or otherwise beautify any on‐site buildings or works other than the wind turbines. b) Provide details of plant species proposed to be used in the landscape plantings, including height and spread at maturity. c) Provide a timetable for implementation of all landscape plantings. d) Provide for maintenance and monitoring program.
OFF‐SITE LANDSCAPING PLAN
11. Within 6 months of the date of endorsement of the plans under Condition 1 a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works must be developed.
a) The program must be made available to the owners of dwellings built at the time the planning permit is granted for the wind energy facility which are located within 3 kilometres of the nearest turbine and which have an unobstructed view of one full rotor swept area of a turbine, from within the dwelling or within 50 metres of the dwelling. b) The offers to landscape dwellings identified in the program referred to in Condition 11(a) must be made before development starts and remain available up until 12 months after the erection of the last wind turbine of the development. c) If a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works is accepted by one or more owners under Condition 11(a), as part of that program, an off‐site landscaping plan must be prepared in consultation with the landowners specified in Condition 11(a) to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.
12. The off‐site landscaping plan must provide details of planting and other treatments that will be used including:
PAGE 269 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 a) Details of the landscaping necessary to mitigate visual impacts of the wind energy facility, including plant species to be used and the expected height and spread of plants at maturity. b) The maintenance of landscaping for a period of two years. c) A timetable for implementation of the landscaping works. d) An estimate of the reasonable costs of landscaping and maintenance works. The wind energy facility operator or developer must pay the full cost for design and implementation of the off‐site landscaping plans and the cost of the recommended 2 years maintenance plan as described in the endorsed off‐site landscaping plan, but any of these tasks may be undertaken or arranged by the landowner.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
13. Before the development starts a traffic management plan must be prepared, in consultation with Moorabool Shire Council and VicRoads, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will form part of this permit. The traffic management plan must: a) If the proposed Moorabool wind energy facility has been issued a planning permit and construction of the two facilities are scheduled to overlap, include a plan for consultation between the two permit holders, Moorabool Shire Council and VicRoads as to the appropriate approach to each of the matters in Condition 13(b) – (l). b) Identify all public roads and access points that will be used in the construction and operation of the wind energy facility. c) Provide for an existing conditions survey of Glenmore Road in consultation with Moorabool Shire Council including details of the suitability, design, construction standards and condition of the roads to enable, for sealed roads, the calculation of Total ESA (Equivalent Standard Axles) loading for comparison with the appropriate Austroads pavement design guide. d) Establish the appropriate existing equivalent renewal pavement design and associated costs for Glenmore Road in conjunction with Moorabool Shire Council and establish the calculated damage (if any) directly attributable to the wind energy facility and the amount (if any) to be reimbursed to Moorabool Shire Council.
PAGE 270 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 e) Include the designation of routes, operating hours and speed limits for oversize vehicles and other heavy vehicles on all routes between the Western Freeway and site access, and Princess Highway and site access, so as to avoid interference with the passage of school buses and to provide for resident safety and the safe management of stock. f) Provide details of any large over dimensional vehicles to be used (such as those used for the transport of the nacelles, blades and tower sections) and details of the routes to be taken, the proposed escort arrangements and requirements for over dimensional permits from VicRoads. g) Specify the need for road and intersection upgrades to accommodate any additional traffic or site access requirements, whether temporary or ongoing, and the timing of when these upgrades are to be undertaken. h) Include measures to be used to manage traffic impacts associated with the construction and ongoing operation of the wind energy facility (including temporary speed zones and times of operation in accordance with VicRoads ‘Roadworks Signing Code of Practice’) on the traffic volumes and flows on surrounding roads. i) Include provision of a process for notification to road users of expected delays and road closures. j) Identify any areas of roadside native vegetation which need removal or pruning and the pruning practices to be followed. k) Include a program of regular inspections of Glenmore Road, to be carried out during the construction period, to identify the need for maintenance works necessary as a result of construction traffic. l) Include agreed criteria that will trigger repair and maintenance works to Glenmore Road. m) Include a program to rehabilitate Glenmore Road to the pre‐existing condition identified by the above surveys at the cost of the operator.
ROADWORKS REQUIREMENTS (VICROADS)
14. Prior to the start of the development the developer must: a) Submit final detailed construction drawings of the altered intersection (Geelong‐Ballan Road and Glenmore Road) including line marking to be approved by VicRoads. b) Prepare a specification for the works in accordance with the relevant sections of the VicRoads’ Standard Specification For Roadworks.
PAGE 271 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 15. All roadworks on roads managed by VicRoads must be completed to the satisfaction of VicRoads prior to the commencement of the development.
16. All works must be at the developers cost.
17. The contractor must be VicRoads approved or prequalified at R1 level.
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
18. Before the development starts an emergency response plan must be prepared and approved by the Minister for Planning. When approved the emergency response plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The emergency response plan must be generally in accordance with “Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms” (Country Fire Authority April 2007). The emergency response plan must be prepared in consultation with: . Moorabool Shire Council . Country Fire Authority . Victoria Police . Rural Ambulance Victoria . Parks Victoria . State Emergency Service.
The emergency response plan should generally conform to “AS 3745‐2002 Emergency control organization and procedures for buildings, structures and workplaces”, or any subsequent replacement or amendment. Australian/New Zealand Standard “AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management ‐ Principles and guidelines” is to be used to identify risks and enable appropriate treatments to be developed and incorporated into the Emergency Response Plan. The emergency response plan must include: a) Criteria for the provision of static water supply tanks, solely for fire fighting purposes, including minimum capacities, appropriate connections and signage. b) Procedures for vegetation management, fuel control and the provision of fire fighting equipment. c) Minimum standards for access roads and tracks, to allow access for fire fighting vehicles, including access to static water supply tanks.
PAGE 272 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 d) The facilitation by the wind energy facility operator, before or within 3 months after the commencement of operation, of a familiarisation visit to the site and explanation of emergency services procedures for the relevant members of the Country Fire Authority, Rural Ambulance Victoria, Victoria Police, State Emergency Service, Parks Victoria and Moorabool Shire’s Emergency Response Management Committee. e) Subsequent familiarisation sessions for new personnel of those organisations as required. f) If requested, training of Country Fire Authority personnel in relation to suppression of wind energy facility fires.
BAT AND BIRD MANAGEMENT PLAN
19. Before the development commences a bat and bird management plan (BBMP) must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and the Department of Sustainability and Environment. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The BBMP must include: a) A statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind energy facility operations. b) A monitoring program starting from date of the commissioning of the first turbine and continuing for at least five years after the commissioning of the last turbine. This plan will include: (i). Procedures for detecting and recording strikes of all native species of bats and birds including information on the species, number, age, sex (if possible), date of strikes, and seasonal and yearly variation in the number of strikes. The procedures will include a requirement for site surveys for evidence of any mortality to be carried out at least once per week. (ii). Procedures for the reporting of any strikes of Wedge‐tailed Eagles, Bent‐wing Bats or any other species listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 to the Department of Sustainability and Environment within 7 days of the operator becoming aware of any strike. (iii). Details on the efficacy of searches for carcases of birds and bats, and where practical, information on the rate of removal of carcases by scavengers, so that correction factors for observer efficiency can be determined to enable calculations of the total number of mortalities.
PAGE 273 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (iv).Recommendations in relation to the mortality rate for Wedge tailed Eagles or Bent‐wing Bats which would trigger the requirement for responsive mitigation measures to be undertaken. (v). In addition to the other reporting requirements specified above, requirements for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes, of the findings of the monitoring program to the Department of Sustainability and Environment. c) A survey program to be carried out in at least three of the first five years after commissioning of the first turbine to determine the impact of the operation of the wind energy facility on the local Wedge‐tailed Eagle population and will include: (i). Assessment of the presence, behaviour and movements of any Wedge‐tailed Eagles especially breeding pairs in the vicinity of the wind energy facility. (ii). Requirements for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes, of the findings of the survey program to the Department of Sustainability and Environment. d) Procedures for the regular removal (at least weekly) of carrion (including livestock, native animals and pest animals) likely to attract raptors to areas near the turbines. e) Protocols as agreed with the land owner that the paddocks in the vicinity of the turbines are not to be used for lambing. f) A program to explore techniques such as blade marking that could result in the turbine blades being more visible to Wedge‐tailed Eagles. g) Procedures to make available the results of the monitoring and survey programs to the community after being verified by the Department Sustainability and Environment.
STRATEGY FOR MITIGATION OF ECOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON BATS AND BIRDS
20. In the event that impacts detected during the BBMP’s monitoring program are considered by the Department of Sustainability and Environment to be ecologically significant to the population of native species of bats and birds or reach the trigger rate(s) determined for Wedge‐tailed Eagles and Bent‐wing Bats, a mitigation strategy must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. When approved the mitigation strategy will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.
PAGE 274 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Implementation of the strategy is to be to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
TELEVISION, RADIO AND MOBILE TELEPHONE RECEPTION
21. Before the development starts a television, radio and telephone reception plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The television, radio and telephone reception plan must include: a) A definition of the area to be covered by the television, radio and telephone reception plan (the defined area) based on the recommendations of a suitably qualified expert. b) A pre‐construction survey to determine television, radio and telephone reception strength and quality at locations within the defined area, completed prior to the commissioning of any turbine. The location of such monitoring is to be determined by an independent television, radio and telephone monitoring specialist appointed by the wind energy facility operator c) A procedure for a post‐construction survey at any dwelling in the defined area that existed at the date of the pre‐construction survey in response to any complaint received regarding the wind energy facility having an adverse effect on television, radio or telephone reception. d) A procedure for the implementation of mitigation measures at any dwelling in the defined area that existed at the date of the pre‐ construction survey if the post‐construction survey establishes any increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind energy facility operations. The mitigation measures shall return the affected reception to pre‐construction quality and be undertaken at the cost of the wind energy facility operator, all to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
BLADE SHADOW FLICKER
22. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per annum at any dwelling existing as at the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from this condition. This exemption will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner that will apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on title.
PAGE 275 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 EXEMPTION FROM NOISE LIMITS
23. Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from the following noise related conditions except: a) If a permit is issued for the proposed Moorabool wind energy facility, no dwelling may be exempt from the requirements of Conditions 25 or 26 of this permit. b) If the Moorabool wind energy facility is operational no dwelling may be exempt from the requirements of Conditions 28 to 32 inclusive, of this permit. Exemptions will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner that must apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on title. Such dwellings will be known as host dwellings. Dwellings that are not so exempted will be known as non‐host dwellings.
PRE‐DEVELOPMENT NOISE ASSESSMENTS
24. Before the development starts a pre‐development noise assessment of the wind energy facility must be completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The pre‐development noise assessment must be completed in accordance with New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998 Acoustics ‐ The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators (NZS6808:1998) and satisfy the following criteria: a) All aspects of the assessment must be conducted by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic expert. b) Predictions of wind energy facility sound levels must be made using: (i) The sound propagation model described on Clause 4.3 of NZS6808:1998 except that attenuation due to air absorption may be determined by a method that accounts for the spectral content of turbine noise emissions providing the method used does not predict an overall attenuation rate greater than 0.005 dB(A) per metre. (ii) Sound power levels for the turbine make and model specified in the endorsed plan required under Condition 1 of this permit. (iii) The turbine layout and dimensions shown in the endorsed plan required under Condition 1 of this permit. (iv) The combined sound level of all turbines in full operation or some alternative mode of operation described in a noise management plan included in the pre‐development noise assessment that includes:
PAGE 276 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (a) Details of the proposed mode of operation. (b) Predictions of the effect of the implementation of the noise management plan on noise emissions from the wind energy facility. c) Measurements of background sound levels made simultaneously with measurements of wind speed and wind direction in accordance with NZS6808:1998 at, at least, all locations where the predicted wind energy facility sound level is 40 dB(A), or greater. This requirement may be waived at particular dwellings if a genuine attempt to obtain landowner consent for such measurements at that dwelling is unsuccessful. In such circumstances evidence of an attempt made to obtain consent must be provided with the pre‐ development assessment. d) All wind speed measurements made at the proposed turbine hub height. e) Data sets used to determine the correlations of background sound levels with wind speed that meet the following criteria: (i) At least 500 noise level/wind speed data pairs. (ii) Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds greater than 8 m/s. (iii) Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds less than 4 m/s. f) All correlations of background sound level with wind speed shall have a coefficient of determination (R2 value) of 0.5 or greater. g) A noise limit of 40 dB(A) at all wind speeds at dwellings where the criteria in (e) and (f) above cannot be met. h) The inclusion of: (i) Separate correlations of background sound levels with wind speed for different directions or (ii) An explanation of why such correlations are not required or (iii) Correlations of background sound levels with wind speed from data sets that satisfy the criteria specified in Condition 29 part (f),(i) of this permit.
PAGE 277 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 25. If a permit has been issued for the proposed Moorabool wind energy facility then, before the development starts, a pre‐development cumulative noise assessment of the wind energy facility and the Moorabool wind energy facility must be completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The pre‐development cumulative noise assessment must be completed in accordance with criteria specified in Condition 24 of this permit except for the following: a) The sound propagation model used may modified to account for the effect of wind direction on sound propagation to enable predictions of the combined wind energy facility sound levels with the wind direction being from the Moorabool wind energy facility to dwellings and on to the Yaloak South wind energy facility. b) The wind energy facility developer will use its best endeavours to obtain: (i) Sound power levels for the turbine make and model installed or to be installed at the Moorabool wind energy facility. (ii) The layout and dimensions of the constructed or to be constructed Moorabool wind energy facility. If despite the wind energy facility developer’s best endeavours, this information cannot be obtained, data contained within Appendix 10.1 of the Planning Application Report for this Application may be used for this assessment. c) The results of measurements made of background sound level made simultaneously with measurements of wind speed and wind direction in accordance with NZS6808:1998 at, as a minimum, all locations where the predicted combined wind energy facility sound level is 35 dB(A), or greater will be obtained and used in pre‐development cumulative noise assessment. This requirement may be waived if genuine attempts to obtain landowner consent for such measurements are unsuccessful. In such circumstances evidence of attempts made to obtain consent must be provided with the pre‐development cumulative assessment. d) The inclusion of correlations of background sound levels with wind speed from data sets that satisfy the criteria specified in Condition 29 part (f), (i) of this permit.
26. The developer of the wind energy facility shall appoint a suitably qualified and experienced acoustics expert or experts to audit the conduct of both pre‐development noise assessments required by
PAGE 278 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Conditions 24 and 25 of this permit (the assessments). The expert(s) so appointed will: a) Be independent of the wind energy facility developer and the acoustic expert(s) completing the assessments. b) Be an employee or associate of a member of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants or be a Fellow of the Australian Acoustical Society. c) Conduct audits of the assessments considering, at least: (i) The sound power data utilised for prediction of wind energy facility sound levels at dwellings. (ii) The selection of dwellings for assessment. (iii) Compliance with NZS6808:1998 in regard to background sound level measurement including the requirement of compliance with New Zealand Standard NZS6801 Acoustics‐ Measurement of Environmental Sound (NZS6801). (iv) The noise propagation models utilised. (v) Satisfaction of the criteria specified in this permit for the correlations of background sound level with wind speed. d) Provide audit reports to the Minister for Planning that include certification that the assessments: (i) Have been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and other criteria specified in this permit. (ii) Provide predictions of compliance with the noise limits specified in this permit at all non‐host dwellings.
NOISE LIMITS
27. Construction of the wind energy facility must comply with noise criteria specified in the Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria, (N3/89) at any non‐host dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility as at the date of the issue of this permit to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
28. The operation of the wind energy facility both alone and in combination with the Moorabool wind energy facility, if constructed, must comply with the noise criteria specified in NZS6808:1998 at any non‐host dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility as at the date of the issue of this permit. In determining compliance the following requirements apply:
PAGE 279 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 a) The sound level from the wind energy facility, or facilities, within 20 metres of any dwelling must not exceed a level of 40dBA (L95) or where the relationship between background noise levels and wind speed has been determined by the method specified in Condition 29 f) (i) of this permit, the background noise level by more than 5dBA, or a level of 40dBA L95, whichever is the greater. b) Compliance must be assessed separately for all‐time and night time. For the purpose of this requirement, night time is defined as 10.00pm to 7.00am.
NOISE COMPLIANCE TESTING
29. Before the development starts, a noise compliance testing plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustics expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the noise compliance testing plan will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit. The noise compliance testing plan must include: a) A determination of the noise limits to be applied during construction using the methodology prescribed in the Interim Guidelines for the Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria, N3/89. b) A program of compliance testing to be implemented during the construction of the wind energy facility that: (i) Is designed by a suitably qualified acoustic expert. (ii) Utilises the methodology prescribed in State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N‐1, to demonstrate compliance with the limits determined in (a) above. c) A prediction, by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, of: (i) The area within which the noise level from the wind energy facility during operation in the operational mode assumed for the pre‐development noise assessment required by Condition 24 of this permit is predicted to be 35dB(A) or greater. (ii) If a permit has been issued for the Moorabool wind energy facility, the area within which the noise level from the wind energy facility and the Moorabool wind energy facility during operation of both wind energy facilities in the operational modes assumed for the pre‐development cumulative noise assessment required by Condition 25 of this permit is predicted to be 35dB(A) or greater.
PAGE 280 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 d) Identification of all non host dwellings within the area predicted in c) (i) above and all dwellings within the area predicted in c) (ii) above and a statement as to whether consent from the owner of each of the identified dwellings for compliance testing has been obtained or refused. e) A method or methods of determining if the noise from the wind energy facility, or facilities, has special audible characteristic and the application of a penalty of 5 dB(A) to measured sound levels if such characteristics are found to be present. The methods will include: (i) For tonality – That referred to in the note to 5.3.2 of NZS6808:1998 or the “Reference Method” referred to in Appendix B (B2.3) of New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (NZS6808:2010). (ii) For Amplitude Modulation – The “Interim Test Method” referred to in Appendix B (B3.2) of NZS6808:2010. f) A method or methods of testing compliance with the noise limits prescribed in Condition 28 of this permit for each dwelling identified in (d) above for which consent for the conduct of compliance testing has been obtained. The compliance testing method must be either: (i) The method described in NZS6808:1998 with the following additional criteria being met: (a) The correlations of sound levels with wind speed must be derived from data sets: Of at least 500 noise level/wind speed data pairs. Including wind speed measurements made at turbine hub height. Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds greater than 8 m/s. Including at least 10 data pairs or 1% of the total number of data pairs whichever is the greater at wind speeds less than 4 m/s. With the percentage of data pairs that are the results of measurements made with the wind in the direction from the wind energy facility to the dwelling being equal or greater than values determined in (g) below.
PAGE 281 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (b) The coefficient of determination for the regression curves will be 0.5 or greater. or: (ii) A method, designed by a suitably qualified acoustics expert, in which measurements of operating and background noise levels are measured with: (a) Background noise levels being measured with all turbines that, when operating, influence the noise level at the dwelling, shut down. (b) The wind in the direction from the wind energy facility to the dwelling for at least 50% of the measurement period. g) For each dwelling at which compliance testing is to be performed, determination of the maximum monthly proportions of the wind direction distribution that is from the wind energy facility to the dwelling, plus or minus 22.5 degrees. If the Moorabool wind energy facility is in operation, for dwellings identified in the pre‐development cumulative assessment required by Condition 25 of this permit maximum monthly proportion of the wind direction distribution that is from the Moorabool wind energy facility to the dwelling, plus or minus 22.5 degrees. h) A schedule for compliance testing under which compliance testing at all identified dwellings for which consent for such testing has been obtained is performed in the 14 months following the commissioning of the last turbine in a section of the wind energy facility or a stage of the wind energy facility, if the development is in stages, and repeated between 10 and 14 months after the first compliance test. Measurements of sound levels with wind energy facilities in operation made at one dwelling in a group of dwellings may be taken as representative of the wind energy facility sound levels during operation of the wind energy facilities at other dwellings in the group if: (i) The wind energy facility sound level predicted using the model utilised for the assessment required by Condition 24 or 25 of this permit at the dwelling is less than the predicted WEF sound level at the dwelling at which operating sound levels have been measured; or
PAGE 282 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (ii) The difference between the predicted wind energy facility sound level the dwelling and that at which measurements of operating sound levels have been made is less than 0.25 dB(A). i) A procedure under which all results of compliance testing conducted in any month are reported to the Responsible Authority by the 15th day of the following month and to the owners and occupiers of particular dwellings as soon as results relating to that particular dwelling are available. j) A procedure under which the implementation of the noise compliance testing plan is directed and supervised by a suitable qualified acoustic expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
30. The developer of the wind energy facility shall appoint a suitably qualified acoustic expert, or experts, to provide a review of the noise compliance testing plan prior to its submission to the Minister for Planning. The expert(s) so appointed will: a) Satisfy the criteria contained in (a) and (b) of Condition 26 of this permit. b) Review the noise compliance testing plan and provide a report to the Minister for Planning, submitted in conjunction with the noise compliance testing plan, which provides the results of the review and an opinion as to whether implementation of the plan can be reasonably expected to satisfy the requirements of this permit in regard to compliance testing.
31. The developer of the wind energy facility shall appoint a suitably qualified acoustic expert or experts to audit the implementation of the noise compliance testing plan. The expert(s) so appointed will: a) Satisfy the criteria contained (a) and (b) of Condition 26 of this permit. b) Conduct audits of the implementation of the noise compliance testing plan, including consideration of, at least: (i) The complete and timely implementation of the noise compliance testing plan. (ii) Compliance with NZS6808:1998 in regard to sound level measurements including the requirement of compliance with the latest version of NZS6801. (iii) Satisfaction of the criteria specified in this permit for the conduct of compliance testing.
PAGE 283 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 c) Provide audit reports to the Minister for Planning that include certification that: (i) The noise compliance testing has been completed in accordance with NZS6808:1998 and other criteria specified in this permit. (ii) Compliance has been demonstrated or, if this is not the case, the estimated quantum by limits have been exceeded can be relied upon.
NOISE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT
32. If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in Condition 28 of this permit is detected through the compliance testing program the wind energy facility operator must: a) Within 5 days of the detection of the exceedance: (i) If the exceedance is at a dwelling not included in the assessment required by Condition 25 of this permit, take sufficient actions to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling, as predicted using the prediction methodology utilised for the assessment required by Condition 24, by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of exceedance. (ii) If the exceedance is at a dwelling included in the assessment required by Condition 25 of this permit and the Moorabool wind energy facility is in operation: (a) Use best endeavours to come to agreement with the operator of the Moorabool wind energy facility to take joint actions immediately to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling. as predicted using the prediction methodology utilised for the assessment required by Condition 25, by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of exceedance. (b) If no such agreement can be reached, take sufficient actions to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling, as predicted using the prediction methodology utilised for the assessment required by Condition 25, by an amount equal to or greater than half of the amount of exceedance. (c) Satisfy the remaining requirements of this condition with the amount of the exceedance deemed to be half of that measured.
PAGE 284 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 b) Within 7 days of the detection of the exceedance, provide the Responsible Authority and the owner/occupier of the dwelling with: (i) The results of the compliance testing measurements including the magnitude of the detected exceedance. (ii) The results of attempts to negotiate agreement with the operator of the Moorabool wind energy facility on actions taken, if such agreement is relevant. (iii) Details of the actions taken to reduce the wind energy facility noise emissions. (iv) Evidence that the actions taken will produce a decrease in the wind energy facility noise level at the dwelling by an amount equal to the magnitude of the exceedance based on a prediction using the methodology utilised for the relevant pre‐development assessment. c) Continue to operate the wind energy facility with the implemented actions until approval for a different mode of operation is given by the Responsible Authority under the provision of (d) below. d) Within 60 days of the detection of an exceedance provide the Responsible Authority and owner/occupier of the dwelling with either: (i) The results of compliance testing and an audit of that testing using the methods satisfying the criteria prescribed in Condition 29 part (f) and Condition 3 of this permit that demonstrate compliance. or (ii) A program for the development and evaluation of an alternative mode or modes of wind energy facility operation that can be reasonably be expected to result in continuing compliance with noise levels specified in Condition 28 of this permit. The program will: (a) Be developed and implemented under the supervision of a suitably qualified acoustics expert. (b) Include detailed descriptions of proposed actions. (c) Include predictions of wind energy facility noise levels at the dwelling at each stage of the program. (d) Not include any actions or combination of actions that are predicted to result in non‐compliance.
PAGE 285 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 (e) Include compliance testing using method(s) satisfying the criteria prescribed in Condition 29 part (f) and Condition 31 of this permit both as the final step in the program and with that compliance testing being repeated after between 10 and 14 months. (f) Include a program schedule that specifies the timing of each stage of the program. (g) Have been reviewed by a suitable qualified acoustic expert satisfying the criteria contained in (a) and (b) of Condition 26 of this permit with a report on that review that provides the author’s opinion in regard to a reasonable expectation that the implementation of the program will not result in non‐ compliance. Within 10 days of receipt of the program and a report on the review of the program, the Responsible Authority may: (h) Approve the implementation of the program. or (i) Advise the wind energy facility operator of modifications to the program that are required before approval will be granted. If no response is provided by the Responsible Authority within 10 days then the program will be deemed to be approved. If the Responsible Authority requires the program to be modified, the wind energy facility operator may either submit a modified program or immediately withdraw the program and conduct compliance testing using methods satisfying the criteria prescribed in Condition 29 part (f) and Condition 31 of this permit. Following implementation of the program, the wind energy facility operator may provide the Responsible Authority and the owner/occupier with a detailed description of an alternative mode of operation of the wind energy facility together with evidence that under that mode of operation compliance can be expected, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Given such information and evidence the Responsible Authority may approve the operation of the wind energy facility in the alternative mode and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld.
PAGE 286 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010
DECOMMISSIONING
33. The wind energy facility operator must, no later than one month after all wind turbines have permanently ceased to generate electric facility, notify the Minister for Planning in writing of the cessation of the use. Within a further six months of this date, the wind energy facility operator, or in the absence of the operator, the owner of the land on which the relevant turbines(s) is/are located, must prepare a decommissioning plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the decommissioning plan will become part of this permit.
34. The decommissioning plan must provide for the following: a) The removal of all above ground operational equipment. b) The removal and clean up of any residual spills or contamination. c) The rehabilitation of all storage, construction, access tracks and other areas affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise useful to the on‐going management of the subject land. d) A decommissioning traffic management plan. e) A post decommissioning revegetation management plan. The decommissioning plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within 24 months of approval of the plan or within such other timeframe as may be specified by the Responsible Authority.
POWERCOR
35. Any construction work must comply with the Office of the Chief Electrical Inspector “no Go Zone” rules.
EXPIRY
36. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within 4 years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within 8 years of the date of this permit. The Minister for Planning may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
PAGE 287 MOORABOOL PLANNING SCHEME PERMIT APPLICATION 2010/002 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW P664/2010 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2010 Notes: Prior to commencing any works in, on, under or over the arterial road reserve, the developer must first apply for, and receive written consent from VicRoads for those works in accordance with section 63 of the Road Management Act 2004. COMPLAINTS MADE TO THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY If a complaint is received by the Responsible Authority in regard to the wind energy facility the Responsible Authority will address the complaint generally in accordance with the following process: a. After consideration of the views of the complainant and the wind energy facility operator, determine if a dispute exists with a dispute being defined as a matter remaining unresolved after application of the complaints management plan b. If a dispute is not identified, advise the complainant and the wind energy facility operator that the provisions of the complaint management plan should be utilised, and c. If it is determined that a dispute exists, determine if there is a breach of the permit and if such a breach exists take action to enforce compliance with the permit. In determining whether a breach exists the Responsible Authority may require the wind energy facility operator to: i. Commission a suitably qualified expert to provide an opinion as to whether a breach exists, and/or ii. Conduct compliance testing.
PAGE 288