CLARE & GILBERT VALLEYS COUNCIL

NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

Notice is given that a Special Meeting of the Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council will be held at the Council Chambers, 4 Gleeson Street, Clare on Monday 25 March 2013 commencing at 7.00pm. This special meeting of Council was called by Mayor Aughey in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.

Roy D Blight Chief Executive Officer

18 March 2013

AGENDA

1.0 Opening and Welcome

1.1 Present 1.2 Apologies

2.0 Business

2.1 Conduct of Public Hearing - Strategic Directions Report 2012

The public hearing is conducted, as required under Section 30 of the Development Act, to allow those people who have made submissions to be heard before Council.

There is no debate or decision making at a public hearing – the purpose is to provide those people who have made submissions to present their views to Council.

The Mayor would normally allow up to five (5) minutes for each presentation.

Following the public consultation undertaken on the Strategic Directions Report 2012, submissions were received from:

Page No  Richard Wood * 1  Aileen Pelly 18  Saddleworth & District Community Association* 19  Mintaro Progress Association* 21  Regional Development Australia Yorke & Mid North 25  Petrie McCabe (represented by Masterplan)* 27  PW & GE Lamkin* 38  Vince Daly 39  Justin & Libby Brady 40  Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure 41  Mount Horrocks Historical Society Inc 43  RenewablesSA, Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, 52 Resources and Energy  Sandy Hansen 58  Clean Energy Council 69  Glen Acres Pty Ltd, Kym Davis* 80  Andrew Aworth 90  John Hawke* 96  Des Menz 115  Energy Australia 119  Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council 124

Those identified with an asterisk* have asked to be heard.

The Administration will provide a summary of all submissions with recommendations on any proposed changes to the Strategic Directions Report, for Council consideration, to a future Council meeting.

The Strategic Directions Report is then submitted to the Minister to finalise the process.

Recommendation

1. That the report be received and noted.

2. That following the conduct of the Public Hearing on the Strategic Directions Report the Administration prepares a report to a future Council meeting in relation to submissions received and associated recommendations for consideration by Council.

3.0 Closure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 SADDLEWORTH PEAK BODY (Saddleworth District Community association Inc)

Minutes from informal Meeting 4th December 2012

Present: D Crawford, B Coupar, S Humphrys, A Nourse,

Apologies: P & R Richardson, L Talbot

Absent: N Lewcock, D Gibbs, T Schmidtke, H Ritter

No minutes from last meeting available therefore none were read or addressed.

No treasurers report presented.

Discussion on Strategic plan available at Council office for review. Points from this initial view are:

Proposed housing at oval entrance. There are houses already on the market in Saddleworth that are not selling. What jobs are available locally for prospective residents. Discussion that many local workers live out of the town rather than purchase locally due to services available.

Suggest that there be a buffer zone on Marrabel Road between the last house and AW Vaters to protect industrial areas being built right next to residential.

On page 21 it states that Saddleworth is a Railhead for grain production in the area. How old is the material and statistics in this document?

Sue spoke to Council re maintenance of vines on RSL building as their state was causing hazards from residents getting caught up and blocking clear vision while crossing the road. Response was that it was Council responsibility. Noted that Council did other vines on Belvidere Road but did not address the ones requested. Therefore Adrian did RSL & IGA but still need the final tidy up as he didn’t have a ladder at the time. Hopefully Council will address before the street Party on 15th December.

Street Party plans are all going to plan with extra funding gained from Energy Australia. Committee purchased street decorations to brighten the town. Decorating started tonight.

Working bee next Sunday 9th to install last of this years allocated wine barrels & plants. Denise Crawford has been watering those already done. Positive comments back from community. Also to shovel weeds from gutters as this again has not been addressed by Council.

Sue to check with Council again re status of Benger Park. Council has always maintained this area which now looks over grown and dead branches hanging over fences detracting from Saddleworth’s main thoroughfare. This affects the outlook of our township.

Next Newsletter Jan/Feb. Sue was finally able to complete and hand delivered the township and placed some at Manoora, Marrabel, Hotels, Roadhouse, Vaters, Library & IGA to get better coverage to our community. Positive feedback received. Need to include Roadhouse hours 7am -10pm 7 days a week. Raaj the new manager has been very proactive in encouraging visitors to stop and look around the town.

Town signs need updating check with Peter Richardson as he has a list he compiled with Ivan Milde.

Oval committee are applying for a grant to upgrade toilet facilities.

Stobie pole repainting: A group of interested members has inspected the poles and steps are underway in progression of upgrade. 19

New community noticeboard & black board is underway but limited time will not be in before Christmas. Town Map: Sue handed details collated to the newly formed Traders Group who will follow through. Once this has been completed we will then look at large maps at entrance areas/Winkler Park/ Pioneer Park etc.

Community Website: This has also been handed to this group as they have a member who has time and skills in this area.

Next meeting 5th February 8pm meeting room behind the Library. Adrian will advertise outline of the Peak Body and that we are seeking a Secretary. Rosie & Sue are unable to continue their roles.

Meeting closed 9.40pm

20 Mintaro Progress Association Inc.

PO Box 140 Mintaro South Australia 5415

Ph: 08 88439212 ABN- 59 838 572 252

25 February, 2013

Roy Blight CEO Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council 4 Gleeson Street Clare SA 5453

Development Plan Strategic Directions Review

Dear Roy,

On behalf of the Mintaro Progress Association I ask that Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council consider the following submission when reviewing the current Development Plan.

The Association would like to express its appreciation to the council for the commitment and vision they have shown in developing the Community Plan and the Development Plan. These public documents are easily read and enable communities to understand the vision that guides the council when considering future development.

Mintaro is a community of people who live in a beautiful valley surrounded by rolling hills, vine yards and farmlands with majestic river red gums growing along the waterways. These vistas surround the town and are integral to the character of Mintaro.

Mintaro has changed considerably since the council decided to accept the current development plan and increase the Residential Allotments in Precincts 3 and 4 to a minimum of 1 hectare.

Many vine yards and large blocks within the town have been subdivided and have been replaced by houses, 32 new dwellings have been approved by council since the declaration of the State Heritage Area.

21 This development has brought new residents and vitality to the town, the beauty of the environment and the country village characteristics have been maintained.

Mintaro is a close, active community. Many residents have lived in different places and have moved to Mintaro by choice bringing a variety of skills and talents that enhance the community.

The population demographic in Mintaro is that most people in the town are in their 50s and 60s. Future planning for Mintaro should make it possible for these people to stay in this community when they are unable to maintain large allotments of land.

It can be anticipated that as aged people move into dwellings on smaller allotments within the town younger people will be encouraged to move into the town and create opportunities for the town to develop. This is essential for local businesses like the hotel to remain viable and for sporting clubs and community organizations to have the personnel to remain functional.

It is essential for the continued development of Mintaro as a dynamic community that more people should be able to live in the town in smaller manageable allotments.

The recommendation of this submission is that the residential allotments in Precincts 3 and 4 should be reduced to 0.4 hectare or smaller.

It is noted that the development plan makes provision for the Residential Zone on the Western side of Mintaro to be expanded.

The recommendation of this submission is that this development should not go ahead until most of the residential allotments within the town are developed and demand for land warrants further development.

In the current Development Plan the four, 4 acre (1.7 hectares), allotments on the Western side of Thompson Priest Road (A376, A377, A378, A379) are zoned Rural Fringe (9). The same sized allotments on the Eastern Side of Thompson Priest Road are zoned Rural Living (8).

This submission recommends that the four allotments A376 – A379 be zoned Rural Living (8).

The expanded design guidelines relating to new residential development in Mintato are in need of revision and review to address the potential diversity of future residential planning while maintaining the character and integrity of the township.

22 Comments on Appendix D- Mintaro Conservation and Construction Guidelines

P209 Excavation and Filling

It is interesting to note the original Mintaro township buildings were constructed on natural ground contours without significant earthworks. The requirement for benching that is apparent in recent buildings in Mintaro is increasing storm water flows between buildings and has significantly increased the potential for flooding on benched sites where floor levels are below natural ground level. This is evident at the top of Hill Street where the absence of curbing or drains exacerbates the problem and causes significant storm water flows from the roadway into properties in Hill Street. Several residents have undertaken the construction of bunds or swales to prevent flooding. The requirement for benching should be removed or at least, significantly reduced.

P209 Building Footprints and Roof Form (paragraph c)

The requirement for small, simple scale rectangular floor plans is generally accepted. However the requirement for gables or hips of approximately 3.0m maximum from the ridge to the eaves is impractical. There is probably not one of the original buildings in Mintaro that would comply with this absurd requirement. A 3m hip length will result in excessively small room sizes and complex roof design to comply. Perhaps council could prepare a typical house design with a 40 degree pitch roof and no hip exceeding 3 metres to determine the practicality of this requirement!

P211 Materials, Verandahs and Detailing. (Paragraph a)

Many buildings in Mintaro have been constructed from local stone and slate. Much of the stone in main street buildings is a buff or light brown or brown colour. The requirement in Para (a) for external walls in dark, earthen colours and greys has resulted in the construction of several drab, grey box-like homes in recent years and the rejection of planning submissions using natural stone and finishes in lighter colours. The requirement for dark, earthen colours and greys should be deleted and future buildings in either sandstone and slate colours accepted.

P215 Rainwater Tanks (Paragraph a)

The proposal that a number of smaller tanks are more appropriate than one larger tank is questionable. The placement of 4 x 22,500litre tanks side by side, at a property in Mintaro has significant visual impact. One larger tank would have had significantly less visual impact. This requirement should be amended to allow a more practical and cost effective approach.

23 Mintaro residents are passionate about their beautiful town and believe the future of the town depends on people having the opportunity to live in the town developing residential allotments of different sizes and so creating an evolving, diverse and vital community.

The Mintaro Progress Association appreciates the opportunity to make this submission to the council with recommended changes to the Development Plan and ask that the changes to the Development Plan outlined in this submission are given serious consideration.

The Mintaro Progress Association reserves the right to speak to its submission at the appropriate forum.

Yours Sincerely

Hamish Gosse President Mintaro Progress Association

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Response to C&GV Development Plan Strategic Directions Draft re Watervale, Penwortham/Sevenhill http://www.claregilbertvalleys.sa.gov.au/page.aspx

Submitted by Mount Horrocks Historical Society Inc. 27 Feb 2013

1. Part B-1.2 Overview of District fails to recognize Penwortham being the first settlement north of Gawler 1939, established by John Ainsworth Horrocks, seven years before Clare named. Horrocks opening up the country and now having our main road named in his honour ‘Horrocks Highway’ needs to be recognised. 2. Section 10.2 “more detailed analysis of townships” details of Penwortham on 2.5 lines indicates, second paragraph ‘Horrocks was the earliest settler’ but no date. Needs greater detail – see below. 3. Error in historical dates – ‘talks of Francis Treloar planting the first commercial vines in Watervale 1853’ (his diary indicates 1854) and ‘Sevenhill Cellars being the oldest vineyard established 1851’ - two years before owning or leasing Sevenhill land? – see attachment; CRHG Newsletter Spring 2012 ‘Early History’

Doubt if council involvement in sale of Watervale Hall and offering to help build a new Sports & Community Centre on their oval is a sustainable and a wise community option given…

 Watervale Peak Body lacks support, rarely do more than five attend meetings, so to rely on volunteers managing, operating and maintaining a building is questionable.  The proposed building, now planned as a Function Centre for 240, far exceeds size and costs of that which the community voted on. ‘A steel building estimate cost of $236,000 (did not include site preparation, internal fixtures, floor coverings or painting or council contribution’  It is likely that operating and maintenance costs will far exceed income as now community users of Hall pay little or nothing for its hire. To compete with other local venues will be a challenge, the local bowling club have their own club rooms and will not be looking to hire.  The sale of the Hall will leave community without a meeting place until decision on plans is reached, detailed costing’s made, grants secured and builder chosen, the new community centre is built and ready for occupation - this could be years ahead.

PART B - 1.2 About Clare and Gilbert Valleys

The Clare and Gilbert Valleys is well known for its high quality fine wines and productive agricultural lands, natural environment and interesting towns/villages creating a wonderful place to live work and visit. Clare received its name in 1846 from Edward Gleeson who settled in the area as a sheep farmer and named it after his native county in Ireland. Settlers from England, Wales, Austria and Poland moved in to the region, creating its rich heritage and assorted architectural styles. In 1845 copper was discovered in nearby Burra, hence a transport corridor was built to convey the ore to the Gulf of St Vincent. Around this passageway, towns sprang up: Mintaro, Watervale, Auburn and Leasingham, which all still stand today.  Hello ….. what about Horrocks establishing Penwortham, the first settlement north of Gawler before Gleeson and Hawker arrived! The Clare Valley, renowned for its Riesling has another landmark named after the wine: the Clare Valley Riesling Trail. The trail utilises a disused railway line for cycling and walking and incorporates

1 | P a g e

43 many of the wineries and vineyards during its 24 kilometre path from Barinia to Auburn. The trail has been extended from Auburn through to Riverton and is called the Rattler Trail. Almost 30 wineries in this region are supported by the Clare Valley Visitor Information Centre which assists tourists in discovering the excellent services, food and wines of the area.

With an array of accommodation, bed and breakfast, hotels, motels and camping facilities, tourists can be satisfied with the range available. The natural beauty of the Clare and Gilbert Valleys also attracts gifted artists to the region for inspiration. Mintaro has world class slate deposits with an operating quarry and superbly maintained heritage buildings, many available as tourist accommodation. Riverton is situated in the heart of the fertile Gilbert Valley. Farmers in the Gilbert Valley mainly produce cereal, legume and hay crops, sheep, cattle, pigs and poultry with recent diversification into small seed crops, vines, olives, and intensive animal keeping. The residents of the Clare and Gilbert Valleys welcome visitors to the district and have worked together to enhance tourist numbers with careful management of their natural resources. Award winning wines from the region help attract international tourists as well as winemakers who wish to experience the wine producing qualities of this region.

A more detailed analysis is provided in Section 10.2 relating to population growth. The district is the home of many townships including:-

Clare Edmund Burton Gleeson settled here in 1840 at a location initially known by a variety of names, including The Twins, Inchiquin and Gleeson’s Village. In homage to his Irish home county, he named it Clare. The isolation from Adelaide meant self-sufficiency was essential, but the richness of the land soon attracted more settlers. Their subsequent success led the region to be known as the ‘Garden of the North’. Today, Clare with a population of 3,279 (2011 Census) is the regional centre and main service town for visitors and locals alike. It has retained its beauty where the surrounding hills lend it a special charm. Riverton Riverton owes its origin to James Masters who stepped ashore on Kangaroo Island before the proclamation of South Australia as a colony. He bought a section of the ‘Hundred of Gilbert’ in 1854 and had a portion of it laid out as a town. He called it Riverton owing to its location on the banks of the Gilbert. This delightful town continues to thrive as the commercial centre of a rich farming district with the local community active in preserving many of its significant heritage buildings – and is the launching point for the Rattler Trail which follows the former rail corridor through Rhynie and Undalya to Auburn. Saddleworth The same James Masters of Riverton established a station headquarters and named his house Saddleworth Lodge, after his birthplace in Yorkshire, England. In 1853 he had a portion of his land laid out as a town. Like many others in the region, Saddleworth enjoyed good times in the early days of the copper-mining boom. Today, it is a centre for agricultural machinery distribution and ar?rail head for local grain production, and enjoys a traditional country-town atmosphere. Auburn Auburn was initially named Tateham’s Waterhole in 1849 after the first settler, William of Tateham, who reputedly lived in a dugout (literally a hole in the ground) on the side of the River Wakefield. It was renamed after the Irish town of Auburn in 1856. The town flourished as a resting place for the ‘bullockies’ and muleteers’, the men responsible for carting copper ore from the mines of Burra to the gulf at Port Wakefield. Now known as the southern gateway to the Clare Valley wine region, the town retains much of its charm as well as its original stone buildings. Many of these have been converted into restaurants, antique shops, coffee shops and heritage-style accommodation. Auburn was the birthplace of the poet, CJ Dennis. It is the southern launch point of the Riesling Trail and the northern gateway to the Rattler Trail.

2 | P a g e

44 Sevenhill

The township was named by settlers who thought the landscape was similar to the countryside around Rome, the city famed for its seven hills. To the east is an especially scenic drive to Polish Hill River valley, a notable wine sub-region; historic displays are housed in the Polish Church Museum. To the west are the Skilly Hills, offering some of the region’s most photogenic vistas, with steeply wooded slopes alongside fields under vine. East of the township is the oldest (commercial) vineyard (many others vineyards in district) and winery in Clare Valley – Sevenhill Cellars. One of Australia’s most picturesque wineries, it was established in 1851 by Jesuits who fled religious persecution in Europe. The vineyards and winery continue under the Society of Jesus.- (Date Sevenhill Cellars establishment unclear - CRHG Pattullo’s Land history; Jesuits first Sevenhill land purchased and or leased 1853. ‘Weikert House’ and ‘TheFarm’ Jesuits first land leased 1849, Clare South for seven years. Jesuit archivist advised me having no clear records date moving to Sevenhill, suggested use 1852 for Riesling Trail Storyboard see attachment

Penwortham

Penwortham was named after Penwortham Hall in England, the family estate of John Horrocks. Horrocks was the region’s earliest settler and a dedicated explorer. His grave can be visited at the secluded St. Marks Church- suggested rewording

John Ainsworth Horrocks, a dedicated explorer, was the region’s earliest settler establishing Penwortham village in 1839. Penwortham was named after Penwortham Hall in England, the family estate of his grandfather, John Horrocks. John Ainsworth Horrocks had his life cut short by a shooting accident when exploring land north- west of Port Augusta in 1846. His grave can be visited at the secluded St. Marks Church. One of his 1839 buildings, Horrocks Cottage, now owned by Mount Horrocks Historical Society, is open for inspection on the first Sunday in the month. .

Watervale

Situated on the banks of Eyre Creek, the small town of Watervale was surveyed into town blocks in 1847. Today, it retains a number of heritage buildings including the well-preserved Stanley Grammar School, now operating as a bed and breakfast. Watervale’s place in the history of the Australian wine industry is significant. The first five acres of grapes for commercial use were planted by Francis Treloar in 1853.1854 the town’s many vines continue as a source of Australia’s finest Rieslings. Strategic Directions Report, 2012 – Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council 22  See attachment - Treloar planted his first vines 1854 and we can only guess when Sevenhill planted theirs.

Leasingham Just to the south of Watervale is the pretty hamlet of Leasingham named after a parish in Lincolnshire, England. The soils here are rich alluvial deposits over limestone which sustains some of the region’s richest viticultural lands. Mintaro Established in 1849, Mintaro has the village charm of the English Cotswolds or Dales. It is still very much an agricultural community, but the people of Mintaro have maintained their blue-stone and slate heritage and preserved the essence of rural village life. The town is a State Heritage Area.

3 | P a g e

45 Mintaro was a major staging point for the bullock drivers and muleteers who carted their copper ore to Port Wakefield on the Gulf of St. Vincent. Nearby Martindale Hall was the opulent country seat of Edmund Bowman, the son of a wealthy pastoralist. He had it built in 1880, complete with a cricket pitch (which hosted the English XI), boating lake, race course and polo field. The Mortlock family purchased the property in 1892 and bequeathed the hall and parts of the land to Adelaide University in 1965. Martindale Hall is now owned by the State Government and the University has sold Martindale Farm. Today, visitors to this State Conservation Park are given a fascinating insight into the lives of South Australia’s landed gentry. Manoora Manoora is situated on land which was a sheep station of the same name. It dates back to 1850. The small town is a gateway to the heritage area of Mintaro and passes the mansion of Martindale Hall.

Waterloo Waterloo was laid out in 1865 and named to mark the 50th anniversary of the famous battle. It is located to the west of the Tothill Range, the scenic uplands that are now crossed by the Heysen Trail. The town retains a working quarry and was the birthplace of the ‘Mailman of the Outback’, late Tom Kruse. The Waterloo Wind Farm is located to the south of the township. Marrabel Marrabel is renowned for its rodeo history and bull ride events since 1935. Rhynie Rhynie, on the Main North Road, is home to an historic pub. In the days of ‘early closing’ liquor laws, those who had travelled at least 60 miles in a day were recognised as ‘bona fide’ travellers and could demand a drink from the publican. It still is! Tarlee Situated on the Barrier Highway and known as the southern gateway to the Gilbert Valley, Tarlee provides a link between the Barossa and Clare Valley wine regions and offers a pleasant stop for refreshments. The town’s quarries provided the stone used in the foundations of many of Adelaide’s grandest buildings. Stockport Stockport sits on a bend of the River Gilbert. It was laid out in 1856 on a section held originally by Samuel Stocks Jnr., and named after his birthplace

3. Local Heritage and Historic Conservation Zone DPA

Scope Reference Priority T To prepare a DPA in relation to reviewing the Local Heritage Places in the Development Plan, adding (Section of i additional entries – and scope for protection of precincts with high heritage/ conservation value with report – m Historic Conservation Zones. Part B) i Interesting – Nomination for Watervale Institute inclusion 2011 - Pending? n g

To engage a heritage/conservation consultant to undertake a review of 2.1-2.3, 5.4, 5.5, 8.1, Medium 2014/15 the Local Heritage listings and to prepare detailed analysis in 10.1, 10.3, 10.7, 11 accordance with the requirements of the Development Act for any proposed listings and identification of Historic Conservation Zones. To engage with the State Heritage Branch in relation to an improved 10.7 High 2013/14 pre-application heritage advisory service in terms of the time and resources.

4 | P a g e

46 Recommends ‘Strengthen Heritage character’ of Mintaro & Saddleworth Should Penwortham be considered? 1839 the first settlement in the north

 “Horrocks Cottage” Penwortham, reputed to be the first stone building built north of Gawler in 1839 – built for Eustace Horrocks, who in ill health returned to England.  Horrocks Tree – their first shelter 1839.  Arthur Horrocks cottage c1840, now a residential home with little changes.  School house (Early Street) used for weddings before church opened 1851.  St Marks Anglican Church, first service 1850.  1840’s Flour Mill sheds standing behind house.  ‘Penwortham Walk’ passes 17 historical sites. 5 | P a g e

47 Table 7.1 – Summary of Response Sheet Submissions

Ask MHHS

See below Response from Watervale Penwortham Community Workshops

6 | P a g e

48 Response from Community Workshops

Watervale

*Sustainable? Competing with other local venues! *Pending Council support in building & maintaining. *Management by what group of volunteers?

Future of WCA Peak Body depends on Community working together to achieve outcomes. Bowls, Cricket, Tennis & Xmas Tree (est. 1800’s) all need to work with Peake Body to achieve mural outcomes - currently working independently.

Before council commits to a Watervale multifunction centre on its oval it needs assurance that it will be viable and sustainable without considerable Seven Hill & Penwortham ratepayer funding. Substantial Grants to build required before Watervale can have an operational meeting place.

Pending sale of Hall, planning and completion of new building could be years, leaving Watervale without a meeting place.

7 | P a g e

49 Early Solly Family History and the Jesuits Section 99, Sevenhill contributed by David Spackman

When researching the life and times of Reuben Solly, my Great Great Grandfather, I uncovered interesting district history details. He had sold Section 99 of the Hutt River survey to the Jesuits Priests on 3rd Dec 1853, which is now the Sevenhill Cellars. Francis Treloar’s diary, 15th June 1854 quotes: “sourced vine cuttings from Solly; 1859 flagon sold for a shilling or two!” This was the start of Quelltaler winery. Solly, on his death in 1874, left section 76 (now the Clare Caravan Park and Show grounds) to his daughter Mary. His son Samuel sold a portion of his Watervale ‘cow paddock’, to the Council, giving the proceeds to ‘The Soldiers’ Memorial Park Recreation Committee’, to develop the Memorial Park. Reuben Sulley (later Solly,) age 28, landed at Port Adelaide on 11th August, 1840, on the ‘LALLA ROOKH’. The 1842 census indicated he had 12 acres of agricultural land on Port Road. Anne Jacobs’s diary, 1839 to 1848, records staying at Solly’s Station (East of Peters Hill Marrabel) on trips moving from Lyndoch Valley to Section 378 Sevenhill. Then numerous entries of Solly in the Watervale - Penwortham district from late 1843 onwards. Solly’s Selection was known as ‘Watervale Farm’. Solly married a widow, Charlotte Wheller, September 1850, in Penwortham School House (pre-1st district church – 1851 St. Marks). Charlotte’s husband James, had contracted typhoid fever after visiting his dying sister in Burra. One of James Wheller’s grandchildren wrote; “… In time Grandpa Wheller built a log and mud hut with a bark roof and door. My father John was born there about 1844. Grans medical help was Dr Watts and his wife. Nearly 2 years later my Uncle James was also born at the same home. Grandpa was busy clearing land near Seven Hills; he had an idea of settling there in the future, however, sadness overtook Gran…” “… a stranger came one day and took a fancy to the horse that had been Grandpas, Gran let him have the horse and naturally she told him of her position and plight. He told her not to worry; he would pitch his tent at the end of the Selection and would use the gun to keep the blacks in check. So in this way he protected Gran and her family while he was clearing some country around Penwortham”. SA Government Land Title records • James Wheller received Section 99 Sevenhill as a Land Grant 31st Dec 1849, 80 acres for £80. • Conveyance of Section 99 from Charlotte to her husband Reuben Solly 31 Dec 1850. • Conveyance of Section 99 from Reuben Solly to Father Aloysius Kranewitter made 3rd Dec 1853 for £160 cash. [Lands Memorial Book 60, Page 454] • Earliest newspaper report found on Sevenhill winery, “when winery in its infancy, wine from its one acre vineyard won first prize at Auburn’s 1858 Horticultural Exhibition” • Earliest Council assessment records found, 1857/58 - Section 99; 80 acres fenced, Stone Cottage, Stone House + Slab Kit + Slab Hut & stockyards I Contacted the Jesuit Archivist for their records of Sevenhill early history and Riesling Trail story-board –‘Sevenhill established 1852’. I was told “discussed with the Riesling Trail board and with Sevenhill Cellars at the time of its erecting. They opted for the later date to avoid any confusion or discussion”. The records that I found of the Jesuits occupying Sevenhill prior to 1853 were written early 1930’s and are of a general nature and lack detail. Research published by Rev. P.J Dalton S.J. 1936, gives an insight of “Weikert’s House” and “The Farm”, Clare South, land leased prior to Sevenhill 1849 for seven years - in part … “… 14th December 1848 Father Kranewitter left Adelaide for Clare with the Weikerts. At Clare they were able to make final arrangements to settle in the house already suggested to them by Dr. Moroney, and on the 20th December, they went there from Clare in a bullock wagon, the common mode of transport in those days. [TO PAGE 4]

CLARE REGIONAL HISTORY GROUP Newsletter Spring 2012 Page 3 50 Early Solly Family History and the Jesuits Section 99, Sevenhill contributed by David Spackman

The house was of five rooms and newly built of split logs and clay, with a thatched roof of dried grass, "belonging to an Irishman” about two miles south of Clare in from the road a mile or so. If one turns up the side road to the left of the bitumen road to Clare, at the corner of what is now Christison Park, one first passes a house on the left, in which at present Mr Otto Knappstein lives. A little further on to the right of the road, on the slope of a hill from which one can overlook the vineyards of the Stanley Winery, is another house. At the back of this building are still some remnants of what was known for years as “Weikert's House". Father Kranewitter tells us that it belonged to an Irishman. This mean it was held on lease by an Irishman; for a consultation of the documents to be found in the Lands Titles Office in Adelaide shows that it, and the Section 69, on which it stands, was the property of one Henry Rigge of Bond Street, London. The name of the lessee at the time cannot be discovered as neither this lease nor a seven years lease of the same taken out by Weikert at this date has been registered” …. “Father Kranewitter settled with the Weikert family on the 20th December, 1848, seven year lease was arranged by the 2nd February, 1849. A short time after his arrival there he had a letter from his religious superior in Europe, enclosing some money and telling him to expect soon to have two helpers , Jesuit lay brothers, from Europe. He made an arrangement with Weikert that for two years they should pool the small resources they had till further arrangements should be made. Meanwhile, in expectation of the brothers, he had to look out for another house, as it would be quite impossible for Weikert's family and three Jesuits to fit in the five roomed house. This he found about a mile north from "Weikert's House”, in the valley overlooked by Weikert's house, which Father Kranewitter describes as a nice little valley ( in einem niedlichen Thaichen) the valley in which at present are the vineyards of the Knappstein family, who now own all this place. The piece of land on which stood the house chosen by Father Kranewitter, a residence for himself and the brothers is described in a document in the Lands Titles Office as the southern portion of Balaaca" (probably a native name), and is the southern portion of Section 71 of the Hutt River Survey. On the left as one faces north is Neagles Rock, commanding an unfailing source of spring water, which for some years has been impounded to supply water for the Clare railway; on the right rises a hill, over which passes a road, closed now for some years, which, if followed, will bring one out to Donnybrook on the other side of the hill. At this place is still to be found what is called “The Farm" in the middle of the Knappstein vineyards”… “This second house was quite new, of two rooms, built like the other of logs and clay with window openings, but no glass, such houses were common enough in those days.” “The Farm”, Jesuits first vineyard? PUBLICATION ABRIDGED - FULL RESEARCH AVALIABLE.

William Pattullo’s Land history (Clare Regional History Group library) notes that the Jesuits received seven Land Grants each of eighty acres, adjoining Section 99 and purchased and leased four others sections 1853-56. David Spackman

51 CLARE REGIONAL HISTORY GROUP Newsletter Spring 2012 Page 4 52 53 54 55 56 57 28 February 2013

Mr Roy Blight

Chief Executive Officer

Clare and Gilbert Valley Council

4 Gleeson Street

Clare SA 5453

Dear Mr Blight

Submission on Strategic Directions Report, 2012

Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to Council on the contents of the Strategic Directions Report (SDR), 2012. This is an important document that will guide the development of the Council area through informing the provisions of the Development Plan.

This submission relates to the possible Rural Living Zone to the South West of Clare as proposed by the South West Rural Living DPA (unauthorised). Section 3.4 of the report outlines that the Minister did not endorse the DPA being progressed to community consultation, which followed a lengthy process commencing in 2008, due to the DPTI requiring Council to review its Development Plan through the preparation of the Strategic Directions Report. It is also noted that in the further action needed? column the SDR states that the location of the land (subject to the South West Rural Living DPA) is within the area identified by Council for long term protection within the landscape protection area that flanks and gives the town its unique character.

It is also noted that Figure 10.3 Conceptual Plan for Clare and Gilbert Valleys identifies that within Clare there should be protection of hillsides from urban expansion. This follows through to 10.4.1 which outlines that planned growth should not compromise the 'core values' established by the Council and the community through the consultation stage, which included:-

 the continued protection of the landscape/conservation areas within the hillsides that 'flank' Clare on its western and eastern boundary

The SDR details that the area identified by the South West Rural Living DPA has not been included in the figures in Table 10.8 as it was not considered that the land met with the core values set by Council in terms of protecting the open natural landscaped flanks that form the unique quality setting that Clare is renowned for. Council will be able to review this position over the next 5 years.

1 | P a g58 e

Figure 10.5 above taken from the SDR (pg 100). (photo taken looking south from Stanley Place)

The Conceptual Plan Figure 10.14 for the Township of Clare is as follows:

refer enlargement

2 | P a g59 e

Enlargement figure 10.14: Subject site: outlined in black

The relevant points on the Conceptual Plan are Protect rural landscape hillsides from urban encroachment (identified by the green colour) and maintain open rural buffers (identified by the dashed black line).

To illustrate the location of the subject site to recommendations of the SDR, the following plan has been prepared. As illustrated on the following aerial photograph the subject site is predominately cleared of whereas the balance of Rural Landscape Protection Zone is heavily vegetated.

3 | P a g60 e

Blue line = South West Rural Living DPA proposed boundary

Red line = area identified to protect rural landscape hillsides from urban encroachment

4 | P a g61 e Currently the subject site is zoned Rural Landscape Protection under where the Desired Character Zone outlines the area is a high bushfire risk area due to the extent of native vegetation and open grassland, steep slopes and the difficulty of access. The objectives of this zone are to preserve, enhance or re-establish the natural character to provide a natural backdrop to the Clare Valley and a contrast to the urban area; provide a part of the buffer area between the urban areas and prevent it from extending into the eastern and western slopes of the two north- south ridgelines; and accommodate low intensity agricultural activities. This zone and associated policies are not considered appropriate for this allotment due to its lack of visibility from main access roads and the Clare Valley floor and the development of low density dwellings will not negatively impact on the natural character.

The South West Rural Living DPA proposed to zone the land Rural Living (Clare Rural Living Policy Area 10) for the following reasons:

 the land comprises of approximately 31.7 hectares and will result in approximately 24 rural living allotments;  the subject land has been extensively used for sheep grazing since early settlement  the site does not have significant amounts of native vegetation due to its historic land use. A Vegetation Assessment was undertaken by Mr L Bebbington, Habitat and Land Management Consultant to provide detailed information on the vegetation on the site. As outlined in this report native vegetation will be retained by utilising existing tracks and cleared contour lines for access roads. In addition a Land Management Agreement will be placed on the allotments that prohibits the clearance of Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Blue Gum) communities. Rehabilitation of the creek reserve will include fencing, erosion control, weed control, rubbish removal and revegetation works using local indigenous species. Included in the reserve set aside and rehabilitation program will be the natural drainage line that falls to the west in the northern section of the allotment. The rehabilitated creek line links to adjoining remnant vegetation to the west of the property and will provide direct linkages to habitat in the Neagle’s Rock reserve and Spring Gully Conservation Park;  the landform and soil types do not lend themselves to cropping or horticultural use. PIRSA has advised that the lower portion of the land appears to be better quality land (Class 2 in a combined wheat-viticulture-ryegrass assessment conducted by Rural Solutions SA in August 2006) similar to that immediately west. Slope and remnant vegetation on the higher, eastern part of the land would limit scope for commercial agricultural production;  a traffic assessment revealed that the existing road network can accommodate the increased traffic movements;  the land was assessed to ensure it had the capacity to accommodate wastewater and stormwater management on site;  the site forms an extension to land zoned Rural Living adjacent to Clare

The investigations for the DPA resulted in:

 location of reserves to accommodate areas of existing vegetation, creek line and stormwater retention areas;  location of fire access easements along the property boundaries where the road reserve does not follow the property boundary;

5 | P a g62 e  to address potential interface issues with the adjoining horticultural land buffers and defined building envelopes were identified;

The DPA concluded that the land is suitable for the intended use for the following reasons:

 The land is secluded and private but with the convenience of being on the immediate outskirts of the township of Clare  It is the only available land on the southern outskirts of the Clare township  The rezoning allows for appropriate growth adjacent to existing Residential land to the north and Rural Living Land to the east forming a continuous and compact extension of the existing built up area  The rezoning assists in reinforcing Clare as a major regional centre  The rezoning will support a stable housing industry through the developer funded DPA  There will be a wide choice of allotment sizes  Provides a variety of housing / density choices to enable people to stay within the community as their needs change  The rezoning addresses a demand highlighted in Councils S30 Review  Each allotment can have panoramic westerly and northerly views, or a pleasant rural outlook over the proposed water retention ponds (the proposed western lots)  Gently sloping building sites will be available and identified on each allotment  Native vegetation will not need to be removed as a result of the subsequent land division  The rezoning will support biodiversity conservation and management through the retention and rehabilitation of the natural creek line and riparian zone. This area will be created as a reserve and will link to adjacent remnant vegetation to the west of the property and provide direct linkages to habitat in the Neagle’s Rock reserve and Spring Gully Conservation Park  The rezoning utilised an area that does not have a high landscaped and amenity values due to its long history of sheep grazing  Separation distances can be provided for, to reduce conflicts between sensitive land uses and adjacent horticultural / agricultural land  The land is located to prevent fragmentation of agricultural land as it is immediately adjacent to Residential Zone in Clare  Topography of the land, remnant vegetation and the current economic climate indicate that the land in not ideal for grape production. Removing land from the potential for this use will not be detrimental to the grape industry  Overall economic implications from alienation of this land from agricultural/horticultural production are not significant.  Overall, it is considered that due to the location of the land, the topography of the land and the level of remnant vegetation on the land the subject site is most suitable to the intended use of Rural Living allotments.

The DPA proposed a Policy Area for the land which has the following Desired Character Statement:

The policy area is to be developed for rural living purposes in a rural setting in close proximity to the town of Clare. The western boundary of the Policy Area contains a natural creek line and associated riparian zone which is anticipated to be incorporated into a reserve. It is envisaged that this reserve will be utilised for storm water detention ponds and be landscaped to support biodiversity. The rehabilitated creek line links to adjoining remnant vegetation to the west of the property and will provide direct linkages to habitat in the Neagle's Rock reserve and Spring Gully Conservation Park. It is noted that this reserve contains E. leucoxylon.

6 | P a g63 e There will be dwellings and outbuildings on larger allotments without any small-scale farming and horticultural (viticulture) activities as distinct from the Rural Living (Mintaro) Policy Area 8. The semi-rural character will be reinforced and strengthened through the design and siting of buildings, and appropriate landscaping. Animal keeping will be limited to domestic animals normally kept in association with a dwelling. The Policy Area will be accessed via Stanley Place and Plant Avenue with an easement over an adjoining property to the west for emergency fire access to Neagles Rock Road.

Landscaping will consist of locally indigenous species only, with a focus on preserving and complementing scattered individual specimens and groups of mature eucalyptus trees set amongst low density rural living allotments. Landscape buffers will be established to the western and southern boundaries of the Policy Area, incorporating the creek reserve in parts, to protect dwellings from potential conflicts with adjacent activities, including horticulture and to ensure separation distances to reduce the risk of bushfire. The vegetation will need to be carefully selected to ensure the dual purposes are met but it is anticipated that plantings within the buffers will reach to a height of 15 metres and incorporate dense layers of vegetation of a variety of different sizes and species with the placement of the vegetation taking into consideration the requirements of developing in Bushfire Protection Areas.

To specifically address the contents of the SDR the following are offered:

 Right to farm and Environmental buffers - the proposed DPA will not result in the intrusion of urban expansion and quasi rural living development in the prime agricultural areas. The land is not prime agricultural land and there are buffers proposed and dwelling envelopes proposed to address the rural interface issues.  Water sensitive urban design - the proposed DPA includes provisions for stormwater management, wastewater re use and collection of rainwater.  sloping land - the proposed DPA Policy Area provisions contain policies to address the sloping land to reduce the visual impact of potential development. These policies are:

Dwellings are to be:  located below the ridge line so as not to be visible against the skyline when viewed from the within Clare township  sited on an excavated rather than a filled site, in order to reduce the vertical profile of the building  A copy of the Concept Plan for DPA is included below:

7 | P a g64 e

8 | P a g65 e The main issues raised in the SDR include the following:

 Protect rural landscape hillsides from urban encroachment  Maintain open rural buffers  The continued protection of the landscape/conservation areas within the hillsides that 'flank' Clare on its western and eastern boundary

The land subject to the DPA contributes to the rural landscape as it is predominately cleared and therefore not classed as a conservation area. The proposed rural living zone will result in low density housing, with landscaped buffers, rural fencing (administered through a Land Management Agreement), minimal fill and minimal road networks that will result the retention of the rural landscape.

The land cannot be viewed from the main entry to Clare as it is over the ridge line with the ridge and area to the east covered in dense vegetation, which is outside the DPA area. The land can be viewed from Neagles Rock Road, which is a dirt (unconstructed) road to the west of the site. It could be argued that a low density rural living estate, vegetated with native vegetation, would provide a more visually appealing rural landscape than the existing predominately cleared sheep farming land use. It is also questionable as to whether the parcel of land could be sold as a viable sheep farming enterprise or indeed a viable horticultural activity given the relatively small size of the allotment in terms of horticultural and agricultural activities.

Location of photos below taken from

9 | P a g66 e

Looking north (approximate boundary of the subject site outlined in red)

Looking south (approximate boundary of the subject site outlined in red)

10 | P a g67 e It is believed that the South West Rural Living DPA has planning merit and will not negatively impact on the rural landscape hillsides, rural buffer or conservation areas within the hillsides. There are significant areas of conservation areas, with significant native vegetation, within the hillsides that flank Clare on the eastern and western boundary that contribute to the character of Clare to a greater degree than the site subject to the DPA.

It is hoped that Council will look favourably on including the area covered by the South West Rural Living DPA within the SDR as an area for Rural Living development.

Kind Regards

Sandy Hansen

Planning Consultant

13 Frow Court

Canadian VIC 3350

0401 961 428

11 | P a g68 e

28 February 2013

Chief Executive Officer Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council 4 Gleeson Street Clare SA 5453 By email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Clean Energy Council response to the Clare & Gilbert Valleys Development Plan Strategic Directions Review

The Clean Energy Council is the peak body representing Australia’s renewable energy and energy efficiency industries and has around 600 members. The Clean Energy Council supports effective policies being implemented which promote the deployment of renewable energy projects and the attraction of clean energy investment and creation of jobs throughout rural and regional South Australia. Wind power is the lowest cost form of large scale renewable energy, and an integral part of the renewable energy mix that will be required to meet South Australia’s target of 33 per cent renewable energy by 2020.

The Clean Energy Council welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Development Plan Strategic Directions Review (the strategic directions review). The views expressed in this submission cannot be taken to represent the views of all the member companies of the Clean Energy Council; however they do reflect a general consensus.

General comments

The Clean Energy Council notes that there is specific reference to wind farms in three key sections of the strategic directions review. These sections are:  Part A Development Plan Amendments, 4.2 Priority DPAs, Wind farms  Part B Consultation, investigations and discussion, 6.3 Other key strategic documents, District level, Ministerial Statewide Wind Farm DPA, 2011  Part B Consultation, investigations and discussion, 10.9 Key issues and recommendations; Wind farms

The strategic directions review generally appears to discourage further wind farm development in the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council, expressing concerns particularly related to landscape values and separation distance between wind turbines and houses.

In fact wind farms are a win for the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council. They bring jobs and investment to the region, income for farmers, and funds for community projects. At a state- wide level, wind farms protect South Australians from rising fossil fuel energy costs, and also reduce the state’s carbon price liability1.

1 Source: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/your-electricity-bill/ Page 1 69

The strategic directions review raises several areas of concern regarding the Statewide Wind Farms DPA, listed on pages 50-51. Some points to consider regarding these issues are detailed below.

Impact on scenic landscapes and locations

Visual amenity is always considered in the context of the existing environment and with an appreciation of local community values

At a local level, the response of the public to a wind farm proposal can vary considerably. To some, the prospect of direct views to a wind farm can be a pleasing addition to the landscape. To others, a wind farm may be seen as unsightly. The response does not only depend upon the particular landscape; it is also affected by the observer and the values they ascribe it. Obviously the way in which a landscape is viewed and valued, and the perceived impact of a wind farm on that view, is highly variable and subjective.

Visual amenity is considered in detail in the Clean Energy Council’s Wind farms best practice guidelines. The guidelines propose a step-by-step process for assessing landscape values and impacts along with ways to manage and mitigate residual impacts. A guiding document, the Wind Farms and Landscape Values National Assessment Framework, was founded on a study of best practice from across Australia and overseas.

These assessments are undertaken by professional experts, and include identification of landscape values, facilitation of community input, and description of visual and other impacts and design of appropriate mitigation measures.

Impact on agricultural operations

Wind farms bring additional income to farmers

Wind farming can help farmers generate vital extra income, make better use of marginal farming land, and insure against market downturns. Hosting five wind turbines for the Capital Wind Farm near Lake George in New South Wales has made it possible for Peter and Bev Keatley to stay on their property and make it viable to pass on to their son. Peter is proud of his role in providing clean energy, and calls the wind farm income – $10,000 per turbine per year – ‘my super’2.

Farmer’s right to farm

A recent independent study completed for the Clean Energy Council found that 80 per cent of respondents thought wind farms could provide important income for farmers and other land owners. The same survey found that 67 per cent of respondents rated a farmer’s right to generate income from his/her land more important than a resident’s right to a view clear of wind turbines3.

2 Country Style magazine, January 2012 3 QDos Wind Energy Community Research in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, April 2012 Page 2 70

Wind farms can coexist with farming

Wind farms can be integrated into existing farming practices with relatively little impact on usable land. The footprint required for the turbines, hardstands (flat area used for turbine construction) and roads takes up around 2 – 5 % of the usable farming land.

Any impact on cropping is mainly due to the access tracks. Normal sowing patterns may be disrupted as it is unlikely that turbines will all end up on unproductive land or in the corners of paddocks. Careful planning and consultation will usually enable the landowner and developer to come to a mutually acceptable outcome.

Wind farms do not impact on livestock

The impact of wind farms on livestock is minimal. Sheep, cows and horses are not disturbed by wind turbines and typically graze right up to the base of the towers which they often use as rubbing posts or for shade.

Figure 1: Sheep shaded by a wind turbine at Meridian Energy’s Mt Millar wind farm in South Australia

Wind farms do not use or pollute water

Unlike most other forms of energy generation, wind farms use almost no water and do not affect ground or surface water quality. This makes wind farms inherently benign for siting near ecologically sensitive farming operations.

Wind farm impacts on aviation are easily managed

The Clean Energy Council and our wind industry members accept that in some cases the presence of a wind farm could interfere with crop spraying using low flying fixed-wing aircraft. Where crop spraying is identified as a relevant issue, the Clean Energy Council and Page 3 71

our members support reasonable additional costs associated with alternative approaches being negotiated between the project proponent and the affected landholder.

Depending on the site, agricultural aviation such as crop dusting or super phosphate spreading may be impacted. Agricultural pilots are highly trained and operate very manoeuvrable aircraft at very low altitudes (as low as 2m). They are very experienced in hazard management and the local operator is best placed to assess the potential impact.

Guidelines to manage the risk to aviation safety from wind turbine installations are under development by the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG). NASAG is comprised of high-level Commonwealth, State and Territory transport and planning officials and has been formed to develop a national land use planning regime to apply near airports and under flight paths.

Impact on emergency management and bushfire risk

Wind farms do not cause fires and allow improved access

Regional fire services have welcomed the presence of wind farms in rural landscapes due to improved access to hills and ranges via access tracks provided by wind farms.

As all high-voltage connections for turbines are run underground, the risk of electricity- related fire is extremely low. The fire control methods for wind farms are the same as those used for all other high-voltage electrical assets. Each turbine is also fitted with a comprehensive lightning protection system that safely transfers any high voltages or currents directly to the earth without affecting turbine performance.

Fire Management Plans (FMPs) are developed for all Australian wind farms and apply to both construction and operational phases of projects. A FMP requires project proponents to record all potential project-related bushfire risks and establish specific management strategies to address these risks.

During 2011’s Senate Inquiry into wind farms4, a representative of Victoria’s Country Fire Authority said “CFA is aware that there have been fires occur as the result of failure in wind turbines in the past. I wish to stress our understanding is that the likelihood of this is very low and that these occurrences are quite rare”.

Interaction with interstate and national directions

The Federal Government is committed to the Renewable Energy Target

The Australian Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme aims to bridge the gap between the cost of generating renewable energy and the cost of generating electricity from traditional fossil fuel sources. The RET is designed to deliver 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply from renewable sources by 2020, or more than 45,000 GWh of renewable energy.

4 Available at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=clac_ctte/imp act_rural_wind_farms/index.htm Page 4 72

An independent study released in 2012, Benefits of the Renewable Energy Target to Australia’s Energy Markets and Economy, found that the RET had delivered $18.5 billion of investment in renewable energy since 2001. This investment has driven an increase in total renewable energy capacity from around 7,540 MW in 2000 to around 13,340 MW in 2012 and reduced carbon emissions by 22.5 Mt. The study also found that between 2012 and 2020 the RET is expected to deliver an additional $18.7 billion of investment in renewables – much of this in wind energy.

As wind power is one of the lowest cost large scale technologies, it has been the dominant form of renewable generation to receive support under the RET. Wind energy has accounted for approximately 38% of all renewable capacity installed since 2000, and has attracted over $5 billion in investment since 2001.

The South Australian wind industry is a success story for the state

South Australia’s Statewide Wind Farms DPA provides increased certainty for both the wind industry and communities.

As Bloomberg New Energy Finance points out, wind power is the cheapest and most reliable way to meet the Large-scale Renewable Energy target. If the most economical wind farms are ruled out due to restrictive planning regulations, then more expensive wind farms or more expensive generation technologies must be built instead.

Bloomberg identified that the Victorian Government's wind farm planning guidelines could increase Victoria's electricity bills by up to $2 billion in the next decade5.

Population distribution and impacts

Wind farms are clean, healthy and safe There are nearly 200,000 wind turbines across sites all over the world – many of them close to people’s houses. But no credible study anywhere in the world has found that wind turbines can directly cause health problems. A recent independent study completed for the Clean Energy Council indicated a large majority (83 per cent) of respondents felt that concerns about the health impacts of wind turbines ‘will turn out to be nothing to worry about’6. The NHMRC recommended that ‘relevant authorities take a precautionary approach and continue to monitor research outcomes’. This should be read in the context of other statements the NHMRC made about wind farms in the same document, such as the statement that ‘There is currently no published scientific evidence to positively link wind turbines with adverse health effects.’7 The report’s concluding paragraph supported that statement: ‘This review of the available evidence, including journal articles, surveys, literature reviews and government reports, supports the statement that: There are no direct pathological

5 See [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-17/wind-farm-rules-may-lead-to-higher-power- prices/3835458] 6 QDos Wind Energy Community Research in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, April 2012 7 NHMRC Public Statement, Wind Turbines and Health, July 2010 Page 5 73

effects from wind farms and that any potential impact on humans can be minimised by following existing planning guidelines.8’ It should be noted that this statement was made in 2010 before stricter planning guidelines for wind were introduced or proposed in NSW, VIC and SA. In 2012, NSW Health provided written comment to the New South Wales State Government. The documents, obtained under freedom-of-information laws by the environment group Friends of the Earth, say existing studies had been examined and no known causal link between wind farm operation and health impacts could be established. NSW Health officials stated that fears that wind turbines make people sick are ''not scientifically valid’’ and the arguments mounted by anti-wind farm campaigners are unconvincing. The NSW health officials wrote that there was no evidence for ''wind turbine syndrome'', a collection of ailments including sleeplessness, headaches and high blood pressure that some people believe are caused by the noise of spinning blades. The Federal Senate Inquiry into the excessive noise bill also investigated wind farms and health in late 2012. Their final report9 contained the following findings: “The committee received just over 160 submissions, of which a little under 140 supported the bill and/or expressed concern about noise effects. Of these, the majority were from people worried about whether they might experience noise or health effects from proposed wind farms, rather than from people who claimed to have actually experienced annoyance or other adverse effects. The submissions related to a minority of Australia's wind farm operations”. “The number of health-related complaints about wind farms is small in proportion to the number of people living near these facilities. The numbers also vary greatly from one facility to the next, for reasons not apparently related to the number of residents in the area”. One of the most interesting pieces of information provided to the committee was a research paper which will has been accepted for publication in a leading journal in early 2013. This paper showed that the effects of infrasound can be felt by people not exposed to infrasound but who expected that it would make them feel unwell. The relevant extracts from the Senate Committee’s final report are below: “Late in the inquiry process, the committee was provided with recent research, peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the leading journal Health Psychology, but not yet released. The research comprises a controlled double blind study, in which subjects were exposed to infrasound and sham infrasound….. Conclusion: Healthy volunteers, when given information about the expected physiological effect of infrasound, reported symptoms which aligned with that information, during exposure to both infrasound and sham infrasound”. “The committee concludes that, while it is possible that the human body may detect infrasound in several ways, there is no evidence to suggest that inaudible infrasound (either from wind turbines or other sources) is creating health problems. In contrast, there is an established literature confirming the existence of psychogenic, or nocebo, effects in general, and at least one study suggesting they may be responsible for symptoms in some wind turbine cases”.

8 NHMRC, Wind Turbines and Health, A Rapid Review of the Evidence, July 2010 9 More information available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010- 13/renewable_energy_2012/index.htm Page 6 74

Impact on biodiversity

Any impacts of wind farms on surrounding flora, vegetation, soil or fauna are carefully assessed and managed or mitigated accordingly.

Wind farm proponents conduct extensive surveys over a number of years to assess the potential impact their wind farms could have on surrounding flora, vegetation, soil and fauna, including birds and bats.

Detailed mitigation and monitoring measures are utilised to mitigate the impact of proposed wind farms on the flora and fauna species surrounding the site. Development of wind farms are already subject to state and federal environment policies including Environmental and Planning Assessments various state environmental legislations, State Environmental Planning Policies, any relevant Regional Environmental Plans and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Residential buffers and public notification

The distance between wind turbines and dwellings should be scientifically based and not arbitrarily defined by the Council

The Clean Energy Council does not support mandatory separation distances between wind turbines and residences or communities; or mandatory consent from neighbours within arbitrarily defined distances.

Separation distances based on amenity and impacts should be assessed in a scientific manner and on a case by case basis. Defining arbitrary setback distances could result in an unnecessary impact on the efficiency and economic viability of the wind farm project.

The Australian Senate’s Community Affairs References Committee last year undertook an inquiry into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms.

That committee found that “A difficulty with a prescribed setback distance is that, in terms of noise and shadow flicker, the distance may either be too great or too little. If the setback is too great then this could limit the industry and possibly affect the amount of renewable power generation in Australia. If the distance were too little, residents affected adversely would not have any redress.”

Wind farms in Australia currently face among the toughest guidelines in the world in relation to their permissible noise levels

Noise is often the most important factor in determining the separation distance between wind turbines and sensitive receivers like houses. The assessment of noise therefore plays a significant role in determining the viability of and the size of wind farms. Regulatory and objective certainty provides the ability to conduct a clear objective assessment that can be confirmed both during the development and operational phases of a wind farm project.

Wind farm development in NSW is currently assessed predominantly under the South Australian EPA Wind Farm Noise Guidelines 2003 (SA 2003). In South Australia, wind farms are assessed under the South Australian EPA Wind Farm Noise Guidelines 2009 (SA 2009) Page 7 75

and in Victoria, are assessed under the New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind farm noise (NZS2010).

Independent noise consultants Sonus reported in a technical paper commissioned by the CEC in 201010, “The Standards and Guidelines used in Australia and New Zealand are stringent in comparison to other International approaches”.

Wind farms do not produce unusual infrasound A report released by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA)11 found that the level of infrasound from wind turbines is insignificant and no different to any other source of noise, and that the worst contributors to household infrasound are air- conditioners, traffic and noise generated by people.

Setbacks can stifle investment and push up project costs Stable and effective regulatory and planning policy is required to protect local amenity, and environmental and cultural values, and to support the success of the wind industry in Queensland. Good planning policy can also ensure that the state’s renewable energy target is met at the lowest possible cost. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has pointed out that wind power is the cheapest and most reliable way to meet the Large-scale Renewable Energy target. If the most economical wind farms are ruled out due to restrictive planning regulations, then more expensive wind farms or more expensive generation technologies must be built instead. Bloomberg identified that the Victorian Government's wind farm planning guidelines, which include a setback, could increase Victoria's electricity bills by up to $2 billion in the next decade12. In their submission to the recent South Australian Parliament’s Select Committee Inquiry into Wind Farm Developments, the Australian Industry Group (representing over 60,000 businesses) wrote that “When governments place onerous restrictions on wind farm development…, they rule out some of the best development locations – areas with strong, steady winds. Since electricity retailers must still meet their LRET obligations, they will therefore have to build more wind farms than otherwise on less favourable locations, or install other technologies such as solar or geothermal. Either way, the cost of meeting the RET will go up – and that cost will be passed straight through to electricity users...”

Wind farms should be treated the same as other infrastructure

Appropriate regulations and community consultation should apply to any wind farm, as they do to any new farm infrastructure – be it a new piggery or dairy, a tourist development, a road, a dam or a mine. Where appropriate, on the basis of merit, the planning scheme should manage and balance impacts and relevant concerns. However, that must be balanced within broader state policy objectives.

Treating wind farms differently from other forms of infrastructure could create a precedent that stifles investment in other projects essential to South Australia.

10 Available at: cleanenergycouncil.org.au/resourcecentre/reports.html 11 Available online at: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/noise/wind_farms 12 Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-17/wind-farm-rules-may-lead-to-higher-power- prices/3835458 Page 8 76

Loss of third party appeal rights

South Australia’s planning system enjoys a reputation for fairness, transparency and efficiency. Changes made to the Statewide Development Plan Amendment (DPA) in October 2012 maintain this by striking a balance between ensuring the community’s concerns can be considered and investment certainty for industry. The updated DPA reinstated third party appeal rights when turbines are within 2 km of dwellings. It also sets a minimum setback distance of 1 km for houses and 2 km for townships. This measure robustly protects the rights of communities in the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council.

Need for additional public consultation

Community consultation is an essential and central consideration for wind farm proponents

The wind industry accepts the need for effective standards for wind projects and the need to engage and communicate with communities during the whole process of wind farm development and construction. To this end, the Clean Energy Council and its members have committed to develop a range of community engagement tools. These will be released in early 2013 and include:  An update of the existing technical guideline for wind farm development  A comprehensive best practice guideline for community engagement  A community expectations handbook outlining the wind development process

The community engagement best practice guideline document demonstrates the wind industry’s ongoing commitment to involving local communities in the development and management of wind farms. The document has been compiled by an independent expert consultant, and outlines an industry-endorsed approach to engaging members of the community throughout the life of a wind farm, from site selection to construction, and through to decommissioning.

The guideline is a 'live' document that will be continuously reviewed and updated to reflect best practice in community engagement. It is now available online at: http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/technologies/wind/comm-engage-guidelines

Wind farms are broadly supported across communities

In January 2012 CSIRO released a report called “Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia: a snapshot”13. The CSIRO found that “There is strong community support for the development of wind farms, including support from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views.”

A recent independent survey carried out for the Clean Energy Council by QDos found that 77 per cent of people surveyed across Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia (including

13 Available at: http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Transformed- Flagship/Exploring-community-acceptance-of-rural-wind-farms-in-Australia.aspx Page 9 77

regional areas containing wind farms) saying they supported the development of wind farms.

The same study found that:  80 per cent of respondents thought wind farms could provide important income for farmers and other land owners  67 per cent of respondents rated a farmer’s right to generate income from his/her land more important than a resident’s right to a view clear of wind turbines  71 per cent agreed that as a general rule, farmers should have the right to do whatever they want on their land  66 per cent agreed that governments should not be able to tell farmers what they can and can’t do on their land

Consultation processes should reflect the real experience of locals

It is important for the integrity of the planning process that it is not hijacked by activist groups who do not reside in the local area where the wind farm is proposed. Experience in South Australia and in other states has shown that organised activist groups with no local connection to the area have spent time and effort trying to disrupt planning processes. This can delay projects that are proposed, regardless of the level of local community support. It is important that local people and project proponents have a chance to have their views heard in a fair and balanced manner.

Summary

South Australia’s thriving wind energy sector has so far created almost $1.8 billion in Australian investment and approximately 840 direct jobs. A recent report by consultants SKM indicates that wind farms generate significant extra funds for local suppliers, contractors, shopkeepers, community facilities and more. Wind farm companies reinforce these effects by making every effort to locally source materials like crushed rock, cement, sand and gravel, as well as transport and plant hire.

The report found that a typical 50 megawatt wind farm pays host farmers some $250,000 per year, is constructed by workers who spend up to $1.2 million locally, and contributes up to $80,000 annually to community projects.

The generation of electricity from wind farms means less power is generated from traditional fossil fuel sources, protecting South Australia from rising fuel costs and the carbon price, as well as reducing the output of carbon pollution into the atmosphere.

The figure below comes from the 2012 South Australian Historical Market Information report by AEMO14. It shows South Australia’s annual energy by fuel type, with wind generation in the previous financial year supplying approximately 24% of annual demand.

14 Available at: http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Planning/South-Australian-Advisory- Functions/South-Australian-Historical-Market-Information Page 10 78

Figure 2 - Annual energy by fuel type – South Australia

The graph clearly shows that as wind energy has been deployed, the demand for coal and gas fired electricity has reduced, with coal generation falling below wind generation for the first time in financial year 2011-12.

Wind power can play a crucial role in the economic sustainability of Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council communities. Unlike other forms of energy generation, wind farms can coexist with existing farming practices, and do not use or pollute water supplies. Wind farms also create jobs and income for regional areas, and generate additional drought-proof income for farmers. This income can help farmers make better use of marginal farming land, and insure against market downturns.

If you have any further questions please contact me via telephone on 03 9929 4118 or by email at [email protected]

Yours sincerely,

Alicia Webb Senior Policy Advisor Clean Energy Council

Page 11 79 Glen Acres Pty Ltd 48N70007632251 67 Torrens Rd., Riverton S A. 5412 Mb. 0438875501 Tel/fax (08)83897446 e-mail: [email protected]. au

27 February 2013

Mr R D Blight Chief Executive Officer Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council 4 Gleeson Street Clare SA 5453

Dear Mr Blight,

RE: Riverton: Strategic Directions Report, 2012

With regards to the Strategic Directions Report (Report) I have some comments on the report (see below) ánd request the opportunity to speak at the public hearing on 25 March 2013.

Backqround

We currently own (and have done so for many decades) the land in Riverton currently zoned Commerciaíand Deferred Urban (DU). This land was rezoned in 1994 from Ruralto Commercial and DU as part of the District Council of Riverton Supplementary Development Plan. At that time we indicated to Council that the Commercial zone in particular was inappropriate in its location and also excessive in its size. ln the intervening 19 years we (and the local land agents) have not had a single approach for a commercial lot of land in this location. We have however had numerous approaches for Residential lots in that particularly area, including an approach from the CEO of the C&GV Council in June 2003. There has been much correspondence about this issue over the years and I have attached two letters that provide a good overview, the first dated September 2003 (marked A) and most recent letter sent to the Council on my behalf by Fred Mackin dated 17 November 2009 (marked B). I have also attached an additional letter dated22 August 2005 from the Council regarding potential rezoning for a Drainage reserve (marked C).

Comments on the Report:

a) As a starting reference point I refer to the C&GV Council Consolidated Development Plan - 10 January 2013 page 131, namelY "Riverton The existing subdivided areas in the immediate vicinity of the town 'core' have largely been devetopedio that there is a demand for more residential land. This demand can be met in the south in an infitt area tying between Horner and Davis Sfreefs and other vacant allotments within the town 'core'. Additionãl provision has also been made for future expansion of the town to the west. This new land in the west shoutd be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth for quite some time to come."

80 This land "lying between Horner and Davis Sfreefs" is our land, and this approach seems sensible and reflects the demand and needs that we have experienced in the past 20 years, but this area is all currently zoned Commercial.

b) I note in the Report on page 79 that the DAP and planning staff had identifled the need to "consider the extent of land zoned commercial (excluding Torrens Road)." I also note that the population growth 1971-2006 was 0.3% and the population projection to 2030 is nearly 4 times ihat rate at1.lW. However even at the projected rate this would result in only another 280 people, and this would be very unlikely to cause a surge in the increase for commercial land (also given the number of existing vacant commercial buildings in the town and other lots available in the town centre for such purpose). Thus it would seem there is very little need (if at all) for more commercial land. c) As mentioned throughout the Report demographic trends indicate that Clare and Riverton having Hospital, Medical anO ngeO Care facilities are likely to have much of their increased population growth in the older age bracket. d) f would then make the point that many of these people would prefer to llve closer to the Town Centre rather than the potential lots in Policy Areas 4 to the North and East of the Town centre. The current area tying between Horner and Davis Sfreef if available for Residential lots would only be a couple of hundred metres from the Town Centre rather than a kilometre in Policy Areas ¿. i¡is would also be in accord with Policy 12.3 (see page 168) to encourage higherdensity housing near the centre of towns identified for growth (Riverton being one of those towns). e) I also note there is now no land zoned country living at Riverton'

Submission

I therefore submit that based on the various fìndings in the Report and our experience over many years as a long-term resident of Riverton, that the current zoning of the area lying between Horner ând Davis Street be considered for re-zoning to predominately residential. There are number of options here which includes 1. Rezoning as per the proposal dated 17 November 2009 2. The Torrens Road frontage area between Davis St., and the small piece of land with the separate title CT V158 F221 (approximately 100 meters street frontage giving the potential for around 6 to 7 new commercial lots) be retained as Commercial with the balance being rezoned Residential.

I also draw to your attention to the Council's agreement as per the letter of 22 August 2005 (attached) to give consideration to review the township ResidentialZone of the area currently zoned Deferred Urbàn with regards to our agreement to allow Council Right of Entry to construct a drain.

I look forward to your response to this submission and the opportunity to discuss the issues further'

Yours truly,

Kym Davis

c.c. Fred Mackin

2

81 t n t er

Land and Spatial Management Solutions Your Ref: Our Ref: DawOca002

15 September 2003

The C.E.O. Clare & Gilbert Valley Council 4 Gleeson Street CLARE SA 5453 Attention: Mr Mark Goldstein

Dear Sir,

RE: REZONING SUBMISSION - SECTION 50 REVIEW AT RIVERTON FOR GLEN ACRES PTY LTD.

We refer to recent discussions between the writer, Mr Kym Davis and Council Officers Mr Mark Goldstein and Mr Robert Beech.

Subiect Land Allotment 109 in FP 168238 contained within Certificate of Title Volume 5677 Folio 419 (copy attached) situated on the southern boundary of the Residential Zone of Riverton Township. The land fronts onto Horner Street to the north and Torrens Road and existing residential development (South Australian Housing Trust) of Davis and Murray Street to the east.

The land is presently zoned Commercial to the north and Rural (Deferred Urban) to the south, and is vacant and presently utilised for grazing purposes. At present the land is dissected by a drain from the extension of Swinden Street allowing outfall of stormwater from the Township.

The Proposal It is proposed to rezone as residential the northern portion of the subject land to include the existing CommercialZone and portions of the Rural (Deferred Urban) Zone with the balance of land being zoned Commercial. The proposed Residential Zone should encompass the existing South Australian Housing Trust development within Murray and Davis Streets.

Basis of Submission The submission is based on and supported by the following:-

The understanding that Residential land is at a premium within the town as itemised by the attached correspondences received from the Riverton Community Management Committee and Mr Leo Redden of Wesfarmers Landmark. lt is also

Port Augusta Off¡ce Adelâ¡de Office TODD ALEXANDER SURVEYORS PTY LTD PO Box 586 First Floor ABN 50 008 279 81 0 22Cha ceryLene 21 V¡ctoria Parade PORT AUGUSTA SA 57OO ADELAIDE SA 5OOO www toddalexender com au Ph: (08) 8642 3044 ' Fã: (08) 8642 6348 Ph: (08) 8223 5220 F ax. (08]. 8223 5226 E-meil: ptaug@toddalexendêr com au E-ma¡l: surueyors@toddalexander com au Page 1 oÍ 2 82 understood that the landowners of existing Greenfields Residential land in the township are reluctant to develop their holdings.

a The location of the proposed Residential Zone will allow the continuation of the existing housing within the Township and allow a link to the South Australian Housing Trust development.

a The proposal will also allow the utilization of existing infrastructure along Horner Street including Water, STEDS Electricity and Telecommunications. ln addition the development of the land will allow the Councils existing stormwater drainage to be catered for within any future proposals for the site.

a The proposed re-location of the Commercial Zone to the south of the land will allow for a Commercial / lndustry "Hub" to the south of the Township for future development as required.

Conclusion ln recent years this office has seen a trend in increase in demand for affordable residential land outside of the larger Towns of Gawler and Clare and believe the existing infrastructure within the Riverton Township will allow Residential expansion of the town and can be achieved economicallY.

This submission has been prepared to notify Council of our clients desire to develop the land and to cater for the needs of the community. Should Council wish to proceed with the assessment of the re-zoning this office and our client are willing to provide any further information a Town Planning Consultation as required.

Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to call'

Yours faithfully, TODD ALEXANDER SURVEYORS PTY LTD

Fred Mackin Manager - PropertY Services

Port Augusta Off¡ce TODD ALEXANDER SURVEYORS PTY LTD Adela¡de Office PO Box 586 ABN 50 008 279 81 0 First Floor 2'l Viclotia Parade 22 ClÊncery Laîe PORT AUGUSTA SA 57OO www toddalexander com au ADELAIDE SA 5OOO Ph: (08) 8642 3044 Fax: (08) 8642 6348 Ph: (O8l 8223 5220 Fax: (Oal 8223 5226 ptaug@toddalexander com83 au 2 of 2 E-mail: E-ma¡l: surueyors@toddalexender'com.au Page (tD

CIVIL SURVEYS & DESTGN Prì 11r) A.B.N. t9 060 705 2ll

45tl Morphett Street ¡{delaide S,A. 5000 lTth November 2009 PO Box 6651 Hali[ax Strect Adclaide S A. 5000 Your ref: 3.71 .7.5 Tcl (08) 8212er22 Fax (08) 82t2 9166 Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council, Ernail : [email protected] rvrlcivilsurueys corn.au 4 Gleeson Street, Clare SA 5453

Att: Trevor V White

Dear Trevor

RE:PROPOSED STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS REPORT OLJR REF: 090l2LB

We refer to your correspondence dated l2 October 2009 and our clients previous discussions with Council staffover many years regarding the rezoning of land owned by our client on the southem outskirts of Riverton.

SUBJECT LAND

The subject land is described as Allotment 109 in FP 168238 within Certificate of Title Volume 5677 Folio 419 andAllotment 101 in FP 1ó8230 within Certiflrcate of Title Volume 5805 Folio 418 situated on the southern boundary of the Residential Zone of Riverton Township. The land fronts onto Homer Street to the north, Torrens Road to the east, and Camacs Road to the south. It is also adjacent to the existing Residential land that includes Davis and Murray Street (Old SA Housing Trust development)

The subject land is presently zoned Commercial to the north and Deferred Urban to the south, and is vacant and is presently utilized for grazing purposes. The land is dissected by a stormwater drain from the extension of Swinden Street to the north until it crosses T-orrens Road to the south Our client has had previous discussions with Council in regards the drain and has consented to the drain being recently upgraded and provide Cõuncil with access rights for the construction and maintenance of the drain.

THE- JROPO-S-A-L

It is proposed to rezone as Residential the northem and westem portions of the land to include the existing Commercial Zone and portion of the Defened Urban Zone with the balance.of land being Commercial. We have provided an indicative design denoting the proposed rezoningand allotment layout as a guide to our clients intentions.

Nuriootpa Goolwa Unit l, I I Gawler Street I 5B Hu¡chinson Strect Nuriootpa S.r\ 5355 Goolwa S.Ä. 5214 Tel (08) ¡1562 4188 TellFax (08) 8555 38'+4 I;ax (08) 8212 9ló6 84 15

BASIS OF SUBMISSION

The submission is based on and supported by the following

a Since 2003 our client has been approached by Council staff several times to ascertain his inclination to rezone the land to Residential. a The location of the proposed Residential Zone will allow the continuation of the existing housing within the township and provide a link to the SA Housing Trust development. a Our cliens have agreed with the developers of adjoining land (DN 433/DO29107) to allow CWMS and stormwater outfall to traverse the subject land to connect to the previously mentioned stormwater drain and CWMS drains in Davis Street, a The proposal will also allow for the utilization of existing services along Horner Street and Torrens Road. a The proposed relocation of the Commercial Zone to the south of the land will allow for future development as required, a Should the land be rezoned the proposed subdivision/s will allow for the existing Council maintained stormwater drain to vest in Council as a drainage Reserve. This has been agreed with Council during negotiations in regards to the Rights of Access between Council and our client. It is envisaged that the "drain" could become a feature of the proposed division to allow for stormwater detention and treatment along the entire length prior to discharge into the Gilbert River.

This submission has been prepared to notifu Council of our clients desire to develop the land and to cater for the needs of the community. Should Council wish to proceed with the assessment of the rezoning this offrce and our client are willing to provide any further information or available to meet with Council staff to discuss the proposal.

Should you have nay queries please do not hesitate to call,

Yours truly, Civil Surveys and Design Pty Ltd

Fred Mackin Manager-Property Services

85 I

T TI I ? r1 ll ! '-1 _t r/

tt rl I t

I \/; .-J

?'t .tt I a n rT1 lr ,,\ a r11 lrl EII \ r.-

l

tt|tt C' I g E I 1t I L IORRGTI

ROAD

ËÍ åti qq I E ¡È ÈÈ ¡t E H ËI I Ëri ls H li E H,räflË ãEAe t þ oct Ti ¡ili!ilËl I ¡@ TT 2J H t Ei! lg q ãI lp t6 ËË lo î ãI d ¡ e lã tõl- 86 6 PAGE ø2/ø3 2uøel2øø6 t7:34 ø88,8423624 CLARE & GILBERT VAL

CLA.RE & GILBERT VALLEYS COUNCIL

22 August 2005 Ref: 14.19.2,15

Kym Davis Glen Acres PtY Ltd ô7 Torrens Road RIVERTON SA 5412

Ðear Kym

I refer to previous correspondenoe regarding your request to provide a drainage reserue through Lot 109 FP168238 on the southern outskirls of Riverton.

As discussed previously, and as outlined in the 13 December 2004letter from Todd Alexander, the proposal is as follows:

r Glen Acres Pty Ltd provides Rights of Access to Council to oonslruct the proposed drain ec outlined in previous correspondenog. e Councilto give consideration to review the township Residential Zone, with particular emphasis to the subþct land as outlined in the abovemenfioned correspondence. - o $hould the subject land be rezoned, Glen Acres Pty Ltd undertakes to best in Councilthe Drãinage Reserve at no eost to Council upon lodgement of a Plan of Division with the Lands Titles Office, r Should the subject land not be rezoned, Glen Acres Pty Ltd agrees to atlow the Drainage Reserve to be created at the agreed market value for the land reguired with allcosts to be borne by Council.

Council has agreed with your terms and conditions and wishes lo proceed with the drainage works.

The signing of the Right of Entry allows Council the Right to commence earthworks and start the process of easement transfers with the Land Titles Office.

Please return the eigned Right of Entry Document as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully

Tony Eckerrnann WORKS MANAGER

Ar.u coanEsÉoNDENcE DTREcTED To - d G¡-eEsor.¡ stRuer CLARE sA Easg fELËpHoNE: (OB) 89,42 6400 F¡,çslun-el (OB) ABAZ A€.24 EMAÍL: 6dm¡[email protected].ãu ABN BZ 461 OO7 ZAg

87 RIGHT OF ENTRY

To Lot 109 F'l68238 Hd Gilbert Riverton

Owned by Glen Acres PtY Ltd

As the owner of Lot 109 F168238, Hundred of Gilbert, Riverton, we give Right of Entry to the Clare & Gilbert Valleys Council to allow flood mitigation drainage works to be underlaken and agree that:

a Glen Acres Pty Ltd provides Rights of Access to Council to construct the proposed drain as outlined in previous correspondence' a Council to give consideration to review the township Residential Zone, with particular emphasis to the subject land as outlined in the abovementioned correspondence. a Should the subject land be rezoned, Glen Acres Pty Ltd undertakes to vest in Council the Dráinage Reserve at no cost to Council upon lodgement of a Plan of Division with the Lands Titles Office. a Should the subject land not be rezoned, Glen Acres Pty Ltd agrees to allow the Drainage Reserve to be created at the agreed market value for the land required with all costs to be borne by Council.

for and on beh of Glen Acres PtY Ltd

Name: KV nr )nvtS

t L@-a& Position ß ûT./Êr€.,.r.rô \ go/r,k { Date

88 C

CLARE & GILBERT VALLEYS COUNCIL

14 December 2005 Ref: 14.19.2.15 Series: 05/10932

Mr Kym Davis Managing Director Glen Acres P/L 67 Tonens Road RIVERTON SA 5412

Dear Mr Davis

Re: Amended Daûe for Commencement of Drainage Works

Further to your correspondence dated 4 December 2005, I wish to thank you for returning the signed 'Rignt of Entryi, thus allowing Council to undertake drainage works through your land. Uñtortunatély, Councíl's Works Staff will not be commencing the drainage work in December 2005, but Cóuncil's Works Manager Mr Tony Eckermann will be endeavouring to start on-site in February 2006.

Gouncil will ensure that it notifies you and/or Mr Fred Mackin of Todd Alexander P/L, in advance of progress PAR As you have promised, please contact Mrs Bev Goode any 'AA+Z made with the þrocess. on'Én. O4OO, to arrange a suitable time for you (and Mr Mackin) to attend an informal Council gathering in 2006, to discuss re-zoning of your land further,

Should you wish to discuss any of the other matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office.

Yours faithfully

Wù{^ J

Robert Veitch ENVI RONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER

RDV:SPG

ALL CORRESPONDENCE DIRECTED TO.4 GLEESON STREET CLARE SA 5453 TerepxoNe: (O8) AA42 6,40,0 Frcsltvll¡-E: (o8) a8,42 3624 EMAIL: [email protected] ABN a2 461 OO7 206 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

26th February 2013 EnergyAustralia Renewable Development ACN 151 430 787

Chief Executive Officer Level 33 Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council 385 Bourke Street 4 Gleeson St Melbourne Victoria 3000

Clare, SA 5453 Phone +61 3 8628 1000 By email: [email protected] Facsimile +61 3 8628 1050

[email protected] Dear Sir / Madam, energyaustralia.com.au

Submission to the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Development Plan Strategic Directions Review

EnergyAustralia welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Development Plan Strategic Directions Review (Review).

EnergyAustralia is one of Australia’s largest integrated energy companies, providing gas and electricity to over 2.8 million household and business customers throughout the country. EnergyAustralia’s portfolio includes 5628MW of generation capacity. A further 1626MW of EnergyAustralia’s projects are under development, including substantial investments in renewable energy.

EnergyAustralia, as a local business operator in the Clare and Gilbert Valley region, is committed to working with governments, the community, and other key stakeholders to ensure the prosperous development of the region going forward.

Summary of EnergyAustralia’s position

The preferred future described in the Clare and Gilbert Valley Strategic Directions Report to have 40 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050 supports the overall direction of State and Federal policies that have been enacted to promote the orderly transition of our energy generation fleet from carbon-intensive forms to clean, renewable energy.

EnergyAustralia notes the Strategic Directions Report, in its current form, introduces unnecessary limitations on the development of wind energy generation that will be required to meet these targets. Wind energy is currently the most commercially economic form of clean energy generation. This is a critical point, as end costs for energy generation are borne by retail electricity consumers.

Arbitrary restrictions of the development of wind projects in the region will also have a detrimental impact on Clare and Gilbert Valley’s future economy. Development of wind projects represent a significant investment in local communities, and provide new forms of sustainable employment, increased rates and infrastructure payments to Council, diversified income to land owners, as well as local services, businesses and community projects.

EnergyAustralia recommends Clare and Gilbert Valleys seeks instead to introduce a planning framework that is consistent, transparent and based on scientific analysis. Planning amendments should be non arbitrary, rather they should seek to take into account the individual merits of each project in order to deliver the best planning outcome for proponents, neighbors and the wider community..

1 119

The South Australian Government currently has targets in place to support development of renewable energy. Original targets required 20% of the State’s electricity production to be sourced from renewable by 2014. As this target was exceeded during 2010/11 producing 22% of the State’s total energy production from renewable energy, the target was amended and the State will now aim for 33% of the State’s electricity production to be from renewable energy sources by 2020.

South Australian household and business customers have benefitted financially from this approach. As a result of increasing contribution by wind generators, individual consumers are less impacted by the Federal Government’s carbon price in South Australia than other states. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modeling assessed the carbon price impact on household expenditure for consumers in each state. For South Australian consumers, modeling found the impact on household expenditure was less than $6.60 per week, compared to $9.52 for Victorians and $8.95 in New South Wales.

EnergyAustralia notes that this proposed planning framework and the Review recommendations are at odds with these Federal and State policy positions on renewable energy deployment and therefore have the potential to negatively impact on both the delivery of clean energy targets, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent consumer costs.

It is also important to note that these State and Federal policies are based on scientific evidence, global research and independent assessment undertaken into mature wind energy markets to ensure the transition to cleaner energy sources can occur effectively, and without undue impact on local communities.

Current development standards governing planning and development in Australia are amongst the strictest in the world. Obtaining planning approval to build a wind farm is not possible until local and state authorities are satisfied the wind farm will meet strict government noise, visual and other regulations.

Current planning laws have also been developed following extensive consultation with stakeholders, including local communities.

These standards reflect a practical approach to infrastructure development and have been proven to deliver economically viable projects that are sensitive to local community concerns.

In chronological order of the wind farm related points, the following paper sets out points of concern as set for the in the Directions Review.

Part A Development Plan Amendments, 4.2 Priority DPAs – Wind Farms

EnergyAustralia supports a planning framework that is consistent, transparent and based on scientific analysis which takes into account the individual merits of each project.

Wind farms, as envisaged infrastructure in parts of the Clare and Gilbert Valley, are currently assessed with regard to the individual merits of the project and, as such, need to be considered against the objectives and principles of the Development Plan. EnergyAustralia considers that this assessment framework is the most effective and independent way to manage the local assessment of large infrastructure projects.

120

EnergyAustralia does not support mandatory separation distances between wind turbines and residences or communities; or mandatory consent from neighbours within arbitrarily defined distances. Minimum setbacks for wind farms are arbitrary and have no scientific basis. There is no bona fide, peer reviewed medical evidence however, to suggest that wind farms or wind turbines themselves can have a direct, adverse impact on people living nearby.

Impacts on nearby communities are more appropriately assessed using empirical criteria which consider site-specific features (i.e. topography, population density, etc) and that relate to performance measures designed to protect residential amenity with some basis, i.e. noise regulations.

The notion of adopting a 5km buffer is unscientific and arbitrary at best. Buffer distances are already adopted to address visual amenity in South Australia and detailed noise modeling is undertaken together with the statutory authorities to demonstrate and then assess compliance with the regulations that have been developed in part by the World Health Organisation (WHO). We consider this approach is more than adequate planning protection utilising the detailed knowledge of science and health experts to determine sound planning policy.

Furthermore, EnergyAustralia commits to a rigorous program of community consultation to ensure residents living within the vicinity of proposed and operating wind farms are aware of their potential imacts, Via two way communication and by providing balanced, factual, scientific information, we hope to assist local residents make informed decisions as to the benefits of wind energy and aim to reduce any anxiety they may have.

Both Development Plan Amendments would ultimately contribute to increase the cost of electricity generation and therefore the cost to consumers. Currently, wind power is the cheapest and most reliable way to meet the Federal Government’s Renewable Energy Target. If the most economical wind farms are ruled out due to restrictive planning regulations or for other reasons, then more expensive wind farms or more expensive generation technologies must be built instead. Increased project development costs would ultimately be borne by consumers. If wind is not built, then the next best option is solar; which is generally more expensive, requires greater geographical spread and will also result in a larger cost pass through to consumers.

Part B Consultation, investigations and Discussion

6.3 Other key strategic documents; District level

Ministerial Statewide Wind Farm DPA, 2011

Discussion on visual impact, Category 3 Development, Setback distances.

The current policy addresses visual impact using setback distances as triggers to the categorisation of development for assessment. All development applications undertake a detailed assessment of the visual elements of a wind farm project as one of the key impacts. This modeling is associated with a detailed narrative from an expert Landscape Architect utilizing a quantitative methodology to assess visual impact.

EnergyAustralia considers the existing planning regime adequately addresses all three elements discussed and foresees no rationale to amend the current policy based on the mitigation of visual impact, categorisation of development or setback distances.

121

It is accepted and understood that some scenically important areas of the Clare and Gilbert Valley are not conducive or suitable for wind farm development. EnergyAustralai’s approach to the planning and siting of new wind farms seeks to avoid areas of high scenic value or that contain highly sensitive biodiversity features. Beyond this, development plans are assessed on their visual impactin a practical, scientific way noting that scenic is a largely subjective. Developing policy that covers the entire jurisdiction is overly simplistic and a failure of the principles of planning assessment.

The significant issues raised in section 6.3 are all contingent parts of the assessment and preparation of a development application. Regulatory policy, land use provisions and interaction with the stakeholders are all are key elements of the wider development plan and therefore assessment criteria. Therefore, the assessment of the development application, as a matter of course, takes in account the aspects of all sections of the development plan.

Part B Consultation, investigations and discussion

10.9 Key issues and recommendations; Wind farms

The position of the Council, concisely, is to oppose wind farms in the Clare & Gilbert Valleys due to the quality of the unique landscapes and biodiversity conservation. Blanket restrictions for wind farm developments is arbitrary and has no scientific basis. Impacts on environments and landscapes are more appropriately assessed using empirical criteria which consider site-specific features and that relate to performance measures designed to protect residential amenity with some basis

Areas of unique landscape and biodiversity are highlighted early in the process of developing any wind farm using a data driven prospecting process and typically avoided due to the planning conflicts and environmental issues involved.

EnergyAustralia also notes the importance of landscape to local communities and as such, seeks to involve local residents and authorizes via consultation and engagement at a planning stage to ensure community landscape considerations are reflected in final planning designs.

The Review also recommends that suitable areas across the state be targeted based on detailed site assessment. EnergyAustralia submits that this kind of review is exactly what the process of prospecting undertaken by the developers of wind farm projects entails. This process ultimately makes quantitative and assessment driven assumptions towards the likely cost of energy generation, and, logically, it is the lowest cost generation that is afforded priority as this delivers the lowest cost of renewable energy to the consumer. The process starts on a macro scale (statewide or nationwide) and is then refined with more detailed information such as grid congestion studies and consultation with the authorities to build a picture of the site.

Current development standards governing planning and development in Australia are amongst the strictest in the world and obtaining planning approval to build a wind farm is not possible until local and state authorities are satisfied the wind farm will meet strict government noise, visual and other standards. The measures and controls in place are robust and sufficient to manage the impact of a wind farm development on nearby neighbours is a transparent assessment based approach involving an independent compliance authority in relation to noise. To this end, EnergyAustralia does not support the implementation of mandatory, arbitrary setbacks and does not support the reintroduction of Category 3 notification.

Conclusion

122

Wind energy provides a host of benefits to South Australian communities and individuals. Wind energy provides a new ‘cash crop’ to farmers, supplying them with a complementary, guaranteed source of income that has minimal impact on existing agricultural operations. In addition, operating wind farms inject a steady stream of income into their local community through the consumption of goods and services provided by local businesses.

Energy Australia’s operating Waterloo wind farm in Clare, is a good example of this arrangement.

In 2010, the project’s construction generated an additional 300 jobs, around which 80% of which were filled by labor living locally in the Mid North. Approximately $2 million has been spent on utilization of services provided by local businesses, some of which are still in the employ of the wind farm today. Landholder payments have provided new forms of income to 10 landholders. These annual payments constitute a new, sustainable form of income for local residents that can then be reinvested into the local community by stimulating consumption. Payments to Council have been substantial. In addition to planning fees (approximately $50,000 for DA assessment stage 2), and new rate income derived from the wind farm, development conditions have required EnergyAustralia to contribute $1 million upfront and $100,000 per annum for ten years to the maintenance and upkeep of local roads. Approximately $800,000 has been paid to the Native Vegetation Council for protection and enhancement of local biodiversity. In addition, EnergyAustralia has invested $100,000 in the reseeding and revegetation of its wind farm site. In line with its approach of supporting the communities in which it operates, EnergyAustralia has also invested in local community events and causes. Since beginning operations, the business has provided $40,000 for local partnerships with the intent of improving the economic and social wellbeing of the region.

Lastly, 10 permanent employees now have jobs at the wind farm. All of these workers live locally and Energy Australia is committed to providing them with training so that they can develop skills in the rapidly growing wind industry. Salaries for these workers is approximately $1 million per annum.

EnergyAustralia’s efforts demonstrate an understanding of what it takes to be a sustainable business, balancing our environmental responsibilities with the social and economic needs of stakeholder, customers and the communities in which we operate.

We encourage consideration of our response to this review and welcome the opportunity to discuss any points in further detail should you require.

Regards

Cameron Garnsworthy Senior Manager, Renewable Development

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130