David Brooks Chairman Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc

Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc.

Submission re Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification Application 07_0118 MOD 1

Rev. 1, May 2014

Declarations

This submission is made on behalf of Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc.

PO Box 1237, Goulburn, NSW 2580

Tel.: 02 4829 2346

David Brooks Chairman Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc.

Political donations: Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc. does not make political donations. There are no political donations to declare.

David Brooks

Privacy: I have read the Department’s Privacy Statement and agree to the Department using my submission in the ways it describes. I understand this includes full publication on the Department’s website of my submission, any attachments, and any of my personal information in those documents, and possible supply to third parties such as state agencies, local government and the proponent.

David Brooks

Personal interest: Although I am making this submission on behalf of Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc., I also have a personal interest, as I am a neighbour of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

In the original Environmental Assessment (2008), as in other documents concerning this development, including the Modification Application, my house is designated G43. In the original EA it is said that my house is 1.7 kilometres from the nearest turbine. According to the Modification Application, the nearest turbine, GUR_01, is now 1680 metres from my house, having moved 2 metres closer to it as a result of the modification. Also, according to the Modification Application, there are 5 turbines within 2 kilometres of my house, and 13 within 3 kilometres.

From my knowledge of the experiences of neighbours of other existing wind farms, and of the experiences of Gullen Range neighbours where turbines have already been allowed to operate, and from my reading of scientific and professional articles and reports of peer- reviewed status, I expect that I and my neighbours will suffer adverse noise impacts from the operation of the wind farm, and that in some cases this will lead to adverse health effects, probably stress-related symptoms and sleep disturbance.

David Brooks

14 May 2014

Contents

1. Summary 5

2. The need for a public inquiry 1: the matter of the turbine re-locations 8

3. The need for a public inquiry 2: noise 21

4. The need for a public inquiry 3: health 40

5. The need for a public inquiry 4: visual 51

6. The need for a public inquiry 5: land value 52

7. Conclusions and recommendations 54

Appendix A 55

Appendix B 60

Appendix C 63

References for the Appendices 75

Summary

On behalf of Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc. (PMLG) I object to the Modification Application 07_0118 MOD 1 submitted by the proponent of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd (GRWF).

1. The need for a public inquiry into the matter of unauthorised turbine re-locations

I submit that there should be no modification application, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure should consider no modification application in connection with the Gullen Range Wind Farm. Instead, all further assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm should be suspended, pending an independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

The grounds for such an independent public inquiry are: • that the proponent has deliberately violated condition 1.5 of the Project Approval • that the Department of Planning has failed to prevent that violation • that the “independent” Environmental Representative to the project has had an extreme conflict of interest, being a Director of a consultancy that has been employed by the proponent on this very wind farm project since 2007 • that the “independent” Environmental Representative, having an extreme conflict of interest, should never have been appointed by the Director-General of the Department of Planning, and was wrongly appointed • that the Department of Planning wrongly facilitated the wrongful appointment of the aforesaid “independent” Environmental Representative by using the words “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel” in condition 7.1 of the Project Approval, these being words that apparently serve to enable someone not independent of the proponent to be appointed • that the Department of Planning has failed to order a halt to the construction of illegally located turbines, but has allowed the proponent to continue to erect turbines in unauthorised locations • that the Department of Planning has failed to order that all illegally located turbines not operate • that the proponent claims to be contributing already to the national Renewable Energy Target and, if so, must be earning Renewable Energy Certificates illegally by the operation of illegally located turbines

In view of the above facts, an independent public inquiry is needed to determine (i) whether or to what extent the Department of Planning is guilty of misconduct in its oversight of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project; (ii) whether or to what extent the proponent Gullen Range

Wind Farm Pty Ltd is guilty of any fraud, or attempted fraud; and (iii) whether or to what extent any parties are guilty of corruption in law.

In view of these matters, one issue that needs to be investigated by the independent public inquiry is whether the Department of Planning’s willingness to allow the proponent to submit a modification application after the Project Approval has been flagrantly violated, as if to provide itself, the Department, with an opportunity to give retrospective legitimacy to a deliberate violation of the Project Approval, itself constitutes misconduct on the part of the Department of Planning; and, if so, whether the proponent was complicit in this.

Another matter that requires determination by an independent public inquiry is the current dispute between the proponent GRWF and the Department of Planning. The Department considers that the turbine re-locations are unauthorised, and that the proponent needs to submit a modification application in respect of them. The proponent insists that the turbine re-locations are consistent with the existing approval, and that consequently it does not need to seek further assessment and approval by a modification application. This is a serious matter of law, of how the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 should be interpreted. As it is a matter of general principle that will apply to other instances of development projects, it requires clear determination. This can only be resolved by an independent public inquiry.

I suggest that, given the gravity of the above matters, the independent public inquiry should be at least a Judicial Commission. It should be instituted as soon as possible by the Minister for Planning.

2. Further grounds for an independent public inquiry

The matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations is sufficient ground in itself to justify an independent public inquiry. However, if there is to be such an inquiry, it would be wise for its terms of reference to be extended to cover the entire history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project, from its proposal through its assessment and approval to its construction and operation. There are two reasons for this.

One reason is that there are already ample grounds in current and past research to hold that the assessment of the project was unreliable, and that the consequent approval of the project was unsafe.

Moreover, it is not just a matter of the assessment and approval of this particular project being unreliable and unsafe. It is the whole assessment regime for wind energy projects in NSW that is inadequate. The noise guidelines that have been adopted to assess the noise impacts of wind turbines in NSW – the so-called South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) – are demonstrably inadequate to protect neighbours from adverse noise impacts. The principles on which the assessment of visual impact is performed are intellectually frivolous.

The principles on which the estimation of possible impact on land value is carried out are clearly flawed, and are not such as to enable an accurate estimate to be made. Aspects of the assessment of impacts on biodiversity also cannot be taken seriously.

Thus, the assessment and approval of wind energy projects in NSW have generally been lacking in intellectual and moral integrity, and this is as true of the assessment and approval of the Gullen Range project as of other wind farm projects in NSW.

Therefore, an independent public inquiry into the Gullen Range Wind Farm project would be an opportunity to examine critically the whole assessment regime for wind energy in NSW, to reform that assessment regime, to give integrity to the assessment of the proposals of this industry, and to provide justice to rural residents who have already suffered, or who are likely to suffer, from the inadequate assessment of wind energy projects hitherto.

The second reason for extending the terms of reference of the public inquiry is that if an investigation into the unauthorised turbine re-locations were to find that officials in the Department of Planning were guilty of misconduct, and if that misconduct were to be the effect of an improper bias in favour of developers’ interests, then that finding would be a prima facie reason for suspecting that a similar bias were responsible for the many and various deficiencies in the assessment and approval of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

It would also be reasonable to suspect that any bias on the part of Departmental officials must manifest itself in inadequate compliance monitoring of the project. There is already ample evidence that the compliance monitoring of the project has been inadequate hitherto, if not non-existent – witness the moving of the locations of 95% of the turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm to unauthorised locations. It must be reasonable to fear that future compliance monitoring of the project will be similarly inadequate.

It would therefore be logical to extend the terms of reference of the public inquiry to cover the entire history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project.

These matters, and the matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations will be discussed in detail in the rest of this submission.

The need for a public inquiry 1: the matter of the unauthorised turbine re- locations

The grounds for instituting an independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm are as follows:

1. The proponent, Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd (GRWF) has admitted that it has changed the location of 69 of the 73 turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm from the locations authorised by the Project Approval (see Micrositing Consistency Review (2013) (prepared for the proponent by ngh environmental), pp. 1-2, 5; Modification Application (2014), Table 2-2). The turbines have been re-located by distances from 1 metre to 187 metres, the average distance of change being 42 metres (Micrositing Consistency Review (2013), p. 5; Modification Application (2014), pp. 28-29).

2. These changes are not notional but real. The entire system of roads, hardstands and turbine footings has been built. According to the Modification Application (dated 31.3.14; p. 13), 58 of the 73 turbines have been erected. However, observation suggests that at the date of the writing of this submission (14.5.14) 66 turbines have been erected: both Kialla turbines are up; 29 of the 30 Bannister turbines are up; all 23 Pomeroy turbines are up; 12 of the Gurrundah turbines are up. This leaves only 6 Gurrundah turbines to be erected, and 1 Bannister turbine to be completed. The erection of turbines, including some illegally located, continues.

3. All this has happened without the proponent having submitted a modification application to the Minister for Planning, until now. The date of this Modification Application is 31.3.14. By that date, according to the Modification Application itself (p. 13) 58 of the 73 turbines had been erected – without the proponent seeking further assessment and approval.

4. Therefore, these turbine re-locations constitute a violation of condition 1.5 of the Project Approval, which states clearly and unequivocally:

“1.5 Pursuant to section 75J (4) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 the project is modified to remove the ability of the Proponent to relocate turbines from the locations indicated in the document referred to under condition 1.1b) [i.e. the Environmental Assessment, 2008] by up to 250 metres, without further assessment and approval in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.”

5. The proponent has argued that it is allowed to make “minor relocations” from those authorised (Goulburn Post, 3.3.14; Modification Application (2014), pp. 73-74), but this argument has no validity.

6. Section 75W (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 allows modifications that are “consistent with the existing approval” to be made without seeking the Minister’s approval. But, the proponent’s turbine re-locations are not consistent with the “existing approval”. They directly violate condition 1.5 of the Project Approval, and they do so on a massive scale.

7. The proponent’s Micrositing Consistency Review (2013) emphasises that the turbine re-locations are, in its judgment, consistent with the “Approved Project” (pp. 1, 20- 21). Thence, the proponent asserts that the changes must be consistent with the conditions of approval (pp. 20-21). But this argument is fallacious.

8. The EP&A Act, in section 75W, does not refer to the “Approved Project”. It refers to the “existing approval”. Section 75W (2) states, in part: “The Minister’s approval for a modification is not required if the project as modified will be consistent with the existing approval under this Part [i.e. Part 3A].”

9. The proponent may have been influenced by an error in the Director-General’s Major Project Assessment (2009), a document produced by officials in the Department of Planning. At section 2.2 of the Major Project Assessment the Director-General discusses the proponent’s request to be allowed to move the turbine locations by up to 250 metres, and rejects it. But, the Director-General adds:

“It should be noted that notwithstanding this prohibition, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 permits the Proponent to make minor amendments to the project where such amendments would not be inconsistent with the approved project, or to seek the Minister’s approval to modify the approval if the amendments are in fact deemed to be inconsistent. (bold added)”

10. As we have seen, section 75W does not refer to consistency with the “Approved Project”. It refers to consistency with the “existing approval”. And in section 75W (2) the word “minor” does not occur. The Director-General is therefore wrong in asserting that “minor” amendments which are consistent with the “Approved Project” are permitted without the proponent seeking the Minister’s approval.

11. The Department of Planning remains in its error, as the letter from Ning Chen to Chris Wilson, dated 1.4.14, indicates. Ning Chen refers to a letter sent by the Department on 26.2.14 to GRWF. Ning Chen states: “In its letter of 26 February 2014 the Department accepts that the Project Approval authorises the construction of wind turbines in the locations identified in the Environmental Assessment but that those locations may be subject to “minor relocation”. The Department concedes that “minor” is not a technical term, and relies upon a definition of “minor” as small and insignificant.” (I have requested a copy of this letter of 26.2.14, but the Department has refused to make it available. This hardly suggests transparency in governance.)

12. The Department should never have made this concession. As we have seen, section 75W (2) of the EP&A Act does not use the word “minor”, and is only concerned with modifications that are consistent with the “existing approval”. The Department has allowed the proponent to suggest that the issue turns upon whether the turbine re- locations are minor amendments or not (Modification Application (2014), pp. 73-74). But this is not so. The issue is whether the turbine re-locations are modifications that are “consistent with the existing approval”. They are clearly not, since they directly violate condition 1.5 of the Project Approval.

13. It is remarkable that (so far as I can see) the proponent’s Modification Application does not anywhere discuss the issue whether the turbine re-locations are consistent with condition 1.5 of the Project Approval. In fact (so far as I can see), condition 1.5 of the Project Approval is not mentioned anywhere in the Modification Application. This is astonishing as it can only be condition 1.5 of the Project Approval that has led the Department to declare that the turbine re-locations are unauthorised.

14. The Department has trapped itself in a contradiction. On the one hand, it now wants to say that the turbine re-locations are unauthorised. On the other hand, it wants to protect itself from the exposure of its error in misinterpreting section 75W (2) of the EP&A Act, and thereby giving false encouragement to the proponent to ignore condition 1.5 of the Project Approval.

15. Both the proponent and the Department are now struggling to gloss over the contradictions. The department now states officially that the proponent’s position has no validity. The department has told the proponent that its turbine re-locations are unauthorised, and that the proponent faces the threat of legal action in the Land & Environment Court (DoPI, media release, 28.2.14). On its side, the proponent has now backed away from what must have been a bluff, because it has now agreed to submit a modification application, according to section 75W of the EP&A Act.

16. But, if the Department thinks that the proponent has violated the Project Approval, why has it not taken the proponent to the Land & Environment Court? And if the proponent genuinely believes that it does not need to submit a modification application to the Minister, why has it not gone to the Land & Environment Court to overturn the Department’s position?

17. It is clear that both sides are bluffing, and neither side wishes to go to the Land & Environment Court. The proponent does not want to go to the court, as it has violated the Project Approval on a massive scale. The Department does not want to go to the court, because it is embarrassed by its failure to prevent such a massive violation of the Project Approval.

18. It is impossible not to think that the Department and the proponent have agreed not to go to the Land & Environment Court, but rather for the proponent to submit a modification application, which in due course the Department will approve, either wholly or in large part. In this way, both the Department and the proponent can avoid responsibility for the violation of the Project Approval. If this seems an unworthy suspicion, I can only suggest that it seems to be a reasonable suspicion in the light of what the Department and the proponent have done, and not done. There are ample grounds for suspicion detailed in this section of this submission. At this point one need only point out that, on the face of things, both the Department and the proponent have ample motivation to go to the Land & Environment Court, and both are refusing to do so. What other explanation for this strange behaviour can there be except a tacit agreement between the two parties?

19. The proponent’s violation of condition 1.5 of the Project Approval, and the Department’s failure to prevent that violation must be investigated by an independent public inquiry. These facts by themselves are sufficient to justify the inquiry. However, there are other grounds for the inquiry, also connected to the matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations.

20. One set of grounds concerns the very large sums of money involved in the turbine re- locations, and the associated possibility of impropriety or corruption.

21. Appendix B of the Micrositing Consistency Review (2013) makes it clear that the main reasons for the turbine re-locations were to increase “wind yield” and to minimise “wake loss” (cf. Modification Application (2014), pp. 53-57). That is, the reason for the re-locations was to maximise electricity production, and hence to maximise revenue. Over the lifetime of the wind farm the turbine re-locations could make a difference in revenue of tens of millions of dollars. This provides a sufficient motive for the proponent’s attempt to make all the turbine re-locations without seeking further assessment and approval, in blatant violation of condition 1.5 of the Project Approval, and its attempt persuade the Department (wrongly) to accept that the proponent did not need to seek further assessment and approval.

22. Therefore, an independent, public inquiry needs to determine whether the proponent’s deliberate violation of the Project Approval, by changing the locations of 69 of the 73 turbines from the locations authorised in the Project Approval, constitutes attempted fraud, and whether any action or inaction on the part of the Department constitutes corruption.

23. Another ground for a public inquiry concerns the appointment and performance of the “independent Environmental Representative to the project”, Mr Erwin Budde.

24. According to condition 7.1 of the Project Approval, the proponent is to nominate to the Director-General of the Department of Planning a suitably qualified and

experienced individual to be appointed as the independent Environmental Representative to the project. The independent ER is to advise the proponent of the proponent’s compliance obligations (condition 7.1b), and to have “the authority and independence to recommend to the Proponent reasonable steps to be taken to avoid or minimise unintended or adverse environmental impacts, and, failing the effectiveness of such steps, to recommend to the Proponent that relevant activities are to be ceased as soon as reasonably practicable if there is a significant risk that an adverse impact on the environment will be likely to occur.” (condition 7.1c)

25. It is clear from the language of 7.1c) that the independent ER must be genuinely independent of the proponent, since the ER must be prepared to give to the proponent advice that the proponent may think is not in its interests.

26. The individual appointed as the independent ER for the Gullen Range Wind Farm was Mr Erwin Budde. But Mr Budde was, arguably, not a suitable candidate for the role, as he could not be considered independent of the proponent. He had a blatant and extreme conflict of interest.

27. Erwin Budde is a Director of the consultancy ngh environmental (www.nghenvironmental > About Us). ngh environmental has been working for the proponent on the project of the Gullen Range Wind Farm since its inception in 2007. ngh environmental prepared the Environmental Assessment (2008) and the Submissions Report (2008). Since 2008 it has continued to act for the proponent in the proponent’s relations with the NSW government, with other agencies and bodies, and with the general public. Its latest production on behalf of the proponent is the Micrositing Consistency Review (2013), which justifies the unauthorised turbine re- locations, and justifies the proponent’s view that it does not need to submit a modification application in respect of them. It is obvious that ngh environmental is the agent of the proponent.

28. Erwin Budde, therefore, had a blatant and extreme conflict of interest, and should never have been appointed as the independent ER.

29. According to Azmeena Kelly, Manager for Compliance in the Department of Planning, Mr Budde is no longer the independent Environmental Representative. But he has only lost this position since the matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations has become a matter of dispute between the Department and the proponent (i.e. in the last few months). I have asked Ms Kelly whether Mr Budde has resigned or been dismissed, but she has declined to tell me. She has only told me that the Department “informed the proponent that the former ER did not have the level of independence to fulfil the role and was therefore required to cease the role.” (E-mail: Azmeena Kelly to David Brooks, 2.4.14)

30. But if the Department now judges that Erwin Budde was not an appropriate person to perform the role of “independent Environmental Representative”, why was he ever appointed in the first place? It must have been obvious at the time of his appointment (31 March 2011, according to the Modification Application, p. 78) that as a Director of ngh environmental he had a blatant and extreme conflict of interest. It would appear that by getting rid of Mr Budde now the Department is attempting to “clear the decks”, and to avoid responsibility for his improper appointment.

31. In discussions with myself, and with others, officials in the Department of Planning have justified the appointment of Erwin Budde as the independent ER by referring to the wording of condition 7.1 of the Project Approval. In condition 7.1 the only constraint on the nomination by the proponent of candidates for the role of independent ER is that the candidate should be “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel”.

32. I suggest that the wording “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel” is at least improper, if not corrupt, since it seems to have been designed to allow someone like Mr Budde, an individual with an extreme conflict of interest, to be appointed. Mr Budde may have played no role in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment (2008) or of the Submissions Report (2008), but that is irrelevant. As a Director of ngh environmental, he shares in the obligations of that company to promote the interests of the proponent, thereby promoting the interests of ngh environmental and of himself.

33. Mr Budde’s conflict of interest has now been proved in practice. Acting in his capacity as “independent” ER, he has approved all the unauthorised turbine re- locations, and has supported the proponent’s fallacious and possibly fraudulent argument that the proponent does not need to submit a modification application in respect of the turbine re-locations. To put it bluntly, Mr Budde has approved the deliberate violation of the Project Approval, which violation is on a massive scale. (see Micrositing Consistency Review (2013), Document Verification page, and p. 1)

34. Therefore, the independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine re-locations must also investigate (i) the nomination by the proponent of Erwin Budde for the role of independent Environmental Representative to the project; (ii) the parts played in this nomination by ngh environmental and by Erwin Budde; (iii) the appointment of Erwin Budde by the Director-General of the Department of Planning; (iv) the use of the wording “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel” in condition 7.1 of the Project Approval, as determined by officials in the Department of Planning; (v) Erwin Budde’s use of his powers as independent ER to promote the interests of the proponent, thereby promoting the interests of ngh environmental and of himself; (vi) the question whether there has been a conspiracy of the proponent, ngh environmental and Erwin Budde to violate the Project Approval by attempting to achieve the turbine re-locations without submitting the

required modification application, thereby to increase the revenue of the proponent by illicit means; (vii) whether there has been any complicity in such a conspiracy, if there has been such a conspiracy, by officials of the Department of Planning.

35. The above matters must be investigated for possible impropriety, and for possible corruption.

36. To return to the role of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure: in an e-mail to me (3.3.14) Azmeena Kelly, Manager for Compliance in DoPI, claims that the Department only became aware of the unauthorised turbine re-locations in November 2013. The implications of this claim are awesome.

37. November 2013 is over a year after construction of the wind farm began in September 2012. So, for more than a year, while the construction of the entire infrastructure for the wind farm was occurring, over a 25 kilometre site, only 200 kilometres from Sydney, the Department was unaware that 69 of the 73 turbine locations (95%) were being positioned in places not authorised by the Project Approval, in direct violation of the Project Approval. The Department was unaware that some turbine locations were being moved by over 50 metres, others by over 100 metres, and yet others by over 150 metres.

38. It can only be concluded that the Department had in place no effective system of its own for monitoring compliance during the construction phase of the wind farm. This is a colossal failure on the part of the Department of Planning.

39. The independent public inquiry that is obviously needed must investigate whether this failure of the Department of Planning was sheer incompetence, or collusion with the proponent and/or any of the proponent’s agents to ensure for the proponent a lax and negligent system of oversight, thereby to promote the interests of the proponent, even to the extent of the possible violation of the Project Approval. The inquiry must also investigate whether any of the parties involved are guilty of impropriety or corruption.

40. A relevant fact in this connection is that neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm informed the Department of Planning as early as July 2013 that, in their opinion, some turbine locations appeared to be in the wrong place. It would seem that these communications by neighbours were ignored by the Department. Was this incompetence or corruption?

41. It would appear that the only form of compliance monitoring that the Department set up was the appointment of the “independent” Environmental Representative Erwin Budde. As Mr Budde seems to have misused his powers to approve a deliberate violation of the Project Approval, contrary to his obligations as set out in condition 7.1 of the Project Approval, the appointment of Mr Budde must be judged another colossal failure of the Department of Planning.

42. The independent public inquiry must investigate whether that failure was merely incompetence, or possibly impropriety or corruption.

43. Since the Department became aware of the unauthorised turbine re-locations, in November 2013 - assuming that this claim is true - , the Department has failed to act properly in relation to this matter.

44. The Department has failed to order a halt to the construction of illegally located turbines. Since November 2013 about thirty turbines have been erected, almost all of which are illegally located. The Department is thus allowing the proponent to continue to violate the Project Approval.

45. The Department has only requested the proponent to halt construction of 16 turbines that are alleged to be closer to homes. “Closer to homes” is not the relevant criterion. The criterion for halting construction must be illegal location. Moreover, by claiming that only 16 turbines have moved closer to homes, the Department ignores the fact that most, if not all the illegally moved turbines will have moved closer to some homes, because of the relatively high density of settlement in the area (about 60 non- involved residences within 2 km; 118 non-involved residences within 3 km).

46. As a matter of fact, the agreement between the Department and the proponent for the proponent to halt construction on 16 turbines “closer to homes” has now proved to be quite devoid of reality. There are now only 7 turbines left to be erected (6 in the Gurrundah section and 1 in the Bannister section). It is therefore metaphysically impossible for construction to halt on 16 turbines. The assurance of the Department and the promise of the proponent were just “spin”, i.e. lies.

47. Therefore, the independent public inquiry must investigate whether the Department’s failure to order a halt to the construction of all illegally located turbines is merely incompetence, or whether it is deliberate negligence, impropriety or corruption. Prima facie, it appears to be yet another instance of the Department ignoring what is right and proper, in order to benefit the proponent. Thus, it appears to be at least impropriety. The inquiry must also investigate the proponent’s continuing violation of the Project Approval, even after having been informed by the Department that the new turbine locations are unauthorised.

48. The Department has also failed, so far as I know, to order that all illegally located turbines not operate. According to a media release (17.12.13) issued by Goldwind (the owner of the proponent GRWF), the Gullen Range Wind Farm is connected to the power grid, and is already providing electricity for the “National Electricity Market”. The media release states: “The project has now started to contribute to meeting the Australian Government’s renewable energy target, delivering renewable energy into the Australian Electricity Market.”

49. Presumably, the facts reported in Goldwind’s media release imply that the turbines feeding electricity into the grid, thereby contributing to the Renewable Energy Target, must be earning Renewable Energy Certificates. If so, then those RECs that are being earned by illegally located turbines are being earned illegally.

50. It is quite certain that illegally located turbines have been operating since late last year. Observation by neighbours confirms this.

51. The Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (as amended) states in Part 2, Division 11, section 30E (3): “The Regulator may, by written notice, suspend the accreditation of an accredited power station if the Regulator believes on reasonable grounds that the power station is being operated in contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.” Since illegally located turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm have been operating, it is clear that their operation does contravene NSW law, namely, the Project Approval of the project. Therefore, any RECs earned by that operation must have been earned illegally.

52. In the circumstances, the Minister for Planning ought to have informed the Clean Energy Regulator that the Gullen Range Wind Farm is in contravention of State law, and so not entitled to any RECs that it may have been earning. If the Minister has not so informed the Clean Energy Regulator, that would seem to be dereliction of duty on the part of the Minister.

53. Therefore, the independent public inquiry must investigate whether there has been any illegal earning of RECs, and if so, whether that constitutes actual fraud and/or corruption. The inquiry must also investigate the parts played by officials of the Department of Planning, and by the Minister.

54. There is still uncertainty whether Erwin Budde, the “independent” Environmental Representative, has resigned or been dismissed by the Director-General. Therefore, the independent public inquiry must investigate whether Erwin Budde has resigned or been dismissed by the Director-General. In general, the circumstances of Erwin Budde’s ceasing to hold the appointment of independent Environmental Representative to the project must be investigated for the possibility of impropriety or corruption.

55. The Department of Planning has failed, so far as I know, to revoke all of Erwin Budde’s approvals, given since his appointment, and has failed, so far as I know, to review them.

56. Therefore, the independent, public inquiry must investigate whether the Department of Planning has revoked, and is reviewing Erwin Budde’s approvals, given since his appointment, and if not, whether this failure constitutes impropriety or corruption.

57. The Department of Planning is now willing that the proponent should submit a modification application, according to section 75W of the EP&A Act. This evades the obligation to respond appropriately to a deliberate violation of the Project Approval, and it presents the possibility of the Department granting retrospective legitimacy for the unauthorised turbine re-locations. Setting aside the fact that the previous Minister, Brad Hazzard, and his officials have repeatedly asserted to neighbours that the NSW government will not take any action that might be considered retrospective, I suggest that the willingness of the Department to consider a modification application now is outrageous and improper. The only proper course of action for the Department to take is to halt the construction and operation of all illegally located turbines, to revoke and review all Erwin Budde’s approvals, to suspend all further assessment of the project, and to institute an independent, public inquiry into the whole matter. Not to do this is, I suggest, dereliction of duty. It manifestly helps to promote the illegitimate interests of the proponent.

58. Therefore, the independent public inquiry must investigate whether the failure of the Department to undertake the proper courses of action described in point 57. above constitutes impropriety and/or corruption.

59. In addition, there is an important legal and procedural matter that requires determination by an independent public inquiry. This concerns the current dispute between the proponent GRWF and the Department of Planning. The Department considers that the turbine re-locations are unauthorised, and that the proponent needs to submit a modification application in respect of them. The proponent insists that the turbine re-locations are consistent with the existing approval, and that consequently it does not need to seek further assessment and approval by a modification application. This is a serious matter of law, of how the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 should be interpreted. As it is a matter of general principle that will apply to other instances of development projects, it requires clear determination. This can only be resolved by an independent public inquiry.

60. The independent public inquiry that must be instituted must not only investigate the conduct of the proponent GRWF, ngh environmental, Erwin Budde, and the Department of Planning generally. It must also investigate Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd, Xinjiang Goldwind Science and Technology Co. Ltd, the former Director- General of the Department of Planning, Sam Haddad, and the former Ministers for Planning Kristina Keneally, and Brad Hazzard.

61. Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd is the immediate owner of the proponent GRWF.

62. Xinjiang Goldwind Science and Technology Co. Ltd is the owner of Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd, and the ultimate owner of the proponent GRWF.

63. The independent public inquiry, therefore, must investigate whether, if there is any fraud, impropriety or corruption involved in the unauthorised turbine re-locations, that fraud, impropriety or corruption has been committed, to any extent, by Goldwind Australia Pty Ltd or by Xinjiang Goldwind Science and Technology Co. Ltd.

64. The former Director-General of the Department of Planning, Sam Haddad, it must be assumed, approved the wording “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel” in condition 7.1 of the Project Approval; the Director-General appointed Erwin Budde; the Director-General was in charge of the Department of Planning all through the period of the unauthorised turbine re-locations; he failed to prevent the violation of the Project Approval from occurring; he failed to ensure that his Department act properly since the unauthorised turbine re-locations became known (whenever that was).

65. The independent public inquiry must, therefore, investigate the conduct of the former Director-General of the Department of Planning, Sam Haddad.

66. The former Minister for Planning Kristina Keneally approved the wording “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel” in condition 7.1 of the Project Approval.

67. The independent, public inquiry must, therefore, investigate the conduct of the former Minister for Planning Kristina Keneally.

68. The former Minister for Planning, Brad Hazzard, presided over the Department of Planning for the whole period of the unauthorised turbine re-locations. He failed to prevent the violation of the Project Approval from occurring. He failed to ensure that his department act properly since the unauthorised turbine re-locations became known (whenever that was).

69. The independent public inquiry must, therefore, investigate the role of Minister Hazzard in the whole affair.

70. The above are the grounds for an independent public inquiry into the unauthorised turbine re-locations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm. I suggest that the grounds are overwhelming, since there is ample prima facie evidence of incompetence, negligence, and impropriety. Whether any of the actions or failures to act, described above, constitutes fraud or corruption in law must be for the inquiry to determine. But that there must be an inquiry is indisputable.

71. Given the gravity of all the matters described above, I suggest that the independent public inquiry should be at least a Judicial Commission.

An inquiry into the unauthorised turbine re-locations is an opportunity to inquire into the whole matter of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, from proposal through assessment and approval to construction and operation. Neighbours of the wind farm, including myself, have, for years now, been providing the Department with evidence that the assessment and approval of the wind farm are unreliable and unsafe, that the wind farm is likely to be a disaster for the local community, and that the approval of the wind farm should be revoked, and reviewed in the light of the best acoustic, medical and other scientific evidence.

However, the Minister and the Department have consistently rejected our requests for revocation and review on the ground that the NSW government will not take any action that might be considered retrospective. And yet, the Department is now preparing to assess illegal modifications to the project, in order, it would appear, to give retrospective legitimacy to those illegal modifications.

I suggest that it would be more appropriate to extend the terms of reference of the inquiry, which is obviously needed, to cover the investigation of all the real, potential impacts of the project, of all the real defects in the Environmental Assessment (2008), of all the real defects of assessment in the Major Project Assessment, and thus of all the grounds for judging the approval to be unreliable and unsafe.

Such an investigation would have to extend to issues of incompetence, negligence, impropriety and corruption, since the proponent GRWF and its agents, the Department, the former Director-General and the former Ministers for Planning have all been involved, at different stages, in the proposal, assessment, approval and oversight of the construction and operation of the project. If the inquiry into the unauthorised turbine re-locations were to find that any of the parties were guilty of misconduct, of whatever degree of gravity, that would be a prima facie ground for extending the investigation further, into the previous history of the project. For example, if the Department were found to have been negligent in its oversight of the project from a bias towards the interests of the proponent, then it would not be unreasonable to suspect that such a bias might be the underlying cause of the many and obvious deficiencies in the Department’s assessment of the project.

The inquiry should also investigate the construction of the wind farm, since there has been ample evidence of the proponent disregarding the safety of local residents by the dangerous driving of its contractors, of violations of the Project Approval in relation to reversing alarms, and of the very low quality of the compliance monitoring by the Department of Planning.

The operation of the wind farm will fall under the matter of the unauthorised turbine re- locations, and should thus also be investigated.

Therefore, we must now consider those aspects of the assessment and approval of the wind farm that suggest that the assessment of the wind farm has been unreliable, and its approval unsafe. If its approval is unsafe, it will not be made safe by the mere assessment of this Modification Application, especially not on the terms set out by the proponent in the Modification Application. But neither will the principles by which the Department assesses the Modification Application render the project more safe to neighbours, since those principles, whether set out in the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and the Director- General’s Requirements, or in the (still) draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines, are inadequate to protect neighbours from adverse impacts.

To these matters we now turn.

The need for a public inquiry 2: noise

Observations

Since the end of last year some of the turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm have been allowed to operate. The number and the specific turbines have varied from day to day. Sometimes only 3 or 4 have been seen to operate from my property. Sometimes as many as 17 have been seen to operate. Moreover, it has been reported to me that other turbines that cannot be seen from my property have also been operating.

I am aware of at least 6 households that have already been disturbed by noise from Gullen Range turbines that have been allowed to operate. In some cases the noise is only audible and disturbing outside the residence. In other cases the noise is audible inside the residence as well. The noise is audible both during the day and at night. The implications for sleep disturbance and ill health are obvious.

I have the permission of 5 of the 6 households to report their experiences. In the case of the sixth household (K2), the owners have made a submission in which they refer to the adverse noise impacts on the residents in the house, both during the day and at night. This submission is posted on the website of the Department of Planning and Environment (DoPE).

Of the other 5 residences that have already experienced adverse noise impacts, the first that I will mention is PW34. According to the Modification Application, PW34 has 7 turbines within 2 kilometres (3 of which are within 1 kilometre). The owner has reported to me that he has experienced very disturbing noise, both outside and inside his residence. This has already resulted in sleep disturbance at night.

Another residence where adverse noise impacts have already been experienced is B29. B29 has 9 turbines within 2 kilometres. Here the noise is audible outside the house but not inside. But it should be remembered that people who live in the country spend much of their time outside their house, working on or otherwise enjoying their property. B29 is a “lifestyle” block. As such, it is bound to suffer property devaluation from any adverse noise impacts, even if they are only external.

Another residence adversely impacted by noise is K14. K14 has 2 turbines within 2 kilometres. The owner has reported to me that his household has already suffered from very disturbing noise, both outside and inside the residence, both during the day and at night. This has already resulted in sleep disturbance.

Another residence is B12. B12 has 5 turbines within 2 kilometres. Curiously, 4 of these turbines (BAN_08, _13, _14, and _15) are said to need to be operated in “curtailment” at

wind speeds between 9 m/s and 11.5 m/s (Modification Application EA, p. 102; Operation Environmental Management Plan, Appendix K, p. 5). With so many residences within 2 kilometres of turbines, why should turbines close to B12 be singled out for curtailment? I suggest that when DoPE reviews the noise aspects of this Modification Application, this issue of the curtailment of the above four turbines be closely examined. Do the reasons for curtailment apply to other turbines close to other residences?

The owners of B12 have reported to me that they have already experienced very disturbing noise outside their residence, but not inside. However, B12 is the residence on a 600 acre property run as a commercial farm, and the owners need to spend much of their time working outside in order to earn their living. They have reported to me that both the noise impacts and the visual impact of moving blades are distracting. Such distraction is obviously very dangerous when agricultural machinery is being used.

It would be interesting to know whether BAN_8, _13, _14, and _15 are already being run in curtailment or not. If not, why not? If so, then clearly curtailment will not prevent adverse noise impacts on the property of B12.

Finally, adverse noise impacts have also been experienced at B7 and B17. B7 has 10 turbines within 2 kilometres. B17 has 9 turbines within 2 kilometres. The owners of these houses (on the same property) report very disturbing noise outside these residences, and also inside one of them. Sleep disturbance has already been experienced. The property on which these residences stand is also a commercial farm. So, the remarks above in relation to B12 also apply to B7 and B17.

I emphasise that I have not solicited these reports. They have been made to me spontaneously. I have also not made a systematic study of noise impacts in the area. They are the only reports that have come to me. However, with so many residences within 2 kilometres of turbines, it is more than likely that when all the turbines of the wind farm are operating, there will be many more complaints of disturbing noise.

It should already be obvious that, given the occurrence of these adverse noise impacts in Bannister, Grabben Gullen and Kialla, the methodology and noise limits of the current noise assessment regime for wind farms in NSW are worthless. This empirical evidence of adverse noise impacts on neighbours confirms the need for an independent public inquiry into the whole history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project, so that the principles of wind turbine noise assessment in NSW may be examined critically by an independent authority.

The revised noise assessment and the Modification Application

The revised noise assessment, based upon the use of Goldwind turbines, is contained in the Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP). The noise assessment in the Modification Application considers only the issue of the difference between the noise impacts

22 of the original noise predictions and of the revised noise predictions. Both the original and the revised noise assessments were carried out by Marshall Day Acoustics. Marshall Day has also produced the noise assessment for the Modification Application.

Both the original noise predictions and the revised noise predictions offer single sets of figures for predicted noise at various residences, at wind speeds ranging from cut-in speed to rated power. Both sets of predictions have been made according to the principles and procedures of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003).

It follows that the noise assessment in the Modification Application only offers a single set of figures for the differences between the impacts as originally predicted and as predicted in the revised assessment.

The general criticisms that need to be made of this whole process are (i) that the assumptions and methodologies of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) are inadequate to predict accurately actual noise impacts, and that as a result (ii) single sets of figures for predicted noise impacts cannot express the variety of the actual noise impacts that neighbours will experience.

Officials of DoPE have informally assured me that in the context of a Modification Application it is possible for the Department to recommend additional noise limits for the project. However, when I suggested that such new noise limits would presumably be those contained in the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines, those officials agreed. Noise limits from amongst those in the NSW draft Guidelines, and the adoption of procedures in the NSW draft Guidelines will not protect neighbours from adverse noise impacts. The section on noise in the draft Guidelines is only marginally better than the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), and still demonstrably inadequate to protect neighbours.

The conclusion to be drawn from these considerations is that the noise issues relating to this Modification Application ought not to be decided on the terms set out by the proponent. The proponent argues that the difference in noise impacts between the original noise predictions (2008) and the revised noise predictions (2013) is insignificant, and that therefore there are no grounds for refusing the Modification Application in respect of noise. But to look at the issues from this standpoint will only result in neighbours from many households around the wind farm site experiencing high levels of noise annoyance, and in some cases adverse health effects, especially stress-related symptoms and sleep disturbance.

To understand this matter it is necessary to consider the deficiencies in both the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines.

I and others have pointed out these deficiencies repeatedly to the NSW Departments of Planning, Environment and Health - to no avail. It is not too late for the NSW Government to take notice of these criticisms. This Modification Application offers an opportunity for a

23 reconsideration. But, the best form of reconsideration would be an independent public inquiry, and not just a determination of this particular Modification Application.

Deficiencies of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines (2011)

This section deals with both the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) , already adopted by NSW, and the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines, not yet adopted (as of May 2014).

Before I list the deficiencies in the noise guidelines, I should like to draw attention to three recently published documents, which are relevant to this issue. They are:

• Steven Cooper, Are wind farms too close to communities?, The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, [2012] • Steven Cooper, Review of Draft Wind Farm Guidelines (42.4963.R2:ZSC), The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, 14 March 2012 • Richard R. James, Wind Turbine Infra and Low-frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Were Not Heard, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2012, 32(2) 108-127

Steven Cooper is a noise engineer of thirty years’ standing, and principal of The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd. He is a member of the Australian Acoustical Society, and also of the (US) Institute of Noise Control Engineering. His report Are wind farms too close to communities? is a full and detailed criticism of the deficiencies of the various noise guidelines in use in Australia, including those in use in NSW. The report finds, amongst other things, that “Noise limits incorporated in the various State guidelines and used for assessment purposes have no scientific studies to support the basis of the limits.” The report also finds that “The noise concepts used for wind farms in NSW ignore the fundamental premise of not creating ‘offensive noise’ as defined in The Protection of the Environment Operations Act.” (Abstract)

Mr Cooper’s Review of Draft Wind Farm Guidelines is a full and detailed criticism of the deficiencies of the NSW draft guidelines. It finds that the noise limits in the draft guidelines, like those in the existing guidelines, are not supported by scientific studies, and that the draft guidelines, like the existing guidelines, ignore ‘offensive noise’. The Review also finds that “The Draft Wind Farm Guidelines set out measurement, assessment and compliance procedures which are likely to be unworkable in practice.” (Executive Summary)

Richard R. James is a noise engineer of forty years’ standing, currently with E-Coustic Solutions, Okomos, MI, USA. He is a member of the (US) Institute of Noise Control Engineering. His study ‘Wind Turbine Infra and Low-frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Were Not Heard’ “explores what was known about infra and low-frequency sound from wind turbines and other noise sources during the period from the 1970s through the end of the 1990s.” (p. 108) It concludes:

A review of the work of acoustical experts such as Swinbanks, Ebbing, Blazier, Hubbard, and Shepherd and others mentioned in this article shows that these problems

were reported at professional conferences and in research papers [i.e. in the period from the 1970s through to the 1990s].

There is sufficient research and history to link the sensitivity of some people to inaudible amplitude-modulated infra and low-frequency noise to the type of symptoms described by those living near industrial wind turbines.

This information should have served as a warning sign. . . .

The acoustics profession and individual acousticians should have recognized the early reports of symptoms by people living near wind turbines as a new example of an old problem. . . .

It is the author’s opinion that had past experience and information, which was available prior to the widespread implementation of the modern upwind industrial- scale wind turbine, been incorporated into the government and industry guidelines and regulations used to siting [sic] wind turbine utilities, many of the complaints and AHEs [i.e. adverse health effects] currently reported would have been avoided. (p. 125)

The above studies by Cooper, and by James show not only (i) that the noise guidelines used in, or proposed for NSW are inadequate to protect the neighbours of wind farms from adverse noise impacts, or to achieve the aim of avoiding offensive noise, presupposed by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, but also (ii) that these inadequacies of the guidelines could have been foreseen, on the basis of research conducted and published in the period from the 1970s through into the 1990s. This proves that there has been a substantial failure in the planning and regulation of wind farm development in NSW by both the Department of Planning, and the Department of Environment.

Moreover, it must be surmised that the Department of Health did not give correct advice on the potential adverse health effects of wind turbine noise to either the Department of Planning or the Department of Environment. If correct advice was given, it must have been ignored.

This failure of two, and possibly three departments of the NSW Government needs to be investigated by an independent public inquiry.

Deficiencies of the noise guidelines

1. Measurements of wind turbine noise in dBA are inadequate, because dBA do not measure accurately low-frequency noise or infrasound, of which the turbine sound mix predominantly consists (Harrison, 2011; Dickinson, 2010; Sonus, 2010).

A full spectral analysis of wind turbine sound is necessary. Measurements in dBA are necessary for high and mid frequency sound. Measurements in dBC are necessary for mid and low frequency sound. Measurements in dBG are necessary to test whether turbine infrasound immissions exceed Professor Alec Salt’s threshold for Outer Hair Cell stimulation of 60 dBG (see below). Measurements in dBlin are necessary to measure infrasound levels between 10 and 0 Hz.

The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) require only measurements in dBA. Therefore, all approvals granted under these guidelines must be considered unreliable and unsafe.

The NSW draft guidelines make some provision for dealing with low-frequency noise, but the treatment of the issue is inadequate (see below).

2. The noise limit 35 dBA, or background noise + 5 dBA, whichever is greater is inadequate for the following reasons. First, background noise at night in rural areas (away from main roads) can fall to below 25 dBA, or even below 20 dBA (Kamperman and James, 2008; Dickinson, [2012]; Cooper, 2011, 2012). Background noise of 20 dBA + 5 dBA = 25 dBA. Therefore, the greater level of 35 dBA would be the limit. 35 dBA is 15 dB higher than the background level of 20 dBA. This is by definition excessive, since the common understanding is that noise causes unacceptable annoyance when it is higher than 5 dBA above background (Cooper, [2012]).

In addition, the regression line analysis conducted on the readings for background noise necessarily misrepresents the lowest levels of the background noise, since the regression line is necessarily higher than those lowest levels (Cooper, [2012]). This is particularly relevant to the issue of the wind speed ratio (see below).

These criticisms apply to both the existing guidelines, and the proposed guidelines.

3. The descriptor Leq is unsatisfactory for measuring wind turbine noise, because it time-averages the numbers for the amplitude of the sound. Thorne has shown that wind turbine sound fluctuates considerably even during as short a period as one minute (Thorne, 2011). It is likely to fluctuate even more over the standard measuring period of ten minutes. Consequently, the time-averaged Leq(10 mins) figure will misrepresent the peak noise levels actually heard by neighbours, because it will average the sound levels recorded during the measuring period.

This criticism applies to both the existing guidelines, and the proposed guidelines.

4. The descriptors L90 and L95 are also unsatisfactory for measuring wind turbine noise, as they register only the quietest 10% and 5% of the turbine sound, respectively. Consequently, they miss entirely the peak levels of the turbine sound, which neighbours actually hear (Hansen, 2010).

This criticism applies to both the existing guidelines and the proposed guidelines.

(In the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) only L90 is used for compliance monitoring. This is preposterous.

In the NSW draft Guidelines 1.5 dB is added to L90 for compliance monitoring. But this is also inappropriate (see below). )

5. It is inappropriate to assume that Leq = L90 + 1.5 dB, since the variation between Leq and L90 (or L95) can be very much greater (Thorne, 2011).

This false assumption is made in the proposed guidelines.

It is clear that the methods for compliance monitoring in both the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and the NSW draft Guidelines can only result in gross under- estimations of the actual noise levels present at a residence. The absurdity of these methods for compliance monitoring cannot be over-emphasised.

6. The source of wind turbine sound is not a point, as noise guidelines commonly assume. It is rather the whole area traversed by the turbine blades. If the blades are 45 metres long, then the area described (pi x r2) = 6364 square metres. This is certainly not a point. If there is vortex-shedding from the tip of the blades, then the area is even greater, perhaps twice as big (Dickinson, 2010).

Both the existing guidelines and the proposed guidelines ignore this issue.

7. Noise guidelines commonly assume that wind turbine sound is propagated spherically, from a point source. But research shows that the propagation may be cylindrical, and should be treated as a line source. Or, the propagation may change from spherical to cylindrical at some distance from the turbine (Thorne, 2011; Dickinson, 2010).

The significance of this is that spherical spreading is commonly assumed to involve a rate of attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance, whereas cylindrical spreading involves a rate of attenuation of only 3 dB per doubling of distance. Consequently, if sound from a wind farm propagates cylindrically, but is modelled by a developer’s consultant on the assumption of spherical spreading, the consultant’s calculation will significantly underestimate the actual level of sound received by neighbours.

The rate of attenuation can also vary according to frequency. Higher frequency sound attenuates at a greater rate than lower frequency sound (Sonus, 2010). Therefore, using only a single figure for rate of attenuation in modelling may lead to a significant underestimation of the levels of the lower frequencies. It should be noted that it is the low-frequency wind turbine sound that is the cause of much of the annoyance experienced by neighbours – at least as far as audible sound is concerned (see below).

These matters are not discussed in either the existing guidelines or the proposed guidelines.

8. Because weather conditions can influence the magnitude of the sound energy impacting on a residence, it is necessary to take separate measurements of wind turbine noise for the daytime (7 am to 6 pm), evening (6 pm to 10 pm) and night- time (10 pm to 7 am) periods. These periods are recognised by the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) require only one set of measurements for the whole 24 hour day. The averaging involved can only lead to misrepresentation of peak noise levels actually heard, especially at night.

The NSW draft guidelines recognize only two measuring periods: day and night. Three periods are preferable, if evening noise is not to be underestimated by averaging.

9. Neither the existing guidelines nor the proposed guidelines recognize the wind speed ratio, i.e. the difference in wind strength between the wind at the turbines and the wind at the residence. Because of terrain, winds can be high and turbulent at the turbines (e.g. on a ridge), but low or non-existent at a residence (e.g. down in a valley). This means that there can be no reliance on wind at the residence masking the turbine noise, as both the existing guidelines and the proposed guidelines falsely suppose. (Thorne, 2011; Appelqvist and Almgren, 2011)

Moreover, as the wind rises at the turbines on the ridge, the noise limit rises, even though there may be little wind at the residence, and background noise at the residence may be falling. If the noise limit rises to, say, 45 dBA, while background noise at the residence falls to, say, 20 dBA, the turbine noise will be 25 dBA above background. When this noise enters the residence, it will be intolerable. At night it is certain to cause sleep deprivation. This situation comes about because (a) wind speed is measured at the turbine site but not at residences, and (b) regression line analysis of background noise levels at residences necessarily misrepresents the lowest background noise levels at a residence (Cooper, [2012]).

This disastrous situation is allowed by both the existing and the proposed guidelines.

10. The common assumption that the noise of wind will mask the noise of turbines is proved false by experience. Neighbours have reported that they can hear the sound of the turbines through the sound of the wind (Thorne, 2011; Bakker and Rapley, 2010; Dickinson, 2010).

The explanation for this is simple. The noise of the wind is high and mid frequency noise. The sound of the turbines is predominantly low frequency noise. As low frequency noise can only be masked by another low frequency noise, the noise of the wind will not mask the turbine noise.

Both the existing guidelines and the proposed guidelines make the false assumption that the noise of the wind will mask the turbine noise.

11. It has been proved conclusively that most of the sound energy in the sound mix generated by wind turbines is low-frequency sound and infrasound (e.g. van den Berg, 2004a; Kamperman and James, 2008; Dickinson, 2010; Bakker and Rapley, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Bray and James, 2011; Harrison, 2011).

The predominance of the lower frequencies in the sound mix is even greater when the sound reaches a residence, because the higher frequencies attenuate at a greater rate than the lower frequencies, and because the higher frequencies will be more easily obstructed by vegetation (Sonus, 2010).

Finally, the sound mix received inside a residence will be almost entirely low- frequency noise and infrasound, because the higher frequencies will be kept out by the

fabric of the building, whereas the lower frequencies will more easily penetrate that fabric (DeGagne and Lapka, 2008).

All this is most important because the sound of the lower frequencies can resonate inside rooms, and also inside the organs of the human body (Harrison, 2011; Ambrose and Rand, 2011; Berglund et al, 1996).

It has also been demonstrated that as wind turbines get larger, and more especially taller, the characteristic ‘note’ of the turbine gets lower (Møller and Pedersen, 2011). Even the wind energy industry admits that this will require greater setback distances (Sonus, 2010).

The work of Bray and James (2011), and of Swinbanks (2011) shows that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound (being amplitude-modulated) have a very high crest factor, and that this will tend to lower the threshold of audibility.

I will deal with audible low-frequency noise in this section, and leave infrasound to the next section.

The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) do not concern themselves with low frequency noise at all. This is a grave omission, and serious failure.

The NSW draft guidelines state that “Analysis of wind turbine spectra shows that low frequency noise is typically not a significant feature of modern wind turbine noise . . . .” This statement is completely false, and is contradicted by all the independent research into wind turbine noise for the last decade, and indeed longer. It is impossible to have any confidence in a document that makes such a gross and elementary error.

The NSW draft guidelines propose that if the low frequency noise from wind turbines (above 20 Hz) exceeds 65 dBC during the day, or 60 dBC at night, further investigations are to be made. These limits are far too high. 60 dBC equates to about 50 dBA (personal communication from Bob Thorne). Pulsating low frequency noise in the 40s dBA in a bedroom at night would be intolerable, and cause sleep disturbance.

It should be noted that the US noise engineers Steven Ambrose and Robert Rand have proposed an outdoor limit of 55 dBC. This is to be a maximum, not an average (Ambrose and Rand, 2012).

It should also be noted that Denmark is to introduce an indoors noise limit for wind turbine low frequency noise. The limit is: 20 dBA for frequencies between 10 and 160 Hz (Møller et al, 2012). Møller and his colleagues point out that at low frequencies a much smaller increase in sound level is needed to produce any given increase in loudness. Consequently, it is crucial that the indoors noise level for low frequency noise be strictly observed, and that the limit be regarded as a definite maximum, and not as an average (Møller et al., 2012).

It can only be concluded that neither the existing guidelines nor the proposed guidelines takes the issue of wind turbine low frequency noise seriously. This no doubt explains the multitude of complaints from neighbours.

12. The wind energy industry maintains that infrasound from wind turbines is of no importance, because inaudible sound cannot affect human beings. This assumption is false, and has been authoritatively refuted by Professor Alec Salt and his colleagues. Professor Salt, a specialist in the physiology of the cochlea (in the inner ear) has shown that inaudible infrasound at 60 dBG stimulates the Outer Hair Cells in the cochlea, and that nerve fibres connect the Outer Hair Cells to areas of the brain associated with attentional control, arousal, startle, the sense of balance, and the monitoring of head and ear position. Salt also points out that the infrasound signals can cause a biological amplitude modulation of the higher frequencies within the auditory/nervous system (Salt and Hullar, 2010; Salt and Kaltenbach, 2011, Salt and Lichtenhan, 2011, Salt and Lichtenhan, 2012).

Salt surveyed the infrasound levels produced by wind turbines, and found that they were typically between 60 and 70 dBG (Salt and Kaltenbach, 2011).

Salt has outlined his findings in language intelligible to laypeople on his website (http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html).

It is clear that Salt’s findings may constitute at least one explanation for neighbours’ complaints of headache, nausea, vertigo, sleep disturbance, tinnitus, etc. And that is in fact his opinion.

The authors of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) claim to be unaware of infrasound being present at any modern wind farm site. To the contrary, Hubbard and Shepherd (1990) show that even modern upwind wind turbines produce predominantly low frequency noise and infrasound (Hubbard and Shepherd, 1990, cited in James, 2012). Since 2003 abundant evidence from independent research has confirmed that modern upwind turbines produce predominantly low frequency noise and infrasound (van den Berg, 2004a; Kamperman and James, 2008; Dickinson, 2010; Bakker and Rapley, 2010; Thorne, 2011; Bray and James, 2011; Harrison, 2011).

The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), therefore, ignore infrasound. That they are still in use in NSW as a guide for approving wind farm proposals is reprehensible.

The NSW draft guidelines do not even mention infrasound. The NSW draft guidelines discuss “low frequency noise” down to 20 Hz, but do not discuss sound below 20 Hz, thus implying that infrasound can be ignored. This is especially reprehensible, as recent research has shown that enough was known about infrasound in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s to serve as a warning to officials drafting wind turbine

noise guidelines that infrasound might be expected to be a serious problem (James, 2012).

Infrasound levels between 0 Hz and 10 Hz must be measured, as well as infrasound levels between 10 Hz and 20 Hz. The reason is that evidence is being gathered that shows that it is the levels between 0 and 10 Hz that may be causing the most serious adverse health effects (Ambrose and Rand, 2011; Ambrose, Rand and Krogh, 2012; Alves-Pereira and Castelo Branco, 2007). For this reason, infrasound levels must be measured in dBlin, as well as dBG.

13. The amplitude modulation of wind turbine sound occurs on both a macro- and a micro-time-scale. The macro-scale modulation occurs at the ‘blade pass frequency’, about once every second (Dickinson, 2010; Doolan, 2011; Bakker and Rapley, 2010). Recent research has shown that there is also modulation on a micro-scale, to be measured in milliseconds, and that this form of modulation has a very high crest factor (Bray and James, 2011). A high crest factor tends to lower the threshold of audibility (Swinbanks, 2011).

Amplitude-modulated sound at frequencies of about 0.3 Hz to 10 Hz (i.e. at intervals of several seconds to about one-tenth of a second) tends to set off the ‘alert mechanism’ in the oldest and most primitive part of the human brain. Sustained stimulation of the alert mechanism can lead to anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, tiredness, and nausea (Bakker and Rapley, 2010).

The meagre discussions of amplitude modulation in the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and in the NSW draft guidelines are superseded by the work of Bakker and Rapley, of Bray and James, and of Swinbanks. Therefore, both the existing and the proposed guidelines must be considered inadequate in their treatment of amplitude modulation.

14. Where there is an array of multiple turbines Heightened Noise Zones can be created. The sound waves from several turbines can converge on a point, such that if there is a residence at that point, increased noise will be experienced (Bakker and Rapley, 2010)

Neither the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) nor the NSW draft guidelines considers Heightened Noise Zones.

15. Again, where there is an array of multiple turbines Wake and Turbulence Effects can be created. These occur where a line of turbines is in line with a residence. If the turbines are too close together, or when the wind is gusting, the wake from one turbine can interfere with the wake of another turbine. And so on, down the line of turbines, increasing the noise transmitted from the turbines and received at the residence (Bakker and Rapley, 2010).

These matters are not considered by either the existing guidelines or the proposed guidelines.

16. Increased noise can also occur from blade stall, known in New Zealand as ‘woomping’. Owing to the irregularity of the wind, it can happen that one blade has insufficient wind to move it, while the other blades still have sufficient lift. The blade with insufficient lift stalls, then starts again. This results in a thumping noise (Dickinson, 2010).

Blade stall is not discussed in either the existing guidelines or the proposed guidelines.

17. Increased night-time noise can occur owing to a stable atmosphere caused by temperature inversion. This can take two forms. In flat terrain night-time temperature inversion, giving rise to a stable atmosphere, can cause different wind speeds at different heights of the wind turbine. These different wind speeds can produce a severe ‘beating’ of the turbine blades, generating higher night-time noise levels (van den Berg, 2004b, 2006). This phenomenon has come to be known as the ‘van den Berg Effect’.

However, in hilly terrain, where turbines are located on a ridge, with residences in the valley below, there may be no stable atmosphere on the ridge, because of the high winds, while there is a stable atmosphere in the valley, with cold air pouring down into the valley. The channel of cold air acts as a conduit for the turbine sound. Thus, there may be increased night-time noise at the residence, due to the stable atmosphere in the valley, even though there is little or no beating of the turbine blades, because of the absence of a stable atmosphere on the ridge (van den Berg, 2007). (This possibility is recognized in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, where the conduction of sound by the channel of cold air is called ‘drainage flow’ (NSWINP, 2000).)

The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) do not discuss either form of the effect of stable atmosphere and temperature inversion.

The NSW draft guidelines treat the ‘van den Berg Effect’ as only a species of amplitude modulation, but they only discuss amplitude modulation in general. There is no discussion of the specific form caused by a stable atmosphere and temperature inversion.

Moreover, the NSW draft guidelines do not discuss the situation where turbines are situated on a ridge with residences in the valley. There is no discussion of ‘drainage flow’. In fact, the terms ‘stable atmosphere’ and ‘temperature inversion’ do not occur in the NSW draft guidelines.

These are failures that could have disastrous consequences for neighbours.

18. Indoor measurements need to be taken as well as outdoor measurements. Outdoor measurements are insufficient, partly because (i) the extent of transmission through the fabric of a building varies according to frequency, and is still a matter of discussion; and (ii) low frequency sound and infrasound can resonate inside a room (see above), such that sound levels inside a residence may be higher than those outside a residence (e.g. Ambrose and Rand, 2011).

Neither the existing guidelines nor the proposed guidelines considers the need for inside measurements.

19. The NSW draft guidelines allow measurements to be taken at intermediate locations, and a calculation to be made, according to the assumptions of a model. This should not be allowed, as the extent of sound transmission through the fabric of a building varies according to frequency, and is still a matter of discussion. Also, as noted above, low frequency noise and infrasound can resonate inside a building, such that the sound levels inside a residence may be higher than those outside a residence (e.g. Ambrose and Rand, 2011).

20. So far as I can see, there is no definition of ‘non-compliance’ in the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003). Because wind speeds and other meteorological conditions are continually varying, noise levels also will be continually varying. This means that the noise level at a residence may be continually moving between exceedance and non-exceedance of the noise limit. In this situation the South Australian Noise Guidelines provide no criteria to determine whether the noise level of the wind farm is to be held to be compliant or non-compliant. Does a single instance of exceedance constitute non-compliance? Or is it exceedance for 5% of the time? 25% of the time? 50% of the time? 75% of the time? The South Australian Noise Guidelines provide no answer. This deficiency is bound to lead to endless disputes.

So far as I can see, there is no definition of ‘non-compliance’ in the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines. All that is provided is a set of definitions for ‘a single exceedance’, ‘a repeated exceedance’, and ‘a sustained exceedance’. Single exceedances occurring over a 10 minute averaged period warrant that a penalty (unspecified) be added to the particular data point. A repeated exceedance occurs when single exceedances occur for more than 10% of a daytime or night-time assessment period. A sustained exceedance occurs when a repeated exceedance occurs for more than 30% of a season (Spring, Summer, Autumn or Winter). A sustained exceedance warrants that the operation of the wind farm be modified “to ensure that those wind speeds and directions that cause exceedances of noise characteristic goals are minimised.” [?]

It should be apparent that these definitions in the draft Guidelines are no help whatever in determining whether a wind farm is compliant or non-compliant. I

suggest that the above quotation relating to sustained exceedance is incomprehensible. What is the definition of “minimised”?

When, back in 2012, I asked the Department what would be the criterion for non- compliance under the draft Guidelines, I was blandly told that that had not yet been resolved. So far as I know the Department has not yet made any public statement on this matter.

The above criticisms show that both the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and the NSW draft guidelines are gravely deficient, and are incapable of protecting wind farm neighbours from adverse noise impacts, with the associated adverse health impacts. This being so, the amendment to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, allowing the NSW Environment Protection Authority to receive complaints about wind turbine noise, will be undermined by the inadequacy of the noise guidelines, to which the Environment Protection Authority must refer. The Environment Protection Authority will be able to investigate noise complaints concerning wind farms, but only in relation to the assumptions, principles and categories of the noise guidelines. Since these guidelines are comprehensively inadequate, neighbours are unlikely to get any redress for their complaints, and will continue to suffer. This is unacceptable.

The Australian noise engineer Bob Thorne has stated:

Considering my own research I conclude that a wind farm development has a high potential to cause adverse amenity, annoyance, sleep disturbance or health effects that are more than minor to residents within 3500 metres of the proposed wind farm. (Thorne, 2010)

Thorne’s opinion is borne out by the experience of residents living within 3.5 km of the Cullerin and Capital Wind Farms in NSW, and by residents living within 3.5 km of wind farms in Victoria, in South Australia, and in New Zealand. (And now by the experience of some neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.)

All this being so, it should be apparent that if the Gullen Range Wind Farm is completed, and fully commissioned (whether with turbines in the original locations or in the new locations), the Gullen Range Wind Farm will be a disaster for the community compelled to live around it. For some households it is already a disaster.

Neither the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) nor the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines (2011) can be relied upon to protect neighbours from this disaster.This is a major reason for suspending all assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, and instituting an independent public inquiry, not only into the Gullen Range Wind Farm itself, but also into the processes of its assessment and approval (including the assessment and possible approval of any Modification Application). Such an inquiry is the only way that the comprehensive

34 inadequacies of both the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) and the noise section of the NSW draft Guidelines can be officially established. It seems unlikely that the NSW Government will ever voluntarily subject its own noise guidelines, adopted or proposed, to adequate scrutiny. Some authority independent of the NSW Government is necessary to do this. A Judicial Commission would seem to be appropriate.

Further justification for an independent inquiry comes from a consideration of alternatives.

The Department of Planning could recommend to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) that all turbines within 2 or 3 or 3.5 kilometres of non-involved residences be turned off at night (say, between 10 pm and 7 am; or from 7 pm to 7 am to take account of children’s health). But, this would seriously reduce the profits of the wind farm, and would no doubt provoke vociferous protest from the proponent. The proponent might sue the NSW Government, with a good chance of winning.

The Department could recommend that acquisition rights be granted to the owners of all non- involved residences within 1.5 or 2 or 3 or 3.5 kilometres of turbines. But, again, there would be vigorous protest from the proponent, with again the possibility of litigation by the proponent against the Government.

Some owners would not wish to sell, but would prefer that either turbines be removed or some financial compensation be granted. There are no precedents for removing turbines in this situation. And there is no legislative authority for financial compensation.

None of these alternatives can be easily put into practice, currently. If they are to be considered, legislation will be required. Such legislation ought to be guided by the findings of an independent public inquiry. So, back we come to the need for an independent inquiry.

It is clear that a satisfactory outcome for all parties is impossible. If the wind farm is constrained in its operations, the proponent and the investors suffer. If the proponent sues the NSW Government, the NSW taxpayer suffers. If the wind farm is completed and fully commissioned, the neighbours suffer. Some will suffer from adverse noise impacts, causing continual stress, and perhaps the risk of serious accidents with agricultural machinery. Some will suffer adverse health effects, especially sleep disturbance. All are likely to see the value of their property reduced, and in some cases rendered unsaleable. Some people will be forced to abandon their homes, as has already happened in other States in Australia.

There are so many non-involved residences within 2 and within 3 kilometres of the turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm that the curtailment of a few turbines and the granting of acquistion rights to a few owners cannot possibly solve the problem. The inadequacy of these kinds of approaches is already apparent from the outcome of the Land & Environment Court case in 2009-10. If the outcome of that case had been satisfactory, officials of the Department of Planning would not now be talking of extending acquisition rights, and imposing new noise limits. Moreover, if the Department were satisfied with the adequacy of the South

Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), the Department would not have bothered to compose the noise section of the NSW draft Guidelines.

It can only be concluded that the the Gullen Range Wind Farm, and other wind farm proposals in NSW should never have been approved, as there has not existed an adequate set of principles by which to assess them. Consequently, we have a situation in which someone is bound to suffer, whether it is the proponent and investors, the NSW taxpayers or the neighbours of NSW wind farms.

Ultimately, the responsibility for this mess rests with the NSW Department of Planning, and the NSW Department of Environment (whose noise assessment unit recommended to the Department of Planning the adoption of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003)). But, the wind energy industry is also not free from responsibility, since it has been lobbying government with false and misleading propaganda, and denying the adverse impacts on wind farm neighbours, for decades.

One thing is certain: the wind farm neighbours who are already suffering, or who are likely to suffer, are innocent victims. Whoever is to blame, it is not wind farm neighbours.

If the blame for this disastrous mess is to be brought home to those really responsible, namely, the NSW Government and the wind energy industry, this can only be done by an independent public inquiry. One should be established as soon as possible.

References

Alves-Pereira, M., and Castelo Branco, N. A. A., 2007. In-home wind turbine noise is conducive to vibroacoustic disease. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007

Ambrose, S. E., and Rand, R. W., 2011. The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse Health Effects Produced by Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed, December 14, 2011

Ambrose, S. E., and Rand, R. W., 2012. Submission to Connecticut Siting Council, re Connecticut Siting Council Draft Wind Farm Regulations, 16 July 2012. Retrieved from www.wind-watch.org.

Ambrose, S. E., Rand, R. W., and Krogh, C. M. E., 2012. Wind turbine acoustic investigation: infrasound and low-frequency noise – a case study. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, published online 17 August 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0270467612455734

Appelqvist, P., and Almgren, M., 2011. Wind turbine noise in sheltered dwelling areas. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 Ap[ril 2011

Bakker, H., and Rapley, B., 2010. Sound characteristics of multiple wind turbines, pp. 233- 258 of Rapley and Bakker eds, 2010

Berglund, B., Hassmen, P., and Job, R. F. S., 1996. Sources and effects of low frequency noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (1996) 99 (5): 2985-3002

Bray, W., and James, R., 2011. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. NOISE-CON 2011, Portland, Oregon, 2011 July 25-27

Cooper, S., 2011. Peer review of acoustic assessment, Flyers Creek Wind Farm, 41.4963.R1A:ZSC, 15 December 2011, The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, 2011

Cooper, S., 2012. Review of Draft Wind Farm Guidelines (42.4963.R2:ZSC), The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, 14 March 2012

Cooper, S., [2012]. Are wind farms too close to communities?, The Acoustic Group Pty Ltd, [2012]

DeGagne, D. C., and Lapka, S. D., 2008. Incorporating Low Frequency Noise Legislation for the Energy Industry in Alberta, Canada, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control (2008) 27 (2): 105-120

Dickinson, P. J., 2010. Sounds from Wind Turbines: Theory, Practice, Assumptions, and Reality, pp. 181-205 of Rapley and Bakker eds, 2010

Dickinson, P. J., [2012]. A pragmatic view of a wind turbine noise standard [posted at www.wind-watch.org, 26.1.2012]

Doolan, C., 2011. Wind turbine noise mechanisms and some concepts for its control. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011, Paper number 17, 2-4 November 2011, Gold Coast, Australia

Hansen, C., 2010. Assessment of Noise from the Proposed Wind Farm Development Around Mt Bryan, Near the Township of Hallett, prepared for Environment, Resources and Development Court, SA by School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, South Australia

Harrison, J. P., 2011. Wind turbine noise. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2011, 31: 256-261

Hubbard, H. H., and Shepherd, K. P., 1990. Wind turbine acoustics (NASA Technical Paper No. 3057 DOE/NASA/20320-77).

James, R. R., 2012. Wind Turbine Infra and Low-frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Were Not Heard, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2012, 32(2) 108-127

Kamperman, G., and James, R., 2008. The “How To” Guide To Siting Wind Turbines To Prevent Health Risks From Sound, prepared for Wind-watch. org, 2008

Møller, H., and Pedersen, C. S., 2011. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129 (6), June 2011, pp. 3727-3744

Møller, H., Pedersen, S., Staunstrup, J. K., and Pedersen, C. S., 2012. Assessment of low- frequency noise from wind turbines in Maastricht. Prepared for the City Council of Maastricht, Aalborg University, 10 April 2012

NSW INP, 2000. Industrial Noise Policy, published by Environment Protection Authority (New South Wales), January 2000. Retrieved from www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm

NSW Planning Guidelines: Wind Farms: A resource for the community, applicants and consent authorities, December 2011 (Draft), NSW Government: Planning & Infrastructure, 2011

Rapley, B., and Bakker, H. (eds), 2010. Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception of Wind Farm Activity, Atkinson and Rapley Consulting Ltd (Palmerston North, New Zealand) in association with Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd (NMS) (Brisbane, Australia), 2010

Salt, A. N., and Hullar, T. E., 2010. Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound, and wind turbines. Hearing Research, 268 (1-2): 12-21

Salt, A. N., and Kaltenbach, J. A., 2011. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 296-302

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2011. Responses of the inner ear to infrasound. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2012. Perception-based protection from low-frequency sounds may not be enough. Inter-Noise 2012, August 19-22, New York City

Sonus Pty Ltd, 2010. Wind Farms Technical Paper: Environmental Noise. Prepared for the Clean Energy Council, November 2010, S3387C6

Swinbanks, M. A., 2011. The audibility of low frequency wind turbine noise. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011

Thorne, Bob, 2010. Wind Farms: The Potential for Annoyance, pp. 127-133 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Thorne, Bob, 2011. The Problems with ‘Noise Numbers’ for Wind Farm Noise Assessment. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2011, 31: 262-290 van den Berg, G. P., 2004a. Do wind turbines produce significant low frequency sound levels? 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and its Control, Maastricht, The Netherlands, August 30-September 1, 2004 van den Berg, G. P., 2004b. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound, Journal of Sound and Vibration 2004, 277 (4-5): 955-970 van den Berg, G. P., 2006. The Sounds of High Winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise. PhD diss., University og Groningen, The Netherlands, 177 pp., posted at www.wind-watch.org/documents/authors van den Berg, G. P., 2007. Wind profiles over complex terrain. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007

Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines, Environment Protection Authority, South Australia, 2003

The need for a public inquiry 3: health

As this submission is already late for the due date, and as I am pressed for time, I will restrict my further comments to what is essential.

Neighbours’ reports

Wind farm neighbours around the world report annoyance and sleep disturbance in association with living beside wind farms. In some cases, neighbours complain of audible noise. In other cases, neighbours complain of symptoms even though there is no audible noise.

Audible noise

In the first case, that of audible noise, there ought to be no dispute. If someone can hear noise inside their house, and this noise is persistent, then their evidence ought to be acknowledged, and the source of the annoying noise investigated. If the annoying audible noise is evidently that of operating wind turbines in the vicinity - a matter surely incapable of dispute - then the compliance authority should investigate promptly, verify the neighbours’ reports, and take steps to put an end to the annoying noise.

The reason that this does not happen is that government agencies are reluctant to make difficulties for the wind energy industry, which is currently supported by government policy, or to make difficulties for the government (their own government) whose policy it is to support the wind energy industry.

All that government agencies will do is to test whether a wind farm complies with the noise limits in its conditions of consent. Because these noise limits are inadequate to protect neighbours, and because the procedures for compliance monitoring are incapable of measuring actual noise impacts accurately, the testing is worthless. The agency finds that the wind farm complies with its conditions of consent, and that is the end of the matter. Meanwhile, the annoying noise continues for the neighbours, and their complaints of stress- related symptoms and sleep disturbance are ignored.

Health complaints are dismissed, even though their source in audible turbine noise is obvious to anyone who will take the trouble to reside in an impacted dwelling long enough to experience the disturbing noise.

Government agencies and the governments whose policy it is to support the wind energy industry will not acknowledge that the noise guidelines that they have adopted, and on the basis of which they have approved wind farm proposals, are incapable of measuring turbine

noise impacts accurately, and so are incapable of protecting neighbours’ health. It can only be concluded that the goal of government agencies and of government departments is to protect government policy with respect to wind farm development, even at the expense of putting at risk the health of neighbours.

It should be emphasised that in the case of audible noise there is no doubt whatever that industrial-scale noise is capable of causing adverse health effects, if the industrial source of the noise is located too close to people’s homes. This does not need to be proved. It has been accepted for decades, and is taken for granted in publications of the World Health Organization (e.g. WHO, 1999). Why else does NSW have an Industrial Noise Policy (published in 2000)?

Wind farms are being located too close to people’s homes, because the wind energy industry has successfully lobbied government to adopt noise guidelines that are inadequate to protect neighbours, but that will allow developers to locate their wind farms where they wish, close to existing power lines, and close to the mass agglomerations of consumers, even if this means erecting them in the middle of densely populated rural areas where neighbours are bound to be disturbed.

So far as audible noise is concerned, it ought not to be considered that this is solely a health issue. It is primarily an issue of incompetent or corrupt planning by politicians and officials who do not care whether rural residents suffer or not.

It should be emphasised that there is a massive literature on low-frequency noise and its harmful effects (summarised in Leventhall, 2003).

It is also well established that amplitude-modulated sound is more easily perceived and more annoying than constant-level sound (Bradley, 1994; Bengtsson et al, 2004), and that sounds that are unpredictable and uncontrollable are more annoying than other sounds (Geen and McCown, 1984; Hatfield et al, 2002). These facts have been confirmed in relation to wind turbine sound by several studies (Wolsink and Sprengers, 1993; Wolsink et al, 1993), Pedersen and Nielsen, 1994; Pedersen and Persson Waye, 2004, 2007; and see Punch et al, 2010).

Finally, the nature and functioning of the sympathetic nervous system with its “fight or flight” response is well established. The acousticians Huub Bakker and Bruce Rapley have made the connection between this mechanism and symptoms experienced by neighbours subjected to continual amplitude-modulated wind turbine sound: “Again, because of the evolution of the brain, distinctive, or salient, sounds trigger the ‘alert mechanism’ in the primitive hind-brain because they do stand out from the background. Repetitive, or sustained , triggering of the human alert mechanism causes increases in anxiety levels and, over days and weeks, the attendant symptoms associated with anxiety; sleep disturbance, tiredness, nausea and depression.” (Bakker and Rapley, 2010, pp. 246-247)

Noise “annoyance” can of course be experienced outside a residence as well as inside. This should be remembered in view of the fact that we are dealing with industrial developments located in rural areas, where people spend much of their time outside, working on their properties. In a previous section I have already remarked on the dangers for rural workers from distraction (from both audible and visual stimuli), if they are using agricultural machinery.

(The fact that the noise guidelines presuppose a concern only with noise impacts on residents inside their houses shows that the noise guidelines have been composed from an urban standpoint, with a complete disregard for the real conditions in which rural residents live.)

Inaudible sound: infrasound

The second case of noise complaints, where neighbours complain of symptoms even though there is no audible sound inside their residence, is more controversial.

The wind energy industry, its hired noise consultants, and its supporters in government assume that if a sound is inaudible, then it cannot affect human physiology, and so cannot harm humans. This assumption has been made by acousticians for decades, but it has never been verified by medical research. Moreover, it has now been demonstrated to be untenable.

Professor Alec Salt of the School of Medicine at Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri, a specialist in the study of the cochlea in the inner ear, has shown in a series of studies that infrasound stimulates the Outer Hair Cells in the cochlea at 60 dB(G); that the Outer Hair Cells are connected by nerve fibres to those parts of the brain associated with the kinds of symptom that neighbours experience; and that wind turbine infrasound can cause a biological modulation inside the nervous system, a modulation quite distinct from the acoustic modulation characteristic of the sound waves generated at the turbine (Salt and Hullar, 2010; Salt and Kaltenbach, 2011; Salt and Lichtenhan, 2011; Salt and Lichtenhan, 2012).

These references to the work of Salt and his colleagues have been given to the Department of Planning, and to other departments of the NSW Government, many times, and consistently ignored. Salt has now summarised his views on the potential adverse health effects of wind turbine infrasound in the following article published by the Acoustical Society of America:

 Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2014. How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People? Acoustics Today, Winter 2014, pp. 20-28

Salt and Lichtenhan discuss five ways in which wind turbine infrasound could affect human physiology, given existing medical knowledge: (i) low-frequency biasing of audible sounds (i.e. the biological modulation referred to above); (ii) endolymphatic hydrops induced by low frequency tones; (iii) excitation of Outer Hair Cell afferent nerve pathways; (iv) exacerbation

42 of noise induced hearing loss; (v) infrasound stimulation of the vestibular sense organs. They also discuss a potential protective therapy against infrasound.

Salt has always accepted that these are hypotheses - albeit well-founded in existing medical literature - that need to be tested in respect of wind turbine infrasound by further research, presumably both in the laboratory and in the field. The practical problem is that public health authorities will not commission the research (see below).

There are two other publications by Professor Salt that the Department should examine. They are letters, one to the Victorian Department of Health (9 May 2013), the other to Martti Warpenius, Chairman of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants (AAAC) (18 September 2013). Professor Salt has been kind enough to allow these letters to enter the public domain.

The letter to the Victorian Department of Health controverts false statements in that department’s fact sheet Wind Farms, Sound and Health: Technical Information, specifically the claim that “the available evidence does not support claims that inaudible sounds can have direct physiological effects.” Salt cites the medical evidence that shows that the department’s claim is false.

The letter to Warpenius takes issue with Warpenius’s belief that wind turbine infrasound must be harmless, because it is typically at a lower level than infrasound generated within the human body. Salt points out that internal bodily infrasound is transmitted by quite a different pathway from that used by external infrasound, and consequently does not cause stimulation of the ear. Warpenius is simply ignorant of the relevant physiology.

I will enclose copies of Salt’s 2014 article, and his two letters of 2013 with this submission.

In relation to infrasound, reference should also be made to three instances of research from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. These are (i) the research on heating, ventilation and air- conditioning systems (HVAC) (i.e. examples of rotating machinery) from the 1970s and 1980s; (ii) the work of Dr Malcolm Swinbanks on gas compressors in the 1970s; and (iii) the research on wind turbines in the 1980s and 1990s, commissioned by the US Department of Energy, and carried out by teams from NASA, and the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI).

All this research is conveniently surveyed by Richard James in an article published in 2012. James shows how this research consistently showed that dynamically modulated infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) was responsible for the kind of symptoms currently complained of by wind farm neighbours. The findings of the US Department of Energy research were valid for both the older style turbines with rotor downwind of the tower, and the modern turbine with rotor upwind of the tower (James, 2012).

It is therefore possible to say that, given both the work of Salt and his colleagues, and the work on ILFN from between the 1970s and the 1990s, there is ample evidence to suggest that wind turbine infrasound must be considered a source of adverse health effects for neighbours.

NHMRC

The NHMRC recently conducted a review of evidence pertaining to the question whether wind turbines cause adverse health effects (NHMRC, 2014).

In relation to wind turbine noise, the review could find no evidence that wind turbine noise unambiguously causes adverse health effects (p. 16). In the light of the evidence summarised above, it can only be concluded that the review did not look hard enough. The review ignored the general literature on noise annoyance, on low frequency noise and on amplitude modulation, and the acoustic evidence that suggests that the noise guidelines in use in Australia are incapable of measuring turbine noise accurately, and so are incapable of protecting neighbours from adverse impacts.

The review ignored the evidence from the research conducted in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, as surveyed in James (2012).

But, most incredibly, the review ignored the work of Salt and his colleagues, despite the fact that Salt’s earliest publication in this area was as long ago as 2010.

It is impossible to have any confidence in the NHMRC review when one reads: “As the sound level decreases with distance, it is unlikely that substantial noise would be heard at distances of more than 500-1500 m from wind farms. (p. 12)” This preposterous statement is refuted by all the independent acoustic research conducted on wind turbine noise since 2003. As early as 2004 Frits van den Berg, a Dutch physicist, recorded disturbing noise at a distance of 1900 metres from the turbines of a wind farm on the German-Dutch border, in conditions of temperature inversion (van den Berg, 2004; cf. van den Berg, 2006).

Professor Henrik Møller has pointed out that as wind turbines get bigger and taller, their characteristic ‘note’ gets lower. That is, the sound energy received at a residence is more likely to be predominantly low frequency (Møller and Pedersen, 2011). Even a consultant to the wind energy industry admits that this development is likely to require greater setback distances, as low frequency noise attenuates at a lower rate with distance than higher frequency noise (Sonus, 2010).

One is not encouraged to believe in the impartiality of the NHMRC review panel when one discovers that the only acoustician on the panel was Dr Norm Broner, a consultant who has advised the wind energy industry, and whose work provides some of the basis for the inadequate NSW draft Guidelines.

The NHMRC review looks like yet another holding operation conducted on behalf of the wind energy industry and government policy. This holding operation conceals the evidence of potential adverse health effects from wind turbines, evidence that has been accumulating for at least the last decade, but which is also supported by reputable research conducted as long ago as the 1970s.

Research and funding

Audible noise

With regard to audible noise inside a house, the necessary research would seem to be fairly simple. The WHO suggests that the noise limit inside a bedroom at night, to protect sleep, should be 30 dB(A), unless the noise mix contains considerable low frequency components, in which case the limit should be lower. Consideration should also be given to low background noise levels (WHO, 1999).

The WHO recommendations support the recent plan of the Danish Government to impose an indoors noise limit of 20 dB(A) for all frequencies between 10 Hz and 160 Hz. This is a maximum, not-to-be-exceeded limit, not an average. Professor Henrik Møller warns that even this limit would allow some LFN to be audible inside a house, and that therefore the limit must be rigidly enforced (Møller, 2012).

To monitor LFN inside a house, to check if it is below 20 dB(A) at specific frequencies, is hardly a difficult task. But the NSW Department of Planning, like other State planning authorities, refuses to order it. The draft Guidelines do not adopt the Danish limit. Moreover, they allow proponents to measure LFN at some point between turbine and residence, and make a calculation, based on an assumption about propagation. This method is guaranteed to underestimate the actual LFN inside the house.

It would seem that the Department wants to protect the wind energy industry from any research that might conflict with the industry’s interests, rather than protect neighbours from adverse impacts.

Infrasound

As indicated above, Professor Alec Salt’s suggestions as to the mechanisms by which wind turbine infrasound causes adverse health effects need to be tested by further research. This would no doubt involve both field studies and laboratory studies. Such research would probably be expensive, and take time.

Professor Salt has pointed out that while there is already research on the effect of short exposures to relatively high levels of infrasound, there is no research on the effect of very

long exposures to relatively low levels of infrasound (such as are experienced by neighbours of wind farms) (Salt and Lichtenhan, 2014). Given that Salt’s proposed mechanisms for the effect of wind turbine infrasound on the human nervous system are well-founded in existing medical literature, the precautionary principle should have prevented wind farms from being constructed close to human habitation. But, the wind energy industry, planning authorities and public health authorities all abandoned caution in the pursuit of profits for the industry and votes for the politicians. All that can be done now is for there to be a moratorium on further wind farm development, and a prohibition on the operation of existing wind farms, while the necessary research is carried out. If the research takes a long time to complete, the cost must be born by the industry, as the industry has wantonly put the health of neighbours at risk.

The research should be carried out by independent researchers, but commissioned by the public health authorities and paid for, at arm’s length, by the wind energy industry. Local communities of wind farm neighbours cannot afford to commission medical research. They have already spent money on noise monitoring, on legal fees, and on other professional services. It ought not to have been necessary for neighbours to spend this money. It would not have been necessary if the planning authorities and the public health authorities had done their job properly.

Cross-sectional and other studies

The NHMRC review based its conclusions on only 7 studies. All of these were cross- sectional studies. A cross-sectional study examines “the relationship between an exposure . . . . and specific health outcomes in a defined population at a single point in time.” According to the principles of scientific method, a cross-sectional study can only determine correlation between variables, not a causal relationship. Partly for this reason, the NHMRC finds that the 7 studies fall into evidential category D, where the body of evidence is considered to be weak, and findings cannot be trusted. As a result, the review concludes: “There is no reliable or consistent evidence that wind farms directly cause adverse health effects in humans.”

In order to establish a causal connection, a research study would have to be either a longitudinal study in the field, or an experimental study in the laboratory.

A longitudinal study would examine subjects before exposure to wind farm impacts, during exposure to wind farm impacts, and after exposure to wind farm impacts. Such a study would be difficult to set up, since it would involve considerable disruption to the lives of the subjects. It would also be expensive, and take considerable time (several years).

An experimental study in the laboratory would have to simulate wind turbine impacts, in all their complexity, and control the exposure of subjects to these, in order to distinguish the effect of the wind turbine impacts from the effects of extraneous factors. This kind of study might not take so much time, but it would still be expensive.

In both the cases of a longitudinal study and of an experimental study, there would have to be objective health monitoring (e.g measuring of cortisol levels), and the use of control groups for a comparison with the study group of subjects.

Why does no public health authority set up such studies? Why has this never yet happened?

Health Canada (the Canadian federal Department of Health) has set up a study to compare health effects, measured objectively, with modelled [!] wind farm noise. This is yet another cross-sectional study, as Health Canada admits. This means that no matter what the results of this study, the wind energy industry, and pro-wind governments will be able to claim that the study does not prove that wind farms cause adverse health effects. On its website Health Canada admits the deficiencies of a cross-sectional study, and excuses itself by pointing out that a longitudinal study would be expensive and take a long time! (see http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca ) In this way, the wind energy industry will be protected again, and neighbours will be betrayed again.

Public health authorities are guilty of the grossest and most offensive hypocrisy. They publish statements declaring that there is no scientific evidence to prove that wind farms cause adverse health effects, and that existing studies are deficient. And for these reasons they refuse to commission research - research which they, the public health authorities, are the only bodies capable of funding (apart from the wind energy industry)! This leaves wind farm neighbours caught in a classic Catch 22.

Conclusions and recommendations

There is already ample evidence to suggest that audible noise from wind turbines causes adverse health effects in the form of ‘annoyance’ (stress-related symptoms) and sleep disturbance.

This evidence consists partly of the reports of wind farm neighbours, and partly of scientific studies of an acoustic or medical nature. Some of this evidence relates to noise annoyance in general. Some of it is specific to wind turbine noise. Some of it relates to other forms of rotating machinery.

The need to protect people from offensive noise is already acknowledged by the WHO, and by the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

There is overwhelming evidence that the noise guidelines in use in Australia are incapable of measuring wind turbine noise accurately, and so are incapable of protecting neighbours from adverse noise impacts, with associated adverse health effects. The inadequacy of the noise guidelines is prima facie reason for supposing that if wind farm neighbours report adverse noise and health impacts, their testimony is credible.

The work of Salt and his colleagues shows that there is already good reason, grounded in existing medical literature, to think that wind turbine infrasound may be causing effects in the nervous system of some wind farm neighbours, resulting in the symptoms which they describe.

The work of Salt and his colleagues proves that the assumption that inaudible sound is harmless is untenable.

The NSW Department of Health must commission research into the potential for adverse health effects from wind turbine impacts. The NSW Government is an independent authority. It does not have to wait for action by the Commonwealth Government. If the NSW Department of Health does not commission the necessary research, adequately independent, and adequately designed to investigate the issue of causality, then the NSW Department of Health will be guilty of dereliction of duty.

In the meantime, there must be a moratorium on all wind farm development in NSW, and existing wind farms must be prohibited from operating.

If the NSW Government refuses to take this action, and at some future date it is conclusively proved that wind farm impacts have had adverse health effects on wind farm neighbours in NSW, who in the NSW Government should be sued? When solicitors are drawing up the writs to be sent out, whose name - what minister? what official? - should be on the writ?

In relation to the Gullen Range Modification Application, all further assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm should be suspended, and the entire history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project should become the subject of an independent public inquiry. This inquiry must investigate the inaction of the NSW Department of Health and its lack of concern for the health of adversely affected wind farm neighbours in NSW, and the refusal of the NSW Departments of Planning and of Environment to take the issue of the potential adverse health effects of wind farms seriously.

References

Bakker, H., and Rapley, B., 2010. Sound characteristics of multiple turbines, pp. 233-258 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Bengtsson, J, Persson Waye, K, Kjellberg, A (2004). Sound characteristics in low frequency noise and their relevance for the perception of pleasantness, Acta Acustica (2004) 90: 171- 180

Bradley, JS (1994). Annoyance caused by constant-amplitude and amplitude-modulated sound containing rumble, Noise Control Engineering Journal (1994) 42: 203-208

Geen, R. G., and McCown, E. J., 1984. Effects of Noise and Attack on Aggression and Physiological Arousal, Motivation and Emotion (1984) 8: 231-241

Hatfield, J, Job, RF, Hede, AJ, Carter, NL, Peploe, P, Taylor, R et al (2002). Human response to environmental noise: the role of perceived control, Journal of Behavioural Medicine (2002) 9: 341-359

James, R. R., 2012. Wind Turbine Infra and Low-frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Were Not Heard, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2012, 32(2) 108-127

Leventhall, G (2003). A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, Report for Defra, May 2003

Møller, H., 2012. E-mail to European Platform against Wind, 5 February 2012, posted at www.wind-watch.org , February 10, 2012

Møller, H., and Pedersen, C. S., 2011. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129 (6), June 2011, pp. 3727-3744

NHMRC, 2014. NHMRC Draft Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health, Consultation Draft - February 2014

NSWINP, 2000. Industrial Noise Policy, published by Environment Protection Authority (NSW), January 2000. Retrieved from www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm

Pedersen, E and Persson Waye, K (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise: a dose-response relationship, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (2004) 116: 3460-3470

Pedersen, E and Persson Waye, K (2007). Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and wellbeing in different living environments, Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2007) 64: 480-486

Pedersen, TH and Nielsen, KKS (1994). Annoyance by noise from wind turbines, Report No 150, DELTA Acoustic and Vibration, Lydtekniske Institute, Copenhagen [in Danish]

Punch, J, James, R, and Pabst, D (2010). Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know, Audiology Today, JulAug 2010

Salt, A. N., 2013. Letter to Martti Warpenius, Chairman AAAC, September 18, 2013

Salt, A and Hullar, TE (2010). Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines, Hearing Research (2010) 268 (1-2): 12-21

Salt, A. N., and Kaltenbach, J. A., 2011. Infrasound from Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 296-302

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2011. Responses of the Inner Ear to Infrasound. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2012. Perception-based protection from low-frequency sounds may not be enough. Inter-Noise 2012, August 19-22, New York City

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2013. Letter to the Victorian Department of Health, May 9, 2013

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2014. How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People? Acoustics Today, Winter 2014, pp. 20-28

Sonus Pty Ltd, 2010. Wind Farms Technical Paper: Environmental Noise, prepared for the Clean Energy Council, November 2010, S3387C6 van den Berg, GP (2004). Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound, Journal of Sound & Vibration (2004) 277 (4-5): 955-970 van den Berg, GP (2006). The Sounds of High Winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise. PhD diss., University of Groningen, Netherlands, 177 pp., posted at www.wind-watch.org/documents/authors

WHO, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise, ed. Berglund, B, Lindvall, T, Schwela, DH, World Health Organization, 1999

Wolsink, M, and Sprengers, M (1993). Wind turbine noise: a new environmental threat? Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on the Biological Effects of Noise, ICBEN, Nice, France, 1993, 2: 235-238

Wolsink, M, Sprengers, M, Keuper, A, Pedersen, TH, Westra, CA (1993). Annoyance from wind turbine noise on sixteen sites in three countries. Proceedings of the European Community Wind Energy Conference, Lubeck, Travemunde, 273-276

The need for a public inquiry 4: visual

My comments in this area will be brief for the reason that visual assessment obviously plays no real part in the determination of a wind farm proposal by the NSW Department of Planning. It ought to, but it does not. The assessment of the potential visual impact of a wind farm in rural NSW is a sham. I will append some considerations on this matter from a previous submission to the Department of Planning (see Appendix A).

I will say only three things here:

First, the landscape in the area of the Gullen Range Wind Farm has already been ruined. This must be obvious to any honest person who bothers to come and have a look. This would have been the case even if the turbines had all been built in the correct locations. Whether the turbines are built in the correct locations or in the unauthorised locations makes no difference to the fact that the landscape is ruined.

Second, the issue of the real aesthetic impact of a wind farm development in its rural setting is dismissed by the Department of Planning on the ground that only an aesthetic impact of regional or State significance is of any importance (Major Project Assessment, p. 20). This nullifies the Director-General’s Requirement that landscape value be considered in the Environmental Assessment. The Department’s attitude means that the issue has been dismissed even before it has been considered.

What lies behind the Department’s dismissal is its assumption that aesthetic effects are entirely subjective and personal: “The acceptability of changes to the visual outlook will always be a matter of conjecture because of the subjectivity of individual likes and dislikes.” (Major Project Assessment, p. 25) As aesthetic effects have both objective and subjective aspects, and as an aesthetic judgment is different from a like or dislike, the Department’s view is simply poor philosophy.

Third, the Department thinks that any intrusive adverse visual impact may be mitigated by landscaping, i.e. by planting trees around a house. It was pointed out to the Department when the wind farm was proposed that when turbines stand on a ridge and a residence is down in a valley, it may be impossible to screen the house from a view of the turbines, unless one imprisons the house in a wall of trees only metres from the house. Now that the wind farm is built, it is obvious that the neighbours’ view is correct. Officials from the Department know it is correct, as they have visited the area and neighbours’ houses. So, this proposal for mitigation is also a sham.

The visual assessment of wind farm proposals by the NSW Department of Planning is a sham. This should be investigated by an independent public inquiry into the entire history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project.

The need for a public inquiry 5: land value

The proponent’s assessment of the impact of the wind farm on land value could not be taken seriously (see Appendix B). Nonetheless, the Department accepted it, stating: “After considering the results of the Crookwell Wind farm case study on property values, the stated US survey, the Bald Hills Wind Farm Panel Inquiry and the results of referendums and surveys on the popularity of wind farms in the Upper Lachlan Shire, no conclusive evidence of significant value changes, transfers or inequities can be identified to property values in the vicinity of the proposal. The Department therefore considers property values will not be adversely affected by the proposal especially in light of the general property market downturn.” (Major Project Assessment, p. 35)

The proponent’s assessment was sophistry, and the Department’s acceptance of it was frivolity.

The view of the Department that property values will not be adversely affected by the wind farm flies in the face of common sense. The landscape in the vicinity of the wind farm is already ruined. Adverse noise impacts are already being experienced by neighbours. Some neighbours are already suffering sleep disturbance. And the wind farm is not yet completed. It is obvious that the amenity of the area has been greatly damaged. How could this not have an adverse effect on property values?

Real estate agents willingly testify that if the number of potential buyers is reduced by the prospect of the visual and/or acoustic impact of a wind farm, market value must fall. Neighbours of Gullen Range have already reported that their real estate agents have indicated that potential buyers have lost interest when they have heard about the wind farm.

The usual method employed by researchers commissioned by the wind energy industry or by pro-wind government departments to assess potential impacts on property value is simply to examine sales of houses with a line of sight to a wind farm, within a certain distance. This procedure has two obvious defects.

One is that the distance within which sales are examined is too great, as far out as 10 kilometres. This results in what is known as ‘swamping’. At 10 kilometres there are many more residences than within, say, 3 kilometres. The unaffected residences out to 10 kilometres swamp those closer in, enabling the researcher to arrive at the desired conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive. From this lack of conclusion government departments like the NSW Department of Planning willingly leap to the conclusion that “property values will not be adversely affected by the proposal . . . .” (Major Project Assessment, p. 35 - see above)

The second defect is that the method of examining sales ignores the fact that some properties may become unsaleable. If a residence becomes unattractive to the generality of potential buyers because of the damage to visual amenity, or if the residence becomes uninhabitable because the noise impacts make it impossible to sleep there, then the residence may never be sold. The only way to assess the likelihood of this is to return to the issues of visual impact

52 and noise impact, and consider them seriously. But, pro-wind government departments refuse to do this.

The refusal of the Department of Planning to take the issue of land value seriously needs to be investigated by an independent public inquiry. This subject should be included in the scope of the public inquiry into the entire history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

I append some considerations on the issue of impacts on land value, taken from a previous submission made to the Department of Planning (see Appendix C).

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The circumstances of the unauthorised turbine re-locations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm are such as to suggest misconduct on the part of both the Department of Planning and the proponent.

2. There are grounds for thinking that the assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm was unreliable, and that the approval granted to the proponent was unsafe.

3. The noise guidelines adopted or to be adopted in NSW are incapable of measuring accurately the acoustic impacts on wind farm neighbours, and so are incapable of protecting the health of neighbours.

4. There is already ample evidence to indicate that inappropriately located wind farms, including, Gullen Range, can have adverse health effects on neighbours, generally in the form of stress-related symptoms (‘annoyance’) and sleep disturbance.

5. Public health authorities, including the NSW Department of Health, are guilty of dereliction of duty in not commissioning adequate, independent medical research into the potential adverse health effects of wind farms.

6. The assessment of the visual impact of wind farms in NSW, including that of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, is a sham.

7. The assessment of the impact of wind farms, including the Gullen Range Wind Farm, on land value in NSW is superficial and frivolous, and the methodologies used are unsound.

8. For all these reasons, all further assessment on the Gullen Range Wind Farm, including that of the current Modification Application, should be suspended.

9. There should be an independent public inquiry - at least a Judicial Commission - into the entire history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm project, taking into consideration all the issues referred to above.

Appendix A

Extract from PMLG submission on the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines (submitted March 2012)

Landscape and landscape values

The essential question for local communities, and especially impacted neighbours, is: how seriously will the Department of Planning take this issue? Past experience with the Department’s assessment of wind farm proposals suggests some grounds for scepticism.

Landscape character and landscape values are to be assessed by the proponent; key features of the landscape are to be described; and the proponent’s methodology is to be described and justified (p. 4). The significance of the landscape values and character in a local and regional context are to be described. Community and stakeholder values of the local and regional visual amenity are to be described (p. 5). The sensitivity of the landscape features to change is to be considered (p. 18). It is even said that turbines are to be located “where possible” [!] “away from areas with high scenic values” (p. 19). But what will all this mean in practice?

First, the phrase “high scenic values” seems to imply that the Department is concerned about something that would usually be called “beauty”, and that the comparative beauty of an area is not something totally subjective. However, Departmental officials have in the past tended to dismiss this kind of issue with the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That then serves as a reason not to consider the matter any further. In the Major Project Assessment for the Gullen Range Wind Farm the Departmental author writes:

The acceptability of changes to the visual outlook will always be a matter of conjecture because of the subjectivity of individual likes and dislikes. (p. 25)

That statement explicitly argues that the issue is subjective. However, in the same report the same author also writes:

In assessing any wind farm proposal, the Department deems it necessary that the landscape value be seen from a regional, if not State-wide perspective..... The Department’s assessment is consistent with the general approach taken for previous wind farm proposals in that a wind farm would have to impact a landscape of regional, if not State or national importance, for it to be refused on the basis of scenic quality alone. (p. 20)

That statement presupposes that the estimate of landscape value is not entirely subjective. If it were, how could any landscape be declared to be of regional, State, or national importance? In reality, everyone believes that some landscapes are more beautiful than others, and that therefore beauty is not entirely subjective. If it were not so, then no landscapes would ever be preserved from development.

It seems clear, then, that the Department of Planning is acting inconsistently. It only invokes the subjectivity of aesthetic judgments when convenient. It is convenient to dismiss landscape

55 concerns in a local context, in order to promote development. The reason for this becomes painfully clear in the Gullen Range report cited above. The author states:

In assessing any wind farm proposal, the Department deems it necessary that the landscape value be seen from a regional, if not State-wide perspective. For example, if a wind farm proposal such as this project is refused solely upon a local perspective of scenic quality, it would probably eliminate opportunities to construct wind farms possibly anywhere in the region, and possibly in the State. (p.20) (italics added)

This lets the cat out of the bag. Local scenic quality is to be sacrificed, in order to facilitate wind farm development. It is clear from this declaration that local scenic beauty does not count. But, if it does not count, then the whole assessment of landscape character, and landscape values is a sham.

So, the question is: does the Department of Planning intend to behave any differently from how it behaved in its assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm? Do the above sentiments still represent the Department’s view of landscape assessment? If they do, then we are all still involved in an elaborate game, that is merely a waste of time.

The proponent is to describe and justify his methodology. And the sensitivity of the landscape to change is to be assessed (pp. 4, 18). In the past these requirements have been little more than a joke.

In the case of the Gullen Range Wind Farm the proponent classified the landscape of the site of the proposed wind farm as either “gently undulating farmland”, or “hilly farmland”. Both types of landscape were declared by the proponent to be insensitive to the kind of change represented by the wind farm. The reason for this was, apparently, that the area was agricultural and pastoral, and so already affected by human modification. On account of this it was held by the proponent that the area could “absorb” the change introduced by the wind farm (GRWFEA, pp. 103-104, 118).

This absurd claim took no account of the fact that the wind farm would be grossly out of proportion with everything else in the landscape, that it would dominate everything else in the landscape, that trees – hitherto the tallest items in the landscape – would lose their dominant character, and that the landscape would be radically transformed, to an extreme degree. This obvious common-sense judgment was ignored both by the proponent, and by the author of the Major Project Assessment.

The proponent made no attempt to assess the beauty or value of the landscape, beyond stating that he recognized that some people liked the look of it, and were fond of it (GRWFEA, attachments, vol. 2, 3.1, p. 36).

It must be concluded that the Department of Planning simply does not take seriously the issue of landscape value, and that compelling the proponent to make an assessment of impact on the landscape is no more than an elaborate game.

But, if so, what is the point of the Department now saying, in the draft Guidelines (p. 19) that turbines are to be located “where possible” ... “away from areas with high scenic values”? Does this stipulation have any reality? Are wind farms to be refused in areas like that of the Gullen Range Wind Farm? Or, are all potential wind farm sites along the Great Dividing Range to be declared areas of low scenic value, so that the turbines can go in? Are we all supposed to accept the aesthetic judgment of Departmental officials on this issue? Do they have any qualifications in this area?

Time will tell.

Visual amenity

Once again the question is: how seriously will the Department of Planning take this issue?

The assessment of the impact on visual amenity is to take into account the visibility of the proposed development, and the locations and distances from which the development can be viewed (p. 4). There is to be a particular focus on any neighbours’ houses within 2 km of a proposed wind turbine that do not host the wind farm facility (p. 4). There is to be a discrete justification of the methodology for assessing impacts at neighbours’ houses within 2 km of a proposed wind turbine. And photomontages of the project and associated transmission lines, taken from, inter alia, potentially affected residences (including approved but not yet developed dwellings or subdivisions with residential rights) within 2 km of a proposed wind turbine or other associated infrastructure must be provided (p. 4). Moreover, photomontages depicting how the turbine(s) will appear from each neighbouring house within 2 km of a turbine must be provided during the Gateway and in the assessment (p. 5). In chapter 2 on Consulting with the community and stakeholders it is said that proponents should consult with affected neighbours (where a turbine is proposed within 2 km of a neighbour’s house) on specific issues, including landscape and visual amenity (p. 9). Finally, it is also recommended as a possible measure of mitigation that turbines be located “where possible” [!] “away from areas with high visibility from local residents” (p. 19).

It is certainly a good thing that the proponent is obliged to consult with all neighbours within 2 km of turbines about landscape and visual amenity. In the past proponents have failed to do this, or claimed that newsletters and one or two “open days” were enough to satisfy the obligation for consultation. In the case of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, the Department of Planning mildly criticised this in its Major Project Assessment (MPA) , but by then it was too late to do anything about it, since in the MPA the proposal was recommended for approval by the Minister. According to the Director-General’s Requirements for the Gullen Range Wind Farm, the proponent was obliged to assess visual impact, with photomontages, on all dwellings within 10 kilometres. Not a single visual assessment on any residence was carried out by the proponent, until Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians (PMLG), at their own considerable expense, entered a merit appeal against the Minister’s approval in the NSW Land & Environment Court. And even then the Court only obliged the proponent to do about half a dozen photomontages. There were in fact about 60 non-involved residences within 2

57 km of the proposed Gullen Range turbines, 118 within 3 km, and about 240 within 5 km. Nobody knows how many non-involved residences there were within 10 km, since the proponent did not bother to count. None of this was objected to by the Department of Planning.

When turbines are placed upon a ridge, and the residences are mostly in the valley below, the wind farm will be “visually dominant in the landscape from most viewing locations” within 1.5 km, and will be “highly visible, and will usually dominate the landscape” between 1.5 and 3.0 km. These descriptions and figures come from the assessment of visual impact for the Gullen Range Wind Farm (GRWFEA, p. 102). But since most of the wind farms planned for NSW will be located on hilly terrain in the Great Dividing Range, with residences in the valley below, it is reasonable to take the descriptions and figures as valid generally. Turbines set on a ridge cannot be missed. Therefore, the proposal for consulting neighbours within 2 km on visual impact should be amended so that all non-involved neighbours within 3 km are consulted.

There is to be a “discrete justification” of the methodology for assessing impacts at neighbours’ houses within 2 km of a proposed wind turbine (p. 4). If we may judge from the past conduct of proponents and of the Department of Planning, rather more than the proponent’s justification of his methodology will be necessary. In the case of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, the methodology used must be judged, by any rational criteria, deficient, and the Department of Planning made no objection to it. The proponent insisted that the estimation of visual impact had to be determined by the application of three criteria. Only one of these was visibility as a result of distance from turbines. The other two were “landscape sensitivity”, and “viewer numbers”. The way that these criteria were applied was such that what was in reality a high visual impact was converted in the proponent’s estimation to a low visual impact. According to the first criterion, distance from turbines, the estimate of visual impact might be “high”. This was consistent with the finding already mentioned that within 1.5 km the turbines would be visually dominant, and that between 1.5 and 3.0 km the turbines would be highly visible and would usually dominate the landscape. However, when applying the second criterion, “landscape sensitivity”, the proponent arbitrarily declared the landscape to be insensitive to the kind of change represented by the wind farm, and concluded that according to this criterion, the visual impact was “low”. Finally, according to the third criterion, “viewer numbers”, the visual impact was declared to be “low”, presumably because local roads in the country do not have the volume of traffic of George Street, Sydney. As a result of this dubious kind of reasoning, the proponent was left with three estimates of visual impact, namely, one “high”, and two “lows”. When these were combined, the net result was declared to be “low”. (GRWFEA, Attachments, vol. 2, 3.1, pp. 50, 52)

In this way, the real visual impact, which will undoubtedly be colossal when the wind farm is built, is reduced to “low”. This procedure cannot be taken seriously. The Department of Planning made no objection to this procedure, when it was assessing the Gullen Range proposal in 2009. Why would it object to it now? Even if future proponents offer a

“justification” for using such a methodology, what guarantee is there that the Department of Planning would object to it? Would the Department in fact object to it? Who knows?

It is still the case that proponents are invited by the draft Guidelines to take into account “the sensitivity of the landscape to change”, as well as “visibility” and “distances from which the development can be viewed” (p. 18). There is, however, no reference in the Guidelines to “viewer numbers”. That will probably not stop proponents from invoking the notion, since it will still be in their interest to make the estimate of visual impact as low as possible. Can local residents depend on the Department of Planning to defend the standards of intellectual integrity? Or will the whole process still be a formality with a foregone conclusion, which functions to promote wind farm development in NSW?

Time will tell.

The draft Guidelines recommend as a possible measure of mitigation that turbines be located “where possible” [!] “away from areas with high visibility from local residents” (p. 19). How is it possible to believe that this recommendation has any reality or force? Wind farm developers want to locate their wind farms on ridges, because that is where the high winds are. To suggest to them that they might put their turbines somewhere else, if residents can see them would only be met with a laugh. The Gullen Range Wind Farm is to have 73 turbines located on a series of ridges stretching for about 25 kilometres. There will be 118 residences within 3 km of the turbines, within which distance the turbines will be “visually dominant’, or “highly visible”, usually “dominating the landscape”. Are we to infer that under the new Guidelines the turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm would not have been approved, because they would be “highly visible” to several hundred residents? This is impossible to believe. The Department of Planning can only be playing games.

If the Department responds by claiming that the view of the turbines can be obscured by landscaping, this is not an effective answer. Setting aside the fact that trees may take 20 to 30 years to reach their full height, it is likely that the fact that the turbines will be on a ridge, while the houses are in a valley, will make it impossible for any screening to be successful, unless the house is imprisoned in a solid wall of trees, and deprived of any view at all.

It is thus extremely difficult, if not impossible, for local residents to have any confidence that these draft Guidelines will protect their visual amenity.

Appendix B

Extract from PMLG submission, addition 1 on the Environmental Assessment for the Gullen Range Wind Farm (submitted September 2008)

Property Devaluation

It is with property devaluation that the developers are at their most disingenuous. They use the same ploy as they use for complex noise effects on health. That is, they cite contradictory evidence to intimate that the issue is uncertain. And some of their evidence is positively misleading. For example, they cite their consultants’ study of local property values around the Crookwell 1 windfarm. They say: “discussions with local agents generally (!) indicated that although topical, the existing windfarm had little or no effect on land values in Crookwell.” (our italics) (EA, p.163) ‘Generally’ only means that some real estate agents told them what they wanted to hear. And what relevance do land values ‘in Crookwell’ have? The only property values of interest here are those of properties close to the windfarm. They continue:”The analysis of sales evidence indicated that no detectable discount exists for properties deemed directly affected by the existing windfarm. That is, the market evidences (sic) suggests that having a view of the wind turbines did not have an effect on land value.” (EA, p.163) But when we look at the sales evidence in the Appendix to the Crookwell study, in the Attachments (3.7), we find that there are no before and after prices given, and that it is impossible for anyone to judge from the prices given whether there has been property devaluation or not. We are, then, asked to accept the unsubstantiated assertion of the agents making the claim. Moreover, the agents state that for none of the properties was noise from the turbines noticeable, and so noise effects were not considered in the study (HH18)! Also, the envelope for the study of visual impact was 6 km from the windfarm! (HH18) As the agents state, the Crookwell 1 windfarm uses a turbine that has a 45 m tower and blades with a total diameter of 44m. (HH7). So the Crookwell 1 turbine has a tip height of 67m. This Crookwell windfarm has 8 turbines, and a total capacity of 4.8MW (EA,p.77). In other words, each turbine is only of 0.6MW. So the developers think that there is validity in comparing the effects on property value of a windfarm (Gullen Range) of 84 turbines, each turbine being of 3.0 or 3.3MW, and a maximum tip height of 135 m, and the effects on property value of a windfarm (Crookwell 1) of 8 turbines, each turbine being only 0.6MW, and a tip height of 67 m! This is preposterous. No wonder the Crookwell turbines were noiseless at all of the properties studied. If Crookwell 1 is so much smaller than the Gullen Range proposal, then the only valid comparison would be for properties very close indeed to Crookwell1 where noise effects and visual impact would be comparable to noise effects and visual impact for the properties close to the Gullen Range proposal. Anything less negates the study. The one household in close proximity to Crookwell 1, if approached by the valuer, would have confirmed the unsaleability of their property which mirrors the experience of property owners near the Toora windfarm in Victoria. But the consultants looked at properties where there were no noise effects at all! And from the point of view of visual impact the study went out as far as 6 km! It can only be concluded that the developers are disingenuous, and that their disingenuousness borders on duplicity.

To avoid accusations of duplicity the developers are compelled to indicate from time to time that there will be an effect of property devaluation. But each time they try to retract what they have admitted. Thus: “The development may potentially affect the land values of the surrounding properties that are in some way affected by the development; those with a view

60 of the site or near enough to experience operational noise.” (EA, p.164) But they contradict themselves (a few lines lower down) by saying: “The evidence suggests that having a view of the wind turbines would not adversely affect the land values of surrounding properties.”(EA p.164). They also say: “Any negative perceptions that this is the case are likely to decline two years post construction.” (EA,p.164) This last claim is a miscitation from their own EA. On p.162 they cite a UK study in which 60% of professional property opinions believed windfarms decreased the value of residential properties where the windfarm was in view(!), but in which it was also found that “the perceived negative impact was recorded to continue but becomes less severe two years post completion.”(EA, p.162) What this means is that property assessors in the UK think that two years after the completion of a windfarm the real fall in prices continues but becomes less dramatic. What the developers’ version means is that two years after the construction of a windfarm people are less likely to think that a view of a windfarm will cause a devaluation of property. The original finding of the UK study, and the developers’ version are, obviously, not the same thing. The developers are distorting their own evidence. The logic of a decline in value is borne out in the qualification in the judges ruling of how properties are to be valued in the Taralga Landscape Guardians appeal where the developer must acquire two nearby properties at values established assuming no windfarm development. In a subsequent hearing two commissioners added a further two properties to be valued for acquisition on the same basis. This makes a total of 5 properties required to be acquired if the Taralga windfarm development goes ahead.

The developers contradict themselves again by admitting that “The windfarm may dampen a sensitive section of the property buying market …” But they immediately try to take this back, by continuing: “however, this effect is balanced by other influences such as demand for land and housing within a commutable distance from a larger centre and the creation of a development-oriented or green-energy aesthetic.” (EA, pp.164-165). An increase in demand for land and housing would raise the value of properties higher if the windfarm were not present. And are they seriously suggesting that people would want to live next to windfarms, thus raising the value of properties next to windfarms? This is idiotic.

Finally, they again admit that “the windfarm cannot be developed without the risk of some land value impact on surrounding properties during the construction and operational phases” (EA,p.165) And at last they come clean by falling back on a brutal sacrifice of the private interests of local residents to the general interest: “ it is considered by this assessment that on balance the benefits of the proposal are sufficient to outweigh this risk.” And to ram home the point they use the argument from established practice: “The risk is not dissimilar to that posed by other large scale infrastructure developments undertaken to meet increasing energy demands.” (EA, p.165) Obviously, they want to have the same privilege to ride roughshod over local residents that they think the Department of Planning allows to the owners of fossil fuel power stations. They know very well that the fall in property values is not a ‘risk’ but a certainty. They are inviting the Department of Planning to share the responsibility for bringing this about. Does the Department of Planning really want to share this responsibility?

The developers shamelessly assert that “no mitigation is considered to be required for the potential impacts to land value.” (EA,p.165) That is, they refuse to pay compensation. They

61 end with the preposterous claim: “As a large component of this issue is related to community perceptions, measures outlined in Section 8.2 for mitigation of impacts to the community are considered sufficient to address the issue.” (EA,p.165) So, a fall in house prices is a matter of ‘community perception’?! Why has no leading politician offered this idea as a solution to the current mortgage crisis? The developers are simply impudent. The allusion to mitigation for the community in Section 8.2 refers to the Community Enhancement Program outlined in Section 4.4.2. This means discounts on ‘clean energy’, and solar water heaters, and free light bulbs, and $75000 pa for a Community Fund. $75000 pa is $2250000 over 30 years. As compensation to local residents for property devaluation due to the windfarm would run into tens of millions of dollars, the developers are offering themselves a very good deal.

All this is disingenuous and impudent. It is not an objective and impartial assessment of the impact of the windfarm on property values. It is merely spin doctoring on behalf of the developers. That this should be the only environmental assessment made in relation to property values is scandalous.

We respectfully submit that the Department of Planning refuse to accept the developers’ claims concerning land values, and compel the developers to render adequate compensation to those property owners whose property is devalued by the windfarm, this compensation to be determined by an independent assessor.

Appendix C

Extract from PMLG submission on the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines (submitted March 2012)

Property value

The draft Guidelines stipulate that proponents shall consider potential impacts on property values (pp. iv, 8, 14, 22). It is hard to see what practical significance this can have, as the law does not recognize any principle of compensation for loss of property value as a result of an approved development. This was made very clear by the commissioners in the Gullen Range Wind Farm case in the NSW Land & Environment Court (NSWLEC 1102 [2010], paras 107- 110). The most that the law recognizes is that the owners of properties deemed by the Minister or the Court to be unacceptably impacted should be granted acquisition rights. This means that the proponent is obliged to offer to buy the property, at a market price, as if there were no wind farm. The property owner then has to decide whether to sell and move, or not to sell, and to continue to live in a residence that the Minister or Court has deemed to be unacceptably impacted.

The fact that acquisition rights are granted to some owners, and that the property is to be purchased at a market price, as if there were no wind farm, is itself an indication that the vicinity of a wind farm is likely to lead to a loss of property value, as the NSW Legislative Council inquiry recognized (NSW Legislative Council, 2009, p. 140).

The reality is that many householders face the prospect of a considerable loss of property value from the vicinity of wind farms, as a result of noise, health and visual impacts. In some cases, the impacts may be so bad as to make properties unmarketable. The number of property owners thus affected is likely to be much greater than the number to whom acquisition rights are granted. Therefore, wind farm development, as currently carried on, will lead to injustice on a grand scale.

In response to this concern, the NSW Legislative Council inquiry did at least recommend that the issue of compensation be researched:

Recommendation 11

That the Minister for Planning commission research into compensation options for residents who are adversely impacted by wind turbines and wind farms in general. The research should investigate options including the purchasing of affected properties and/or the provision of monetary compensation by the developer. (NSW Legislative Council, 2009, p. 83)

To the best of my knowledge, no such research has been carried out by the NSW Department of Planning.

There are only two solutions to this problem. One is to have adequate setback distances so that the amenity and conditions for health and well-being at a residence are not destroyed by the vicinity of a wind farm. As this depends on the research that still needs to be done into noise and health impacts, it is premature for this issue to be determined

now. Thus, the issue of property value also supports the need for a moratorium and a research programme.

The second solution is for proponents of wind farms to provide a guarantee to compensate residents, whose property suffers a loss of value due to the vicinity of the wind farm. Such property guarantees are given in some counties in the United States, as was recognized by the Senate inquiry into Rural Wind Farms (Community Affairs, 2011b, p. 59). The decisive argument here is that if, as wind farm developers claim, the vicinity of a wind farm will not cause any loss of property value, the developers have nothing to lose from agreeing to such a guarantee. On the other hand, if there is no such guarantee, and residents do suffer a loss of property value, then the proponent is imposing, unjustly, an externality upon the resident. The real cost of the wind farm includes the loss suffered by the resident, but the proponent does not have to bear this part of the cost. This is manifestly unjust.

It can only be concluded that there must be a moratorium, and a research programme to determine what is an adequate setback. These are needed on the ground of property value, as on the grounds of noise and health impacts. Failing this, let proponents of wind farm proposals give a property guarantee to all owners within 5 kilometres of turbines.

As Appendix F of the draft Guidelines cites the 2009 study Preliminary assessment of the impact of wind farms on surrounding land values in Australia, prepared for the NSW Valuer General, I will offer some comments on this document, and then discuss some other evidence on wind farms and property value, which seems to point in the opposite direction.

NSW Valuer General

The most recent official study of impact on property value by the vicinity of a wind farm, at least in NSW, is the Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Wind Farms on Surrounding Land Values in Australia, prepared by Duponts in association with PRP Valuers and Consultants for the NSW Valuer General (August 2009). The report makes the following assertions in its Executive Summary:

A review of wind farms currently operating in Australia revealed that they have been developed in locations generally removed from densely populated areas. As a result the small samples of sales transactions available for analysis limited the extent to which conclusions could be drawn....

The main finding was that the wind farms [studied – 8 in all] do not appear to have negatively affected property values in most cases. Forty (40) of the 45 sales investigated did not show any reductions in value. Five (5) properties were found to have lower than expected sale prices (based on a statistical analysis). While these small number of price reductions correlate with the construction of a wind farm

further work is needed to confirm the extent to which these were due to the wind farm or if other factors may have been involved.

Results also suggest that a property’s underlying land use may affect the property’s sensitivity to price impacts. No reductions in sale price were evident for rural properties or residential properties located in nearby townships with views of the wind farm.

The results for rural residential properties (commonly known as ‘lifestyle prop’s) were mixed and inconsistent; there were some possible reductions in sale prices identified in some locations alongside properties whose values appeared not to have been affected. Consequently, no firm conclusions can be drawn on lifestyle properties.

Overall, the inconclusive nature of the results is consistent with other studies that have also considered the potential impact of wind farms on property values.

Further analysis (with additional data and expansion of the study area to other states) [i.e. other than Victoria and NSW] may yield more comprehensive results. Notwithstanding this, further studies are also likely to be limited by the availability of sales transaction data. [Duponts, 2009, p. 2]

The above statements deserve some scrutiny and criticism. On the one hand, the summary asserts quite definitely that the wind farm sites studied “do not appear” to have negatively affected property values in most cases. On the other hand, the “overall” “nature of the results” is declared to be “inconclusive”. How can both these assertions be true? Was there no impact on values, or was the evidence inconclusive? If the evidence was inconclusive, then the conclusion that there was no negative impact ought not to be drawn. The phrase “do not appear” is introduced to gloss over the contradiction.

The authors of the report desiderate further research in order to obtain “more comprehensive results”, but they then go on to forecast that even with an expanded data base further studies will never reveal the truth! How could this be?

First, they suggest that future studies will have limited sales data to study, but they do not give the only possible explanation for this fact (assuming it to be a fact), namely, that adversely impacted people, wanting to move away from a wind farm, will be unable to sell their properties. Why else would there be a shortage of data as time passes?

Second, the methodology of the research must raise doubts as to its effectiveness. I cannot give a full analysis of the report here, but some obvious points can be made.

The report offers a literature review of previous studies, and implies that these studies are all inconclusive. But in fact, when one examines the detailed account of previous studies, one finds that different reports come to diametrically opposite conclusions. For example, the Jorgenson report (1996, Denmark) found that, on average, properties located close to a wind turbine sold for 16,200 DKK (about $3,700 AUD) less than those located further afield. Also, on average, properties located close to 12 or more wind turbines sold for 94,000 DKK

(about $21,600 AUD) less than those located further afield. By contrast, a report commissioned by the US Renewable Energy Policy Project found that in the case of 6 out of 10 wind farm sites property values went up! What effect there was in the other 4 cases we are not told. (Duponts, 2009, p. 6)

Glaring contradictions of this kind between reports should not be hidden, but should alert us to the influence of interest on studies, and make us question methodologies.

The report also seems not to give full weight to the evidence it cites. For example, it cites a Western Australian survey according to which most respondents felt that wind farms were acceptable, provided they were located over 5 kilometres from residences. The survey also found that a quarter of respondents indicated that they would pay less for a property near a wind farm, and that of these 38% indicated that they would pay 1-9% less, while 22% indicated that they would pay 10-19% less. How could these sentiments not affect market price? And yet the compilers of the report disregard this survey when summing up their literature review. They conclude, “From the literature review, it is apparent that the perceptions of the negative effect on land values are not borne out by the statistical analysis of sales data, except in very few cases.” (Duponts, 2009, p. 9)

Another obvious fault of the report’s methodology is that it examines all sales transactions within 10 kilometres of a wind farm (Duponts, 2009, p. 14). 10 kilometres is much too far, and in any case a distance should not be selected arbitrarily. If the purpose of the investigation is to test whether the presence of a wind farm is reducing the market value of properties, or making them unsaleable, then the investigators should determine an area within which noise and health impacts are likely to be felt, and then discover whether people, badly impacted, and who want to sell, have been able to sell, and at what price – or if they have been unable to sell at all. This is the only method that will enable the truth to be discovered.

The report is at fault in adopting the criterion of properties that have a view of turbines (Duponts, 2009, p. 15). It is not the view that is the main cause of annoyance, and it is not the view that is keeping people awake at night. To concentrate on the view, and therefore to include the transaction on properties as far away as 10 kilometres, because the turbines can be seen in the distance, is to avoid the real issue of any inquiry, namely, noise and health impacts.

I will mention only one other fault of the report. One of the wind farm sites studied is that of the Waubra Wind Farm. Waubra is the wind farm studied by the Australian noise expert Bob Thorne and his colleagues (Thorne et al., 2010). The NSW Valuer General’s report examines 6 transactions of properties around the Waubra site. It is remarkable that 5 of these 6 transactions took place before the wind farm began to operate! (Duponts, 2009, pp. 36-38) This is not rational. It is significant that in the case of the transaction that occurred after the wind farm began to operate, this is the transaction where the investigators find that there was a “possible” reduction in value. They calculate a 27% reduction in value, but decline to comment further (Duponts, 2009, p. 38).

Why did they not investigate further? Thorne tells us that the Waubra Wind Farm began to operate in its Ballarat section in March 2009, and in its Waubra section in May 2009. He also tells us that within a short time local residents were becoming concerned about noise, and that by August there were reports of adverse health effects (Thorne et al, 2010, p. 110). Why did not the NSW investigators visit the property in question, discover whether there were any adverse noise impacts, whether residents were able to sleep or not, whether the adverse impacts of the wind farm were common knowledge in the Waubra-Ballarat area, and what the opinion of local real estate agents was? They appear not to have done any of this. They remark: “There is generally little sales activity in the area surrounding the Waubra wind farm.” But they do not say why. Could it be because of the wind farm? Why did they not try to find out? (Duponts, 2009, p. 38)

This kind of desktop, statistical analysis of transactions in an arbitrarily determined area will not discover the truth about the impact of a wind farm on property values. The only way for the truth of this matter to be discovered is by an ‘on-the-ground’ study, where badly impacted properties are visited, where impacted residents are interviewed, and where the experience and opinion of local real estate agents are drawn upon. Without this kind of close examination it will be impossible to conclude anything definite.

In any intellectual study the method adopted predetermines the kind of results that can be obtained. If one chooses to examine all sales transactions on properties within 10 kilometres of turbines, on the basis of a view of turbines, this method will guarantee that most transactions, at the outer distances, will show no impact. So, the result will inevitably be that a majority of instances of sales show no impact, and only a minority of instances, within a few kilometres of turbines, do show an impact. The cases where there is a real impact will be swamped by a mass of irrelevant cases that ought not to have been included in the survey. This will enable the inquirers to put forward the contradictory conclusion that wind farms have no impact on sales, and that the evidence is inconclusive.

As a counter to the NSW Valuer General’s study, I will cite the evidence of real estate agents and property valuers who have had to deal directly with the problem of selling property badly impacted by a wind farm.

The Davis Case

First, I will cite the famous, perhaps notorious, case of the letter sent by Munton & Russell, Estate Agents to Julian and Jane Davis of Spalding, Lincolnshire in England. The Davises own a farmhouse 930 metres from the Deeping St Nicholas wind farm. Shortly after the wind farm began to operate in 2007 the Davises were compelled to abandon their home, as the noise was insupportable (Etherington, 2009, p. 118). Wanting to sell, the Davises contacted a local firm of estate agents, Munton & Russell. Russell Gregory, on behalf of the firm, wrote to the Davises:

Further to your letter dated 26th April 2008 regarding the proposed selling of the above mentioned property. Whilst I understand the difficulty of the situation you are placed in with the problems caused by the wind turbines, until such problems have been resolved I am not able to place a current market value on the property as I do not believe any prospective purchaser would want to inhabit the property, or, indeed in the current climate, whether any mortgage lender would be prepared to lend on the property.

I am therefore sorry to say that I find myself in the rare situation of having to decline any instructions to market the above property, until such problems have been resolved to the satisfaction of any prospective purchaser or their mortgage lender. (Gregory, 2008)

Mr Gregory is telling the Davises that their farmhouse is unsaleable, and worthless, and that it will remain so as long as the wind farm continues to operate. The Davises have lost all financial value in their home.

It is a relatively minor consideration, but worth mentioning, that the noise from the wind farm caused the local council to reduce the rates on the property on the grounds of “noise pollution externally and internal low frequency noise pollution from new wind farm 930m.” (Etherington, 2009, p. 119)

Jane Davis has affirmed in a publicly available statement that she and her husband have been forced to find alternative accommodation 5 miles away in Spalding so as to be able to sleep. She also affirms that before the coming of the wind farm their property would have been worth about 180,000 English pounds, but can now only be sold as land at a price of about 35,000-50,000 English pounds (a reduction of between 81% and 72%). The house itself is unsaleable. (Davis, 2007)

This is a situation faced by all rural property owners in Australia, especially by the owners of what are called “lifestyle properties” or hobby farms. If such properties have to be sold as grazing land, they will suffer a reduction in value of around 70%.

The Davis case went to the High Court in England. Not long ago it was settled out of court with a confidentiality agreement. However, the latest news published by the online journal Noise Bulletin is that the Davis’s farmhouse has been purchased by the wind farm company at a price which represents a 16% loss of value (Noise Bulletin, March 2012, Issue 60). It is unlikely that the Davises would have received even this amount, if they had not gone to court. It is unjust that innocent residents should be forced to the expense of going to court in order to protect their assets.

Shane McIntyre

Shane McIntyre is National Sales Manager for Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd. He has been a Licensed Estate Agent for thirty years, specialising in the sale of rural property, all over Australia, but especially in Victoria and the Riverina. He has held senior management positions with the largest rural real estate companies in Australia (McIntyre, 2011). He has

made available an e-mail, in which he gives his judgment on the impact of wind farms on rural property values. He writes:

Of significant importance, is the negative effect on the value of adjoining lands where wind towers have been erected. Visually, the towers are seen by the majority of the market as repulsive. Audibly, the towers effect the stillness a property enjoys, in particular the resonating tones in the night, invading the serenity of the adjoining lands.

A proliferation of wind towers adjacent to a property has the same effect as high voltage power lines, rubbish tips, piggeries, hatcheries, and sewerage treatment plants, in that, if buyers are given a choice, they choose not to be near any of these impediments to value.

The ultimate effect is that the number of buyers willing to endure these structures is significantly less than if the structures were not there. This logically has a detrimental effect on the final price of the adjoining lands.

Experts assess the loss of value to be in excess of 30%, and sometimes up to half.

My personal experience is that when an enquiry (potential buyer) becomes aware of the presence of wind towers, or the possibility of wind towers in the immediate district of a property advertised for sale, the “fall out” of buyers is major. Very few go on to inspect the property, and even fewer consider a purchase. On the remote chance they wish to purchase, they seek a significant reduction in the price.

There is absolutely no doubt, that the value of lands adjacent to wind towers falls significantly in value. The ambience of a rural property is important, and oftentimes, the sole reason why a purchaser selects a particular area or district. The imposition of wind towers destroys this ambience forever. (McIntyre, 2011)

Derry Gardner

Derry Gardner is owner and operator of Gardner Appraisal Group Inc. & Gardner Ranch Sales LLC., a real estate appraisal firm, specialising in rural (farm and ranch) properties in Texas (www.gardnerappraisalgroup.com). On February 13, 2009 he made a presentation Impact of Wind Turbines on Market Value of Texas Rural Land to the South Texas Plains Agriculture Wind & Wildlife Conference.

Mr Gardner rejects the view of the (US) Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP), expressed in May 2003, that wind turbines will not diminish property values. (I mentioned this study, with its extraordinary conclusion, on p. 6 above.) He criticises the study made by the REPP on two grounds: (i) it was funded by proponents of wind power, and displayed a built-in bias in its conclusions; (ii) its methodology lacked variables necessary for an adequate analysis. The variables lacking include: rising or falling market; number of days from listing to sale; residential property, not rural property; effect of noise, flickering and shadow; distances; possible change in highest and best use of land because of the presence of wind turbines.

Mr Gardner makes the following assertions:

- A view adds value to rural property. - Take the view away – the added value goes away. - Brokers in rural areas confirm that property values in areas of wind facilities are 10% - 30% less than property not in areas of wind facilities. - Wind energy development creates an income stream, increasing a property’s production value; but increased production value does not necessarily result in increased market value. [In other words, if a property hosts turbines, it may still fall in value on the market.]

Mr Gardner sums up the diminution of value from the impact of wind turbines as follows:

- Turbines on property: diminution in value 29-45%, average 37% - Turbines within 0.2-0.4 miles [320 m – 640 m]: diminution 17-35%, average 26% - Turbines within 1.8 miles [2880 m]: diminution 15-34%, average 25%

Mr Gardner’s figures for diminution in value in Texas are not as high as Shane McIntyre’s figures for Australia, or Jane Davis’s from the UK, but they are high enough.

Mr Gardner adds that diminution of value may be increased by other factors, including wind turbine infrastructure; high-power transmission lines; substations; additional traffic for service of wind turbine and power lines; additional roads.

Mr Gardner sums up: “Market data and common sense tell us property values are negatively impacted by the presence of wind turbines.” (Gardner, 2009)

Michael McCann

Michael McCann is a real estate appraiser and consultant. His company McCann Appraisal LLC is in Chicago [the “Windy City”!] (McCann, 2011).

On January 25, 2011 Mr McCann sent a letter about the adverse impact of wind turbines on the value of neighbouring properties to OttawaCitizen.com. He writes:

For example, numerous families have been forced to abandon their homes due to the factual impacts to health, sleep disturbance and the like, which the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association prefer to dismiss as “concerns”. Many others have been unable to sell their homes due to the presence of nearby turbines, and which a growing list of realtors and estate agents report as being the deciding factor in would-be buyer’s decisions to look elsewhere.

There is a measureable and significant loss of values within 2 to 3 miles [3.2 to 4.8 km], and noise impacts have been broadcast as far as 5 miles [8 km] or more, in some instances, with 1 to 2 miles [1.6 to 3.2 km] being commonplace. Value losses have been measured at 20% to 40%, with a total loss of equity in some instances. [emphasis in original]

Wind developers have been known to buy out the most vocal neighbours who refuse to roll over and play dead when they are initially ignored, and then turn around and sell those same homes for 60% to 80% below the appraised value – thus confirming value losses by their own actions.

Other developers have avoided future liability by bulldozing the purchased homes.

In fact, wind developers and the existing Canadian setback are even inadequate to protect neighbours from ice throw or from sections of turbine blades, which are documented as occurring up to half a mile from the turbines, and I have personally heard of a blade throw (piece) that went about 1 mile. . . .

. . . . It is obvious what is happening here: the wind industry is playing a numbers game, under the assumption or actuarial calculations that it is less costly for them to fight a number of lawsuits from citizens who do not have deep pockets, than it is to buy out the property they need to create huge projects.(emphasis in original)

The solution is simple, also: Mandate that all property they seek to encompass with industrial overlays be purchased outright, so people have an option as to whether they choose to live in a large, noisy industrial setting. (McCann, 2011)

Mr McCann tells us that he has spent about 2000 hours researching wind energy and its impacts (McCann, 2011). He drew upon this research and his own experience in June 2010 to make a submission to the Adams County Board, Illinois, when that Board was considering the issue of a setback distance for wind farms (McCann, 2010).

Referring to the US Appraisal Institute, he writes:

The Appraisal Institute has developed methodology and techniques for evaluating the effects of environmental contamination on the value of real property. The three potential effects that contamination can have on real property: cost effects, use effects, and risk effects. All three effects are recognized as being present with utility-scale wind energy projects, as summarized in my written testimony.

Cost effects can include neighbouring owner costs to attempt to mitigate against sound intrusion, shadow flicker, medical costs to deal with sleep deprivation related conditions, as well as, in some instances, the cost to rent substitute housing and potential legal costs incurred to protect individual owner’s property rights, etc. . . .

Use effects include the loss of peaceful use and enjoyment of their homesteads for many turbine neighbours, and there is evidence that livestock has been adversely impacted by the noise from turbines, ranging from death (goats in Taiwan) to reproductive disorders (See Wirtz case in Wisconsin) and behavioural changes and irritability of horses and cattle. These may also represent cost effects, in some cases, or other forms of financial impact.

Stigma effects can range from loss of aesthetics, diminished views and character of neighbourhoods, to fear of health issues and noise disturbance, etc. This effect is often manifest in the lack of marketability of homes in the “footprint” and nearby properties most impacted by active turbines, and to varying degrees the known and unknown cost and use effects are also contributing factors to stigma effects. (McCann, 2010, pp. 2-3; bold and emphasis in original)

Mr McCann provides a summary list of his conclusions. I will quote those most relevant to your inquiry.

Residential property values are adversely and measurably impacted by close proximity of industrial-scale wind energy turbine projects to the residential properties, with value losses measured up to 2-miles from the nearest turbine (s), in some instances.

Impacts are most pronounced within “footprint” of such projects, and many ground- zero homes have been completely unmarketable, thus depriving many homeowners of reasonable market-based liquidity or pre-existing home equity.

Noise and sleep disturbance issues are mostly affecting people within 2-miles of the nearest turbines and 1-mile distances are commonplace, with many variables and fluctuating range of results occurring on a household by household basis.

Real estate sale data typically reveals a range of 25% to approximately 40% of value loss, with some instances of total loss as measured by abandonment and demolition of homes, some bought out by wind energy developers and others exhibiting nearly complete loss of marketability.

Serious impact to the “use & enjoyment” of many homes is an on-going occurrence, and many people are on record as confirming they have rented other dwellings, either individual families or as a homeowner group-funded mitigation response for use on nights when noise levels are increased well above ambient background noise and render their existing homes untenable.

Emphasising the need for a 2 mile (3.2 km) setback, Mr McCann states:

If Adams County approves a setback of 1,000 feet, 1,500 feet, or any distance less than 2-miles, these types of property use and property value impacts are likely to occur to the detriment of Adams County residences and citizens for which the nearest turbines are proposed to be located.

He also makes the following statement of principle, relevant to life in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy:

The approval of wind energy projects within close proximity to occupied homes is tantamount to an inverse condemnation, or regulatory taking of private property rights, as the noise and impacts are in some respects a physical invasion, an easement

in gross over neighbouring properties, and the direct impacts reduce property values and the rights of nearby neighbours. (McCann, 2010, pp. 5-6)

I will quote only one more of Mr McCann’s statements:

As a real estate appraiser with 25 years experience in evaluating zoning matters, I am unaware of any other land use in the 20 States in which I have worked that is permitted to cause such a nuisance that a property owner’s rights are completely disregarded and protection of their property values marginalized to the point of meaningless and non-existent protection, via inadequate separation of incompatible uses based on industry-preferred setbacks. (McCann, 2010, p. 13)

This is the situation that is now facing Australia. Wind farm development here has not yet gone very far. There are already victims of noise impacts, adverse health impacts, and adverse impacts on property value, but these are only a small proportion of what the total number of victims will be, when the plans of the wind energy industry, and of state and federal governments are fully implemented. If people are to be protected, then the real impacts of wind turbines must be accurately assessed. At present, in Australia the assessments of the industry and of government are completely inadequate and inaccurate. I suggest that the evidence of experienced realtors like Shane McIntyre, Derry Gardner and Michael McCann, who have studied these impacts close-up, and “on the ground” is to be preferred.

The NSW Valuer General’s report calls for further research (Duponts, 2009, p. 2). It is worthwhile briefly to compare the real need for more medical research into the effects of wind turbine noise and the need for further research into impacts on property values. In the case of medical research there is a genuine need for such research. There are important hypotheses concerning the physiological mechanisms that mediate the effect of wind turbine noise on the human body. These need to be investigated, and proved or disproved. There is also a need for epidemiological studies of what proportions of people are affected, in what conditions, and at what distances, and of what sub-classes of people are especially vulnerable – all this to be carried out in real time. All this research is very important indeed. By contrast, the sort of study carried out by Duponts for the NSW Valuer General is of dubious value, since the method adopted is unlikely to lead to any useful knowledge. All that needs to be done to discover the truth of property value impacts, is for badly impacted properties to be located, and for their loss of value on the market to be determined by consultation with independent real estate agents. This inquiry would not take much in the way of time or resources. It could be done very easily and rapidly. It is unfortunate that governments are not commissioning this kind of research.

Finally, it should be remembered that loss of property value or loss of marketability will presumably be suffered at residences where adverse noise impacts and adverse health impacts are also being experienced. The awareness that the family home is being devalued will only add to the stress suffered by the family, thus increasing the risks to health. In this way, the impact of property values cannot be dissociated from the issue of adverse health effects.

References for Appendices

AEI, 2009. The Acoustic Ecology Institute, AEI Special Report: Wind Energy Noise Impacts (2009) Available from www.acousticecology.org

Alves-Pereira, M., and Castelo Branco, N. A. A., 2007a. In-home wind turbine noise is conducive to vibroacoustic disease. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007

Alves-Pereira, M., and Castelo Branco,2007b N. A. A., Public Health and Noise Exposure: the Importance of Low Frequency Noise. INTER-NOISE 2007, 28-31 August 2007, Istanbul, Turkey

Alves-Pereira, M and Castelo Branco, NAA (2007c). Vibroacoustic disease: Biological effects of infrasound and low frequency noise explained by mechanotransduction cellular signaling, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology (2007) 93(1-3): 256-279

Alves-Pereira, M., and Castelo Branco, N., 2011. Low frequency noise and health effects, June 2011 (presented at the NHMRC forum Wind Farms and Human Health, 7 June 2011)

Ambrose, S. E., and Rand, R. W., The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse Health Effects Produced by Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed, December 14, 2011

Appelqvist, P., and Almgren, M., 2011. Wind turbine noise in sheltered dwelling areas. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011

Bakker, H, Bennet, D, Rapley, B, and Thorne, R (2009). Seismic Effect in Residents from 3 MW Wind Turbines, presented at the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg, Denmark, 17-19 June, 2009

Bakker, H., and Rapley, B., 2010. Sound characteristics of multiple turbines, pp. 233-258 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Bengtsson, J, Persson Waye, K, Kjellberg, A (2004). Sound characteristics in low frequency noise and their relevance for the perception of pleasantness, Acta Acustica (2004) 90: 171- 180

Berglund, B, Hassmen, P, and Job, RFS (1996). Sources and effects of low frequency noise, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (1996) 99 (5): 2985-3002

Boorowa District Landscape Guardians Inc., 2012. E-mail to David Brooks, 14 February 2012, 4:28 pm

Bowdler, D (2008). Amplitude Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise: A Review of the Evidence, Acoustics Bulletin (2008) 33 (4)

Bradley, JS (1994). Annoyance caused by constant-amplitude and amplitude-modulated sound containing rumble, Noise Control Engineering Journal (1994) 42: 203-208

Bray, W., and James, R., Windaction. Summary of Bray and James, 2011 above, posted at www.windaction.org/documents/33315

Broner, N., 2010. A simple criterion for low frequency noise emission assessment. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control, vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1-13

Bronzaft, A. L., 2011. The Noise from Wind Turbines: Potential Adverse Impacts on Children’s Well-Being. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 291-295

Brooks, 4.5.2011. E-mail from David Brooks to GP van den Berg, 4.5.2011, 4.25 pm (Sydney time)

Brooks, 30.5.2011. E-mail from David Brooks to GP van den Berg, 30.5.2011, 11.27 am (Sydney time)

Casella, S (2001). Low Frequency Noise Update, DEFRA Noise Programme, Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland Scottish Executive National Assembly for Wales (2001) 1-11

CMOH, 2010. Chief Medical Officer of Health [Ontario] (2010). The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines, May 2010

Colby, 2009. W. David Colby, MD, Sounding Board, 97.9 FM The Beach December 17, 2009

Colby, WD, Dobie, R, Leventhall, G, Lipscomb, DM, McCunney, RJ, Seilo, MT, and Sondergard, B (2009). Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review, prepared for the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association, December 2009

Community Affairs, 2011a. Transcript of session of Federal Senate Inquiry into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms, 31 March 2011

Community Affairs, 2011b. The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms, Community Affairs References Committee, The Senate, June 2011

Cooper, S., Peer review of acoustic assessment, Flyers Creek Wind Farm, 41.4963.R1A:ZSC, 15 December 2011

Countryside News, 2010. “Wind Turbines set to get bigger”, Countryside News, January 28, 2010. Available from www.walesonline.co.uk/countryside-farmin-news/countryside- news/2010/01/28/wind-turbines-set-to-get-bigger-91466-25701853/

Davis, Jane, 2007. Statement from Jane Davis of Deeping St. Nicholas. Available from http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/statement-from-jane-davis-of-deeping-st- nicholas/

DeGagne et al, 2008. Incorporating Low Frequency Noise Legislation for the Energy Industry in Alberta, Canada, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control (2008) 27 (2): 105-120

Department of Planning (NSW), 2011a. NSW Planning Guidelines: Wind Farms (Draft): A resource for the community, applicants and consent authorities, December 2011

Department of Planning (NSW), 2011b. NSW Planning Guidelines: Wind Farms (Draft): Questions and Answers, December 2011

Department of Planning (NSW), 2011c. Planning for wind farms in NSW: Wind farm industry workshop, 18 July 2011

DGRs Collector, 2010. Director-General’s Requirements for the Collector Wind Farm, issued 15 October 2010

DGRs Rugby, 2010. Director-General’s Requirements for the Rugby Wind Farm Proposal, issued 26 November 2010

Dickinson, P. J., 2009. Nonsense on stilts. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2009, 23-25 November 2009, Adelaide, Australia

Dickinson, PJ, 2010. Sounds from Wind Turbines: Theory, Practice, Assumptions, and Reality, pp. 181-205 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Dickinson, P. J., [2011]. A pragmatic view of a wind turbine noise standard [posted at www.wind-watch.org , 26.1.2012]

Diracdelta, G. G Weighted Overall Level, retrieved from www.diracdelta.co.uk

Diracdelta, Z. Z Weighting, retrieved from www.diracdelta.co.uk

Doolan, C., Wind turbine noise mechanisms and some concepts for its control. Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011, Paper number 17, 2-4 November 2011, Gold Coast, Australia

Duponts (in association with PRP Valuers and Consultants), 2009. Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Wind Farms on Surrounding Land Values in Australia, Prepared for the NSW Valuer General, August 2009

EPA (US). Environmental Protection Agency, United States, “Noise Pollution”, retrieved from www.epa.gov/air/noise.html

Etherington, J, 2009. The Wind Farm Scam: An Ecologist’s Evaluation, Stacey International, 2009

Feldmann, J, and Pitten, FA, 2004. Effects of low frequency noise on man: a case study, Noise & Health (2004) 7 (25): 23-28

Gardner, D, 2009. Impact of Wind Turbines on Market Value of Texas Rural Land, Prepared for the South Texas Plains Agriculture Wind & Wildlife Conference, February 13, 2009, American Wind Power Center & Museum, Lubbock, Texas. Available from http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/impact-of-wind-turbines-on-market-value-of- texas-rural-land/

Geen, R. G., and McCown, E. J., 1984. Effects of Noise and Attack on Aggression and Physiological Arousal, Motivation and Emotion (1984) 8: 231-241

Gregory, R, 2008. Re: Proposed Sale of The Farm House, Grays Farm, North Drove, Spalding. Letter from Russell Gregory, Munton and Russell, Estate Agents to Jane and Julian Davis. Available from http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/re-proposed-sale-of-the-farmhouse-grays-farm-north-drove-spalding/

Griefahn, B., and Basner, M., Disturbances of sleep by noise, Paper 107, Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011, 2-4 November 2011, Gold Coast, Australia, pp. 1-2

GRWFEA. Proposed development of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, Southern Tablelands, New South Wales: Environmental Assessment, prepared July 2008 by ngh environmental for Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Epuron

GRWF. Major Project Assessment, 2009. Major Project Assessment, Gullen Range Wind Farm, Department of Planning, March 2009

Hanning, C, 2010. Wind Turbine Noise, Sleep and Health (November 2010), posted at www.windvigilance.co

Hanning, C. D., and Evans, A., 2012. Wind turbine noise (editorial). BMJ [British Medical Journal] 2012; 344:e1527 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e1527 (Published 8 March 2012)

Harrison, J. P., 2011. Wind turbine noise. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 2011, 31: 256-261

Harry, A (2007). Wind Turbines, Noise and Health, retrieved from www.wind-watch.org

Hatfield, J, Job, RF, Hede, AJ, Carter, NL, Peploe, P, Taylor, R et al (2002). Human response to environmental noise: the role of perceived control, Journal of Behavioural Medicine (2002) 9: 341-359

Havas, M., and Collig, D., 2011. Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill. Published online before print September 30, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0270467611417852, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, September 30, 2011

Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd, 2006. The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms, UK Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) contract number W/45/00656/00/00, London, UK

Hazzard, B., 2012. ‘Independent Wind Farm Noise Audit Announced’ (media release), 20 February 2012

Health Canada. 2009. Letter from Allison Denning, Regional Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Health Canada, Atlantic Region to Steve Sanford, Environmental Assessment Officer, Nova Scotia Department of Environment, August 6, 2009, available from www.windvigilance.com/primer_ahe.aspx

Howe, B., 2006. Wind turbines and infrasound, prepared for the Canadian Wind Energy Association by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Ltd (HGC Engineering), 2006

Hubbard, H., and Shepherd, K., 1991. Aeroacoustics of large wind turbines. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (1991) 89 (6): June 1991

ISO 1996: 1971. From International Organization for Standardization www.iso.org

ISO 7196: 1995. From International Organization for Standardization www.iso.org

Jones, GP, Lukashkina, VA, Russell, IJ, Lukashkin, AN (2010). The vestibular system mediates sensation of low-frequency sounds in mice, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology (2010), [to be published]

Kamperman, G and James, R (2008a). Simple guidelines foe siting wind turbines to prevent health risks, paper presented at the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) NOISE- CON 2008, July 28-31, 2008

Kamperman, G and James, R (2008b). The “How To” Guide To Siting Wind Turbines To Prevent Health Risks From Sound, prepared for Wind-watch.org, 2008

Keith, SE, Michaud, DS, Bly, SHP ((2008). A proposal for evaluating the potential health of wind turbine noise for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control (2008) 27 (4): 253-265

Krogh, C (2010). A Gross Injustice, paper presented to the First International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects from Wind Turbines, Picton, Ontario, October 29-31, 2010

Lang, P (2009). Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation, posted at www.carbon-sense.com

Laurie, S (2010). “Blood pressures elevating dangerously after nighttime wind turbine exposure (Australia)”, posted at www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/

Laurie, S., 2011. ‘Two more Australian rural doctors express concerns about health problems with poorly sited wind turbines”, Waubra Foundation

Leventhall, G (2003). A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects, Report for Defra, May 2003

Leventhall, G (2004). Notes on low frequency noise from wind turbines with special reference to the Genesis Power Ltd Proposal near Waiuku, NZ. Prepared for Genesis Power/Hegley Acoustic Consultants, June 4, 2004

Leventhall, G (2006). Infrasound from wind turbines: fact, fiction or deception, Canadian Acoustics, Special Issue (2006) 34 (2): 29-36

Leventhall, G (2009). Wind turbine syndrome: an appraisal. Testimony before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, PSC ref. 121877, 20 October 2009

McBride, D., and Rapley, B., 2010. Blade Flicker, Shadow Flicker, Glint: Potential Hazards of Wind Turbines, pp. 79-92 of Rapley and Bakker eds, 2010

McCann, Michael S., 2010. Testimony concerning impact on property values of wind turbines, submitted to the Adams County Board, Illinois, June 8, 2010. Available at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/there-is-a-measurable-and-significant- loss-of-property-values-within-2-to-3-miles/

McCann, Michael S., 2011. “There is a measurable and significant loss of [property]values within 2 to 3 miles”. Available at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/news/2011/there-is- a-measurable-and-significant-loss-of-property-values-within-2-to-3-miles/

McIntyre, Shane, 2011. E-mail to Karen & Bryan Lyons, January 18, 2011: RE: Wind farm affect on land values

McMurtry, R. Y., 2011. Toward a Case Definition of Adverse Health Effects in the Environs of Industrial Wind Turbines: Facilitating a Clinical Diagnosis. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 316-320

Michaud, D, Bly, SHP, and Keith, SE (2008). Using a change in percentage highly annoyed with noise as a potential health effect measure for projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Canadian Acoustics (2008) 36 (2): 13-28

Minnesota, 2009. Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health: Environmental Health Division, May 22, 2009

Miskelly, A and Quirk, T (2009). Wind Farming in South East Australia, posted at www.docstoc.com

Moller, H., 2012. E-mail to European Platform against Wind, 5 February 2012, posted at www.wind-watch.org , February 10, 2012

Møller, H., and Pedersen, C. S., Low frequency noise from large wind turbines, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129 (6), June 2011, pp. 3727-3744

Moorhouse, A., Waddington, D., and Adams, M., 2005. Proposed criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise disturbance, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA NAN45 Project Report, University of Salford, 2005

NHMRC, 2010a. NHMRC Public Statement: Wind Turbines and Health, July 2010

NHMRC, 2010b. [anonymous] Wind Turbines and Health: A Rapid Review of the Evidence, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian Government), July 2010

Niemann, H, Bonnefoy, X, Braubach, M, Hecht, K, Maschke, C, Rodrigues, C, Robbel, N (2006). Noise-induced annoyance and morbidity results from the pan-European LARES study, Noise & Health (2006) 8 (31): 63-79

Nissenbaum, MA (2010). Wind Turbines, Health, Ridgelines and Valleys, Montpelier, VT, May 7, 2010, posted at www.windvigilance.com/mars_hill.aspx

Noise Bulletin, March 2012, Issue 60

NSWINP, 2000. Industrial Noise Policy, published by Environment Protection Authority (NSW), January 2000. Retrieved from www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm

NSWLEC 59 [2007]. New South Wales Land & Environment Court, Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc. v Minister for Planning and RES Southern Cross Pty Ltd [2007]

NSWLEC 1102 [2010]. New South Wales Land & Environment Court, King & anor v Minister for Planning; Parkesbourne-Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc v Minister for Planning; Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2010]

NSW Legislative Council: General Purpose Standing Committee No 5, Report 31: Rural Wind Farms, December 2009

Oerlemans, S and Mendez Lopez, B (2005). Localisation and Quantification of Noise Sources on a Wind Turbine. First International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Berlin, October 17-18, 2005

Oerlemans, S and Schepers, G (2007). Prediction of Wind Turbine Noise and Comparison To Experiment. Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007

O’Neal, R., Hellweg, R. D., and Lampeter, R. M., 2011. Low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines. Noise Control Engineering Journal 59 (2), March-April 2011

Pavey, M., 2011. Letter from the Hon. Melinda Pavey MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health to David Brooks, 7 December 2011

Pedersen, E., 2010. Health aspects associated with wind turbine noise – Results from three field studies. Noise Control Engineering Journal 59(1): 47-53

Pedersen, E and Halmstad, HI (2003). Noise annoyance from wind turbines: a review. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 5308

Pedersen, E. And Larsman, P., 2008. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 379- 389

Pedersen, E and Persson Waye, K (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise: a dose-response relationship, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (2004) 116: 3460-3470

Pedersen, E and Persson Waye, K (2008). Wind turbines: low level noise sources interfering with restoration? Environmental Research Letters (2008) 3: 1-5

Pedersen, E, van den Berg, F, Bakker, R, Bouma, J (2009). Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (2009) 126 (2): 634-643

Pedersen, TH and Nielsen, KKS (1994). Annoyance by noise from wind turbines, Report No 150, DELTA Acoustic and Vibration, Lydtekniske Institute, Copenhagen [in Danish]

PEOA 1997. Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 (NSW)

Phillips, CV (2010). Analysis of the Epidemiology and Related Evidence on Health Effects of Wind Turbines on Local Residents. Evidence before the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, PSC ref. 134274

Phillips, C. V., 2011. Properly Interpreting the Epidemiologic Evidence about the Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Nearby Residents. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 303-315

Phipps, R (2007). Evidence of Dr Robyn Phipps, In the Matter of Moturimu Wind Farm Application, heard before the Joint Commissioners, 8-26 March, 2007, Palmerston North, NZ

Pierpont, N (2009). Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment, K-Selected Books, Santa Fe, NM, 2009

Pierpont, N (2010). Wind Turbine Syndrome & the Brain, retrieved from www.windturbinesyndrome.com

Powell, J (2010). How Music Works: A Listener’s Guide To the Science and Psychology of Beautiful Sounds, Particular Books, The Penguin Group, 2010

Punch, J, James, R, and Pabst, D (2010). Wind-Turbine Noise: What Audiologists Should Know, Audiology Today, JulAug 2010

Qibai, hen Yuan Huang and Shi, Hanmin (2007). An investigation on the physiological and psychological effects of infrasound on persons, in The Effects of Low-Frequency Noise and Vibration on People, ed. Colin H Hansen, Essex, UK, C Multi-Science Publishing, 2007. Reprinted from the Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control

Rand, R. W., Ambrose, S. E., and Krogh, C. M. E., 2011. Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study. Published online before print August 22, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0270467611417849, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, August 22, 2011

Rogers, J., Slegers, N., and Costello, M., 2011. A method for defining wind turbine setback standards. Wind Energy 2011, DOI: 10.1002/we.468. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)

SANG, 2003. Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines, Environment Protection Agency, South Australia, February 2003

SANG, 2009. Wind Farms: Environmental Noise Guidelines, Environment Protection Authority, South Australia, July 2009

Salt, A. N., website: at http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html

Salt, A 2010a. Infrasound: Your ears “hear” it but they don’t tell your brain, Paper presented to the First International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines, Picton, Ontario, October 29-31, 2010

Salt, A, 2010b. Wind Turbines are Hazardous to Human Health, posted at www.oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html and at www.windvigilance.com

Salt, A and Hullar, TE (2010). Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines, Hearing Research (2010) 268 (1-2): 12-21

Salt, A. N., and Kaltenbach, J. A., 2011. Infrasound from Wind Turbines Could Affect Humans. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 31: 296-302

Salt, A. N., and Lichtenhan, J. T., 2011. Responses of the Inner Ear to Infrasound. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011

Schultz, T. J., 1982. Community Noise Rating, 2nd edn, Applied Science Publishers, Barking, Essex, UK

Schust, M (2004). Effects of low frequency noise up to 100 Hz, Noise & Health (2004) 6 (23): 73-85

Shepherd, D., 2010. Wind Turbine Noise and Health in the New Zealand Context, pp. 15-68 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Shepherd, I., 2010. Turbine Wake at Horns Rev Wind Farm, in Wake induced wind turbine noise, 1 November 2010

Shepherd, D., and Billington, R., 2011. Mitigating the Acoustic Impacts of Modern Technologies: Acoustic, Health, and Psychosocial Factors Informing Wind Farm Placement. Published online before print August 22, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0270467611417841, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, August 22, 2011

Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K. N., and Hill, E. M., 2011. Evaluating the Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health-related Quality of Life. Noise Health 13: 333-339

Sinkaus, B., 2011. Examining the Effects of Wind Turbine Industrial Development on Rural Areas, Australian National Internships Program, prepared for Alby Schultz MP, Parliament of Australia, October 24, 2011

Sonus Pty Ltd, (2010a). Wind Farms Technical Paper: Environmental Noise, prepared for the Clean Energy Council, November 2010, S3387C6

Sonus Pty Ltd, 2010b. Infrasound measurements from wind farms and other sources, prepared for Pacific Hydro Pty Ltd, November 2010

Swinbanks, M. A., 2011. The audibility of low frequency wind turbine noise. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome, Italy, 12-14 April 2011

SWV, AWEA/CWEA. Wind Energy Industry Acknowledgement of Adverse Health Effects, An Analysis of the American/Canadian Wind Energy Association sponsored Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review, December 2009, prepared by the Society for WindVigilance, January 2010

SWV, CMOH. Delay, Denial and Disappointment: An analysis of the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) of Ontario, “The Potential Health Impacts of Wind Turbines May 2010”, prepared by the Society for Wind Vigilance, June 3, 2010

SWV, LFN. Low Frequency Noise, Infrasound and Wind Turbines, posted at www.windvigilance.com/low_freq_noise_ahe.aspx

SWV, NHMRC. Haste Makes Waste: An analysis of the National Health and Medical Research Council, “Wind Turbines and Health, A Rapid Review of the Evidence, July 2010”, prepared by the Society for Wind Vigilance

SWV, Primer. A Primer on Adverse Health Effects and Industrial Wind Turbines, March 2010, prepared by the Society for Wind Vigilance. Posted at www.windvigilance.com/primer_ahe.aspx

SWV, Sleep. Sleep Disturbance and Wind Turbines (note 17), posted at www.windvigilance.com/sleep_disturbance_ahe.aspx

Thorne, R (2010a). The Problems with ‘Noise Numbers’ For Wind Farm Noise Assessment. Paper submitted to the First International Symposium on Adverse Health Effects from Wind Turbines, October 29-31, 2010

Thorne, Bob, 2010b. Hearing and Personal Response to Sound, pp. 69-78 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Thorne, Bob, 2010c. Health, Wellbeing, Annoyance and Amenity, pp. 93-101 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Thorne, Bob, 2010d. Synopsis of Assessing Intrusive Noise and Low Amplitude Sound, pp. 111-125 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Thorne, Bob, 2010e. Wind Farms: The Potential for Annoyance, pp. 127-133 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Thorne, Bob, 2010f. Noise from wind turbines, pp. 217-224 of Rapley and Bakker (eds), 2010

Thorne, R., 2011a. Wind Farms in a Rural Environment and Potential for Serious Harm to Human Health due to Noise. Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee, ‘Inquiry into the social and economic impacts of rural wind farms’, 30 January 2011, rev 1 [posted as submission 112 at www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm]

Thorne, Bob, 2011b. The Problems with “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society (2011), 31: 262-290

Thorne, R, Rapley, B, and Heilig, J (2010). Waubra Wind Farm Noise Impact Assessment for Mr & Mrs Dean. Report No 1537, Rev 1, July 2010

Thorne, R., and Shepherd, D., 2011. Wind turbine noise: why accurate prediction and measurement matter. Paper Number 73, Proceedings of ACOUSTICS 2011, 2-4 November 2011, Gold Coast, Australia

Todd, NPMc, Rosengren, SM, Colebatch, JG (2008).Tuning and sensitivity of the human vestibular system to low-frequency vibration, Neuroscience Letters (2008) 444: 36-41

Upson, J., 2011. Letter to Jonathon Carle, Senior Policy Officer, NSW Department of Planning, 22 July 2011

van den Berg, GP (2004a). Do wind turbines produce significant low frequency sound levels? 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and its Control, Maastricht, Netherlands, August 30-September 1, 2004

van den Berg, GP (2004b). Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound, Journal of Sound & Vibration (2004) 277 (4-5): 955-970

van den Berg, GP (2006). The Sounds of High Winds: the effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise. PhD diss., University of Groningen, Netherlands, 177 pp., posted at www.wind-watch.org/documents/authors

van den Berg, GP, 2007. Wind profiles over complex terrain. Presented to the Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Lyon, France, September 20-21, 2007 van den Berg, GP, 16.5.2011. E-mail from GP (Frits) van den Berg to David Brooks, 16.5.2011, 4.27 pm (Sydney time) van den Berg, GP, 2.6.2011. E-mail from GP (Frits) van den Berg to David Brooks, 2.6.2011, 1.36 am (Sydney time) van den Berg, GP, Pedersen, E, Bouma, J, and Bakker, R (2008). Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. Final Report, June 3, 2008. 63 pp. Summary at www.windaction.org/documents/16255 . Entire report at https://dspace.hh.se/dspace/bitstream/2082/2176/1/WFp-final.pdf

Watanabe, T., and Moller, H., 1990. Low frequency hearing thresholds in pressure field and in free field, Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control 9 (3): 106-115

Waubra Foundation, 2011. A wind turbine noise measurement and control system (“NMACS”): System specification, September 2011

Waye, KP, Rylander, R, Benton, S, Leventhall, G (1997). Effects on performance and work quality due to low frequency ventilation noise, Journal of Sound & Vibration (1997) 205 (4): 467-474

WHO, 1948. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hist/official_records/constitution.pdf

WHO, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise, ed. Berglund, B, Lindvall, T, Schwela, DH, World Health Organization, 1999

WHO, 2009. Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, World Health Organization, Copenhagen, 2009

Wind Action. www.windaction.org

Wind Voice. WindVOiCe (Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities): A snapshot of comments from respondents (Ontario), exhibited at the First International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects; posted at www.windvigilance.com/downloads/symposium2010/swv_symposium_poster_windvoice. pdf

Wind Watch. www.wind-watch.org