Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc

Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc.Submission to the Planning Assessment Commission re Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification Application MP 07_0118 MOD 1September 20141 Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc. PO Box 1237, Goulburn, NSW 2580 Tel.: 02 4829 23463 September 2014Garry Payne AM and Richard Thorp Commissioners Planning Assessment Commission Sydney NSWDear Mr Payne and Mr ThorpRe Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification Application MP 07_0118 MOD 1As you are the designated commissioners for the determination of the above modification application for the Gullen Range Wind Farm, I am writing to you to offer my criticisms of the Department of Planning’s assessment, contained in its Major Project Assessment: Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report (July 2014). I will also offer you my own recommendations in this matter.I will first discuss the terms on which I think this application ought to be determined.I will then offer comments on the Department’s assessment report, using their headings of (i) verification of wind turbine locations; (ii) visual impact; (iii) noise; (iv) other issues.I will then add some comments on the topic of property value, which the Department has neglected to consider. I will also discuss the issue of the separation distances between the turbines.I will summarize my recommendations as to how you should determine the application at the beginning of this submission.I should add that I am writing to you both as Chairman of Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc., an incorporated association of local residents concerned with the inappropriate location of wind farms on the Southern Tablelands, and as a landowner whose property is directly impacted by the Gullen Range Wind Farm. My residence is designated G43. It is located to the south-east of the wind farm, opposite the Gurrundah section of the turbines, but also within sight of the Pomeroy section. On my property there is also a weekender, designated in the NSW Land & Environment Court case (in 2009-2010) G43A, but now designated by the Proponent G44.2 Yours sincerelyDavid Brooks Chairman Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc.3 ContentsSummary and recommendations 5On what terms should this modification application be determined? 10Verification of wind turbine locations 13 - The surveys 13 - The turbine relocations and the Department’s response to them 14 - The absurdities within the Department’s position 21Visual impact 23 - The public domain 23 - Residences23 - Principles for a more adequate assessment of visual impact 25 - Discussion and conclusions 40Noise 44 - The deficiencies of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) 44 - The Department’s new noise conditions 46 - Cooper’s research for Pacific Hydro at Cape Bridgewater 50 - Waterloo noise monitoring by Hansen and colleagues 51 - B29: background noise levels 54 - Discussion and conclusions 55Other issues 59 - Shadow flicker 59 - Health 59Property value 61Turbine spacing 634 Summary and recommendationsIt will become apparent from the following discussion that the Proponent of the Gullen Range Wind Farm has violated the Project Approval on a massive scale, and that there has been a colossal failure of compliance monitoring on the part of the Department of Planning. It is also certain that the Department continues to respond inappropriately to the Proponent’s violation.There is good reason to believe that the Proponent has acted both negligently and improperly, and that the Department of Planning has acted incompetently, negligently and improperly.It will also become apparent from the following discussion that all the existing assessments and approvals of the Gullen Range Wind Farm must be considered inaccurate, unreliable and unsafe.All this being so, neighbours of the wind farm cannot be protected from adverse impacts, whether the turbines remain in their new locations or are returned to their original authorised locations.For these general reasons, and also for specific reasons connected with visual impact, noise, health, property value and turbine spacing, the only rational course of action for the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) is to suspend all assessment and determination of the Modification Application, and to recommend to the Minister of Planning that she order an independent public inquiry into the whole history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, from the initial proposal through the stages of assessment and approval to the construction stage of the wind farm and the compliance monitoring of the Department. This inquiry should be at least a Judicial Commission.If the PAC declines to act in this way, then the PAC should still suspend determination of the application, and recommend to the Minister that she order an independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine relocations, and the Department’s failures of compliance monitoring and of appropriate response.If the PAC declines to act in this way as well, and declines to recommend any public inquiry of whatever scope, and insists on determining the application, then the PAC should make orders based on the recommendations that follow.Recommendations1. That the PAC suspend all assessment and determination of this Modification Application, and recommend to the Minister of Planning that she order an independent public inquiry into the whole history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, from the initial proposal through the stages of assessment and approval to the construction stage of the wind farm and the compliance monitoring of the5 Department (to the present), this inquiry to be at least a Judicial Commission.2. If the PAC declines to do the above, then the PAC should still suspend all assessment and determination of the Modification Application, and recommend to the Minister of Planning that she order an independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine relocations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, and the Department of Planning’s failures of compliance monitoring and of appropriate response, this inquiry to be at least a Judicial Commission.3. If the PAC declines to do the above, then the PAC should still suspend all assessment and determination of the Modification Application, and recommend to the Minister of Planning that she order an independent public inquiry into (i) the principles of the noise assessment of wind farms in NSW, this inquiry to take evidence from both noise consultants who regularly work for the wind energy industry, and noise consultants who have worked for non-associated neighbours of wind farms, or who have been critical of existing noise guidelines for the assessment of wind farms. The chair and members of this inquiry should have no connection with the wind energy industry, or with any associations supportive of renewable energy. (ii) This inquiry should also investigate the issue of turbine spacing and impacts of noise, both audible and inaudible, and vibration.4. If the PAC declines to do the above, then the PAC should suspend all assessment and determination of the Modification Application, and recommend to the Minister of Planning that (i) she order her Department to serve an order on the Proponent to stop work on the Gullen Range Wind Farm, and that (ii) she order her Department to commence legal proceedings in the NSW Land & Environment Court against the Proponent for violation of the Project Approval.5. If the PAC declines to do the above, then the PAC should suspend all assessment and determination of the Modification Application until (i) Mr Steven Cooper’s report on his study of the Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm is complete; (ii) the results from the Health Canada study of wind turbine impacts and health effects are available, at least in preliminary form; (iii) the study of wind turbine impacts and health effects to be ordered by the Australian Federal Government has been carried out, and has reported. 6. If the PAC insists on assessing and determining the Modification Application, then the PAC should not restrict the assessment and determination of this Modification Application to the issue of changed environmental impacts from changed turbine locations, but should consider the likely impacts of the Gullen Range Wind Farm in themselves, in relation to all relevant criteria. 7. That the PAC visit every non-associated residence within 2 kilometres of turbines before assessing and determining this Modification Application. The 6 PAC should also travel around the wind farm site on public roads, in order to assess the visual impact on the public domain, and to form some estimate of what the visual impact is likely to be for residences between 2 and 3 kilometres of turbines.8. That the PAC grant acquisition rights unconditionally to all non-associated residences within 3 kilometres of turbines.9. If the PAC declines to do the above, the PAC should grant acquisition rights unconditionally to all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of turbines.10. If the PAC declines to do the above, the PAC should grant acquisition rights unconditionally to all non-associated lifestyle properties (300 acres or less) within 2 kilometres of turbines, (B12 to be included as a lifestyle property).11. If the PAC declines to do the above, the PAC should grant acquisition rights conditionally to all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of the turbines, towards which one or more turbines has moved closer by 50 metres or more. Either the offending turbines should be relocated in their original authorised position, or the Proponent must offer to purchase the property at a market price as if there were no wind farm.12. B124 and G44 should be surveyed by the independent surveyor, to determine if any turbine has moved closer to either of them by 50 metres or more. If so, then B124 and G44 should be included under point 11 above.13. If the PAC declines to make any of the above grants of acquisition rights, then the PAC should remove altogether from the project all turbines which have moved more than 50 metres closer to any non-associated residence within 2 kilometres of the turbines. This would involve the following turbines: BAN_08, BAN_09, BAN_10, BAN_12, BAN_13, BAN_15, BAN_21, POM_01, POM_03, and GUR_07.14. If the PAC declines to do the above, the PAC should order that all turbines whose locations have moved by 50 metres or more, in any direction, regardless of whether the turbines have moved closer to homes or not, be returned to their original approved locations or removed altogether from the project. This would involve the following turbines: BAN_08, BAN_09, BAN_10, BAN_12, BAN_13, BAN_14, BAN_15, BAN_21, BAN_24, BAN_25, POM_01, POM_03, POM_04, POM_06, POM_10, POM_11, POM_19, POM_22, GUR_07, GUR_10, GUR_12, GUR_18.15. The PAC should recommend that if there is to be an ‘independent Landscape Expert’, this person should be selected and appointed by the NSW Environment Protection Authority, and that the NSW EPA be independent of the Department of Planning. The appointed expert should report to the NSW EPA. Neither the 7 Department of Planning nor the Proponent should have any part in the Expert’s appointment. The cost of the Expert should be borne by the Proponent.16. The PAC should recommend that all authority for compliance monitoring should be removed from the Department of Planning, and given to the NSW EPA, and that the NSW EPA be independent of the Department of Planning.17. That the PAC order the Proponent to provide a Property Value Guarantee to all owners of non-associated residences within 3 kilometres of turbines, such that the Proponent is obliged to compensate any such owner to the extent of a reduction of property value attributable to the presence and/or operation of the wind farm.18. The PAC should impose on the project the following conditions relating to wind turbine noise, sound and vibration: Measurements in dB(A), dB(C), dB(G) and dB(Lin) for actual wind turbine noise.  The use of Lmax, or at least L10, instead of Leq and L90 for actual wind turbine noise.  The use of much shorter measuring intervals than 10 minutes. (Consult independent noise experts.)  Field studies to measure the actual rates of propagation and attenuation in the vicinity of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, in worst-case scenarios.  Field studies on existing Gullen Range wind turbines to measure the actual range of amplitude modulation, in worst-case scenarios.  Field studies to investigate the influence of inadequate separation distances between turbines, involving attended monitoring of wind turbine noise for 1 month in winter. Monitoring to be in dB(Lin), from which dB(A), dB(C) and dB(G) are to be calculated. Noise monitoring to be correlated with power output, wind strength and wind direction at the turbines, and with wind strength and wind direction at the residence. The results of this monitoring to be made public.  A penalty of 5 dB for excessive amplitude modulation, defined as 4 dB(A) or greater.  A penalty of 5 dB for tonality.  Separate measurements for daytime (7 am - 6 pm), evening (6 pm - 10 pm), and night-time (10 pm - 7 am).  A new assessment of background noise levels, with attended monitoring to ensure the exclusion of extraneous noise. The PAC must order all turbines to be turned off for a month (in winter) to facilitate this.  Background noise monitoring to involve the measurement of wind strength and direction, both at the residence and at the turbines.  An outdoor dB(A) noise limit of 35 dB(A) (Lmax), or background noise (L90) + 5 dB(A), whichever is lower.  An outdoor dB(C) limit of 55 dB(C) (Lmax) (day); and 50 dB(C) (Lmax) (night).8  An indoor dB(A) limit for low frequency noise, not to be exceeded, of 20 dB(A) for all frequencies between 10 Hz and 160 Hz.  A penalty of 5 dB for excessive low frequency noise.  An indoor dB(G) limit of 60 dB(G).  A penalty of 5 dB(A) for excessive infrasound, by the above criterion.  All penalties to be added.  The requirement that a new noise limit for infrasound be imposed in dB(Lin) when research on wind turbine infrasound has established what that should be.  A requirement that all noise conditions may be revised or supplemented in the light of future acoustic and medical research.  Outdoor noise measurements to be taken at the residence; indoor noise measurements to be taken inside the residence. No measurements to be taken at intermediate locations.  All monitoring of wind turbine noise to be correlated with wind direction, wind strength, and power output.  Monitoring to be conducted by independent acousticians nominated by neighbours and appointed by the NSW EPA. The cost of monitoring to be charged to the Proponent.  The results of monitoring and assessments to be publicly available.9 On what terms should this modification application be determined?The proponent wishes this application to be determined by considering only whether the change of turbine locations leads to any significant difference, more particularly increase, of environmental impact (GRWFMod 1 EA, 2014, and GRWFMod 1 SR, 2014).However, this is not the approach that is uniformly followed by the Department’s Major Project Assessment (MPA, 2014). It is true that the MPA is concerned with the question of changed environmental impact from the changed turbine locations. But, this is not the only consideration that the MPA takes account of. In addition, the MPA takes into account issues of visual impact and acoustic impact which are unrelated to the issue of changed turbine locations. That this is so can be seen from the MPA’s discussion of the situation with respect to visual impact on residence PW34. It can also be seen from the MPA’s treatment of the issue of noise. PW34 is a residence for which the Department now recommends acquisition rights (MPA, p. 30). The Department arrives at this recommendation in the following way. First, it notes that the nearest turbine POM_01 has moved 124 metres closer to the residence (MPA, p. 29). However, this is not the only or even the principal reason for the Department recommending acquisition rights. Indeed, the MPA notes that POM_01 “was able to be viewed after a short walk through vegetation around the residence and is not viewed directly from the residence.” (my italics) The MPA’s discussion proceeds to consider PW34’s situation relative to a cluster of turbines, but not because any of them has moved closer to the residence. On the contrary, the MPA’s concern is only with the proximity of the turbines, and their cumulative visual impact. The MPA states: “However, the residence and its garden are oriented towards the location of POM_02, POM_03, POM_04 and POM_05. The footings of this group of turbines are at a similar elevation to the garden which causes the blades of the wind turbine to seem more direct and in view. A further eight turbines are in the mid-range of view (POM_06, 1.6 km, POM_07, 1.9km and the cluster of POM_8 to POM-13, located beyond 2km). Residence PW34 has four constructed turbines within 1km as follows:  POM_01 (856m as measured by MSA);  POM_02 (969m according to Modification Application);  POM_04 (1km according to the Modification Application); and  POM_05 (895m according to the Modification Application).” (MPA, p. 29)The MPA sums up: “The Department considers the visual impact on the curtilage of the residence (which does not have vegetation screening towards the turbines POM_02, POM_03, POM_04 and POM_05) to be high. With the elevation of turbines (POM_02, POM_03, POM_04 and POM_05) ranging from 864 m to 888m (as measured by MSA) being similar to the elevation of PW34 (873 according to the Modification Application), the wind turbine blades do intrude into the view of the curtilage of this residence and its 10 garden in an unacceptable manner, which the Department does not consider could be ameliorated appropriately. Therefore, the Department recommends the acquisition schedule in the Project Approval (Condition 2.25) is amended to include Residence PW34.” (MPA, pp. 30)It should be obvious from this quotation that the Department’s recommendation to grant acquisition rights to PW34 has nothing to do with any change of turbine location. The only turbine mentioned whose location is noted to have changed, namely, POM_01, is excluded from the cluster of turbines whose combined visual impact is the basis of the grant of acquisition rights. That the Department’s consideration of the modification application is not restricted to the issue of changed environmental impacts from changed turbine locations can also be seen from the Department’s treatment of the issue of noise impacts. The MPA recommends the imposition of new conditions relating to acoustic impacts. But, the imposition of these new conditions has nothing to do with the issue of changed turbine locations. It is striking that the MPA recommends the imposition of new noise conditions on the wind farm, even though the MPA claims that the assessment process found that the changed turbine locations would make no significant difference to noise impacts. The MPA states:The Department’s assessment of noise involved the Department’s own noise expert and an independent expert to review the predicted difference in noise impacts from the constructed layout of turbines. The reviews conclude the proposed relocation of the turbines will result in an insignificant change in wind turbine noise from the wind farm and that it is capable of meeting the noise limits in the Project Approval. (MPA, p. ii) Notwithstanding these findings, the MPA nonetheless recommends the imposition of new noise conditions on the project. The MPA states: “The Department also considers it appropriate that the current instrument of approval be amended to reflect contemporary practice with respect to low frequency noise, tonality, decommissioning and community consultation.” (MPA, p. iii) These new conditions have been drawn from the (still) draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines. The draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines had not even been put on public exhibition when the Gullen Range Wind Farm was approved by the Minister in 2009, and again by the NSW Land & Environment Court in 2010. The draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines did not enter the public domain until December 2011.To those of us who have studied the professional and academic literature on the acoustic impacts of wind turbines it is obvious that the existing noise guidelines used in NSW, namely, the so-called South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), are completely inadequate to protect neighbours from adverse noise impacts from wind turbines. This can be easily proved, and has been proved by various independent noise experts (see below). But, these were the guidelines under which the Gullen Range Wind Farm was 11 approved, first by the Minister for Planning, and subsequently by the NSW Land & Environment Court. Those approvals are, therefore, worthless with respect to noise impact. It can only be conjectured that the NSW Departments of Environment and of Planning have known of the inadequacy of the South Australian Noise Guidelines for many years, since the NSW Department of Environment was working on revised noise guidelines for the draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines even before the current NSW Coalition Government was elected at the beginning of 2011. We must conclude, therefore, that the Department of Planning knows that the existing noise limits and noise assessment procedures set out in the existing Project Approval will not protect neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm from adverse noise impacts, and therefore is now recommending that new noise conditions, drawn from the draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines, be imposed on the project. Therefore, in relation to the issue of acoustic impacts, it is clear that the Department does not consider it adequate to assess only changed acoustic impacts from changed turbine locations. The Department tacitly recognizes that the actual acoustic impacts of the turbines must be considered, regardless of the extent of turbine relocation, and regardless of the insignificant difference to acoustic impact from the turbine relocation. To put it bluntly, the Department tacitly recognizes that all its previous noise assessments, according to the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), are in fact incompetent, and that to avoid an acoustic disaster new noise conditions must be imposed on the Project. After all, if the noise conditions in the existing Project Approval are adequate, why do new noise conditions need to be introduced?That the Department considers it necessary to go beyond the issue of changed environmental impacts from changed turbine locations, and to consider various issues of environmental impact in themselves, and not in relation to the issue of changed turbine locations, is corroborated by the statements of departmental officers Karen Jones and Neville Osborne when they visited my property, G43, on 9 April this year. They stated quite clearly, in the presence of my wife as witness, that in considering the Modification Application, the Department could impose new noise conditions and grant new sets of acquisition rights. The MPA confirms this.Whether the new noise conditions recommended by the Department are sufficient, and whether the extent of the grant of new acquisition rights is adequate are questions that I shall consider below.For the present, it is enough to urge the PAC to follow the Department’s example, and not restrict the assessment of this Modification Application to the issue of changed environmental impacts from changed turbine locations. The PAC should consider the likely impacts of the Gullen Range Wind Farm in themselves, in relation to all the relevant criteria.12 Verification of wind turbine locationsThe surveysThe survey carried out by the independent surveyor, Michael Shannon & Associates Pty Ltd (MSA), on behalf of the Department, shows only insignificant differences of turbine location from the survey carried out by the Proponent. The independent survey also shows only insignificant differences of turbine elevation, given the different methods used by the independent surveyor and the Proponent to estimate turbine elevation. (MPA, pp. 14-15)However, the independent survey shows some significant differences in relation to the distance between non-associated residences and the nearest turbine. 17 non-associated residences were found to be further away from the nearest turbine, according to MSA data. In one case, that of B124, the residence was found to be as much as 170 metres further away. (MPA, p. 16) (There are in fact two house sites on the property B124, and one of them has been missed altogether.)21 non-associated residences were found by MSA to be closer to the nearest turbine than suggested in the Proponent’s data. Of these 21 residences, 4 were found to be closer by more than 10 metres: G28 (12m), K19 (16m), K18 (21m) and G43 (34m). (MPA, p. 16)In the Submissions Report the Proponent explains the differences in the figures for distance of non-associated residences to nearest turbine, as between the Proponent’s survey and the independent survey, as due to a less accurate survey by the original developer Epuron, using aerial photography (GRWFSR, pp. 29-33). However, notwithstanding that the Proponent makes this clear in the Submissions Report, the Proponent inappropriately also wishes to claim (wrongly) that “It was unclear why the locations of the four residences [sc. G28, K19, K18 and G43] are different from the recent survey [sc. that of MSA] which shows a lesser distance between the residence and the wind farm (GRWFSR, p. 29). ”What these inaccuracies and the Proponent’s fudging indicate is that neither the original developer Epuron nor the current developer Goldwind has thought it important that accurate estimates should be made of the location of non-associated residences or of the distance between non-associated residences and the nearest turbine. Epuron’s original methods were clearly insufficient. And Goldwind clearly never bothered to check the accuracy of the data received from Epuron. It is obvious that both developers do not consider that the interests of non-associated residents warrant the collection of accurate data. I suggest that the PAC remembers these facts when they are considering complaints from residents and Upper Lachlan Shire Council about unco-operative behaviour by Goldwind (and Epuron).I have a personal interest in this matter as G43 is my house. In the Submissions Report the Proponent is perplexed as to which of 3 buildings is the “main residence” (GRWFSR, 13 p. 33). Well, a phone call would have solved this problem for the Proponent. I could have told the Proponent that the building furthest away is a concrete shed, and that both the other two buildings are part of the “residence”, as the smaller of the two is my study. I am certainly concerned that my study should count as part of the residence. The independent surveyor visited my property during the survey. Goldwind has never visited my property, and has never phoned me about this matter, even though Ben Bateman, the former GRWF Project Manager, had my phone number, and phoned me about other matters.The attitude of Goldwind can be summed up as “Don’t know. Don’t care.”The turbine relocations and the Department’s response to themI argued above that the PAC should not restrict itself to considering only the matter of increased environmental impacts from changed turbine locations. Here I argue that the PAC should suspend determination of the Modification Application until there has been an independent public inquiry, at least a Judicial Commission, into the matter of the unauthorised Gullen Range turbine relocations. The case for such an independent public inquiry is as follows. It concerns misconduct by both the Proponent and the Department of Planning.The Proponent’s violation of the Project ApprovalFirst, the Proponent has clearly violated condition 1.5 of the Project Approval by placing 69 of the 73 turbine locations in places different from those authorised by the Project Approval. The turbines have been relocated by distances from 1 metre to 187 metres, the average distance of change being 42 metres (GRWF Mod 1, EA, 2014).Condition 1.5 of the Project Approval expressly removes from the Proponent the ability to move turbines by up to 250 metres without further assessment and approval. The Proponent has relocated the sitings of 69 of the 73 turbines without submitting any application for assessment and approval until now. All 69 turbine locations were shifted, and in mid March 2014 58 turbines had been erected (GRWF Mod 1 EA, 2014, p. 26). But by 14 May 2014 66 turbines had been erected (GRWF Mod 1 SR, 2014, p. 23). It should be noted that the Modification Application is dated 31 March 2014.It will be apparent that the Proponent has arrogantly ignored the compliance authority of both the Project Approval and the Department of Planning. The sequence of events is as follows. From late in 2012 the Proponent was constructing the entire system of roads, hardstands and turbine footings with 69 of the 73 turbine footings in locations not authorised by the Project Approval. The Proponent had not submitted any modification application in order to gain approval for these changes. From May 2013 the Proponent began to erect turbines. Most of these turbines were 14 inevitably in locations not authorised by the Project Approval. The Proponent had not submitted any modification application to gain approval for the erection of these turbines in unauthorised locations.The Department of Planning claims to have become aware of these unauthorised changes to turbine location only in November 2013. It then entered into negotiations with the Proponent, informing the Proponent of its concerns. According to a letter from Carolyn McNally, then Acting Secretary and now Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment, to myself, the Department formed the view that “the relocation of many of the turbines was not considered to be consistent with the approval (McNally to Brooks, 26.6.14).” This view “was conveyed to the proponent on 29 January”, 2014 (McNally to Brooks, 26.6.14). Moreover, “the Department confirmed its position to the proponent on 26 February 2014 that the location of many of the turbines as constructed, are not consistent with the project approval, and that the relocations are not considered as minor (McNally to Brooks, 26.6.14).”Although the Department had first raised this matter with the proponent in December 2013 (letter from Azmeena Kelly, Compliance Manager for DoPI, to Ben Bateman, 9.12.13), and although the Department informed the Proponent on both 29 January 2014 and 26 February 2014 that the turbine relocations were unauthorised, the Proponent continued to erect turbines, most of which were in unauthorised locations, between December 2013 and May 2014. By mid May 2014 66 turbines had been erected, the overwhelming majority of which were in unauthorised locations. In other words, between early December 2013 when the Department first expressed its concerns to the Proponent and mid May 2014 the Proponent continued to erect turbines, even though it had been informed by the Department of Planning that the turbine relocations were not authorised. The Proponent has clearly violated condition 1.5 of the Project Approval. Moreover, the Proponent has deliberately continued to violate the Project Approval for several months, even after being informed by the Department of Planning that the turbine relocations are unauthorised.The Proponent’s defenceThe Proponent claims that its turbine relocations are “consistent with the Approved Project”, and therefore consistent with the Project Approval. In the Proponent’s view, therefore, it has done no wrong. (GRWF Micrositing Consistency Review, 2013, GRWF Mod 1 EA, GRWF Mod 1 SR)The Proponent claims that section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 allows it to make “minor amendments” “consistent with the approved project”, without seeking further assessment and approval. This is a misinterpretation of the EP&A Act. Section 75W (2) of the Act allows modifications “consistent with the existing approval” to be made without any seeking of further assessment and approval. The words “minor” and “approved project” do not occur in section 75W of the Act. The Proponent’s 69 turbine relocations are not consistent with the “existing approval”, since they violate 15 condition 1.5 of the Project Approval, and do so on a massive scale. The Proponent’s attempt to defend itself is therefore invalid.The Proponent has probably been encouraged to misinterpret section 75W (2) of the EP&A Act by a passage in section 2.2 of the Department’s own Major Project Assessment of 2009. In section 2.2 the Major Project Assessment falsely asserts that “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 . . . .”The EP&A Act does no such thing. What section 75W (2) of the EP&A Act actually says is: “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 [sc. Part 3A]. ” (my italics) The Proponent’s unauthorised turbine relocations are not consistent with the existing approval, since they extensively violate condition 1.5 of the Project Approval.The Department’s failure to monitor constructionThe Department of Planning claims that it was unaware of the unauthorised turbine relocations until November 2013 (e-mail from Azmeena Kelly to David Brooks, 3.3.14). This is astonishing, as the construction of roads, hardstands and turbine footings, incorporating the unauthorised turbine locations, began in late 2012. In other words, for over a year, the Department was unaware that turbine footings were being located in unauthorised locations, and that turbines were being erected in unauthorised locations. This is a colossal failure of compliance monitoring on the part of the Department of Planning.However, it cannot be wholly true that the Department was unaware of the turbine relocations until November 2013, since neighbours of the wind farm, specifically Humphrey and Jennifer Price-Jones, informed the Department as early as June 2013 that in their view turbines were being erected in wrong locations. Mr and Mrs Price-Jones continued to express this view to the Department from July through to November 2013. (See the submission of Humphrey Price-Jones, posted on the website of the Department of Planning.) It can only be concluded that the Department ignored the warnings of Mr and Mrs Price- Jones for several months, since no investigation was carried out until November 2013.In addition, the Department could have been alerted to the issue by the revised noise assessment included in the Operation Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), since the revised noise assessment includes the new turbine locations. The OEMP was submitted to the Department in October 2013. Presumably, no one in the Department noticed that the turbine locations given in the OEMP were different from those authorised16 by the Project Approval.The appointment and performance of the independent Environmental RepresentativeAccording 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 act as “independent Environmental Representative to the project”. The role of Environmental Representative (ER) is, amongst other things, to advise the Proponent as to its compliance obligations.The Proponent nominated for the role of ER a Mr Erwin Budde, who was duly appointed by the Director-General in 2011. However, Mr Budde was not a suitable candidate for the role, as he had a blatant and extreme conflict of interest, being the Director of ngh environmental, a consultancy employed by the Proponent to work on this very project, the Gullen Range Wind Farm, since 2007. Mr Budde could therefore not be considered independent. He ought not to have been nominated by the Proponent nor appointed by the Director-General.The inappropriateness of Mr Budde’s appointment has been demonstrated by his approving all 69 unauthorised turbine relocations, and by his endorsing the Proponent’s claim that it does not need to submit a modification application (GRWF Micrositing Consistency Review, 2013).The Department has belatedly recognized the inappropriateness of Mr Budde’s appointment by dismissing him from the role. According to an e-mail from Azmeena Kelly to myself (2.4.14): “Planning and Infrastructure informed the proponent that the former ER [sc. Erwin Budde] did not have the level of independence to fulfil the role and was therefore required to cease the role.”But, if Mr Budde was appropriately dismissed in 2014, he ought not to have been appointed in 2011.The appointment of the ER and condition 7.1 of the Project ApprovalAccording to condition 7.1 of the Project Approval, the only constraint on the appointment of an Environmental Representative is that the candidate should be “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel”. I submit that this wording is improper, insofar as it appears to facilitate the appointment of someone not wholly independent of the proponent, someone with a conflict of interest, like Mr Budde. This is certainly how this wording has operated in the case of Mr Budde’s appointment.This wording, therefore, ought not to have been introduced into condition 7.1 of the Project Approval. Its introduction must be considered an act of impropriety on the part of 17 the Department.The Department’s failure to order construction to ceaseSince becoming aware that the Project Approval had been violated extensively - 69 of 73 turbine locations being unauthorised - the Department has failed to order that construction cease on the wind farm.If the Department had been competent in supervising the construction of the wind farm, then work could have ceased in late 2012, as soon as the Department learned that turbine footings were being located in the wrong place. This did not happen because the Department had no system of compliance monitoring of its own. It was relying on Erwin Budde.If the Department had heeded the warnings of neighbours in June 2013, then work could have stopped in mid 2013.If the Department had read the revised noise assessment in the OEMP in October 2013, then work on the wind farm could have ceased in October 2013.The Department claims to have become aware of the unauthorised turbine relocations only in November 2013, and yet even now (August 2014) the Department has failed to order that work cease on the wind farm. On the contrary, the Department continued to allow the Proponent to violate the Project Approval, by continuing to erect turbines in unauthorised locations, until May 2013 (when the Proponent seems to have stopped work of its own accord, having erected 66 of the 73 turbines).I submit that by failing to order the Proponent to stop work on all turbines whose locations are unauthorised the Department has been guilty of misconduct.The agreement to stop work on turbines that have moved closer to homes. According to Carolyn McNally, the Department informed the Proponent on 26 February 2014 that in the Department’s view many of the turbine relocations were not consistent with the project approval. Within 7 days, apparently, the “proponent agreed to stop construction of 16 turbines that had or were in the process of being relocated closer to residences . . . . the Proponent has . . . . provided an undertaking to cease construction of 16 turbines which had been relocated closer to residences whilst the s75W request remains undetermined. ” (McNally to Brooks, 26.6.14)Note that this agreement is supposed to remain in place until the s75W application is determined (i.e. by PAC).Setting aside the fact that a movement closer to homes could not be the appropriate criterion for a stopwork (since the violation of the Project Approval required a stopwork on all turbines whose relocation was unauthorised), it cannot be true that work has in fact 18 stopped on as many as 16 turbines (whether closer to homes or not). This is impossible, as 66 of the 73 turbines have been erected. This leaves only 7 turbines to be erected. It should also be pointed out that far more than 16 turbines have moved closer to homes, simply because there are so many residences in the vicinity of the wind farm. According to the Major Project Assessment (p. ii) there are still as many as 45 non-associated residences within 2 kilometres.The agreement between the Department and the Proponent must be considered worthless. As the Department does not seem to be aware that the Proponent cannot have kept its promise, this would seem to be another failure of the Department to monitor compliance.Moreover, on 20 August it was apparent that work had recommenced on the partially erected turbine BAN_25. This is one of the turbines on which work is supposed to have stopped. There should be no work on this turbine until after PAC’s determination of the section 75W application. The Proponent, therefore, appears to have broken its agreement.The Department’s failure to order that all turbines in unauthorised locations not operateAccording 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.”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 all those RECs earned from the operation of turbines in unauthorised locations must be being earned illegally. This must be so, because to qualify for RECs a renewable energy power plant must comply with all relevant federal, state and local legislation. By violating the Project Approval the Gullen Range Wind Farm is contravening state law. This situation has been pointed out to the Department by myself and others many times. Carolyn McNally in her letter to me (26.6.14) states: “In relation to your concerns regarding the generation of electricity by the turbines, the Department has also been in ongoing discussions with the Clean Energy Regulator, and is assisting the Regulator in its own investigation into the Gullen Range Wind Farm.”While it is appropriate that the Department should have informed the Clean Energy Regulator that turbines in unauthorised locations have been operating and feeding electricity into the grid, I submit that this action by the Department is not sufficient. If the Department knows - as it does - that the Gullen Range Wind Farm is feeding electricity from turbines in unauthorised locations into the grid, and thus earning Renewable Energy Certificates illegally, the Department ought to exercise its authority to bring this situation 19 to an end. If it does not, it is complicit in the commission of an illegal act. That is in fact the case.The Department’s failure to penalize the ProponentGiven the fact that the Proponent has violated condition 1.5 of the Project Approval, and done so on a massive scale; and given that the Department has clearly determined that “the location of many of the turbines as constructed, are [sic] not consistent with the project approval, and that the relocations are not considered to be minor (McNally to Brooks, 26.6.14)”; it follows that the Department has already determined that the Proponent has violated the Project Approval. And yet the Department has taken no steps to penalize the Proponent. I submit that this is dereliction of duty.In her letter to me (26.6.14) Carolyn McNally states: “The Department has also informed the proponent and the community that it reserves its right to take penalty action against the proponent. It should be noted that such action can be taken within 2 years of the breach.” I submit that in the circumstances this postponement of imposing any penalty on the proponent can only be considered evasion. The Department cannot be in any doubt as to the proponent’s guilt, as the Department has declared publicly that the turbine relocations, or at least “many” of them, are unauthorised. There can therefore be no justification for delaying the process of imposing a penalty on the proponent.The Department’s failure to impose a penalty on the proponent is therefore clearly wrong. It is also imprudent by the standards of expediency, since it creates a situation of ‘moral hazard’. By avoiding any penalty this proponent will be encouraged to behave in the same way on future occasions. Moreover, other proponents will also be encouraged to behave in the same way in the future. Thus, the integrity of the planning process in NSW will be undermined.The Department’s failure to commission an independent public inquiry, and its inappropriate permission for the Proponent to submit a modification applicationGiven all the misconduct by both the Proponent and the Department, as described above, the Department should have recommended to its Minister that the Minister commission an independent public inquiry into all these matters. But the Department has not done this.On the contrary, the Department has allowed the Proponent to submit a modification application as if to give retrospective legitimacy to the proponent’s violations of the Project Approval.I submit that the Department’s allowing the proponent to submit a modification application is itself an instance of misconduct.20 The Department’s legal adviceThe Department claims to have legal advice that it would not be worthwhile to take the Proponent to the NSW Land & Environment Court (McNally to Brooks, 26.6.14). I submit that it is the Department’s duty to take the Proponent to the Land & Environment Court, and that the Department is guilty of dereliction of duty by not doing so. This is not a matter for the Department to choose what it prefers. It is rather a matter of what the Department ought to do.I further submit that the Department’s real motive for not wishing to go to the Land & Environment Court is much more likely to be embarrassment at its own misconduct, insofar as (i) the Department has failed to prevent a gross and extensive violation of the Project Approval by the Proponent; (ii) the Director-General of the Department of Planning wrongly appointed as independent Environmental Representative someone with a blatant and extreme conflict of interest, someone who has now had to be dismissed for lack of independence; (iii) the Department wrongly used the words “independent of the design, construction and operation personnel” in condition 7.1 of the Project Approval; (iv) the Department wrongly gave encouragement to the Proponent to violate the Project Approval by a misinterpretation of section 75W (2) of the EP&A Act, contained in section 2.2 of the Major Project Assessment (2009).If this conjecture as to the Department’s real motive is correct, then the Department is guilty of yet another instance of misconduct, namely, a ‘cover-up’ of its own improper actions and failures to act.The absurdities within the Department’s positionThe Department has now stated its position with respect to the 69 turbine relocations, in the Major Project Assessment (July 2014). The Department has also elaborated its view in the already quoted letter from Carolyn McNally to David Brooks (26.6.14).Whereas the Proponent continues to maintain that all its turbine relocations are consistent with the approved layout, the Department disagrees (MPA, 2014, p. i).The statements in Carolyn McNally’s letter to myself are more explicit. Ms McNally states: “In December 2013, the Department sought further information regarding the location of turbines from the proponent, and following the receipt and consideration of this information formed the view that the relocation of many of the turbines was not considered to be consistent with the approval.”Ms McNally also states: “Upon considering the representations made by the proponent and members of the community, and after seeking independent legal advice, the Department confirmed its position to the proponent on 26 February 2014 that the location of many of the turbines as constructed, are [sic] not consistent with the project approval, and that the relocations are not considered to be minor.”21 Ms McNally also states: “The Department, upon examining the information relied upon by the proponent, considers that the level of variance which has occurred is not minor, and the relocations to be inconsistent with the approval.”Therefore, the Department has clearly rejected the Proponent’s claim that all its turbine relocations are consistent with the approved project and with the existing approval. The Department has not stated exactly how many of the 69 turbine relocations are inconsistent with the approval, and it has not defined “minor” by reference to any precise distance. Nonetheless, if the Department is prepared to state that “many” of the turbine relocations are inconsistent with the approval, presumably “many” means either a majority or at least a substantial minority. That is, either a majority of 69 turbine relocations (35 or more), or a substantial minority (a third of 69 is 23).All this being so, it is surely astonishing that the Major Project Assessment recommends that only 2 turbines be not allowed to remain in their new locations. BAN_09 is to be moved to its original location, or the proponent is to offer to buy residence B29. BAN_15 is to be moved to its original location or removed from the project altogether.It is also surely astonishing that even though “many” of the turbine relocations are considered not to be “minor”, acquisition rights have only been recommended for 2 more properties, B29 and PW34.How is it possible for non-minor movements of turbines to produce so little change in the conditions of the Project Approval?Is it not likely that the Department of Planning’s assessment process for wind farms is hopelessly incompetent, that it results in evident absurdities and contradictions, and that the Department is desperately trying to salvage the situation by ad hoc measures in a few instances, while offering to gloss over all the inequities of the approval by evasion and mystification, and to avert the worst of the now expected adverse noise impacts by the imposition of new noise conditions drawn from the (still) draft NSW Wind Farm Guidelines? All this being so, given all the instances of misconduct by both the Proponent and the Department of Planning, I submit that the Planning Assessment Commission should suspend all consideration of the Modification Application, and instead recommend to the Minister of Planning that she commission an independent public inquiry, at least a Judicial Commission, into the unauthorised turbine relocations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.22 Visual impactThe Department discusses visual impact in section 5.2, pp. 17-35 of the Major Project Assessment. After some introductory remarks, the MPA has detailed sections on the non- associated residences of each of the four sections of the wind farm site, namely, the Bannister Turbine Group, the Gurrundah Turbine Group, the Pomeroy Turbine Group and the Kialla Turbines.The Public DomainThe MPA dismisses the issue of visual impact on the public domain, i.e. the view from local roads, on the ground that no change in visual impact would be perceptible, especially as “the view towards the turbines would be from a moving position whilst travelling in a vehicle.” (p. 18) Evidently, the authors of the MPA are incapable of imagining that sometimes people in the country do actually walk along their roads. They may walk for exercise, or they may walk the dog. Differences of 100 metres in the proximity of turbines will be noticeable. But, it is typical of the Department of Planning that it is uninterested in the realities that neighbours will actually experience. It is only interested in finding excuses to dismiss issues of concern.I will add from my own observation that there are places along Pomeroy Road where the Great Dividing Range now looks like a junkyard. This is the effect of the conglomeration of turbines and moving blades. Nobody who is sane or honest could possibly say that the Gullen Range Wind Farm has improved the landscape. It has ruined it.The same thing can be said about locations along both Range Road and Kialla Road.ResidencesThe Department claims that its “assessment of the visual impact is focussed on evaluating whether the visual impact from wind turbines constructed in a different location (from the layout originally approved) has given rise to a different level of visual impact.” (p. 19) However, the MPA also states that the “Department has also taken this opportunity to consider visual impacts more broadly, particularly for the closest non-associated residences to the GRWF.” (p. 19)Well, which is it? Is the Department restricting its examination to the issue of changed impacts from changed turbine locations? Or is it considering visual impact “more broadly”, i.e. in itself, regardless of change of turbine location? The Department cannot have it both ways. But, as a matter of fact, it is trying to have it both ways. The Department wants to be free to consider visual impact “more broadly” where the adverse visual impact is so bad that new concessions have to be made, to save the Department from embarrassment or litigation. On the other hand, the Department wants 23 to be free to use the criterion of no changed impacts from changed locations in order to avoid making any new concessions in the majority of cases, in order to save the Proponent extra cost, or to avoid litigation against the Department by the Proponent.The truth is that the adverse visual impact on residences neighbouring the Gullen Range Wind Farm is so extensive that any impartial and disinterested assessment would never have approved the development in the first place, or would have granted acquisition rights to all non-associated residences within 3 kilometres - something that would have made the project not commercially viable. The Department can only try to conceal this basic situation by inconsistency, self-contradiction and evasion.We shall note instances of this inconsistency and evasion when we examine below the MPA’s treatment of the visual impact on specific residences in relation to the four groups of turbines, at Bannister, Gurrundah, Pomeroy and Kialla.In addition the MPA notes that “photomontages have not been provided for all non- associated residences within 1 km to 2 km of the turbines.” (p. 19) As this is so, how exactly is the Department to determine issues of visual impact?Well, the MPA tells us that the Department visited the area twice. On the first occasion it visited 5 properties. It also visited “the area” on a second occasion, but the MPA does not tell us how many properties were visited, if any.I think it is safe to assume that the Department has not visited all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres. Nor does it have photomontages for all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres. So, how did it determine the visual impact on all non- associated residences within 2 kilometres? It can only have been by sitting in an office in Sydney, looking at a map, and attempting to guess what the visual impact at any particular residence would be.This is quite unacceptable. It is an instance of the frivolity of the Department’s assessment of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, a frivolity that equally marks the Department’s original assessment in 2008-2009. Both the inconsistency of treatment and the frivolity of treatment are further reasons for there to be an independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine relocations of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.24 Principles for a more adequate assessment of visual impactThe lessons of B29: turbine relocationThe MPA notes that B29 has 3 turbines within 1.5 km, and a further 6 turbines between 1.5 and 2 km. Of the 9 turbines within 2 km of the residence, 6 turbines have moved closer to the residence, and 3 of these have moved closer by more than 50 m: BAN_08 146 m closer; BAN_09 162 m closer; BAN_12 64 m closer. (MPA, p. 22)The MPA singles out B29 as a lifestyle block, although it is only one of many lifestyle blocks and hobby farms in the vicinity of the wind farm.In virtue of its being a lifestyle block, and so badly impacted, the MPA recommends acquisition rights for the property. The MPA states (p. 23):Given this is a lifestyle allotment, rather than a working farm, the Department considers this property requires careful consideration. The Department notes several turbines (particularly BAN_09 and BAN_12) intrude on the outlook from B29 and being a lifestyle landholding (rather than a working agricultural property), the Department considers the change in the final layout of BAN_09 (moving closer to the residence) has caused a greater visual impact on B29 and would not be able to be effectively screened. The Department considers the visual impact from BAN_09 will affect the intended use of the B29 property and therefore the Department has recommended that the owner of B29 be given the opportunity to request acquisition or otherwise turbine BAN_09 should be relocated to its original approved position.I have no disagreement with the Department’s recommendation of acquisition rights for B29. But the principles on which the Department’s recommendation is made ought to be extended to all non-associated properties to which the principles apply. The Department has made no attempt to do this, no doubt because it would mean a great increase in the number of properties with acquisition rights.One principle of the MPA’s discussion is being a lifestyle block. There are innumerable lifestyle blocks around the Gullen Range Wind Farm. If the criterion for being a lifestyle block is not being a commercial farm, then a lifestyle block could be of any size between a couple of acres and, say, 300 acres. In other words, the category ‘lifestyle block’ should include what are popularly known as hobby farms. All these properties, if non-associated and within any distance from the wind farm such that there will be an adverse visual impact, should be re-examined.A second principle of the MPA’s discussion is movement of turbines closer to the residence by more than 50 metres. But many turbines have moved closer to many residences by more than 50 metres. This too should be re-examined.A third principle of the MPA’s discussion is that a turbine cannot be “effectively screened”. I suggest that at the distances involved (less than 2 kilometres), to speak of 25 effective screening is absurd, and bears no relation to reality. People do not hug the walls of their house, when they go out. Lines of trees do not uniformly and completely screen objects as large and obtrusive as an operating wind turbine. The owners of lifestyle blocks (whether of 5 acres or 300 acres) walk around and work in their paddocks as part of their enjoyment of their lifestyle block. The concept of ‘effective screening’ should be dismissed, and the reality of what is involved in the amenity of a lifestyle block should be recognized. As the MPA states in relation to B29 and BAN_09: “The Department considers the visual impact from BAN_09 will affect the intended use of the B29 property . . . .” (p. 23) (my italics) The “intended use” of many lifestyle blocks in the vicinity of the Gullen Range Wind Farm will be adversely affected by the existence and operation of the wind farm. All the lifestyle blocks that will be adversely impacted in this way should be re-examined.Data is only publicly available for turbine movements in relation to non-associated residences within 2 kilometres. There is no data available for non-associated residences between 2 kilometres and 3 kilometres of the turbines. But, non-associated residences between 2 kilometres and 3 kilometres of the turbines ought to be considered as well, especially as along the length of the wind farm site the turbines are set on ridges well above the level of the residences. It will be obvious that this situation makes it virtually impossible to screen residences, without imprisoning them in a solid wall of trees only a few metres from the house. This would undoubtedly destroy the view from the house, and the view in a hitherto picturesque area is undoubtedly part of the amenity of any lifestyle block. It would therefore be desirable if a new visual impact assessment were carried out by a consultant independent of the proponent and of the wind energy industry, and for this new assessment to cover all non-associated residences between 2 and 3 kilometres from the wind farm. The purpose of such an assessment would be to determine which non- associated residences have become subject to a turbine relocation closer to them of 50 metres or more.In the meantime, it is possible to list all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres, to which turbines have moved closer than 50 metres. The data are as follows:Bannister groupResidence Turbine Moved closer byB5 BAN_15 121 metresB12 BAN_13 65 m BAN_15 166 mB13 BAN_13 110 m BAN_15 134 mB14 BAN_15 80 m26 B19 BAN_21 70 mB28 BAN_09 166 m (161 m, by MSA) BAN_12 63 mB29 BAN_08 146 m BAN_09 161 m (162 m, by MSA) BAN_12 64 mB30 BAN_09 88 m BAN_10 76 mB31 BAN_09 70 m BAN_10 79 m (78 m, by MSA)B32 BAN_09 78 m BAN_10 78 m (81 m, by MSA)B31a BAN_09 56 m BAN_10 80 m[B124: There has been a mix-up over B124. There are in fact two house sites, one of which is within 2 kilometres of the turbines. The other house site is somewhat beyond 2 kilometres (apparently B41). Consequently, there is no data for the house site beyond 2 kilometres, and the Proponent has not provided any data for the house site within 2 kilometres. Therefore, there will need to be a new visual impact assessment carried out on B124 (and B41).]Of the above Bannister residences I can only identify one, B28, as warranting the description of a ‘working farm’. I am not sure about B30, B31 and B32. PAC should check. B12 is larger than a lifestyle block, but there are grounds for not considering it as just an agricultural property. The resident owner of B12 is a professional painter of wildlife. He has established a wildlife sanctuary on his property. I submit therefore that B12 should be included with the lifestyle properties, as it is not primarily a commercial farm. The PAC should check to see if any of the other properties are working farms.Gurrundah groupG32 GUR_07 101 mG33 GUR_07 84 mG43 GUR_07 63 m (97 m, by MSA)27 G52 GUR_07 101 mAs I live in this area - my house is G43 - I can attest that the above are all lifestyle properties.Pomeroy groupPW29 POM_03 97 mPW34 POM_01 115 m (124 m, by MSA)The Proponent affirms that the new owner of PW34 will enter an agreement with the Proponent for PW34 to become an associated residence. I shall have more to say about PW34 below.PW29 is not a working farm, so far as I know. The PAC can and should check.Prima facie, it would seem to be both logical and just that acquisition rights be extended to all lifestyle properties (up to 300 acres), within 2 kilometres of turbines, that have become subject to a turbine relocation closer to them of 50 metres or more. Moreover, it is arguable, given the location of turbines on ridges above the level of residences, that acquisition rights also be extended to all lifestyle properties between 2 and 3 kilometres from turbines, similarly impacted.However, before making any recommendations on the basis of the above discussion, I will consider further lessons to be drawn from the Department’s treatment of the issue of visual impact in the MPA.The lessons of B29 and PW34: absolute visual impactThe MPA states: “The Department considers the visual impact from BAN_09 will affect the intended use of the B29 property and therefore the Department has recommended that the owner of B29 be given the opportunity to request acquisition or otherwise turbine BAN_09 should be relocated to its original approved position. (p. 23)”The implication of this statement is that the visual impact of BAN_09 on B29 is unacceptable. But this in turn implies that the visual impact of any turbine at the same distance from any residence is unacceptable. If a visual impact at this distance is unacceptable for B29, then it must be equally unacceptable for any other non-associated residence at this distance (assuming the residence to be a lifestyle property).According to the independent survey (MSA), BAN_09 is now 1146 metres from B29 (1147 metres, according to the Proponent’s residence data sheets). Or, let us say, 1.1 kilometres. 28 It would seem reasonable, therefore, to determine how many turbines are 1.1 kilometres or less from non-associated (lifestyle) residences.In the case of PW34, the MPA recommends acquisition rights because of the visual impact of turbines on the “curtilage” of the residence, not because of any turbine relocation. Thus, the only turbine that is noted to have moved closer to PW34 is POM_01. But, of POM_01 the MPA states: “The nearest turbine (POM_01) has moved 124m closer to the residence and was able to be viewed after a short walk through vegetation around the residence and is not viewed directly from the residence. (MPA, p. 29)” (my italics)The MPA is concerned about the visual impact on the curtilage of PW34 of turbines POM_02, POM_03, POM_04, and POM_05. But of these turbines three have moved further away from PW34, and the fourth has moved only 3 metres closer. According to the Proponent’s residence data sheets, POM_02 has moved 24 metres further away. POM_03 has moved 30 metres further away. POM_04 has moved 31 metres away. And POM_05 has moved 3 metres closer.According to the Proponent’s residence data sheets, POM-02 is 969 metres from PW34. POM_03 is 1244 metres from PW34. POM_04 is 1071 metres from PW34. And POM_05 is 895 metres from PW34. These figures suggest that in the Department’s view the absolute visual impact of turbines out to 1244 metres from a residence is unacceptable.Taking the data from B29 and from PW34 together, it would seem reasonable to determine how many turbines are now within 1.2 kilometres of non-associated (lifestyle) residences. Using both the Proponent’s residence data sheets and MSA, we find the following:B28 BAN_09 1251 m (MSA)B29 BAN_09 1146 m (MSA) B77 BAN_09 1111 m (MSA)G32 GUR_01 1067 m (MSA)K2 KIA_01 1001 m (MSA) KIA_02 1137 m (residence data sheets)PW34 POM_01 856 m (MSA)Prima facie, therefore, there would seem to be an argument for extending acquisition rights to B77, G32 and K2. Later we will consider the MPA’s reasons for not doing so.29 Further lessons: extensive and unavoidable viewThe MPA (pp. 24-25) notes that a “group of non-associated residences exists to the west of the Bannister Turbine Group comprising B30 (1.6km), B31 (1.6 km), B32 (1.5 km) and B31a (1.5km).” In relation to these residences, the MPA states: “All of these residences (with the exception of B30) have the same four turbines within 2km of the residence and all have moved closer by 8m to 80m. B30 has three turbines within 2km and they have moved closer by 22m to 88m.”The Department’s unease about the visual impact on these residences is indicated in the following statement in the MPA (pp. 24-25):The photomontages from B31 for the approved and constructed layouts show there is little difference in the overall visual impact in the landscape . . . . However, the Department notes from its site visit that from this broad area (viewed from Range Road), approximately up to 15 turbines are obvious in an arc from the north-east to the south-east of these turbines, which includes turbines beyond 2km. The Department acknowledges that the turbines are very obvious features in the landscape, particularly given the number of turbines across the ridge. The Department recognises these turbines are obvious impacts which are largely related to the legacy of the original Project Approval, rather than the relocated turbines which is the subject of this modification application. The residences in this area will be able to access landscaping measures in accordance with Condition 2.3 of the Project Approval to reduce the visual impact of the turbines.This is a tacit confession of failure on the part of the Department of Planning. We have a situation where the combined visual impact of multiple turbines is overwhelming because of the sheer number of turbines visible, and because the turbines are located on ridges above the level of the residences. In this situation screening will be ineffective unless the screen of trees is so dense and placed so close to the residence as to imprison the residence within a wall of trees, and destroy any view hitherto possessed by the residence. Insofar as these residences are lifestyle properties (if they are), the wind farm will interfere with the intended use of the property. Clearly, the Department should never have approved the offending turbines, or acquisition rights should have been granted to these residences at the time of the original approval.The determination with respect to these residences should not be decided on the issue of whether the visual impact has increased significantly from what it would have been with the turbines in the original locations. The determination should be concerned with the absolute visual impact, as in the case of PW34, and as is implicit in the case of B29.Neighbouring landowners should not be unjustly penalised by the incompetence of the Department of Planning or the indifference of the Land & Environment Court. The PAC is not bound by the previous approvals of the Department and of the Court. The PAC is an independent authority. The PAC should recognise the injustice done to these 30 residences, and the ineffectiveness of landscape screening, and grant acquisition rights to these residences unconditionally.There is a similar situation with the visual impact of Gurrundah turbines on residences designated with a letter ‘G’. These are residences along Pomeroy Road, to the south-east of the turbines.In this location the valley of the River Wollondilly widens out, with the ridges bearing the turbines on one side of the valley, and residences mostly, but not entirely, on the other side. In all cases, the residences have extensive views to the turbines. The residences are mostly within 2 kilometres of the turbines, and are almost all lifestyle properties. From many points on these properties all the Gurrundah turbines and all the Pomeroy turbines (41 turbines in all) will be visible. From a point on my property about 57 turbines are visible. Screening these properties will be ineffective, because the turbines are all on ridges well above the level of the residences. The residences would have to be imprisoned with a solid wall of trees.The visual impact of multiple turbines so close and so high up is so great that these turbines should never have been approved in the first place, or acquisition rights should have been granted to all ‘G’ residences (if lifestyle properties) within 2 kilometres of the turbines. This was ignored by the Department at the time of the original approval, and by the Land & Environment Court. And the Department is trying to evade the issue still.Comments on specific propertiesIt is impossible to comment on all the residences discussed in the MPA. I will limit my comments to those residences where the MPA’s discussion is most inadequate.B77B77 is 1.1 km from the nearest turbine. It is one of those Bannister residences subject to an extensive and unavoidable view of the turbines from one horizon to the other (see above). The MPA dismisses the case of B77 on the basis of photomontages (p.22), even though the MPA itself indicates that for this area, neighboring the site, photomontages are misleading (p. 25). Given B77’s close proximity to the turbines (1.1 km), and given the overwhelming view of the turbines across the whole visual field, there is no justification for dismissing the case of B77. Acquisition rights should be granted.B28 and B55The MPA treats these together (p. 23). The residences are both to the west of the wind farm, off Range Road, with the same overwhelming views of the wind farm across the whole visual field. They belong with B29, B30, B31, B32, B31a and B77. The basic situation is the same in the case of all these properties. 31 The MPA dismisses B28 and B55 on the basis of photomontages, and claims about screening. These arguments ignore the reality of the situation of these properties. B28 is a working farm, but that should not prevent the owners from receiving just treatment, given the magnitude and unavoidable nature of the total visual impact.Acquisition rights should be extended to both B28 and B55.B12The MPA recommends that BAN_15 be relocated to its original position or that it be removed from the project altogether (p. 24). But the MPA does not recommend acquisition rights to B12. It is hard to see why not.B12 is in the same sort of situation on the eastern side of the turbines as B29, B28, etc are in on the western side of the turbines. In other words, B12 is set down in the valley while turbines are strung out along the ridge above it from one horizon to the other. In this situation there is bound to be interference with the “intended use” of the property. As I remarked earlier, B12 is larger than most lifestyle properties, but it is still not primarily a commercial farm. It is the home of a professional wildlife painter, and a wildlife sanctuary. Acquisition rights should be extended to B12.B13In the case of B13, BAN_13 has moved 110m closer, and BAN_15 has moved 134m closer (p. 24). And yet the case of B13 is dismissed on the ground that the “Modification Environmental Assessment states that this residence has high screening around the residence and therefore considers the change in visual impact from the residence will generally not be discernible.” (p. 24) It is evident that the Department has not visited this residence, as it is relying on the Proponent’s opinion as the basis for dismissing the case of B13. This is ludicrous. The Proponent has an obvious conflict of interest.B13, like B12, is set in the valley to the east of the wind farm, with the turbines strung out along the ridge above it. The same arguments apply. Acquisition rights should be extended to B13.32 B14, B5, B26These residences are also to the east of the wind farm, in the vicinity of B12 and B13. The same arguments apply.(N.B. In the case of B5 BAN_15 is 121m closer. In the case of B14 BAN_15 is 80m closer.)Acquisition rights should be extended to B14, B5, and B26. B124There has been a mix-up over B124. Both the Proponent and the Department have confused B124 with B41. There are two houses associated with this property, B124 and B41. B124 is within 2 kilometres of the turbines. B41 is just outside the 2 kilometres boundary. The Proponent has not provided residence data sheets for either B124 or B41. It can be seen from the Proponent’s Submissions Report (p. 78) that the Proponent mistakenly thinks that there is no residence at B124. The Department’s MPA does not discuss B124. This is blatant incompetence on the part of both the Proponent and the Department.Residence data sheets must be prepared for B124.As B124 is a lifestyle block, with an overwhelming view of the turbines, acquisition rights should be extended to B124.The photomontage for G38 applied to G32 and G33The MPA’s discussion of this matter is completely incompetent (p. 26).The MPA states (p. 26): “The turbine GUR_07 is not within 2km of the view points G31, G35 and G38, therefore these photomontages are limited in discerning whether the change in location of GUR_07 has caused a perceptible visual effect in the landscape.”Nonetheless, Table 11 (p. 26) and the following MPA discussion show that the photomontage for G38 has been used to assess G32 and G33. The absurdity of this will be clear from the following facts:First, it is true that GUR_07 is further than 2 km from G38. But, GUR_07 is only 1722 m from G32; and GUR_07 is only 1570 m from G33. Moreover, GUR_07 has moved 101 m closer to G32 and 84 m closer to G33.It is therefore completely inappropriate that the photomontage for G38 should be used to assess the situations of G32 and G33.33 The absurdity of this assessment is made worse by the fact that in the discussion of the situation of G32 on p. 26 of the MPA there is no reference to GUR_07 at all. The only turbines discussed are GUR_01 and GUR_02. The MPA dismisses the situation of G32 without even considering the fact that GUR_07 has moved 101 m closer to it.The MPA’s summing up is ludicrous. It states: “The Department acknowledges that Viewpoint G38 is further away from GUR_01 (1.8km) compared to G32 (1.1km), however considers that there has not been a perceptible change in the visual impact from G32. (p. 26)”So, the MPA (i) ignores GUR_07 altogether, even though it has moved 101 metres closer to G32; and (ii) uses a photomontage to assess the impact of GUR_01 on G32, even though the photomontage is taken from a point 700 metres further away than the position of G32. This is hopelessly incompetent, and suggests that the departmental authors of the MPA were not even trying to estimate seriously the visual impacts of the Gurrundah turbines on neighbours.G33The discussion of G33 is even more incompetent. The MPA notes that GUR_07 has moved 84 metres closer to it (p. 27). But it dismisses this fact with the following statement: “With reference to G33, the Department notes the Land and Environment Court had determined that due to the lower elevation of this residence, it would only see the tops of the rotors, and therefore the Department considers the change in location of GUR_07 would not alter the predicted visual impact on this property. (p. 27)”What this reference to the Land & Environment Court judgment proves is that the authors of the MPA cannot read documents accurately. To understand this, one needs to envisage the layout of the Gurrundah turbines on the ridge opposite G33. There are two lines of turbines on the ridge, facing G33. In the foreground are GUR_01, GUR_02, GUR_03, and GUR_07. In the background is a further line of turbines GUR_04, GUR_05 and GUR_06. It is true that the further turbines GUR_04, GUR_05 and GUR_06 are only partially visible, as they are set partly down the further side of the ridge. But the nearer line of turbines - GUR_01, GUR_02, GUR_03, and GUR_07 - are fully visible. They are in fact now the dominating feature in the landscape as they are set around 200 metres higher than the residence. Therefore, if GUR_07 has moved 84 metres closer to G33, this will be very perceptible.The Land & Environment Court judgment will not save the authors of the MPA. What the judgment actually says is:34 The views to the range and the turbines to be erected on it, to the south-west, would comprise virtually all (if not all) of the Gurrundah sector turbines along the eastern of the two rows running north-south in this vicinity. However, because of the location of the house on the flat land at the bottom of the valley, it is unlikely that anything other than the upper portion of the rotors, if anything at all, of the western row of turbines to the south-west would be able to be viewed from this house . . . . (para 262) (my italics)The Court thus acknowledges that the nearer turbines, i.e. GUR_01, GUR_02, GUR_03 and GUR_07, will be visible from G33, but that the further row of turbines, i.e. GUR_04, GUR_05 and GUR_06, will be only partially visible. So, the Court’s judgment will not support the MPA’s conclusion.The MPA’s discussion of G33 is incompetent (i) for its refusal to consider the impact of GUR_07, (ii) for its misunderstanding of the Land & Environment Court judgment, and (iii) because the authors have manifestly made no effort to envisage accurately the visual situation of G33 in its relation to the Gurrundah turbines. On the contrary, it is apparent that the authors of the MPA have been seeking excuses to dismiss the case of this residence. But their eagerness to dismiss G33 has only led them into error.Given the overwhelming visual impact of the Gurrundah turbines on the ridge above G33, and given the impossibility of effective screening without imprisoning the house behind a wall of trees only metres from the front of the house, acquisition rights should be granted to G33.I will add that the case of G33 points up the necessity for those assessing this modification application to visit every non-associated residence, so that the real visual impact can be known. I will say more about this below.G43My wife and I are the owners of G43.The Department’s view of the visual impact on G43 is dismissive. It notes that GUR_07 is 97 metres closer to the residence, but maintains that “the turbines are not directly visible from the residence, due to intervening topography between the residence and the turbines. (p. 27)” This statement is untrue. From the front verandah of our house we can already see 6 turbines. And when all the Gurrundah turbines are built, we will be able to see 9. From the side verandah of the house it is possible to see several of the Pomeroy turbines, and GUR_01. In addition, from the front verandah of my study I can already see GUR_01. From close to the study I can see GUR_01, GUR_02 and GUR_03. From close to the house and the study it will be possible to see around a dozen turbines.35 G43 is a lifestyle property, a hobby farm, and the view of the turbines (setting aside their noise) will interfere with the “intended use” of the property, just as the view of the turbines will at B29. The Department acknowledges that the wind farm’s turbines are visible from up the hill behind our house (p. 27). However, the MPA dismisses this fact by stating that “the Department observed that the views to the wind turbines are elevated on a ridge and are relatively distant and are from area on the property on [sic] not from the residence. (p. 27)” Setting aside the fact that turbines are visible from the verandahs of my house and my study, the view of turbines from the paddocks of the property is still an interference with the intended use of a lifestyle block. From half-way up the hill all the Gurrundah turbines and all the Pomeroy turbines will be visible - 41 turbines in all. From the top of the hill some of the Bannister turbines - about another 16 - are also visible. To dismiss this extensive view from one horizon to the other is absurd and unjust.The reference to the elevation of the turbines, as if this were a mitigation of the adverse visual impact, is nonsensical. So far from being a mitigation, the elevation of the turbines is an aggravation of the adverse visual impact. For all the residences along Pomeroy Road in this area, the turbines are now the dominating feature of the landscape, precisely because the turbines are elevated on ridges above the level of the residences. The effect is overwhelming.“Relatively distant” is a fudge. There are 5 turbines within 2 kilometres, and another 8 between 2 and 3 kilometres.I submit that acquisition rights should be extended to G43.G44The weekender on the adjacent block to G43 has been designated by the Proponent G44. In the NSW Land & Environment Court case it was designated G43A. It is owned by my wife and myself.G44 has never been surveyed either by the developers or by the Department. Nonetheless, it is just on the boundary of 2 kilometres from the turbines. When Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc. (PMLG) took its case to the Land & Environment Court in 2009, PMLG submitted to the Court that G44 (then G43A) was 2.04 kilometres from GUR_03. According to the Proponent’s Micrositing Consistency Review (2013), GUR_03 has moved 10 metres to the north (Appendix B, p. ii). This can hardly affect the distance to G44. PMLG informed the NSW Land & Environment Court in 2009 that turbine GUR_07 was 2.05 km from G44. As GUR_07 has moved 102 metres to the north-east (Micrositing 36 Consistency Review, Appendix B), it will have moved closer to G44, and perhaps by more than 50 metres. This needs to be determined.G44 is a quintessential lifestyle block, as the log cabin upon it is designedly a weekender. The property could only be sold as a lifestyle block (40 acres). G44 now has a panoramic view of the turbines from one horizon to the other. Screening is impossible without imprisoning the cabin behind a wall of trees only metres from the cabin.If this does not count as interference with the “intended use” of a lifestyle property, I do not know what does. G44 could not now be sold as a lifestyle block, as its view has been destroyed.Acquisition rights should be extended to G44.G52The Proponent did not notice the existence of G52, as the Proponent was not sufficiently careful to obtain accurate data concerning the location of some residences. Consequently, the Proponent’s review of visual impacts was only presented in the Submissions Report.GUR_07 has moved closer to G52 by 101 metres. The MPA dismisses this with a fudge, saying that the Gurrundah turbines are “largely screened” from the residence. What does “largely” mean? Presumably, not entirely. But if so, why is the movement of GUR_07 being dismissed?G52 has 6 turbines within 2 kilometres. One of these turbines is POM_23, which is 1987 metres from G52. The MPA misses this fact, claiming falsely that all the visible Pomeroy turbines are between 3.7 and 5.5 kilometres from the residence.GUR_01 is 1025 metres from G52. The Land & Environment Court judgment states: “A portion, at least, of this turbine [sc. GUR_01] will be visible from this property. (para 271)” The MPA ignores this partial visibility.It is clear that the MPA misrepresents the situation of G52. This is, at the least, incompetence.Acquisition rights should be extended to G52. Other ‘G’ residences Attention also needs to be paid to G26, G28, G29,G30, G36, G38, G39, G40.37 G36 and G38The situation of these residences is similar, insofar as they are both located on the Upper Lachlan Shire side of the Wollondilly River, and both have a view to both the Gurrundah turbines on the Sugarloaf Hill, and the Pomeroy turbines. Both are lifestyle properties, and both now have extensive and unavoidable views of two groups of turbines.G36 has 3 turbines within 2 kilometres, but 36 within 2-5 kilometres. G38 has 1 turbine within 2 kilometres, but 37 within 2-5 kilometres.The wind farm obviously interferes with the “intended use” of these lifestyle properties. Therefore, acquisition rights should be granted to both G36 and G38.G26, G28, G29, G30, G39, G40 These properties are all in the broad valley beneath the ridges bearing the Gurrundah turbines. The turbines are set at a level well above that of the residences. All of them have an overwhelming and unavoidable view of a very large number of turbines. This view needs to be seen by the PAC before it takes any decision. This view could not be screened out without imprisoning the residences in a solid wall of trees only metres from the walls of the residence. All these properties are lifestyle blocks. The wind farm has severely interfered with the “intended use” of the properties. Therefore, acquisition rights should be granted to G26, G28, G29, G30, G39, and G40.(In the PMLG court case in the Land & Environment Court in 2009-2010 G29 was designated G57.) Residences in the vicinity of the Pomeroy turbinesPW34The MPA recommends acquisition rights for PW34. I certainly endorse this.PW29I have already noted that PW29 is one of the non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of turbines, which have become subject to turbine movements closer to them of 50 metres or more (see above).The residence data sheets and the MSA show that POM_03 has moved 97 metres closer to PW29. It is therefore false for the MPA to claim (p. 32) that for PW29 “the change in the Pomeroy wind turbines . . . . will not cause substantively different visual impacts than previously assessed.”38 Acquisition rights should be extended to PW29.Other residences in the vicinity of the Pomeroy turbinesThere are altogether 23 Pomeroy turbines. Many of these are visible from neighbouring residences. The sheer density of turbines within such an open and exposed area would be sufficient in itself to argue that all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of the Pomeroy turbines should be granted acquisition rights. However, what distinguishes the area of the Pomeroy turbines even more is the sub- station. The sub-station is undoubtedly an industrial structure set down in the midst of an hitherto unspoiled and picturesque rural landscape. The ruin of the landscape is radical and total.Therefore, in virtue of both the density of Pomeroy turbines and the existence of the sub- station, I submit that acquisition rights should be extended to all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of the Pomeroy turbines.The “Independent Landscape Expert” and compliance monitoringThe MPA refers to the appointment of an “Independent Landscape Expert” (p. 32). This expert is commissioned and appointed by the Proponent, but the appointment must be “approved” by the Secretary of the Department of Planning.I suggest that after the affair of the “independent Environmental Representative”, Erwin Budde, (see above) neither the Proponent nor the Department can be trusted to ensure that the Landscape Expert will be genuinely independent. Therefore, instead of the expert being selected by the Proponent and the appointment ‘rubber-stamped’ by the Department, the expert should be selected and appointed by the NSW Environment Protection Authority, and the expert should report to the EPA. The cost of the appointment should, of course, be born by the Proponent, but at ‘arm’s length’.All authority for compliance monitoring should be removed from the Department of Planning, which has proved itself both unable and unwilling to act rigorously in this matter, and given over to the NSW EPA.Residences in the vicinity of the Kialla turbinesK2The Department does not extend acquisition rights to K2, even though all the relevant data, as cited in the MPA, suggests an overwhelming case for acquisition rights.KIA_01 is 1001 metres from K2. KIA_02 is 1137 metres from K2. As the MPA notes, the39 owners of K2 affirm that the turbines are visible from the bedrooms (p. 33). These facts by themselves are sufficient to argue for acquisition rights, especially as the residents of K2 are elderly.But, in addition, the MPA admits (p. 33) that the photomontage from VP6 is “limited in its ability to be applied to this residence”, i.e. useless. Both the Department and the Proponent acknowledge that the visual impact is high (p. 33). It is therefore unjust and irresponsible of the Department not to recommend acquisition rights for K2. Doubtless, the Department’s reluctance to extend acquisition rights to K2 is connected with the fact that K2 is a substantial property, and that the cost to the Proponent of purchasing it at a market price as if there were no wind farm would be expensive. But this only points up the incompetence of the Department of Planning in allowing KIA_01 and KIA_02 to be part of the project.The duty of the Department is to protect neighbours from the adverse impacts of development proposals that the Department approves. Therefore, either KIA_01 and KIA_02 should have been eliminated from the project, or acquisition rights should have been granted to K2. It is not the owners of K2 who are at fault. Those at fault are the Department and the Proponent. It is the Department and the Proponent who should bear the burden of mitigating the impact of the wind farm on the owners of K2 by the extension of acquisition rights. Therefore, acquisition rights should be granted to the owners of K2. And if the Proponent wishes to sue the Department in consequence, so be it. The Department and the Proponent should not collude to impose the burden in this matter on the owners of K2.Acquisition rights should be extended to K2. Discussion and conclusions1. There can be no doubt that the Department’s treatment of the issue of visual impact has been incompetent. The Department’s MPA is marked by inconsistency, evasion, and errors of fact. The inadequacy of the Department’s treatment is partly due to the fact that the Department has not visited every non-associated residence within 2 kilometres of turbines, in order to investigate the real visual impact at residences, ‘on the ground’. Even where the Department has visited a residence, the Department has sometimes formed an erroneous judgment (e.g. in the case of G43).2. Therefore, before the PAC offers to determine this modification application, the PAC must visit every non-associated residence within 2 kilometres of turbines. It would also be desirable for the PAC to travel around the wind farm on public roads, in order to assess the visual impact in the public domain, and to form some estimate of what the visual impact is likely to be for residences between 2 and 3 kilometres of turbines. The PAC should be prepared to meet with neighbours at their residences so that neighbours can put 40 their views and recount their experiences to the PAC. This is the only way by which the PAC will avoid the errors of the Department.3. Setting aside the issues of noise impact and impact on property value (to which we will come shortly), it should be obvious that the Department’s incompetence in assessing visual impact is a further reason (besides its incompetence in failing to prevent the Proponent’s violation of the Project Approval) for there to be an independent public inquiry into the Gullen Range Wind Farm. I have already suggested that this inquiry should investigate the matter of the unauthorised turbine relocations, and also the issue of visual impact and the Department’s inadequate assessment of that. It will shortly become clear that the inquiry will also need to investigate the assessment regime for wind turbine noise impacts in NSW, and the issue of property devaluation. Therefore, the independent public inquiry should be comprehensive in examining the whole history of the Gullen Range Wind Farm proposal, from the initial proposal through the stages of assessment and approval to the stage of construction and the Department’s failure of compliance monitoring, and finally to the matter of the Department’s failure to respond appropriately to the Proponent’s violation of the Project Approval. The PAC can make this recommendation to the Minister for Planning or the Premier. It should do so. While the inquiry is in progress, the assessment of the modification application should be suspended. The independent public inquiry should be at least a Judicial Commission.4. If the PAC declines to recommend such a comprehensive inquiry as that outlined above, the PAC should at least recommend an independent public inquiry into the matter of the unauthorised turbine relocations, and the Department’s inappropriate response to the Proponent’s violation of the Project Approval. The issues involved in this matter pertain not only to the Gullen Range Wind Farm project but also to all wind farm development projects in NSW. The issues of (i) what counts as a “minor” amendment, and the circumstances in which further assessment and approval need not be sought, (ii) the Department’s incompetence, negligence and impropriety, and (iii) the ‘moral hazard’ created by the Department’s failure to penalize the Proponent must be addressed, and addressed publicly. These issues should be addressed by an authority independent of the whole planning ‘establishment’, including the PAC. Hence, the need for an independent public inquiry.5. If the PAC declines to recommend any public inquiry, then the PAC should grant acquisition rights unconditionally to all non-associated residences within 3 kilometres of the turbines.6. If the PAC declines to do the above, the PAC should grant acquisition rights unconditionally to all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of the turbines.7. If the PAC declines to do the above, then the PAC should grant acquisition rights unconditionally to all non-associated lifestyle properties (300 acres or less) within 2 kilometres of the turbines.8. If the PAC declines to do the above, then the PAC should grant acquisition rights 41 conditionally to all non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of the turbines, towards which one or more turbines has moved closer by 50 metres or more. Either the offending turbines should be relocated in their original authorised position, or the Proponent must offer to purchase the residence at a market price as if there were no wind farm. This is the very least that the PAC can and should do.9. B124 and G44 should be surveyed by the independent surveyor, to determine if any turbine has moved closer to either of them by 50 metres or more. If so, then B124 and G44 should be included under point 8 above.10. Alternatively, the PAC should remove altogether from the project all turbines which have moved more than 50 metres closer to any non-associated residence within 2 kilometres of the turbines. This would involve the following turbines: BAN_08, BAN_09, BAN_10, BAN_12, BAN_13, BAN_15, BAN_21, POM_01, POM_03, and GUR_07. Thus, ten turbines would be removed from the project. If the PAC is not prepared to do even this, then the PAC will be allowing a Proponent to create a situation of moral hazard that will undermine the integrity of the whole planning and assessment process in NSW. The PAC will prove itself to be just as negligent as the Department of Planning.11. There is one more alternative course of action, if the PAC wishes to punish the Proponent for its flagrant violation of the Project Approval, and if the PAC wishes to avoid creating a situation of moral hazard. This is to order that all turbines whose locations have moved by 50 metres or more, in any direction, regardless of whether the turbines have moved closer to homes or not, be returned to their original approved locations or removed altogether from the project. This would involve the following turbines (according to GRWF Mod 1, EA, Table 2-2): BAN_08, BAN_09, BAN_10, BAN_12, BAN_13, BAN_14, BAN_15, BAN_21, BAN_24, BAN_25, POM_01, POM_03, POM_04, POM_06, POM_10, POM_11, POM_19, POM_22, GUR_07, GUR_10, GUR_12, GUR_18. Thus, 22 turbines would be involved. While this order would undoubtedly punish the Proponent, it would not help neighbours, if the turbines were returned to their original locations. Neighbours would only get some relief if turbines were removed from the project altogether. (N.B. The criterion of a movement of 50 metres or more is used, as this is the criterion that seems to be implied in the Department’s notion of a modification that is not “minor”.) 12. It should be obvious that there is now an insuperable conflict between cost to the Proponent on the one side, and justice, consistency of assessment for non-associated neighbours, and integrity of the planning process on the other. Either the Proponent must bear a prohibitive cost in relocating turbines or purchasing properties, or removing turbines, or non-associated neighbours must bear a cost, in the form of interference with the “intended use” of their properties (and probably adverse noise impacts and property devaluation). But this situation has not been brought about by the neighbours. It has been brought about by the arrogance of the Proponent and the incompetence and negligence of the Department of Planning. This is the overriding reason for there to be an independent public inquiry.42 13. The PAC should also recommend that if there is to be an ‘independent Landscape Expert’, this person should be selected and appointed by the NSW Environment Protection Authority. The appointed expert should report to the NSW EPA. Neither the Department nor the Proponent should have any part in the Expert’s appointment. The cost of the Expert should be borne by the Proponent.14. All authority for compliance monitoring should be removed from the Department of Planning, and given to the NSW EPA. The PAC should so recommend.43 NoiseThe discussion of noise impacts in the MPA shows the Department at its most incompetent and most frivolous. The discussion of noise in the MPA consists of little more than a page (pp. 35-36). It does not seriously address the problems with the existing noise assessments, problems that neighbours, including myself, have repeatedly put to the Department at great length, in great detail, and with considerable supporting bibliographies of peer-reviewed literature. The Department irresponsibly refuses to engage with neighbours’ arguments concerning noise.The upshot of the Department’s consideration of noise impacts in the MPA is as follows:  There will be little or no difference in noise impact as between the turbines in the new locations and the turbines in the original approved locations.  Curtailment of BAN_08, BAN_13, BAN_14, and BAN_15 is necessary to ensure compliance at B12.  The modified layout of turbines should comply with the existing noise limits.  Nonetheless, additional noise limits are recommended with respect to low frequency noise and tonality.What all this amounts to is that the Department has accepted uncritically the Proponent’s view of noise impacts, and has only added some, but not all, of the new limits on noise proposed in the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines. This is not intellectually serious, given all the independent acoustic research on wind turbines that has been accumulating for the last decade. It is cowardly. And it irresponsibly exposes neighbours to the high probability of adverse noise impacts.The deficiencies of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003)The Department’s findings in the MPA presuppose the assumptions and principles of the so-called South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), which until now, and still at present, have been the noise guidelines under which wind farm proposals have been assessed in NSW. The approvals for the Gullen Range Wind Farm (in 2009, and again in 2010) are expressed in terms of the methodologies, noise limits and penalties given in the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003).The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) are demonstrably inadequate to protect neighbours of wind farms from adverse noise impacts. The case proving this has been put to the Department in PMLG’s recent submission on the Modification Application, and in other forms several times before that. The Department has consistently ignored the evidence presented to it, and failed to engage with neighbours on this matter.The PAC already has access to PMLG’s submission on the Modification Application. Therefore, I will not repeat in detail here all the arguments concerning the inadequacy of the South Australian Noise Guidelines, and the consequent unreliability of the noise 44 assessments based upon them. But I urge the PAC to read the section on noise in PMLG’s submission, and to address the evidence presented there. For your convenience, I will attach to this submission a PMLG document Deficiencies of the Noise Guidelines Adopted, or to be Adopted by NSW (January, 2013), which criticised both the South Australian Noise Guidelines, and the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines. I will also attach Are wind farms too close to communities? [2012], a presentation by Steven Cooper, principal of the Acoustic Group Pty Ltd. And I will attach Wind Turbine Infra and Low- frequency Sound: Warning Signs That were Not Heard (2012), a peer-reviewed article by the American acoustician Richard R. James.The above documents contain sufficient evidence to prove (i) that all existing noise assessments of the Gullen Range Wind Farm must underestimate the expected noise impact of the wind farm on neighbours; (ii) that the official noise limits are inadequate to protect neighbours because they are based on false assumptions, and do not involve measurement of all relevant aspects of the noise; (iii) that the procedures for compliance monitoring of wind turbine noise must underestimate the actual noise impact on neighbours.Predictions of wind turbine noise, under the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), must be inaccurate because:  The use of the units dB(A) filters out much mid-frequency sound, and most low- frequency sound and infrasound (ILFN).  The use of regression line analysis necessarily overestimates background noise and underestimates actual turbine noise.  The use of averaging (10 minute measuring periods; LAeq) necessarily fails to register the peak levels of noise actually emitted and heard.  Current procedure underestimates the propagation rate of wind turbine noise, i.e. it overestimates the rate of attenuation.  No regard is paid to amplitude modulation.  Separate measurements for daytime and night-time noise are not required.  No regard is paid to increased night-time noise in conditions of stable atmosphere caused by temperature inversions.  No regard is paid to the wind speed ratio, i.e. the ratio between the speed of the wind at the turbines and the speed of the wind at the residence.  No regard is paid to increased noise from an array of multiple turbines (in rows across the line of sight of a residence), or a line of turbines in line with a residence.  No regard is paid to the greater ease with which low-frequency noise and infrasound can penetrate the fabric of a building, and resonate within a building; and no measurements for noise levels inside a residence are required.The above deficiencies in the guidelines will guarantee that the predictions of noise levels and of the noise character of a wind farm will be inaccurate for the noise impact outside a residence. There will be no prediction for noise impact inside a residence. There will only be a false assumption that if noise levels are compliant outside a residence, there will be no problems inside a residence. This assumption is false.45 The official noise limits under the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) are inadequate for the following reasons:  The use of the units dB(A) filters out much of the mid-frequency sound, and most of the low-frequency sound and infrasound (ILFN). Consequently, the noise limit is irrelevant to most of the wind turbine sound energy impacting on a residence.  The formula ‘35 dB(A) or background noise + 5 dB(A), whichever is greater’ will allow a wind farm to emit offensive noise, given that in rural areas at night background noise can fall to 18-25 dB(A).  There is no official limit relating to amplitude modulation.  There are no official noise limits for noise impacts inside a residence.The procedures for compliance monitoring under the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) are inadequate for the following reasons:  Measurement only in dB(A) (see above).  ‘35 dB(A) or background noise + 5 dB(A), whichever is greater’ (see above).  No measurement for amplitude modulation.  No separate measurements for daytime and night-time noise.  No measurements for inside a residence.  Use of regression line analysis (see above).  The official noise limit uses the descriptor LAeq, but the compliance monitoring procedure uses the descriptor LA90. This is insane. LA90 is necessarily lower than LAeq.The above deficiencies in the procedures for compliance monitoring will guarantee that the compliance monitoring will not accurately measure the actual noise impacts on a residence, and will leave the residence unprotected from offensive noise, and associated adverse health effects, including, but not limited to sleep disturbance, and stress. (For the issue of health, see later.)The Department’s new noise conditionsDespite the fact that the MPA finds that the modified turbine layout should comply with the existing noise limits, as set out in the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003), the MPA recommends the imposition of further noise conditions (pp. 35-36). These concern tonality and low frequency noise, and are taken from the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines.If the existing noise limits are satisfactory, why do new noise conditions need to be imposed? If new noise conditions need to be imposed, then this surely proves that the existing noise limits cannot be satisfactory. But, if so, why does the Department not admit this?The truth is that the existing noise limits are very unsatisfactory (as indicated above), and the Department of Planning does not have the honesty to admit this.Will the new noise conditions recommended in the MPA make the regulation of wind turbine noise in NSW satisfactory? The answer to that question is, no.46 I have criticised the section on noise in the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines in PMLG’s submission on NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines. This submission was made to the Department of Planning, and is dated March 2012. It is available from the Department of Planning. I ask the PAC to read that criticism before making any determination with respect to noise.Here I can only summarise.TonalityThe recommendation concerning tonality merely revises the existing condition concerning tonality, by reference to ISO 1996.2: 2007, and continues the penalty of 5 dB(A) for excess. In addition, the proponent is allowed to test for tonality at an intermediate location. Testing at intermediate locations is undesirable, as the sound phenomena at a residence are conditioned by the precise topographical and climatic circumstances of the residence, by the extent to which the fabric of a building allows the penetration of sound of different frequencies, and by the extent to which the interior of the building causes the sound to resonate. Interior measurements should be mandatory (with the consent of the owner).Low frequency noiseThe recommendation concerning low frequency noise is also unsatisfactory. Excessive low frequency noise is taken to be repeatedly greater than 65 dB(C) during daytime, or than 60 dB(C) at night. Excessive LFN is to warrant a 5 dB(A) penalty, unless “a detailed internal low frequency noise assessment demonstrates compliance to the Proposed criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise disturbance (UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2005)) for a steady state noise source.” (Modification of Minister’s Approval, 2.20A) Condition 2.20A does not state whether the dB(C) measurements are to be taken at the residence, or if measurements may be taken at an intermediate location, and extrapolation used. However, the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines state explicitly that measurements at intermediate locations may be used, and extrapolated to the receiver using “relevant geometric spreading techniques (p. 34)”. Measurement at an intermediate location and extrapolation are especially unacceptable in the case of low frequency noise, for two reasons. In the first place, “geometric spreading” implies spherical propagation of the sound, at a rate of attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance. But, LFN is more likely to have a rate of attenuation of only 3 dB per doubling of distance. Therefore, the method of extrapolation set out in the NSW draft Guidelines is likely to underestimate the magnitude of the LFN at the residence significantly.47 Secondly, the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines take no account of the fact that LFN more easily penetrates the fabric of a building, and that the dimensions of the building can cause the sound to resonate inside the building, so that the level of sound is in fact higher inside the building than outside. For both these reasons, the measurement of LFN must take place inside the residence (with the owner’s consent).The initial thresholds of 65 dB(C) for the day, and 60 dB(C) for the night are unacceptably high. It is commonly accepted that if there is a difference of 15 dB between the dB(A) measurement of a sound and the dB(C) measurement, then there is likely to be a problem for recipients from audible LFN. Some authorities suggest that the difference to which attention should be paid is 20 dB. Whether we take a difference of 15 dB or of 20 dB, the proposed dB(C) noise thresholds are far too high.If 35 dB(A) is assumed (probably wrongly) to be an acceptable dB(A) noise limit, then a difference of 15 dB gives a dB(C) limit of 50 dB(C). If that is taken as the limit for the daytime, then at night, when background noise can be very low, the limit should be 45 dB(C).Even if we use the greater difference of 20 dB, the thresholds will be 55 dB(C) for the day, and 50 dB(C) for the night. Obviously, 65 dB(C) and 60 dB(C) are far too high.There are also problems with using the DEFRA LFN limits. As I wrote in PMLG’s submission on the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines:The [NSW] draft Guidelines propose a 5 dB penalty for exceedances, but this is not the approach of the DEFRA document. The latter proposes a reference curve that correlates low frequency ranges (10 Hz to 160 Hz) with dB Leq values, and regards the 5 dB penalty as already incorporated in the reference curve. What the DEFRA document is concerned with is the relaxation of the penalty for steady sounds (Moorhouse et al., 2005, pp. 61-63). With regard to exceedances of the values in the reference curve, all that the document suggests is that the exceedances “may indicate a source of LFN [low frequency noise] that could cause disturbance.” (Moorhouse et al., 2005, p. 64) There is therefore no correspondence between the approach of the draft Guidelines and that of the DEFRA document. (PMLG, 2012, p. 45)In the circumstances, it would perhaps be more advisable to use the Danish system for LFN limits. The Danish EPA’s LFN limit is for indoors, and is 20 dB(A) for frequencies between 10 Hz and 160 Hz. The Danish acoustician Professor Henrik Møller points out that at low frequencies a much smaller increase in sound level is needed to produce any given increase in loudness, and that therefore it is essential that the indoors level of 20 dB(A) for LFN be regarded as a maximum, and not as an average (Møller et al, 2012).48 Amplitude modulationIn the MPA’s recommendations for new noise conditions it is striking that there is no reference to any new limit for amplitude modulation. This is especially remarkable, as there is a noise limit for amplitude modulation in the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines.There can be no doubt that amplitude modulation is a characteristic feature of wind turbine sound. Although there is still some academic and professional discussion as to why amplitude modulation occurs, there is no doubt that it does occur. This has been confirmed by much independent acoustic research during the last decade. Moreover, the neighbours of wind farms around the world have been describing it for years, and now it is already obvious to the neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.The combination of changes of loudness and the endless repetition of these changes makes wind turbine noise especially annoying. This is generally accepted. Even the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines accept that amplitude modulation - or, as it says, excessive amplitude modulation - is a specially annoying characteristic, and that the guidelines should take account of this.The NSW draft Guidelines propose a 5 dB(A) penalty for an excessive modulation of more than 4 dB(A). This should probably be rewritten as 4 dB or greater, as a change of 3 dB is generally recognized as the maximum change that is inaudible for a typical listener.Unfortunately, the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines propose that amplitude modulation may be measured at an intermediate location rather than at a residence. For reasons given above, this is unacceptable. Testing must take place at the residence (with the owner’s consent). The fact that the MPA has omitted any recommendation for a noise limit on amplitude modulation must be regarded as suspicious. It suggests that the Department is biased in favour of the Proponent, and is willing to sacrifice the interests of neighbours. This is shameful. The PAC must rectify this situation by including in its determinations a noise limit for excessive amplitude modulation such that amplitude modulation of 4 dB(A) or greater warrants a 5 dB(A) penalty.InfrasoundThe MPA makes no provision for the measurement of wind turbine infrasound. No new conditions for the measurement of infrasound are recommended in the MPA. The NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines ignore the matter of wind turbine infrasound. The Department still accepts the false position on infrasound of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003). The South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) suggest that infrasound is not present at 49 any modern wind farm. This view is ludicrously false, and has been proved so by all the independent acoustic research on wind turbine sound from around the world. I have written at length on wind turbine infrasound in PMLG’s submission on the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines, and in other communications made to the Department of Planning. You can consult those submissions. You can also read the article by Richard James (2012), referred to above.A recent publication that you must read is by the American medical researcher Professor Alec Salt, a specialist in the study of the inner ear. The article is:  Alec N. Salt and Jeffrey T. Lichtenhan, How Does Wind Turbine Noise Affect People? Acoustics Today, 10(1), Winter, 2014, pp. 20-28. I attach a copy of this article for your convenience.Salt and Lichtenhan refute the widely held but false assumption that inaudible infrasound cannot affect human beings physiologically, and describe 5 ways in which wind turbine infrasound could affect people so as to produce the adverse health effects of which many wind farm neighbours around the world complain. I will discuss the issue of infrasound and adverse health effects in another section. Here I will only state that the NSW Department of Planning’s refusal to consider wind turbine infrasound ignores acoustic research from as long ago as the 1980s (NASA, SERI). It also ignores all the independent acoustic research since 2000. It also ignores all the work of Salt and his colleagues, which has been coming out in peer-reviewed locations since 2010.The refusal of the Department of Planning to consider wind turbine infrasound is reprehensible, and a dereliction of duty.Cooper’s research for Pacific Hydro at Cape BridgewaterThe Australian noise consultant Steven Cooper (of the Acoustic Group Pty Ltd) has recently been conducting acoustic research for Pacific Hydro at its Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm in Victoria. Cooper’s preliminary results have been posted on Pacific Hydro’s website.Cooper has found there to be a correlation between neighbours’ complaints and low frequency noise levels inside residences. Some of Cooper’s findings are as follows:  The use of dB(A) noise levels external to a dwelling have no correlation with internal noise levels or impacts that residents identified as occurring as a result of the wind farm.  There is a correlation between the power level of the wind farm versus the dB(A)LF [low frequency] level determined inside residential dwellings.  Where the dB(A)LF exceeds 20 dB there is a corresponding identification of noise in the [residents’] diary observations.  Where the internal measurements reveal the dB(A) L95 is above 20 dB(A) together 50 with the dB(A)LF above 20 and the same time dB(C) above 50 dB and the 4 Hz 1/3 octave band above 50 dB then there is a higher degree of noise and sensation which would be deemed by the residents as unacceptable.It should be noted that the last bullet point above implicates infrasound in the neighbours’ complaints, as 4 Hz is in the infrasonic range.More of Cooper’s findings are as follows:  The presence of the wind turbine signature, which is related to the blade pass frequency and multiple harmonics of that frequency, is readily identified inside dwellings and at times outside dwellings.  The use of 1/3 octave band information to compare infrasound generated by turbines and the infrasound in the natural environment does not contain the required information to identify any difference. When supplemented by narrow band analysis of the infrasound region the results clearly show that the natural environment of infrasound has no such periodic patterns.These two bullet points show that wind turbine infrasound can be distinguished from natural infrasound insofar as wind turbine infrasound is modulated, whereas natural infrasound is not. Also, modulated wind turbine infrasound is detectable inside residences.The significance of these findings on infrasound and very low frequency sound as amplitude modulated is that it would appear that it is the sensations induced by modulated ILFN that are the major source of neighbours’ complaints. Cooper states that the analysis of vibration measurements around and inside houses is still to be undertaken, but that:  The residents’ observations and identification of sensation separately to vibration and noise indicates that the major source of complaint for the operation of the turbines would appear to be related to sensation rather than noise.It must be concluded that Cooper’s preliminary findings provide support for the concept of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’, as the result of modulated wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN). (cf. Pierpont, 2009)Cooper is still analysing his data, and a further report is expected by the end of September.Waterloo noise monitoring by Hansen and colleaguesProfessor Colin Hansen of the School of Mechanical Engineering in the University of Adelaide has now reported on his monitoring of noise impacts at the Waterloo Wind Farm in South Australia. His report has been posted on the website of the Waubra Foundation (http://www.waubrafoundation.org.au/resources /hansen-zajamsek-hansen-noise-monitoring-waterloo-wind-farm/).51 The work of Professor Hansen and his colleagues confirms the deficiencies of the South Australian Noise Guidelines. It also confirms the occurrence of disturbing low frequency noise in the residences of neighbours of the Waterloo Wind Farm, and the correlation between that LFN and neighbours’ complaints. In relation to compliance monitoring, Professor Hansen writes:The SA EPA guidelines also specify use of the LA90 metric, which is the A-weighted noise level that is exceeded 90% of the time. It should be noted that wind farm noise can be significantly underestimated using LA90 levels due to the unsteady nature of the noise. (Section 3 Guidelines [unpaginated])In relation to the use of regression line analysis, Professor Hansen writes:It is worth noting that wind farm compliance according to the SA EPA guidelines is based on a regression line fitted to 2000 or more data points plotted on a graph of noise level (dBA) (y-axis) vs hub height wind speed (x-axis). Each data point is a 10- minute average, which means that the influence on people of a noise source that is highly variable in nature will be underestimated. In addition, many 10-minute average data points are above the acceptable 35 or 40 dB(A) requirement and as compliance is based on the regression line only, these times of relatively high noise level are ignored. In other words, compliance with the EPA guidelines does not mean that noise levels will never exceed the recommended limits - in fact, they can exceed the recommended limits many times as can be seen by the graphs shown in this report. Furthermore, the 10-minute average values are lower than the peak values, which means that the wind farm could generate high levels of intermittent noise and still be compliant. (Section 3 Guidelines)In relation to the character of wind turbine noise, Professor Hansen writes:It is also important to recognise that thresholds of audibility are not dependent on the 10-minute average of the root mean square (rms) value of the noise signal alone. This type of analysis ignores any difference in character between the measured noise and the noise used in the laboratory to determine threshold levels. The main differences in character that are important include the presence of multiple harmonics of the blade passage frequency and the crest factor of the noise. The crest factor is the ratio of the peak noise level to the average (or rms) noise level. The measured average noise levels for wind farm noise have been shown to contain peaks that are up to 20 dB above the reported average level. Even for “compliant” wind farms, such peaks are well above the levels required to disturb sleep (according the [sic] 2009 WHO document, “Night Noise Guidelines for Europe”). It is also worth noting that traffic noise, on which the WHO document on night noise levels is based, is not characterised by such high crest factors and thus has less potential for disturbing sleep. (Section 3 Guidelines)Among Professor Hansen’s conclusions from the study are the following:52  There is a good correlation between low frequency noise events and complaints registered in noise diaries.  At many of the residences, there were many occasions during the hours of 12 am [i.e midnight] and 5 am where the outdoor noise level exceeded the SA EPA (EPA, 2009) criteria of 40 dB(A).  The indoor limit for wind turbine hosts of 30 dB(A) recommended by the SA EPA (EPA, 2009) was exceeded on many occasions between 12 am [i.e. midnight] and 5 am. This is also the no observed health effect limit for outdoor noise according to the WHO (2009).  The range in the overall A-weighted levels was noticeably large indoors and could be as low as 5 dB(A) and as high as 38 dB(A). The lower value highlights that the night- time noise levels in this rural environment are sometimes so low that even low levels of wind turbine noise would be noticeable. It is plausible that the upper value is related to the presence of wind turbine noise.  It has been shown that there can be a large variation in the results obtained by considering the LAeq as opposed to the LA90 , between the hours of 12 am [i.e. midnight] and 5 am.  Since the number of extraneous noise sources is expected to be low during these night-time hours and wind turbine noise can be highly variable with time, it does not seem justified to only consider noise levels which were exceeded 90% of the time [i.e. LA90].  The LCeq-LAeq criteria [i.e. 20 dB] was often exceeded and there was a large scatter in the data. (Section 8 Conclusions)Professor Hansen sums up:Therefore, the results show that there is a low frequency noise problem associated with the Waterloo wind farm. Therefore, it is extremely important that further investigation is carried out at this wind farm in order to determine the source of the low frequency noise and to develop mitigation technologies. In addition, further research is necessary to establish the long-term effects of low frequency noise and infrasound on the residents at Waterloo. This research should include health monitoring and sleep studies with simultaneous noise and vibration measurements. (Section 8 Conclusions)The significance of Professor Hansen’s research at Waterloo is two fold. In the first place, his work confirms the deficiencies of the South Australian Noise Guidelines. While it is true that the Waterloo Wind Farm has been assessed and approved under the 2009 version of these guidelines, whereas the Gullen Range Wind Farm has been assessed under the 2003 version of these guidelines, the two versions of the guidelines are in almost every respect identical. The major difference is that the 2009 version stipulates a noise limit of 40 dB(A) for “rural industrial” zones, and reserves the 35 dB(A) limit for “rural living” zones. But, in respect of all the deficiencies of the 2003 version, which I have outlined above, all those deficiencies are also present in the 2009 version. Hence, Professor Hansen’s findings in relation to those deficiencies also apply to the Gullen Range Wind 53 Farm. To be explicit, the Gullen Range Wind Farm has been assessed and approved under a set of noise guidelines that cannot measure wind turbine noise impacts accurately, and that consequently cannot protect neighbours from adverse noise impacts. I and others have been putting this argument to the NSW Department of Planning for years now, and the Department has ignored the argument, and the analysis on which that argument is based. Professor Hansen’s research now confirms the theoretical analysis with a field study, the case of a real wind farm which has been approved, and judged compliant, but which his study has found to be producing noise emissions above the official limits, and of such a character as to disturb sleep. What has happened at Waterloo will turn out to be the case at Gullen Range. It has almost certainly happened already at Capital and Cullerin. It will happen also at Flyers Creek, Collector, Taralga, Rye Park, Jupiter and all the other wind farms that the Department of Planning and the PAC have approved or will approve, using the South Australian Noise Guidelines.Secondly, Professor Hansen’s study shows specifically that a wind farm can be assessed and approved, and judged compliant under the South Australian Noise Guidelines, and yet produce low frequency noise emissions that can be correlated with the complaints of neighbours described in noise/health diaries. Once again, it is only rational to expect that a similar situation will occur in the case of the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The low frequency noise limits now recommended by the Department will not protect neighbours, as I have argued above.The PAC should take note of both Steven Cooper’s work at Cape Bridgewater, and Professor Hansen’s work at Waterloo, and recognise that the noise approval for the Gullen Range Wind Farm, being determined under the South Australian Noise Guidelines, must be considered worthless. The PAC must recognize that to determine the current Modification Application according to the South Australian Noise Guidelines would be to guarantee adverse noise impacts, and probably sleep disturbance for many neighbours of the wind farm. This would be remiss and reprehensible. B29: background noise levelsThe owner of B29 has pointed out that the background noise levels measured for his residence are artificially high because of the presence of frogs in the dam beside the residence. This claim is undoubtedly correct. This has been confirmed by the noise consultant Steven Cooper.In the MPA the Department rejects this claim (p. 36). But the Department is wrong. According to the original noise assessment (p. 26), the background noise monitoring was carried out at B29 in 2007 between 9 and 23 August, which is undoubtedly the season for frog noise.The artificially high background noise levels are used to calculate noise limits at the various integer wind speeds, with the result that for most of the integer wind speeds the noise limits are now too high.54 Not only are the noise limits for B29 too high. The levels at B29 have been taken as representative for other non-associated residences in the vicinity. This means that the noise limits will be too high at these other non-associated residences as well. According to the original noise assessment from 2008, B29 is taken to be representative of the following cluster of residences: B28, B55-59, B68, and B117 (Table 4, p. 15). Of these B28 and B55 are non-associated residences within 2 kilometres of turbines.If this inaccurate background noise monitoring has occurred at B29, at how many other residences, chosen for noise logging, has it occurred? The PAC should not accept the Proponent’s figures for background noise levels or the noise limits based on them.Discussion and conclusionsNeighbours’ reportsIn PMLG’s submission (May 2014) on the modification application I described how 6 households had already stated that they were experiencing disturbing noise impacts from the Gullen Range Wind Farm. The households were K2, PW34, B29, K14, B12 and B7/B17. I will not repeat what I wrote. You can consult the submission. In some cases there was disturbing noise only outside the residence; in other cases there was disturbing noise indoors as well. Noise was audible both during the day and at night. In some cases sleep had already been disturbed.I can now add the reports of 2 more households. The owner of G33 has reported to me that there is audible turbine noise at his residence, both outdoors and indoors, both during the day and at night. The second report is my own. In the case of G44, my weekender, turbine noise is clearly audible on the verandah of the weekender, regardless of the direction in which the wind is blowing. This makes sitting on the verandah unattractive, and thus renders the verandah useless for its purpose.I can also describe what has occurred at my residence, G43. In general turbine noise is clearly audible outside the back door (which we use for our main entrance). The amplitude modulation - swish, swish, swish - is very audible. There is also a corner of the back verandah where the turbine sound resonates, and is heard as a booming. When this occurs, inside the house there is just perceptible a thumping - half heard, half felt. This thumping, when it occurs, can be perceived in the living room, in all three bedrooms and in the bathroom. This thumping is obviously infrasound and very low frequency noise (ILFN). As human beings tend to become more sensitive to ILFN over time, it seems reasonable to suppose that this may be a serious problem in the future, especially when all the Gurrundah turbines have been built, and they all operate together. My wife has already christened the nearest Gurrundah turbines the ‘Thumpers’. You may surmise why.55 Needless to say, turbine noise is clearly audible, with amplitude modulation, in the paddocks surrounding the house.What is the PAC to do?There is reason to believe that the background noise levels at some residences are inaccurate, and that the noise limits based on these background noise levels are inappropriate.There is ample evidence, both theoretical and empirical, that the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) do not provide adequate procedures for the measurement or prediction of wind turbine noise, and therefore are incapable of protecting neighbours from adverse noise impacts. The theoretical arguments to this end of Thorne, Cooper, Hansen, Dickinson and others are now supported by the field studies of Cooper at Cape Bridgewater and of Hansen at Waterloo.There is also ample evidence that the new noise limits and assessment procedures contained in the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines are inadequate, and incapable of rectifying the defects of the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003).Therefore, the one thing that the PAC should not do is to determine this modification application on the basis of the existing noise assessments by the Proponent and by the Department. To do so would be to give validity to assessments that must be inaccurate, unreliable and unsafe, and that will leave neighbours unprotected from adverse noise impacts.This being so, the PAC should suspend the determination of this modification application, and recommend that there be an independent public review of the principles for the noise assessment of wind farms in NSW. Unless and until this is done, there will be no protection for neighbours from adverse noise impacts from wind farms. If the PAC declines to do the above, the PAC could order that a new noise assessment take place for the Gullen Range Wind Farm. This would be a new assessment based on new principles, and designed to avoid the inevitable errors that must happen if the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003) or the NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines are used. However, such a new assessment would mean radical change, and extensive monitoring operations. Moreover, it would be pointless, unless the procedures for compliance monitoring were also changed. All this being so, it would surely be more reasonable for the PAC to recognise the extreme inadequacy of arrangements for the noise assessment of wind farms in NSW, and recommend an independent public review, as I suggested above.If the PAC baulks at this, the PAC has no choice but to impose on the project new noise 56 conditions, incorporating the following principles: Measurements in dB(A), dB(C), dB(G) and dB(Lin) for actual wind turbine noise.  The use of Lmax, or at least L10, instead of Leq and L90, for actual wind turbine noise..  The use of much shorter measuring intervals than 10 minutes.  Field studies to measure the actual rates of propagation and attenuation in the vicinity of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, in worst-case scenarios.  Field studies on existing Gullen Range wind turbines to measure the actual range of amplitude modulation, in worst-case scenarios.  A penalty of 5 dB for excessive amplitude modulation, defined as 4 dB(A) or greater.  A penalty of 5 dB for tonality.  Separate measurements for daytime (7 am - 6 pm), evening (6 pm - 10 pm), and night-time (10 pm - 7 am).  A new assessment of background noise levels, with attended monitoring to ensure the exclusion of extraneous noise. The PAC must order all turbines to be turned off for a month to facilitate this.  Background noise monitoring to involve the measurement of wind strength and direction.  An outdoor dB(A) noise limit of 35 dB(A) (Lmax), or background noise (L90) + 5 dB(A), whichever is lower.  An outdoor dB(C) noise limit of 55 dB(C) (Lmax) (day); and 50 dB(C) (Lmax) (night).  An indoor dB(A) noise limit, not to be exceeded, of 20 dB(A) for all frequencies between 10 Hz and 160 Hz.  A penalty of 5 dB for excessive low frequency noise.  An indoor dB(G) noise limit of 60 dB(G), to take account of Salt’s work on infrasound.  A penalty of 5 dB(A) for excessive infrasound, by the above criterion.  All penalties to be added.  The requirement that a new noise limit for infrasound be imposed in dB(Lin) when research on wind turbine infrasound has established what that should be.  A requirement that all noise conditions may be revised or supplemented in the light of future acoustic and medical research.  Outdoor noise measurements to be taken at the residence; indoor noise measurements to be taken inside the residence. No measurements to be taken at intermediate locations.  All monitoring of turbine noise to be correlated with wind direction, wind strength, and power output.  Monitoring to be conducted by independent acousticians nominated by neighbours, and appointed by the NSW EPA. The cost of monitoring to be charged to the Proponent.  The results of monitoring and assessments to be publicly available. If the PAC is reluctant to impose such a list of new noise conditions on the project, and insists on determining the application on the basis of existing noise assessments, the PAC will be condemning the neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm to the risk and likelihood of adverse noise impacts. It will be doing so in the awareness of the inadequacy of all existing noise assessments, and will be exposing itself to the risk of 57 future litigation.It would be simpler to suspend determination of the application, and to recommend an independent public review of the principles for the noise assessment of wind turbines in NSW.Other issuesShadow flicker58 In relation to B12 the authors of the MPA show themselves to be culpably ignorant, or culpably irresponsible. The owner of B12 has rightly noted that portions of the property will be affected by shadow flicker, and that this constitutes a danger to health during the use of farm machinery. This is a legitimate and well-founded concern.In response, the MPA suggests that shadow flicker is merely an amenity issue, and by implication not a health issue (p. 24). This is simply wrong. That shadow flicker is a health issue is well established in medical literature, and as such is acknowledged in the original Environmental Assessment (2008) (pp. 199-201). In the EA the discussion of shadow flicker occurs in section 8.6 ‘Health and safety’.It is astonishing that the MPA could make such a preposterous claim as that shadow flicker is only an amenity issue.The point is that both the Proponent and the Department only consider shadow flicker in relation to its impact on residences. The owner of B12 is pointing out, correctly, that shadow flicker must be an issue in the paddocks of a property where farm machinery is being used. Whether the shadow flicker causes a sudden bout of epilepsy or a sudden bout of nausea, or some other disabling symptom, the shadow flicker could cause temporary loss of control. The dangers to the use of farm machinery are obvious, and ought not need to be stated.HealthIn the MPA (p. 42) the Department takes cover behind the literature reviews of the NHMRC. The NHMRC’s position is summarised by the Proponent as showing that “there appears not to be a strong link between the operation of wind farms and human health effects but there is an association between wind farm noise and factors such as annoyance, sleep disturbance, poorer sleep quality and quality of life.”The MPA endorses the NHMRC’s position as summarised by the Proponent (p. 42).Setting aside the fact that the NHMRC reviews ignored the research of NASA and SERI in the 1980s and 1990s, which established the link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects; and setting aside the fact that the NHMRC’s reviews ignored the work of Professor Alec Salt and his colleagues on the physiological mechanisms by which, according to existing medical literature, wind turbine infrasound could affect the human nervous system in deleterious ways: it is a fact that noise annoyance, sleep disturbance, poorer sleep quality and quality of life are all regarded as health issues by the WHO, and the general medical community. Once again, the Department is showing itself to be either culpably ignorant, or culpably irresponsible. Will the PAC share in the Department’s guilt?I attached one of Professor Salt’s recent publications to PMLG’s submission on the 59 Modification Application. The PAC can consult this.Here I will merely add that the recent study of the noise impacts of the Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm by Steven Cooper, and the recent study of the Waterloo Wind Farm by Professor Colin Hansen have both provided evidential support for the concept of ‘wind turbine syndrome’. That is, Cooper and Hansen have both found that the low frequency noise emissions of wind farms correlate with the health complaints of neighbours, as recorded in noise/health diaries. (See my section on ‘Noise’ above.)The PAC should note that Mr Cooper is still analysing his data concerning vibration.The PAC should also note that the Health Canada study of wind turbine noise and health effects is due to release preliminary results some time in 2014, and a full report in a peer- reviewed journal in 2015 (for details, see Health Canada’s website).The PAC should also note that the Australian Federal Government is in the process of commissioning its own study of wind turbine noise and health effects. This was a commitment at the last federal election, and the Government has announced that this study will be carried out.Therefore, in the circumstances it would be wise for the PAC to suspend determination of this modification application until (i) Mr Cooper’s report is complete; (ii) the Health Canada results are available, at least in preliminary form; (iii) the Australian study has been carried out, and has reported.I submit that, given that these studies are in progress, or are to be established, but are not yet complete, it would be culpably irresponsible of the PAC to determine any wind farm proposal in NSW, including this Gullen Range application, before these studies are complete, and their results in the public domain.If, notwithstanding, the PAC does determine this Gullen Range application, will not the PAC be liable in law for any adverse health effects suffered by neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm?Property valueI discussed the probable impact of the Gullen Range Wind Farm on the value of property 60 in its vicinity in PMLG’s submission on the Modification Application. I referred to the two characteristic defects of routine studies of impact on property values, namely ‘swamping’ and the ignoring of the issue of properties becoming unsaleable. The PAC can consult this submission.I will only add here that if the Proponent genuinely believes that the wind farm will not reduce the value of properties in its vicinity, then the Proponent can have no objection to providing a Property Value Guarantee, i.e. a promise that, if any property can be proved to have decreased in value as a result of the presence of the wind farm, the Proponent will compensate the owner of the property financially in the amount of the reduction.The PAC should order that the Proponent provide such a Property Value Guarantee to the owners of all non-associated properties within, let us say, 3 kilometres of the turbines of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.Note on PW34The MPA recommends acquisition rights for PW34. This is not sufficient to deal with the problems associated with PW34. The case of PW34 needs to be investigated by an independent public inquiry, and the case of PW34 is one of the reasons why an independent public inquiry is necessary.I have the permission of the former owner of PW34 to relate how he was, in effect, forced off his property.Before the Pomeroy turbines were erected, the owner of PW34 received a letter, dated 13 March 2012, from Ben Bateman, then Project Manager for the Gullen Range Wind Farm. Mr Bateman invited the owner of PW34 to enter into an agreement with GRWF for the noise limit at PW34 to be raised from 35 dB(A) to 45 dB(A). The ground for this would be that GRWF wanted to use 48 metre blades on the Pomeroy turbines in the vicinity of PW34, rather than 43 metre blades. The owner of PW34 declined to enter into such an agreement.Nonetheless, when the Pomeroy turbines near PW34 were erected, they were given 48 metre blades, the longer blades expected to produce noise emissions that would exceed the 35 dB(A) noise limit.When these Pomeroy turbines began to operate, the owner of PW34 experienced offensive and intrusive noise, both outdoors and indoors, both during the day and at night. Some sleep disturbance was experienced.Notwithstanding that the longer and noisier blades have been used on the relevant Pomeroy turbines, the Proponent’s noise consultant has found in the revised noise assessment (September 2013) that the wind farm will comply with the noise limits at PW34. And in the noise review for the Modification Application (March 2014) the same consultant states that at all relevant integer wind speeds the wind farm’s turbines in their 61 new locations will have an increase of impact of only 0.1 dB.Nonetheless, the owner of PW34 found the noise impact to be in reality so intolerable that this was a major reason - along with the unscreenable visual impact - for him to put PW34 on the market, and to accept an offer for it.The owner of PW34 has been, effectively, forced off his property, a property on which he has spent fourteen years of his own labour, and in which he had made a considerable emotional investment.Goldwind has already announced that the new owner of PW34 will enter into an agreement for PW34 to become an associated property.In the circumstances, it has to be asked whether the new owner of PW34 has any connection with Goldwind, or was buying PW34, in any sense, on behalf of Goldwind, or to promote Goldwind’s interests.The actual noise impact at PW34 needs to be measured, to see if it complies with the existing noise limits. But, what is also necessary is that those noise limits themselves should be examined to see if the background noise levels on which they are based have been truly derived.These are all questions that need to be investigated by an independent inquiry.[N.B. See next section on turbine spacing for the relevance of the inadequate distances by which the Pomeroy turbines close to PW34 have been separated from one another.]Turbine spacingThere is reason to believe that the distances between turbines of the Gullen Range Wind 62 Farm are too small to protect neighbours from adverse noise impacts.According to the NSW Wind Energy Handbook (2002), published by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority of NSW (SEDA), turbines need to be separated by a distance of 5 times the rotor diameter, when abreast of each other, and 8 times the rotor diameter, when one is downwind of the other (p. 53).The Gullen Range Wind Farm uses two models of Goldwind turbine. 56 of the 73 turbines are of type GW100, and the other 17 turbines are of type GW82. (GRWF Mod 1, EA, Table 2-2, pp. 43-44)The GW100 turbine has a rotor diameter of 100 metres. The GW82 has a rotor diameter of 82.3 metres. (GRWF Mod 1, EA, Table 2-1, p. 42)In the case of the GW100: - 5 times the rotor diameter = 500 metres - 8 times the rotor diameter = 800 metresIn the case of the GW82: - 5 times the rotor diameter = 411.5 metres - 8 times the rotor diameter = 658.4 metresThe attached photomontages Gullen Range Northern Section Interturbine Spacing - Google Image, and Gullen Range Southern Section Interturbine Spacing V4 Google Image 24/10/2013 show the calculated distances between the Gullen Range turbines.The photomontages show that the majority of the calculated distances between turbines are very much smaller than the desirable distances given above. 63 distances have been calculated. All but 1 are less than 800 metres. 53 are less than 500 metres. 40 are less than 400 metres. 20 are less than 300 metres. It is obvious that no regard has been paid to the accepted convention of turbine spacing.The significance of this concerns both audible noise and inaudible infrasound, and probably vibration.If turbines are too close together, the sound waves emanating from the turbines can interfere with each other, causing turbulence. Turbulence will increase both the emission of audible noise, and the emission of infrasound. Infrasound resonating inside a building may cause vibration.The fact that most of the Gullen Range turbines are too close together perhaps explains why neighbours of the Gullen Range Wind Farm are already making complaints about an offensive and intrusive noise impact.Needless to say, there is nothing about turbine spacing in the South Australian Noise Guidelines (2003). Nor is there anything about turbine spacing in the NSW draft Wind 63 Farm Guidelines.Even if all the turbines that have been moved from their authorised locations were to be returned to their authorised locations, most of the turbines would undoubtedly still be too close to one another, by the 5x/8x rule. This is yet another reason for the PAC to suspend determination of this modification application, and to recommend an independent public inquiry. The inquiry must investigate this issue of turbine spacing. The NSW draft Wind Farm Guidelines must be rewritten to take account of this issue.If the PAC declines to suspend determination of this modification application, the PAC must order that attended noise monitoring for 1 month in winter take place at every non- associated residence within 2 kilometres of turbines. This monitoring must be in dB(Lin). From dB(Lin) it will be possible to calculate dB(A), dB(C) and dB(G). The noise monitoring must be correlated with the power output of the turbines, and with both the wind speed and direction at the turbines, and the wind speed and direction at each residence. The results of this monitoring must be made public.I will now tabulate the Gullen Range turbines and their separation distances. It should be noted that only 17 of the turbines are of type GW82 (1.5 MW) with a rotor diameter of 82.3 metres. All the others are of type GW100 (2.5 MW) with a rotor diameter of 100 metres. The GW82 turbines are: BAN_19, BAN_20, BAN_21, BAN_22, BAN_23, BAN_24, BAN_29, BAN_30, POM_08, POM_09, POM_10, POM_11, POM_14, GUR_03, GUR_04, GUR_05, GUR_07. With regard to accuracy, the colleague who made these calculations writes: “To get the distances I zoomed in on the WF Google Earth and put a marker at each turbine base or where the turbine foundation had obviously been prepared. Then I used the Google Earth line measuring facility to measure the distance in metres between each turbine marker. I have been told by the SA EPA Planning people that this method is quite accurate within about 5 metres which is good enough for them . . . .” It should also be noted that the figures for the Gurrundah section of the turbines are incomplete. Because not all the Gurrundah turbines have been erected, it is difficult to be sure of some of the locations.Table of Gullen Range turbine separation distancesNorthern sectionTurbines Separation distance (metres)64 KIA_01 and KIA_02 265BAN_01 and BAN_02 286 BAN_02 and BAN_03 294 BAN_03 and BAN_04 264BAN_05 and BAN_06 267 BAN_06 and BAN_07 356 BAN_07 and BAN_08 327BAN_08 and BAN-11 923BAN_11 and BAN_12 353 BAN_11 and BAN_09 515 BAN_12 and BAN_10 312 BAN_09 and BAN_10 377BAN_11 and BAN_14 617 BAN_14 and BAN_13 251BAN_13 and BAN_15 603BAN_15 and BAN_16 564 BAN_16 and BAN_17 281 BAN_17 and BAN_19 251 BAN_19 and BAN_18 468 BAN_19 and BAN_20 392BAN_20 and BAN_21 602BAN_21 and BAN_22 261 BAN_22 and BAN_25 339 BAN_25 and BAN_26 271 BAN_26 and BAN_27 250 BAN_27 and BAN_28 299 BAN_28 and BAN_30 266 BAN_29 and BAN_30 400BAN_22 and BAN_23 255 BAN_23 and BAN_24 386 BAN_23 and BAN_25 407Southern section65 POM_01 and POM_02 400 POM_02 and POM_03 313 POM_02 and POM_04 479 POM_03 and POM_04 407POM_04 and POM_05 394POM_05 and POM_06 733 POM_06 and POM_07 253POM_08 and POM_10 232 POM_09 and POM_10 409 POM_10 and POM_11 290 POM_09 and POM_14 383 POM_14 and POM_15 268 POM_15 and POM_13 356 POM_12 and POM_13 527POM_15 and POM_16 355 POM_16 and POM_17 412 POM_17 and POM_18 384 POM_18 and POM_20 495 POM_19 and POM_20 740POM_20 and POM_21 431 POM_21 and POM_22 478 POM_22 and POM_23 365GUR_01 and GUR_02 307 GUR_02 and GUR_03 321 GUR_03 and GUR_04 348 [GUR_02 and GUR_04?]GUR_04 and GUR_05 322 GUR_05 and GUR_06 292GUR_06 and GUR_08 580GUR_09 and GUR_10 475 GUR_10 and GUR_11 290No further figures for Gurrundah section. Note: I should like to thank Ms Mary Morris for making the calculations concerning the turbine spacings of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, and for producing the photomontages that show them. I should also like to thank Dr Sarah Laurie of the Waubra Foundation for drawing to my attention the issue of turbine spacing, and for referring me to the NSW Wind Energy Handbook.66 67

Parkesbourne/Mummel Landscape Guardians Inc

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support