berrybank wind energy facility panel report...broader community of renewable energy generation and...

BERRYBANK WIND ENERGY FACILITY GOLDEN PLAINS PLANNING SCHEME CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME

PANEL REPORT

MAY 2010

BERRYBANK WIND ENERGY FACILITY GOLDEN PLAINS PLANNING SCHEME CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME

PANEL REPORT

Nick Wimbush, Chair

Doug Munro, Member

Catherine Wilson, Member

12 MAY 2010

BERRYBANK WIND ENERGY FACILITY PANEL REPORT: MAY 2010

Contents

1. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 1

2. THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK......................................................................... 5 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Policy framework ...................................................................................................... 5

2.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) ...................................................... 5 2.2.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) ..................................................... 7 2.2.3 Zones ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2.4 Overlays .......................................................................................................... 9 2.2.5 Particular and general provisions .................................................................... 9

2.3 Panel assessment and recommendation in chief ................................................ 10 2.4 Recommended planning permit conditions ........................................................ 12

3. GREENHOUSE POLLUTION ABATEMENT.................................................. 13 3.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Discussion................................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 15

4. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS........................................................... 16 4.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 16 4.2 Landscape assessment ............................................................................................ 16

4.2.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................... 19

4.3 Visual impact ........................................................................................................... 20 4.3.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 20 4.3.2 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................... 25

5. NOISE IMPACTS................................................................................................... 26 5.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 26 5.2 Discussion................................................................................................................. 27

5.2.1 Noise from construction and maintenance .................................................... 27 5.2.2 Operational noise .......................................................................................... 28 5.2.3 Noise assessment........................................................................................... 29 5.2.4 Background noise.......................................................................................... 38 5.2.5 Turbine types................................................................................................. 39 5.2.6 Wind farm noise predictions ......................................................................... 40 5.2.7 Special audible characteristics ...................................................................... 43 5.2.8 Stakeholders dwellings.................................................................................. 45 5.2.9 Post construction compliance monitoring ..................................................... 46 5.2.10 Noise complaints ........................................................................................... 49 5.2.11 Cumulative impact ........................................................................................ 50 5.2.12 Submissions................................................................................................... 51

5.3 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 52

6. FLORA AND FAUNA ........................................................................................... 54 6.1 Planning and regulatory framework.................................................................... 54 6.2 Flora and fauna assessment ................................................................................... 55 6.3 Flora – Evidence and submissions ........................................................................ 56

6.3.1 Panel assessment - flora ................................................................................ 57 6.3.2 Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................ 58


6.3.3 Fauna - Evidence and submissions................................................................ 58 6.3.4 Panel assessment – fauna .............................................................................. 62 6.3.5 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................... 62 6.3.6 Brolga expert evidence and submissions ...................................................... 62 6.3.7 Panel assessment ........................................................................................... 66 6.3.8 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................... 67

7. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS............................................................. 69 7.1 Social impact ............................................................................................................ 69

7.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 69 7.2 Consultation............................................................................................................. 69

7.2.1 Submissions on consultation and community engagement ........................... 71 7.2.2 Panel assessment ........................................................................................... 71

7.3 Economic impact ..................................................................................................... 74 7.3.1 Local and regional economic impacts - evidence and submissions .............. 74 7.3.2 Panel assessment ........................................................................................... 76

7.4 Financial Impacts on individuals .......................................................................... 78 7.4.1 Aerial agriculture – evidence and submissions ............................................. 78 7.4.2 Aerial agriculture - panel assessment............................................................ 78 7.4.3 Property values – submissions ...................................................................... 79 7.4.4 Property values – panel assessment .............................................................. 80 7.4.5 Future development rights – submissions ..................................................... 80 7.4.6 Future development rights – Panel assessment ............................................. 81

7.5 Decommissioning.................................................................................................... 82

8. FIRE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ....................................................... 84 8.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 84 8.2 Discussion................................................................................................................. 85 8.3 Conclusion and recommendations ....................................................................... 88

9. TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS......................................................... 90 9.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 90 9.2 Discussion................................................................................................................. 91

9.2.1 Construction .................................................................................................. 93 9.2.2 Operation..................................................................................................... 106

9.3 Conclusions and recommendations.................................................................... 109

10. OTHER MATTERS.............................................................................................. 111 10.1 Aviation obstacle lighting .................................................................................... 111

10.1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 111 10.1.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 113 10.1.3 Conclusions and recommendation .............................................................. 114

10.2 Cultural heritage.................................................................................................... 114 10.2.1 Aboriginal ................................................................................................... 114 10.2.2 Historic........................................................................................................ 115

10.3 Shadow flicker ....................................................................................................... 115 10.3.1 Background ................................................................................................. 115 10.3.2 Discussion ................................................................................................... 116 10.3.3 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................. 123

10.4 Blade glint............................................................................................................... 124 10.5 Electromagnetic interference ............................................................................... 124 10.6 Health...................................................................................................................... 125 10.7 Uninhabitable / uninhabited dwellings ............................................................ 126

11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 128


Appendices

APPENDIX A LIST OF SUBMITTERS................................................................. 133

APPENDIX B DRAFT RECOMMENDED PERMIT CONDITIONS – CORANGAMITE SHIRE ............................................................. 135

APPENDIX C LETTER FROM WORKSAFE VICTORIA TO THE PANEL . 163

List of Figures

Figure 1: Berrybank Wind Farm Layout..................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Raised bed cropping ................................................................................... 85 Figure 3: Aviation obstacle lighting ........................................................................ 112 Figure 4: Shadow flicker diagram............................................................................ 118

List of Tables

Table 1: Berrybank Wind Farm: Various Estimates of Electricity Generation and Greenhouse Gas Abatement.......................................... 14

Table 2: Landscape Units and Scenic Quality ........................................................ 17 Table 3: Summary of viewpoints ............................................................................. 21


1. Summary and overview

ITEM COMMENT

Recommendation in Chief:

That subject to the recommendations in this report

and the draft permit conditions contained in the

Appendices, planning permits be issued for the

Berrybank Wind Energy Facility as follows:

Golden Plains Shire Planning Permit Application

20092820;

Golden Plains Shire Planning Permit Application

P09‐134A (vegetation removal); and

Corangamite Shire Planning Permit Application

20092821.

The Project: The proposed Wind energy facility (‘the wind farm’)

is located at Berrybank, midway between Cressy and

Lismore in western Victoria. It straddles the

Hamilton Highway with the majority of the turbines

on the north side. Approximately half the project is

in the Corangamite Shire and half in the Golden

Plains Shire. The proposed wind farm includes:

100 turbines;

Kiosks for each turbine;

Internal tracks;

An electrical substation and connection to the

existing grid;

A temporary concrete batching plant;

Up to three wind monitoring masts;

Business signs;

Aviation obstacle lighting;

Control rooms and associated facilities; and

Onsite and offsite vegetation removal.

Figure 1 shows the extent of the wind farm.

Applicant: Union Fenosa Wind Australia


Responsible Authority:

WEF applications: Minister for Planning

Native vegetation application: Minister for Planning

after referral from Golden Plains Shire.

Enforcement: Golden Plains and Corangamite Shires

(as relevant).

Panel Members: A Panel was appointed under Sections 97E, 153 and

155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to

consider submissions and make recommendations to

the Minister for Planning. The members were:

Nick Wimbush, Chair;

Doug Munro; and

Catherine Wilson.

Panel hearings: The direction hearing was held in Warrnambool on

the 17th December 2009.

The main hearing was held in Camperdown on 15th,

16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 24th, 25th February 2010.

Site inspection: An accompanied site inspection was conducted on

Tuesday 23rd February 2010. The Panel also viewed

the site from public roads on a number of occasions

on an unaccompanied basis.

Appearances: Department of Planning and Community

Development represented by Mr Bart Gane.

Union Fenosa Wind Australia represented by Mr Tim

Power of Freehills who called the following evidence:

Noise – Mr Christophe Delaire.

Shadow Flicker – Mr Trenton Gilbert.

Fire – Mr Roger Fenwick.

Landscape and visual – Mr Peter Haack.

Agricultural aviation – Mr Barry Foster.

Flora and Fauna – Mr Brett Lane.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment

represented by Mr Geoff Brooks who called the

following evidence:

Brolga – Mr Richard Hill.

Corangamite Shire Council represented by Ms Sophie

Segafredo.

Sustainability Victoria, represented by Mr Michael

Williamson.

The Country Fire Authority, represented by Mr


Robert Smith.

Mr Allan and Mrs Anne Schafer who called the

following evidence:

Noise – Dr Robert Thorne.

Mr Daryl Baxter, represented by Mr Paul Turner.

Ms Beverly Hocking.

Mr David Hocking.

Ms Kathy Russell.

Mr Barry White.

Mr Russell White.

Mr John and Mrs Gabrielle Keating.

Mr Graeme and Mrs Catherine Keating.

Mr Brendan Keating represented by Mr Darren

Keating.

Mr Patrick Toohey.

Submitters: A list of all submissions referred to the Panel is

included in Appendix A.

Key issues addressed in this report:

Greenhouse pollution abatement

Landscape and visual impacts

Noise impacts

Flora and fauna

Social and economic impacts

Fire planning and management

Transport and traffic


Figure 1: Berrybank Wind Farm Layout


2. The planning framework

2.1 Background

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 establishes planning schemes in

Victoria and the framework for the consideration of the planning permit

application. The project area is contained within the Corangamite Shire and

Golden Plains Shire.

Planning schemes for these municipalities have a range of relevant state and

local policy and statutory planning mechanisms relevant for the assessment

of the permit application.

The Planning Application Report (PAR) for Berrybank assessed the planning

framework. As Mr Power for the Applicant noted in submissions, this was

prepared prior to Amendment V60 which revised the treatment of wind

energy facilities in planning schemes, but not in a significant manner.

2.2 Policy framework

2.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

In Appendix 2 of their submission the Department of Planning and

Community Development (DPCD) provided a comprehensive review of the

policy context for the proposal.

DPCD identified the relevant provisions of the SPPF as being:

Clause 11 – Introduction, goals and principles;

Clause 15.01 – Protection of catchments, waterways and groundwater;

Clause 15.03 – Salinity;

Clause 15.04 – Air quality;

Clause 15.05 – Noise abatement;

Clause 15.07 – Protection from wildfire;

Clause 15.09 – Conservation of native flora and fauna;

Clause 15.11 – Heritage;

Clause 15.12 – Energy efficiency;

Clause 15.14 – Renewable energy;

Clause 17.04 – Tourism;

Clause 17.05 – Agriculture; and


Clause 18.04 – Airfields.

The Panel agrees that all of these clauses are relevant to a greater or lesser

extent and the issues addressed in the PAR, at the hearing and in this report

go to the objectives of strategies of these clauses. The Panel is aware that

renewable energy does have strong facilitative support in the SPPF. This

does not mean that it ‘overrides’ all other clauses, but that it does carry

significant weight.

Clause 15.14 has the objective:

To promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures

appropriate siting and design considerations are met.

The general implementation of the clause is as follows:

Planning should facilitate renewable energy development in appropriate

locations.

Planning should consider the economic and environmental benefits to the

broader community of renewable energy generation and the effects on the

local environment.

In planning for wind energy facilities, planning should:

· Facilitate the consideration of wind energy development proposals;

· Recognise that economically viable wind energy facilities are

dependent on locations with consistently strong winds over the year

and that such sites may be highly localised; and

· Must take into account the Policy and Planning Guidelines for

Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria, 2009.

In considering proposals for renewable energy, planning and responsible

authorities should have regard to the Renewable Energy Action Plan,

July 2006.

For this Panel the key elements of this clause are:

Renewable energy should be promoted and facilitated;

Siting and design considerations are important;

Wind energy facilities must locate where the resource is; and

The effects on the broader community are important, as are local impacts.


2.2.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

An overview of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and LPPF for

Corangamite and Golden Plains was provided by Mr Gane from DPCD in

Document 67 at the hearing.

Corangamite Shire

The Shire identifies its strengths now and into the future in protecting and

growing its capabilities in agricultural production, processing and related

services as well as tourism and recreation. Oil and gas development is also

an area recognised by the Shire in its MSS as being significant.

Council does not specifically addressed wind energy potential in its local

policies. There is reference to sustainable economic development but in a

general sense.

Natural assets including wetlands, natural and cultural heritage and

biodiversity are identified for Clause 22.02‐1 with an emphasis placed on the

importance of the sustainable use of natural assets for economic

development and environmental protection is acknowledged.

Protection of sensitive volcanic landscapes is recognised in local policy.

DPCD summarised the local policy approach as:

Overall, community development, agriculture and landscape amenity are

the main subjects addressed in the Local Planning Policy Framework.

There is attention given to supporting new economic development and

diversification, such as infrastructure and resources extraction, but that

these developments are to be supported in the context of the sensitive

landscape, environmental and cultural setting.

Golden Plains Shire

The MSS and local policies in Golden Plains Shire are focussed on two major

themes, managing residential growth in the east of the Shire near Geelong

and managing the natural assets of the Shire for environmental protection

and economic development.

As for Corangamite, the agricultural assets of the Shire are recognised as

important but with limited opportunities for diversification and threats from

environmental issues (salinity) and increasing human populations.

Wind energy is not specifically mentioned in the MSS or local policy.


2.2.3 Zones

Corangamite Shire

In the Corangamite Shire the project is contained in the Farming Zone

Schedule 1 (FZ1).

The purposes of the zone are:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local

Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic

Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.

To ensure that non‐agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not

adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and

sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area.

A wind energy facility is a Section 2 use within the zone, meaning that a

permit is required. Mr Connor, in making submissions for Mr Baxter1 made

extensive submissions to suggest that:

the purpose of the zone is clearly agriculture;

a wind energy facility cannot be considered to be in any way shape or

form agriculture;

a Section 2 use must be considered in accordance with Clause 31.02, and

that Section 2 does not imply that a use should or will be given a permit;

and

DPCD are wrong to suggest that the wind farm is proposed in a zone

‘designated for this use’.

The Hamilton Highway which passes through the site is in the Road Zone

Category 1 (RDZ1). This zone requires the views of the road authority to be

sought on applications.

Golden Plains Shire

In the Golden Plains Shire the project is located in the Farming Zone (FZ).

1 Mr Baxter’s properties are actually in the Golden Plains Shire but the points of principle are

equally relevant to both Shires.


2.2.4 Overlays

Corangamite Shire

The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 (VPO2) occurs along roadsides

on the Hamilton Highway, the Berrybank ‐ Werneth Road, the Berrybank –

Wallinduc Road through and adjacent to the site. The VPO2 is to protect

significant native remnant vegetation for its rarity and bio link values. This

issue is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Golden Plains Shire

The Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2 (VPO2) occurs along roadsides

on Urchs Road and the Wilgul – Werneth Road. The VPO2 is to protect

significant native remnant vegetation. This issue is discussed in more detail

in Chapter 6.

2.2.5 Particular and general provisions

The particular provision at Clause 52.32 of both Shire’s planning schemes

deals specifically with wind farms. Its purpose is:

To facilitate the establishment and expansion of wind energy facilities, in

appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.

At 52.32‐3 the Clause also contains decision guidelines being:

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines

of Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

· The effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of noise,

blade glint, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference.

· The impact of the development on significant views, including visual

corridors and sightlines.

· The impact of the facility on the natural environment and natural

systems.

· The impact of the facility on cultural heritage.

· The impact of the facility on aircraft safety.

· The Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind

Energy Facilities in Victoria, 2009.

Clause 65 contains the general decision guidelines which are called up for all

decisions on planning permit applications. Clause 65.01 is as follows:

Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible

authority must consider, as appropriate:


· The matters set out in Section 60 of the Act.

· The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy

Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local

planning policies.

· The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision.

· Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other

provision.

· The orderly planning of the area.

· The effect on the amenity of the area.

· The proximity of the land to any public land.

· Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or

reduce water quality.

· Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or

improve the quality of stormwater within and exiting the site.

· The extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its

destruction.

· Whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or

allowed to regenerate.

· The degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location

of the land and the use, development or management of the land so as

to minimise any such hazard.

The particular and general provisions are considered in the discussion of key

issues throughout this report.

2.3 Panel assessment and recommendation in chief

The Panel would like to note the relevant Local Government’s contribution to

the assessment of the Berrybank Wind Farm. Approximately half the wind

farm is in the Corangamite Shire and half in Golden Plains. For whatever

reason, Corangamite Shire was admirably represented and notable for their

presence right through the hearing, whilst Golden Plains were notable for

their absence, a fact remarked on unfavourably by their ratepayers in

attendance.

Golden Plains had indicated they would put in a submission on the project

but despite some promoting by the Panel, such a submission was not

forthcoming. At some level it is understandable, as Councils have had their

responsible authority status removed for large wind farm projects. This

however should not be equated with either a lack of opportunity to influence

the process and outcome, or a removal of responsibility for Council to press


home to the Panel and Minister its views on the project in relation to the

planning scheme and local community.

The Panel has reviewed the extensive submissions made by DPCD,

Corangamite Shire, the Applicant and individual submitters. It is clear to the

Panel that renewable energy (and wind farms in particular) enjoys strong

policy support in both planning and energy policy. It is also clear that many

individual submitters who will be directly impacted by the wind farm are

diametrically opposed, at least in this instance, to wind farms.

This is not say that such policies automatically carry such weight that all

other issues do not require consideration. The studies and planning process

the Applicant has been required to submit to attest to this.

Making a decision on a planning permit application such as this requires

consideration of all the issues called up in the planning scheme in policy, and

the specific aspects required to be addressed in making a decision under

Clause 52.32 and Clause 65.

The Panel has addressed these issues through this report in some detail but

overall concludes that:

the project is not a significant risk to the agricultural productive capacity

of the area and will actually enhance the viability of the farms hosting

turbines and the region more broadly;

the landscape values of the area are not such that they trigger concern in

the Panel’s mind;

impacts on local amenity will occur in some areas, but can be managed

via conditions, and amenity standards in the Farming Zone are less than

in other areas given its productive nature;

based on submissions there are some concerns about the local economic

and social impacts on the project; and

the likely effects on native flora and fauna are likely to be minimal and

will not significantly impact on rare or endangered species or

communities.

The Panel recommends:

1. That subject to the recommendations in this report and the draft

permit conditions contained in the Appendices, planning permits be

issued for the Berrybank Wind Energy Facility as follows:

Golden Plains Shire Planning Permit Application 20092820

Golden Plains Shire Planning Permit Application P09‐134A

(vegetation removal)

Corangamite Shire Planning Permit Application 20092821


2.4 Recommended planning permit conditions

DPCD have prepared a set of standard permit conditions for wind energy

facilities. The conditions were discussed at the close of the Panel hearing in a

‘without prejudice’ session with parties having the opportunity to comment

on the wording of conditions.

From this session the Panel has considered the permit conditions and its

recommendations on a range of issues throughout this report. Draft

conditions for consideration by the Minister for Planning for the wind energy

facility are included in Appendix B.

The Panel has only attached recommendations for the Corangamite Shire

wind energy facility approval. Due to their length the Panel did not think it

useful to repeat the conditions for the Golden Plains Shire which are

ostensibly, with minor differences, the same.

Where the conditions require the approval of, or consultation with, local

government in the development of, for example, the traffic management

plan, the Panel has suggested both Golden Plains and Corangamite be listed

in each permit. In reality there is likely to be only such plan for the project

and listing both Shires in the permit conditions for both permits should help

with consistency.

The main changes to address in the Golden Plains permit will be:

Land description;

Permit allowing for 49 wind turbines;

Condition 5 – landscaping maintenance to the satisfaction of Golden

Plains Shire;

Deletion of Condition 11 (g) in Corangamite permit as it relates

specifically to an intersection outside Golden Plains; and

Deletion of conditions 23 and 25 as they relate to a property outside

Golden Plains.

The Panel has considered the draft vegetation removal permit for Golden

Plains Shire and believe this should be issued as tabled at the Panel hearing

by DPCD without amendment.


3. Greenhouse pollution abatement

3.1 Background

The Victorian Government is committed to reducing the state’s greenhouse

gas emissions through a range of strategies including support for renewable

energy in particular energy produced through wind farming. This support is

emphasised in Clause 15.14 (Renewable Energy) of the State Planning Policy

Framework which includes the following:

Planning should contribute to the provision of renewable energy by

facilitating wind energy development in appropriate locations.

Fundamental to the assessment of the Berrybank Wind Farm is an

assessment of its potential to generate electricity.

Electricity generation capacity at a particular location is dependent on the

available wind resource at that location as well as the technology used to

capture that resource. Although confidential data from Union Fenosa on site

wind monitoring was not available to the Panel the Planning Application

Report (PAR) gives the average wind speed for the Golden Plains Shire as 6.8

metres per second (m/s) and for the Corangamite Shire, 7.0m/s. These accord

with the wind speeds for the Victorian Wind Atlas’s wind speed for the

Berrybank area. With a state average of wind speed of 6.5m/s Berrybank’s

wind is moderate. The Department of Planning and Community

Development submitted that the wind resource at Berrybank is similar to the

resource at other locations where other wind farms are currently approved

or proposed, for example at Mount Mercer, Mount Gellibrand and in the

Mortlake – Darlington area.

Electricity is also dependent on a wind farm’s capacity factor that is its

annual electricity generation compared to the maximum possible electricity

generation. Mr Williamson from Sustainability Victoria provided the Panel

with the performance of six Victorian wind farms for the period 2003 –2009.

The average capacity factors for those farms varied between approximately

27.4% and 35.4% with a weighted average capacity factor of approximately

32%. Mr Williamson also said that Waubra wind farm, which has only been

operating for around nine months, is returning a capacity factor of around

40%.

The Panel was provided with various estimates for electricity generation and

greenhouse gas abatement based on calculation using wind speed and


capacity factors. These estimates were modelled on the six turbines options,

with installed capacity of between 180‐250MW, being considered by the

proponent. The various estimates, as well as their source and basis are

presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Berrybank Wind Farm: Various Estimates of Electricity

Generation and Greenhouse Gas Abatement

Estimate Source Electricity Generation (GWh)

Greenhouse Gases Abated per annum (tonnes CO2)

Basis for estimate

EES referral form 781.83 1,016,379 SEAV Guidelines 20032 - (superseded in 2009). Capacity factor of 35%

PAR Max =700 Max = 911,000 SEAV Guidelines 20033 - (superseded in 2009). Capacity factor of 35%

Sustainability Victoria

473 - 657 497,000- 690,000 SV Guidelines 20094: Capacity Factor of 30%

Mr Power on behalf of Union Fenosa

Not provided 473,00 –657,000 Document 9: Based on SV Guidelines using capacity factor of 30%.

Note: it appears GHG savings have been confused with electricity generation here.

Tract Consultants for Union Fenosa

599-679 599,184- 678,900 Document 11: Based on SV Guidelines 2009 and UF wind testing and UF estimated capacity factor of 31-38%

3.2 Discussion

While there is some variation in the estimates in Table 1 it would appear that

Berrybank’s annual potential electricity generation is between 473 – 679 GWh

and annual greenhouse gas abatement is between 497,000‐ 690,000 tonnes.

In her submission to the Panel Ms Kathy Russell was critical that a cost

benefit analysis had not been undertaken and, similarly, Mr Schafer

2 Sustainable Energy Authority (2003), Policy and Planning Guideline for Development of Wind

Energy Facilities in Victoria 3 Sustainable Energy Authority (2003), Policy and Planning Guideline for Development of Wind

Energy Facilities in Victoria 4 Sustainability Victoria (2009), A guide to calculating greenhouse benefits of wind energy facility

proposals.


questioned Mr Williamson about the cost effectiveness of wind farms as a

form of electricity generation. Mr Williamson said that electricity generated

from new a coal fired power plant would cost in the order of $70 per MWh

and if carbon capture and storage is to be included in this cost the price could

increase to approximately $150 per MWh. Wind energy costs in the order of

$90‐ 110 per MWh and is according to a report prepared for Sustainability

Victoria by MMA consultants, the best currently available of renewable

energy source for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Solar energy on the

other hand costs around $700 per MWh. Furthermore Mr Williamson said

that construction of the Berrybank Wind Farm will negate the need to build

additional generation as backup in the event that the largest brown coal

generator went down.

Furthermore Mr Williamson informed the Panel that Victoria’s spinning

reserve ‐or backup electricity generation which is additional generation

capacity in a region to cover the loss of the largest unit in the system ‐ is set

at 500MW and if the Berrybank is constructed the installation of additional

new spinning reserve will not be required.

3.3 Conclusions and recommendations

The Panel is satisfied that the Berrybank Wind Farm, with the potential to

generate between 473 – 679 GWh of energy per year and avoid the

generation of between 497,000‐ 690,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases, will

contribute to Victorian Government’s policy to increase the supply of

electricity from renewable resources.


4. Landscape and visual impacts

4.1 Background

The landscape and visual impact assessment for the project was carried out

by Urbis for Union Fenosa and their report is included in Appendix 5 of the

Planning Application Report (PAR). ‘Landscape assessment’ and ‘visual

impact assessment’ are usually carried out as distinct, but related areas of

study. The former relates to the inherent values of the landscape at and

around the project site, and the latter relates to impact on particular resident

and transient viewers. For convenience a distance of about 3 km from the

nearest turbine is regarded as a visual impact and beyond that a landscape

issue.

4.2 Landscape assessment

In general the landscape of the project site is relatively flat cleared land used

for grazing and mixed cropping. Remnant grassland exists in some areas,

particularly on road reserves and shelter belt tree planting is common along

property and paddock boundaries and around houses.

To the west of the project site the incised valley of the Gnarkeet Chain of

Ponds is a significant landscape feature and to the east is Naringhil Creek,

while to the south are the western district lakes (Rosine, Martin, Gnarpurt,

Struan and Corangamite).

Urbis noted in the PAR that Mt Elephant is approximately 25km to the west

and the site lacks any of the significant volcanic features of the Western

Victorian Volcanic Plain. Mt Kinross rises approximately 50m above the

plain about 3km to the northwest of the site.

The 500kV Moorabool – Portland transmission line is a significant human

element in the landscape, as is the Maroona – Gheringhap Rail line and the

grain silos at Berrybank township.

The landscape assessment was undertaken at the regional (more than 7km

from the project site), sub‐regional (2‐7km from the project site) and locally

(within 2km of the project site). The assessment methodology is provided in

Appendix 5 of the PAR.

Urbis assessed the scenic quality of the project site and landscape units as

shown in Table 2.


Table 2: Landscape Units and Scenic Quality

Mr Peter Haack from Urbis gave evidence at the panel hearing on landscape

significance and his key findings at Section 5.1 of his witness statement were:

· No overlays of relevance to landscape or scenic quality apply to the

study area within the Shires of Corangamite and Golden Plains.

· No National Trust Citations for landscape significance exist for the

study area.

· The landscape scenic quality of the study area, which is primarily a

modified agricultural landscape, is generally low to moderate.

The Urbis report in the PAR5 drew on research suggesting that in agricultural

landscapes of lower scenic quality, the addition of wind turbines can actually

increase scenic quality. However, the report also acknowledged the value of

landscapes to local communities:

…respondents at the Community Information Day referred to the ‘Big

Sky’ and the expansive views that the landscape afforded.

and:

Whilst this study …, rate (sic) the scenic quality of the landscape as low

to moderate, the local community will always have a sense of affinity

with the landscape and value it highly.

5 Appendix 5, page 16


4.2.1 Discussion

A number of submissions discussed the visual impact of the project on their

properties and these are considered in the next section. In term of landscape,

both DPCD and the Corangamite Shire concluded that the landscape can

absorb the impact and the impact on the landscape of this project is not

unacceptable. Golden Plains Shire made no submission.

DPCD however in its submission took issue with a number of aspects of the

landscape assessment and provided extensive commentary on the

methodology and approach by wind farm applicants. In essence this

submission suggested that a ‘technical’ analysis of landscape is inadequate to

fully encapsulate the range of views and values held in the physical (and

cultural) landscape. This is particularly the case for residents and families

who may have a very long historical association with a particular landscape.

In its submission DPCD quoted from Canadian Professor of Geography

Douglas Porteous that all landscape assessment techniques are influenced by

subjectivity and bias and that:

…the most enjoyable landscape for any observer is the one they have

grown up with.

What is clear to the Panel is that the project will be a radical change to the

landscape of the area. Whilst some limited comparisons can be drawn with

the development of the Moorabool to Portland transmission line in the early

1980s (which crosses the site), its visual impact is more limited.

The transmission towers are only approximately 60m high, less than half of

that proposed wind turbines and whilst they have a long linear extent do not

cover a large horizontal area as per the wind farm. Nevertheless the

transmission line is a highly visible landscape feature and is visible from a

distance of many kilometres.

From experience elsewhere the Panel expects the wind farm will be visible

from much of the surrounding area out to a distance of some tens of

kilometres with limited obscuring by topographical features. This is borne

out in the seen area analysis undertaken by Urbis in the PAR.

Mr Brendan Keating in his submission described the change as:

The landscape will be drastically altered and turbines will be in full view

from sunrise to sunset and will dominate the horizon.

The Panel agrees in principle, that the landscape in this area will be

drastically altered. However, in conducting its assessment, the Panel is


cognisant that it must be guided by the Corangamite and Golden Plains

Planning Schemes, which in turn reference the Policy and planning guidelines

for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (hereafter called the Wind

Farm Guidelines).

The guidelines suggest a range of strategic and statutory instruments that

may apply to recognise landscape significance, and as Mr Haack has pointed

out, none of these apply specifically to the project site.

In this case, significant landscape change is not of itself a reason to prevent

the issuing of a permit in the light of strong Government policy supporting

the development of renewable energy in general and wind farms in

particular.

This is little comfort to non‐participating stakeholders who have particular

values and a ‘sense of place’ invested in the current landscape at Berrybank

but the planning system frequently requires the balanced consideration of a

range of views, both local, regional and at the State level.

Cumulative impact on landscape was raised by DPCD in their opening

submission. This issue is of growing concern in wind farm projects due to

the large number of large projects being brought forward. In relation to this

project there is tens of kilometres between it and the next projects so it

unlikely to be of concern.

The presence of the recently declared Kanawinka Geopark was also raised in

submissions and approximately half the project site is in the park. The

presence of this UNESCO declared park was recently remarked on by VCAT

in a case at Mt Elephant. Whilst the Panel considers the Geopark of great

merit, it does not consider that this wind farm is likely to have a significant

negative impact on the values being considered in the park.

4.2.2 Conclusions and recommendations

The Panel concludes that the overall landscape of the project area, whilst of

local significance to residents, is not recognised in planning policy at the

regional or State level.

On this basis, the Panel considers the landscape significance is not, in its own

right, an impediment to the issuing of a wind farm permit.


4.3 Visual impact

The visual impact of the project was assessed by Urbis for the applicant and

the methodology and results contained in Appendix 5 of the PAR. Urbis

suggested that a local population of 136 (out to 4.5km) might be affected as

well as a travelling population of 1,000 vehicles per day on the Hamilton

Highway. Rail was not considered in the assessment.

The surrounding area was divided into the regional (greater than 7km from

the wind farm), sub‐regional (2‐7km from the wind farm) and local (less than

2km from the wind farm) settings. Within these bands a number of ‘sensitive

viewer’ locations were chosen for qualitative assessment. These are

summarised in Table 3.

Of these, properties 38, 74, 85, 28, 26, 83, 63, 47, 57, 18, 23 and a number of

public viewing points were chosen for photomontages. Photomontages at

dwellings were done from the public road nearest the residence, a fact that

attracted much criticism in the hearing. Further, in some cases these

photomontages whilst directed towards the wind farm were not always in

the direction that the landowner would have selected.

A set of design guidelines for ameliorating visual impact were also provided

at Chapter 5 of Appendix 5 of the PAR relating to:

foreground screening; and

wind farm design (infrastructure, turbine design and colour, turbine

placement and pattern, lighting and reflection/blade glint).

An assessment was also undertaken of aviation obstacle lighting. The

proposed aviation obstacle lighting is shown in Figure 3 and suggested that

52 turbines may need to be lit. In relation to impact Urbis concluded that it is

likely that residents will find them unacceptable but that they should not be

visible from within residences. Obstacle lighting for safety is considered in

Section 10.1.

4.3.1 Discussion

Negative visual impact on adjoining properties was raised in many of the

objecting submissions (for example the Baxter family, Mr David Hocking and

Mrs Beverly Hocking, the Keating families and Mr and Mrs Schafer). The

common view expressed was that the attractive long rural views are valued,

and will be ruined, or at least severely compromised, by the imposition of

wind turbines.


There is a clear correlation, common to many wind farms, between

stakeholders and non‐stakeholders regarding visual impact. Those

participating in the project appear to be generally accepting of the visual

impact, whilst those who live nearby but are not participating are not. This

is assumed to be the case in relation to the Berrybank wind farm as only non‐

stakeholders expressed an opinion.

Table 3: Summary of viewpoints

Viewpoint Distance Turbines potentially visible6 Potential impact

1. Rokewood 12.5km 81‐100 Low

2. Lismore 9.5km 81‐100 Low to moderate 3. Cressy 8km 81‐100 Low to moderate 4. Foxhow 6km 81‐100 Low to moderate 5. Residence 8 4.6km 81‐100 Low to moderate 6. Residence 23 4km 81‐100 Low to moderate 7. Residence 17

(Church)

3.7km 81‐100 Low to moderate

8. Residence 26

(J & G Keating)

3.4km 81-100 Low to moderate

9. Residence 45 (N

&A Keating)

3.2km 81-100 Low to moderate

10 Residence 41 3.4km 81-100 Moderate to high 11. Residence 20 2.1km 81-100 Low to moderate 12. Residence 47

(P&P Mathews) 1.6km 81-100 High

13. Residence 105 (D Hocking)

1.6km 81-100 Moderate

14. Residence 38 (P Gardener)

1.8km 81-100 Moderate

15. Residence 58 (R&M Anderson)

1km 81-100 Moderate

16. Residence 85 (B White)

1.4km 81-100 Moderate to high

17. Residence 63 (A & A Schafer)

1km 81-100 Moderate to high

18. Residence 83 (P & J Carthy)

1km 81-100 Moderate to high

19. Residence 28 1.1km 81-100 High 20. Berrybank 1km 81-100 High 21. Residence 18 1km 81-100 Moderate to high 22. Residence 74

(G & C Keating) 1.1km 81-100 High

23. Residence 57 (B Hocking)

1km 81-100 High

Providing screen planting to screen out the turbines is one of the common

mitigation actions proposed by applicants, and indeed has been proposed for

Berrybank. However this can stand in stark contrast to the enjoyment of the

6 Number will depend on vegetation and other elements in foreground


long views that residents desire. Mr and Mrs Schafer described such

planting as being ‘abhorrent and claustrophobic’.

Many of the properties, as is common in western Victoria, have windbreak

screening around the dwellings which will mitigate or remove the visual

impact of the turbines from the house itself.7 There are notable exceptions to

this, for example Mr David Hocking’s house (60) which will have an

uninterrupted view of the wind farm from the west.

Submitters made the point at the hearing that much time is spent both in

paddocks on the farm, and in the area near to the house but outside the

existing screening, and that visual impact on these areas should be given due

consideration.

The Panel notes this concern but considers from a visual impact point of

view, the focus in policy and previous Panel reports has been on visual

impacts from dwellings rather than workplaces.

Some properties will have visual impact from a number of directions, and

the Schafer property (assessed by Urbis as having turbines in a 242 degree

spread at different distances) is perhaps the most notable example of this.

However in this case Mr and Mrs Schafer’s house is within a well wooded

location, which will not of itself remove all views of turbines, but is likely to

provide a good level of visual screening. The working paddocks (and olive

grove) are on the north and east side of the property which will at least

providing some external work area away from the visual impact of the wind

farm.

Mr Power for the applicant drew the Panels attention to the treatment of this

issue in the Portland Wind Energy Project, where that Panel concluded that a

wind farm should not dominate, at close range, 360 degrees of the

surrounding area to a private dwelling.

Corangamite Shire, in their submission at the hearing suggested that a visual

impact assessment should be undertaken at every house to provide

information in making the decision as to whether local visual impact might

outweigh the broader benefits of the project. The Panel understands the

rationale behind this request but considers it is not necessary as:

the impact on all such properties is likely to be high; and

even if it is, there are no particular criteria for the Panel to judge on a

quantitative basis as to how many properties might tip the balance

against the project.

7 Figure 5.1 in the Urbis report gives an indication of existing screening


Although a number of dwellings potentially visually impacted are in Golden

Plains Shire, that Shire made no submission on the PAR.

There was some criticism of the photomontages prepared at residences by

submitters on the basis that they were prepared from public roads near

houses and not at the particular dwelling. In response Mr Power for the

applicant suggested that this actually applied a level of conservatism in the

methodology, as given the existing vegetation around many houses, many of

the turbines in the photomontages would not be visible from the dwelling.

The provision of screening vegetation around houses was proposed by the

Applicant and is a common approach to mitigation in other wind farms. The

Panel considers this should be offered to non‐stakeholders on a voluntary

basis. This should include consideration of:

the size of plantings (i.e. advanced trees and tubestock should be used);

the growth rate of the species chosen to achieve rapid screening (it was

suggested growth rates for trees in the area are only in the order of

0.5m/annum);

consideration of the age and status of current vegetation and the need for

reinforcement planting;

responsibility and timeframe for maintenance;

the fire safety of landscaping; and

the impact of screening on native vegetation (overshadowing,

competition etc…

Visual impact of aviation lighting

The aviation safety aspects of obstacle lighting are discussed in Chapter 10.1

and these comments in relation to visual impact should be considered in that

context. Urbis assessed the impact of aviation lighting in their report at

Chapter 4.11.

Using methodology from the United Kingdom, Urbis identify the area as

being intrinsically dark or at a low level of light, and from the Panel’s

observations this is clearly the case.

Urbis identify the impact of obstacle lighting as being dependant on the

sensitivity of the viewer, and not to be an impact on persons inside

residences. The Panel considers the issue is simpler than this. From

considerable experience with other projects the Panel believes there is a high

correlation between submitter’s concerns about daytime visual impact and

concerns about night time impact of obstacle lighting.


Corangamite Shire (and other submitters) raised the issue of night lighting

and its impact on traffic on the Hamilton Highway at night. The specific

impacts of this are unknown but based on the experience of the Waubra

obstacle lights the Panel does not consider it is an issue that should require

anything of drivers other than a normal sense of alertness to road conditions.

Warning signage could be placed on the Hamilton Highway if this was

considered necessary as part of the Traffic Management Plan. This issue is

discussed further in relation to traffic in Chapter 9.

In his expert evidence Mr Haack suggested that a review of technology

indicated that lights with only 21% of the intensity of the lights at Waubra

could be used. On the evidence provided the Panel does not accept this

interpretation of the data provided. It believes that the near field visibility of

the lighting might be les that that at Waubra but further afield the lighting

impact would be similar.

The Panel is aware that nearly 2,000 wind turbines have either been

approved, or are in the planning process for western Victoria. If 50% of these

are lit, then over 1,000 aviation obstacle lights are potentially to be in place in

future.

Other Panels, notably the Ryan Corner Wind Farm Panel have discussed in

detail the values around a dark sky in rural landscapes. There was general

agreement at the Berrybank hearing that it would be desirable to not have

aviation obstacle lighting on the wind farm, if it could at all be avoided.

The Panel understands that there are ‘off the shelf’ solutions to light wind

turbines on an ‘as needed’ basis if lighting is required rather than the full

time illumination currently used. That is, the obstacle lights are triggered in

the presence of an aircraft approaching the wind farm. This would seem to

be a far more desirable approach that is not currently recognised in the Wind

Farm Guidelines.

This possibility is raised in the Ambidji Aviation Assessment in PAR.

In relation to visual impact, and in the absence of specific policy in this area,

the Panel considers the visual impact of 52 aviation lights for this project is

not acceptable in the dark landscape of Berrybank.



The Panel concludes that the visual impact on nearby properties is likely to

be high (and this is reflected in the assessment to some extent) and

unacceptable to many non‐stakeholder residents. However, the Panel does

not consider that this conclusion translates into a level of impact that

suggests these impacts outweigh the broader renewable energy and other

benefits of the project.

With appropriate mitigation, the Panel considers these impacts can be

reduced, although not removed. Mitigation should be put in place via

project design and the offer of screen planting (suitable to the slow growing

conditions of the area) to neighbouring landowners who request it. Such

planting should also be cognisant of existing senescent trees and bolster these

with new planting.


2. Screen planting be offered to all non‐stakeholder residents within

3km of the nearest turbine and considering:

Fire management planning;

The use of advanced plantings and tubestock to ensure screening

is effective in the short term and has good survival rates;

Placement of new screening to accommodate mature trees that are

nearly at the end of their life;

Species appropriate for the local conditions at the site (possibly a

mix of Indigenous and exotic species) with low combustibility;

and

Appropriate maintenance and replacement.

The Panel has recommended a condition accordingly. The Panel also

considers the other mitigation measures suggested by Urbis in the PAR at

Chapter 5 should be considered and included in project design and the

environmental management plan. Where applicable, these have been

addressed in the draft conditions in Appendix B.

In relation to aviation obstacle lighting, the Panel recommends:

3. Full time obstacle lighting is unnecessary and not acceptable from a

visual amenity and impact point of view. If aviation obstacle lighting

is required then it must be lit only on an ‘as required’ basis and be

baffled and directed to the maximum extent allowed by CASA.

The Panel has recommended a draft condition accordingly.


5. Noise impacts

5.1 Background

Noise from wind farms is a critical issue in the assessment of an application.

The Wind Farm Guidelines require that wind farm comply with New

Zealand standard NZ6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of

Sound from Wind Turbine Generators (NZS 6808:1998). In predicting

compliance pre construction, noise has to be considered within the particular

local context.

In this case some specific issues have arisen:

the Applicant has nominated six candidate turbine types for the

evaluation, rather than the more usual case where an applicant nominates

a particular turbine type as an ‘indicative’ or ‘illustrative ‘ turbine. The

relevance of this is that different types of turbines have different sound

power characteristics, and this is a critical part of the noise assessment;

some submitters suggested that some data should be excised from the

background noise measurements taken at their properties, or the

measurements repeated, as the measurements were atypical and

contained unrepresentative noises;

many submissions focussed on recent reports of ill heath near the Waubra

Wind Farm which are suggested as being linked to noise, particularly low

frequency noise and ultrasound;

the effect of noise on safety in their workplace, seen as any part of their

farming property;

reservations about the standard and the assessment methodology;

enforcement; and

the status of currently uninhabited dwellings vis‐à‐vis noise.

The site and nearby dwellings are shown in Figure 1. That figure also shows

the site boundary (the ‘activity area’ in the Application Report) which defines

the demarcation between on‐site and off‐site noise issues.

The construction, operation and maintenance of a wind energy facility can all

create environmental noise. The focus of this chapter is the noise associated

with the operation of the facility as required by the Wind Farm Guidelines.

The Panel believes that managing construction noise is best done through the

environmental management plan.


Mr Christophe Delaire of Marshall Day Acoustics was called as an expert

witness by the Applicant. Mr Delaire provided an expert witness statement

and further information requested by the Panel.

Wind farm noise has been discussed in a number of other panel reports

including Bald Hills Wind Farm, the Waubra Wind Farm, the Macarthur

Wind Farm and the Lal Lal Wind Farm. The Panel has considered these in

forming its views on Berrybank.

The Applicant submitted that the proposed facility has been designed to

comply with the noise criteria required by the Wind Farm Guidelines and

hence would not result in an unreasonable impact.

5.2 Discussion

The noise from a wind farm is a matter of substantial importance. If it is not

sufficiently managed by design it is an issue that will persist post‐

construction and can be difficult and costly to rectify.

5.2.1 Noise from construction and maintenance

Noise associated with construction is dominated by noise from heavy

vehicles and major civil construction works.

Construction activity would be expected to be spread over perhaps one year

or so and geographically spread widely across the site. Sources of noise will

include the construction of possibly 70km or more of access tracks (Panel

estimate), preparation of turbine foundations, cutting of cable trenches,

bringing construction materials and components on site and turbine

assembly and erection. This construction noise would not be expected to be

substantially different from other major construction works and from some

farming activities. Much of the construction noise sources will be distant

from neighbouring properties. This noise can be managed by noise control

measures, including times and sites of noise generating activity, which

should be included in the environmental management plan. It will need to

incorporate best practice for noise control and should include close

consultation with adjoining land owners.

The Applicant intends to restrict construction operating times to avoid night

time work as far as possible. The Panel is of the view that an important

aspect of construction noise management will be keeping non‐stakeholders

advised of activities near them that might generate noise and to inform them

of a contact for any complaints.


The Panel believes that a plan to manage construction noise is an essential

part of the Environmental Management Plan. Necessarily this should

complement the Traffic Management Plan because heavy vehicle traffic is

likely to be a major part of the construction noise. The construction noise

management plan should be developed with Corangamite and Golden Plains

Shires and detail the construction noise management procedures. EPA can

take enforcement action for unreasonable construction noise.

Construction noise must comply with the requirements of the Interim

guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria, N3/89 (EPA

Vic, 1989) and the construction noise management plan should have regard

to:

Draft Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria, (EPA Vic, 2009, publication

1316) and

Noise Control Guidelines, EPA Vic, 2008, publication 1254).

Some noise is generated from the operational maintenance and servicing of

the wind energy facility, but this would be expected to be slight.

5.2.2 Operational noise

The major noise source is the turbines themselves. There are two principal

sources of this turbine operational noise. The first, and most important, are

the rotor blades themselves. These have a shape similar to an aircraft wing.

At a typical operational speed of 14 rpm the linear blade tip velocity for a

turbine with a rotor diameter of 100 m is turbine is about 260 km/h which

creates aerodynamic noise.

The Panel understands that more recent developments in blade design and in

turbine management control systems have reduced aerodynamic noise

compared with earlier models. Modern turbines can also be operated in

‘noise management mode’ to reduce noise, albeit with some loss of energy

output, for different wind speeds, directions and times of day.

The second wind turbine noise source is the electrical generator, pumps and

fans, and possibly a gearbox in the nacelle of the turbine. The nacelle is

elevated at a height of 80m but good design and regular maintenance should

minimise noise from this source.


5.2.3 Noise assessment

The Wind Farm Guidelines acknowledge that a wind farm can affect the

amenity of a surrounding area due to noise and requires the applicant to

assess the noise impact of the proposal. The Guidelines (at Part B 3 (a), p.30)

establish the evaluation criteria for noise as:

A wind energy facility should comply with the noise levels recommended

for dwellings in the New Zealand standard NZ6808:1998 Acoustics –

The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators.

During the assessment phase of the noise impact, particular attention to

the following matters within the Standard is required:

· Separate correlation of the background sound levels with the wind

speed for different wind directions and/or time of day [clause 4.5.5 of

the Standard] and

· Wind speed measurements at the hub height of the proposed turbines

as recommended in the Note to Clause 4.5.6.

Although not specified in the Wind Farm Guidelines it is the Panel

understands that it (the Standard) is to be applied to non‐stakeholder

dwellings only. Some stakeholder dwellings may incur noise impacts,

but as financial beneficiaries of the project the Panel considers that

reduction in noise amenity is accepted as a part of their agreement with

the Applicant.

NZS 6808:1998 describes, inter alia:

the preliminary assessment method to identify the likely noise sensitive

receptors in the vicinity of the proposed wind energy facility;

the method for measuring background noise at a selection of those

identified noise sensitive receptors and the analysis of the data to

generate background noise levels at those receptors;

the procedure for developing the acceptable noise limit from the

background noise level to meet the specified noise performance standard;

the mathematical method for modelling the noise at the selected receptors

from the proposed wind energy facility;

how to deal with special audible characteristics;

post‐construction noise monitoring;

determining compliance with the standard; and

necessary documentation of the proposal and assessment.


NZS 6808:1998 and the Noise Impact Assessment both discuss the challenge in

assessing wind farm noise and the need for this particular standard. The

standard has been developed to assess wind farm noise over a wide range of

turbine operating speeds, a circumstance that can lead to wind effects on the

microphone and fluctuations in background noise.

The noise criterion is stated in 4.4.2 of NZS 6808:1998 as:

As a guide to the limits of acceptability, the sound level from the WTG

(or windfarm) should not exceed, at any residential site, and at any of the

nominated windspeeds, the background sound level (L95) by more than 5

dBA L95, or a level of 40 dBA L95, whichever is the greater.

This statement of the noise criterion recognises the relationship between

wind speed and turbine noise. The internationally accepted indoor

sound level to protect against sleep disturbance is 30‐35dBA L95. If

attenuation between outdoor and indoor sound levels of 10dB is

reasonably assumed an outdoor level of 40 dBA L95 provides for sleep

protection. It is important to note that this does not necessarily mean

the wind turbine must be inaudible.

At low wind speeds where outdoor noise levels might be expected to be

below 40dBA L95 that level is set as the criterion. At higher wind speeds

where the noise level would be higher than that level, a 5dB increment

on the background level is allowed. Hence the acceptable noise limit

for a particular location is established as a curve and is, by definition,

tied to the background noise level.

These limits are suggested in NZS 6808:1998 as a ’guide to acceptability’.

Some submitters suggested that this gives scope for the Panel to set lower

noise limits. Given that the Wind Farm Guidelines refer to the ‘…..noise

levels recommended….’ in that standard and do not indicate any variation

from those suggested limits the Panel adopts these noise criteria for this

assessment.

The first issue is the identification of noise sensitive receptors, or assessable

sites. The Wind Farm Guidelines refer to ‘dwellings’. NZS 6808:1998 is a

little broader in referring to ‘residences and noise sensitive areas’ and

‘locations of interest’. The Applicant has not identified any receptors in the

vicinity of the proposed wind farm other than dwellings. Nor was any

evidence brought to the Panel of other receptors, and inspection of the area

did not suggest any others.

The Panel understands that the requirement for compliance with the noise

criterion is interpreted as applying to the exterior of existing non‐stakeholder

dwellings and the area immediately surrounding them (the curtilage) and


not to the whole of land outside the site boundaries. Further The Panel

interprets the requirement to apply to dwellings that exist at the time of the

planning application or proposed dwellings for which substantive evidence

exists of the intention to build a dwelling. Some submitters suggested that

the whole of their property should meet the noise criteria. The Panel does

not accept this and considers that the standard must only be met only at

stakeholder dwellings.

As required by NZS 6808:1998 a preliminary, or screening, prediction was

carried out to determine those dwellings that need to be assessed for possible

noise impacts.

The Noise Impact Assessment report at Appendix 7 of the Planning

Application Report (PAR) states at section 1.0, p1, that:

Implicit in the standard is that residents who experience a worst‐case

noise level of 35 dBA or less will automatically comply with the

standard.

The screening predictions are carried out using a simple model described in

section 4.3.2 of NZS 6808:1998. Section 4.3.3 refers to the model ignoring

acoustic absorption and reflection due to vegetation and that the outcome

could be expected to be conservative. That is, it over predicts, for

propagation across flat sites. Berrybank is such a case where surface

absorption of noise may be significant.

The model is independent of sound spectrum and requires the sound power

level of the turbine type being evaluated from a reference of 80m hub height

and the air absorption coefficient of sound. The output is noise contours of

predicted noise level versus distance out to 35dBA.

The sound power levels are obtained from the turbine manufacturers as the

sound power level versus wind speed based on each turbine’s characteristic.

These are shown, for the six optional turbine types considered, at Figure 1, p.

6 of the Noise Impact Assessment report in the PAR. NZS 6808:1998 suggests

an air absorption coefficient of 0.005dBA/m but allows the choice of a

coefficient that suits the sound spectrum of the wind turbine. The Noise

Impact Assessment report at section 4.2, p5 states:

Spectral content can be important as some larger modern wind turbines

emit noise with more low frequency content. Low frequency sound

attenuates at a relatively slow rate in air; hence the proposed typical

atmospheric absorption rate of 0.005 dBA/m (5 dBA/km) in NZS

6808:1998 may, at times, be too great.


For this reason, octave band sound power levels together with the

appropriate air absorption coefficient for each octave band in accordance

with ISO 9613 ‐ 1:1993 have been used to predict noise emissions from

each selected wind turbine more accurately.8

The report at Figure 2 presents the octave band sound power levels for the

nominated turbine types and Table 2 provides the air absorption coefficients.

Inspection of this table indicates the dramatic decrease in air absorption

coefficient with decreasing frequency.

The preliminary assessment was carried out using the Vestas V90 turbine

model. The noise contours from this prediction are shown in Appendix C of

the Noise Impact Assessment report. The Panel notes that the modelling was

undertaken at a 10m above ground level wind speed of 7m/s. This

corresponds to a wind speed at the anticipated hub height of 80m of close to

10m/s in a turbulent boundary layer; a speed which corresponds to the peak

sound pressure level for that turbine type.

The Panel notes that of the other turbine types being considered, the

Repower MM92 has a similar sound power level characteristic to the Vestas

V90, but the Nordex N100, Siemens SWT101 and the Mitsubishi MWT95 all

have peak sound power levels, at about the same wind speed, that are about

4 ‐ 5dBA higher. The Vestas V100 has peaks at about 3dBA higher than the

Vestas V90, but at a very much higher wind speed, but at moderate wind

speeds it is quieter than the other five types. The Panel expects that

predictions using these other turbine types would have resulted in the

contours being slightly more distant and believes that this preliminary

modelling might have been better done using one of the turbine models with

a higher sound power level. However, the Panel does not regard this as a

serious shortcoming since there is considerable conservatism in the approach

used.

The preliminary noise assessment identified 34 dwellings as potentially

sensitive to noise impact. These have predicted noise level greater than

compliance level of 35 dBA. Given the location of dwellings the Panel is of

the view that it is possible that a further five non‐stakeholder dwellings

might have fallen within this screen if another turbine type had been used for

the analysis. Of those properties 12 are owned by stakeholders, of which

four are uninhabited; and 22 are owned by non‐stakeholders, of which two

are uninhabited at present.

8 Reference: International Standards Organisation ISO 9613 Acoustics – Attenuation of sound

during propagation outdoors – Part 1; Calculation of the absorption of sound by the atmosphere (1993))


The Panel is satisfied that the preliminary sound level predictions have, in

general, been carried out in accordance with NZS 6808:1998.

Establishing the background noise levels is critical. This is the foundation on

which the acceptable noise levels, the modelled compliance assessment, and

the post‐construction compliance monitoring and enforcement rests.

The method for measuring background noise is specified in section 4.5, pp. 9‐

10 of NZS 6808:1998. NZS 6808:1998 recommends that 10 minute LA95 noise

measurements be taken at selected representative noise sensitive locations

and corresponding average wind speeds at hub height on the wind farm site

for a period of 10 to 14 days.

This gives a minimum of 1440 ‘data pairs’. This technique is designed to

ensure that a wide range of wind speeds are encompassed including the

whole operating wind speed range of the turbines and the critical lower

wind speed range of about 5‐8m/s at which wind turbine noise is most likely

to be audible.

The noise data as LA95 for each ten minute period, and the corresponding ten

minute mean wind speeds, are plotted and a line of best fit constructed. This

is a regression line and is the background noise level. An important feature

of this is that there is no single figure that represents background noise,

rather it is this curve relating measured noise at the receptor to wind speed at

turbine hub height. Another characteristic is that there can be, and usually

is, considerable scatter of measured data about this noise level. This leads to

some reduced confidence in the result.

It is usual practice to monitor at a selection of dwellings rather than all those

assessable. These sites are selected on the bases of suitable monitoring

positions being available, permission being granted to use them, and,

importantly, a similarity in the assessed ‘acoustic environment’ of dwellings

so that results at non‐monitored dwellings can be confidently estimated by

the data from a selected monitored site.

Mr Delaire selected 11 sites for monitoring. These were non‐stakeholder

dwellings #10, #18, #27, #58, #63, #70, #73, #74, #80, #83 and #102. The

location of these dwellings can be seen in Figure 1. The Panel notes that

these dwellings are geographically spread around the wind farm site,

including two on the Hamilton Highway. Monitoring was carried out at ten

of the sites over the same period in March 2009, and one, #63, carried out in

April 2009 (because of equipment failure in earlier monitoring).

Coincident wind speed measurements were taken from a meteorological

mast on the wind farm site. The mast had anemometers at the 20 m and 40 m


levels. Data from these were supplied by the Applicant and used by

Marshall Day Acoustics to calculate wind speed at 80m hub height by using

an equation that describes the velocity profile in a turbulent boundary layer

or by a technique that involves a measurement of wind shear and using this

for the extrapolation.

The Panel notes that the meteorological mast is several kilometres from the

dwellings, perhaps up to five kilometres in some cases. This spatial

separation is usual and inevitable, but can contribute to poorly correlated

data. Further, the Panel considers that estimating the wind speed at hub

height by extrapolating measurements from two lower levels adds another

level of uncertainty. This does not comply with the 2009 version of the Wind

Farm Guidelines, but the Panel notes that the work was done before the

promulgation of those. However, the Panel does recognise that the

correlation of measured background noise has been done with wind speed at

hub height, albeit estimated, rather than surface wind speed.

Mr Delaire explained that periods of rain were removed from the data

because of the direct noise impact of rain on the microphone.

The results of the background monitoring are presented in Figures 3 ‐ 24, pp

14 ‐ 27 of the Noise Impact Assessment report. The report states that

background noise measurements for 9 of the 11 monitored sites can be

applied to most other assessable properties, and the minimum possible NZS

6808:1998 noise limit of 40 dBA will be used at those remaining. Mr Delaire

explained to the Panel that this was a judgement done by ‘equivalence’ of

dwellings with regard to factors such as location and surroundings.

These 22 figures show the background noise for the 11 monitored dwellings

with day plus night time (all time) noise and night time noise (being 10 pm to

7 am)presented separately. Producing a separate night time noise limit is

important as it gives a lower limit against which compliance can be assessed

when lower noise levels are justified for restorative sleep.

Each of these figures shows the individual data points, the line of best fit

through those points, that is the background noise level, the equation of that

line, the coefficient of determination (R2), and the noise limit derived from

that curve.

The Panel notes that the data points are well spread across various wind

speeds as advised by NZS 6808:1998. This covers the important 5‐9m/s wind

speed range at which turbines will be operating but when background

masking noise will be low. It is under those conditions that there is the

greatest chance of some audibility of turbine noise, particularly at night.


The Panel is satisfied that the background noise measurements and the

determination of the background noise curve have been correctly carried out

as required by NZS 6808:1998. The Panel is also satisfied that the selection of

representative sites was appropriate and that, with care, the background

levels can be applied to other dwellings.

Inspection of these results indicates a generally increasing trend of

background noise with increasing wind speed as would be expected, more so

at some dwellings than others. The regression line, or line of best fit, is a

convenient way to explain the relationship between the datasets. It uses the

datasets and develops mathematically a smooth curve that best represents

the experimental data, again as required by NZS 6808:1998. The report

provides the equation of each curve.

Each figure also provides the coefficient of determination, R2, for each

regression line. This is a measure of the ‘goodness of fit’. An R2 value of one

demonstrates a perfect correlation between two variables and very high

confidence can be had that the curve in represents the measured data. A R2

value of zero indicates that there can be no confidence the curve can be used

to explain the relationship between noise and wind speed.

The R2 results range from 0.15 to 0.57 for all time noise and from 0.06 to 0.61

for night time noise. A number of the curves show a moderate correlation,

say those above about 0.4, but a number are poor, say those less than about

0.2. To help it better understand these background noise data the Panel

asked Mr Delaire to provide a 90% confidence interval analysis of the data.

Mr Delaire provided this analysis for all 11 dwellings for all time noise. This

is presented in Table 1 and Figures 4 to 14 in exhibit 61. Examination of

these, whilst not mirroring the coefficients of determination, confirms the

substantial spread of the results of the measurements. Inspection of the

graphical results also illustrates the differences in the spread of these data

between measurement sites.

These less than satisfactory coefficients of determination affect the confidence

that can be had in the assessment of background noise levels. Importantly it

has implications for post construction noise assessment and determining

compliance. From experience the Panel is aware that this is not an unusual

situation with wind farm background noise assessment; the noise at

receptors and hub height wind speed are often not strongly correlated.

In the Panel’s view this wide data scatter and hence poor correlations are a

result of having to measure noise for wind turbine assessment at higher than

the usual wind speeds allowed for other noise measurements, and in having

to correlate parameters that are measured at geographically separated, and

possibly temporally displaced, locations. NZS 6808:1998 acknowledges that


for most purposes noise is measured under calm or low wind speed

conditions, but in the case of wind turbines noise must be measured in the

presence of wind because it is under these conditions that the turbines

operate and can create noise. It advises, in part 1.3 of the standard, that this

has the potential for fluctuations and errors due to the increased background

noise levels and the effect of wind on the microphone, but that adherence to

the method can produce reasonably accurate and repeatable results.

There are a number of approaches that may help remedy this shortcoming

that are presented later. NZS 6808:1998 does not specify a minimum

acceptable R2 value, and hence the Panel concludes that none of these

coefficients of determination represent a failure to comply with that

standard.

The figures showing the background noise levels are rather ’busy’. It is not

possible to easily compare the background noise levels at the various

dwellings where measurements were made. The Panel asked Mr Delaire if

he could place the 11 all time curves on a single figure and similarly with the

night time levels. These data are shown as Figures 1 and 2 in exhibit 61.

The Panel is conscious of not reading too much into these curves. They all

show the expected increasing background noise increasing with wind speed,

at a rate of very approximately one dBA per one m/s increase in wind speed,

but with wide variations. The most noticeable feature is the spread of the

background noise levels; for all time noise that is about 10dBA and for night

time noise nearer 15dBA. The Panel can offer no explanation of this spread

nor was any suggested by the expert witness. It seems to be an artefact of the

assessment method and may be indicative of the poor data correlations and

uncertain repeatability of that method. Further it is apparent from closely

comparing the two sets of curves that the night time background noise

curves are generally somewhat lower than those for all time, as might be

expected for most monitoring sites, but interestingly not for all.

The curves intersect, hence no unequivocal conclusions can be drawn about

one site relative to others. Two dwellings are on the Hamilton Highway, the

remainder are remote from obvious noise sources other than those that might

be locally generated. Those dwellings on the Highway do not have the

highest background noise levels. The indicative highest levels are for two

dwellings to the west and north‐west, and the lowest two for a dwelling to

the east and one closer to both the Hamilton Highway and the railway line.

Mr and Mrs Schafer, #63, submitted that background noise levels were

atypically affected by a neighbour‘s extensive ploughing and suggested that

the measurements should be repeated. Mr and Mrs Keating, #74, said that at

the time of background noise measurements there was unusual noise from a


large flock of crows; they suggested that data at those times should be

removed or the measurements repeated. The Panel has reservations about

selectively removing data from data set unless it is clearly shown to be

anomalous.

Dr Robert Thorne, called as an expert witness by Mr Schafer advised the

Panel in response to a question on this that he believed that the NZS

6808:1998 method for determining background noise using a 10 day period is

not repeatable. He suggested that background noise would need to be

measured over a much longer period such as year to properly characterise

the noise environment and not be unduly influenced by particular events; he

indicated that he saw a basis for being cautious about short term data sets

containing noisy events. The Panel tentatively agrees that a longer

monitoring period would possibly improve the repeatability however the

measurement periods meet those required in the standard.

Examination of the background noise curves and the distribution of data

points used to develop those for dwellings 63 and 74 does not suggest to the

Panel that these results are atypical and might have been unduly influenced

by the events described. Hence the Panel concludes that further background

noise measurements at these two dwellings are not justified.

The noise meters used by Mr Delaire met the requirements of NZS 6808:1998.

The measured results suggest that these instruments have a ‘noise floor’ of

about 23 to 28 dBA (examination of the background noise data suggests this

variation between instruments). The ‘noise floor’ is the lowest noise level

that the instrument will respond to and is apparent from figures for the

background noise data as the noise level below which there are no further

points. It is possible, indeed likely, that some noise levels will be less than

this ‘floor’.

Dr Robert Thorne had arranged for noise measurements to be carried out at

the Schafer property using a noise meter which had a lower ‘noise floor’.

The ‘noise floor’ appeared to be about 16dBA, and in evidence Dr Thorne

said he believed such an instrument was more suitable to a rural

environment where ambient noise levels can be very low.

To assist in understanding the possible impact of a lower ‘noise floor’ the

Panel asked Mr Delaire to undertake a sensitivity analysis by taking data

measured at one dwelling and distributing results at the noise floor to a

lower level. The result is shown in Figure 3 of exhibit 61. Mr Delaire took all

results at 26dBA and randomly distributed these between 18 and 26dBA.

The results show a small impact. The background noise curve decreases by

about one dBA at low wind speeds and has little effect elsewhere; the effect

on the noise limit, which will be discussed in a later part, is almost


indistinguishable. Dr Thorne, in response to a question from the Panel, said

that he thought that this approach was reasonable. Although this is not an

issue of non‐compliance with NZS 6808:1998, and only one case has been

tested, we tentatively conclude that the ‘noise floor’ of the instruments used

are unlikely to compromise the noise limits derived from the background

noise levels compared with instruments with lower noise floors.

5.2.4 Background noise

The background noise curves for all time and night time noise and the noise

standard as in NZS 6808:1998 have been used, as described before, to

construct the acceptable noise limit for each dwelling. These acceptable noise

limits are shown in Figures 3 ‐ 24, pp. 14 ‐ 27 of the Noise Impact Assessment

report. Inspection of these figures will show how they relate to the

background noise curves; the usual construction in accord with the standard

shows, from the left of a figure, a line at 40 dBA LA95 until it is 5 dBA above

the background noise curve and then tracks at that level above the curve.

There are some exceptions to this typical shape; if the background noise

curve is always at or above 35 dBA LA95 there will be no flat portion of the

curve, if the background curve is never above 35 dBA LA95 the acceptable

noise curve will remain at 40 dBA LA95.

Like the background noise level, the acceptable noise limit is a curve rather

than a single figure.

Similarly to the background noise curves for night time compared to the all

time curves, the acceptable noise limits for night time noise at the monitored

dwellings are lower than for all time noise at most dwellings, although there

are some exceptions. Hence meeting the acceptable noise limit for night‐time

noise would usually be more demanding than that for all‐time noise.

These acceptable noise limits are the definitive noise performance limits

against which the modelled performance and, if constructed, the actual

compliance of the wind farm must be assessed.

It should be noted that an acceptable limit curve for a given location shows

the maximum noise level that is allowed at that location with the wind farm

operating and that level is derived from an analyses of a set of noise and

wind speed data. It does not indicate that at any particular wind speed the

noise will be less than the level shown by that acceptable limit curve at all

times. The variability of noise at any particular wind speed as indicated by

the background noise measurements, is such that the noise level on

individual occasions with or without the wind farm operating may exceed

the level shown by the curve.


5.2.5 Turbine types

It is common practice for a wind farm applicant to nominate an existing

turbine type as an ‘indicative’ or ‘illustrative’ turbine for the assessment.

This approach identifies a turbine type that generally has the characteristics

intended for the proposal. The reason for this is that at the time of entering

into a contract for the supply of the turbines the indicative type may no

longer be available, newer models with improved features may have entered

the market, or a broadly similar type may be more competitive. That is, it

enables the Applicant to preserve some flexibility in selecting the turbine

type whilst providing the essential features needed for a planning permit

application to be considered.

For noise the panel assessment would be based on the noise characteristics of

the nominated ‘indicative’ turbine. If another type is selected the noise may

have to be re‐evaluated if that type has less favourable sound emissions; if

the sound is lower then it may be able to be assumed that the predictions for

this ‘indicative’ turbine are conservative.

In this case the Applicant has taken a different approach; it has nominated

six current turbine types, one of which appears to be a recent market entrant

since only preliminary sound power levels data is reported as being available

for that model.

The PAR at Section 4.2 pp 19‐20 discusses this approach. Critical dimensions

of the turbine types are shown in Table 3, p.20, and some of this is repeated

with the model names in Table 1, p.3 of the Noise Impact Assessment report.

The Panel is not persuaded of the value of this approach; it seems to us in

essence little different from nominating an ‘indicative’ turbine that has both

the greatest physical dimensions and highest noise output that might be

considered.

In this case the Panel believes that the ‘maximum envelope’ concept should

encompass both the maximum size, since that determines the greatest

shadow flicker and visual impacts, and the largest noise emissions since that

determines the greatest noise effect. If that is shown to be compliant a

selected turbine that meets, or is less than those parameters would also be

compliant. That would appear to have been achievable by using either the

Nordex N100 or Siemens SWT 101 as ‘indicative’ types.

The Panel has previously expressed disappointment that the Vestas V90 was

used for the preliminary screening since this machine does not have the

greatest noise emissions of the nominated turbine types. However we


support the detailed noise modelling having been carried out for all turbine

types.

5.2.6 Wind farm noise predictions

NZS 6808:1998 requires that the noise at each of the nominated noise

sensitive receptors from the proposed wind farm be mathematically

calculated i.e. modelled or predicted. The results should then be compared

with the determined acceptable noise level at each of those sites. That

confirms design compliance, or otherwise with the standard.

The approach is similar to that used for the preliminary prediction described

before to establish noise sensitive receptors. Rather than identifying noise

contours at a fixed wind speed as before, this now establishes the wind farm

noise impact at identified dwellings over a range of wind speeds. The

equation used for the modelling is the same as before i.e. NZS 6808:1998

section 4.3.2, pp 7‐8.

The modelling depends on assessing the noise propagation from each

turbine to each of the identified receptors and mathematically summing

those to give the total noise impact at each site. The NZS 6808:1998 approach

uses a hemispherical spreading model. That assumes that the noise travels

uniformly out from the source diminishing in sound level as it spreads. The

model includes noise attenuation due to air absorption but does not include

attenuation of noise at the ground, presence of intervening topography, the

presence of vegetation or differences in noise reduction due to the noise

frequency distribution. Further, it assumes that each receptor is always

downwind of the noise source. NZS 6808:1998 says that there is general

acceptance that the approach is slightly conservative. That is, it tends to over

estimate the noise level.

Critical inputs to the modelling are the sound level characteristics of the

turbine types. As described earlier those data have been obtained from the

turbine manufacturer. Further, and also as discussed earlier, the assessment

has used, as allowed by the standard, frequency related sound power levels

to estimate the noise absorption coefficient for air.

The results for this modelling are presented in the 72 figures in the Noise

Impact Assessment report at Appendix F, Figures F1 to K12. These are shown

for each of the six turbine types (six data sets of twelve figures each), and

within each set the assessment for each of the eleven monitored dwellings

plus those considered equivalent and one for those dwellings where the

minimum noise level is to be applied (twelve figures in each set).


These predicted noise levels have been presented graphically in the

previously referenced documents (most specifically exhibit 15) for all‐time

noise and for night‐time noise for the nominated noise sensitive receptors.

The Panel is satisfied that the applicant has followed the appropriate

procedures to predict noise from the proposed wind farm according to the

prescribed NZS 6808:1998 method.

The Panel also tentatively accepts that some of the simplifications in the

predictive model may lead to a conservative outcome. Indeed it is preferable

that the predictive model be conservative than otherwise. If the model were

to underestimate the actual wind farm noise that might be produced, post

construction noise monitoring may indicate non‐compliance with acceptable

noise levels and the need to implement remedial actions then arises. The

Panel is satisfied that the predictive model gives a reasonable simulation of

the likely noise from the proposed wind farm within the limitations imposed

by the approximations and assumptions of the method and by available data.

Design compliance with noise criteria at non‐stakeholder dwellings

It is necessary to note here that #9 was marked on the PAR as a stakeholder

dwelling but identified during the hearing as a non‐stakeholder dwelling.

Hence it is a dwelling that must be considered under this heading as being

required to meet the noise standards.

Compliance is shown if the predicted noise level curve is, at all wind speeds,

below the acceptable noise limit curve. Conversely non‐compliance is

demonstrated if that predicted noise level curve is anywhere above the

acceptable noise limits curve.

To assess compliance the critical lines in figures F1 to K12 at Appendix F in

the Noise Impact Assessment report are those for the all time and night time

acceptable noise limits and the predicted wind farm noise level curves for the

dwelling(s) shown on that figure.

Two features can be seen from these figures:

the margin of predicted compliance is quite variable, as might be

expected with different distances to dwellings; for some situations it can

be many dBA and in others the margin is quite narrow; and

in many cases the predicted noise curves and the acceptable noise limits

are closest at a hub height wind speed of about 9 ‐10 m/s. This is a

surface wind speed of about 6 ‐7m/s (about 20 – 25km/h) and is the

condition at which background masking noise is low and any turbine

audibility most likely.


The results are presented in tabular form in Tables 6 to 11, pp 28‐37 of the

Noise Impact Assessment report and summarised in Tables 12 and 13, p 38 for

all time and night time noise respectively. For non‐stakeholder dwellings it

is seen that for two turbine types, the Vestas V90 and Vestas V100,

compliance is predicted to be achieved at all assessed non‐stakeholder

dwellings, including those currently unoccupied, for all time and for night

time noise. Non‐assessed dwellings more distant from the site would

therefore be compliant. For the other four turbine types there is predicted to

be some non‐compliance, particularly for night time noise, and in some cases

possible minor non‐compliance at non‐assessed dwellings.

The Noise Impact Assessment report at section 8.7, p38 states;

It can be seen from Tables 12 and 13 that the Vestas V90 is the best

suited model for the proposed layout.

Compliance with NZS 6808:1998 is likely to be achieved at all properties

in the vicinity of the proposed Berrybank Wind Farm with the other five

(5) selected wind turbine models if an appropriate noise management

plan is implemented. At this stage we do not have sufficient

manufacturer’s data to assess noise emissions from the proposed wind

farm using wind turbines in noise managed settings.

If one of the five (5) wind turbine models is selected, further assessment

should be carried out to determine the appropriate noise management

plan.

(Panel note; the reference above to five turbine models includes

stakeholder dwellings non‐compliance with the Vestas V100; for this

section on non‐stakeholder dwellings the appropriate number of

turbine types is four)

The Panel is aware that contemporary wind turbines can be operated in a

noise reduction mode that reduces noise emissions, but at the cost of

decreased energy output. The Panel is not comfortable that such a mode can

be satisfactorily implemented to ensure compliance and discuss this further

when considering post construction monitoring for compliance.

The Panel believes that the noise prediction modelling for the six wind

turbine types at the assessed non‐stakeholder receptors has been carried out

as required by NZS 6808:1998


5.2.7 Special audible characteristics

NZS 6808:1998 at section 5.3, p.11 advises that in some circumstances wind

turbines might generate tones or modulated noise that can be disturbing. It

prescribes methods for assessing this and a noise penalty to be applied if

these audible characteristics are present.

In addition to continuous noise generated when the turbines are operating it

is possible for a wind farm to exhibit so‐called special audible characteristics

(SACs). These are audible features that are distinct from the usual noise and

may sometimes be discontinuous noises repeated at regular intervals. They

may include distinctive tones, impulsive sounds and modulation of sound

levels. This issue is described in NZS 6808:1998 and has been discussed in

other wind farm panel reports.

The standard advises that to account for the presence of any of these SACs a

5dB penalty be imposed. This penalty is applied by the arithmetic addition

of 5dB to the noise measured from post installation noise compliance testing.

NZS 6808:1998 notes that there is no simple objective method available to

measure these special audible characteristics. It advises that subjective

assessment is therefore necessary and should be supported, where possible,

by objective analysis.

It was submitted to the Panel that as a precautionary measure the SACs

penalty should be included at the outset. The Panel does not consider it

reasonable or fair that the Berrybank wind farm should be treated differently

to other wind farms. Furthermore the Panel understands that turbine

manufacturers guarantee their machines being free of certain undesirable

acoustic characteristics. The Panel however observes that for some turbine

types and at some non‐stakeholder dwellings the margin of compliance is

modelled to accommodate a 5dB penalty without becoming non‐compliant.

In relation to SACs it is appropriate to refer to the so‐called ‘van den Berg

effect’. In 2003 Dr Van den Berg investigated noise effects from a wind farm

near the Germany ‐ Netherlands border. The Panel understands that noise

levels were higher than anticipated and there was some modulation of noise.

Dr Van den Berg linked these to periods of high atmospheric stability. The

applicant provided no data on atmospheric stability which may have been

obtainable by analyses of data from the meteorological tower. The Panel is

not aware of any local experience supporting the existence of this van den

Berg effect.


In the Noise Impact Assessment report at section 4.9, pp 9‐10 this issue is

discussed.

On the first issue, the higher than expected noise levels, it has been suggested

that under stable atmospheric conditions wind speed at hub height may be

higher and that at ground level lower than expected which could lead to

noise emissions being more noticeable. The report states:

We consider that where a noise assessment uses wind speed data collected

at the hub height, any potential stable air effects will be better represented

in the assessment process. Where an assessment is carried out with 10m

AGL (note; above ground level) wind speed data, there is a greater risk

that stable air effects will not be considered during the assessment

process.

The noise impact assessment for the Berrybank Wind farm was

undertaken with wind speeds referenced to hub height (80m) in order to

reduce the potential effects of air stability on predicted noise levels.

On the second issue, that is the impulsiveness, the report comments;

It was conjectured that this was due to the modulating pattern of noise

emission from the nearest cluster of turbines, which operated at

approximately the same rotational speed but with blades being

appropriately out‐of‐phase.

The report suggested that there is a lack of consensus on these issues, saying:

Given the current state of published information regarding both stable air

effects and impulsiveness, we do not consider it appropriate to directly

assess either effect as part of the pre‐construction planning phase. It is

considered that, should either effect be present once the wind farm is

operational then, measures may be taken to control them.

Material provided by Dr Robert Thorne (called as an expert witness by Mr

and Mrs Schafer) in a document titled Berrybank Wind Farm Critique of Noise

Assessment raised the possibility ‘heightened noise zones’ from multiple

turbines as a result of what seems to be interference effects.

The Panel is not completely comfortable that some untoward noise effects

might occur. However the Panel believes that these might be possible, but

perhaps incompletely understood. SACs and higher noise levels than

expected can be dealt with by conditions. Rigorous post construction noise

monitoring to establish and ensure compliance with the acceptable noise

limits will be essential as will the identification and rectification of any SACs.


5.2.8 Stakeholders dwellings

Stakeholder dwellings will often, although not always, be closer to wind

turbines than non‐stakeholder dwellings. Hence some of these may be

subject to higher noise levels.

The preliminary noise assessment identified a number of stakeholder

dwellings, including some currently unoccupied, within the 35 dBA contour.

They are included on the Figures F1 to K12 at Appendix F in the Noise Impact

Assessment report; in tabular form in Tables 6 to 11, pp 28‐37 of that report;

and summarised in Tables 12 and 13, p38 for all time and night time noise

respectively.

The assessment shows that the noise standard of NZS 6808:1998 would not

be met at some of these dwellings. In the Noise Impact Assessment report at

section 1.0, p2 and section 3.2, p4 it informs that those stakeholder dwellings

that will not comply with the standard of NZS 6808:1998 will meet the

recommended noise limit for those who benefit from such projects in the

report of ‘The European Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines’

(ETSU‐R‐97, item 24, p(viii)). ETSU‐R‐97 is the document on which NZS

6808:1998 is based. That item states;

The Noise Working Group recommends that both day‐ and night‐time

lower fixed limits can be increased to 45dBA and that consideration

should be given to increasing the permissible margin above background

where the occupier of the property has some financial involvement in the

wind farm.

The Noise Impact Assessment report advises that for the stakeholder

properties it is proposed to use a 45 dBA base criterion and hence,

analogous to the noise standard, noise levels from the proposed wind

farm at a stakeholder’s dwelling should not exceed the background

noise level the background sound level (L95) by more than 5 dBA L95, or

a level of 45 dBA L95, whichever is the greater.

There appear to be twelve stakeholder dwellings of which four are

uninhabited or uninhabitable. Eight of these dwellings, including two

uninhabited ones would seem to be potentially most impacted by noise. Of

those six occupied houses all will comply with the ETSU‐R‐97 modified noise

limit with the Vestas V90 turbines. From Tables 12 and 13, p.38 for all time

and night time noise respectively in the Noise Impact Assessment report it is

seen that there are varying levels of non‐compliance for all five other turbine

types; compliance would be achieved only by implementing an appropriate

noise management operating mode.


Two of the unoccupied dwellings, #65 and #76 would be subject to very high

levels of noise as inspection of the data would show. These have turbine

sites within about 300m. The Panel presumes that the wind farm design is

premised on these two sites remaining unoccupied since any occupancy

would be subject to very substantial amenity impacts of noise, shadow flicker

and visual effects.

We make two comments about these stakeholder dwellings.

Firstly, the Panel understands that the owners of each of these

dwellings have entered into agreements with the Applicant that they

understand that their amenity may be impacted, including that from

noise. Whilst the Panel notes the design measures to limit the noise at

the occupied stakeholder dwellings we do not propose to consider

these dwellings further, including those six expected to experience

some noise impact beyond the NZS 6808:1998.

Secondly, two of the four uninhabited stakeholder dwellings are

subjected to very high levels of noise, several dBA above other

locations. The Panel believes that the level of noise is such that these

dwellings should not be occupied on that, as well as other grounds such

as shadow flicker. Following a suggestion from the Corangamite Shire

the Panel believes that the Agreement between the Applicant and the

owners of these dwellings should require their continued inoccupation

or their demolition.

5.2.9 Post construction compliance monitoring

Once the facility is constructed and commissioned it is essential to ensure

that the operating wind farm complies with the acceptable noise limits. This

checking of actual performance is especially important for a wind farm for

which the prediction rests on a number of assumptions and approximations

such as noise attenuation, atmospheric stability, special audible

characteristics and turbine sound power level; moreover this rigorous post

installation noise monitoring program is essential because of the sometimes

small predicted margins between the acceptable noise limits and the

predicted wind farm noise.

The results of this monitoring are to be compared with the acceptable noise

limit curves for each noise sensitive receptor. Since those acceptable noise

limit curves are derived from the background noise measurements the

monitoring should be carried out in a way as closely as possible to that used

for the background noise monitoring. Ideally the noise monitoring should be

carried out at the same sites, using the same anemometer locations used for

the wind speed measurements, over a similar time period covering a similar

range of wind conditions, be undertaken at a similar time of the year, and the


regression lines fitted to the data discriminated by all time and night time

noise. That is, in accord with good scientific practice that only one variable

has changed i.e. the operating wind farm.

It is highly unlikely this ideal position can be achieved. In particular,

monitoring may need to be carried out at a number of non‐ stakeholder

dwellings which have the background noise, and hence the acceptable limit

curve, determined by translation from another similar site rather than having

been measured directly. Further, anemometer locations may change if the

meteorological masts are relocated for wind farm operation, and the time of

year for monitoring should follow completion of wind farm commissioning

rather than wait for the same time of the year.

A particular difference for this post‐construction monitoring, as distinct from

the background monitoring, is that with the wind farm operating the

presence of any SACs may require the application of a 5dB noise penalty.

If compliance is not shown, action must be taken within a specified period to

bring the wind farm into compliance and monitoring repeated until

compliance is demonstrated. That must be done as expeditiously as possible.

The Panel believes that after compliance has been shown to be achieved that

testing be repeated 12 months later. No further testing should be needed

unless there is sound reason for believing that continuing noise compliance is

not being achieved.

The Panel believes that allowance needs to be made for intermediate and

final noise testing if the facility should be built in stages. In that event the

detail of a noise compliance testing program would need to be submitted to

the Minister for Planning for approval.

The focus of post construction monitoring and noise compliance should be

on those stakeholder dwellings, including presently unoccupied dwellings

#10 and #56 predicted to have the highest wind turbine noise exposure. The

Panel is conscious that the selection depends on permission to access the

locations and the availability of suitable sites near the dwellings.

The compliance noise monitoring must be carried out with all turbines

operational. If during the testing one or more turbines near to any noise

monitoring location has to be shut down the testing should be repeated.

During this post installation and compliance noise testing phase particular

attention should be given to presence of SACs. If suspected to be present the

assistance of an independent acoustics expert should be sought to advise on


this and the expert’s advice implemented to establish the presence of such

characteristics.

The above discussion of demonstrating compliance must be qualified by the

poor correlation obtained between noise and wind speed for deriving the

background noise. Similarly poorly correlated data from the post‐

construction monitoring might be found. Demonstrating compliance or non‐

compliance might then depend on comparing the position of two curves, one

or both of which have considerable uncertainty. That could lead to some

controversy. The Panel considers that to be undesirable and should be

avoided if possible.

In response to a question from the Panel Mr Delaire suggested that he saw

limited value in repeating the background measurements. The Panel agrees;

repeating the measurements may lead to a similar outcome. In that case the

effort has not improved the position. If the correlations are much improved

that arguably demonstrates the poor repeatability of the method at those

locations. That does not seem to help either.

The Panel is aware that Mr Delaire had previously advised panels of the

possible use of a ’shut down test’ to help resolve uncertainty. As the Panel

understands the proposal it consists of measuring noise from the operating

wind farm, which includes background noise plus any wind turbine noise,

for a short period and then shutting down the nearest wind turbines. The

background noise levels are then measured at as similar conditions as

possible including wind speed and wind direction. The background noise is

the subtracted from the noise with the wind farm operating to determine

wind farm only noise. That difference can then be assessed against the

standard i.e. that it does not exceed the background sound level by more

than 5dBA, or a level of 40dBA L95, whichever is the greater. NZS 6808:1998

allows for correlations by wind direction. At 4.5.5 p 10 it states:

It may be necessary to separately correlate background sound levels with

windspeed for different wind directions and/or time of day.

The Panel is attracted to this approach as a means of determining and

ensuring compliance with less uncertainty than the usual approach. In

practice the approach may be enhanced by using data with the wind

direction in a sector from the wind farm to the receptor. The Panel do

acknowledge that it may require greater effort and time than otherwise,

but it may be necessary to ensure compliance and protection of acoustic

amenity.

Other methods are also available to determine post‐construction compliance,

or non‐compliance, by measurement as required by NZS 6808:1998. These

may include repeating background noise measurements, more extended


measurement periods with noise segregated by wind direction and the

turbine shut down approach. The Panel is of the view that the Applicant

should develop a detailed protocol for post construction noise testing

pursuant to any planning permit that might be issued and this should be to

the satisfaction of the Minster for Planning. Further, the Panel believes that

that protocol and the results of post construction noise testing should be

made publicly available.

5.2.10 Noise complaints

Wind farm planning permit applications, quite understandably, focus on

compliance of the proposed wind farm with the acceptable noise limits

specified in NZS 6808:1998. Panels assessing wind farm applications have

generally taken the view that, notwithstanding this care in the design of the

facility, the possibility of noise complaints should not be ruled out.

Accordingly they have tended to recommend a detailed condition for a

complaints system whereby complaints of alleged wind farm noise can be

made, the justification considered objectively, and if justified, remedial action

can be taken.

This Panel adopts a similar position.

Further, like the Lal Lal Wind Farm Panel we adopt the approach that there

need not be separate complaints systems for noise and other issues, but a

single system.

The Environmental Management Plan Framework at exhibit 16 provided by the

Applicant at the request of the Panel refers to the proposed EMP containing a

complaint handling procedure’. Appendix 6 of the PAR made

recommendations on a grievance mechanism and upon questioning by the

Panel it is one of the recommendations that the Applicant intends to

implement however details were not provided. To ensure this occurs the

Panel has made it a condition.

The Panel suggests that the following procedural matters be considered in

developing the complaints management system generally and for noise

specifically:

since the enforcement of permit conditions is expected to be the

responsibility of Corangamite and Golden Plains Shire that they be

consulted in finalising the procedure;

because this proposal crosses a municipal boundary the two shires will

need to ensure that the system enables them to deal with complaints

similarly and be able handle cross boundary complaints;


consideration be given to including an essentially independent person in

any negotiation and mediation;

retain an acoustics expert with wind turbine noise experience as needed.

This may be important if special acoustic characteristics have to be

considered since these are essentially subjective;

provide for facsimile, e‐mail, and text communication if immediate

contact is needed for a particular acoustic phenomenon;

specific mention be made of the nature of wind farm generated noise to

help with describing any noise and for investigating the complaint. This

might include aerodynamic noise, mechanical noises and SACs;

consideration be given to the use of audio recordings, including archived

base line recordings as references, as a possible means of identifying any

wind turbine caused noise; and

if a planning permit is issued and the project is constructed the existence,

nature and use of the complaint procedure for noise be made known to

the occupants of all dwellings within the vicinity of the wind farm.

The Panel has recommended a complaints management plan be prepared via

condition.

5.2.11 Cumulative impact

The Wind Farm Guidelines require:

A description of the proposal including written reports including….the

cumulative effects of the proposal having regard to other existing or

proposed wind energy facilities in the area.

The Noise Impact Assessment report does not address this matter for noise.

The Applicant provided to the Panel a plan showing operating, approved

and proposed wind farms within about a 70km radius of the site to assist the

assessment of various cumulative impacts (this plan is a revision of Figure 21

in the PAR which had omitted two operating wind farms). As there is no

operating, approved or proposed wind farm closer than about 30km there

are no cumulative wind farm noise measures to be considered for this

proposal.

No submission was made on this matter.


5.2.12 Submissions

Many of issues raised in submissions have been considered in previous

sections, those that have not are discussed below.

A number of submissions expressed concern about the likely change to their

acoustic environment including their dwellings but also extending to their

workplace, that is, their farm.

The Panel notes that the noise standard specifically applies to dwellings and

their immediate surroundings; it does no apply to the workplace. The Panel

was not provided with any evidence that operating wind farms creates a

work place safety issue, nor has it been made aware of any guidance from

work place safety authorities.

The Panel understands the concern that has been expressed given the recent

high profile of reports of ill health in some people near the Waubra wind

farm. It is being suggested that those health concerns are linked to noise and

other impacts from that recently commissioned wind farm.

The Panel is conscious that the requirement to be met is compliance with

NZS 6808:1998 which, as explained previously, is not framed to ensure

inaudibility of wind farm noise, but rather to provide an acoustic

environment that meets the World Health Organisation recommendation for

the indoor noise level which should not be exceeded.

We note that with regard to community concerns about ultrasound that the

note to section 1.3, p.5 of NZS 6808:1998 states;

WTGs may produce sound at frequencies below 9dBA (Infrasound) and

above (ultrasound) the audible range. Ultrasound attenuates rapidly

over moderate distances. Reference to overseas studies on infrasound

reveals that:

(a) Sound spectra for modern WTGs indicate that compliance with the limits

in this Standard (clause 4.4.2) will ensure that infrasound pressure

levels will be well below the level of perception.

(b) Any potential adverse effect of infrasound would occur at levels greater

than the threshold of perception .....

That suggests to the Panel that compliance with NZS 6808:1998 also ensures

that protection is provided against adverse effects of infrasound.

Corangamite Shire commented on the possibility of the turbines having to

operate in a noise management mode to comply with the standard. In its

submission at exhibit 40B, p12 of the Council agenda paper it recommends:


The proponent should investigate resiting of the turbines prior to the

panel hearing to attain a greater level of compliance with the noise

standards rather than rely on post commissioning management of this

predicted noise issue.

The Panel is not comfortable with the noise prediction that indicates that four

of the six turbine types evaluated may have to be operated in a noise

management mode to comply with the standard. Although theoretically it

be possible to operate the turbines like this for short, medium or indefinite

periods the Panel was not given evidence of such a procedure or experience

of its use elsewhere. The Panel does not anticipate that an operator would be

amenable to long periods of turbine(s) operating in a reduced noise mode

with consequential reduced energy output.

The Panel considers that the chosen turbine model must to comply without

the anticipated need for using the noise management mode.


Based on the evidence and submissions that the Panel has sighted, and on its

analysis of that material, the Panel concludes that the proposed Berrybank

Wind Farm should satisfy the Wind Farm Guidelines requirement that:

A wind energy facility should comply with the noise levels recommended

for dwellings in New Zealand Standard NZ6808:1998 Acoustics ‐ The

Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators.

That conclusion is based on the evidence of the acceptable noise level curves

developed from background noise measurements and the predicted noise

from the wind farm using the indicative wind turbine model.

Hence, the Panel concludes that operational noise compliance is not an

impediment to the issue of a planning permit.

However, the Panel advises that the background noise measurements do not

provide a sufficiently robust basis on which to establish compliance, or non‐

compliance, from the post‐construction noise monitoring that will have to be

carried out. The applicant acknowledges this. Mr Delaire, the expert witness

on noise, advised of techniques that might be used to rectify this problem

and the Panel makes recommendations accordingly.

The Panel also concludes that noise monitoring should be carried out at the

dwellings of a number of neighbouring non‐participating landowners to

ensure compliance as soon as practicable after the wind farm is

commissioned. That requirement may have to reflect staged construction of


the wind energy facility. If non‐compliance is identified effective action to

ensure compliance is required.

The Panel notes that the applicant has recognised the importance of

managing construction noise for the period of building the facility. The

Panel concludes that, although there will be noise from the construction

activities, including traffic, that is not incompatible with otherwise allowed

activities allowed in the Farming Zone.

The Panel concludes that the noise assessment has been carried out according

to the requirements of NZS 6808:1998.


4. When a final turbine model is selected, the noise assessment be

repeated, excluding background noise measurements, to demonstrate

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning that wind farm noise

will comply with NZS 6808:1998.

5. No turbine model be approved that is not NZS 6808:1998 compliant

such that operation in noise management mode might be needed.

6. Where possible the turbine model should be selected and the

micrositing allowance used to give the greatest margin of noise

compliance possible.

7. After commissioning of the wind farm, or stages thereof if it is so

constructed, noise monitoring be carried out in accord with NZS

6808:1998 to determine compliance. This should include:

providing results within 3 months of commissioning last turbine

of wind farm or in stages;

if compliant repeat after 12 months and provide results within 3

months after that; and

if non compliant bring into compliance and demonstrate such by

testing and providing results showing such within 6 months of

commissioning.

8. Development of a complaints system, including for noise complaints,

as described in Draft conditions in Appendix B. This must be able to

receive complaints immediately and respond effectively within 24

hours.

9. That construction noise be managed to meet relevant EPA

requirements for noise control at that time.

The Panel has drafted permit conditions to address these recommendations

in Appendix B.


6. Flora and fauna

6.1 Planning and regulatory framework

The Wind Farm Guidelines require that:

The flora and fauna found on the site should be considered in relation to:

· whether the species and communities are protected under the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC Act) or the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

· the sensitivity of any protected species to disturbance, and

· the potential loss of habitat of species protected under the EPBC Act

or the FFG Act.

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and

the Arts determined that the Berrybank wind farm proposal is not a

controlled action under the EPBC Act (12 November 2009). Based on the

PAR there are species and communities in and within the vicinity the

proposed wind farm that are listed under the FFG Act and these are

discussed below.

The Application does not meet the criteria specified in the Environment Effects

Act 1978 therefore the submission of an Environment Effects Statement was

not required.

Clause 15.09 (Conservation of flora and fauna) in the State Planning Policy

Framework aims to protect and conserve biodiversity through the retention

of native vegetation and provision of habitat. If native vegetation is to be

removed this claus requires the application of the three step process of avoid,

minimise or offset as outlined in the Native Vegetation Management – A

Framework for Action (2002). Under Clause 52.17 a permit to remove

vegetation is required.

In the area that is likely to be impacted by the development Vegetation

Protection Overlays (VPO2) applies to the roadsides along Urchs Road and

Wilgul‐ Werneth Road, under the Golden Plains Planning Scheme, and to

Berrybank – Wallinduc Road and Hamilton Highway (north side) and

Berrybank ‐ Werneth Road (VPO2) under the Corangamite Planning Scheme.


Golden Plains Shire requested the Minister for Planning consider an

application to remove native vegetation (P09‐134 A) along Urchs Road. The

Minister agreed and the application is included in this Panel’s consideration.

6.2 Flora and fauna assessment

The Applicant commissioned Brett Lane and Associates (BLA) to undertake a

flora and fauna assessment of the proposed wind farm site. This assessment

included the following elements:

reviews of the existing flora and fauna databases including the

Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (DSE) flora and fauna

databases, the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife and the EPBC Act Protected

Matters Search Tool, to determine the occurrence of flora and fauna

(particularly rare and threatened species) within a 15 kilometre radius of

the site;

preliminary and detailed flora and fauna field surveys – there were

spring surveys in October 2007 and October 2008 for flora and fauna by

vehicle and on foot;

targeted surveys in spring 2009 for EPBC Act listed flora species and

listed Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) Natural Temperate Grassland of

the Victorian Volcanic Community;

a bat survey in autumn 2009;

a targeted Brolga survey within a 20 kilometre radius of the site and

additional Brolga surveys during breeding and flocking seasons;

targeted surveys on 8 August and 12 October 2009 of EPBC Act listed

flora species in area impacted by the development footprint; and

striped Legless Lizard site assessment in February 2010.

BLA’s assessment indicated that while there were no significant limitations

during the field work all species cannot be detected during limited surveys

due to seasonality. For example identification of summer flowering grasses

is difficult in spring and similarly some frogs and reptiles are difficult to

detect during the cooler months when they are inactive.

Mr Lane from BLA appeared as an expert witness.


6.3 Flora – Evidence and submissions

Searches of databases found that there could be 16 flora species of state or

national significance within a radius of 15 kilometres of the site. Surveys

recorded 35 flora species in the study area.

Surveys undertaken by BLA found that the study area has largely been

cleared for agriculture with the only areas that support native vegetation

being predominantly along roadsides. While several EVCs were considered

likely to exist in the study area, according to Mr Lane the site only has small

remnants of the EVC Plains Grassland / Plains Grassy Woodland Mosaic and

Plains Grassland and this is mainly restricted to roadsides.

The critically endangered Spiny rice‐flower and the vulnerable Trailing hop‐

bush, both EPBC listed, were found on the wind farm site, the former during

the survey work and the latter by a landowner. It was also considered 11

other threatened species may occur in the study area but were not found

during the survey work. These include Adamson’s Blown‐grass, Button

Wrinklewort, Clover Glycine, Curly Sedge, Fragrant Leek‐orchid, Hairy

Tails, Large – Fruit Firewood, Maroon Leek‐orchid, Small Milkwort, White

Sunray and Swamp Fireweed.

In Appendix 4 of the PAR the initial estimation of vegetation that may

require removal was 0.11 hectares, all of which is offsite. However based on

a survey in October 2009 BLA found that the native vegetation at the

proposed Doyles Road access point had degraded and as a result the amount

of vegetation that may require removal had been reduced to 0.02 hectares.

This 0.02 hectares, which may be required for power pole pads, may be

avoided by micro siting. However BLA also recommended that a further

spring survey of the flora be undertaken and this was supported by the

Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD).

Furthermore it was assessed that there will be no impact on native vegetation

as a result of road widening or to the high quality remnants known to exist

along the railway line.

Neither DSE nor DPCD raised any strong objections to the native vegetation

removal although DSE requested that there be a permit condition requiring

that the offsets are determined by the Applicant in consultation with DSE

prior to vegetation removal.

The Corangamite Shire expressed concern that its native vegetation mapping

did not align with that found during the Applicant’s surveys and was also

supportive of additional survey work as the detailed design phase of the

project progresses.


DPCD also suggested that native vegetation removal could be avoided by

using freehold land inside the fence boundary to site power poles. This was

supported by Mr Lane.

There was also discussion at the hearing on the relative impacts that

overhead versus underground power lines would have on native vegetation.

In Mr Lane’s opinion overhead power lines would have less impact on native

vegetation as underground power lines would require a 20 – 30m wide

impact area (trench and surrounds). However Mr Schafer, based on his work

in earth moving, considered that Mr Lane’s estimate for underground power

lines was too wide.

In relation to visual screening Mr Lane and DPCD agreed that no visual

screening should be planted in, or near, any native vegetation as effects such

as shading could adversely affect the native vegetation. Based on similar

impacts Mr Lane also recommended that no signage be located in or near

native vegetation.

6.3.1 Panel assessment - flora

The exact quantity of native vegetation that will need to be removed is

unclear and will only be determined once the design of the wind farm has

been finalised. Given the drought conditions that have been experienced

over the past decade or so the Panel agrees with the proposal by Mr Lane

and others that prior to any native vegetation removal an additional spring

native vegetation survey be undertaken. It also supports DSE’s

recommendation that offsets be determined prior to any native vegetation

removal. Nevertheless the Panel considers that based on the indicative size

of loss, it is not extensive and in consultation with DSE appropriate offsets, if

any native vegetation removal is required, can be found. Given the concerns

expressed by the Corangamite Shire about the difference in its vegetation

mapping, and that of the Applicant, and the importance placed on

minimizing loss it would be appropriate that the Shire be included in the

consultation process on native vegetation removal during the iterative

process of detailed design.

The Panel is supportive of the suggestion that power poles be sited on

freehold land adjacent to the road reserve, as this will obviate to the need to

remove any native vegetation and makes the question of the impact of the

construction of above ground or underground power lines on native

vegetation redundant. During the without prejudice discussion on the draft

permit conditions the Applicant indicated some support for this proposition.

While the Applicant asserts that there is no requirement for removal of any

native vegetation on the wind farm site some native vegetation was found on


the site. The Panel considers that it is essential that particularly during the

construction phase, this vegetation is protected.

6.3.2 Conclusion and recommendations

In conclusion the Panel is satisfied the permit should be granted once the

following amendments are included. The Panel recommends:

10. Include a condition in the Native Vegetation Permit requiring a

report by a suitably qualified person after the completion of a

targeted spring survey of native vegetation in the vicinity of access

points where a Vegetation Protection Overlay exists. The report

should set out the findings of the targeted spring survey and, if

vegetation listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is identified, set out how impacts on that vegetation is to be avoided or

minimised.

11. Revise the Native Vegetation Permit to provide for the following:

Consultation with the Department of Sustainability and

Environment, the Corangamite Shire and Golden Plains Shire in

the preparation of the offset plan;

Identification of offsets prior to native vegetation removal; and

Where possible native vegetation offsets be minimised by the

siting of infrastructure such as power poles on freehold land.

12. Revise the Draft Permit Conditions ‐ Native Vegetation Management

Plan to include the following:

A protocol for the protection of native vegetation on the wind farm

site during the construction phase.

13. Revise the Draft Permit Conditions ‐ Landscape/Visual Amenity to

include the following:

The plan must not including visual screening that, when at full

maturity, will cause the overshadowing of any native vegetation

on roadside reserves.

6.3.3 Fauna - Evidence and submissions

Based on literature and database reviews Appendix 4 of the PAR indicated

that the wind farm site could support 116 species of terrestrial vertebrate

fauna including 10 species of mammals (four introduced), 95 species of birds

(six introduced), six species of reptile and 45 species of frog. Of these 20

species are listed on EPBC databases (five mammals, 12 birds, one reptile,


one frog, one invertebrate). An additional two species are listed under the

FFG Act and six more are on the DSE advisory list as threatened species.

However the Applicant considered it unlikely that many of these would

occur in the study area due to lack of suitable habitat.

Birds

Listed birds with potential habitat in the study area include the following:

Brolga (FFG listed, vulnerable on DSE advisory list);

Great Egret (FFG listed, vulnerable on DSE advisory list);

Gull‐billed tern (FFG listed, endangered on DSE advisory list);

Australian Shoveler (vulnerable on DSE advisory list);

Cape Barren Goose (near threatened on DSE advisory list);

Glossy Ibis (near threatened on DSE advisory list);

Hardhead (vulnerable on DSE advisory list);

Latham’s’ Snipe (near threatened on DSE advisory list); and

Whiskered Tern (near threatened on DSE advisory list).

The most abundant birds inhabiting the area were found to be common

farmland birds and no listed species were found during surveys. It was

noted that the Wedge‐tailed Eagle, which is prone to colliding with wind

turbines, was sighted twice and a nearby nest was reported by a landowner.

One Nankeen Kestrel which flies at turbine height was seen during survey

work. Neither of these two birds is listed as endangered, threatened or

vulnerable.

It was submitted by Mr Graeme and Mrs Catherine Keating that further

fauna studies are required, particularly for the Wedge‐tailed Eagle and the

Yellow Tailed Black Cockatoo. Mrs Gabrielle Keating reported that a flock of

Yellow Tailed Black Cockatoos is seen around Berrybank ‘every second day’.

The risk of the project to the state or regional population of the Wedge Tailed

Eagle is considered low. The site lacks the type of habitat favoured by the

unlisted Yellow Tailed Black Cockatoo, the species is common and this bird

generally avoids wind turbines. No further work is considered necessary for

these species.

In relation to the potential for birds collisions with turbines and power poles

Mr Graeme and Mrs Catherine Keating reported that 6‐8 dead Swans per

year have been found locally under power lines.

During its tour of the site the Panel saw a number of waterbirds in and

around a dam on Mr David Hocking’s property.


Issues related to the Brolga are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

Reptiles

There were six reptiles considered likely to be present in the study area with

the Striped Legless Lizard the only one listed. It is on the FFG list, is

classified as endangered by DSE and is also listed as vulnerable under the

EPBC Act.

The Atlas of Victorian Wildlife has two undated records of the Striped

Legless Lizard near Berrybank and three more near Cressy. The lizard likes

native grasslands similar to that found on the reserves of the Berrybank –

Werneth and Urchs Roads where there is remnant native vegetation.

DSE considered in its letter of 7 December 2009 to the Minister for Planning

that it is highly probable that the Striped Legless Lizard occurs throughout the wind

farm area including the areas devoid of native vegetation but with basalt rocks.

In response to DSE’s opinion9 that the Striped Legless Lizard is highly likely

to occur throughout the wind farm, the Applicant suggested this is unlikely

due the lack of sufficient suitable habitat. On this basis they concluded a

targeted Striped Legless Lizard survey is not warranted. Mr Lane

recommended that a salvage protocol for the Striped Legless Lizard be

implemented during construction of power poles on roadside reserves.

Development of a salvage protocol for the Striped Legless Lizard was

endorsed by Mr Brooks of DSE.

Mammals

There were ten mammals considered likely to be present in the study area

based on the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife and surveys. The EPBC Act

Protected Matters Search Tool listed five species that could potentially be in

the area but all the listed species inhabit forests and woodlands.

The Bat survey which was undertaken on the wind farm site recorded nine

species, none of which are listed or threatened.

Both the Corangamite Shire and DSE proposed that targeted surveys for the

Fat –tailed Dunnart, which prefers native grassland, be undertaken as

records exist close to the study area. Mr Lane considered this is unwarranted

however he recommended that a salvage protocol for the Fat –tailed Dunnart

be implemented during construction of power poles on roadside reserves.

9 Department of Sustainability and Environment, Letter to Minister for Planning, 7 December 2009.


Development of a salvage protocol for the Fat –tailed Dunnart was endorsed

by Mr Brooks of DSE.

Frogs

There were four frogs considered likely to be present in the study area. The

only listed frog which was considered likely to inhabit the study area is the

Growling Grass Frog which is on the FFG list, is classified as endangered by

DSE and is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. There were no records

on the frog on the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife and it is considered unlikely to

be present in the study area due to lack of suitable habitat.

Two unlisted frogs were recorded during surveys.

Invertebrates

The only listed invertebrate which was considered likely to inhabit the study

area is the Golden Sun Moth which is on the FFG list, is classified as

endangered by DSE and is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC

Act. There were no recorded sightings on the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife.

Both the Corangamite Shire and DSE proposed that targeted surveys for the

Golden Sun Moth, which prefers native grassland, be undertaken as records

exist close to the study area. Mr Lane considered this is unwarranted.

Fauna Protection Measures

In relation to power lines Mr Lane recommended that to minimise wire

induced bird mortality:

· Lines should be built underground if possible;

· Line visibility should be increased by adding markers and increasing

the size of wire;

· Lines should not be built over water or other areas of high bird

concentrations; and

· Lines should be oriented parallel to prevailing wind direction.

In addition Mr Lane recommended the inclusion of a condition in the

Terrestrial Fauna Management Plan requiring construction staff to be trained

to recognise the Stripped Legless Lizard and the Fat‐tailed Dunnart and a

protocol be developed that outlines actions to be taken if these species are

detected during construction.


6.3.4 Panel assessment – fauna

The Panel considers that the open dialogue throughout the panel process, by

all parties, on Fauna matters (excluding Brolga which is considered below),

was productive and consensus on the few issues of concern was mostly able

to be achieved.

The Panel is generally satisfied, based on the evidence and submissions, that:

the methodology was sound; and

subject to implementing salvage protocols; the measures to minimise wire

induced bird mortality; staff training during the construction phase in

fauna identification; that the proposed wind farm is unlikely to have

significant impacts on ground fauna, bats, or birds.



14. Adopt the model permit conditions with the following modification:

Require the Environmental Management Plan to include

training of construction staff in the recognition of the Striped

Legless Lizard and the Fat‐tailed Dunnart;

Require a protocol be developed, in consultation with DSE, that

outlines actions to be taken if Striped Legless Lizard and the

Fat‐tailed Dunnart are detected during construction; and

Require salvage protocol for the Striped Legless Lizard and the

Fat‐tailed Dunnart be developed in consultation with DSE.

15. Modify the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan to include

Implementation of measures to increase power line visibility

through marking to mitigate bird collisions

16. Modify the specifications to include:

Where possible new power lines associated with the wind

energy facility be oriented parallel to prevailing wind direction

6.3.6 Brolga expert evidence and submissions

The Brolga is listed as Vulnerable in Victoria under the FFG Act. There are

an estimated 650 Brolga in Victoria with 75% of these inhabiting South West

Victoria.

BLA’s database search recorded 21 Brolga breeding records (from 1979 ‐

2006) from 14 nesting sites in the search area. There were no breeding


records of Brolga within 5 km of the proposed site which is considered the

usual area of movement for Brolga.

In addition to searching databases BLA undertook a Level 2 Risk Assessment

of the proposal on Brolga to determine the potential impact on the species.

The targeted assessment, which focussed on the area within 20 kilometres of

the site, was undertaken in October 2007, February 2008 and November 2008.

It included a survey of 155 wetlands of the mapped 159 wetlands where

Brolga are likely to breed. Only one wetland was considered of high habitat

quality for Brolga, 13 wetlands were considered moderate to high quality 36

low – moderate with the majority being low quality.

During the field survey three brolga were sighted at a distance of between

14‐20 km from the proposed site and none these birds were breeding. No

nesting sites were found on the proposed wind farm site but there are some

dams that may provide nesting sites.

BLA concluded that:

The results of this investigation indicate that the Berrybank Wind Farm

does not pose a significant threat to the breeding habitats of the Brolga,

given the paucity of suitable breeding habitats within the wind farm and

up to 3 kilometres from the proposed site – the flight distance of the

species during breeding season. No traditional flocking sites occur

within 5 km of the proposed wind farm – the flight distance of the species

in the flocking season.

Mr Richard Hill of DSE, appeared before the Panel as an expert on Brolga.

Mr Hill is on the steering committee of the South West Brolga Project, chairs

its scientific panel (Mr Lane of BLA is also on the scientific panel) and

prepared DSE’s Guidelines for the Assessment of Potential Windfarm Impacts on

the Brolga (DSE Brolga Guidelines 2009). He believes the Applicant has

underestimated the extent of the Brolga habitats within the area. He based

this claim on two missed records. The first is a 1980 record of 15 birds

flocking west of the Cressy‐Werneth Road which is 5 km east of the project

site (143.599E 37.980S). Mr Hill considered that while this would need to be

confirmed the site may represent a regularly used flocking site, or it could be

just a single record. If still used then Mr Hill recommends a turbine free

buffer is needed around the site. The other record missed is a nesting site

near the intersection of the Hamilton Highway and the Foxhow – Rokewood

Road which is within the proposed wind farm boundary in the SE corner.

This site has been used in recent years. He also recommends a large turbine

free buffer around this site in accord with the DSE Brolga Guidelines 2009.


While DSE acknowledged that the databases are incomplete the DSE Brolga

Guidelines 2009 advocate that the Applicant should consult with local

landowners and concludes with:

The proponent’s report does not demonstrate to DSE’s satisfaction the

scale and extent of the Brolga habitats and records within the proposed

wind farm development. The report overlooks two significant records of

Brolgas within the area of influence of the proposed development, and

does not demonstrate whether it has made reasonable attempts to

document the local community’s knowledge of Brolgas within the area of

concern.

DSE’s recommended approach to assessing and managing the potential

impacts of windfarm development aims to ensure no net impact on the

Victorian Brolga population. This can only be achieved by offsetting

impacts of all scales. Although the Brolga population potentially

impacted upon by the proposed Berrybank windfarm appears small, the

proposal in its current form will impact on those Brolgas and does not

attempt to avoid, minimise or offset that impact. (Panel’s emphasis)

Mr Geoff Brooks representing DSE was also critical of the Applicant’s Brolga

assessment. In summary Mr Brooks criticisms and recommendations are as

follows:

DSE does not accept the Applicants findings that the risk to the Brolga

from the project will not be of consequence and it is not an adequate response

to the Guidelines;

DSE has an expectation that all wind farm proponents will use DSE

Brolga Guidelines 2009 in which local landowners’ knowledge about the

presence of Brolga is highly valued. The department recommends that

the proponent be required to ask all landowners within 5 km of the windfarm

boundary to provide information of Brolga sightings; and

DSE recognises the risk of the project on Brolga is low and that a level 3

assessment, the instigation of which is partly based on judgement and

also triggered by there being 4‐5 pairs of Brolgas within 800 m of the site,

is not required. However in an attempt to reconcile our differences between

our survey expectations and the approach taken by the proponent, the

department considers that mitigation measures be developed in

consultation with the department, and as per the DSE Brolga Guidelines

2009, would be appropriate.

In addition Mr Brooks informed the Panel about the Brolga recording system

and admitted that, in part due to the vetting process, updating the database

is slow with no new records having been added since 2007.


Mr Lane defended his assessment that the Brolga usage is low and the site is

not one that is likely to be favoured by Brolga given its relatively elevated

position and its lack of suitable habitat. In relation to the 1980 record he

informed the Panel it is not in the Atlas of Victorian Wildlife and is likely to

be an incidental flocking. In relation to the record of Brolga nesting record

near the intersection of the Hamilton Highway and Foxhow ‐ Rokewood

Road this additional information cannot be construed to support a contention that

the species consistently or regularly uses the wind farm site in numbers that would

place the state population at potential risk from the proposed wind farm.

A number of submitters informed the Panel that they had observed Brolga

on their farms and produced photographs of Brolga seem in the local area in

October 2009. They indicated they had been unaware of the Brolga records

and that they could provide information to DSE about sightings.

Furthermore there was general disappointment that the Applicant had not

tapped in to readily accessible local knowledge about Brolga and called for

an independent peer review of the Brolga assessment.

The Panel was provided with copies of the Lismore Land Protection Group’s

pamphlet on Indigenous Wildlife of the Lismore area with Brolga shown and Mr

John and Mrs Gabrielle Keating submitted a joint letter from Mr Sturmfels

and Mr Hughes who are local birdwatchers with 20 years experience. Both

Mr Sturmfels and Mr Hughes contributed to the Lismore Land Protection

Group pamphlet and wrote in the letter that they have regularly encountered

Brolgas in Berrybank and nearby districts and in good seasons Brolga will

congregate around lakes and seasonal wetlands in the Lismore area.

Similarly Mr Graeme and Mrs Catherine Keating submitted a copy of an

email from Mr Philip Du Guesclin, a member of the South West Victoria

Brolga Research Project’s scientific panel which gives a number of Brolga

sites in the local area. He also writes that in his opinion the lakes have

become more saline and do not support the same number of birds as it had in

the past. Mr Gane of DPCD told of recent increase in Brolga nesting in the

Darlington area as a result of rain.

Mitigation measures suggested by Mr Hill and Mr Brooks, in order of highest

potential for protecting Brolga, are: marking power lines to reduce collisions,

using buffers to separate Brolgas from the risk posed by the wind farm site

with the default buffer distance from a nest sites being 3 km and upgrading

habitat using the records of the community and others to identify possible

Brolga sites.


6.3.7 Panel assessment

While the Panel considers that the Applicant’s targeted Brolga field surveys

have been reasonably extensive, the basis for these surveys would have

benefited from additional work. The Panel agrees with other parties at the

hearing that by relying on databases that are known by the Applicant not to

be up to date, and only contain records that have been rigorously vetted, and

not consulting more broadly, important information has been missed by the

Applicant. It is evident from the information provided by submitters that

local knowledge of Brolgas, for example, from stakeholders and non‐

stakeholders and the Lismore Land Protection Group, would not have be

hard to find if it had been sought.

At the hearing there was extensive reference to the Guidelines for the

Assessment of Potential Windfarm Impacts on the Brolga which the Panel was

informed is now draft seven and were completed in June 2009. These 2009

guidelines which recommend consulting with local landowners, were at a

similar time to the PAR for this proposal and are yet to be published. The

Panel was informed the DSE Brolga Guidelines 2009 are only in draft form

and are not likely to be finalised for another three years as they are waiting to

incorporate results from the South West Victoria Brolga Project. The Panel

therefore thinks that it is unreasonable for DSE to expect the Applicant to

have complied with these Guidelines even though the Applicant’s expert

would have been fully aware of the Guidelines’ content as he was involved

in their development.

As the DSE Brolga Guidelines 2009 have not been published and are a draft

the Panel is more inclined to favour reliance on DSE’s 2003 Action Statement

on Brolga which was prepared under section 19 of the FFG Act and is

available on DSE’s website. Under the Act, an Action Statement is prepared

once a species is listed as threatened. The Action Statement identifies

possible key threats to the Victorian Brolga population as; the possibility that

the population is aging and therefore there is a reduction in the Brolga

population’s fertility; modification and disappearance of breeding habitat

due to increases in plantations; wetland modification and reduction;

increasing salinity of the wetlands; predation of eggs and chick by foxes; and

human activities and structures such as power lines.

The conservation objective listed in the Brolga Action Statement 119 is:

…to protect the Victorian populations by ensuring that they can breed

successfully to maintain and increase population sizes, and flock at

consistently used sites without disturbance. Specifically:

· To ensure that wetland areas where Brolgas congregate are secured

from environmental degradation and inappropriate disturbance.


· To protect existing breeding sites from modification and degradation.

· To restore a minimum of 50 former known breeding wetlands and

other sites that have the potential to be breeding wetlands.

· To prevent losses of eggs and chicks by introduced predators.

· To reduce the incidence of chick and adult mortality by man made

structures.

· To monitor the population to ensure that changes can be identified at

an early stage.

The Action Statement identifies the intended management actions as:

Surveying and monitoring;

Research;

Habitat Protection;

Predator control; and

Community awareness and involvement (including encouraging

restoration of habitat for breeding sites and appropriate funding schemes

(e.g. Landcare) to assist restore degraded habitats.


The Panel finds that there is evidence that Brolga inhabit the wind farm and

surrounding areas however this usage appears to low and it agrees that a

level 3 assessment is not warranted.

While the Panel may not agree with DSE that the proposal be assessed by the

DSE’s unpublished DSE Brolga Guidelines 2009, it does agree with DSE that

some additional work should be undertaken by the Applicant to assess the

sites identified by submitters and DSE. The Panel further considers that

consultation with the local community, in particular the Lismore Land

Protection Group should be undertaken to ensure that there are no

additional sites and that measures to offset impacts should be implemented.

If DSE wishes to continue referencing the DSE Brolga Guidelines 2009 then to

assist future Panels considering wind farm projects in areas that may be

inhabited by Brolga it would be useful if these Guidelines are published,

possibly as Interim Guidelines.



17. Modify the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan to include:

Prior to construction consult with the Lismore Land Protection

Group other local community members and DSE to determine if

there are any further known Brolga sites within 5 km of the

proposed site;

Prior to construction further assess the site near the intersection

of the Hamilton Hwy and the Foxhow – Rokewood Road and the

site west of the Cressy‐Werneth Road as well as sites identified

through the consultation process to assess the likelihood that

Brolga use these sites;

Submit a report to DSE on these assessments; and

Based on the above, if additional Brolga sites are found within 5

kilometres of the site develop a mitigation program, in

consultation with and to the satisfaction of DSE.


7. Social and economic impacts

7.1 Social impact

7.1.1 Introduction

As outlined in the Planning Application Report (PAR) Berrybank is a small

rural community with a population of 114 people (2006 ABS census data).

The population appears to be stable with a very high level of employment

and above average individual and household incomes. The overriding land

use is agriculture, particularly cropping. It was evident from submissions

and the hearing that the community has close ties with the area with many

third and fourth generation families living at Berrybank and its surrounds.

Like many rural communities there are few younger people. From the

hearing it was clear that, in addition to their vital fire planning and

suppression roles, the local CFA brigades appear to be important social hubs.

The Berrybank township comprises a CFA depot, a community hall (which

was previously the local primary school), a small church hall plus a disused

rail siding indicates that the Berrybank has been overtaken by other more

populous towns such as Lismore and Camperdown. The township probably

never recovered after much of it was destroyed by fire in 1944.

The prospect of a wind farm at Berrybank therefore represents an enormous

change for this small community. While at the Panel hearing it was only the

non‐stakeholders who made presentations, it appears that, in common with

many wind farm proposals the community is split to some extent into those

supporting and those opposing.

7.2 Consultation

Appendix 6 of the PAR documented the consultation process which

involved:

Discussions with identified local, state and federal government

stakeholders, commencing in October 2007;

Newsletters distributed in the local area in November 2008 (750

distributed), August and November 2009;

A website with newsletters, email address and 1800 toll free number;

A community information day on 22 November 2008, attended by 50 – 60

people;


Visits to 69 homes within 3 km of the site on 4‐6 February 2009, with 41 of

those households participating in a survey;

Advertisements about visits and the information day placed in several

local newspapers; and

Additional home visits to concerned community members.

Appendix 6 to the PAR provided a detailed analysis of the Social and

Economic impacts and a number of recommendations for further work and

mitigation. The economic related recommendations are discussed in Section

7.3 while the recommendations aimed at promoting positive social impacts

can be summarised as:

implement a range of communication tools throughout the planning,

construction and operation phases of the project to inform the community

of progress and any disruption to land and road access; and to highlight

the project’s benefits. Additionally a formal and well promoted issues

register should be established to record queries and grievances received

and responses to these;

in consultation with Councils consider the erection of road‐side signs and

a visitors information centre as well as conducting site tours and

producing an online video, all of which would promote the benefits of

renewable energy;

work with the local CFA brigades on fire management planning for the

site and identify fire fighting training and equipment purchase

opportunities to support CFA volunteers to fight fires in an altered rural

landscape with wind turbines;

implement a policy to buy locally and employ locally, work with the

Councils on employment and accommodation issues and establish a code

of conduct for construction staff; and

financially contribute to local projects and organizations through a

transparent process (for example Union Fenosa has made a contribution

of $5,000 to assist the Cressy Bowling Club with its greens).

In a brief written submission at the end of the hearing the Applicant agreed

to implement all the social recommendations with qualifications on the

financial contributions to local projects and organizations. The qualification

stated:

In line with Union Fenosa’s global charter, UFWA is committed to

directly benefiting the communities in which it operates to form a valued

long term part of the local community. The degree of community

investment will relate to UFWA obligations made under the rating

formula for energy generators, which add significant revenue to local

councils.


7.2.1 Submissions on consultation and community engagement

Many of the non‐stakeholders were highly critical of the consultation

undertaken. The following is a summary of their main areas of concern:

they were dismayed that there were many in their small community,

together with Councillors and council officers, who appeared to know

about the proposal for some time, possibly a number of years, before they

did – that they had been ‘keeping secrets’;

the companies that had been engaged by the Applicant to prepare expert

reports on flora and fauna and visual impacts had not consulted them. In

relation to the flora and fauna, submitters who live in the area could have

provided information on the presence of native species. On visual

impacts the photomontages were prepared for vistas outside the property

boundaries and therefore do not give a true reflection of the visual impact

that is likely to occur from their living areas of their homes (often the back

area of dwellings and dwelling surrounds on farming properties);

the commitment by the Applicant to keep stakeholders informed on a

monthly basis (as proposed in the EES referral form) was not honoured;

the community meeting was not attended by Union Fenosa, only by its

consultants who were ill informed;

the submitters’ request for a community meeting was denied; and

often responses to written queries were slow, or no response was

received.

Mr and Mrs Schafer summed up the non‐stakeholders’ feeling. Sharing

knowledge and being open and transparent would surely promote trust and

productive communications and is a more honourable way of negotiating.

The Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD)

acknowledged that the Applicant had undertaken steps to consult (as

opposed to statutory exhibition) although there was no requirement through

the formal statutory process for it to do so.


The Wind Farm Guidelines require assessment of wind energy proposals in a manner that appropriately balances their environmental, social and economic

benefits with any demonstrated visual, environmental and amenity impacts.

There was little information provided by the Applicant at the Panel hearing

about the consultation process and little on social impacts. In response to a

request by the Panel for the Applicant to address the recommendations made


in Appendix 6 of the PAR the Applicant, as mentioned above, provided a

very brief written submission on its response to the recommendations.

Relying solely on the written documentation; written submissions;

presentations by submitters; the Applicant’s website; and the Applicant’s

written response makes it difficult for the Panel to discern precisely what

consultation has occurred and what is likely to occur in relation to

implementation of the PAR Appendix 6 recommendations. What is evident

is that the Applicant has used a range of communication tools and made a

reasonable effort to consult with the local community.

When the Applicant applied in late 2007 to be exempt from undertaking an

EES, a consultation schedule was included10. The Applicant, which at that

time was TME, indicated the consultation that had already taken place with

state and local government and contracted landowners plus it had already

taken initial steps to engage and consult with the communities surrounding the

proposed development sites. In addition it planned to effectively engage the local

communities from an early stage through a range of communication channels

including monthly newsletters. It also states there is already an awareness of

the proposal among landowners within and adjacent to the proposed sites. From

submissions consultation with non‐stakeholders appears not to have started

until well into 2008, that is after there was much awareness about the project

in the broader community and well after the project had gained its EES ‘not

required’ decision. The information provided for the EES decision appears

to be at the very least an exaggeration as to the consultation that had already

been undertaken.

In addition, while the Applicant and its predecessor have utilised the usual

range of consultation techniques (as outlined above), it is apparent to the

Panel based on submissions that it did not fully implement its proposed

consultation program after it had requested the EES decision. For example

there was only one community meeting, which understandably not all

affected stakeholders could attend, newsletters were ad hoc and consultation

with the non‐stakeholders appears to have started later than planned and

later than stated in the referral. This has not assisted the Applicant in

engaging and gaining credibility with affected non‐stakeholders and has not

demonstrated to the Panel’s satisfaction a real commitment to actively

consult and become part of the community.

As the Applicant has a number of similar proposals in south west Victoria in

addition to providing regular newsletters, maintaining the website and 1800

10 www.dse.vic.gov.au


toll free phone number it is recommended that the Applicant consider

establishing a local presence in the region.

The results of the stakeholder survey in the PAR concluded the community

are in general divided in their support for, or opposition to, the wind farm.

However without having the benefit of more details of who participated, and

also the setting for the survey, the Panel has no option than to pay little

regard to the results.

Based on the above, as it currently stands the Panel has concerns about the

Applicant’s stated commitment to becoming a valued long term part of the local

community. If the project is approved it is important that the Applicant does

fully implement the recommendations to continue informative

communications with local residents particularly during the construction

phase.

The PAR socio‐economic assessment indicates that substantial positive social

impacts should occur in the broader community through implementing

employ locally and buy local policies plus the flow on social benefits arising

from the economic gains but acknowledges the social tension between

stakeholders and non‐stakeholders close to the site. To help address this

tension the PAR recommends that the Applicant identify opportunities to

support the CFA local brigades with training and equipment purchases and

for the Applicant to establish a community fund to be administered by a

community reference group. In the absence of any formal mechanism to

compensate non‐stakeholders, community funds are common mechanisms

used by other wind farm Applicants to share the benefits locally and help

reduce the resentment by non‐stakeholders. This approach has been

endorsed by other Panels.

The Applicant supports the recommendation to assist the CFA brigades and

it is noted that the Applicant has already contributed to the Cressy Bowling

club to maintain its greens. The Panel also acknowledges that the local

community will benefit as a result of improved road infrastructure.

However from the Applicant’s written response at the hearing it is

interpreted by the Panel that the Applicant has not accepted the

recommendation to establish a community fund. It considers that the

payments it is required to make to the Shires should be applied to

community projects. This is disappointing and appears to contradict Union

Fenosa’s own Corporate Social Responsibility policy which aims to give

something back to the communities in which it operates.

In the absence of the informal mechanism that Applicants use to establish

community fund as a way to reduce some of the local resentment this Panel,


like others wind energy panels that have preceded it, makes the following

recommendation:

18. The Minister for Planning, in conjunction relevant agencies give

consideration to a system or process whereby non‐stakeholders

surrounding wind energy facilities be provided with a formal

mechanism to share in the benefits of that project.

7.3 Economic impact

In looking at the economic impacts of the proposal there are the broader

positive economic impacts for the local and the region’s economy and then

there are potential negative financial impacts for individual non‐

stakeholders. The broader economic impacts are discussed first followed by

a number of identified non‐stakeholder financial impacts.

7.3.1 Local and regional economic impacts - evidence and submissions

The PAR indicates that the construction cost of the proposal is expected to be

$484 million. Of this 60‐65% ($290‐$315 million) is proposed to be spent on

purchasing turbines from overseas, 10 % (i.e. $8 million) on towers sourced

from South Australia or Victoria with the remaining 25‐30% (i.e. $121 ‐ $145

million) for construction activities expected to be spent in Australia. At the

peak of the construction there will up to be 240 full time jobs with 25 full

time jobs during wind farm operation. Based on 100 turbines and applying

the applicable Electricity Industry Act formula the Corangamite and Golden

Plains Shires will share between $202,000 and $265,000 in rates income. In

addition contracted stakeholders will receive lease payments (which are

confidential) for hosting turbines on their land.

During construction of the wind farm Appendix 6 of the PAR asserts that the

local economy will be boosted through additional regional expenditure by

the workforce. Using the regional multiplier of 1.9 of indirect benefits to new

investment, the indirect economic benefits are estimated at between $57.5

and $138 million. However this is in part related to the construction

workforce being housed and integrated into the local region as opposed to

being housed in a purpose built camp. During the operational phase

secondary employment is likely to create in the order of 50 new jobs.

In addition to the above the PAR asserts that the payment to landowners

hosting turbines will buffer agricultural viability and be a new source of

revenue for farmers that diversifies the local economy.

There was limited comment on the project’s overall economic benefits at the

Panel hearing. At a general level DPCD consider that the overall community


benefit resulting from the project is ‘compelling’ as there would be direct

benefits locally through road upgrades and more broadly through jobs and

construction expenditure.

Corangamite Shire expressed concern that the funding it will receive through

annual rates to the Shire may not be a net benefit because of the substantial

administrative burden it will incur as a result of the project. Mrs Catherine

Keating also expressed a similar concern querying the net financial benefit to

the Council. Mrs Segafredo, for the Shire, indicated that that the Shire

intends to discuss this issue with the Applicant.

In written submissions several submitters welcomed the prospect of the

economic benefits the project would bring through new employment

opportunities. These written submissions were received from stakeholders

and people further afield.

The PAR also makes a number of recommendations that have the potential to

optimise positive economic impacts for the local and regional economy.

These can be summarised as follows:

that the Applicant adopt a policy to employ locally, where practicable,

based on the skills and experience available, and this policy be promoted

in construction tender documents;

that the Applicant adopt a buy local policy and promote this in tender

documents and on the project website;

to assist in implementing the above policies the Applicant should develop

a detailed inventory of construction activities, labour requirements,

services, materials and other procurement requirements and use this as a

basis to work with the Corangamite and Golden Plains Shires to

maximise the implementation of the employ locally policy;

that the Applicant collaborate with Councils, regional development

organisations and relevant chambers of commerce to implement local

business assistance programs;

that the Applicant commission a specific study in collaboration with

Councils to investigate possible impacts from a construction workforce

requiring accommodation, and that the findings of this study inform the

project’s decisions on the preferred approach to accommodation; and

that the Applicant considers establishing a community fund with a

transparent process and community reference group to share the benefits

of the projects with nearby non‐contracted landowners.

At the Panel’s request the Applicant provided a brief written response in

relation to housing of the construction workforce and its need for local

service such as schools and childcare. The Panel also asked the Applicant


which of the recommendations proposed in Appendix 6 of the PAR it will

implement.

In relation to housing the Applicant stated it is currently in discussions with a

local consortium to provide accommodation for the bulk of the construction staff.

The Applicant did not specify whether this housing is likely to be on site.

However if this accommodation is not provided (by the local consortium) it is

anticipated that workers will use existing accommodation in the area. Additionally

the Applicant said that it did not anticipate that it will require the use of local

services during the construction phase.

As to the recommendations made in Appendix 6 of the PAR the Applicant,

also in written response form, said that it proposes to implement all with the

exception that it believes that the recommended skills and employment audit

is onerous and would be costly and should be the responsibility of the contractors

(plus it also made a qualification in relation to the recommendation to

establish a community fund).

At its 24 November 2009 meeting Corangamite Shire endorsed all

recommendations proposed in the Socio – Economic Impacts section of the

PAR. In relation to construction workforce housing it also endorsed the

following recommendation:

That Council does not support remote or on site worker accommodation

and proposes a specific study be undertaken to investigate the possible

impacts from a construction workforce accommodation.

The investigation was proposed because of concerns about the scarcity of

rental accommodation near the site and the potential for a high influx of

people requiring accommodation to distort the property market and rental

availability. On the other hand it considered that if workforce travels to and

from the site on a roster system and use purpose built accommodation then

many of the indirect economic benefits from the workforce spending locally

will be missed.


The Panel accepts that there will be economic benefits to Victoria and the

local economy from the project. The extent of the benefits to the local

economy is highly dependent on the extent that the Applicant implements

the employ locally and buy local policies during the construction phase.

Appendix 6 of the PAR presents three scenarios based on potential

expenditure on construction activities in South‐ West Victoria. It is

impossible for the Panel to discern from the material presented which of


these scenarios is the most likely to eventuate however the Panel is not

confident that even the more pessimistic scenario can be realised.

Section 11 of the PAR considers the requirement for road upgrades arising

from the construction of the wind farm and gives an assessment of the road

construction materials that will be required to be delivered to the site. This

traffic section indicates that road construction materials are likely to be

sourced from Geelong. However there are local quarries in the Corangamite

Shire that have the potential to supply materials such as aggregate; that is

there is a very obvious opportunity to buy locally. This leads to Panel to

believe that while the Applicant may include a preference to buy locally in

tender documents the actual commitment to implement this policy and how

it may be ‘enforced’ is not apparent.

Another indicator for the Panel’s concern relates to the employ locally policy

and, related to this, its interest in becoming a part of the local community.

The Applicant has indicated that it is in discussions with a local consortium

to provide the bulk of the accommodation and that it will not require the use

of local services during the construction phase.

Whilst not expressly articulated the above also implies that the Applicant is

considering that the bulk of the construction workforce will be using onsite

accommodation and it will work on ‘a fly in ‐ fly out’ roster system. If this is

the case, it is not endorsed by the Panel. The Shire has indicated that it is

willing to work with the Applicant to maximise job opportunities for local

people and this strongly endorsed by the Panel.

The Panel recognises that, as submitted by the Corangamite Shire, there is a

shortage of rental accommodation in close proximity to the site. However

like the Council it does not support remote or onsite worker accommodation

were it can be avoided to enable the maximisation of local economic benefits

from the project. The Panel urges the Applicant to work with the Shire to

ensure that accommodation be integrated into the local community as far as

possible.

A number of the submitters expressed resentment that stakeholders receive

financial benefits while non‐stakeholders had their land being used as a

buffer, their farming operations, properties values and their development

rights impacted on, and yet receive no compensation. Mrs Catherine Keating

expressed it as Union Fenosa have assumed our acceptance. Currently there is no

mechanism within the planning system to financial recompense to non‐

stakeholders who will be impacted. This issue has been discussed in many

other wind farm panel reports and this panel can only reiterate their

comments, that a mechanism should be established by government to

compensate non‐stakeholders who will be adversely impacted by the facility.



19. The Panel endorses the proposed employ locally and buy local

policies and recommends that the Applicant work with the Shires to

maximise the achievement of these policies.

7.4 Financial Impacts on individuals

7.4.1 Aerial agriculture – evidence and submissions

A number of submitters bordering the proposed site use aerial agriculture at

various times of the year to fertilise crops and to control pests. If there is

clear passage and no obstacles aerial agriculture flights are relatively straight

forward operations.

It was indicated at the hearing by the Applicant’s expert Mr Foster that aerial

spraying could continue once the wind farm is built however there would

need to be a 500 metre buffer for the aircraft to turn and this would be from

the neighbouring property not just from a wind turbine. It was also

indicated that aerial spraying on neighbouring properties would require the

aircraft operator to spend more time planning the aircraft’s flight and the

actual flight would be less efficient as the aircraft would to need to make

multiple passes to avoid the turbines. This is likely to make aerial spraying

of neighbouring properties more expensive. This would be an impost on

farmers who do not receive any financial gain from the presence of a wind

farm.

7.4.2 Aerial agriculture - panel assessment

The Panel accepts that there may have to be some change in aerial agriculture

practices at neighbouring properties and this is likely increase the cost of the

operation to those property owners. Aerial agriculture was also raised as an

issue at the Macarthur Wind Farm Panel hearing and while that Panel

concluded that the presence of turbines would seriously inhibit the practice

on neighbouring farms it did not consider the possible financial implications.

The Panel considers that it is inequitable that some non‐stakeholders will

incur additional costs in the course of their normal farming practices as a

result of the wind energy facility. This is unfair. It would be reasonable that

the Applicant pay the difference between the amount that would have been

charged for aerial spraying without the wind farm turbines and that with the

presence of the wind farm turbines. However the planning system does not

have a mechanism to provide compensation to neighbours for impacts

related arising from an activity.






mechanism to be compensated for additional and quantifiable

expenses that they incur as a direct result of the project.

7.4.3 Property values – submissions

A number of submitters expressed concern about the potential devaluation

and saleability of their properties due to the presence of the wind farm.

Mr and Mrs Schafer were unaware of the proposal to build a wind farm on

the neighbouring property when they bought their property in November

2007. Before buying Mr and Mrs Schafer had contacted Corangamite Shire

and were told that there were no plans for the area, only find out two weeks

later about the proposed wind farm. Mr and Mrs Schafer offered the

property to Union Fenosa to purchase and have since put their property on

the market. They have had no offers. They believe that there should be a

measure, such as a property protection plan, put in place to ensure that

owners of properties affected by the development are not unjustly penalised.

Mr and Mrs Schafer provided extensive written material they had found on

the effective of wind farm developments on surrounding property prices.

The Corangamite Shire, at its meeting of 24 November 2009, also discussed

this matter and made the following resolution:

Union Fenosa consult with residents of all dwellings within 4km of a

wind tower with a view to financially compensating them for the

detrimental effect on their lifestyle and property.

No expert evidence was provided on the impact on property values of a

wind farm. Appendix 6 of the PAR referred to evidence provided at the Bald

Hills Panel hearing by Mr Tim Offor of Offor Sharp who submitted that

impacts on property prices are primarily experienced during the construction

and commissioning phase. He went on to suggest that once the wind farm is

established and uncertainty removed there appears to be little or no adverse

impact on property prices.

Mr Power for the Applicant argued that compensation to surrounding land

owners has no basis in planning law or policy and that various VCAT cases

make it clear that residents of rural zones are not entitled to have the same amenity

expectations as those in residential zones. He suggested that residents in rural


zones must expect impacts from ordinary agricultural activities. He further

argued that land value is not in itself a planning consideration.

7.4.4 Property values – panel assessment

The impact on property prices has been a recurring issue at wind farm Panel

hearings. However as stated in previous Panel reports and argued by Mr

Power, there are no planning grounds for this Panel to consider the matter in

this instance.

It should also be noted that the Bald Hills Panel discounted Mr Offor’s

opinions on property price impacts saying:

Whilst the Panel has no doubts about the veracity of Mr Offor’s

reportage on this issue, it can place little weight on his material as he is

not its primary author. He is merely handing on the opinions and views

of others. (Panel Report, June 2004, Bald Hills Wind Farm Project).

7.4.5 Future development rights – submissions

Mrs Catherine and Mr Graham Keating informed the Panel that they plan to

build a second home on their property. Their property is within the Farming

Zone Schedule 1. This zone in the Corangamite Planning Scheme allows

them to build a dwelling ‘as of right’ on lots of at least 40 hectares, a

requirement met in this instance.

Mr and Mrs Keating discussed their plans with Corangamite Shire on 4

February 2009 and advised Union Fenosa of their intention the following

day. Union Fenosa acknowledged the Keating’s as of right entitlement to

build. Mr and Mrs Keating then lodged a planning permit application on 12

October 2009 in the belief, based on previous advice from Council, that this

was required. As no permit was required it was cancelled on 12 January

2010. The Panel was provided with copies of their site plans and building

elevations.

Mr Paul Connor appeared on behalf of Mr Daryl Baxter, Mr Geoffrey Baxter

and Mrs Eileen Baxter who own properties which neighbour the wind farm

site. All of the Baxter’s land, which is located north of Boundary Road, is

within the Golden Plains Shire. These properties are all in the Farming Zone,

which in Golden Plains Shire has a minimum lot size of 100 hectares for an

‘as of right’ dwelling. The Panel was informed that the Baxter’s have in

combination three, and possibly four, lots that meet the requirement to build

dwellings as of right.


In relation to Mr Graham and Mrs Catherine Keating’s proposal the

Applicant cited the Bald Hills Panel where the Panel recommended that the

Applicant enter into discussions with owners of tenements that meet the as

of right development requirements. That Panel advocated that the Applicant

work with the landowner to identify the location of an appropriate building

footprint that ensures appropriate amenity standards equivalent to existing

dwellings will apply. Where a landowner is required to apply for a permit to

build that post dates the wind farm planning process, as in the Baxter

family’s situation, then the principle of onus of responsibility rests with the

agent of change (i.e. the person wanting to build a dwelling).

The Panel visited the Baxter’s and Mr and Mrs Catherine and Graham

Keating’s properties.

7.4.6 Future development rights – Panel assessment

Several other wind farm Panels have considered issues related to as of right

development and development requiring a permit adjacent to wind farms.

The most recent was the Lal Lal Wind Farm where the Panel addressed

circumstances where:

a property that could have an as of right dwelling did not have any area

that met the noise or shadow flicker criteria; and

a property where a permit exists for a dwelling/bed and breakfast

adjacent to the wind farm which met the criteria above.

This Panel needs to consider both Mr and Mrs Keating’s and the Baxter

family’s cases separately as Mr and Mrs Keating have already demonstrated

by way of their application to Council and concept plans that they are serious

in their intent to build. The Baxter family on the other hand did not provide

any tangible evidence that they wish to build in the foreseeable future.

From the documentation submitted to the Panel the house that Mr and Mrs

Keating are proposing to build would be about 50m from their property

boundary. In this position it would appear to be on about 45‐47dBA contour

and the closest turbine would be about 300m away. It also appears to be on

the margin of the shadow flicker tolerance and visual impact is assessed as

high. If turbine 50 was removed from the proposed wind farm there will be

a reduction in shadow flicker, reduced visual impact and reduced noise.

However in the absence of proper modelling, the Panel cannot determine

whether the removal of this turbine alone would result in compliance with

the standard. While Mr and Mrs Keating have a site in mind for their house

it is a large land allotment which not unduly encumbered by physical

barriers and as such there are other locations where the house could be built

that would improve the amenity. The Applicant has offered to work with Mr


and Mrs Keating to identify a location for the house where the amenity

standards will be met. The Panel believes removal of turbine 50 together

with a requirement that the Applicant work with Mr and Mrs Keating to

choose an appropriate location is a reasonable response.

The Panel has done a preliminary assessment of the Baxter family’s

allotments and have assessed, from the information before it that there are

likely to be a number of locations that would meet the amenity standards for

noise, shadow flicker and visual impact. However the Panel is of the view

that the Baxter family has not shown any tangible evidence of intent to build

in the foreseeable future. The Panel concurs with the Applicant that when

the Baxter family decides to build an as of right dwelling then the onus is

with them to ensure the amenity standards are met.


21. Turbine 50 on the site plan be removed. Detailed background noise

monitoring and a shadow flicker assessment be carried out in

consultation with the owners of Lot 2 TP1324239C, Crown Allotment

16‐21 Poliah South to determine locations where the noise and

shadow flicker criteria in the Wind Farm Guidelines can be met.

7.5 Decommissioning

There was considerable discussion in the permit condition session about who

might be responsible for the cost of decommissioning the wind farm at the

end of its working life. If decommissioning is not successful the economic

and social impact could be significant as large pieces of decaying

infrastructure dot the landscape.

This issue was investigated and reported on thoroughly in the Lal Lal Wind

Farm Panel Report at Chapter 13.3. The Panel in that case suggested that

such a bond is desirable but that the administrative framework does not

currently exist to enable its application.

The Panel in that instance analysed the model used in the mining industry

and suggested it had many elements that might be used in developing such a

system for wind farms. This Panel supports the discussion and analysis in

that report and considers a decommissioning bond should be provided for

the Berrybank Wind Farm.

The Panel has recommended that such a bond should be provided. The

timing of its application and the method of its introduction the Panel is

suggesting be left at the discretion of the Minister, allowing for the


development of an appropriate administrative framework prior to its

application.


22. A decommissioning bond is desirable and should be required of the

applicant on such terms as the Minister for Planning determines.


8. Fire planning and management

8.1 Background

The Planning Application Report (PAR) addressed the issue of fire planning

and management at Chapter 13. In essence fire issues are focussed around

two main areas:

the increased risk of fire due to the construction and operation of the

wind farm itself; and

the capacity to fight fires in the wind farm (either generated in the wind

farm or passing through) in an environment with limitations on aerial

support and difficult ground conditions due to raised bed cropping.

During construction heavy vehicles and heavy equipment will be active at

orders of magnitude greater than in a normal rural environment. This

activity, if undertaken during fire risk months can be expected to generate an

increased fire risk.

During operation the wind farm itself can be expected to increase the risk of

fire due to electrical and mechanical faults and the presence of maintenance

crews. The PAR drew on the Country Fire Authority (CFA) Emergency

Management Guidelines for Wind Farms which note that the ‘…potential for fire

of wind farms is inherently low’.

There have been recorded fires in wind farms due to mechanical and/or

electrical faults; but the turbines are centrally controlled and faults can be

diagnosed quickly and responded to within short time frames.

Many of the stakeholders use raised bed cropping, a technique of mounding

the soil into raised beds (approximately 2m wide) with intervening furrows

(15‐30cm deep) to improve drainage and soil structure. The practice is

shown graphically in Figure 2.

The PAR draws on work by the Country Fire Service of South Australia that

suggests raised bed cropping poses risk to fire and emergency management

vehicles as they have difficulty traversing at an angle to the furrows or beds.

Such attempts may lead to bogging or stranding (with consequent risk to

vehicles and occupants) or vehicle damage.

At present fire fighting in raised bed crop areas is undertaken at the margins

of paddocks by ground based crews with aerial support when available.


Wind turbines also place obstacles that fire fighting aircraft have to navigate

around compounded by smoky conditions. The exact extent of this difficulty

was the subject to some debate.

The primary issue of concern therefore is the ability to suppress a fire in an

environment where there may be restricted aerial fire fighting and ground

based attack capabilities.

Figure 2: Raised bed cropping11

8.2 Discussion

Fire, and the impact of the wind farm on fire management planning and fire

suppression was a significant issue raised in objecting submissions. There

was deep concern that in an acknowledged fire prone region with an

established fire history, that the project should not contribute to increased

fire risk or place greater restrictions on fire suppression.

The applicant acknowledged this concern in submissions by calling expert

evidence from Mr Roger Fenwick, a bushfire consultant, and Mr Barry

Foster, an agricultural aviation expert with considerable experience in aerial

fire fighting.

11 From Department of Primary Industries:

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soil_mgmt_raised_beds


In addition, given the importance of this issue which was raised in a number

of submissions to the Panel, the Panel invited the CFA to appear in support

of their written submission (which proposed a number of permit conditions)

and Mr Bob Smith from the CFA’s Geelong regional headquarters attended.

Mr Jack and Mrs Gabrielle Keating explained in their submission that the

Keating family had been burnt out in 1944 and 1977 and had direct

experience of major fires in this landscape. Mrs Catherine Keating related

deeply personal experiences of the 1977 fires and the fear and stress that such

major conflagrations create in the community and the resulting property

damage and sometimes loss of life.

Mr Russell White and others expressed the concern that if fire fighting is

made too difficult (i.e. via restrictions on ground attack and lack of aerial

support) then the existing difficulties in maintaining volunteer brigade

strength would be exacerbated.

Mr Daryl Baxter provided the panel with useful information based on his 34

years of experience with local brigades and the local arrangements and

boundaries for brigades at the project site. Mr Baxter also showed the Panel

a recent wildfire site north of the wind farm (at Glenfine) and explained how

the fire had been suppressed using a combination of ground crews and aerial

support.

There was general agreement in the hearing between submitters and experts

that ground attack on fire in raised bed cropping areas is problematic and

vehicles will generally work on the margins of such areas rather than attempt

to enter into the raised beds. The Panel notes that fire suppression seems to

have been made more difficult by the introduction of raised bed cropping

regardless of whether wind turbines are present.

The CFA in their written submission expressed concern about raised bed

cropping under turbines for the same reasons (difficulty of access) and Mr

Smith from the CFA reinforced this is person, stating that the CFA did not

support raised bed cropping under turbines.

Several submitters also raised the issue of ‘dead end’ tracks within the wind

farm. That is, many of the turbine access tracks conclude at an end point

near a turbine after traversing paddocks for some hundreds of metres. As

the wind farm is in a grassland environment this should not normally be a

problem, but combined with raised bed cropping it may be in this case.

The CFA in their submission at the hearing agreed that through roads or

tracks is a much more desirable outcome.


Some submitters, and particularly Mr Graeme and Mrs Catherine Keating,

suggested that there should be no turbines south of the Hamilton Highway

as the highway could be used as a strategic firebreak. Mr Smith for the CFA

agreed that the Highway is a significant strategic break but this does not of

itself justify removing turbines to the south. If a fire started south of the

Highway on a northerly wind, then a new strategic line would need to be

identified further to the south as is normal fire fighting practice.

There was little agreement about the capacity for aerial fire suppression

within the wind farm. The expert on aviation, Mr Foster suggested that

depending on weather and fire conditions it may be possible to operate

aircraft within the wind farm, for example for laying down fire retardant

along a linear pathway such as Padgetts Lane, or water bombing assets such

as houses from a helicopter.

Mr Foster stated that the use of aerial resources in such a manner would be

up to the air attack supervisor, and ultimately the pilot in charge of the

particular aircraft.

Mr Fenwick was less convinced, stating in his expert witness statement that

aerial fire fighting capability would be ‘lost’ within the wind farm but also

suggesting that aerial attack of grass fires is not particularly common or

useful anyway.

This latter point was objected to by opposing submitters. The Panel is clear

on this point, that whilst aerial fire suppression resources are not always

available; they are often used successfully on grass fires in this area and

restrictions on aerial fire fighting could in some circumstances reduce the

available fire suppression effort within the wind farm.

The CFA guidelines suggest that aerial attack in wind farms may be possible

and state:

The standard distance of 300 metres between wind turbines would allow

aircraft to operate around a wind farm given the appropriate weather and

terrain conditions.

On this issue in general the Panel considers that whilst under certain

circumstances at the discretion of the pilot and supervisor of aerial

operations, it may be possible to use aerial fire fighting in the wind farm, this

is far from certain and the operations are likely to be curtailed to a great

extent compared to the existing situation without the wind farm. Mr Foster

explained that dropping retardant or water from heights above the wind

turbines would be ineffective.


In summary the Panel makes the following findings:

the construction period, if it occurs over a time of high fire risk, is likely to

significantly increase the risk of fire due to the scale of operation;

the risk of ignition from the operating wind farm, whilst possible, is likely

to be low;

fire fighting in the wind farm, whether a fire that has started there or a

fire travelling through, is likely to be difficult if conditions prevent aerial

attack and there are raised beds on the site;

effective planning for fire fighting within the wind farm, including the

input of local fire brigades, is essential to allow for safe and effective fire

fighting; and

this planning must include adequate track design for fire vehicles and the

removal of ‘no through roads’ where possible.

The Panel does not consider that a total ban on raised bed cropping within

the wind farm is warranted, but fire planning should consider the need for

extensive and identified strategic areas without raised bed cropping within

the wind farm where ground attack is possible and safe.

8.3 Conclusion and recommendations

The wind farm site, like much of western Victoria, is a highly fire prone

landscape. The Panel considers the risk of fire ignition from construction

activities is significant if carried out during periods of high fire danger. The

risk of ignition from turbine operation is likely to be present but low.

Fire planning and suppression within the wind farm, whether of a fire

started there or travelling through, needs to be carefully considered in

relation to the restrictions on fire fighting posed by wind turbines (aerial

attack) and cropping activities (raised bed cropping).

The Panel considers however that these issues can be addressed, drawing on

local fire fighting experience, and the fire fighting capability in the area could

in fact be enhanced by improved access and resources.

The Panel does not consider the additional challenges posed for fire

management by the wind farm are such that a permit for the project should

be refused.


23. Detailed fire management planning for the wind farm must be

undertaken including:


construction of the wind farm to be undertaken outside the fire

season where possible;

fire training for personnel in particular aspects related to the

wind farm;

input from local volunteer fire brigades;

the identification of strategic fire breaks within the wind farm

without raised bed cropping;

new and proposed water sources on site and identification of

resources to be provided by the applicant.

A draft condition which covers these issues and the CFA conditions is

contained in Appendix B.


9. Transport and traffic impacts

9.1 Background

Transport is an essential part of the assessment of the permit application

because of the potential for the significant increases in traffic volumes,

particularly during the construction phase, to cause road damage, and to

adequately and safely handle the increased usage.

The effects of substantial truck numbers on road condition, and particularly

damage to local roads that have not been constructed to take large volumes

of heavy traffic, needs particular consideration.

Specific issues at the Berrybank Wind Farm are:

a number of turbines are proposed close to the Hamilton Highway, a B

Class road;

some turbines would be close to a major railway line;

two level crossings of the railway line are required;

crossings of local roads are intended. Usually an applicant proposes

multiple accesses off the local road network. In the main section of the

proposed wind farm to the north and north‐east containing 89 of the 100

turbines a single point of entry is proposed, from the Berrybank‐

Wallinduc Road about 1.5 km north of Hamilton Highway. This entry

point will access all turbine sites by using internal access tracks and by

crossings of local roads at eight locations. There are two apparent

crossings of declared road reserves in the site that are held under lease by

the farm owner; and

an on‐site concrete batching plant in this northern section is planned

which will require raw materials to be brought to this location via the

Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road access point and internal tracks. Concrete for

the 89 turbine foundations in that section will be supplied using these

access tracks, rather than using public roads. For the remaining 11

turbines concrete will be delivered via the same access point and hence

the same public roads will be used for turbine component and raw

material delivery.

The site and the proposed public roads and in the vicinity are shown in

Figure 1, which also shows the site access tracks. This figure also shows the

site boundary (the ‘activity area’ in the Application Report) which for the


purpose of this chapter defines the demarcation between public road access

and on‐site access tracks.

For ease of presentation this chapter discusses the construction and operation

phases separately. The first is dominated by a high level of activity including

significant over dimensional and heavy duty vehicle movement. The latter

phase will encompass much lower traffic movements and be almost

exclusively light duty vehicles. It is expected that post construction any

heavy vehicle movement would be limited to turbine re‐engineering or

decommissioning.

The Panel recognises that much of the detail of many transport and traffic

issues are best developed as part of an evolving environmental management

plan and subject to secondary consent within the framework of any planning

permit.

The Applicant has indicated a construction period variously stated as 12‐14

and 12‐18 months. For simplicity in assessing the traffic impact in this

chapter the Panel has assumed the shorter 12 month period for construction

with some months after that taken up for commissioning and site clean up

and restoration. Further, in the absence of information to the contrary the

Panel has assumed that during the first 6 months the work will focus on

preparation of access tracks, hardstand areas and the turbine foundations.

The Panel has then assumed the subsequent 6 months is taken up with

turbine construction. The Panel recognises that some overlap of these times

is likely as development proceeds on discrete areas of the site.

9.2 Discussion

The Applicant proposes the use of public road access to the site via an

arterial road which then provides access to three local roads and thence five

entry points to the on‐site access tracks site from these.

The roads are described in detail in Appendix 3 to the Planning Application

Report (PAR) prepared by AECOM (Traffic Impacts Assessment) and are:

Hamilton Highway;

Berrybank ‐ Wallinduc Road;

Doyle’s Road; and

Foxhow ‐ Berrybank Road.

There are two intersections involved in leaving/entering Hamilton Highway

and using local roads:

the intersection of the Hamilton Highway with the Berrybank ‐ Wallinduc

Road/Foxhow ‐ Berrybank Road; and


the intersection of the Hamilton Highway with Doyle’s Road/Foxhow ‐

Rokewood Road.

An intersection not mentioned in the PAR or submissions is the access road

to the grain terminal to the east off Foxhow‐Berrybank Road about 500 m

south of the Hamilton Highway intersection and to the north of and adjacent

to the railway line. Given the apparent size of this terminal and the amount

of cropping in the area the Panel expects that a reasonable volume of traffic

may use this intersection at specific times of the year.

The Panel notes that all local roads to be used to access the site are in

Corangamite Shire. The Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road, north of Boundary

Road, and some local roads north of that, which will be used for access for

power line construction, are in Golden Plains Shire.

The Applicant proposes grid connection to a 220 kV line about 3 km to the

north‐east of the site or a 500 kV line that crosses the south–east of the site.

Six possible sub‐station sites have been nominated, of which only one will be

used. All these sites are located adjacent to public roads. In response to a

question from the Panel the applicant has advised that access routes to

deliver and construct these sub‐station items will be determined by the

network service provider.

The Applicant had indicated that it would be expected that access for the

substation construction (which the Panel anticipates could include

substantial equipment) would be via the same public road and internal

access tracks used for wind turbine delivery and construction. If the 220 kV

connection option is used the applicant suggests that Berrybank‐Wallinduc

Road to the northern part of the site and then local roads including Padgett’s

Lane and Urchs Road would be used for access.

The single line railway that runs through the wind farm in a generally east

west direction about 500m south of and parallel to the Hamilton Highway is

an important part of the national transport infrastructure. The line is the

standard gauge line that links Melbourne to Adelaide and thence Perth. It

carries substantial freight transport and the thrice weekly each way

‘Overland’ passenger train between Melbourne and Adelaide.


9.2.1 Construction

Construction traffic to and from the site will consist of:

Over‐dimensional vehicles (ODVs) to carry the wind turbine components

and the large mobile crane;

Heavy duty vehicles (HDVs) bringing screenings, sand, cement and water

(for manufacturing concrete at the proposed on‐site batching plant), or

concrete from an off site plant, screenings for access track and turbine

hard stand area surfacing, concrete reinforcing rods, machinery, water for

access track dust control as needed, electrical equipment including the

transformer for the substation, materials and machinery for public road

upgrading, and other materials and components such as electrical cables

and poles; and

Light vehicles for personnel and trades people.

It is the ODVs that often attract most comment because of their large size

However it is the HDVs bringing materials for concrete manufacture and

track surfacing that generate by far the greater part of the truck traffic. The

light vehicle traffic for a peak construction workforce of an estimated 240

people can also add substantially to traffic. The Panel estimated that ODVs

probably account for only a very few percent of the total truck movements

and perhaps about one percent of total traffic during construction.

Over‐dimensional vehicles

The ODV loads are exclusively the wind generator components and the very

large crane required to assemble them. The prefabricated steel tower would

be delivered in several sections, possibly three or four, each about 20‐30m in

length and about 5m in width. The nacelle (the electricity generating

machinery housing that is on the top of the tower) weighs perhaps 60 tonne

or more. The blades are characterised by their length of nearly 50 metres and

a mass of about 10 tonne each.

ODVs are required to carry loads that because of some feature such as

length, width, height or mass exceed the limits for normal legal road vehicles

and require specific conditions of use. These vehicles operate under a permit

from VicRoads that controls routes, travel times and escorts and ensures axle

loads and vehicle mass are appropriate for roads and bridges.

A very large moveable crane must be brought to the site to erect the wind

turbines. This crane must be capable of lifting a load of about 60 tonne or

more (the nacelle) to a height of slightly greater than 80 metres. It is these

ODVs, rather than HDVs, that largely determine the pavement width needed


for local roads, the geometry of intersections, crossovers and crossings, and

the rail level crossing modifications needed.

In planning possible ODV routes the Applicant appears to have identified

approved B‐double routes since they are the roads most likely to include

those suitable for ODVs (subject to permit).

The PAR advises that turbine components would most likely be transported

from Portland and that it has developed a proposed route from there in

consultation with VicRoads and Warrnambool City Council. In the event

that some components are sourced from the port at Geelong the applicant

has identified an alternate route.

The Applicant estimates in Table 5.1, p12 of Appendix 3 to the PAR that the

number of ODV loads to bring turbine components to the site is 900 in total

being 400 for tower sections, 100 for nacelles and 400 for blades. The Panel

notes that 100 turbines with three bladed rotors cannot require 400 loads. We

believe that blades are usually transported two per load. The large erecting

crane may require a small number of ODVs. These differences

notwithstanding the number of loads will be between 550 and 800. We are

comfortable with an estimate of about 650 ODV loads.

It is not possible to estimate ODV rates in the absence of a construction

schedule. If it is assumed that these components are to be delivered

uniformly over the latter 150 working days of the proposed 12 month

construction period that equates to about four to five deliveries per day and

hence eight to ten ODV movements daily.

Heavy duty vehicles

In addition to the use of ODV to transport the major wind turbine

components construction activities will entail bringing substantial quantities

of materials, equipment and components to the site and possibly removing

some excavated material. This task will be met by heavy vehicles of various

descriptions including trucks and dogs, articulated vehicles, possibly B‐

doubles and rigid trucks of various sizes. Unlike ODVs these are legal road

vehicles that can operate on public roads except where there might be a

constraint due to bridge mass limits, road grades, tight curves, residential

area limits or the like.

The likely loads are discussed earlier in this chapter. Estimates and previous

experience indicate that the greatest number of these vehicles will carry

screenings, sand, cement and water for making concrete for the turbine

foundations, and supplying screenings for surfacing internal access tracks

and hardstand areas.


The PAR Appendix 3 at 5.1, p11 says;

It is assumed that the concrete will be mixed on site and the sand,

cement, aggregate and water as well as the reinforcement will be

delivered to the site from Geelong via the Hamilton Highway.

The Panel understands the likelihood that concrete will be prepared on site;

accepts that cement will be sourced from Geelong or possibly Melbourne;

accepts that reinforcing rod will come from Geelong or Melbourne; and

expects deliveries for the concrete batching plant to be via the Hamilton

Highway. The Panel does not accept the assumption that aggregate

(screenings), sand and water will come from Geelong.

The site is in the Western Victorian volcanic plains region which the Panel

believes should be a substantial source of quarried aggregate. The Panel is

aware of quarries in the region. Ms Segafredo of Corangamite Shire was able

to advise us that there are quarries locally, but not able to advise of the

nature and quality of materials or the capacity of those quarries.

The Panel notes that the Applicant’s Socio‐Economic Impact Assessment at

Appendix 6 clearly advises of the Applicant’s policy of employing and

buying locally. Stating that such materials are likely to be sourced from

Geelong seems to be incompatible with a policy of creating local economic

opportunities. The Panel strongly recommends that should a permit be

issued, and consistent with its local economic benefit claims, the Applicant

should source as much of the construction material locally as possible,

subject to competitive supply.

Road geometry will be satisfactory for these HDVs since roads are designed

to accommodate them and the enhancements of some roads to accommodate

ODVs accessing to the site will also be of benefit to HDVs. In 5.1.1, pp 11‐12

of Appendix 3 to the PAR it states;

The number of construction trucks to the site is estimated to be

approximately 3,500 as outlined in Table 5.1. These estimates are based

on 100 turbines being constructed and is considered the worst case

scenario. It also assumes that there is a batching plant on site.

To determine the impacts for the worst case scenario, it has been assumed

that approximately 3500 trucks are required during the construction

phase. If 100 turbines are constructed over the period of 12 ‐ 14 months

(working approximately 300 days of the year or 350 days over 14

months), on average there will be approximately eleven trucks accessing

the site a day. This will generate twenty two truck movements

throughout the day, which would be spread across an eight hour day.


The estimated 3,500 construction trucks include 900 ODVs. Table 5.1

identifies 2,600 HDVs including 1,900 loads of aggregate and sand, 250 loads

of cement and 350 water tankers.

The Panel believes this to be a very substantial underestimate.

Based on reasonable engineering knowledge and our awareness of the

transport task for other wind farms, the Panel considers the PAR has

underestimated the material needed for turbine foundations, which are

stated as being concrete spread footings of 17 x 17 x 3 m. More significantly

the PAR appears to not have included screenings for surfacing the on‐site

access tracks and the hardstand areas, and has not considered the public

road use for transporting concrete from the batching plant to the southern

turbine sites. The Applicant has confirmed to the Panel that the tracks will

be surfaced with screenings and that concrete for these southern turbines will

need to use public roads. Further, activities such as track watering for dust

control seem not to be included.

The Panel believes that these will add many thousands of loads to the

claimed figure, and suggests that the number of loads of track surfacing

material will be much greater, perhaps three or more times greater, than that

required for concrete manufacture for the turbine footings.

Mr Schafer, a submitter, said that he had a background in earthmoving

contracting and he believed the figure would be more like 20,000 truck loads.

The Panel estimate is much more in accord with the estimate from Mr

Schafer than it is with that from the Applicant.

The Applicant confirmed that the estimates provided in the PAR are for

turbine components and foundation materials only. Further we were

advised that:

…..as the detailed engineering designs for the access tracks and crane

hardstands has not been completed the range of materials and quantities

to ascertain the number of required trucks is not known at the moment.

That limitation is not expressed in the PAR. The Panel is aware that detailed

engineering design has not been done, but that does not preclude a

reasonable estimate being made on the information available. To not do so is

to avoid estimating what is likely to be by far the greatest HDV use and to

present an estimate that suggests traffic volumes many times smaller than

they are likely to be.

As a further example of aspects of estimating such loads we note that 5.1, p11

of Appendix 3 of the PAR states that;


The material removed from the excavation is expected to be utilised

within the site, in forming hardstand areas and in reinstating access

tracks and other areas after construction.

The Panel believes that the volume of excavated material would fall far short

of that needed for surfacing trafficked areas, and further, the Geotechnical

Assessment at Appendix 12 of the PAR suggests that it is unlikely that

excavated material would be suitable for that purpose. In the event that

some of the excavated material is be able to be used on site that may slightly

decrease the loads of imported surfacing material but would probably make

little overall difference to the number of HDVs.

Thus the Panel believes that the total HDV estimate is not credible and

possibly underestimates that traffic by a factor of five or greater, and perhaps

as high as ten.

In the PAR it has been assumed that the HDVs will be spread uniformly over

300 days. If these civil works of turbine foundation, access track and

hardstand construction are to occur over 150 working days (as the first phase

of the construction and premised above), and assuming that HDV traffic will

be 20,000, or about seven times greater than the Applicant’s estimate, then a

daily average of about 140 vehicles or 280 HDV movements might be

anticipated. That is, a daily heavy vehicle traffic volume about fifteen times

greater than the estimate presented to the Panel.

This equates to about 28 movements per hour or one every two minutes

somewhere to or from some part of the site compared to about two per hour

suggested in the PAR.

This is a significant issue as the Applicant uses these estimates, and those for

other vehicle classes, to estimate increases in vehicle numbers on roads

adjoining the site. This in turn bears on the extent of intended road

upgrading since this depends on Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

numbers, it has consequences for road pavement strength issues for local

roads, and it has road safety implications.

The Panel recognises that HDV, and other, vehicle numbers are likely to vary

substantially from one time to another depending on the construction

activity; a daily average is hence a statistic of somewhat limited value for

some purposes but perhaps not for road pavement condition. An estimated

daily peak may have some use for traffic management and road safety.

Further, site civil works may extend beyond 150 days and overlap with

turbine construction. Nonetheless the above gives some concept of the

Panel’s estimate of the scale of likely HDV movement.


Unlike ODVs the possible routes for HDVs cannot be determined with any

confidence at this stage as they depend on sources of supply of materials.

Many HDVs will inevitably come from Geelong and Melbourne and these

will use established routes for heavy vehicles and access the site in the

intended way using the Hamilton Highway and designated local roads.

Materials such as screenings, sand and water, which may be sourced locally

or regionally, may use local roads at some stage before accessing the arterial

road network and may possibly approach the site from directions other than

the Hamilton Highway. Issues of road use, road suitability, intersection

geometry and road safety with this expected large numbers of HDVs could

occur from the origin of their routes as it does close to their destination.

Given the likely volume of this HDV traffic, the Panel believes that when the

source(s) are known:

the Applicant should work closely with VicRoads and the appropriate

municipalities to determine the preferred routes;

as far as possible VicRoads arterial roads should be used rather than local

roads; and

local roads, in addition to those currently proposed, may need to be

upgraded.

The Panel considers that the Traffic Management Plan should:

incorporate revised and realistic estimates of likely HDV numbers;

incorporate HDV routes once the HDV origins are known;

consider the implications on road capacity, intersection treatments, local

road upgrades, road safety measures and crossover design; and

be developed in consultation with VicRoads and the Shires of

Corangamite and Golden Plains prior to submission for endorsement.

Light duty vehicles

Light duty vehicles (cars, utilities and vans) are expected to be used for

personal transport and for tradespeople engaged or employed on site. The

Applicant has estimated that there will be an on‐site work force averaging

between 70 and 130 workers with a peak of 240 during construction.

The light vehicle transport implications in this phase include; each employee

using their own vehicle to travel to the site; some car sharing; or the

company providing bus transport from specific centres including a possible

accommodation facility. The Panel also expects that employees would have

to travel to work areas that may be widely spread over the construction site.

The Applicant advised that it proposes that light vehicles will use the same

public roads as intended for trucks and the same access points to the site.


The Panel anticipates that there may be some light vehicle traffic increase on

local roads from the north and south and that private vehicle use will have to

be managed on the on‐site access tracks so that it does not impede

construction vehicle movements.

The Panel does have some concern about traffic volumes from the peak light

vehicle movements, particularly if the workforce all uses individual vehicles,

in combination with heavy construction vehicle movements. In particular

this light vehicle traffic could substantially increase vehicle numbers at the

intersection of Hamilton Highway with Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road/Foxhow‐

Berrybank Road and at the northern most site access crossover from

Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road. Determining light vehicle numbers and

movement patterns could have a bearing on the design of critical

intersections and crossovers and for traffic management measures. Unless

possible twice daily light vehicle traffic peaks along with heavy vehicle

movements are estimated and managed there could be implications for road

safety and road user convenience.

The Applicant will need to develop an integrated workforce plan that

includes accommodation and transport to and from work. That should be

done in consultation with Corangamite Shire and Golden Plains Shire. Light

vehicle travel to and from the site can be a part of the Traffic Management

Plan.

Road upgrades

VicRoads raised no issues about the capacity of the Hamilton Highway and

comments that those access routes chosen within the arterial road network

are suitable for the construction traffic, although the Panel notes that this was

presumably based on the traffic estimates provided, which the Panel

suggests have substantially underestimated HDV traffic.

Approval will have to be obtained from the Corangamite Shire for

construction vehicles to use the three local roads proposed from the

Hamilton Highway to the site access tracks. The Applicant proposes

upgrades, at its cost, to these local roads.

The Panel supports the position that these otherwise lightly used local roads

should be upgraded at the cost of the Applicant to meet the substantial

demands made on them by construction traffic.

This upgrading is for about four kilometres of road in total. This planned

upgrading is described in section 5.1.3 pp. 14‐15 of Appendix 3 of the PAR.

The geometric standards for local roads based on their Annual Average

Daily Traffic (AADT) are identified in Table 5.3. Appendix A presents the


current conditions of these roads. Table 5.4 then projects the expected

AADTs as that existing plus the anticipated wind farm construction traffic

and hence proposes the geometric upgrades needed.

The Panel supports this approach in principle, but with two substantial

caveats.

Firstly, the expected AADTs should be re‐calculated using revised estimates

of HDV numbers and hence the upgrading re‐assessed.

Secondly, it is not apparent that the upgrade proposals account for pavement

strength, and perhaps any culvert adequacy, to carry the large volume of

heavy vehicles expected. It is vital that these roads have the capacity to carry

the expected traffic safely and without undue deterioration of the pavement.

The position of Corangamite Shire on these local roads is articulated in its

submission and presentation to the Panel. In Submission 31, the attached

Council Agenda Item of 24 November 2009 p11 states:

Council’s position is that all local roads used for access be upgraded to

6.6m sealed pavement, 1.0m shoulder (includes 2 x 3.1 traffic lanes, 2 x

0.2m sealed shoulder, 2 x 0.8 unsealed shoulder). All local roads should

also be assessed for pavement strength to ensure that existing pavement

and extension to pavements have load carrying capacity. All upgrades

will require a pavement design, which would include drainage

improvements.

At that meeting Council gave general support for the wind farm subject to

the resolution of a number of issues including:

(w) A requirement for a traffic management plan to address both

construction and operational issues should be included in any permit

issued.

The Panel adopts the simple proposition that after construction the roads

should be in at least as good, and preferably better, condition than before

construction traffic, and should not require a greater level of maintenance by

the Council. This position seems to be shared by the Applicant (see section

6.4, p18 of Appendix 3 of the PAR) and is supported by Corangamite Shire

(ref. Submission 31, attached Council Agenda Item of 24 November 2009

p10).

The Panel considers that the requirement for a traffic management plan, with

Council input and prepared to their satisfaction, is the best way to ensure

that agreement on surveys and works required is achieved. This plan should


cover all traffic requirements (ODV, HDV, light vehicles) for the wind farm

construction and operation and any powerline construction.

Intersections

The PAR is silent on the existing geometry or changes needed to the

geometry of intersections to accommodate turning heavy vehicles,

particularly ODVs. The particular intersections are those of the Hamilton

Highway with Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road/Foxhow‐Berrybank Road and

with Doyle’s Road/Foxhow‐Rokewood Road.

The Panel believes that these may require some widening to allow ODV

movements on a sealed surface, and possibly other works such as some

alteration to the traffic islands at the Hamilton Highway and Berrybank‐

Wallinduc Road/Foxhow‐Berrybank intersection. The pavement on

intersections must also be constructed to be of sufficient strength to handle

the heavy loads to which it will be subject.

The submission from VicRoads (Submission 12) states:

….to maintain the existing level of service and safety of the Hamilton

Highway, VicRoads will require that the primary entrance to the

development (the Hamilton Highway‐Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road

intersection) be upgraded to a “Type B” intersection.

The Panel presumes that this response recognises, inter alia, the particular

turning movement needs of ODVs at this intersection and the substantial

HDV movements. However the Panel is uncertain if this also recognises the

need of these vehicles to turn to and from the south at that intersection to use

Foxhow‐Berrybank Road, and this VicRoads response does not advise on the

Hamilton Highway/Doyle’s Road intersection for turning movements to and

from the south.

The Panel is of the view that the redesign of these intersections is critical for

dealing with the anticipated volume of construction traffic and ensuring road

safety is not jeopardised and inconvenience minimised.

The Panel believes that the Applicant must liaise with VicRoads and the

Corangamite Shire to ensure that work that is carried out to the two

intersections on the Hamilton Highway is such that ODV and HDV

movements are able to be made safely and efficiently and with minimal

pavement damage. The intersection works must be carried out to the

requirements and satisfaction of those two parties and at the cost of the

Applicant ensuring that the post construction condition should be as good or

better, than before.


The detail of upgrading of these two key Hamilton Highway intersections

and any other intersection needed for the heavy construction traffic should

be developed in the Traffic Management Plan using the principles presented

above.

Crossovers

Crossovers are those sections of road that connect a public road to a road on

private property by crossing a road reservation.

As described earlier five new two‐way access points to the site are proposed

and are shown in Figure 1

The Panel has concerns about road safety and inconvenience issues at the

northern most crossover from Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road. This crossing is

the single access point for the construction of 89 out of the 100 turbines. In

addition raw materials will be brought through this point to the concrete

batching plant and concrete from there will be taken via that crossover to the

other 11 turbine sites.

Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road is not a particularly busy road but it is an

important local road. The Panel considers that there is the potential for

several hundred vehicle movements per day at that northern access point.

There could be similar numbers of heavy and light vehicles, although the

former would probably be more uniformly distributed through the day than

the morning and late afternoon peaks of the latter.

If these anticipated substantial vehicle movements cannot be achieved

smoothly and vehicles bank up in Berrybank‐Wallinduc Road there is the

possibility of adverse effects on road safety and convenience. The PAR

seems not to have considered this issue. The Panel suggests that particular

attention will need to be given to the design and operation of this crossover,

and like the Hamilton Highway intersections, traffic controllers and warning

signs might have to be considered.

A particular concern is that if this crossover cannot satisfactorily handle the

traffic volume, it may lead to vehicles using other local roads and crossings

to access the site with adverse effects on the condition of those roads and on

road safety.

The crossovers to achieve this access are all in Corangamite Shire. They must

be approved by that Shire and designed and constructed according to its

standards.


Crossings

Crossings are where an internal access track crosses a public road without

intending to provide access to or from that public road.

Eight crossings in the site are proposed at right angles to the public road and

these are shown in Figure 1.

The PAR in Appendix 3 at section 5.1.3, p14 recommends that:

These locations be sealed to minimise the impact on the existing road

conditions. The sealed section of these roads should extend

approximately 10 m in either direction from the access points to reduce

potholing and rutting near the crossing points.

The Panel endorses the recommendation and suggests that to avoid road

damage the public road should be sealed for a total distance of about 30 m at

the crossing point, upgraded so that pavement strength is adequate for the

heavy construction traffic crossing it, and the crossover constructed so that

the transition from it to the road does not cause road damage.

Although the traffic volumes on these local roads to be crossed are not high

there will be a need to ensure that safety measures are developed, put in

place and enforced.

The PAR indicates that these are to be strictly crossings with no traffic

turning from or onto public roads. It is imperative that the Applicant puts in

place an enforceable and enforced protocol that ensures that wind farm

construction vehicles do not use these as entry and exit points and hence use

unimproved local roads.

Realistically the Panel doubts that post construction that it will be possible to

prevent light vehicles using these crossovers as convenient additional entry

points by landholders and perhaps wind farm operations staff. It might

therefore be prudent to design these so that they are suitable as crossovers

for light vehicles post construction.

The crossovers to achieve this access are in both Corangamite and Golden

Plains Shires. They must be approved by those Shires and designed and

constructed according to their standards.


Road safety

The Panel is conscious of safety issues from the substantial ODV movements

turning from and to the Hamilton Highway and their presence on and

turning between local roads to the site. The Panel also has reservations about

the uncontrolled Doyle’s Road crossing of the rail line.

The Panel supports AECOM’s recommendations that traffic controllers be

used at these two road intersections to assist all truck movements, including

ODVs, and that temporary advance warning signs be placed on each

highway approach to both intersections. Safety measures will have to be

developed for both rail crossings, but particularly that on Doyle’s Road.

Access tracks

The project requires internal unsealed tracks to access turbine sites, to deliver

materials to the concrete batching plant and supply concrete from that, and

construct the substation. The PAR at section 4.3 pp 21‐22 says that some

vehicles will use existing farm tracks, that all tracks will be constructed to a

10 m width which will then be reduced post construction to about a 3 m

width. In response to a question from the Panel the Applicant advised that

the hardstand areas at each turbine would be about 50 x 50 m (exhibit 66).

These areas are needed for turbine components, machinery (particularly the

erecting crane), and for assembly of the rotor. The applicant also confirmed

that the access tracks and the hardstand areas would be surfaced with

screenings.

The length of the proposed access tracks is not given, but the Panel estimate

it to be approximately 70 km. If these areas are surfaced with 20 cm of

screenings and that each truck carries about 20m3 it can be calculated that

approximately 11,000 loads will be needed. The underestimation of HDV

loads has been discussed previously.

Possible road changes

Fire prevention and control is a major concern to the local community. This

is discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of this report. Two considerations have

the likelihood of causing some changes.

Firstly, the panel supports the recommendation from a number of submitters

including the CFA and Mr Fenwick that access roads should not be dead end

roads. In the event of fire these tracks may be used for fire fighting and

should allow a vehicle to drive through to a public road. The Applicant

accepted this.


The second consideration is that we recommend that raised bed cropping be

reduced on the site to allow for the strategic provision of trafficable fire

control lines.

As a result of these possible changes:

the length of access tracks may increase;

a greater quantity of screenings may have to be brought to site to surface

these tracks;

the number of crossings may increase; and

the access tracks may be able to be placed differently if not constrained by

raised beds.

These changes should be addressed via the Traffic Management Plan and

Wildfire and Emergency Response Plan.

School bus routes

The PAR in Appendix 3 presents a map showing the nearby school bus

routes at Figure 6.2, p17. At various points these will intersect with traffic

routes for wind farm and powerline construction.

The PAR suggests that the use of ODVs and HDVs be avoided on school bus

routes during times of operations of those buses for the safety of students. In

Appendix 3 at section 6.3, p17 it states:

To help reduce the impact of the development on the local road network

no over‐dimension or large trucks associated with the construction

should operate on Hamilton Highway during the school bus hours of

7.30am and 8.50am, and between 3.20pm and 4.30pm on school days.

And at section 7.0, p19 it recommends that:

No over‐dimension or large trucks associated with the construction

should operate on Hamilton Highway during the school bus hours of

7.30am and 8.50am, and between 3.20pm and 4.30pm on school days.

And, further, at section 8.0, p20 it concludes that:

Department of Transport requests that over‐dimensional vehicles

travelling to site along Hamilton Highway operate outside of school bus

hours.

The Panel observes that, in addition to other reasons to do so, it is important

that construction HDVs be kept strictly to the agreed routes and not be

allowed to use other local roads, some of which are school bus routes.


Further, the proposed power line should be constructed cognisant that part

of that work may be on school bus routes.

The Panel suggests that the detail of ensuring school bus safety and efficient

contemporaneous operation of construction truck traffic should be

developed as part of the Traffic Management Plan for the project.

Dust control

There will be a number of sources of dust generation during construction.

Possibly the major one will be from the significant heavy vehicle use on the

internal access tracks in dry conditions. Water sprays may be needed for

controlling dust, particularly on those parts of the site where that dust might

affect neighbouring roads and properties. The applicant advised that it

anticipates transport dust control measures being addressed in an intended

Air Quality Management Plan as a part of the Environmental Management

Plan.

Rail transport

The Panel asked if there was scope for using rail transport to bring some

materials to the site, for example bulk materials such as screenings, sand and

cement. This could reduce the number of HDV loads on the road network.

The Applicant responded that it had recently started investigating this

option. The Panel commends further investigation of this option as being

one of possibly few wind farm sites adjacent to a major rail line and possibly

with some vacant land near the former station.

9.2.2 Operation

Traffic

The Applicant contemplates an operational staff of about 25. It is not clear

that all these would be on‐site, or all on site at the same time. We would

expect the traffic generated in the operational phase to be largely light duty

vehicles with a few HDVs. The Panel agrees with the analysis in the PAR

that there is no significant traffic issues associated with the operational phase

of the wind farm.

Hamilton Highway safety issues

Mrs Gabrielle Keating, in her submission and presentation, raised her

concern about road safety issues that might arise from the proximity of

turbines to the highway, particularly relating to shadow flicker during the

day and aviation hazard lighting at night. Mrs Keating used shadow flicker


estimated at dwelling 76 as a surrogate of shadow flicker on the road. She

also provided a paper by McBride and Rapley (Document 51) that discusses

this issue.

Mr Power, for the Applicant, submitted that the application had been

referred to VicRoads which had advised on the adequacy of the highway for

anticipated construction traffic. It had made no reference to this issue and

hence it should be concluded that it had no concern with this matter.

Whilst the Panel agrees with Mr Power’s submission that VicRoads made no

comment on the proximity of the wind turbine generators to the highway the

Panel notes that it did not specifically state an absence of concern and

VicRoads did not appear at the hearing whereby this issue might have been

raised with it.

The Hamilton Highway provides the major route between Melbourne and

Geelong to Hamilton and is hence one of the three major routes to the

Western District and an important part of State road transport infrastructure.

The Panel accepts that this is an important road that carries a daily traffic

volume approaching 1500 vehicles including a substantial heavy vehicle

component.

The proposal would see four turbines built to the north of the Highway at

about 250 m distance, three at the eastern end and one at the western, and

one about the same distance to the south of the Highway near the eastern

end. Four of these five are intended to have aviation hazard lighting. (The

Panel’s position, and indeed opposition, in principle on aviation obstacle

lighting is discussed at length in Section 4.3 and 10.1). The next closest

turbines are about 600m distant. There are 18 turbines at or within about one

km of the road, 12 of these are intended to have aviation lighting.

The issues in contention are whether the visual dominance of these

structures, shadow flicker on the road, and the night lighting will cause

driver distraction that might compromise road safety. An additional

consideration is that if the viewing/information area that the Corangamite

Shire included as one of its resolutions at its 24 November 2009 meeting is

built on the Highway; this might result in vehicles slowing and stopping

where it is not safe to do so. The Panel also suggests that there might be

heightened concern about road safety during construction when motorists

might be attracted to watching the works.

The Panel is not aware of a constructed wind farm or an application that has

turbines so close to a major road. The Waubra Wind Farm has three turbines

sited about 750 m from the Sunraysia Highway, also a B class road, but they

seem to be positioned so that the visual dominance is less and shadow flicker


arguably substantially less. The Panel is aware of applications adjacent to C

Class roads, but these carry a much less volume of traffic, and it would be

expected much less tourist traffic.

The Panel’s analysis is:

From several kilometres a driver in either direction will be aware of a

large number of turbines to the north and a few to the south of the

Highway;

At about one to two kilometres, and again coming from either direction it

seems that one turbine will appear near straight ahead before the road

veers at around a kilometre or less where after the motorist passes within

about 250 m of the nearest turbines. At a tower base diameter of about 5

m and a tower height of 80 m topped with a three bladed rotor of about

90 m diameter these will be visually very dominant to the road user;

At night turbines will not be visible from distance other than by virtue of

aviation hazard lighting, which the Panel does not support;

The proposed turbine layout suggests that there may be opportunities

where drivers may view two turbines in line, particularly to the north of

the Highway towards the eastern end, although this would require

glancing away from the road. It has been suggested that this can cause an

unusual visual effect for some observers; and

In daylight with sunny conditions shadow flicker may occur across the

road depending on such factors as rotor orientation vis‐à‐vis sun position

and whether the rotor is moving. Revised shadow flicker diagrams

provided by Dr Gilbert indicate shadow flicker along parts of the

Highway in excess of 30 h/a.

No submitter provided evidence of any road incidents that might be

attributed to proximity to wind turbines. Mr Power noted that the applicant

was not aware of any evidence and hence there was nothing to support any

concern. This provides the Panel with some level of comfort given the

decades of wind farm development that has occurred worldwide. The Panel

considers that if there was evidence of risks to traffic, it is likely that such

information would be widely available.

A large wind farm near the Hamilton Highway or any other road will

introduce an element of driver distraction, whether from the size of the

turbines, shadow flicker, lighting or some other effect. However, being a

driver requires a certain level of responsiveness and alertness to road

conditions. This is no more apparent than in rural environments where

animals, slow moving agricultural machinery, approaching vehicles with

high beam lights and many other impacts require drivers to respond and

adapt.


Hence the Panel has no basis to suggest that turbines should not be placed

within a specified distance of a major road, should be placed so that no or

maximum specified shadow flicker falls on the road, or other such measures.

During construction and operation, there may well be temptation for drivers

to slow or stop to observe activities, thus creating a hazard. This is an issue

that should be addressed in the traffic management plan and might require

the provision of warning signage or pullover viewing bays.

Rail line visual impact issues

There is one turbine proposed about 400 m south of the line towards the

eastern end and two others about 500 m distant, one at either end. All three

are proposed to be fitted with aviation lighting. Ten will be at or within one

km of the track; seven of these are intended to have aviation hazard lighting.

The visual impacts will be similar to that along the Hamilton Highway both

by day and night. The visual dominance of the structures will be apparent,

shadow flicker will occur across the line although possibly to a lesser extent

and aver a distance of about 6km, and the aviation hazard lighting will be

noticeable.

The Panel is unaware if there is any rail operating safety issues associated

with the visual impact of the wind farm proposed to be constructed on either

side of the rail line. The Panel believes that it would be prudent to ensure

that the Australian Rail Track Corporation is made aware of the wind farm

so that any visual issues can be incorporated in safe working procedures for

train crews.


The Panel has identified a range of important issues in the traffic and

transport arrangements in the preceding sections. Many of these require due

consideration in the Traffic Management Plan for the project but can, and

must be, appropriately managed to minimise impacts on the local

community.

The Panel is generally satisfied that these issues can be managed and are not

an impediment to the issuing of the permit for the eventual development of

the wind energy facility.

Others, such as the recalculation of HDV movements are more substantive

and require further consideration before the issuing of the permit. The Panel

also considers that this further work is not likely to lead to a situation where


the permit cannot be issued, but considers it is important enough to be

addressed prior to such a permit being issued.


24. Prior to the development of the Traffic Management Plan the

Applicant prepare an updated set of calculation of traffic movements,

and particularly HDV movements. These should be submitted for

review to Corangamite Shire, Golden Plains Shire and VicRoads.

The Panel has recommended a draft permit condition accordingly. Subject to

the recommendation above, the Panel recommends:

25. A Traffic Management Plan must be prepared for the project to

provide the detailed management framework for traffic. The Traffic

Management Plan must include, among other things:

the identification of ODV routes;

the identification of HDV routes and sources of all bulk

materials;

the identification of light vehicle routes and proposals to use

mass transport for workers where possible;

management of project traffic in relation to local traffic and

school bus routes;

details of any road, intersection or related infrastructure

upgrades required and post construction restitution standards;

mechanism for input and approval by VicRoads and relevant

local councils; and

details and timing of pre‐construction condition surveys and

timetables for maintenance and post‐construction restitution

works.

Draft permit conditions are included in Appendix B. The Panel also

recommends:

26. Traffic impacts related to dust and hazardous substances spills be

managed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan

proposed in the draft permit conditions in this report.


10. Other matters

10.1 Aviation obstacle lighting

10.1.1 Background

The Applicant commissioned the Ambidji Group to undertake an assessment

of aviation safety for the Berrybank Wind Farm. This was provided in

Appendix 8 of the Planning Application Report (PAR).

The conclusions of the study were that:

The study has determined that the highest turbine in this proposed wind

farm is 331m/1086ft AMSL and as such:

· Will not penetrate any OLS surfaces;

· Will not penetrate any PANS OPS surface;

· Will not have an impact on nearby designated air routes;

· Will not have an impact on local aviation activities;

· Will require notification to CASA under Reporting of Tall Structure

requirements; and

· Will require consideration of obstacle marking and lighting

requirements.

The proposed Berrybank Wind Farm site is:

· Located outside the clearance zones associated with Air Traffic

Control radar facilities and aviation navigation aids; and

· Located at a sufficient distance from airfield not to have an impact on

contingency procedures and engine inoperative flight paths.

In spite of these conclusions, Ambidji suggested aviation lighting may be

required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and developed a

plan showing 52 turbines that may be lit. This plan is shown in Figure 3.

The lighting would be red, medium intensity, synchronised flashing, twin

lights on the relevant turbines.


Figure 3: Aviation obstacle lighting

The Ambidji report also discussed the position of CASA in relation to

obstacle lighting of wind farms. Ambidji noted that the Aviation Circular

AC138‐18(0) Obstacle Marking and Lighting of Wind Farms has been withdrawn

pending review but that CASA still recommend it be used for guidance.


10.1.2 Discussion

The Panel considers the position in relation to obstacle lighting of wind

turbines away from the obstacle limitation surface of airfields is farcical.

The interplay between the State and Commonwealth regulatory regimes and

project applicants has resulted in a situation where the broader community

and indeed the industry itself are unclear as to the position in relation to

wind turbine lighting. Further, panels are left without guidance for

evaluating this issue.

There is some doubt as to whether CASA actually has any regulatory power

in this area (away from controlled airspace) or whether based on perceived

risk applicants are following their ‘advice’ to be cautious.

In relation to the Advisory Circular the Panel finds it curious that it has been

‘withdrawn’ but that applicants are still advised to use it in the absence of

anything else.

Planning Panels and VCAT have dealt with this issue ad infinitum over the

past seven years and this Panel considers the situation is more confusing for

applicants, the community and regulators now than at any previous time.

For this project the following points are clear:

the Applicant would prefer not to light the turbines;

submitters object strenuously to the impact on their night sky; and

the expert aviation witness called by the Applicant (Mr Foster) under

questioning did not consider obstacle lighting is required.

The Panel is of the view that all‐night lighting of the turbines (which is the

real issue) is clearly not necessary in an area of extremely low night flying

aircraft movements (none of which are meant to occur below 1,000 feet above

the highest obstacle within 10 nautical miles) and is an unreasonable and

unacceptable impost on the local and regional community. This comment

applies to this permit application but the Panel is also cognisant of the

regional impact over a large number of large wind farms.

The Ambidji report (at page 16) makes reference to systems of lighting

turbines only in the presence of aircraft that has been approved in other parts

of the world. The Panel considers that use of such a system would be a far

superior outcome.


10.1.3 Conclusions and recommendation

The Panel concludes that ‘all‐night’ aviation obstacle lighting is unnecessary

and an unacceptable impost on the regional community. If the aviation

regulatory authority or other body requires aviation obstacle lighting then it

should only be illuminated on demand, whether in the detected presence of

aircraft or in low visibility daytime situations (fog or smoke).


27. Aviation obstacle lighting of the Berrybank Wind Farm should in the

first instance be prohibited via condition, and only allowable via

secondary consent on the basis of ‘on demand’ illumination.

The Panel has recommended a draft condition accordingly.

10.2 Cultural heritage

A desktop cultural heritage assessment and car based survey was carried out

by Tardis Enterprises Pty Ltd for the applicant covering both Aboriginal and

non‐Aboriginal (‘historic’) cultural heritage.

There were no submissions received on this issue apart from the applicant

addressing the issue of a voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan

(CHMP).

10.2.1 Aboriginal

The assessment concluded that the area contains moderate potential for

scattered artefacts across the study area but given the extensive ground

disturbance (from agricultural land uses) the likely significance of theses sites

is low.

The assessment concludes that the area around the Gnarkeet Chain of Ponds

south of the Hamilton Highway has moderate to high potential for

Aboriginal artefacts. The assessment notes that the project does not impact

on this area.

Tardis recommended that on the basis of the initial assessment, a CHMP

under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 was not required, but could be done

voluntarily. Mr Power for the applicant advised at the hearing that a

voluntary CHMP will not be undertaken.

It is important to note that the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act

apply whether a CHMP is prepared or not. That is, Aboriginal artefacts are


protected and if found during construction must be managed in accordance

with that Act.

The Panel notes the assessment undertaken by Tardis. Given that a CHMP

will not be prepared, the Panel is concerned that there will be no procedure

for identifying or recording Aboriginal artefacts in the field. The Panel

recommends:

28. A procedure for training contractors and field personnel in

identifying and reporting Aboriginal artefacts should be applied to

the wind energy facility application via condition.

The Panel has recommended a condition in Appendix B.

10.2.2 Historic

The Tardis assessment identified that only the Berrybank township is an area

with structures likely to have historic heritage value. However, they noted

that they had been unable to access large areas of the proposed activity site

and recommended a comprehensive ground survey when the actual area to

be disturbed is identified.

The applicant did not address this particular recommendation in the hearing,

but given the desktop review undertaken and the style of settlement of the

area the Panel does not consider a specific survey is warranted. However, as

for Aboriginal heritage, a procedure should be developed for the

identification and reporting of such material by construction and field crews

to ensure that if such material exists, it is not disturbed and appropriately

identified and managed.

10.3 Shadow flicker

10.3.1 Background

Shadow flicker is caused when a blade passes between the sun and a viewer

and the shadow passes across the viewer. Unlike the shadow of a building

or a wind turbine tower which moves slowly as the position of the sun

changes a moving wind turbine rotor casts a regularly moving shadow at a

point.

Shadow flicker is of most concern at a dwelling. Planning approval for a

wind farm requires that shadow flicker in the immediate vicinity of a

dwelling must not exceed 30 hours per year.


Specific issues raised by submitters were:

the effect of shadow flicker on safety in their workplace, seen as any part

of their farming property;

perceived road safety issues with shadow flicker on the Hamilton

Highway (discussed in Chapter 9);

reservations about the standard and the assessment methodology;

enforcement;

shadow flicker as a wind farm health concern in combination with other

effects such as infrasound; and

the status of currently uninhabited dwellings vis‐à‐vis shadow flicker.

This chapter is concerned solely with shadow flicker assessment as required

by the Wind Farm Guidelines.

Dr Trenton Gilbert of Garrad Hassan was called as an expert witness by the

Applicant. Dr Gilbert provided an expert witness statement and further

information requested by the Panel.

10.3.2 Discussion

The Wind Farm Guidelines were revised in September 2009. The revised

guidelines differ by applying the numerical standard to the immediate

surroundings (the curtilage) of the house. From experience the Panel

discerns some difficulty and variation of opinion in agreeing on just how far

those ‘surroundings’ extend. To gain some concept of this we asked the

Applicant to generate a revised shadow flicker plan with circles of 100 m

radius from the house centre drawn around each dwelling.

In the Shadow Flicker Assessment report Dr Gilbert explained the geometric

analysis that had been conducted using proprietary software. This is a

conservative approach since it assumes such things as no cloud cover, that

the rotor is always turning in the day time, that the rotor vector is always

perpendicular to the position of the sun, the presence of screening

vegetation, and that light intensity is uniform. The actual incidence of

shadow flicker will be much lower than that calculated but the Panel notes

that assumptions to take account of these ameliorative factors can introduce

considerable uncertainty.

Dr Gilbert explained in the Shadow Flicker Assessment at p1 that:

Diffusion of a shadow with distance has been considered by assuming

that the maximum distance a shadow can be cast is likely to cause

shadow flicker is approximately 1 km.


This horizontal extent was the subject of some submissions and questions.

The shadow flicker diagram provided at the hearing is shown at Figure 4.

The diagram shows, by colour delineation, the predicted number of hours

per year of shadow flicker that would be experienced at locations within one

km of the wind turbines. It should be noted that this is based on the

geometric analysis and it shows the one km radii from the wind turbines as

the limit of shadow flicker perception. It also includes the 100 m radii

around the centre of each dwelling as asked for by the Panel.

It is logical to expect, and apparent from the shadow flicker diagram, that it

is dwellings, properties and roads generally to the east and/or west of

turbines that are more likely to experience shadow flicker than those more

generally to the north and/or south.

The Panel notes that Garrad Hassan did the shadow flicker modelling on the

assumption of turbine hub heights of 100 m, rather than the 80 m now

proposed, and a rotor diameter of 104 m rather than the 101 m now intended.

Since shadow flicker increases with increasing turbine dimensions this

introduces some further conservativeness.

The Panel is satisfied with the analysis and understands its substantial

conservativeness with the exception of the horizontal extent of flicker which

is discussed below.


Figure 4: Shadow flicker diagram


Extent of shadow flicker

A number of submitters questioned the horizontal limit of shadow flicker of

one km. Mr Schafer suggested that the shadow from an aircraft was

perceptible over a greater distance.

Dr Gilbert submitted that a distance of about 10 rotor diameters (of about 100

m) or about 265 maximum blade chords (the widest part of the blade and

approximately 4 m), both of which are about one km, is suggested as the

distance at which any shadow flicker is unlikely to cause any nuisance, not

the distance at which it will not be discernible. The critical point, in the

conclusion of the expert witness statement, is:

It is acknowledged that it is possible for turbines to cast shadows beyond

1 km, however it is expected that these shadows will be faint, and with

intensity insufficient to cause annoyance for an observer.

The Panel asked Dr Gilbert if there was a definition of what constituted

imperceptible flicker. Dr Gilbert said that he understands that a variation of

light intensity of about 2 ‐ 5% is not perceptible for human vision. It is not

known to the Panel if that limit of imperceptibility outdoors might be

apparent indoors if it fell across a dwelling. In response to a further question

about measurement Dr Gilbert said that he did not know of any instrument

for measuring shadow flicker but suggested that it would probably not be

difficult to adapt an instrument that would measure periodic variations in

light intensity.

Although the Wind Farm Guidelines are silent on the effective horizontal

limit the Panel is not persuaded that there is a basis for extending the

horizontal extent beyond one km for assessing shadow flicker impact.

Non‐stakeholder dwellings

Dr Gilbert concluded that no off‐site dwellings, including one which is

currently unoccupied, are likely to experience any shadow flicker according

to the Wind Farm Guidelines. On the basis of the assessment presented, and

our analysis of it, we are satisfied with that conclusion. We note that the

report shows shadow flicker being close to a number of those dwellings at

the limit of the one km horizontal shadow extent.

Dr Gilbert also used a 50 m radius approach from the centre of each dwelling

as a surrogate for the area surrounding a dwelling as required by the 2009

Wind Farm Guidelines. This approach has been drawn from the public

Consultation Draft of the EPHC National Wind Farm Guidelines. On this

basis three non‐stakeholder dwellings, #39, #56 and #103 may experience

some shadow flicker, but within the 30 h/a requirement.


Using the more conservative Panel approach of a 100 m radius it appears, not

surprisingly, that more dwelling surrounds may have some impact from

shadow flicker, perhaps 7 in total including the two currently uninhabited

non‐stakeholder dwellings, but none in breach of the Wind Farm Guidelines

requirement.

To ensure protection of dwellings and, as far as possible their immediate

surroundings, from shadow flicker as well as noise and visual impact we

believe that any micrositing of turbines should prohibit movement of

positions towards non‐stakeholder dwellings.

Stakeholder dwellings

The Panel notes that there appear to be 12 stakeholder dwellings of which

four are uninhabited or uninhabitable. Dr Gilbert advised that six

stakeholder dwellings would experience shadow flicker and three of these

would, on the conservative estimate, experience greater than 30 h/a. Two of

these, #65 and #76 are uninhabited. If the wind direction, and hence the

orientation of the rotor is considered, three houses, including the two

uninhabited ones remain above 30 h/a. The remaining inhabited house, #66

at 38 h/a, is likely to come below that 30 h/a level when other factors such as

cloud cover are considered.

As expected there is an increase in the conservatively estimated period of

shadow flicker, of roughly 20%, at the six impacted stakeholder properties if

assessed within the 50 m radius of these dwellings, but those five below 30

h/a remain so.

In the proposed draft permit condition, stakeholder dwellings are excluded

from the guideline figure of 30 h/a. Impact on stakeholder dwellings are thus

considered to be a reduction in amenity that stakeholders accept in exchange

for the broader benefits of the project.

Non‐stakeholder properties

A number of adjoining submitters presented strong views that their property

was their workplace and that it should not be impacted by off‐site adverse

effects including shadow flicker, noise and visual impact. They submitted

that shadow flicker would affect workplace safety, including in their sheds,

as well as compromising their rural lifestyle. Furthermore it was submitted

by Mrs Gabrielle Keating that as employers of casual labour they had a legal

obligation to provide a safe workplace. It was submitted that there had been

an occasion when shearers had refused to work on a Waubra property

because of claimed adverse wind farm impacts.


No party submitted evidence, including legislation, policies or guidelines,

that shadow flicker constituted a workplace hazard. The Panel is not

persuaded that there is evidence to consider avoiding shadow flicker on

adjoining non‐stakeholder properties other than dwellings, nor do the Wind

Farm Guidelines require that. Workplace health issues are discussed further

in Section 10.6.

The submission presented to us by Mr Gane of the Department of Planning

and Community Development on behalf of the Minister for Planning

indicates that the Department does not consider that shadow flicker impacts

on workplace safety. At 10.4, p55 that submission states:

The department does not accept that workplace safety will be

unacceptably increased on non‐participant properties as a result of this

project. The exposure to blade glint, shadow flicker and noise are far less

intensive impacts than general farming and cropping operations, such

as….’

Mr Hocking raised crop germination and growth vis‐à‐vis shadow

flicker:

It is more than obvious that shadow flicker will occur in regions on and

off the proposed development site. Considering this effect has been

calculated to be as high as 913 hrs in some areas and that it was

suggested by the proponent’s expert that this may occur more during the

winter months. The question was raised as to whether this effect may

have an impact on crop germination and growth. It’s worth noting that

germination of crops in this area is difficult to achieve because of the cold,

wet soils and lack of sunshine hours available through the winter

months. More research should be undertaken to determine the extent of

this problem.

The Panel notes this concern. We are not aware of this issue having

been raised elsewhere but we do not dismiss it. The Panel has no

answer; we do not have agronomy knowledge and we had no access to

such knowledge at the hearing. Intuitively we suspect that the

diminution in sunlight at neighbouring properties due to shadow

flicker would be slight, but we do not know of the sensitivity of the

germination and growth of crops to small changes in insolation. This

issue might usefully be incorporated in the next revision of the Wind

Farm Guidelines.


Epilepsy

In his expert witness statement Dr Gilbert mentioned epilepsy in the context

of one of consequences that is sometimes suggested as linked to shadow

flicker. Although no submissions were received on this the Panel believes

that for completeness this should be included. Dr Gilbert said in his

statement:

Regarding epilepsy, it is noted in the Draft Australian Guidelines (the

Public Consultation Draft of the EPHC National Wind Farm

Guidelines) that only 1 in 4,000 people suffer from a form of epilepsy

which involves sensitivity to strobing light, and only 1 in 100,000 people

are sensitive to frequencies down to 2.5 Hz. Modern wind turbines have

a maximum rotational speed of approximately 15 to 20 rpm,

corresponding to a blade passing frequency of 0.75 to 1 Hz, well below

the frequency likely to trigger epilepsy.

The paper by McBride and Rapley provided by Mrs Gabrielle Keating

also discusses this issue. At p38 it says:

Photosensitive epilepsy is a form of epilepsy in which seizures can be

triggered by visual stimuli that form patterns in time or space, such as:

flashing lights; bold, regular patterns or regular moving patterns.

It suggests that rotating blades have the potential to provide these stimuli. It

acknowledges that for a wind turbine the frequencies are too low but

suggests that the situation is changed to higher frequencies if two turbines

are geometrically positioned to allow the sun to pass through both rotating

blades, and more so if three are so aligned.

However no evidence was provided to the Panel of any case of wind turbine

induced epilepsy. Had there been any substance to this fear we would have

expected it to be evident from smaller wind turbines that can rotate at

frequencies closer to those linked to causing photosensitive epilepsy.

Although the Panel understands this apprehension it finds nothing to

support this concern.

Enforcement

The Panel notes that the shadow flicker criterion in the Wind farm

Guidelines does not specify a method of assessing shadow flicker – the

one km horizontal extent of flicker is an example of an omission – and a

clear means of enforcement.

The Panel considers this unsatisfactory, more so in the current climate

of enhanced submitter interest in shadow flicker. The Panel takes the


simple position that a performance criterion should be accompanied by

an unambiguous method for assessment so that there can be no dispute

about the assessment, and a means of ensuring compliance is provided.

In the absence of a published standard method we suggest that the

Wind Farm Guidelines might incorporate some of the important

elements for determining shadow flicker for the assessment, including

definition of shadow flicker in terms of light intensity variation, and a

method for compliance determination and enforcement.

Roads and railway line

The impact of shadow flicker on roads, including the Hamilton Highway and

the national railway line are discussed in Chapter 9 as a transport matter.


The Panel concludes that when assessed against the 2009 Wind Farm

Guidelines, shadow flicker is in compliance with the 30 h/a standard at all

non‐stakeholder dwellings.

This standard is not complied with at all stakeholder dwellings, but the

agreement of stakeholders to receive shadow flicker beyond the 30 h/a

guideline figure is countenanced in the draft set of standard permit

conditions prepared by DPCD.

In relation to health and work place safety, the Panel does not consider it has

received any submissions or evidence that give cause for concern on these

aspects of the proposed wind energy facility.

The Panel does consider that a methodology for shadow flicker measurement

and enforcement is sorely lacking and should be developed for use when the

amount of shadow flicker is in contention.


29. A permit condition be applied to the project to ensure the 30 h/a

guideline figure is incorporated in any approval. Any allowance for

micrositing should not increase exposure of non‐stakeholders

dwellings to shadow flicker.


10.4 Blade glint

The Wind Farm Guidelines establish the evaluation criteria for blade glint:

Blades should be finished with a surface treatment of low reflectivity to

ensure that glint is minimised.

The applicant intends to use towers and blades that are covered with a matt

non‐reflective paint coating. The blades will also have a matt PVC non‐

reflective coating along the leading edge of the blade. The applicant advises

that this is the standard international practice for minimizing the effect of

blade glint.

The Panel is satisfied that blade glint can be managed through selection of

appropriate finishes for turbine blades.


30. A condition should be applied to the permits for the wind farm to

ensure that matt non‐reflective paint or coating is selected for turbine

blades to avoid blade glint.

10.5 Electromagnetic interference

An assessment of electromagnetic interference was carried out by Garrad

Hassan and included in Appendix 9 of the Planning Application Report

(PAR). Wind farms can interfere with both analogue television signals and

microwave communications.

There is the potential for analogue television signals to be affected, although

these signals are being phased out over the next few years. No direct link

microwave communications are affected by the project.

Submitters were concerned with interference of other systems such as

geographical positioning systems (GPS) used for accurate cropping and

satellite communications. The Panel is satisfied that these systems will not

be affected by electromagnetic interference.

The Panel considers a condition to require pre and post construction surveys

of communications quality is appropriate and has recommended a condition

accordingly.



31. Pre and post construction surveys of television and radio receptions

should be carried out in the vicinity of the wind farm to ensure there

are no detrimental affects and remedial measures undertaken by the

applicant as necessary.

10.6 Health

A number of submissions suggested wind farms cause particular health

problems. These health issues were said relate to:

noise (particularly low frequency noise leading to ‘wind turbine

syndrome’);

shadow flicker; and

electromagnetic radiation.

In support of their submission Mr Paul Connor (representing Mr Daryl

Baxter) asked Mr Steven Coleman, a resident from Waubra to speak of his

experience. Mr Coleman, who lives in close proximity to turbines

(approximately 700m away at the closest point) a non‐stakeholder and initial

supporter of the wind farm outlined to the Panel his experience, which

largely related to frequent sleep disturbance from noise volume and noise

characteristics.

Ms Kathy Russell provided the Panel with a video of a public meeting from

Waubra where residents expressed their concern and allegations of adverse

health outcomes.

The Panel is in a difficult position in relation to these matters as it has no

medical background and no evidence was called to refute or support the

alleged adverse health effects at Waubra. As discussed in Chapter 5 (noise),

the Panel was advised that the State Government through its agencies is

aware of no evidence of adverse health effects.

A number of submitters who work outdoors on their farm and also employ

workers particularly shearers, expressed concern about workplace

occupational health and safety issues.

The Department of Planning and Community Development submitted that it

that the wind farm will not decrease workplace safety unacceptably saying

that exposure to blade glint, shadow flicker and noise are far less intensive than

general farming and cropping operations and as reassurance wind farms are

required to comply with EPA noise regulations and the Health Act.


In a letter the Victorian Workcover Authority (see Appendix C) informed the

Panel that the Department of Health, after examining the scientific research,

had determined that on the weight of evidence neither the audible or

inaudible noise emitted by modern turbines had direct health effects. In

addition the Department of Health has referred that matter to the National

Health and Medical Research Council for further advice.

Mr Power in his submission reinforced the point of view that there is no

credible evidence to support adverse health effects, and he drew the Panel’s

attention to a recent VCAT case where the Tribunal came to the same

conclusion.

Whilst the Panel is sympathetic to some extent with the expression of

concern in relation to health, it is not in a position to endorse those concerns.

The planning framework already contains a number of provisions and

guidelines to protect health and amenity (for example through the use of the

New Zealand noise standard).

If in the future the provisions and guidelines need to be revised to address

proven health concerns then that may be appropriate, but the Panel is not

convinced that point has been reached in this project.

10.7 Uninhabitable / uninhabited dwellings

The Planning Application Report (PAR) shows six dwellings on or

immediately adjacent to the site which it describes as ‘uninhabitable’. Four

of these are stakeholder properties and two others are to the west of the site.

Some submitters took exception to those two non‐stakeholder properties, #10

and #56, being described as ‘uninhabitable’, suggesting that this had been

done without knowledge of the owners or any consultation or knowledge of

the actual condition and use of the buildings. Mr David Hocking and Mrs

Beverly (Joy) Hocking, the owners of these properties, advised the Panel that

these houses were used occasionally, have services available, could be

renovated and that they may wish to exercise that option.

Two of the stakeholder sites, #65 and #76, are closely surrounded by turbines

at about 300 m distance, presumably on the basis that they are not occupied

and there is no intention of making them so. The other two, #68 and #81 are

rather more distant from proposed turbines, apparently by virtue of their

proximity to occupied non‐stakeholder dwellings.

It is of little value to the Panel to concern itself whether any of these

‘dwellings’ are uninhabited, uninhabitable or occupied occasionally, or with

the strict legal definition of ‘dwelling’. It is sufficient to recognise that they


are structures that have been occupied dwellings and are likely to have

services available. Hence they may be able to be renovated to be fit for

habitation, or a new house built on those serviced sites. It is more useful that

their individual locations are considered.

Stakeholder ‘dwellings’ #65 and #76 would be expected to be so affected by

noise, shadow flicker and visual impact that they should not be inhabited,

even if otherwise made suitable. The other four dwellings, including the two

non‐stakeholder ones, are no closer to turbines than occupied non‐

stakeholder houses and hence would be no more likely to be more impacted.

In the Panel’s view the option should remain available to the owners of these

dwellings to renovate them and have them occupied should they wish to do

so. To facilitate that, as with occupied non‐stakeholder houses, no turbine

should be micro sited closer to the two non‐stakeholder dwellings #10 and

#56. If dwellings #68 or #81 are to be occupied that should be done under

similar conditions to occupied stakeholder dwellings.


11. Summary of recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

Recommendation in Chief

1. That subject to the recommendations in this report and the draft

permit conditions contained in the Appendices, planning permits be

issued for the Berrybank Wind Energy Facility as follows:

Golden Plains Shire Planning Permit Application 20092820

Golden Plains Shire Planning Permit Application P09‐134A

(vegetation removal)

Corangamite Shire Planning Permit Application 20092821

Visual Impact

2. Screen planting be offered to all non‐stakeholder residents within 3km

of the nearest turbine and considering:

Fire management planning;

The use of advanced plantings and tubestock to ensure screening

is effective in the short term and has good survival rates;

Placement of new screening to accommodate mature trees that

are nearly at the end of their life;

Species appropriate for the local conditions at the site (possibly a

mix of Indigenous and exotic species) with low combustibility;

and

Appropriate maintenance and replacement.

3. Full time obstacle lighting is unnecessary and not acceptable from a

visual amenity and impact point of view. If aviation obstacle lighting

is required then it must be lit only on an ‘as required’ basis and be

baffled and directed to the maximum extent allowed by CASA.

Noise

4. When a final turbine model is selected, the noise assessment be

repeated, excluding background noise measurements, to demonstrate

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning that wind farm noise

will comply with NZS 6808:1998.

5. No turbine model be approved that is not NZS 6808:1998 compliant

such that operation in noise management mode might be needed.


6. Where possible the turbine model should be selected and the

micrositing allowance used to give the greatest margin of noise

compliance possible.

7. After commissioning of the wind farm, or stages thereof if it is so

constructed, noise monitoring be carried out in accord with NZS

6808:1998 to determine compliance. This should include:

providing results within 3 months of commissioning last turbine

of wind farm or in stages;

if compliant repeat after 12 months and provide results within 3

months after that; and

if non compliant bring into compliance and demonstrate such by

testing and providing results showing such within 6 months of

commissioning

8. Development of a complaints system, including for noise complaints,

as described in Draft conditions in Appendix B. This must be able to

receive complaints immediately and respond effectively within 24

hours.

9. That construction noise be managed to meet relevant EPA

requirements for noise control at that time.

Flora and Fauna

10. Include a condition in the Native Vegetation Permit requiring a report

by a suitably qualified person after the completion of a targeted spring

survey of native vegetation in the vicinity of access points where a

Vegetation Protection Overlay exists. The report should set out the

findings of the targeted spring survey and, if vegetation listed under

the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 or the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is identified, set out how impacts

on that vegetation is to be avoided or minimised.

11. Revise the Native Vegetation Permit to provide for the following:

Consultation with the Department of Sustainability and

Environment, the Corangamite Shire and Golden Plains Shire in

the preparation of the offset plan;

Identification of offsets prior to native vegetation removal; and

Where possible native vegetation offsets be minimised by the

siting of infrastructure such as power poles on freehold land.

12. Revise the Draft Permit Conditions ‐ Native Vegetation Management

Plan to include the following:

A protocol for the protection of native vegetation on the wind

farm site during the construction phase.


13. Revise the Draft Permit Conditions ‐ Landscape/Visual Amenity to

include the following:

The plan must not including visual screening that, when at full

maturity, will cause the overshadowing of any native vegetation

on roadside reserves.

14. Adopt the model permit conditions with the following modification:

Require the Environmental Management Plan to include training

of construction staff in the recognition of the Striped Legless

Lizard and the Fat‐tailed Dunnart;

Require a protocol be developed, in consultation with DSE, that

outlines actions to be taken if Striped Legless Lizard and the Fat‐

tailed Dunnart are detected during construction; and

Require salvage protocol for the Striped Legless Lizard and the

Fat‐tailed Dunnart be developed in consultation with DSE.

15. Modify the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan to include

Implementation of measures to increase power line visibility

through marking to mitigate bird collisions

16. Modify the specifications to include:

Where possible new power lines associated with the wind

energy facility be oriented parallel to prevailing wind direction

17. Modify the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan to include:

Prior to construction consult with the Lismore Land Protection

Group other local community members and DSE to determine if

there are any further known Brolga sites within 5 km of the

proposed site;

Prior to construction further assess the site near the intersection

of the Hamilton Hwy and the Foxhow – Rokewood Road and the

site west of the Cressy‐Werneth Road as well as sites identified

through the consultation process to assess the likelihood that

Brolga use these sites;

Submit a report to DSE on these assessments; and

Based on the above, if additional Brolga sites are found within 5

kilometres of the site develop a mitigation program, in

consultation with and to the satisfaction of DSE.

Social and Economic




mechanism to share in the benefits of that project.


19. The Panel endorses the proposed employ locally and buy local policies

and recommends that the Applicant work with the Shires to maximise

the achievement of these policies.




mechanism to be compensated for additional and quantifiable

expenses that they incur as a direct result of the project.

21. Turbine 50 on the site plan be removed. Detailed background noise

monitoring and a shadow flicker assessment be carried out in

consultation with the owners of Lot 2 TP1324239C, Crown Allotment

16‐21 Poliah South to determine locations where the noise and shadow

flicker criteria in the Wind Farm Guidelines can be met.

22. A decommissioning bond is desirable and should be required of the

applicant on such terms as the Minister for Planning determines.

Fire

23. Detailed fire management planning for the wind farm must be

undertaken including:

Construction of the wind farm to be undertaken outside the fire

season where possible;

Fire training for personnel in particular aspects related to the

wind farm;

Input from local volunteer fire brigades;

The identification of strategic fire breaks within the wind farm

without raised bed cropping;

New and proposed water sources on site and identification of

resources to be provided by the applicant.

Traffic

24. Prior to the development of the Traffic Management Plan the

Applicant prepare an updated set of calculation of traffic movements,

and particularly HDV movements. These should be submitted for

review to Corangamite Shire, Golden Plains Shire and VicRoads.

25. A Traffic Management Plan must be prepared for the project to

provide the detailed management framework for traffic The Traffic

Management Plan must include, among other things:

26. Traffic impacts related to dust and hazardous substances spills be

managed in accordance with the Environmental Management Plan

proposed in the draft permit conditions in this report.


Aviation Safety

27. Aviation obstacle lighting of the Berrybank Wind Farm should in the

first instance be prohibited via condition, and only allowable via

secondary consent on the basis of ‘on demand’ illumination.

Cultural Heritage

28. A procedure for training contractors and field personnel in identifying

and reporting Aboriginal artefacts should be applied to the wind

energy facility application via condition.

Shadow Flicker

29. A permit condition be applied to the project to ensure the 30 h/a

guideline figure is incorporated in any approval. Any allowance for

micrositing should not increase exposure of non‐stakeholders

dwellings to shadow flicker.

Blade Glint

30. A condition should be applied to the permits for the wind farm to

ensure that matt non‐reflective paint or coating is selected for turbine

blades to avoid blade glint.

Electromagnetic Interference

31. Pre and post construction surveys of television and radio receptions

should be carried out in the vicinity of the wind farm to ensure there

are no detrimental affects and remedial measures undertaken by the

applicant as necessary.


Appendix A List of Submitters

NAME ORGANISATION

Brett Francis

Neil McLeod SP AusNet

Max Kerr

Michael Dawson Powercor Australia

Ian Baum Wannon Water

Russell White

Pauline McPadden Lismore Fire Brigades Group

Paul Booth Barwon Water

Donnie Lussier Central Highlands Water

Darryl Baxter

G H & E E Baxter

Christopher Buttler

William Tieppo VicRoads

David Hocking

Paul Roser National Trust

Anna Raven

Beverley Hocking

Phillip Hocking

Trevor & Janis Hirth

Peter & Patricia Mathews

John & Gabrielle Keating

Brendan Keating

Graeme & Catherine Keating

Patrick Toohey

Allan & Anne Schafer

Barry White

Erica, Brett, & Elsa McConachy

Kathy Russell

Rohan & Mira Turner


Shari & Paul McConachy

Ann Keating

Kate Jewell Golden Plains Shire

Fred Davies Stoney Creek Oil Products Pty Ltd

Sophie Segafredo Corangamite Shire

Geoff Brooks Department of Sustainability & Environment

Robert Smith Country Fire Authority

Michael Williamson Sustainability Victoria


Appendix B Draft Recommended Permit Conditions – Corangamite Shire


PLANNING

PERMIT

Permit No: 20092821

Corangamite Planning Scheme:

Responsible Authority for Administration

and Enforcement of this Permit:

Corangamite Shire Council

ADDRESS OF THE LAND: Land generally described as: In Berrybank bounded by the Boundary Road, to the north, Doyles Road, Hamilton Highway and Foxhow-Rokewood Road to the east, Berrybank-Wallinduc Road to the west and running down this road and Foxhow-Rokewood Road to the south. In addition the land straddles the Hamilton Highway from east to west for about 5 kilometres.

The title details for this land is: Parish of Poliah North CA1, CA7, CA8, CA9, CA10, CA11, CA12, CA13, CA15 CA84 , and CA85. Lot 28 on Plan of Subdivision 005146 Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 317744H Lots 1 (part), 2 and 3 on Title Plan 298605J Lot 1 (part) on Title Plan 754901Q Lots 1, 3 and 5 on Title Plan 394080K Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 on Title Plan 887199K Lots 23 and 24 on Plan of Subdivision 5146 Lots 1 and 2 (part) on Title Plan 449416A Lots 2, 4 and 6 on Title Plan 394080K Lots 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 on Title Plan 887199K Lots 19 and 20 on Plan of Subdivision 5146 Lot 17 on Plan of Subdivision 5164 Lot 18 on Plan of Subdivision 5164 Lot 2 (part) on Plan of Subdivision 120266 Lot 7 on Plan of Subdivision 5482 Lots 1, 2 and 3 on Title Plan 212714P Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 on Title Plan 365996T Lots 1 and 2 on Title Plan 404611F Lot 1 (part) on Title Plan 227484V Lot 1 on Title Plan 744645N Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 on Title Plan 330312B Lots 6 and 7 (part) on Title Plan 330312B Lots 4 and 5 (part) on Title Plan 838279P Lot 1 on Title Plan 422280A Lots 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 (part) on Title Plan 399098M Lot 1 on Title Plan 11191R (Part)


Lot 2 on Title Plan 11191R Lot 1 on Title Plan 346103W Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Title Plan 170662L Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and on Title Plan 394390W

THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

Use and development of land for a Wind

Energy Facility (comprising up to 50

generators), including anemometers (wind

monitoring masts), business identification

signage including access roads, sub‐station,

water storage tanks and removal of native

vegetation subject to conditions.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

1. Before the development starts, development plan(s) must be prepared to

the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan(s)

will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of

this permit. The plan(s) must be drawn to scale with dimensions and

three (3) copies must be provided.

The plan(s) must show:

a) the location, setbacks to property boundaries, layout and dimensions of

all on‐site buildings and works including all wind turbines, access

tracks, underground cables, temporary concrete batching plant, the

sub‐station, the switchyard, landscaping, any designated car parking

areas, and ancillary works, such as construction compounds, fire

fighting infrastructure and water tanks, as well as off‐site road works;

b) global positioning system coordinates using WGS84 datum for each

turbine;

c) details of the model and capacity of the wind turbines to be installed;

d) dimensions, elevations, materials and finishes of the wind turbines and

other buildings and works;

e) the location, size, type and intensity of any aviation lighting, including any directional screening;

f) any directional signage and any required safety signage;

g) business identification signage including dimensions, details, colours

and graphics; and

h) Any staging of development.


The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plan

(Access and Infrastructure reference 308298‐PD AL‐01 Revision 5) but

modified to show:

a) No turbines are located closer than 1000 metres from any non

stakeholder dwelling.

b) The deletion of turbine number 50.

c) Changes to track layouts as a result of fire planning.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be

altered or modified without the written consent of the Minister for

Planning; except that the micro‐siting of wind turbines and consequential

micro‐siting of associated tracks and reticulation lines as defined below,

does not require consent and will be viewed generally in accordance with

the endorsed plans.

For the purpose of this condition, micro‐siting of wind turbines:

is where the siting of a wind turbine is altered by not more than 100

metres but is not relocated closer to a nearby boundary of a non‐

stakeholder property than shown on the endorsed plans .

includes any consequential changes to access tracks and electricity

reticulation lines; and

is only allowed where the Minister for Planning is satisfied that the

relocation of the turbine(s) and associated access track(s) and

reticulation lines(s) will not give rise to an adverse change to

assessed landscape, vegetation, cultural heritage, visual amenity,

shadow flicker, noise, fire risk or aviation impacts when compared

to the site shown on the endorsed plans.

To this end any request for confirmation of the Minister’s satisfaction must be

accompanied by supporting material addressing the above matters as

relevant.

Note: For the purpose of this condition, a non‐stakeholder means the land

holder of an abutting property without a contract for the installation

of the permitted wind turbines on that person’s property.

SPECIFICATIONS

3. The wind energy facility must meet the following requirements:

a) the wind energy facility must comprise no more than 50 wind turbines;

b) the overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the tip of the rotor

blade when vertical) must not exceed 131 metres above natural ground

level;


c) wind turbines must be mounted on a tubular tower with a height of no

greater than 80 metres;

d) each wind turbine is to have not more than three rotor blades, with

each blade having a length of no greater than 49 metres;

e) the transformer associated with each wind generator must be located

beside each tower and pad mounted, or be enclosed within the tower

structure;

f) the wind turbine towers, nacelles and rotor blades must be of a colour

or have such markings that minimise ground level impact to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, on advice from CASA;

g) the colours and finishes of all other buildings and ancillary equipment

must be such as to minimise the impact of the development on

landscape to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

h) access tracks within the site are to be sited and designed to minimise

impacts on overland flows, soil erosion, the landscape value of the site,

environmentally sensitive areas and, where appropriate, the farming

activities on the land to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

i) new on‐site electricity reticulation lines associated with the wind

energy facility must be placed under the ground;

j) on‐site fire fighting infrastructure must be provided in accordance with

Condition 13(e);

k) strategic fire breaks must be provided within the wind energy facility

boundaries free of raised bed cropping to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning on advice from the CFA; and

l) where possible any new above ground power lines associated with the

wind energy facility be oriented parallel to the prevailing wind

direction.

LANDSCAPE/VISUAL AMENITY

4. Before the development starts, an on‐site landscape plan must be prepared

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan

will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plan must

include:

a) landscaping or building works to screen the substation, switchyard

and associated buildings other than the turbines;

b) details of plant species proposed to be used in the landscaping, including height and spread at maturity;

c) a timetable for implementation of all landscaping works;


d) a maintenance and monitoring program for the life of the wind energy

facility; and

e) surfacing of access tracks in a manner which does not unduly contrast

with the landscape.

The landscaping as shown on the endorsed on‐site landscaping plan must

be completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning in accordance

with the implementation timetable.

5. Within 6 months of the date of endorsement of the development plan

under Condition 1:

a) a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works to the satisfaction

of the Minister for Planning must be made available to the owners of

dwellings within 3 kilometres of the nearest turbine and to the owners

of dwellings 26, 38, 43, 75, 79 and 82 as identified on the Access and

Infrastructure plan reference 308298‐PD AL‐01 Revision 5.

b) if a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works is accepted by

one or more owners under Condition 5(a), as part of that program, an

off‐site landscaping plan must be prepared in consultation with the

landowners specified in Condition 5(a) to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning. When approved the plan will be endorsed and

will then form part of this permit.

The plan must provide details of planting or other treatments that will

be used to reduce the visual impact of the wind turbines at the

dwellings of the non‐participating landowners.

The off‐site landscape plan must include:

(i) details of the plant species to be used, including the height and

spread of plants at maturity and their suitability in terms of;

appropriateness for local conditions (may include indigenous

and exotic species) and fire safety (low combustibility)

impact on native vegetation (weed propensity,

overshadowing of remnants on roadsides)

(ii) use of a mix of tubestock and advanced planting with good

survival potential to provide immediate and long term

screening;

(iii) reinforcement planting for existing senescent vegetation;

(iv) maintenance of landscaping for at least three years; and

(v) a timetable for implementation of the landscaping works.


The landscaping as shown on the endorsed off‐site landscape plan

required must be completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning within 12 months of the completion of the development or any

relevant stage of it, at the cost of the operator under this permit and

thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Corangamite Shire Council.

LIGHTING INCLUDING AVIATION OBSTACLE LIGHTING

6. Except in the case of an emergency or any operational call‐out, no external

lighting of infrastructure associated with the wind energy facility, other

than low‐level, low‐intensity security lighting and aviation lighting in

accordance with Condition 8 below, may be installed or operated without

the further written consent of the Minister for Planning.

7. Aviation obstacle lighting must not be installed unless the written consent

of the Minister for Planning has been obtained.

8. If consent to install aviation obstacle lighting is obtained it must be

installed under the following conditions:

a) The aviation obstacle lighting must be installed such that it is activated

only:

(i) If at night, when an aircraft is in the immediate vicinity of the

wind energy facility; and

(ii) During low visibility daytime conditions such as the existence of

smoke and fog.

b) for each lit turbine, the lighting must consist of a pair of lights mounted

above the nacelle so that one is visible from an aircraft approaching

from any direction;

c) each light must be a red medium intensity, flashing light as defined by

the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Each light must be

shielded so as to restrict the vertical spread of light to not more than 3

degrees and light spread below the horizontal to not more than 1.0

degree;

d) all lights must flash in unison;

e) the duration of the light flash must be the minimum period

recommended by CASA and the duration of the period between the

flashes must be the maximum period recommended by CASA;

f) before the wind farm is commissioned, a lighting maintenance plan

must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.


AVIATION SAFETY CLEARANCES

9. Within 14 days of approval, copies of the endorsed development plans

must be provided to CASA, the Department of Defence (RAAF

Aeronautical Information Service), Airservices Australia, any aerodrome

operator within 15 km, the Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia and

to any organisation responsible for providing air ambulance services in the

area, to enable details of the wind energy facility to be shown on

aeronautical charts of the area.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

10. Prior to the development of a traffic management plan an accurate

reassessment of vehicle numbers for over dimensional, heavy duty and

light vehicles must be undertaken in consultation with Corangamite Shire

Council, Golden Plains Shire Council and VicRoads to the satisfaction of

the Minister for Planning.

11. Before the development starts, a traffic management plan must be

prepared in consultation with Corangamite Shire Council, Golden Plains

Shire Council and VicRoads to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form

part of this permit. The plan must include:

a) Separate components for construction and operation of the wind

energy facility;

b) an existing conditions survey of public roads to the satisfaction of Corangamite Shire Council, Golden Plains Shire Council and VicRoads

(as relevant) that may be used for access and designated construction

transport vehicle routes in the vicinity of the wind energy facility,

including details of the suitability, design, condition and construction

standard of the roads;

c) the designation of appropriate construction and transport vehicle routes to the wind energy facility site;

d) the designation of operating hours and speed limits for trucks on

routes accessing the site so as to avoid school bus routes and school

bus times where relevant, and to provide for resident safety;

e) the identification and timetabling of any required pre‐construction

works;

f) the designation of all vehicle access points to the wind energy facility

from surrounding roads and of crossovers by internal access tracks and

public roads. The location and detailed design of the connection

between the internal access tracks and the public roads must ensure


safe sight distances, turning movements, and avoid potential through

traffic conflicts and avoid the removal of native vegetation;

g) recommendations on the need for road and intersection upgrades to

accommodate any additional traffic or site access requirements,

whether temporary or on‐going and the timing of when these upgrades

are to be undertaken. This is to include engineering plans

demonstrating how truck movements can be accommodated on sealed

roadways and turned where possible without encroaching onto the

incorrect side of the road for the Hamilton Highway and Berrybank‐

Wallinduc Road intersection. The plan must include details of any

required road construction works;

h) measures to be used to manage traffic impacts associated with the

ongoing operation of the wind energy facility on the traffic volumes

and flows on surrounding roads;

i) a program of regular inspections to be carried out during the

construction period to identify maintenance works necessary as a

result of construction traffic to the satisfaction of Corangamite Shire

Council, Golden Plains Shire Council and VicRoads (as relevant);

j) a program to rehabilitate roads to the condition identified by the

surveys required above by Condition 11(b) above to the satisfaction of

Corangamite Shire Council, Golden Plains Shire Council and VicRoads

(as relevant); and

k) if required by Corangamite Shire Council and/or Golden Plains Shire

Council the payment of a security deposit or bond for a maintenance

period of 12 months in respect of works covered by the traffic

management plan. Such security deposit or bond is to be applied to

roadwork not completed under the traffic management plan or to be

released at the end of that period.

12. The traffic management and road upgrade and maintenance works

associated with the wind energy facility must be carried out in accordance

with the traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning on advice from Corangamite Shire Council, Golden Plains Shire

Council and VicRoads (as relevant) and the cost of any works including

maintenance are to be at the expense of the permit holder.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

13. Before the development starts, an environmental management plan must

be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, in consultation

with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Corangamite

Shire Council, Golden Plains Shire Council, the Country Fire Authority


and other agencies as specified in this condition or as further directed by

the Minister for Planning. The environmental management plan may be

prepared in sections or stages. When approved, the plan will be endorsed

by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.

The environmental management plan must include the following:

a) A construction and work site management plan which must include:

(i) procedures for access, noise control, dust emissions, spills and

leaks from the handling of fuels and other hazardous materials

and pollution management. Such construction and work site

procedures are to be in accordance with EPA Publication 480;

Environmental guidelines for major construction sites and other

requirements;

(ii) the identification of all potential contaminants stored on site;

(iii) the identification of all construction and operational processes

that could potentially lead to water contamination;

(iv) the identification of appropriate storage, construction and

operational methods to control any identified contamination

risks;

(v) the identification of waste re‐use, recycling and disposal

procedures;

(vi) appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance

staff in accordance with the EPA Publication 891.1 Septic Tanks

Code of Practice;

(vii) a timetable, where practicable for the construction of turbine

bases, access tracks and power cabling during warmer months

to minimise impacts on ephemeral wetlands, local fauna and

sediment mobilisation;

(viii) procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and equipment

use designated tracks and works areas to avoid impacts on

native vegetation;

(ix) the covering of trenches and holes at night time and to fill

trenches as soon as practical after excavation, to protect native

fauna; and

(x) the removal of works, buildings and staging area on completion

of construction of the project.

b) A sediment, erosion and water quality management plan. This plan must be prepared in consultation with the Corangamite Catchment


Management Authority, EPA and other authorities as may be directed

by the Minister for Planning. The plan must include:

(i) procedures to ensure that silt from batters, cut‐off drains, table

drains and road works is retained on the site during and after

construction and replaced as soon as possible. To this end:

all land disturbances must be confined to a minimum

practical working area;

soil to be removed must be stockpiled and separate soil

horizons must be retained in separate stockpiles and not

mixed and replaced as soon as possible in sequence; and

stockpiles must be located away from drainage lines;

(ii) criteria for the siting of any temporary concrete batching plant

associated with the development of the wind energy facility and

the procedure for its removal and reinstatement of the site once

its use finishes. The establishment and operation of any such

temporary concrete batching plant must be designed and

operated in accordance with the EPA Publication 628

Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry;

(iii) the installation of geo‐textile silt fences (with sedimentation

basins where appropriate) on all drainage lines from the site

which are likely to receive run‐off from disturbed areas;

(iv) procedures to suppress dust from construction‐related activities.

Appropriate measures may include water spraying of roads and

stockpiles, stabilising surfaces, temporary screening and/or wind

fences, modifying construction activities during periods of

heightened winds and revegetating exposed areas as soon as

practicable;

(v) procedures to ensure that steep batters are treated in accordance

with EPA Publication 275 Construction Techniques for Sediment

Pollution Control;

(vi) procedures for waste water discharge management;

(vii) a process for overland flow management to prevent the

concentration and diversion of waters onto steep or erosion

prone slopes;

(viii) pollution management measures for stored and stockpiled

materials including waste materials, litter, contaminated run‐off

and any other potential source of pollution to ground or surface

waters;


(ix) incorporation of pollution control measures outlined in EPA

Publication 480 Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction

Sites;

(x) siting of concrete batching plant and any on‐site wastewater and

disposal and disposal treatment fields at least 100 metres from

any watercourse;

(xi) appropriate capacity and an agreed program for annual

inspection and regular maintenance of any on‐site wastewater

management system constructed to service staff, contractors or

visitors; and

(xii) a program of inspection and remediation of localised erosion

within a specified response time.

c) A blasting plan. This plan is only required if blasting is proposed to be undertaken at the site as part of the construction of the wind energy facility.

The plan must include the following:

(i) name and qualification of the person responsible for blasting;

(ii) a description of the location of where the explosives will be

used, and the location of every licensed bore on any property

with an adjoining boundary within 1km of the location of the

blasting;

(iii) a requirement for the identification and assessment of any

potentially sensitive site within 1 km of the location of the

blasting, including the procedure for pre‐blast and post‐blast

qualitative measurement or monitoring at such site;

(iv) the procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation;

(v) the procedure for the storage and handling of explosives;

(vi) a requirement that blasting only occur after at least 48 hours

prior notification in writing of the intention to undertake

blasting has been given to the occupants of the properties which

are located in whole or in part within 1km of the location of the

proposed blasting; and

(vii) a requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the

hours of 8am and 4pm.

d) A hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan. The plan must

include:

(i) procedures for any on‐site, permanent post‐construction storage

of fuels, lubricants or waste oil to be in bunded areas; and


(ii) contingency measures to ensure that any chemical or oil spills

are contained on‐site and cleaned up in accordance with EPA

requirements.

e) A wildfire prevention and emergency response plan prepared in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Country Fire

Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment,

Corangamite Shire Council and Golden Plains Shire Council. This plan

must include and consider:

(i) The provision of strategic fire suppression and access areas

through the wind farm clear of raised bed cropping.

(ii) Constructed roads should be a minimum of (4) four metres

trafficable width a with a four metre (4m) vertical clearance for

the width of the formed road.

(iii) Roads should be constructed to a standard so that they are

accessible in all weather conditions and capable of

accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road

width.

(iv) The average grade of should be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%)

(8.1◦) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3◦) for no

more than 50 metres.

(v) Dips in the road should have no more than a 1 in 8 (12.5%) (7.1 ◦)

entry and exit angle.

(vi) Water access points shall be located in safe easily identifiable

areas, accessible in all weather conditions.

(vii) Water access points should be designed, constructed and

maintained for a load limit of at least 15 tonnes.

(viii) A turning point with a minimum radius of 10 metres is required

for fire appliances at all water access points.

(ix) Fire brigade appliances should be able to park within four (4)

metres of the water supply outlet on a hard standing area.

(x) Bulk static water storages (22500 Litre) should be provided

adjacent to main access tracks for fire fighting. Locations should

be determined in consultation with CFA Fire safety officers and

with operational staff.

(xi) All tanks should be manufactured with at least one (preferably

two) 64mm, 3 thread/25mm x 60 mm nominal bore British

Standard Pipe (BSP) round male coupling 50 mm from their

base. Outlets should be a minimum of two (2) metres apart.


(xii) Water access points are to be marked by appropriate signage as

per CFA’s Guidelines for Identification of Street Hydrants for Fire

Fighting Purposes.

(xiii) Grass should be no more than 100mm in height and leaf litter no

more than 10mm deep for a distance of (30) thirty metres around

constructed buildings and viewing platforms.

(xiv) A fuel reduced area of (4) four metres should be maintained

around the perimeter of electricity compounds and sub station

type facilities.

(xv) There should be no long grass or deep leaf litter in areas where

plant and heavy equipment will be working.

(xvi) All plant and heavy equipment should carry at least one 9 Litre

Water Stored pressure fire extinguisher with a minimum rating

of 3A.

(xvii) Internal fire protection systems, where appropriate, to assist

with fire suppression.

(xviii) Lighting protection devices, where appropriate, installed on

each wind turbine.

(xix) Dedicated monitoring systems within each wind turbine that

detect temperature increases in turbines and shuts them down

when the threshold temperature is reached.

(xx) Construction of the wind farm outside the fire season where

possible.

(xxi) A program of training of volunteer and paid CFA personnel in

fire suppression in and around the wind energy facility.

Note: For the purpose of this condition, consultation with the CFA

must include CFA at headquarters level, the CFA Regional

Office and local volunteer brigades on and surrounding the

wind energy facility.

f) A native vegetation management plan to be prepared in consultation

with the Department of Sustainability and Environment. This plan

must include:

(i) A report by a suitably qualified person after the completion of a

targeted spring survey of native vegetation in the vicinity of

access points where a Vegetation Protection Overlay exists. The

report should set out the findings of the targeted spring survey

and, if vegetation listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act

1988 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation


Act 1999 is identified, set out how impacts on that vegetation is

to be avoided or minimised;

(ii) Requirements for consultation with the Department of

Sustainability and Environment the Corangamite Shire Council

and Golden Plains Shire Council in the preparation of any offset

plan;

(iii) Identification of offsets prior to native vegetation removal;

(iv) Explanation of how vegetation removal has been minimised by

project design;

(v) A detailed and thorough description of how the native

vegetation management framework’s three‐step approach has

been applied.

(vi) protocols so that net gains will be undertaken if native

vegetation disturbance and removal cannot be avoided for the

construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the

project; and

(vii) A protocol for the protection of native vegetation on the wind

farm site during the construction phase; procedures for the

rehabilitation of construction zones with appropriate pasture

species.

g) A terrestrial fauna management plan that includes:

(i) training of construction staff in the recognition of the Striped

Legless Lizard and the Fat‐tailed Dunnart;

(ii) development of a protocol, in consultation with the Department

of Sustainability and Environment, that outlines actions to be

taken if Striped Legless Lizard and the Fat‐tailed Dunnart are

detected during construction; and

(iii) development of a salvage protocol for the Striped Legless Lizard

and the Fat‐tailed Dunnart in consultation with the Department

of Sustainability and Environment.

h) A pest animal management plan to be prepared in consultation with

the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department

of Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these Departments. This

plan must include:

(i) procedures for the control of pest animals, particularly by

avoiding opportunities for the sheltering of pests; and


(ii) follow‐up pest animal control for all areas disturbed by the wind

energy facility construction works for a period of two years

following the completion of the wind energy facility.

i) A pest plant management plan to be prepared in consultation with the

Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of

Primary Industries to the satisfaction of these Departments. This plan

must include:

(i) procedures to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens from

earth moving equipment and associated machinery including

the cleaning of all plant and equipment before transport to the

site and the use of road making material comprising clean fill

that is free of weeds;

(ii) revegetation of disturbed areas; and

(iii) a protocol to ensure follow‐up weed control is undertaken on all

areas disturbed through construction of the wind energy facility

for a minimum period of 2 years following completion of the

works.

j) A training program for construction workers and permanent

employees or contractors at the wind energy facility site including a

site induction program relating to the range of issues addressed by the

environmental management plan.

k) A program for reporting including a register of environmental

incidents, non‐conformances, corrective actions and advice on to

whom the reports should be made.

l) A complaints management plan designed in accordance with

Australian Standard Customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints

handling in organizations (ISO 1002:2006) having regard to the guidance

provided in The why and how of complaints handling HB 229‐2006.

The complaints management plan will include procedures for:

(i) Readily accessible information on how complaints can be made

free of cost to complainants;

(ii) Immediate acknowledgement of complaints and regular and

comprehensive feedback to complainants on actions proposed,

their implementation and success or otherwise;

(iii) Closure of complaints by agreement with complainants;

(iv) Establishment and maintenance of a complaint register for the

recording of receipt and acknowledgement of complaints,

actions taken, success or otherwise of actions and complaint


closure and for the register to be available to the public during

normal working hours;

(v) Reporting of the contents of the complaint register to the

responsible authority as required, and

(vi) Regular, at least annual, auditing of the implementation of the

complaints management plan with audit results being reported

to the responsible authority.

m) A timetable for implementation of all programs and works identified

in a plan referred to in Conditions 13 (a) to 13 (l) above.

14. The environmental management plan must be reviewed and if necessary

amended in consultation with the Corangamite Shire Council and Golden

Plains Shire Council to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning every

five (5) years to reflect operational experience and changes in

environmental management standards and techniques and must be

submitted to the Minister for Planning for re‐endorsement.

15. The use and development must be carried out in accordance with the

endorsed environmental management plan to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning.

BATS AND AVIFAUNA

16. Before the development starts, a bat and avifauna management plan (BAM

Plan) must be prepared in consultation with the Department of

Sustainability and Environment to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form

part of the permit. The use must thereafter accord with the endorsed plan

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

The BAM Plan must include:

a) a statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and

mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind

energy facility operations;

b) a monitoring program of at least 2 years duration, either commencing

upon the commissioning of the last turbine of the first stage of the

approved development and use (if any) or alternatively such other

time of commencement as is to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

The monitoring program must include surveys during breeding and

migratory seasons to ascertain:


the species, number, age and sex (if possible) and date of any bird

or bat strike;

the number and species of birds and bats struck at lit versus unlit

turbines;

any seasonal and yearly variation in the number of bird and bat

strikes;

whether further detailed investigations of any potential impacts on

birds and bats are warranted.

Any such required further detailed investigations are to be undertaken

in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment

and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

c) procedures for the reporting of any bird and bat strikes to the Department of Sustainability and Environment within 7 days of

becoming aware of any strike identifying where possible whether the

strike was by a lit or unlit turbine;

d) information on the efficacy of searches for carcasses of birds and bats,

and, where practicable, information on the rate of removal of carcases

by scavengers, so that correction factors can be determined to enable

calculations of the total number of mortalities;

e) procedures for the regular removal of carcasses likely to attract raptors

to areas near turbines;

f) procedures for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes, of the

findings of the monitoring to the Department of Sustainability and

Environment and the local community;

g) recommendations in relation to a mortality rate for specified species

which would trigger the requirement for responsive mitigation

measures to be undertaken by the operator of the wind energy facility

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning; and

h) implementation measures developed in consultation with the

Department of Sustainability and Environment to offset any impacts

detected during monitoring including turbine operation management

and on‐site or off‐site habitat enhancement (including management or

improvement of habitat or breeding sites).

In relation to Brolga the plan must also include:

a) A thorough assessment to the satisfaction of the Department of

Sustainability and Environment of the two Brolga sites and their

significance to the wind farm layout with reference to the Guidelines for

Assessment of Potential Wind farm Impacts on Brolga (DSE 2009). The first


site is approximately 1km east of the project near Wilgul – Werneth

Road and between Urchs Road and Boundary W whilst the second site

is at the intersection of the Hamilton Highway and Foxhow ‐

Rokewood Road. Fieldwork is to be undertaken during flocking

and/or breeding season agreed with the Department of Sustainability

and Environment;

b) Implementation of measures to increase power line visibility through

marking to mitigate bird collisions;

c) Prior to development commencing consult with the Lismore Land

Protection Group other local community members and the Department

of Sustainability and Environment to determine if there are any further

known Brolga sites within 5 km of the proposed wind energy facility;

d) If further sites are found these must be reported to the Department of

Sustainability and Environment; and

e) Based on the above, if additional Brolga sites are found within 5

kilometres of the site develop a mitigation program, in consultation

with and to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and

Environment.

17. Following the completion of the monitoring program of at least 2 years

duration as specified in condition 16(b), a report must be prepared by the

operator of the wind energy facility setting out the findings of the program

to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and copies made available

to the public via the operators web site as soon as possible. If, after

consideration of this report, the Minister for Planning directs that further

investigation of potential or actual impacts on birds and bats is to be

undertaken, the extent and details of the further investigation must be to

the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and

the investigation must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

NOISE LIMITS

18. Construction of the wind energy facility must comply with noise criteria

specified in the Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in

Country Victoria, N3/89 at any dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of

the proposed wind energy facility as at the date of the issue of this permit


19. Except as provided below in this condition, the operation of the wind

energy facility must comply with the noise criteria specified in

NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics ‐ The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from

Wind Turbine Generators’ at any dwelling existing on land in the vicinity of


the proposed wind energy facility as at the date of the issue of this permit,


In determining compliance the following requirements apply:

a) The sound level from the wind energy facility within 20 metres of any

dwelling must not exceed a level of 40dBA (L95) or where the

relationship between background noise levels and wind speed has

been determined by the method specified in Condition 21 of this

permit, the background noise level by more than 5dBA, or a level of

40dBA L95, whichever is the greater.

b) Compliance must be assessed separately for all‐time and night time.

For the purpose of this requirement, night time is defined as 10.00pm

to 7.00am, and

c) If the noise has a special audible characteristic and measured sound

level must have a penalty of 5dBA applied.

Any dwelling on the subject land may be exempt from this condition. This

exemption will be given effect through an agreement with the landowner

that must apply to any occupant of the dwelling and must be registered on

title. Such dwellings will be known as host dwellings.

NOISE ASSESSMENT

20. When a final turbine type is selected the noise assessment must be

repeated other than background noise monitoring. The results of this

must demonstrate compliance with the noise limits described in

Condition 19 without operation in noise management mode and be

submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning.

NOISE COMPLIANCE TESTING

21. Before the development starts a noise compliance testing plan must be

prepared by a suitably qualified acoustics expert to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning.

When approved, the noise compliance testing plan will be endorsed be the

Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit.

The use must be carried out in accordance with the noise compliance

testing plan to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

The noise compliance testing plan must include:


a) A determination of the noise limits to be applied during construction

using the methodology prescribed in the Interim Guidelines for the

Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria, N3/89;

b) A program of compliance testing to be implemented during the

construction of the wind energy facility that:

(i) Is designed by a suitably qualified acoustic expert, and

(ii) Utilises the methodology prescribed in State Environment

Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and

Trade) No N‐1, to demonstrate compliance with the limits

determined in (a) above.

c) A method or methods of testing compliance with the noise limits

prescribed in Condition 19 of this permit for all non‐stakeholder

dwellings at or above the predicted noise level of 35dBA predicted

from Condition 20 above.

Compliance testing will be carried out according to:

(i) The method described in NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the

Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators’; or

(ii) A method, designed by a suitably qualified acoustics expert, in

which measurements of operating and background noise levels

are measured with:

Background noise levels being measured with all turbines

that, when operating, influence the noise level at the

dwelling, shut down, and

The wind in the direction from the wind energy facility to

the dwelling for at least 50% of the measurement period.

d) For each dwelling at which compliance testing is to be performed,

determination of the maximum monthly proportions of the wind

direction distribution that is from the wind energy facility to the

dwelling, plus or minus 22.5 degrees

e) A schedule for compliance testing under which compliance testing at

all identified dwellings for which consent for such testing has been

obtained is performed in the 14 months following the commissioning

of the last turbine in a section of the wind energy facility or a stage of

the wind energy facility, if the development is in stages, and repeated

between 10 and 14 months after the first compliance test

f) A procedure for the assessment, by a suitably qualified acoustics

expert, of the characteristics of the noise from the wind energy facility

to determine if that noise has any special audible characteristics that


require the addition of 5dBA to the measured operating noise levels as

shown in Condition 19(c) of this permit

g) A procedure under which all results of compliance testing conducted

in any month are reported to the Minister for Planning by the 15th day

of the following month and to the owners and occupiers of particular

dwellings as soon as results relating to that particular dwelling are

available, and

h) A procedure under which the implementation of the noise compliance

testing plan is directed and supervised by a suitable qualified acoustic

expert to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

NOISE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

22. If an exceedance of the noise limits prescribed in Condition 19 of this

permit is detected the wind energy facility operator must:

a) Within 5 days of the detection of the exceedance, take sufficient actions

to reduce the wind energy facility noise level at the subject dwelling as

predicted using the prediction methodology contained in NS6808:1998

‘Acoustics – the Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators’ by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of

exceedance;

b) Within 7 days of the detection of the exceedance, provide the Minister

for Planning and the owner/occupier of the dwelling with:

(i) The results of the compliance testing measurements including

the magnitude of the detected exceedance

(ii) Details of the actions taken to reduce the wind energy facility

noise emissions, and

(iii) Evidence that the actions taken will produce a decrease in the

wind energy facility noise level at the dwelling by an amount

equal to the magnitude of the exceedance based on a prediction

using the methodology of NZS6808:1998 ‘Acoustics – the

Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine

Generators’.

c) Continue to operate the wind energy facility with the implemented

actions until approval for a different mode of operation is given by the

Minister for Planning under the provision of (d) below;

d) Within 60 days of the detection of an exceedance provide the Minister

for Planning and owner/occupier of the dwelling with either:

(i) The result of compliance testing using the procedures prescribed

in Condition 21 of this permit that demonstrate compliance, or


(ii) A program for the development and evaluation of an alternative

mode of wind energy facility operation that can be reasonably be

expected to result in continuing compliance with noise levels as

allowed in Condition 21 of this permit.

The program will:

Be developed and implemented under the supervision of a

suitably qualified acoustics expert

Include detailed descriptions of proposed actions

Include predictions of wind energy facility noise levels at

the dwelling at each stage of the program

Not include any actions or combination of actions that are

predicted to result in non‐compliance

Include compliance testing using the procedures

prescribed in Condition 21 of this permit both as the final

step in the program and with that compliance testing being

repeated after between 10 and 14 months, and

Include a program schedule that specifies the timing of

each stage of the program


Within 10 days of receipt of the program the Minister for Planning should

either:

a) Approve the implementation of the program, or

b) Advise the wind energy facility operator of modifications to the

program that are required before approval will be granted.

If the Minister for Planning requires the program to be modified, the wind

energy facility operator may either submit a modified program or

immediately withdraw the program and conduct compliance testing using

the procedures prescribed in Condition 21 of this permit.

Following implementation of the program, the wind energy facility

operator must provide the Minister for Planning and the owner/occupier

with a detailed description of an alternative mode of operation of the wind

energy facility together with evidence that under that mode of operation

compliance can be expected, to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning. Given such information and evidence the Minister for Planning

may approve the operation of the wind energy facility in the alternative

mode and such approval will not be unreasonably withheld.


23. A detailed noise assessment be carried out in consultation with the owners

of Lot 2 TP1324239C, Crown Allotment 16‐21 Poliah South to determine an

appropriate dwelling location.

BLADE SHADOW FLICKER

24. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per

annum at the surroundings of any dwelling existing prior to 17th August

2009.

This condition does not apply to any dwelling on land on which part of

the wind energy facility is erected (This exemption will be given effect

through an agreement with the landowner that will apply to any occupant

of the dwelling).

25. If shadow flicker is shown to be more than 30 hours per annum at the

surroundings of any non‐stakeholder dwelling existing prior to the 17th

August 2009 then remedial action must be taken to ensure compliance to

the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning

26. A detailed shadow flicker assessment be carried out in consultation with

the owners of Lot 2 TP1324239C, Crown Allotment 16‐21 Poliah South to

determine an appropriate dwelling location.

TELEVISION AND RADIO RECEPTION AND INTERFERENCE

27. A pre‐construction survey must be carried out to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning to determine television and radio reception strength

at selected locations within 5kms of any wind turbine including non‐

stakeholder dwellings. The location of such monitoring is to be

determined to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning by an

independent television and radio monitoring specialist appointed by the

operator under this permit.

Note: For the purpose of this condition, a non‐stakeholder means the

land holder of an abutting property without a contract in respect of

the installation of associated wind turbines on that person’s

property.

28. If, following commencement of the operation of the wind energy facility, a

complaint is received regarding the wind energy facility having an adverse

effect on television or radio reception at the site of any dwelling in the area

which existed at the date of the pre‐construction survey, a post‐

construction survey must be carried out at the dwelling.


29. If the post‐construction survey establishes any increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind energy facility operations, the wind energy

facility operator must undertake measures to mitigate the interference and

return the affected reception to pre‐construction quality at the cost of the

wind energy facility operator and to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning.

SECURITY

30. All site and wind turbine access points and electrical equipment must be

locked when not in use and made inaccessible to the general public to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. Public safety warning signs must

be located on all towers and all spare parts and other equipment and

materials associated with the wind energy facility must be located in

screened, locked storage areas that are inaccessible to the public to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE WORKS

31. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of preliminary

investigative works, including geotechnical investigations, for the

purposes of gathering data or making other assessments necessary or

desirable in order to prepare the development plan or other plans

specified in this permit, is not considered to be commencement of the

development.

DECOMMISSIONING

32. The wind energy facility operator must, no later than 2 months after any

or all wind turbines have permanently ceased to generate electricity,

notify the Minister for Planning in writing of the cessation of the use.

Within a further 12 months of this date, the wind energy facility operator,

or in the absence of the operator, the owner of the land on which the

relevant turbine(s) is/are located, must undertake the following to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning within such timeframe as may be

specified by the Minister:

a) remove all above ground non‐operational equipment;

b) remove and clean up any residual spills or contamination;

c) rehabilitate all storage, construction, access tracks and other areas

affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise

useful to the on‐going management of the land associated with the

use, development and decommissioning of the wind energy facility;


d) following consultation with the Corangamite Shire Council, Golden

Plains Shire Council and VicRoads, submit a decommissioning traffic

management plan to the Minister for Planning and, when approved

by the Minister for Planning, implement that plan; and

e) submit a post‐decommissioning revegetation management plan,

including a timetable of works to the Minister for Planning and, when

approved by the Minister for Planning, implement that plan.

33. If required by the Minister for Planning a bond shall be lodged to achieve

the actions in Condition 32 and be of such an amount and under such

conditions as the Minister for Planning may reasonably require.

STAGING

34. The use and development authorised by this permit may be completed in

stages as shown on the endorsed development plan(s) to the satisfaction of

the Minister for Planning, and any corresponding obligation arising under

this permit (including compliance with plans or other requirements

including noise monitoring, but not including the preparation and

approval of the development plan under Condition 1) may be similarly

completed in stages or parts.

EXPIRY

This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(i) the development is not started within 3 years of the date of this permit;

(ii) the development is not completed within 6 years of the date of this

permit.

The Minister for Planning may extend the periods referred to if a request is

made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months

afterwards.

Date Issued:

Signature for the Minister


IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PERMIT

WHAT HAS BEEN DECIDED?

The Minister has granted and issued a permit under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987.

WHEN DOES A PERMIT BEGIN?

A permit operates—

from the date specified in the permit; or

if no date is specified, from the date on which it was issued.

WHEN DOES A PERMIT EXPIRE?

1. A permit for the development of land expires if—

the development or any stage of it does not start within the time specified in the

permit; or

the development requires the certification of a plan of subdivision or consolidation

under the Subdivision Act 1988 and the plan is not certified within two years of

the issue of the permit, unless the permit contains a different provision; or

the development or any stage is not completed within the time specified in the

permit, or, if no time is specified, within two years after the issue of the permit or

in the case of a subdivision or consolidation within 5 years of the certification of

the plan of subdivision or consolidation under the Subdivision Act 1988.

2. A permit for the use of land expires if—

the use does not start within the time specified in the permit, or if no time is

specified, within two years after the issue of the permit; or

the use is discontinued for a period of two years.

3. A permit for the development and use of land expires if—

the development or any stage of it does not start within the time specified in

the permit; or

the development or any stage of it is not completed within the time

specified in the permit, or, if no time is specified, within two years after the

issue of the permit; or

the use does not start within the time specified in the permit, or, if no time is

specified, within two years after the completion of the development; or

the use is discontinued for a period of two years.

4. If a permit for the use of land or the development and use of land or relating to any of

the circumstances mentioned in section 6A(2) of the Planning and Environment Act

1987, or to any combination of use, development or any of those circumstances

requires the certification of a plan under the Subdivision Act 1988, unless the permit

contains a different provision—

the use or development of any stage is to be taken to have started when the

plan is certified; and

the permit expires if the plan is not certified within two years of the issue of the

permit.

5. The expiry of a permit does not affect the validity of anything done under that permit

before the expiry.


6. In accordance with section 97H of the Planning and Environment Act

1987, the Minister is the responsible authority in respect to any extension of time

under section 69 in relation to this permit.

WHAT ABOUT APPEALS?

The permit has been granted and issued by the Minister under Division 6 of Part 4 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987. Section 97M provides that Divisions 2 and 3 of that Part

and section 149A do not apply in relation to an application referred to the Minister under this

Division, a permit issued under this Division or an amendment of a permit issued under this

Division. The effect of this is that the Ministerʹs decision is final.


Appendix C Letter from WorkSafe Victoria to the Panel

berrybank wind energy facility panel report...broader community of renewable energy generation and...

Documents