environment act 1987 - planning - planning · management plan incorporating mitigation measures and...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Revised Permits

Pyrenees Planning Scheme

Application to Amend Planning Permit PL‐SP/05/0548, New Planning Permit Applications PA1600101 and PA2499/16

Corangamite Planning Scheme

New Planning Permit Application PA1600126

10 May 2017

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to sections 153, 155 and 97E of the Act

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Revised Permits

10 May 2017

Lester Townsend, Chair

Rod Gowans, Member Adrian Vlok, Member

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Revised Permits Panel Report 10 May 2017

Contents Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 The permit ............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Applications ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Summary of issues raised in submissions ............................................................... 4

2 Planning context ......................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................. 13

3 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Noise limits and the standard ............................................................................... 17 3.3 Noise assessment .................................................................................................. 22 3.4 Background noise monitoring ............................................................................... 28 3.5 Post‐construction compliance monitoring and management .............................. 31

4 Health ....................................................................................................................... 38

5 Landscape and visual impact ..................................................................................... 41

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 41 5.2 Visual impact ......................................................................................................... 41 5.3 Mawallok ............................................................................................................... 47 5.4 Landscape mitigation ............................................................................................ 50

6 Flora and native vegetation ...................................................................................... 51

6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 51 6.2 Removal of native vegetation ............................................................................... 53

7 Fauna including avifauna .......................................................................................... 61

7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 61 7.2 Fauna including avifauna (other than Brolga) ....................................................... 61 7.3 Brolga ..................................................................................................................... 66

8 Aviation .................................................................................................................... 74

8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 74 8.2 Hazard lighting ....................................................................................................... 75 8.3 Aviation safety ....................................................................................................... 76 8.4 Aerial firefighting ................................................................................................... 77

9 Traffic and road asset management .......................................................................... 78

9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 78 9.2 Traffic management .............................................................................................. 78

10 Quarry ...................................................................................................................... 81

10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 81


10.2 Submissions and evidence .................................................................................... 83 10.3 Hydrogeology and water impacts of the quarry ................................................... 85 10.4 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 87

11 Other issues .............................................................................................................. 88

11.1 Responsible authority ........................................................................................... 88

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

Appendix B Document list

Appendix C Parties to the Panel Hearing

Appendix D Preferred permits


List of Tables Page

Table 1: Chronology of the Application ................................................................................ 2

Table 2: Zones of visual impact ........................................................................................... 43

Table 3: Changes to the Wind Energy Facility affecting vegetation ................................... 52

Table 4: Changes to external roadside and intersection upgrades affecting vegetation .............................................................................................................. 52

Table 5: External overhead powerline – application for vegetation removal. ................... 53

Table 6: Estimated number of Brolga collisions .................................................................. 69

List of Figures Page

Figure 1: The subject site ........................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Noise contours ...................................................................................................... 26

Figure 3: Distances from turbines ........................................................................................ 44

Figure 4: Photomontage view of permitted wind farm ....................................................... 48

Figure 5: Photomontage view of amended wind farm ........................................................ 48

Figure 6: Section view of the proposed quarry .................................................................... 82


List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

BAM Bat and Avifauna Management

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CFA Country Fire Authority

dB Decibels

DEDJTR Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries (former)

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (former)

DTPLI Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former)

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

FZ Farming Zone

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MDA Marshall Day Acoustics

MRSD Act Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

NIRV Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria

P&E Act Planning and Environment Act 1987

RSA Rotor swept area

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

temperate volcanic grasslands EVC

Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plains EVC

2010 Noise Standard New Zealand Noise Standard NZS6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

WEF Wind Energy Facility

WEF Guidelines Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities – January 2016


Overview

Amendment summary

The proposal Pyrenees Planning Scheme

Application to Amend Planning Permit PL‐SP/05/0548

New Planning Permit Application PA1600101 (Native vegetation removal and road access for powerline) and PA2499/16 (Quarry)


New Planning Permit Application PA1600126 (Native vegetation removal and road access for powerline)

Common name Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Revised Permits

Brief description The Minister for Planning is considering an application to amend the planning permit for the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. The permit was issued by the Minister for Planning

The Minister for Planning is also considering three new Planning Permit Applications

Subject site Stockyard Hill – the wind farm site is located within the Pyrenees Shire, approximately 150 kilometres west, north‐west of Melbourne and approximately 35 kilometres west of Ballarat. Transmissions line are also proposed in Corangamite

Permit applicant Origin Energy (the Proponent/Applicant)

Responsible authority The Minister for Planning represented by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)

Exhibition First round of notice for all four applications between 4 October and 31 October 2016

Second round of notice for amendments to applications PA1600126 and PA1600101 in November 2016.

Submissions Number of Submissions: 45 Opposed: 32 Letters of support: 13


Panel Process

The Panel Nick Wimbush (Chair), Rod Gowans and Adrian Vlok were appointed as the Panel on 29 September 2016. On 23 November 2016, the appointment was cancelled as Mr Wimbush was unable to Chair this matter due to timing constraints and a potential conflict of interest, and Lester Townsend (Chair), Rod Gowans and Adrian Vlok were appointed as the Panel.

Directions Hearing Craig’s Royal Hotel, Ballarat, 9 November 2016

Panel Hearing Craig’s Royal Hotel, Ballarat

6‐10, 13‐17 and 20 February 2017

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, on various dates during the Hearing

Appearances See Appendix C

Date of this Report 10 May 2017


Page i

Executive summary

(i) Summary

The Application in relation to the wind farm (WEF) has two components:

an amendment to the size of the turbines and their layout

changes to permit conditions.

The proposed changes to the size and layout are relatively easy to understand and the changes to the permit clear:

the wind energy facility must comprise no more than 149 157 wind turbines

the overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the tip of the rotor blade when vertical) must not exceed 132 180 metres above natural ground level

wind turbines must be mounted on a tubular tower with a hub height of no greater than 80 120 metres

each wind turbine is to have not more than three rotor blades, with a rotor diameter each blade having a length of no greater than 52 142 metres

the ground clearance from the bottom of the blades to the ground level is not less than 32 metres.

The proposed changes to the conditions are less easy to understand. The permit Application presented the changes in a neat table.1 Over the course of the Hearing further changes were proposed by DELWP. These were presented as track changes, but these changes are confusing:

the automatic numbering has not been turned off and so it is not easy to cross reference conditions to the original permit

some conditions have been replaced in total where in fact only minor wording changes are proposed making it impossible to see what the actual changes are

there are track changes on top of other changes, rather than one set of agreed changes.

For these reasons the Panel has not included a preferred Panel version of the permit in this report because it would potentially imply Panel support for detailed changes that have not been subject to submissions and which the Panel has not been able to identify from the ‘track changes’.

As stressed at the Directions Hearing it is important to recognise that the wind farm permit (Pyrenees Planning Scheme PL‐SP/05/0548) is an amendment to an existing permit, not a new application. The task of the Panel is to focus on changes from the existing approved project rather than undertaking a ‘first principles’ review.

The Panel supports the approaches of the 2010 Panel, and concludes in relation to the permit amendment and three new permits:

1 Submission in support of the application Appendix C.


Page ii

the area does not warrant recognition as a high amenity noise environment to be referenced in conditions

it is appropriate to ensure the Environmental Management Plan addresses changes to environmental management standards when it is reviewed

the noise modelling is likely to produce higher predicted noise levels than would occur in reality for the vast majority of atmospheric conditions and therefore the result is an appropriately conservative assessment

irrespective of the noise modelling assessment uncertainty, the permit conditions provide a robust framework to ensure compliance with relevant standards

while reduced turbine spacing (caused by increase rotor size) could result in increased sound power the two noise assessments undertaken adequately take these matters into account and in both cases noise compliance is predicted

no compelling argument has been made to justifying the amendment or replacement of existing conditions relating to the measuring of background noise except to reflect factual changes in the windfarm itself

there are no compelling arguments to justifying the amendment or replacement of existing conditions around complaints except to reflect factual changes in the windfarm itself

the timely and proactive forwarding of the complaints register to Council is appropriate

the clear positions of State and National Health Authorities is that there is no evidence of direct health effects and the Panel has no evidence to depart from that view

that while the turbines will be visible from further away, a comparison of the visual impact of the existing permit and the amendment permit, from a range of viewing distances, shows the impacts will be of a similar nature and magnitude

the amended wind farm preserves the views identified by the current permit for Mawallok Homestead

native vegetation removal for the amended wind farm should be able to be managed to an acceptable level subject to the development of a Native Vegetation Management Plan incorporating mitigation measures and the provision of native vegetation offsets

the final extent of native vegetation removal should be determined following a review of the need for a design requirement for internal track widths of 12.5 metres including examination of the adoption of a minimal disturbance design with narrower track widths including within track cabling, to the satisfaction of the Minister

the impacts on fauna and avifauna (including Brolga) should be able to be managed to an acceptable level subject to the development of an Environmental Management Plan and the incorporation and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures

there is a need to co‐ordinate a strategic, region wide response to Brolga habitat planning, restoration and management

the existing permitted wind farm is substantial and represents a hazard to aviation; this remains similarly true for the amended wind farm


Page iii

the amended wind farm does not result in a material change to aerial agricultural impacts. The Panel agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the 2010 Panel and it sees no reasonable justification to amend the current permit conditions or alter the layout of the amended wind farm

the amended wind farm does not result in a material change to aerial firefighting impacts. The Panel agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the 2010 Panel and it sees no reasonable justification to amend the current permit conditions or alter the layout of the amended wind farm

the Traffic Management Plan conditions to make it clear that it must also address the operation of the quarry

the Quarry is unlikely to have an adverse impact on groundwater and these impacts can be monitored and controlled

the effect of Clause 61 of the Planning Scheme together with section 97H of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is that Council is the responsible authority for enforcement. This cannot be changed by altering the permit.

Overall, the Panel supports the proposed amendments to the permit and the issue of the new permits. Despite the proposed increase in turbine size, the Panel concludes that the expected impacts are manageable.

(ii) Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:

1. That Pyrenees Planning Scheme Planning Permit PL‐SP/05/0548 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm be amended generally as proposed in the version circulated by Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning but with the following changes:

1.1 Do not delete “and changes to environmental management standards” in current condition 7.

1.2 Retain current conditions 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 making only minor amendments considering changes in the windfarm itself, the revised New Zealand Noise Standard NZS 6808:2010 and minor points of clarification.

1.3 Amend current condition 26(c) to read: “…the noise compliance testing plan must include advice on timing of the assessment including defining when commissioning of the wind energy facility, or an identified stage of it, will occur, and when the compliance noise monitoring results will be provided to the Minister for Planning. That time must not be more than 120 days after commissioning unless with the further consent of the Minister for Planning”.

1.4 Amend current condition 26(e) to read:

“… the noise compliance testing must be carried out at locations in accordance with NZS 6808:2010, that is where practical, as identified in Conditions 19 d) – e).”


Page iv

1.5 Do not amend current conditions 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32, except for minor amendments considering changes in the windfarm itself, the New Zealand Noise Standard NZS 6808:2010 and minor points of clarification.

1.6 Revise the Environmental Management Plan Condition k(ii) to read: “The operator must make the register available for inspection by the public during normal working hours and its contents must be reported to the Minister for Planning and Pyrenees Shire Council: • on a quarterly basis from the date that the first wind turbine is

commissioned • on an annual basis from the date two years after the last turbine is

commissioned.”

1.7 Do not amend current conditions 30 and 39, except for minor amendments considering changes in the windfarm itself, the revised New Zealand Noise Standard NZS 6808:2010 and minor points of clarification.

1.8 Review the width of the proposed access tracks with a view to reducing their impact on vegetation removal.

1.9 That the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan incorporate a monitoring period of at least five years and require regular reporting.

1.10 Amend the relevant condition to require the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan to include a separate section on Brolga monitoring and compensation that describes the monitoring requirements, the specific accountabilities, the compensation outcomes to be delivered based on a more conservative target than that predicted by the modelling, the interim milestones, and the schedule of public reporting over the expected life of the project (25 years).

1.11 Update the Traffic Management Plan conditions to make it clear that it must also address the operation of the quarry.

2. Issue Pyrenees Planning Scheme Planning Permit PA2499/16 as shown is Appendix D for the proposed quarry, subject to the following changes:

2.1 Include a condition requiring a comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan that includes the development of a baseline on the site and at beneficial users, a regular operational groundwater monitoring plan, public reporting and a management response framework to ensure incidents and performance outcomes are achieved.

3. Issue Pyrenees Planning Scheme Planning Permit PA1600101 as shown in Appendix D for the proposed removal of native vegetation, noting the changes shown to:

3.1 Clarify the wording in relation to vegetation offsets.

4. Issue Corangamite Planning Scheme Planning Permit PA1600126 as shown in Appendix D for the proposed removal of native vegetation, noting the changes shown to:

3.1 Clarify the wording in relation to vegetation offsets.


Page v

(iii) Further recommendations

The Panel makes the following further recommendations:

5. In the development of the Native Vegetation Management Plan, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning undertake an assessment of the impacts on Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands in areas where temperate volcanic grasslands Ecological Vegetation Class is proposed to be removed, and determine the appropriate offset requirements.

6. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning undertake an evaluation program to assess the cumulative effects on raptor populations and other native species that may be vulnerable to wind farm mortality and determine the need for mitigation measures.

7. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning co‐ordinate a strategic region wide response to Brolga habitat planning, restoration and management that includes the identification and mapping of turbine free Brolga buffer areas and incorporates individual wind farm Brolga offset obligations.


Page 1

1 Introduction

1.1 The permit

Planning Permit PL‐SP/05/0548 was issued by the Minister for Planning on 26 October 2010 to allow for the use and development of the land for a wind farm.

The planning permit includes conditions relating to turbine numbers, overall maximum turbine height, blade length and tower height. The permit allows for up to 157 turbines, on‐site and overhead cables which transmit the energy from the turbines to up to five on‐site substations, on‐site access tracks, removal of native vegetation, and the creation or alteration of access in a Road Zone (Category 1). The planning permit conditions included a restriction of a 132 metre tip height, a 52 metre rotor blade length and a maximum 80 metre tower height. The permitted wind farm site is approximately 155 square kilometres. With the exception of entry points into the site from the Road Zone, it is entirely within the Farming Zone.

This report deals with a request to amend that permit.

In 2010, planning permits were also granted for an associated 132/500kV terminal station at Berrybank and for the removal of native vegetation associated with a transmission line connection between the project and the terminal station. However, these aspects of the original project will not be progressed.

Following the granting of the permit, the permitted wind farm (and associated off‐site terminal station at Berrybank and connecting powerlines) was also approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Environment under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) on 11 February 2011.

The Stockyard Hill Wind Farm site, quarry and Pyrenees transmission line application sites are located within the Pyrenees Shire. The Corangamite transmission line application is located within the Corangamite Shire.


Page 2

Figure 1: The subject site

Table 1: Chronology of the Application

Date Event

29 September 2008 The Minister for Planning determined that an Environment Effects Statement was not required for the project (subject to conditions) under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) and that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) assessment process was appropriate for the project.

13 February 2009 The planning permit application for the wind farm was lodged with the Minister for Planning.

16 September 2009 The Application was called‐in.

5 December 2009 –

30 January 2010

The wind farm Application was on public notice. Submissions were received and these were provided to Planning Panels Victoria.

7‐29 April and 17‐25 May 2010

A Panel hearing was held to consider the planning permit Application for the wind farm (it also considered planning permit applications 2009/104 for a terminal Station and 2009/105 for native vegetation removal associated with transmission lines, both these permits have now lapsed and are not being considered by this Panel).

August 2010 The Panel hearing report, dated August 2010, was provided to the Minister for Planning.


Page 3

Date Event

26 October 2010 The Minister for Planning issued permit PL‐SP/05/0548 for a wind farm, allowing for 157 turbines to a maximum height of 132 metres and Planning Permit Nos. 2009/104 and 2009/105, for the removal of native vegetation associated with transmission lines and a terminal station.

2012 Development commenced under the permit with the construction of six permanent anemometers (Stage 1).

22 February 2013 Planning permit PP2012/152 was issued by Corangamite Shire Council for a Terminal Station associated with the wind farm. Works must commence by 22 February 2018 for the permit to not lapse, unless the permit is extended.

12 May 2016 The Applicant lodged its Amendment Application.

16 August 2016 Having responded to requests for further information, the Applicant lodged the final version of its Application.

4 October to 31 October 2016

Public notice of all four Applications.

November 2016 Public notice of amendments to applications PA1600126 and PA1600101.

29 September 2016 Nick Wimbush (Chair), Rod Gowans and Adrian Vlok appointed as Panel.

9 November 2016 Directions Hearing at Craig’s Royal Hotel, Ballarat.

23 November 2016 Panel reconstituted as Lester Townsend (Chair), Rod Gowans and Adrian Vlok.

6‐10, 13‐17 and 20 February 2017

Panel Hearing at Craig’s Royal Hotel, Ballarat.

1.2 The Applications

The applications are:

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm – application under section 97I of the Act to amend the existing permit (PL‐SP/05/0548) for the wind farm:

Quarry – a new application (PA2499/16)

Native vegetation removal and road access for power line – new applications: - Pyrenees Planning Scheme (PA1600101) - Corangamite Planning Scheme (PA1600126).

The application to amend the existing permit

The Applicant seeks to amend the current planning permit to allow for a reduced number of newer and more efficient wind turbines compared to the permitted wind farm, specifically to:


Page 4

increase overall turbine height from 132 to 180 metres (including an increase to tower height and rotor diameter)

reduce the number of turbines from 157 to 149

change the layout

reduce the number of substations/switchyards

replace the micro‐siting condition

delete conditions relating to additional flora and fauna surveys which have been undertaken and form part of the Amendment Application

increase the quantity of native vegetation removal from 5.28 hectares to 38.267 hectares and varying the offset requirements to accommodate the increase

update the environmental management conditions

replace and update noise prediction and compliance conditions

offer voluntary landscape mitigation to residents within 4 kilometres of the nearest turbine and allowing required road upgrade works to be undertaken in stages and allow for the payment of a bond to VicRoads if required.2

The original approvals in 2010 did not include an on‐site quarry, however in order to minimise impacts to the local community, the Applicant proposes to source crushed rock from a dedicated, temporary quarry within the wind farm boundary, in order to internalise the source.

The Applicant noted that the application to amend the planning permit is a result of two consequences:

Advances in wind turbine technology, which enable larger and more efficient turbines to be installed. Accordingly, if the Amendment Application is approved, energy output from the wind farm will increase by up to 40 per cent from 1,350 GWh to 1,900 GWh.3 Adjustments are required to the wind farm layout to facilitate this.

Application of New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise compared to New Zealand Standard NZS6808:1998 (Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators) and the methods and procedures of calculating native vegetation offsets have been updated or replaced since the permit was issued, and regulation of wind farms has evolved.

1.3 Summary of issues raised in submissions

All submissions were referred to the Panel for consideration.

The main issues identified in submissions were:

Application material – Application can/will not be assessed properly as the application material was not exhaustive and of questionable quality.

Noise – A general increase of noise and noise monitoring should be carried out by neutral bodies not engaged by the Applicant (concern that there is currently no

2 DELWP submission p6. 3 Applicant Part A submission p3.


Page 5

independent monitoring of noise). Associated noise impact on human health and well‐being.

Health – Impact on the health of the community.

Views and visual amenity – Disruption of landscape, views and visual amenity as turbines would be taller than surrounding landscape and would impose themselves on neighbours.

Built heritage – particular concern for heritage listed Mawallok Homestead.

Birds and avifauna – Increased death of birds and avifauna.

Fauna impacts – Particularly near Mt Emu Creek.

Communications disruption/interference – Disrupt/interfere telecommunications and emergency communications.

Shadow flicker – Increase due to larger turbines.

Property prices – Decrease property prices and ability for residential development nearby.

Aviation – Impact of turbines on private airfields and aviation used for agriculture and business. Decrease the ability of aviation firefighting capabilities. Aviation lights will be seen from far away.

Quarry – Concern with impact to groundwater due to close proximity to aquifer.

Removal of native vegetation – Concern at significant increase in amount to be removed and quality of vegetation to be removed.

Landscape mitigation – Inadequate and not enough.

Timing of notice period and panel – Not enough time to prepare submissions or presentations / experts for panel.

Transport and site access – Concern about the impact the project will have on roads.


Page 6

2 Planning context

2.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

DELWP submitted that the amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:

Clause 10.04 (Integrated decision making) – this clause includes the following statement:

Society has various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic well‐being, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social well‐being affected by land use and development.

DELWP stated that conflicting objectives should be balanced in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

Clause 11.07‐1 (Regional planning) – this clause has the objective “to develop regions and settlements which have a strong identity, are prosperous and are environmentally sustainable”. Relevant strategies include:

Environmental Health and Productivity – focused on rural and hinterland landscapes, it is encourages:

… avoiding development impacts on land that contains high biodiversity values, landscape amenity, water conservation values, food production and energy production capacity, extractable resources and minerals, cultural heritage and recreation values, assets and recognised uses.

Ensure the capacity of major infrastructure (including highways, railways, airports, ports, communications networks and energy generation and distribution systems) is not impacted negatively by urban development in adjacent areas.

Clause 11.08 (Central Highlands regional growth) – this clause is applicable to Pyrenees Shire and includes the following:

Clause 11.06‐5 (A sustainable region) – this clause has the strategy “to support the productive use of energy, water, waste materials, agricultural and natural resource assets”.

Clause 11.08‐6 (Integrated planning) – this clause has the objective “to integrate planning for growth with the provision of infrastructure, and the strategy to support expansion of energy supply infrastructure to facilitate the establishment of new industry or the expansion of existing industry”.

Clause 11.08–8 (Agricultural productivity) – this clause has the objective to support long term agricultural productivity. It states that Planning must consider as relevant the Central Highlands Regional Growth Plan (2014). Section 12.5 of the Plan states that “the region is well positioned to benefit from the future growth of the wind


Page 7

energy sector due to its excellent wind resources and the Ballarat to Horsham transmission line”4. The clause includes the following strategy:

Support change and transition to maintain the viability and productivity of agricultural land.

Clause 11.08–9 (Cultural heritage and landscapes) – this clause has the objective:

…to recognise the importance of cultural heritage and landscapes as economic and community assets. Strategies include protect cultural heritage assets that are important for attracting tourists to the region.

Clause 11.11 (Great South Coast Regional growth) (applicable to Corangamite Shire)

Clause 11.11‐1 (A diversified economy) – this clause has the objective “…to strengthen the region’s economy through increased industry diversification, innovation and development”.

Clause 11.11‐5 (Agricultural productivity) – this clause includes the strategy to “… facilitate changes in agricultural activities over time, encourage diversification and value adding, and provide appropriately timely infrastructure to realise these opportunities”.

Clause 11.11‐6 (Environmental assets) – this clause has the objective “…to sustainably manage natural, cultural and environmental assets”. It includes the following strategies:

Protect significant landscapes and provide vegetation corridors between high value environmental assets.

Protect waterways from the effects of urban and rural land use change and facilitate growth at established settlements where water and wastewater can be managed.

Clause 12 (Environmental and landscape values) – this clause states that planning should help to protect the health of ecological systems and the biodiversity they support and conserve areas with identified environmental and landscape values.

Clause 12.01‐1 (Protection of biodiversity) – this clause has the objective to assist the protection and conservation of Victoria’s biodiversity.

Clause 12.04‐1 (Environmentally sensitive areas) – this clause has the objective to protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

Clause 12.04‐2 (Landscapes) – this clause has the objective to protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments. Strategies include:

Recognise the natural landscape for its aesthetic value and as a fully functioning system.

Ensure natural key features are protected and enhanced.

4 DELWP submission p29.


Page 8

Clause 13.04 (Environmental risks ‐ Noise and air) – this clause includes Noise abatement which has the objective to assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses. It includes the following strategy:

Ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area.

Clause 14.02‐2 (Water quality) – this clause has the objective to protect water quality.

Clause 14.03 (Resource exploration and extraction) – this clause has the objective:

To encourage exploration and extraction of natural resources in accordance with acceptable environmental standards and to provide a planning approval process that is consistent with the relevant legislation.

Clause 15.03‐1 (Heritage conservation) – this clause has the objective to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.

Clause 15.03‐2 (Aboriginal cultural heritage) – this clause has the objective of ensuring the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

Clause 17 (Economic development) – this clause states:

Planning is to provide for a strong and innovative economy, where all sectors of the economy are critical to economic prosperity.

Planning is to contribute to the economic well‐being of communities and the State as a whole by supporting and fostering economic growth and development by providing land, facilitating decisions, and resolving land use conflicts, so that each district may build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential.

Clause 19.01‐1 (Provision of renewable energy) – this clause has the objective “to promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures appropriate siting and design considerations are met”. The following strategies are relevant:

Facilitate renewable energy development in appropriate locations.

In considering proposals for renewable energy, consideration should be given to the economic and environmental benefits to the broader community of renewable energy generation while also considering the need to minimise the effects of a proposal on the local community and environment.

In planning for wind energy facilities, recognise that economically viable wind energy facilities are dependent on locations with consistently strong winds over the year.

This clause states that planning must consider the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, January 2016).


Page 9

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

The wind farm, quarry and Pyrenees transmission line applications sites are located within the Pyrenees Shire. These applications are considered against the Pyrenees Planning Scheme.

The Corangamite transmission line application is located within the Corangamite Shire. These applications are considered against the Corangamite Planning Scheme.

The Panel is required to make its recommendations on the amended application in accordance with the Act and the Pyrenees Planning Scheme.

Pyrenees Planning Scheme

Clause 21.01 (Pyrenees Shire Key Influences and Issues) – this clause includes the following key issues under Clause 21.01‐3:

The need to generate further employment opportunities.

The protection and management of the Shire’s natural resources and environment.

The protection and management of agricultural land and the need to encourage agricultural diversity.

Clause 21.03 (Settlement, Built Environment and Heritage) – under clause 21.03 Heritage, this clause includes the objective, “To conserve and enhance individual places and precincts of cultural heritage significance in relation to 19th and 20th century settlement and associated development”.

Clause 21.04‐1 (Natural environment) – this clause includes the following environmental objectives:

To minimise the potential of new development and land use causing pollution of waterways, water storages and ground water resources, land degradation, fire hazards or other adverse environmental impacts.

To encourage agriculture and other industries to conserve water and minimise waste.

To protect existing native vegetation and encourage further planting of native vegetation particularly on land which has a high degree of environmental hazard and in areas with salinity problems.

Clause 21.04‐2 (Protecting sensitive rural areas) – this clause lists the following objectives:

To ensure appropriate management of constrained and sensitive land.

To preserve and renew vegetation that contributes to biodiversity and the stability of sensitive landforms.

Clause 21.04‐4 (Land use capability assessment) – this clause contains an assessment of the Pyrenees’s land use capability in order to:

Identify the capability of different areas in the Shire to support various rural land uses.

Identify areas of environmental sensitivity which have implications in terms of land management.


Page 10

The land capability assessment has been used to develop the Shire’s planning objectives and strategies the Municipal Strategic Statement.

Clause 21.05‐2 (Sustainable agricultural land use) – this clause lists the following objectives:

To promote the effective management of rural land.

To provide opportunities for sustainable agriculture.

To support the diversification of agriculture.

Clause 21.06 – Local Areas includes Clause 21.06‐1 (Beaufort) which has the following objectives:

To maintain Beaufort’s existing function as the Shire’s principal town for urban development.

To develop the town’s role as a highway service centre.

To retain Beaufort’s character and sense of place.

To manage environmental risks and land use conflicts.

Clause 22.02 (Heritage) – this clause includes the following objectives:

To encourage the retention of individually significant and contributory heritage places within Heritage Overlay areas.

To conserve and enhance the natural or cultural features of an area or site and to ensure that any alterations or development complement their form and appearance.

Clause 22.04 (Native vegetation protection) – this clause lists the following objectives:

To conserve and enhance existing vegetation throughout the Shire wherever practicable.

To protect significant and sensitive areas including wetlands from the negative effects of vegetation clearance and modification.


Clause 21.02 (Key influences) – this clause in its “Environment” section states that “environmental issues are increasingly playing a role in the management of rural holdings”.

Clause 22.02‐4 (Biodiversity) – this clause has a Policy basis that biological diversity is fundamental to the quality of life, landscape and economy of the Shire. It includes the objective “to ensure that the use and development of land takes into account the need to protect and enhance biological diversity by promoting ecologically sustainable land use and development”.

Clause 22.03‐1 (Agriculture) – this clause states that agriculture is the single most important industry in the Shire, and its protection and enhancement is linked to the environmental and economic well‐being of the Shire. Objectives to achieve this are:

To protect the natural and physical resources upon which agricultural industries rely.

To prevent land use conflicts between agricultural uses and sensitive uses and ensure that use and development in the Shire is not prejudicial to agricultural industries or the productive capacity of the land.


Page 11

(iii) Other planning strategies or policies used in formulating the Amendment

Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities – January 2016

These guidelines (the WEF Guidelines) are to be considered as a decision guideline by a responsible authority before determining a permit application for a wind energy facility.

Section 5 outlines the key criteria for evaluation for the planning merits of a wind energy facility.

Section 5.1.2 discusses potential impacts a wind energy facility can cause that affect the amenity of the surrounding area due to noise, blade glint, shadow flicker, overshadowing and electromagnetic interference.

The WEF Guidelines aim to provide advice for responsible authorities, proponents and the community regarding the decision making framework that relates to wind farm proposals. The intention is to provide a framework for a ‘consistent and balanced approach’ to the assessment of wind energy projects in Victoria, and set consistent operational performance standards.

The WEF Guidelines are a reference document in all planning schemes (including the Pyrenees Planning Scheme).

The current version of the WEF Guidelines (most recently amended in January 2016) are largely unchanged from the version used in the original assessment in 2010, which the exception of structural changes and the inclusion of additional detail. Notable changes include those to ‘Flora and fauna impacts assessment’ and a more detailed discussion of the noise requirements under the revised New Zealand Noise Standard NZS6808:2010 (the 2010 Noise Standard).

The 2016 WEF Guidelines include a new policy in relation to significant landscapes, whereby:

… an assessment of the degree of visual impact of a wind energy facility must take into account landscape values associated with nearby land included in the schedule to Clause 52.32‐2”.5 This includes “… specified areas of landscape and environmental significance, specified coastal locations and areas identified to accommodate future population growth of regional cities and centres.6

The Pyrenees Planning Scheme does not have any such listed places, as it does not contain a schedule to Clause 52.32‐2.

Victoria’s Renewable Energy Roadmap

In August 2015, the government released Victoria’s Renewable Energy Roadmap – Delivering jobs and a clean energy future. The Roadmap includes the following statements:

Climate change is one of the most critical issues facing our state …

5 Proponent’s submission (Document 18) p11. 6 Proponent’s submission p11.


Page 12

The Victorian Government is committed to sustainable development and to decreasing Victoria’s reliance on non‐renewable sources of energy …

The Victorian government believes targets are critical for ensuring growth in renewable energy generation. Therefore, as part of the Action Plan, the Victorian Government will establish two targets for renewable energy generation in this state, including for 2020 and 2025. The Government aims to produce at least 20 per cent of the state’s electricity generation from renewable sources by 2020 …7

Victoria’s Renewable Energy Auction Scheme

In June 2016, the Victorian Government committed to Victorian renewable energy generation targets of 25 per cent by 2020 and 40 per cent by 2025. The following statements are included in the consultation paper for the scheme:

Based on current generation and demand forecasts, this would involve the government auctioning up to 5,400 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity over the life of the scheme.

The majority of auctions are proposed to be renewable energy technology neutral. Based on current technology costs, this would see wind as the dominant technology under the scheme. The Government intends to auction a proportion of capacity for large‐scale solar projects.8

Victoria’s Regional Statement

In November 2015 the government released Victoria’s Regional Statement – your voice, your region, your state. This document included the following statements relevant to the application:

The Regional Jobs for a growing economy section states:

Victoria’s economy would be nothing without our regions. From food, fibre and wine to tourism, innovation and renewable energy, its where the traditional and the new come together.

Government and local communities need to work together to deliver the projects and services that will bring more jobs and families to regional Victoria, so businesses can maximise opportunities and succeed.

For Renewable Energy the document states:

Victoria is taking the lead on climate change action and becoming a low‐carbon economy …

The Government’s Renewable Energy Roadmap sets out our plan for accelerating development of renewable energy generation in Victoria to reduce emissions, create jobs and put downward pressure on energy prices;

7 DELWP submission pp40‐41. 8 DELWP submission p41.


Page 13

We will continue our leadership in this area, building a strong future for our state in renewable energy that will deliver benefits for regional Victoria.

Under Protecting the quality of life in our regions the following statements are made:

A sustainable environment means sustainable jobs …

Victoria is taking the lead on climate change …9

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones

The wind farm site is in the Farming Zone (FZ) and Road Zone, Category 1 (RDZ1).

The quarry site is in the FZ.

The transmission lines are located within the FZ and RDZ1.

The Applicant stated that the provisions of the FZ are consistent with the regime that applied in 2010. The purposes of the FZ include:

Providing for the use of land for agriculture.

Encouraging the retention of productive agricultural land.

Ensuring that non‐agricultural uses (including dwellings) do not adversely affect the use of the land for agriculture.

Encouraging the retention of employment and population.

Encouraging use and development based on sustainable land management practices and provision of infrastructure.

The purpose of the RDZ1 is:

To identify significant existing roads.

To identify land which has been acquired for a significant proposed road.

(ii) Overlays

The amended wind farm is partly affected by the Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 1 – Designated Water Supply Areas) (ESO1), Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) (Schedule 1 – Roadside Grassland Protection and Conservation) and Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO or WMO).

The southeast corner of the quarry site is affected by the ESO1.

Part of the Pyrenees transmission line site is affected by the ESO1.

The ESO1 environmental objectives to be achieved are:

To ensure the protection and maintenance of water quality and water yield within the designated water supply catchments as detailed in Clause 21.05‐1.6.

9 DELWP submission pp41‐42.


Page 14

To maintain and where practicable enhance the quality and quantity of water produced within the catchments and in waterways.

To protect the quality of surface and groundwater supplies within the Shire and the broader region.

To prevent erosion of land, pollution, siltation and eutrophication of waterways, water bodies, storages and drains.

To ensure that catchment yield and environmental flows are maintained.

To manage the impact of incremental development on water quality and yield.

The VPO1 vegetation protection objectives to be achieved are:

To protect areas of significant native vegetation.

To maintain habitat corridors for indigenous fauna.

To ensure development minimises loss of indigenous vegetation.

Part of the Corangamite transmission line site is affected by the VPO (Schedule 2, Roadside vegetation protection area) and BMO.

(iii) Particular provisions

The following Particular Provisions apply.

Amended wind farm

Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation

Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to A Road Zone, Category 1, Or A Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road.

Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility, a key section of the Scheme to assess a wind farm application.

Transmission lines

Clause 52.17‐2 Native Vegetation

Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road.

Quarry

Clause 52.08‐1 (Earth and Energy Resources Industry), requires a permit to use and develop land for earth and energy resources10 unless an exemptions at Clause 52.08‐1 applies.

Clause 52.08 states that the purpose of the Earth and Energy Resources Industry particular provision is:

To encourage land to be used and developed for exploration and extraction of earth and energy resources in accordance with acceptable environmental standards.

10 Stone extraction is included in Earth and energy resources industry use under Clause 74.


Page 15

To ensure that mineral extraction, geothermal energy extraction, greenhouse gas sequestration and petroleum extraction are not prohibited land uses.

To ensure that planning controls for the use and development of land for the exploration and extraction of earth and energy resources are consistent with other legislation governing these land uses.

Clause 52.09 (Stone Extraction and Extractive Industry Interest Areas) – specifically, Clause 52.09‐2 states a permit to use and develop land for stone extraction will not be required if the conditions in the table to Clause 52.08‐1 are met. The application for a quarry does not meet the conditions of this table and hence a permit is required.

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation

The purpose of Clause 52.17 is “To ensure permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by the native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity”. Pursuant to Clause 52.17‐2, a planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation. Clause 52.17‐6 lists offset requirements.

Clause 52.32 – Wind Energy Facility

Clause 52.32 has undergone changes since the current planning permit was granted but submitted that these were not material to the Application. The purpose of this clause is “to ‘facilitate the establishment and expansion’ of wind energy facilities in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area”. The decision guidelines include:

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 sight lines.

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 [WEF Guidelines].

The [2010 Noise Standard11].12

A new Clause 52.32‐3 requires the written consent of all owners and dwellings located within 1 kilometre of a proposed turbine. However, this clause does not apply to the current Application because it does not propose to increase the number of turbines, and it does not seek to locate a turbine within one kilometre of a dwelling.

A new Clause 52.32‐7 provides that:

… applications to amend permits under section 72 of the Act are exempt from certain decision requirements and review rights under the Act where the application does not seek to increase the number of turbines or locate a

11 Updated from the 1998 standard applicable at the time the current planning permit was granted 12 DELWP submission p10.


Page 16

turbine closer to an existing dwelling within one kilometre of a turbine than the closest permitted turbine to that dwelling.13

The Proponent noted that provision does not apply to it, as the Application was lodged under section 97I of the P&E Act.

(iv) General provisions

Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines

The following decision guidelines apply to the application:

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.

13 DELWP submission p10.


Page 17

3 Noise

3.1 Introduction

A wind farm creates noise. The potential impact depends on the wind farm, location and sensitivity of the surrounding land uses, existing background noise levels, topography and wind speed and direction.

(i) Background

The previous Panel report (August 2010) examined noise at length and in detail. For the most part this Panel has been confronted with the same contentious matters, including:

high Amenity noise penalty

application of NZS 6808:1998 and NZS 6808:2010

indicative turbine and final turbine

special audible characteristics

background noise monitoring

post‐construction compliance monitoring and management

complaint management.

The 2010 Panel’s assessment, conclusions and recommendations were given effect by conditions 6(k), 18 to 32 and 39 in the current permit.

The 2010 Panel report represents a comprehensive, objective and reasoned assessment of noise issues at the time. Consideration of noise matters in this report endeavours to build on the previous Panel report and to only (re)assess matters as they relate to the amended application, new information and changes in the planning policy framework.

(ii) What changes are proposed

The changes that have the potential to affect noise emissions include:

using newer model turbines with increased height

using larger turbine hub, gearbox and generator

reducing the number of turbines from 157 to 149.

Amendments to current permit conditions are also proposed.

3.2 Noise limits and the standard

(i) The appropriate standard

What is the issue

The Permit conditions require compliance with the 1998 Noise Standard. Since the Permit was issued in 2010, the 2016 Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (the WEF Guidelines) and Amendment VC124 (April 2015) to the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) provides for more contemporary noise limits (the 2010 Noise Standard) and example conditions. Therefore, the noise assessment of the amended wind farm has been based on the WEF Guidelines and the 2010 Noise Standard.


Page 18

The Applicant is also seeking an amendment14 to existing condition 7 (Environmental Management Plan) (EMP) to ensure the five yearly EMP review process does not result in a change to noise limits.

Evidence and submissions

In general, parties before the Panel did not contest the 2010 Noise Standard or argue for a more appropriate or conservative standard. In practice the concerns raised by Mr Huson and others related to factors or circumstances (for example wind shear and wake induced turbulence) that they believe could significantly increase wind farm noise emissions, noise at dwellings, and to that extent their concerns related to the correct application of the 2010 Noise Standard, rather than the adequacy of the standard as such.

The 1998 Noise Standard includes:

As a guide to the limits of acceptability, the sound level from the … windfarm … should not exceed, at any residential site, and at any of the nominated wind speeds, the background sound level (L95) by more than 5 dBA, or a level of 40 dBA L95, whichever is the greater.

The 2010 Noise Standard includes:

As a guide to the limits of acceptability at a noise sensitive location, at any wind speed wind farm sound levels LA90(10min) should not exceed the background sound level by more than 5dB, or a level of 40 dB LA90(10min),

whichever is the greater.

There are several changes that have been introduced in the 2010 Noise Standard, such as:

the replacement of the L95 descriptor with the L90 descriptor to bring it in line with the descriptor used in most jurisdictions for wind farm noise

the introduction of High Amenity areas with more onerous noise limits in special circumstances

the refinement of the assessment of Special Audible Characteristics (such as tonality) during compliance monitoring

an improvement to the recommended methodology for noise predictions as the methodology used in the 1998 Noise Standard, which underestimated the noise at residences, has been removed

the use of wind speeds referenced to hub height rather than 10 metres above ground to better predict noise in stable meteorological conditions.

In relation to the difference between the 1998 Noise Standard and the 2010 Noise Standard the 2010 Panel report stated:

We conclude that although [the 2010 Noise Standard] is an improvement on [the 1998 Noise Standard] in many ways, the difference that it makes in noise levels is probably small, and that difference is likely to only marginally reduce acceptable noise limits.

14 Appendix C: Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Environmental Noise Assessment, Sonus, May 2016.


Page 19

Although some of the methodology has changed, the overall noise limits established in accordance with the 1998 Noise Standard and the 2010 Noise Standard do not change significantly, as such there is a no significant change to the potential impact at residences resulting from the change in the Standard. That is, the change from the L95 descriptor to the L90 descriptor has the potential to increase the noise limit by less than 1 dBA and therefore makes the 2010 Noise Standard slightly more conservative.

Since the current permit was issued several landowners have entered commercial agreements with the Applicant. For these landowners, in accordance with the current conditions, the wind farm sound levels LA90(10min) should not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dB, or a level of 45 dB LA90(10min), whichever is the greater at their dwellings (‘participant dwellings’).

Discussion and conclusion

The planning policy framework seeks to facilitate the development of wind farms while ensuring nearby residents are protected from unreasonable levels of noise, and most importantly night time indoor noise levels.

In that regard, a wind farm must comply with noise limits in 2010 Noise Standard at all times. The 2010 Noise Standard specifies a general 40 dB LA90 limit, or the sound should not exceed the background sound level by more than five decibels, whichever is the greater. This limit intends to provide reasonable protection against sleep disturbance in a dwelling or a loss of amenity. The 2010 Noise Standard is based on The World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise assumption of a 15 dB LA90 reduction from outside to inside a house with the windows partially open for ventilation. Therefore, an indoor level of 30 dB LA90 equates to an outdoor noise level of 45 dB LA90. This approach is consistent with the current industry practice of using the recommendations outlined in the final report by The European Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines (ETSU‐R‐97) which allows for an increased base noise limit of 45 dB LA90.

Contrary to several submissions the 2010 Noise Standard does not have the objective of providing absolute protection; the standard does not provide that no audible wind turbine noise occurs under all wind speeds and locations or that the potential for sleep disturbance is completely mitigated.15 The proposition of inaudibility and no adverse noise effects is not practical. There are no sound sources for which such a criterion is adopted in Australia, and in this respect, there is no evidence to suggest sound from wind farms should be treated differently. It would be contrary to accepted effects‐based assessment, and regulatory and policy approaches to impose an absolute criterion of inaudibility for wind farm sound or any other sound.

It was suggested in by some submissions that wind farms should only be located where there is an exclusionary buffer suggested to be up to 10 kilometres. This Panel and the planning policy framework does not support this approach, as it is essentially seeking an inaudibility criterion. Further exclusionary buffers do not consider the actual noise effects

15 NZS 6808:2010, Section 1.2, p9.


Page 20

of a wind farm, which depend on many factors, all of which are addressed in the 2010 Noise Standard.

On this basis, this chapter addresses predicted compliance with NZS 6808:2010. The next chapter addresses potential adverse health effects, submitted to the Panel as being noise‐related.

In relation to a proposed change16 to existing condition 7 (EMP) to guard against the possibility that five yearly EMP review process leads to a change to noise limits, the Panel believes that because noise limits are expressly set in the noise limit conditions this is not likely. The proposed change could prevent contemporary standards for others matters being considered when the EMP is reviewed. The Panel does not support this amendment.

Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

Do not delete ‘and changes to environmental management standards’ in current condition 7.

(ii) High amenity areas

What is the issue

Clause 52.32‐4 of the Pyrenees Planning Scheme (and the WEF Guidelines) specifically requires the design response to include “an assessment of whether a high amenity noise limit is applicable, as assessed under Section 5.3 of the standard” (the 2010 Noise Standard).

Section 5.3 of the 2010 Noise Standard states that:

The wind farm noise limit of 40dB LA90(10min) in 5.2 is appropriate for protection of sleep, health and amenity of residents at most noise sensitive locations. In special circumstances at some noise sensitive locations a more stringent noise limit may be justified to afford a greater degree of protection of amenity during evening and night time. A high amenity noise limit should be considered where a plan promotes a higher degree of protection of amenity related to the sound environment of a particular area ...

Discussion

The Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) considered the applicability of ‘high amenity areas’ in the context of the Victorian planning framework in Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Mitchell Shire Council & Others [2013] VCAT 521. In this case VCAT found that “plan” referred to in section 5.3 of the 2010 Noise Standard is a plan as defined by the Resources Management Act 1991 of New Zealand and that section 43AA of that Act defines ‘plan’ to mean ‘a regional plan or a district plan’. No such plan explicitly exists under the Victorian legislation; however, it could be considered to mean a planning scheme approved under P&E Act.



Page 21

Nevertheless, VCAT found the Mitchell Planning Scheme “did not anywhere expressly or by implication ‘promote a higher degree of protection of amenity related to the sound environment of a particular area’”. This means that the Farming Zone (FZ), as is the case at Stockyard Hill, does not imply that a particularly quiet environment should be preserved.17

The following points are noted about the FZ classification:

The definition of FZ in the Pyrenees Planning Scheme is not considered to promote a higher degree of protection of amenity related to the sound environment.

The Practice Note prepared by the Department of Sustainability and Environment titled Applying the rural zones and dated March 2007 states the following:

The Farming Zone is designed to encourage diverse farming practices, some of which can have significant off‐site impacts. For this reason, the level of amenity that can be expected in this zone will usually not be compatible with sensitive uses, particularly housing.

Regarding the properties in the Rural Living Zone (a cluster of properties to the south of the Beaufort township), predicted wind farm noise levels (as detailed in Appendix H of the Sonus Report) are below 35 dB LA90 and therefore, the test detailed in C5.3.1(a) of the 2010 Noise Standard, would not be met, that is:

… there is no need to consider noise sensitive locations outside the predicted 35 dB LA90(10 min) wind farm sound level contour ...

This Panel is conscious that some submitters appeared to believe that the adoption of NZS 6808:2010 would carry with it acceptance of the area proposed for the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm as a high amenity area for noise. A number referred to the quietness of the area and the distance at which they could sometimes hear noises. Noise measurements provided showed noise levels at times below 30 dBA. Even so the Panel was not presented with any compelling evidence to show that the acoustic environment in the area is atypically low for land in the FZ. More importantly, it has not been presented with any evidence which indicates the acoustic environment of the area has changed since the 2010 Panel Report, which found the high amenity noise limit was not justified.

Conclusion

The Panel is not persuaded that it is appropriate to recommend a high amenity noise environment be recognised in the area, or referenced in conditions.

(iii) Limits for ultrasound, infrasound and ground vibration

Several submitters raised concerns in relation to ultrasound, infrasound and ground vibration.

It is not clear how these emissions would be different with the revised layout, but in any case, the 2010 Noise Standard does not require applicants to predict or assess these matters. Section 5.5 of the 2010 Noise Standard states:

17 Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Mitchell SC & Ors [2013] VCAT 521 at para 107‐109.


Page 22

Although wind turbines may produce some sound at (ultrasound and infrasound) frequencies considered to be outside the normal range of human hearing these components will be well below the threshold of human perception.

“Claims have been made that low frequency sound and vibration from wind turbines have caused illness and other adverse physiological effects among a very few people worldwide living near wind farms. The paucity of evidence does not justify at this stage, any attempt to set a precautionary limit more stringent” than the background sound level plus 5 dB, or a level of 40 dB LA90(10 min), whichever is the greater.

No recommendations for assessing the potential impact of ground‐borne vibration are made because such vibration is not perceptible beyond the boundary of the wind farm.

The 2010 Noise Standard’s approach to these matters is supported by the Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and Department of Health Technical Bulletin (April 2013) Wind farms, sound and health and in a paper by Dr Stephen Chiles (Chairman of the NZS 6808:2010 Technical Committee) to the Journal of New Zealand Acoustics18.

The Panel has not considered these matters further.

3.3 Noise assessment

(i) Sound power levels

What is the issue

Most submitters raised concerns regarding the increase in size of turbines and the proposed significant increase in rotor tip speed and swept area. Intuitively many submitters contended this must result in a proportional and/or significant increase in turbine sound power.

Evidence and submissions

The uncontested expert evidence of Mr Turnbull was the noise from a wind turbine is not proportional to the size of the blades and therefore the noise does not increase proportionately with an increase in the swept area of the blades. On the contrary, he indicated that the size of blades has increased considerably over the years, without noise levels increasing significantly. In 2002, he assessed a wind farm with a rotor diameter of 64 m, which had a sound power level of 109 dBA. The Stockyard Hill noise assessment has been conducted based on three indicative turbines with rotor diameters ranging between 126 and 140 metres. The highest sound power levels for these turbines range between 104 dBA and 106 dBA.

Sound power levels are used in noise models such as that used in the Sonus noise assessment and the Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) peer review. Uncertainties from the

18 New Zealand Acoustics, 2010, Vol.23/#2, p 20‐22.


Page 23

IEC61400‐11 measurements translate into uncertainties in model predictions. The MDA peer review indicated that the generally accepted uncertainty with the IEC61400‐11 measurement is ± 1 to 2 dBA and if this uncertainty tolerances were included in the Sonus report it would likely increase predicted noise levels by 1 to 2 dBA. This is consistent with Mr Huson’s evidence where he recommends an additional 2 dBA be applied to the sound power levels used in the Sonus noise modelling.

In response, the Sonus noise assessment report states:

These sound power levels are the specified levels provided by the manufacturer and therefore include a factor for uncertainty (in noise produced by different turbines of the same model) above measured sound power levels. The manufacturers often note that an additional factor can be applied for the uncertainty associated with measuring sound power levels (for variation in measurement instruments etc.). This additional factor has not been specifically added to the sound power levels used in the noise modelling, although the use of the Leq data in lieu of the L90 level (as specified by [the 2010 Noise Standard]) effectively adds approximately 2 dB(A) to the predicted noise levels. It is recommended that the sound power levels and uncertainty be guaranteed by the manufacturer prior to procurement.

To compare the Sonus results, MDA in their peer review carried out a noise assessment using ISO 9613‐2:1996 as implemented in version 7.4 of SoundPLAN using the highest sound power level turbine (106.0 dB LWA at a hub height wind speed of 10 m/s). The comparative study showed predictive noise levels:

at all noise participating dwellings comply with the applicable base noise limit of 45 dB L90 using both the CONCAWE and ISO 9613‐2:1996; and

using CONCAWE are more conservative (predicted higher noise levels) than using ISO 9613‐2:1996 at all assessed dwellings by up to 3 dBA.

The net result is that the Sonus predictions are generally comparable with an assessment using the ISO 9613‐2:1996 prediction methodology in conjunction with sound power level data which includes explicit consideration of uncertainty tolerances.

Discussion and conclusion

The Panel is satisfied that the noise assessment:

using CONCAWE and ISO 9613‐2:1996 result in higher predicted noise levels than would occur for the vast majority of the conditions and therefore the result is an appropriately conservative assessment

by Sonus using CONCAWE effectively and adequately considers the sound power uncertainty matters raised by Mr Huson and others.

The Panel is also reassured that irrespective of the noise modelling assessment uncertainty, the permit conditions provide a robust framework to ensure compliance with NZS 6808:2010 following commissioning and during operation. Evidence before the Panel has shown consistent alignment between predictive noise modelling and post‐construction monitoring for wind farms in Australia.


Page 24

(ii) Turbine separation

Mr Huson in his evidence argues that the reduction in wind turbine spacing combined with the increased rotor size may result in increased wake turbulence and wind shear, and result in increased sound pressure levels, beating and directional effects enhancing propagation. While he conceded that it may be possible to install larger turbines having the same sound power level (measured in accordance with IEC61400‐11) as the permitted turbines, he considered there will be a significant increase in sound power from the amended application.

Mr Huson and others made frequent reference to the NSW Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) Wind Energy Handbook 2012 and the rule of thumb for spacing, that is: “A wind farm layout must take into account that turbines have substantial ‘wakes’, which interfere with each other depending on wind direction and spacing. The general rule of thumb for spacing (the ‘5r‐8r rule’) is five times rotor diameter abreast and eight times rotor diameter downwind.” The Panel accepts Mr Huson’s evidence that the average minimum spacing between turbine towers for the currently approved wind turbine layout and the amended layout is 535 and 581 metres respectively. Mr Huson argues because the spacing is less than that recommended as the minimum by SEDA, the amended Permit will increase wind turbine wake turbulence, noise emissions and will decrease the efficiency of the wind farm.

Mr Huson argued that several variables such as turbulence, wind shear, inflow angle and air density may differ (and make the turbine louder) at an installed site compared to the simple sound power measurement results provided by turbine manufacturers using IEC 61400‐1119. In summary, he concluded that the potential for increased sound power levels from larger rotors and reduced spacing has not been considered in the Sonus report and CONCAWE modelling.

The Applicant in submissions maintained that the Panel should reject Mr Huson’s argument and any consideration of the SEDA policy outright.

The Panel accepts the evidence and concerns of submitters that reduced spacing (caused by increased rotor size) could result in increased sound power, however the Panel also accepts the evidence of Mr Turnbull and MDA that the two noise assessments undertaken adequately take these matters into account and in both cases noise compliance is predicted.

(iii) The indicative and final turbine

It is normal in planning applications for an applicant to nominate an ‘indicative’ turbine model rather than specify the one which would be used. The reason is that during the (often several) years between project approval and commitment to proceed there can be major changes in utility scale turbine types available on the market. The Panel understands the Applicant’s reluctance to commit to a turbine model at this point.

19 Sound power levels for wind turbines are measured in accordance with international standard IEC61400‐11.


Page 25

The 2010 Panel and this Panel’s position is that it is acceptable that the noise assessment presented by the Applicant uses three indicative turbines. The predicted noise levels for the amended wind farm is based on the General Electric GE3.2‐130, the Vestas V136 3.45MW STE and the Senvion 3.4M‐140 at a hub height of 110 metres height and wind speeds of 11 m/s, 10 m/s and 9 m/s respectively. Once a final turbine model is selected, the noise assessment must be repeated using the acoustic characteristics of that chosen model to establish compliance with NZS 6808:2010, and its approval then can be considered under secondary consent.

It is not possible to entirely avoid secondary consent processes. However, the Panel is satisfied that if, in the assessment of noise impact of the final turbine model, there is a direct comparison between it and the indicative ones used, then the process would be satisfactory.

If it can be demonstrated that no modelling of wind farm noise is justified (i.e. via use of a quieter final turbine model than the indicative models), the reassessment can be limited by providing that information to the Minister for Planning.

The Applicant is not seeking to amend existing condition 25.

(iv) Noise modelling

The Applicant’s noise assessment20 includes an assessment of the amended wind farm by comparing predicted noise levels for three indicative turbine models against the noise limits of the 2010 Noise Standard.

The assessment indicates that predicted noise levels will be below the noise limits for all participant and non‐participant dwellings for the three indicative turbine models. Figure 2 shows the noise prediction contour for the highest predicted noise level, in relation to participant and non‐participant dwellings21.

The Applicant concludes that the proposed amendment will not result in a material change in potential impact from noise and the wind farm is expected to comply with NZS 6808:2010 noise limits.

20 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Environmental Noise Assessment, Sonus, May 2016. 21 A participant dwelling means a dwelling on land listed in the Address of the Land in the Permit or where the

landowner has a written agreement relating to their land and dealing with noise from the permitted wind turbines. A non‐participant dwelling means any dwelling that is not a participant dwelling.


Page 26

Figure 2: Noise contours

Peer review of noise assessment

MDA was commissioned by the Applicant to undertake a peer review of the Sonus report.

MDA found that the noise impact assessment detailed in the Sonus report is generally in accordance with relevant guidance documents, namely the noise Standard and the WEF Guidelines.

Several technical and procedural matters were identified. However, MDA found these issues to either have no significant consequence on the outcomes of the assessment, or relate to matters which could be suitably addressed at later stages of the development. The peer review supported the compliance conclusions of the Sonus report, namely that:

The assessment indicates that the amended wind farm will achieve the environmental noise related requirements of the 2010 Noise Standard and the WEF Guidelines.

(v) Criticisms of the assessment

What is the issue

The key question before this Panel is whether the noise assessment has been undertaken in accordance with NZS 6808:2010. If predications say it will comply, can the Panel have confidence in the predications and ultimately whether the wind farm is likely to comply once operational.


Page 27

The Applicant has also sought relatively minor amendments to the existing noise modelling condition 23.

Discussion

Subject to areas of uncertainty (for background noise monitoring) discussed elsewhere in this chapter, the Panel acknowledges that the noise assessments by Sonus and MDA has been carried in accordance with NZS 6808:2010.

The predictive modelling is a technically complex issue. It is an important issue because it provides the initial assessment of sensitive locations, in this case non‐stakeholder dwellings that may be affected by wind turbine noise. The Panel concludes that the 35 and 40 dBA noise contour for wind farm noise provides a satisfactory initial identification of dwellings that may be affected noise from wind turbines.

The Panel believes that the noise assessments provide a satisfactory assessment of the likely spatial impact of wind turbine noise.

The Panel notes that any predicative noise assessment will have some degree of uncertainty and no matter how exhaustive or through some uncertainty will always exist; the question is whether this uncertainty is significant or not.

The Panel heard evidence and submissions which argue the Applicant, their consultant or turbine manufacturers, could intentionally or unintentionally underestimate noise emissions and predictions. The Panel is reluctant to accept these claims for the following reasons:

Regardless of any noise predictions, a compliance assessment using sound measurements is required once a wind farm is operating. Therefore, any significant errors in the predictions will be found during commissioning, and will be required to be rectified to achieve compliance with the noise limits.

The 2010 Noise Standard suggests the use of the ISO 9613‐2 or equivalent (that is CONCAWE). These prediction methods have been in use for wind farms in Australia and internationally for over a decade. This Panel is not aware and was not made aware of any cases where significant errors have been found. This was Mr Turnbull’s uncontested evidence and that of the NZS 6808:2010 Technical Committee22. In practice, predicative noise modelling has been shown to be accurate.

The Applicant, their consultant and/or the turbine manufacturer have an interest to ensure accurate wind farm noise predications. If they are not accurate this could significantly impact the viability of the project, cause a major dispute, delays and expose the parties to significant financial, community, political, legal and reputational risk.

Even so the 2010 Panel report diligently identified areas which undermined their confidence in the previous noise assessment (e.g. adequacy of background noise monitoring and assessment of indicative turbine). In response to concerns, they recommended conditions which required additional background noise monitoring, additional noise modelling, noise

22 Dr Stephen Chiles, 2010, Vol.23/#2, New Zealand Acoustics, p 20‐22.


Page 28

compliance testing, noise compliance enforcement, management of noise complaints and the development of an active noise management system. These recommended conditions were accepted and imposed by the Minister for Planning and importantly require compliance for all turbines at all times.

Conclusion

The Panel concludes that the relatively minor amendments to the existing noise modelling conditions 23 are acceptable.

3.4 Background noise monitoring

(i) What is the issue

The Application seeks removal of background noise measuring conditions.

(ii) Discussion

Establishing the background noise levels is critical. This is the foundation upon which the acceptable noise levels, the modelled compliance assessment, and the post‐construction compliance monitoring and enforcement rests.

The approach is to establish the background noise levels at various locations in the absence of the wind farm, use these levels as the basis for a specified noise increment, and hence determine the ‘acceptable noise limit’. This limit then defines the maximum level for the initial assessment of expected noise. Vitally, it is the noise limit that must be shown to be met for post‐construction monitoring and hence demonstration of compliance.

The 2010 Panel and several submitters raised concerns regarding aspects of background monitoring taken at the time. The 2010 Panel considered this matter in some detail and raised several valid concerns. This Panel has been interested to understand whether these concerns and the applicable Ministerial conditions have been subsequently addressed by the Applicant or not. The 2010 Panel view on these matters is best reflected in the following23:

The Applicant has submitted that the number of background noise monitoring sites, the predominant use of stakeholder dwellings, the use of the single meteorological mast, and the estimation of wind speed data by extrapolation to hub height are all consistent with NZS 6808:1998. We agree that this is so. However, given recent well publicised concerns about wind farm noise and suggested health impacts we are disappointed that the Applicant has not gone beyond technical compliance to provide background noise monitoring data that provides as robust and comprehensive information as possible. This would provide a firmer foundation for assessing noise compliance and reducing the likelihood of an unsatisfactory noise outcome. We are of the view that the background noise monitoring that has been presented, while technically defensible in terms of NZS 6808:1998 requirements, does not have

23 p184, Stockyard Hill wind farm Pyrenees and Corangamite planning schemes permit applications PL‐

SP/05/0548, P2009/105 and P/2009/104, Panel Report, August 2010.


Page 29

a ’good look’ in the present wind farm public image. The planning system is best served by more comprehensive background noise monitoring.

Further, we consider that the number of background noise measurement sites leads to some uncertainty in the characterisation of the noise background over such a large WEF site. We therefore believe that more substantial background noise monitoring is needed prior to construction.

The 2010 Panel made recommendations in relation to additional background noise monitoring and accordingly the Minister for Planning imposed conditions 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 requiring additional background monitoring. The Applicant has undertaken additional background noise monitoring. In evidence and submissions, the Applicant argues that the background monitoring undertaken is extensive; this may be true. In his evidence, Mr Huson accepted that the number of monitoring locations was not unreasonable, however drew attention to the fact that additional monitoring has not been undertaken in full compliance with conditions 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

The Panel appreciates the additional noise monitoring undertaken is extensive, however it agrees with Mr Huson. It would have been helpful to the Panel if the Applicant had specifically reflected and responded to the concerns of the 2010 Panel more fully and demonstrated compliance with the conditions by tabling written clearance from the Minister for Planning.

Instead the Applicant has chosen to undertake additional background noise monitoring in manner they choose and now seeks to replace condition 18 and delete conditions 19, 20, 21 and 22 to achieve retrospective compliance on the basis, condition 18 is replaced with a “more contemporary condition” and conditions 19, 20, 21 and 22 is deleted because:

These measurements have now been conducted and are summarised in Appendix D. Therefore, condition is no longer required.24

This is not a satisfactory approach in the Panel’s view.

The Panel understands the Applicant’s desire to ‘refresh’ several conditions in line with the guideline ‘example’ permit conditions, however the Panel must be mindful of the specific circumstances of the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm project and the existing environment and community. Furthermore, it cannot ignore the valid concerns of the previous Panel, actual Ministerial conditions and submit to example conditions.

In principle, this Panel takes the view that the 2010 Panel report and the conditions imposed by the Minister remain valid. Panels are not an audit or compliance agency, it is not the Panel’s role to determine if an Applicant has or has not satisfactorily complied with Ministerial conditions. The April 2016 Sonus report “Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Background Noise Monitoring” makes no reference to these conditions (18 to 22) and the report has not put forward a case that is satisfies these conditions; in detail or intent. Further it is disappointing that the MDA peer review excluded an evaluation of the Sonus Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Background Monitoring Noise report.



Page 30

The main Sonus report25 on pages 8 and 9 contains critical commentary on conditions 18, 19 and 20, claiming they are “impractical”, “ambiguous” or “cannot be achieved”. This Panel does not share that view:

Condition 18(d) is only impractical when the risk of non‐complying wind farm becoming compliant arises because the Applicant has collected insufficient data, as noted in NZS 6808:2010 (Section 7.2.1): “The number of measurements made shall be sufficient to allow dependable correlations to be obtained between the sound levels and the wind speeds (see 7.4 and 7.5).” Condition 20(d) rightly requires a minimum of 4,000 ten‐minute data pairs. Again, this Panel concurs with the assessment made by the 2010 Panel in relation to wind direction (Section 8.6.4) and supports existing conditions 18(d), 20(e), 21 and 22.

Condition 19 is not ambiguous; it is common for specialists undertaking technical assessments to make a written statement regarding the confidence, uncertainty and limitations of results.

The Panel accepts that condition 20(a) cannot be achieved if the national Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) does not provide an approval for the signatory/author of the background noise assessment. The intent however is reasonable and clear. The condition intends that equipment needs to be calibrated and checked by a NATA accredited organisation, the Panel understands this occurs. The Panel proposes to amend this condition to ensure the operation of the equipment is undertaken by a trained, qualified and experienced individual.

In summary, the Panel is concerned that the Applicant is seeking to remove existing Ministerial conditions that in evidence they have not complied with and their non‐compliance is at odds with the concerns and recommendations of the 2010 Panel. The Panel does not accept the existing background noise conditions are impractical, ambiguous or incapable of being met to the extent they should be deleted. The Panel is concerned the amendments proposed by the Applicant could weaken the background noise conditions. As with the 2010 Panel this Panel maintains the view the “planning system is best served by more comprehensive background noise monitoring”.

It would have been useful to the Panel if the Applicant submitted condition amendments which addressed matters of ambiguity and practicality, while still achieving the intent and substance of the 2010 Panel and Ministerial conditions. In conclusion, the Panel sees no compelling reason to amend these conditions; except to reflect changes in the windfarm itself, the 2010 Noise Standard and minor points of clarification.

(iii) Recommendation


Retain current conditions 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 making only minor amendments considering changes in the windfarm itself, the revised New Zealand Noise Standard NZS 6808:2010 and minor points of clarification.

25 Stockyard Hill Windfarm, Environmental Noise Assessment, Sonus, May 2016.


Page 31

3.5 Post‐construction compliance monitoring and management

(i) Special audible characteristics

The assessment of the special audible characteristics of a wind farm is an important component of determining noise compliance. The Panel understands special audible characteristics to be those distinct audible sounds that can be readily discerned from the more broadband noise from the wind farm. These sounds may be repetitive and of short duration or of a single frequency that may contribute little to the time averaged A–weighted noise measurement. Their distinctive character can be annoying.

Hence NZS 6808:2010 encourages wind farm design that ensures an absence of these special audible characteristics or, failing that, imposes a noise penalty.

The Panel believes that the assessment of special audible characteristics requires both objective, where possible, and subjective assessment; objective to measure the characteristic and subjective to ensure that the wind farm is indeed the source.

The Panel is not persuaded that it is reasonable or fair to apply the special audible characteristic penalty, and to do so in full, prior to construction. To simply transfer some experiences from elsewhere to this proposal is, in its judgement, not responsible. The Panel thinks it unlikely that a manufacturer would offer a turbine with known characteristics when the consequence could be a substantial noise penalty. Similarly, the Panel thinks it unlikely that the Applicant would design a configuration with known special audible characteristics. The Panel believes that design will seek to reduce the likelihood of special audible characteristics but their existence is essentially unknown until a post‐construction compliance assessment is made. This reinforces its position that it is not appropriate to apply the special audible characteristic penalty, and to do so in full, prior to construction.

The Panel heard submissions suggesting that the significant change in turbine height and rotor size could result in various noise concerns that were not so evident before, including special audible characteristics. The Panel would expect changes in scale would be considered in the design of the wind farm to minimise the likelihood of special audible characteristics.

The Panel believes that it is the best interests of all parties for special audible characteristics to be eliminated, as far as possible, by design, than have it assessed and controlled after commissioning.

In conclusion, the Panel believes that a penalty for special audible characteristics should not be applied prior to construction, and that elimination or minimisation of these potentially annoying acoustic characteristics should be achieved, wherever possible by design. Even so the application of the penalty for special audible characteristics is an aspect of compliance assessment. The Panel is therefore satisfied that special audible characteristics can be managed by the existing permit conditions.

(ii) Post‐construction compliance monitoring and management

The Panel believes that the post‐construction assessment of the noise of the operating wind farm is a critical issue that requires special attention. The importance of a robust post‐


Page 32

construction monitoring and management framework is discussed in detail in the 2010 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Panel report, the recent Environmental Effects Statement Inquiry into the Dundonnell Wind Farm and the Guidelines. The focus of evidence and submissions to it was on the noise assessment by the Applicant, and critiques of that from submitters, including the application of NZS 6808:2010 itself, rather than features of post‐construction noise assessment should a permit be issued. While the Panel agrees, this is a matter of critical importance, the Panel does not however propose to recanvas the issues in this report.

The Panel is reassured by the requirement for noise compliance testing, noise compliance enforcement and adaptive management in the existing permit conditions 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32. In this regard and as part of the amended Application the Applicant has sought to either amend or replace these conditions26. The Panel will focus on the merits or otherwise of making these amendments or replacements.

(iii) Provision of timely monitoring results

The Applicant is seeking to remove the requirement to provide timely monitoring results to the Minister for the Planning (26(c)) and the prescriptive requirement to undertake compliance testing at the same location as the background noise monitoring (26(c)).

The Panel agrees that “not more than 60 days” is probably unreasonable and may prejudice a proper assessment. However, the Panel is not inclined to remove a timeframe completely. The Panel believes 120 days is more reasonable, and propose condition 26(c) read as follows:

…the noise compliance testing plan must include advice on timing of the assessment including defining when commissioning of the wind energy facility, or an identified stage of it, will occur, and when the compliance noise monitoring results will be provided to the Minister for Planning. That time must not be more than 120 days after commissioning unless with the further consent of the Minister for Planning.

Section 7.5.1 of the 2010 Noise Standard does require, where practical post‐construction monitoring to be undertaken at the same locations where the background measurements were taken. On this basis, the Panel accepts in part the Applicant’s amendment and proposes that condition 26(e) read as follows:

…the noise compliance testing must be carried out at locations in accordance with NZS 6808:2010, that is where practical as identified in Conditions 19 d) – e).

(iv) Noise compliance plan

Condition 27 requires the noise compliance plan approved by the Minister to be implemented, condition 28 requires that any penalty for special acoustic characteristics be



Page 33

made, condition 29 provides a prescriptive process to bring any non‐compliance into compliance and condition 31 and 32 provide for an active noise management system.

The Applicant is seeking to replace all these conditions with the following:

a. Acoustic compliance reports shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent acoustic engineer to demonstrate compliance with the noise limits specified in the Standard.

b. Noise assessment positions must be located according to the Standard, and shown on a map. The map shall clearly identify each noise assessment position as either a participant or non‐participant dwellings.

c. An initial acoustic compliance report must be submitted within six months of the commissioning of the first turbine, and at six monthly intervals thereafter until full operation (following completion of construction and commissioning).

d. A final compliance report must be submitted to the responsible authority after a 12 month period following full operation of the facility.

e. Compliance reports should be publically available.

f. Following facility commissioning, all complaints shall be managed following procedures set out in the noise complaints management plan.

The Panel acknowledges these proposed conditions reflect Attachment B (Example permit conditions to be applied as appropriate) from the Guidelines. The Panel notes they are ‘example’ conditions and as such it regards them as a guide.

Considering the critical importance of this issue, the findings of the 2010 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Panel report, submissions and the intent and detail in the existing conditions, the amendments proposed by the Applicant are considered by this Panel as weakening post‐construction compliance and management requirements. Unless existing conditions are demonstrably deficient, inadequate, unreasonable or onerous, the Panel is reluctant to accept any amendments which would weaken or strengthen existing conditions. Most notably none of the replacement conditions provide for same level enforceability as existing condition 29.

In conclusion, the Panel sees no reason and has received no compelling argument to justifying the amendment or replacement of existing conditions 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32; except to reflect factual changes in the windfarm itself, the 2010 Noise Standard and minor points of clarification.


Amend current condition 26(c) to read:

“the noise compliance testing plan must include advice on timing of the assessment including defining when commissioning of the wind energy facility, or an identified stage of it, will occur, and when the compliance noise monitoring results will be provided to the Minister for Planning. That time must not be more than 120 days after commissioning unless with the further consent of the Minister for Planning”.


Page 34

Amend current condition 26(e) to read:

“the noise compliance testing must be carried out at locations in accordance with NZS 6809:2010, that is where practical, as identified in Conditions 19 d) – e).”

Do not amend current conditions 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32, except for minor amendments considering changes in the windfarm itself, the New Zealand Noise Standard 6808:2010 and minor points of clarification.

(v) Complaints

As contemplated by existing conditions 26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 31 and 32 project compliance should be achieved and maintained irrespective of complaints. While complaints may arise in relation to actual non‐compliance they may not.

Existing conditions 6(k) – Complaints Management Plan, condition 30 – Noise Complaints and condition 39 – Complaints made to the responsible authority provide a framework to receive, respond to, manage and close out complaints.

The Applicant seeks to replace existing condition 30 and 39 with the following:

Noise complaints evaluation

For the purposes of complaints evaluation, the following requirements apply:

a. Post installation sound levels shall, where practical, be measured at a selection of locations where the background sound levels were determined (GPS coordinates and a map showing these locations is to be provided).

b. If a non‐compliance is detected, or an acoustic investigation is required under the noise complaints plan, an independent assessment report must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent acoustic engineer to:

identify the weather or operational conditions associated with the complaint / breach

analyse the uncertainty and confidence levels in the monitoring, and the steps taken

to reduce uncertainty target assessment to identify the cause and remediation actions

submit a remediation plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority outlining, the investigation process, complainant communications, actions and timelines to resolve the complaint/breach

If the complaint is not resolved through the processes outlined above, the responsible authority may request an independent peer review at the cost of the permit holder and on/off shut down testing to resolve uncertainty.

c. Following the initial post‐construction reporting process, additional independent assessment may be requested by the responsible authority at any time, where complaints are received and are considered to reasonably warrant investigation.


Page 35

d. If investigations indicate special audible characteristics are potentially occurring, procedures outlined in Appendix B of the Standard should be applied.

Noise complaint response plan

Before the first turbine is commissioned, the permit holder must prepare a noise complaint investigation and response plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The plan shall include:

a process of investigation to resolve a complaint

a requirement that all complaints will be recorded in an incidents register

how contact details will be communicated to the public

a toll free telephone number and email contact for complaints and queries

details of the appropriate council contact telephone number and email address (where available)

a table outlining complaint information for each complaint received, including:

the complainant’s name

any applicable property reference number if connected to a background testing

location the complainant’s address

a receipt number for each complaint which is to be communicated to the complainant

the time, prevailing conditions and description of the complainant’s concerns

including the potential incidence of special audible characteristics the processes of investigation to resolve the complaint.

A report including a reference map of complaint locations, and outlining complaints, investigation and remediation actions is to be provided on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The register and complaints response process shall continue for the duration of the operation of the wind energy facility and must be made available to the responsible authority on request.

The owner of the wind energy facility must implement and comply with the Approved Noise Complaint, Investigation and Response Plan for the duration of the operation of the wind energy facility.

The Applicant supports DELWP’s approach for a single complaints management plan which means the removal of existing condition 6(k). Council sought changes to the way the complaints register was made public.


Page 36

Environmental Management Plan Condition k(ii):

The operator must make the register must be available for inspection by the public during normal working hours and its contents should be reported to the Minister for Planning:

on a quarterly basis from the date that the first wind turbine is commissioned

on an annual basis from the date two years after the last turbine is commissioned

with copies provided to Pyrenees Shire Council at the same time.

Again, the Panel acknowledges these proposed conditions (with some minor amendments) reflect Attachment B (Example permit conditions to be applied as appropriate) from the Guidelines. The Panel notes they are ‘example’ conditions and as such it regards them as a guide.

The Panel considers the proposed replacement conditions put forward by the Applicant add no significant value and neither strengthen or weaken the existing complaints framework under the existing permit conditions.

The Panel received no submissions or evidence that the existing conditions dealing with noise complaints are demonstrably deficient, inadequate, unreasonable or onerous. In a written submission, the Pyrenees Shire Council supports the current permit for the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm nominating the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority in relation to noise. They also contend that the Applicant’s amendments include inconsistences as to who the responsible authority is for the enforcement of several conditions, particularly those relating to noise monitoring and noise complaint handling.

In conclusion, the Panel sees no reason and have received no compelling argument to justifying the amendment or replacement existing conditions 6(k), 30 and 39; except to reflect factual changes in the windfarm itself, the 2010 Noise Standard and minor points of clarification.

The Panel agrees that timely and proactive forwarding of complaints register to Council is appropriate.

(vi) Recommendation


Revise the Environmental Management Plan condition k(ii) to read:

The operator must make the register available for inspection by the public during normal working hours and its contents must be reported to the Minister for Planning and Pyrenees Shire Council:

on a quarterly basis from the date that the first wind turbine is commissioned

on an annual basis from the date two years after the last turbine is commissioned.


Page 37

Do not amend current conditions 30 and 39, except for minor amendments considering changes in the windfarm itself, the New Zealand Noise Standard 6808:2010 and minor points of clarification.


Page 38

4 Health


Concerns were raised about the health impacts of the amended wind farm.

(ii) Evidence and submissions

Submissions on health impacts allegedly caused by wind farms have been common in many Panel and VCAT hearings in recent years and submissions to this project were no different. Significant submissions on the issue were provided and many other submissions raised the issue to some extent.

Ms Laurie stated27:

In my opinion, because of the existing failure of the [2010 Noise Standard] and the failure of the regulatory authorities in Victoria, to protect the health, and related human rights of Victorian residents at existing wind power developments “to enjoy the highest standard of physical health”, which is enshrined in six of the seven human rights Covenants and Conventions to which Australia is a signatory the amendments proposed to the original planning permit for Stockyard Hill Wind Power Development will directly result in even more serious and widespread harm to the health of the surrounding population of Stockyard Hill residents over the lifetime of this project, including wind turbine hosts and their families, than will inevitably occur if the original permit stands and the already approved wind turbines are constructed.

Some of the submitters put it to the Inquiry that their lives have been directly adversely affected by exposure to wind farms, and particularly infrasound, or sound at very low frequencies beyond audibility. Various health conditions were said to result from this exposure.

Submitters also provided copies of submissions to the recent Australian Senate Inquiry Select Committee on Wind Turbines from various parties and extracts from the Committee’s report, all suggesting some level of health effects.

(iii) Discussion and conclusions

What do personal testimonies tell us?

The purported health impacts were based on a number of propositions:

The cause of the health impacts is: - audible sound - a characteristic of inaudible infrasound - vibrations

27 Expert evidence paragraph 33.


Page 39

the onset of the health effects does not necessarily coincide with the commencement of the wind farm

a mechanism of ‘sensitisation’ means that the symptoms are felt at other locations than the wind farm.

There is no doubt that a number of people report adverse health impacts that they attribute to wind farms. The Panel does not doubt the personal testimony of individual submitters, but cannot see clear evidence of a causal link with wind farms. Indeed, the propositions that the onset of conditions can be delayed and then manifest themselves at a variety of locations suggests that wind farms are not the cause of people’s troubles. The critical causal links that the ill effects follow immediately after the establishment of the wind farm and are only manifest when the sufferer is near the wind farm are broken.

Evidence of adverse health impact reported by people near wind farm has no probative value without knowing what the incidence of such ailments are in the general population.

Is there an expert body of knowledge?

It was submitted that the Panel should not treat Ms Laurie as an expert. It is not clear to the Panel that membership of, or indeed a management role in, an organisation that is seeking to achieve policy change automatically rules a person out from giving expert evidence. Certainly, care must be taken in assessing such evidence, but it is at least conceivable, that a person seeks changes to policy based on an objective assessment of evidence, and that same assessment could be usefully presented to a panel, noting of course, that a person cannot be both a submitter and an expert for the same matter.

The Panel does not think the Ms Laurie’s position as the CEO of the Waubra foundation automatically rules her out from giving expert evidence. The issue is not that Ms Laurie advocates for people’s health, the issue is there is no useful evidence to support the basis on which she does this.

The Panel notes the analysis of the issue undertaken in a decision making context in the Cherry Tree Wind Farm VCAT case.28 This case contains a comprehensive consideration of the health issue. Some notable conclusions of the Tribunal are:

NSW and Victorian health authorities expressly state there is no evidence to link turbines and health and the views of public health authorities should be respected29

no evidence was called that would enable a contrary conclusion to be drawn to that of the health authorities30

the 2 kilometre buffer required by Clause 52.32 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme is precautionary in itself.31

Significantly, the Tribunal in Cherry Tree also noted that it is likely a small proportion of the population around a wind farm do suffer health effects, albeit that:

28 Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Mitchell Shire Council SC [2013] VCAT 1939. 29 At para 43. 30 At para 44. 31 At para 45. The Dundonnell Wind Farm has been developed on the same ‘2 kilometres’ basis in place

before Clause 52.32 was recently amended to make this distance 1 kilometre.


Page 40

The current state of scientific opinion is that there is no causal link of a physiological nature between these effects and the turbine.32

The Tribunal went on to conclude that even if it could be established that a small proportion of the community were adversely affected by a wind farm, it was not clear that this would be sufficient to refuse an wind farm application given they have strong planning policy support.33

The Panel can only conclude, as have other inquires and panel before it that:

that there is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans

the clear positions from the State and National Health Authorities is that there is no evidence of direct health effects.34

32 At para 46. 33 At para 47. 34 Including the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Inquiry also notes, but does not rely on,

additional research done by the South Australian EPA and Health Canada, for example, which also does not challenge the prevailing Authorities’ views.


Page 41

5 Landscape and visual impact

5.1 Introduction

(i) Background

The 2010 Panel considered the visual amenity impacts and landscape impacts of the permitted wind farm, as well as the heritage impacts on the viewshed of the Mawallok Homestead.

As the result of these considerations some turbines were removed from the original application and this is reflected in the fact the permitted wind farm has fewer turbines than were originally applied for.


The changes that have the potential to affect landscape and visual impact include:

a rotor diameter of up to 142 metres (an increase from the permitted blade length of 52 metres / rotor diameter of up to 104 metres)

a hub height of up to 120 metres (an increase from the permitted hub height of up to 80 metres)

a ground clearance from the bottom of the blades to the ground level not less than 32 metres (not previously specified)

a total blade tip height up to 180 metres (an increase from the permitted height of up to 132 metres).

5.2 Visual impact


Concerns were expressed about the impact of the amended wind farm on individual properties and the broader landscape.


Allan Wyatt undertook the Landscape and Visual Assessment for the original planning application while a partner at ERM. ERM prepared the following reports pertaining to landscape and visual impacts as part of the assessment of the original planning permit application, specifically:

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment as part of the Planning Application Report dated 6th February 2009.

Final Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment dated October 2009 as part of the Planning Permit Application.

Presentation of ‘Allan Wyatt – Expert Witness Statement’ dated 25 March 2010 and presentation of evidence at Panel hearing.

While at XURBAN, Mr Wyatt undertook a ‘Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment to accompany an Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548’ which was prepared by ERM under his direction and dated 21 April 2016.


Page 42

Since the submission of the Amendment Application Mr Wyatt prepared a letter of advice to Herbert Smith Freehills dated 12 August 2016 which in part found:

The level of impact brought about by the proposed Amendment Application and as shown in the photomontages would not alter the impact levels that was approved by Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548. The proposed amendment does not alter the quantum of the impact, that is the impact would not change from low to medium, or from medium to high as a result of a change from 104 metre diameter to 140 metre diameter.

Given this analysis of a much greater change, a further increase in the rotor diameter from 140 metre to 142 metre would be completely imperceptible.

The proposed change in rotor diameter will not result in a change in height. The overall height will remain at maximum height of 180 m.

The ERM assessment found that the proposed alteration in wind turbine diameter from 104 metre to 140 metre will result in a negligible alteration to the level of visual impact that was assessed and approved. The change in wind turbine rotor diameters from 140 metre to 142 metre will make no difference to this conclusion.

Mr Wyatt’s assessment is based on assessing zones of visual impact as described in Table 2.

It was submitted that the changes in turbine size meant that some turbines moved ‘up a category’ and therefore had more visual impact that the original permit.

Mr Wyatt assessed the impact of the larger turbines by considering a number of typical views:

Initially three locations were selected within the public domain and a photomontage was prepared showing both the full extent of the panoramic views as well as sheets which showed the changes in a 60° field of view.

These three photomontages were prepared by ERM under my direction in January 2016.

NVP01 – Beaufort‐Carranballac Road 0.2 kilometres to nearest wind turbine

NVP02 – Streathan‐Carngham Road 1.8 kilometres to nearest wind turbine

NVP03 – Skipton Road 0.3 kilometres to nearest wind turbine

Whilst preparing this report, I also revisited the site on the 23 January 2017 and prepared a fourth photomontage.

NVP04 – Chepstowe Pittong Road 3.9 kilometres to nearest wind turbine

Viewpoint NVP04 was prepared to show the difference in visual impact of the permitted turbines and the proposed amended turbines when viewed from the distance it is proposed to offer landscape mitigation to residential properties.


Page 43

Table 2: Zones of visual impact

Visual impact Approved layout (132 m)

Amended layout (180 m)

Visually insignificant

A very small element in the viewshed, which is difficult to discern and will be invisible in some lighting or weather circumstances.

>17 kilometres >20 kilometres

Potentially noticeable, but will not dominate the landscape

The degree of visual intrusion will depend on the landscape sensitivity and the sensitivity of the viewer, however the wind turbines do not dominate the landscape.

8.5 – 17 kilometres 10 – 20 kilometres

Potentially noticeable and can dominate the landscape

The degree of visual intrusion will depend on the landscape sensitivity and the sensitivity of the viewer.

3 – 8.5 kilometres 4 – 10 kilometres

Highly visible and will usually dominate the landscape

The degree of visual intrusion will depend on the wind turbines’ placement within the landscape and factors such as foreground screening.

1.5 – 3 kilometres 2 – 4 kilometres

Will be visually dominant in the landscape from most viewing locations

Dominates the landscape in which they are sited.

<1.5 kilometres <2 kilometres

Source: Wyatt evidence Table 2 Zones of visual impact


Page 44

Figure 3: Distances from turbines

Mr Wyatt assessed the potential for changes in impact associated with the Wind Farm on the basis of a comparison between the permitted and the amended wind farm. The key feature in this analysis is the proposed increase in turbine height and rotor diameter compared to the currently permitted turbines.

Mr Wyatt’s evidence concluded that, although there is a slight change in the degree of impact, the difference in visual impact between the approved layout and the proposed amended layout is negligible: the real visual impact of the Wind Farm is the presence of the turbines themselves.

The Applicant adopted Mr Wyatt’s evidence as the basis for its submissions.

With regard to the limited question before the Panel, the Applicant submitted that:


Page 45

The Panel should adopt the evidence of Mr Wyatt that the alteration of height and rotor diameter will have a negligible visual impact above that of the approved Wind Farm. The Applicant further submits that these findings do not present any grounds for refusal of the Amendment Application. To the contrary, it is submitted that Mr Wyatt’s evidence demonstrates that the changes sought by the Applicant are strongly supported by the planning policies referred to earlier in these submissions.

The Applicant submitted that the WEF Guidelines include additional policy regarding significant landscapes, requiring an assessment of visual impact to take account of landscape values associated with nearby land. According to the WEF Guidelines, the determination of whether a proposal is acceptable is one which requires consideration of the planning scheme objectives for the landscape, including whether the land is subject to an Environment Significance Overlay, Vegetation Protection Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay or “relevant strategic study that is part of the relevant planning scheme”.35 Neither the Wind Farm site nor surrounding land is covered by a Significant Landscape Overlay. No overlays with landscape protection apply to the Wind Farm site. The land is within the Farming Zone, and this is to be distinguished from other rural zones which have as part of their purposes a rural residential amenity expectation.

The South West Victorian Landscape Assessment Study (2013) (SWVLAS) does not have the status of a document ‘referenced in the planning scheme’, as identified in section 2.2.2 of the WEF Guidelines.

The Hawkers and Carmel Callus presented photomontages of the amended wind farm as viewed from their properties. These montages did not compare the amended wind farm to the permitted wind farm.

(iii) Discussion

As acknowledged in the WEF Guidelines, “wind energy facilities will have a degree of impact on the landscape”. In relation to submissions that raised concerns that the increased turbine height and rotor diameter would result in a significant visual impact, the Panel agrees with Mr Wyatt that the comparative assessment of the permitted wind farm against the amended wind farm demonstrates that the level of difference is not significant.

The Panel must consider the impact of the additional height of the turbines, together with the reduced number of turbines when compared with the permitted wind farm and not the comparison with a ‘no turbines’ scenario.

Photomontages that did not present an ‘approved’ and ‘proposed’ view were of limited value to the Panel: the issue is the change from the approved permit, not the existing landscape.

The issue is whether the revised permit has such a different impact on the landscape that, either:

35 Wind Energy Guidelines, p32.


Page 46

the amendment should be refused

some turbines should be deleted or moved.

Wind farms are obvious features in a landscape. The threshold issue – determined by the permitted wind farm – is whether a wind farm is appropriate in this landscape. It is conceivable that a change in the layout of a windfarm might introduce views of turbines into views or vistas where they were not previously visible. This might be a ground for refusing the Application if those views have a higher policy protection than the views originally impacted. The Panel was not presented with any evidence that this was the case here.

In terms of overall impact on the landscape values of the area, the Panel considers that the amended wind farm will have a similar impact to the permitted wind farm. The Application certainly has the potential to be taller and therefore visible from a larger area, but the Panel does not consider that this change will be a qualitatively different to the permitted wind farm.

The 2010 Panel made it clear that it recommended approval on the basis that the proposal would have a major impact on the landscape:

In our view the proposed WEF would have a major landscape impact within the project area. In some directions across the basalt plain, mainly to the south and west, it would be clearly visible for up to or beyond the 17 kilometres distance at which Mr Wyatt considers the visual impact of wind turbines to be insignificant.

Landscape effects in the public domain would be especially substantial in and around the central sector of the wind farm itself. The view from the public roads near the Blacks Creek Nature Reserve … would be severely impacted even under the amended Application: scores of turbines in both the central, northwest and southeast sectors would be visible in an interrupted 270 degree arc with the closest turbines being sited around 2 kilometres away.

Impacts on the waterbody‐based landscapes around Lake Goldsmith (recognised in the planning scheme) and Black Lake would again be substantial – with large numbers of turbines presenting at close range.

We have noted also that the wind farm would be visible from parts of the Glenelg Highway which is not consistently tree‐lined and from sections of the Skipton Rail Trail near Skipton.

Views from public places and reserves to the north of the site would be less severely impacted due to vegetation and topography. Views from townships with the exception of the higher parts of Skipton south of the highway and the northern periphery – both inspected by the Panel – would not be significantly affected.

…

The proposed removal by the Applicant of the following turbines would, however, somewhat alleviate the high level visual amenity impacts at the most affected residences …


Page 47

Despite the above proposed removals, several non‐participating properties would still experience substantial visual impacts – some due to proximity of turbines and some due to numbers of turbines in wide viewscapes. A number of other properties would also experience lesser degrees of visual impact that may not be considered desirable by them.

…

Our overall finding is that subject to the amendments proposed during the hearing to remove turbines from the proposal and the further turbine removal recommended in Section 10, the landscape and visual impacts which would occur would be considerable but would not be such that the policy directive for them to be ‘read down’ should be set aside.

Given the similar geographical extents of both the permitted and the amended wind farm, the reduction in wind turbine numbers would lead to a reduction in the magnitude of landscape and visual change experienced by receptors. This is offset by an increase in wind turbine height proposed by the Application.

The Panel agrees with submissions that the major difference from a visual perspective is between the ‘no turbines’ scenario and the permitted turbines and not the amended when compared to the permitted turbines

The Panel concludes that while the turbines will be visible from further away a comparison of the visual impact of the permitted and the amended wind farm, from a range of viewing distances, shows the impacts will be of the same nature.

The Panel acknowledges that the Application will result in a minor increase in impacts upon landscape and visual receptors within the study area, relative to the permitted wind farm, but considers that the potential changes in the magnitude of visual impact between the permits and the amended wind farm to be relatively insignificant.

5.3 Mawallok


The original permit removed turbines to preserve a view from the Mawallok Homestead. The issue is whether the view or views identified by the 2010 Panel are still preserved.


Mr Wyatt assessed the changed impact from Mawallok as part of the “Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to accompany an Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548” and this reassessment showed a wireframe view of the permitted wind farm as well as a wireframe view of the proposed amended wind farm. These images are reproduced below, and show there is no difference.


Page 48

Figure 4: Photomontage view of permitted wind farm

Source: Figure 13 Wireframe of permitted wind farm (Source ERM)

Figure 5: Photomontage view of amended wind farm

Source: Figure 14 Wireframe of amended wind farm (Source ERM)

This assessment concluded that:

The wireframe prepared shows that all turbines to the north are not visible, including the permitted wind farm and the amended wind farm. Therefore, the change in visual impact from “Mawallok” is assessed as Nil.

The Mawallok Pastoral Company Pty Ltd engaged Mr Dennis Williamson of Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd to give evidence in respect of visual impacts on the Mawallok Homestead. Mr Patrick, also giving evidence for Mawallok relied on Mr Williamson’s photomontages. Mr Wyatt will address issues raised by these statements in evidence. Ultimately, the Panel will need to make its assessment of the amended wind farm in accordance with the guidance provided in the planning scheme, in particular with reference to Clause 52.32 and the Wind Energy Guidelines bearing in mind the already approved Wind Farm layout.

Mr Williamson gave evidence that:

Although the 2010 analysis and Planning Panel decision regarding Mawallok hinged on the single photomontage view taken from the central terrace area, it is important to recognise that garden visitors and the Mitchell family do explore all parts of the garden and the terrace. Protection of the exemplary scene to the northerly landscape should not be limited exclusively to a single viewpoint, but consider that the photomontage positions are "representative" of what can be seen from particular areas of the garden. For this reason, I would suggest that not only should equal protection be given to the views from VP2A, VP2B and VP2C, but other similar views possible from that portion of the garden where focal views to the northerly landscape are possible. This extends as far north as the golf putting green and flag within the central garden area, as seen in the photomontage for VP2A or VP2B.


Page 49

The proposed alterations that would create the most undesirable visual impacts as seen from the critical southern garden areas, include Turbines Al, A2, A3 and A4, as well as the MET Tower. I believe that the visual impacts that these alterations would cause would have the same negative impact on the heritage significance and visual quality of views as those turbines that were previously not allowed by the Planning Panel during 2010. Their impact would certainly not be "negligible" as described by the ERM report but moderately high to very high. (Other research studies have demonstrated that as wind turbines become larger, their visibility and relative visual impact increases notably over that of smaller turbines viewed at the same distances. 28 29 3° 31 and 180 metre to 190 metre turbines are among the largest and greatest visual magnitude in Australia.)

(iii) Discussion

The Panel was not impressed by Mr Williamson’s evidence. Under cross examination he conceded that his photomontages omitted a number of approved turbines, thereby giving a completely misleading impression of the effect of the changes proposed. He did not offer to furnish revised montages.

It is not the role of this Panel to revisit the decision of the 2010 Panel. The 2010 Panel made it clear that that central view was the key design element:

Mr Lovell agreed under questioning that the northern vista was probably the key design element. We are persuaded that this is the case having regard to the siting of the house itself and the careful framing of the view in the Guilfoyle plan. This view is not just any view from the Mawallok garden, as Mr Raworth said, but is: a fundamental design consideration in the generation of an important garden by an important designer.

It is this key element of the garden design which would be affected by the 14 or so remaining turbines north of Toppers Lane – there would therefore be a substantial erosion of the significance of the place in as much as the hitherto unaltered view to a pastoral scene and natural landscape would be severely intruded upon.36

The 2010 Panel did not try to protect all views from the garden:

We recognise that as one moves into the garden a wider external view becomes available in which peripheral turbines would be seen even if the ones in the terrace view were to be removed. We think that new plantings should be considered as appropriate to deal with those turbine views (as the views are less essential to the significance of the garden) and the views of other turbines which may become available as ageing windbreaks die off and are removed. We were advised that replanting of the older windbreaks is already occurring. We also think that views in other directions from the Mawallok

36 p325.


Page 50

property (some of which were referred to by Mr Peter Mitchell in his personal submission) which are less critical to its significance can also be dealt with by screen planting if require37

The Panel is satisfied that the amendment preserves the views identified by the current permit.

5.4 Landscape mitigation

The current permit requires that offers of landscape mitigation be made to 3 kilometres. Taking into account the changes proposed by amended wind farm, Mr Wyatt recommended that the mitigation be extended to residential properties within 4 kilometres of a visible turbine. In his view, the increase in height and blade diameter can be effectively ameliorated by extending the option for landscaping as suggested. The Application includes an alteration to the landscape mitigation condition which gives effect to Mr Wyatt’s recommendation.

The Panel supports this approach.

37 p326.


Page 51

6 Flora and native vegetation

6.1 Introduction

(i) Background

The current permit allows for the removal of native vegetation. The key issues that informed the current permit were the impact of the footprint of these works on listed threatened vegetation communities, particularly native grasslands and impacts on listed threatened flora species.

The current permit provides for the removal of 5.28 hectares (3.09 habitat hectares) of native vegetation. The native vegetation offset requirements were determined in accordance with the Native Vegetation Management Framework (2002).38

The existing permit also required that further field surveys be undertaken to ascertain the presence of areas of native grassland communities and the presence of threatened species of flora.

The previous Panel considered Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) in its role as an Advisory Committee under the P&E Act. In consideration of this proposed amendment, the Applicant is responsible for the management of these matters with the Commonwealth. The Panel was advised that the proposed amendments have been referred to the Commonwealth for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) due to the predicted impacts on MNES (for example, Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (‘temperate volcanic grasslands EVC’), Striped Legless Lizard and Golden Sun Moth). The decision of the Commonwealth will form part of the project approval.


The key construction elements associated with the proposed amended permit, that have implications for flora and native vegetation, are provided below. In summary, the physical ground footprint for the proposed amended wind farm and associated components is larger.

38 Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action (DNRE 2002).


Page 52

Table 3: Changes to the Wind Energy Facility affecting vegetation

Parameter Permitted Amendment sought Change

Number and size of turbines.

157 turbines.

132 metres above natural ground level.

149 turbines.

180 metres above natural ground level.

Reduced number of turbines. Larger size and larger footings (50 metres x 70 metres compared with 40 metres x 25 metres).

Length and width of access tracks.

Approximately 116 kilometres. Width 5 metres.

Approximately 110 kilometres. Width of access tracks 12.5 metres. Trunk road width 13.5 metres.

Reduced length of track. Revised design results in an increase in track width. Original assessment did not report any requirement for native vegetation clearance for access tracks.

Underground cabling.

Approximately 142 kilometres.

Approximately 138 kilometres. 3 metre wide clearance for cabling.

Revised design assumes cabling outside access track footprint. Original assessment assumed cabling within the access track and did not report any requirement for native vegetation clearance for underground cabling.

Internal overhead powerlines.



Reduction of 31 kilometres. Sections of internal powerline replaced by external powerline. Original assessment did not report any requirement for native vegetation clearance for internal powerlines.

Table 4: Changes to external roadside and intersection upgrades affecting vegetation


External road works/intersections impact area.

Impact area not quantified. Permit required further vegetation surveys be undertaken.

Impact area 47.4 hectares including existing roads.

Original assessment did not report any requirement for native vegetation clearance for external roadworks.


Page 53

Table 5: External overhead powerline – application for vegetation removal.


Length of external overhead 132kV powerline.

Length 58 kilometres, connecting to Berrybank. Clearance widths not specified.

Permit required further vegetation surveys be undertaken.

Length 75 kilometres connecting to south of Lismore.

10 metre wide vegetation ground clearance. 30 metre wide aerial clearance of vegetation above 3 metres.

Vegetation clearance requirements specified. Increased external powerline length replacing sections of internal powerline.

Original estimate of vegetation clearance 0.03 hectares approximately.

The Application includes a permit application for a quarry. This is a new application as a quarry is not included as part of the current permit.

The original assessment of native vegetation for the approved permit was carried out under the Native Vegetation Management Framework39 which was the native vegetation policy at the time. That framework has since been superseded by the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines.40 The Application to amend the current permit and the proposal to remove native vegetation was assessed under the current policy.

The role of the Panel, in considering the proposal to amend the approved permit, is to review the effect on native vegetation and listed flora and vegetation communities under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 (FFG Act), as a result of the proposed changes to the approved permit (that is a larger ground footprint) and to examine appropriate offsetting of potential losses consistent with the relevant policy.

6.2 Removal of native vegetation

(i) Evidence and submissions

Submitters raised concerns about the increase in the extent and quality of native vegetation to be removed.41

Wind Energy Facility (internal access tracks and turbine locations)

Ten Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) ranging from poor to good condition were recorded in the WEF footprint. Remnant vegetation is largely restricted to road reserves and intersections and small degraded areas on private land. Of the ten EVCs recorded, nine will be impacted by the amended wind farm footprint.42

39 Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action (DNRE 2002). 40 Permitted clearing of native vegetation –Biodiversity assessment guidelines. DEPI. 2013. 41 Submissions 4, 18, 23, 25, 26, 27, 34 and 36. 42 Biodiversity Assessment to Accompany an Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548,

Stockyard Hill. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. May 2016. p21.


Page 54

In his Statement of Expert Evidence43, Mr Organ indicated that the proposed amended wind farm footprint would result in the removal of 34.415 hectares of native vegetation (32.657 hectares of remnant patch and 25 scattered trees) and a comparison of the impacts on vegetation clearance and offset requirements between the permitted and amended wind farm is provided. Three scenarios were provided for comparison as follows:

Native vegetation impacted by the permitted wind farm footprint based on the original design assumptions.

Native vegetation impacted by the permitted wind farm footprint, based on the current design assumptions (i.e. larger footprint).

Native vegetation impacted by the amended wind farm footprint based on the current design assumptions (i.e. larger footprint).

Mr Organ44 advised that:

While the total extent of remnant native vegetation proposed to be removed is greater than the area in the former assessment (BL&A 2009), given the highly modified nature of the patches of vegetation and subsequent low habitat score (i.e the majority of the patches have a habitat score of 0.23 or less), along with the low Strategic Biodiversity Score (i.e. 0.296) this has led to a very similar offset requirement for the amended wind farm footprint.

He proposed that the increased extent in vegetation removal with the amended wind farm footprint may be due to:

An underestimation based on ground conditions at the time of the original surveys and/or difference in assessment methodologies, noting however that a review of native vegetation mapped in the original survey in 2009, revealed that it was broadly consistent with the extent of remnant vegetation mapped more recently.

Differences in design assumptions applied for access tracks. An eight metre (sic) impact area proposed previously compared with a 12.5 metre wide area for smaller access tracks and 13.5 metre for trunk access roads.

The biodiversity assessment45 provides a comparison of the impacts to significant species and communities between the permitted and the amended wind farm footprint indicating, among other matters, that the amended wind farm footprint has reduced the impact on native grasslands, has avoided populations of a number of threatened flora species and has avoided several hectares of remnant vegetation and scattered trees.

During targeted surveys, Natural Temperate Grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plains (‘temperate volcanic grasslands EVC’) was recorded and will be impacted (0.06 hectares) by the amended wind farm46. The state equivalent the Western (Basalt) Plain grassland floristic

43 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Ecology and Heritage

Partners Pty Ltd. January 2017. p11. 44 Ibid. p12. 45 Biodiversity Assessment to Accompany an Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548,

Stockyard Hill. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. May 2016. p7. 46 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Ecology and Heritage

Partners Pty Ltd. January 2017. p12.


Page 55

community (FFG Act listed) occurs on public land within the study area and all the Heavier‐soils Grassland EVC recorded in the study area, including temperate volcanic grasslands EVC, are part of the FFG Act listed community.47 No other FFG Act listed community was identified as being impacted by the amended wind farm.

The current permit required that targeted flora surveys be undertaken for both native grassland communities and Spiny Rice flower. These surveys have been undertaken and the assessment reports are provided in Appendix V of the planning application.48 No specimens of Spiny Rice flower (EPBC Act, FFG Act) were detected in targeted surveys across the proposed amended wind farm footprint. The targeted surveys did detect other significant species including Matted Flax‐lily (EPBC Act, FFG Act), White Sunray (EPBC Act, FFG Act), Plump Wallaby Grass (FFG Act), Golden Cowslips (DSE, 2005)49, Arching Flax‐lily (DSE, 2005), Slender Bind Weed (DSE, 2005). With the implementation of appropriate protocols during construction, the only species that will be impacted is Golden Cowslips, with the loss of 13 plants.50

External roadside and intersection upgrades

Condition 35 of the current permit anticipated that a further permission for native vegetation removal may be required once the traffic routes were finalised to accommodate works. An assessment was undertaken for the proposed WEF amendment.51

With the roadside and intersection upgrades, Mr Organ52 advised that 157 patches of native vegetation were mapped and assessed as having a low to moderate condition score. Five of the ten EVCs recorded in the study area will be impacted. The proposed works will result in the clearing of remnant vegetation at several locations along roadsides. A total of 3.852 hectares (2.587 remnant patch, 18 scattered trees) of native vegetation will be removed by the roadworks. Plump Wallaby Grass which is listed under the FFG Act was recorded during the assessment. It is suggested that as only a few individuals were recorded it may be possible to avoid this area through detailed design and micro‐siting. No other FFG Act species will be impacted.

The proposed works will result in the removal of 0.02 hectares of the temperate volcanic grasslands EVC community.

47 Biodiversity Assessment to Accompany an Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548,

Stockyard Hill. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. May 2016. p24. 48 Ibid. Appendices D and E. 49 DSE (2005). Advisory List of rare or threatened plants in Victoria. Department of Sustainability and

Environment 2005. 50 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Ecology and Heritage

Partners Pty Ltd. January 2017. p13. 51 Biodiversity Assessment of the Roadside and Intersection Upgrades, Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Victoria.

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. April 2016. 52 Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd.

January 2017. p13.


Page 56

Mr Organ53 indicated that in his view the Applicant has avoided and minimised the proposed removal of remnant native vegetation and areas supporting listed species and communities, by locating the WEF footprint in areas devoid of ecological values. Additional mitigation measures will be implemented through the Environmental Management Plan.

To satisfy native vegetation offsets, Mr Organ54 indicated that the offset requirements for the amended wind farm footprint (including the proposed roadside and intersection upgrades) can be secured through existing credits registered through an over the counter scheme.

DELWP55 provided advice of the consolidated views of the Environment portfolio. With respect to the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm proposed permit amendment, the Department advised that it had only considered matters associated with the proposed changes and had not re‐examined matters associated with the original permit application. The Department noted that under the amended wind farm and associated roadworks an area of 38.267 hectares of native vegetation is to be removed. While this is greater than the area allowed in the permitted wind farm of 5.28 hectares, the Department accepted the rationale provided by the Applicant, including:

Differences in definitions of native vegetation between Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action and the Permitted clearing of Victoria’s Native Vegetation: Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines.56

Additional areas of native vegetation removal not previously considered (i.e. increase in access track widths and additional road side works); and

Potential underestimation of ground conditions at the time of the original surveys and/or differences in assessment methodologies.

The Department agreed with the statements concerning the avoidance of ecological impacts and indicated that it had no objection subject to conditions relating to the protection of native vegetation, offset requirements and construction management.

External overhead powerline – application for vegetation removal

A detailed flora assessment within the footprint of 18 alignment options was undertaken.57 The total disturbance footprint is approximately 82.5 hectares.58 The assessment indicates that based on the survey findings the alignment of the powerline was revised to reduce impacts on flora. A subsequent assessment was undertaken in October 2016.59 This assessment was based on a cleared ground footprint of 10 metres wide and an aerial

53 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Windfarm, Ecology and Heritage Partners

Pty Ltd. January 2017. p16. 54 Ibid. p18. 55 Document 11. 56 Permitted clearing of native vegetation ‐ Biodiversity assessment guidelines. DEPI. 2013. 57 Detailed Flora and Fauna Assessment of the Current Overhead Powerline Corridor, Stockyard Hill Wind

Farm, Victoria. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. May 2016. p3. 58 Ibid. p13. 59 Addendum Report Planning and Environment Act 1987: Detailed Flora and Fauna Assessment of the Current

Overhead Powerline Corridor, Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Victoria. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. October 2016. p7.


Page 57

footprint of 30 metres wide cleared of vegetation over 3 metres tall, to comply with relevant codes and standards relating to safe management of powerlines. It was assumed in undertaking the flora assessment that all vegetation would be removed within the ground footprint and all trees greater than 3 metres would be removed in the aerial footprint.

Mr Organ60 advised that a total of 4.829 hectares (1.945 hectares of remnant patches and 41 scattered trees) of native vegetation of low to moderate condition will be required to be removed for the construction of the overhead powerline. The powerline will impact on five EVCs and will impact on 0.128 hectares of temperate volcanic grasslands EVC. The addendum report61 indicates that 0.70 hectares of Heavier‐soils Plains Grassland EVC will be removed (FFG Act listed community). No FFG Act species are proposed to be impacted. The addendum report indicates that during detailed design and construction there may be further opportunities to avoid impact on vegetation and that scattered trees in the depression of Mt Emu Creek may not be required to be impacted.62

Mr Organ63 advised that in his opinion the Applicant has avoided and minimised the proposed removal of native vegetation and areas supporting listed species and communities. Additional measures to further avoid and minimise impacts to ecological values will implemented through an Environmental Management Plan.

With regard to offsets, Mr Organ64 advised that the relevant offset obligations can be secured through an over the counter scheme without any difficulty.

DELWP65 indicated that it had no objection subject to conditions relating to protection of native vegetation, offset requirements and construction management.

Quarry

Mr Organ66 advised the proposed quarry site does not contain any features (vegetation community, flora and fauna habitats) of conservation significance and therefore no ecological impacts are expected. The proposed quarry area has been altered as a result of land clearing for agriculture. All areas that qualify as remnant patch and the scattered indigenous tree will be avoided and no formal offsets are required.67

60 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Windfarm, Ecology and Heritage Partners

Pty Ltd. January 2017. p21. 61 Addendum Report Planning and Environment Act 1987: Detailed Flora and Fauna Assessment of the Current

Overhead Powerline Corridor, Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Victoria. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. October 2016. p9.

62 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Submission to Support Planning Permit Application (External Overhead Powerlines) Addendum Report. Jacobs. November 2016. p15.

63 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Windfarm, Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. January 2017. p22.

64 Ibid. p22. 65 Document 11. p5. 66 Ibid. p24. 67 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm: Detailed Flora and Fauna Surveys of the Proposed Quarry Site, Stockyard Hill.

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. July 2013.


Page 58

DELWP68 noted that the subject land is highly modified and native vegetation remnants will be protected and thus it advised it did not object to the draft work plan for the quarry.

(ii) Discussion

The Panel notes that the Application seeks permission to removal substantially more native vegetation than in the approved permit (5.28 hectares compared with 34.415 hectares). The scenario presented to it of the permitted wind farm with the current design assumptions as a basis for suggesting that the permitted footprint and the amended wind farm footprint require similar general offsets is unhelpful. To upscale the permitted wind farm without any reconfiguration is not a realistic basis for a comparison.

It is evident that the footprint for the amended wind farm will be larger. It is not clear how the various components of the WEF influence the removal of native vegetation. From Mr Organ’s evidence he suggests that the increase in vegetation to be removed relates to the design increase in the width of the access tracks to 12.5 metres and trunk roads 13.5 metres. The approved permit considered tracks of 5 metres in width (not 8 metres as suggested by Mr Organ). The approved permit also assumed internal cabling would be undertaken within the verge of the access track. The amended permit is now seeking a 3 metre wide easement for internal cabling in addition to the increase in track width. The Panel sought advice from the Applicant on the rationale for the change in the design requirements and the departure from a minimal disturbance design. The Panel was advised69 that the Applicant had determined that the width of the access tracks originally assessed were optimistic and preferred to adopt more conservative parameters. While noting DELWP’s advice on this matter, the Panel considers that the Applicant’s rationale for the more conservative design width for the internal access tracks and internal cabling placement should be re‐examined.

Condition 35 of the current permit anticipated that permission for native vegetation removal may be required once the traffic routes were finalised. The Panel notes that in support of the proposed amended permit, an assessment70 has been undertaken by the Applicant that identifies the need for the removal of 3.852 hectares of native vegetation that was not identified originally. The Panel considers that the requirement for native vegetation clearance was underestimated in the original assessment.

The cleared area based on the ground and aerial footprint required for the external powerline predetermines to a large extent the spatial impact on vegetation of the powerline alignment. The panel notes that alternative alignments were assessed and that during detailed design and construction there may be further opportunities to avoid impact on vegetation by micro‐siting of the powerline poles and/or access tracks through adopting specific construction techniques for ecological sensitive areas.

Where there were references to the impacts on temperate volcanic grasslands EVC in the assessment reports, it was not always clear what implications this had for the FFG Act listed

68 Document 11. p5. 69 Document 18. p7. 70 Biodiversity Assessment of the Roadside and Intersection Upgrades, Stockyard Hill Windfarm, Victoria.

Ecology and Heritage Partners. April 2016.


Page 59

Western (Basalt) Plains Grassland Community. It is likely given the different condition thresholds, areas of temperate volcanic grasslands EVC also qualify as Western (Basalt) Plains Grassland Community. Either as a referral authority or in the assessment of a permit (public land) application, DELWP will need to consider these impacts in the development of a Native Vegetation Management Plan and the provision of native vegetation offsets.

The Panel notes that DELWP has no objection to the native vegetation documentation and considers that the Applicant has undertaken the assessment of the vegetation impacts in accordance with Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation Guidelines. The Panel accepts the advice of the Applicant that native vegetation offsets can be secured and notes that these are required to be established prior to removal of native vegetation. The Panel also accepts the advice of the Applicant that the impact on the one listed FFG Act species (Plump Swamp Wallaby Grass) recorded during the assessment can be avoided and that appropriate protocols are required to be implemented to prevent the inadvertent loss of significant flora species and communities.

However, the Panel notes that of the ten EVCs recorded in the study area, seven have a bioregional conservation status of endangered. Nine EVCs will be impacted by the WEF and six are considered endangered. Roadside works will impact on five EVCs, four of which are endangered. The external powerline will impact on five EVCs, all of which are endangered. All three construction activities will impact on Plains Grassland an EVC listed under the FFG Act. Notwithstanding that the vegetation assessment was undertaken under the relevant policy involving with an offset regime, the Panel observes that further depletion of endangered EVCs and a listed grassland community will occur.

The Panel accepts that the development of the quarry will not impact on native vegetation.

MNES were not considered by the Panel. It is expected that the Applicant will obtain all necessary approvals under the Commonwealth legislation.

(iii) Conclusion and recommendation

Native vegetation removal for the amended wind farm and transmission lines should be able to be managed to an acceptable level subject to the development of a Native Vegetation Management Plan incorporating mitigation measures and the provision of native vegetation offsets.

The Applicant suggested a clarification of wording for the transmission permits. The Panel agrees this is clear and supports it. This is reflected in the Permits in Appendix D.

The final extent of native vegetation removal be determined following a review of the need for a design requirement for internal track widths of 12.5 metres including examination of the adoption of minimal disturbance design with narrower track widths including within track cabling, to the satisfaction of the Minister.


Amend the permits for the transmission lines to clarify the wording in relation to vegetation offsets.


Page 60

In the development of the Native Vegetation Management Plan, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning undertake an assessment of the impacts on Western (Basalt) Plains Grasslands in areas where temperate volcanic grasslands Ecological Vegetation Class is proposed to be removed, and determine the appropriate offset requirements.

Review the width of the proposed access tracks with a view to reducing their impact on vegetation removal.


Page 61

7 Fauna including avifauna

7.1 Introduction

(i) Background

The key issues considered in the permitted wind farm were the impact on fauna as a result of habitat loss from the construction of the WEF and collision of avifauna with turbines. Species of interest included Striped Legless Lizard, Golden Sun Moth and birds and bats (including migratory species listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)) particularly Brolga. Targeted surveys for Striped Legless Lizard and Golden Sun Moth were required to be undertaken as a condition of the current permit.

As described in Chapter 6.1 of this report the Panel is not considering MNES under the EPBC Act, and these matters are being managed directly by the Applicant with the Commonwealth.


Chapter 6 describes the key construction elements proposed in the amendment relevant to fauna. In summary, the physical ground footprint for the WEF is larger (e.g. wider internal access tracks, bigger hardstand areas and foundations, separate easement for internal cabling). The aerial footprint has increased with larger turbine dimensions (180 metres in total height with a rotor diameter of 142 metres) with potential impacts on avifauna. Additional vegetation removal, required as a result of the larger ground footprint, may potentially impact on fauna habitat.

7.2 Fauna including avifauna (other than Brolga)


Submitters raised a number of issues as follows:

This impact of wind farms on raptors is not being recognised and mitigation for raptors and other native birds should be undertaken particularly with larger turbines proposed (Submission 1).

The larger turbines with increased rotor swept area will have a greater impact on avifauna mortality (Submission 18).

Mt Emu Creek is home to many vulnerable fauna species which will be impacted by turbines (Submission 11).


Page 62

Ground fauna

As required in the current permit, targeted surveys for Striped Legless Lizard (EPBC Act, FFG Act) and Golden Sun Moth (EPBC Act, FFG Act) were undertaken and the assessment reports are provided in Appendix V of the planning application71.

All suitable habitat within the study area were surveyed for the Golden Sun Moth. Golden Sun Moths were detected in high numbers from within one privately owned property. The property supports approximately 10 hectares of high quality grassland habitat suitable for the species. Mr Organ72 advised that there will be removal of approximately 1.57 hectares of confirmed Golden Sun Moth habitat for the proposed amended wind farm footprint. A number of management measures to minimise the impact were identified in the targeted survey report73 including proposed management of the property to facilitate the persistence of the resident Golden Sun Moth population within the operating wind farm.

Targeted surveys recorded Striped Legless Lizards in the wind farm study area in the Stockyard Hill Road reserve (public land) and Dunnets Road. Habitat assessments were undertaken during the targeted survey period and the extent and quality of habitat for the species was assessed.74 The wind farm study area is modified due to previous land use practices, however areas supporting suitable habitat in the form of modified grasslands are present at several sites. Mr Organ75 advised that the amended wind farm footprint would result in the removal of 0.03 hectares of known Striped Legless Lizard habitat. However, elsewhere in the documentation it is indicated that approximately 2.5 hectares of modified grassland habitat where the species has been detected along Stockyard Hill Road and Dunnets Road is proposed to be removed.76 Mr Organ77 also indicated that the amended proposal would result in impacts on 39.63 hectares of medium quality habitat and 18.64 hectares of low quality habitat (areas where the species has not been detected). Mitigation measures are provided in the targeted survey report78. Among the actions outlined in that report, is that the Stockyard Hill Road reserve, which is known to support a significant population of Striped Legless Lizard, should be excluded from construction activities as far as practicable. Furthermore it was recommended that medium quality habitat should be

71 Biodiversity Assessment to Accompany an Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548,

Stockyard Hill. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. May 2016. Appendices F, G and I. 72 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Ecology and Heritage

Partners. January 2017. p10. 73 Targeted Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana Surveys for the 2011/12 and 2012/2013 at Stockyard Hill Wind

Farm, Stockyard Hill, Victoria. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. January 2014. p17. 74 Targeted Striped Legless Lizard Surveys of the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Stockyard Hill, Victoria. Ecology

and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. March 2012. p23. 75 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Ecology and Heritage

Partners. January 2017. p12. 76 Biodiversity Assessment of the Roadside and Intersection Upgrades, Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Victoria.

Ecology and Heritage partners. April 2016. p27. 77 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Ecology and Heritage

Partners. January 2017. p12. 78 Targeted Striped Legless Lizard Surveys of the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Stockyard Hill, Victoria. Ecology

and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd. March 2012. p29.


Page 63

subject to micro‐siting to avoid Striped Legless Lizard habitat. Mr Organ advised that under the EPBC Act the proposal to remove of an area of medium quality Striped Legless Lizard habitat will require an Offset Management Plan/Conservation Management Plan.79

DELWP (Document 11) did not provide specific comment on these FFG listed fauna.

Mr Organ80, in responding to a submission, advised that no impacts are expected to fauna habitats along Mount Emu Creek and all infrastructure has been sited within areas devoid of ecological values.

Avifauna not including Brolga

Mr Smales81 indicated that his assessment of all listed threatened and migratory bird and bat species for the amended wind farm had been undertaken as a desktop evaluation in which the potential impacts of the amended wind farm have been considered and compared with the permitted wind farm. This had involved:

consideration and review of current information on species of birds and bats from publicly available records up until late 2015.

reviewing changes to policy statements, listed species, listing requirements and threatening processes.

the differences in the number and specifications of turbines between the permitted and amended wind farm.

field inspection and discussions with DELWP.

For the purposes of his assessment, Mr Smales considered species listed under the FFG Act and/or included on the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI – former department) advisory list.82 There are no records of listed bat species for the study area. In assessing significant impact Mr Smales relied on the relevant EPBC Act policy statements and guidelines as there are no published guidelines for assessing significant impact under the FFG Act or the DEPI advisory list.

After reviewing threatened species records, their habitat preferences and the likely occurrence in the study area, Mr Smales83 concluded that the proposed amended Stockyard Hill Wind Farm will not result in any significant impact on populations of any species listed under the FFG Act or included on the DEPI advisory list.

In responding to submitters and the impact of larger turbines on raptor mortality, Mr Smales84 indicated there are four raptor species listed under the FFG Act (Grey Falcon, Grey Goshawk, Square‐tailed Kite, White‐bellied Sea‐eagle). The habitat preferences and distribution of these species are such that none of them is at risk of significant impact from

79 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Ecology and Heritage

Partners. January 2017. p18. 80 Mr Organ. Statement of Expert Evidence (Ecology): Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Ecology and Heritage

Partners. January 2017. p26. 81 Biosis. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Bird and Bat Impact Assessment. May 2016. p11. 82 Advisory list of threatened vertebrate fauna in Victoria. DEPI. 2013. 83 Expert Witness Statement of Ian John Smales. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. 2017. p5. 84 Expert Witness Statement of Ian John Smales. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. 2017. Annexure C. p1.


Page 64

the amended wind farm. Database records of listed threatened species from within ten kilometres of the wind farm include no raptor species. Nevertheless, Mr Smales agreed that there is the potential for mortalities for non‐threatened raptor species and other common bird species.

The Panel was provided with reports85 from the Macarthur Wind Farm bat and bird mortality monitoring for 201486 and 201587. The results for 2015 show native birds accounted for 24.7 per cent of all bird mortality at the wind farm. The annual mortality of native birds was estimated at 3.31 ± 0.78 per turbine, equating to a total annual mortality of 464 ± 109.20 birds over the wind farm. Raptors accounted for 33 per cent of native bird mortalities averaging 1.11± 0.28 fatalities per turbine equating to a total mortality of 154.88 ± 39.20 raptors for the entire wind farm. The 2015 report88 states that:

‘Raptors are believed to be at higher risk of collision with blades of turbines possibly due to a combination of factors such as the altitude they mostly fly at, the proportion of time spent flying and flying behaviour. Raptors tend to glide slowly and are constantly looking downward for potential prey, rather than flying in a single direction and looking where they are heading. This may increase their risk of flying through the rotor swept area of turbines.’

The 2015 report89 estimated bat mortality at 3.08 ± 1.68 bats per turbine, equating to 431 ± 235.20 bats over all turbines.

DELWP (Document 11) advised that following the review of documentation on listed threatened and migratory bird and bat species, other than Brolga:

… it agreed that any potential impacts of the amended wind farm on relevant species would be low to negligible and that this is unchanged from the permitted to the amended wind farm.

(ii) Discussion

Ground fauna

Both Golden Sun Moth and Striped Legless lizard are listed under the FFG Act and both species have an Action Statement under that Act. While the focus in Mr Organ’s evidence is on satisfying EPBC Act requirements, DELWP need to ensure that they are satisfied that impacts on these species are appropriately mitigated.

As the recorded Golden Sun Moths are on private land, DELWP will have a role as a referral authority for an application to remove FFG listed native grassland and habitat for the Golden Sun Moth. The Panel considers that the DELWP should ensure that the Applicant in

85 Attachments to Submission 1. 86 Macarthur Wind Farm, Bat and Avifauna Mortality Monitoring, March 2013 to February 2014, Australian

Ecological Research Services, 2014. 87 Macarthur Wind Farm, Bat and Avifauna Mortality monitoring, March 2014 to February 2015, Australian

Ecological Research Services, 2015. 88 Ibid. p35. 89 Ibid. p34.


Page 65

satisfying the EPBC Act requirements in the development of a conservation management offset plan, that appropriate measures from the Action Statement are incorporated, and impacts on Golden Sun Moth habitat are minimised.

The total area of known Striped Legless Lizard habitat within the Stockyard Hill Road reserve that may be impacted is unclear. However, if habitat removal is proposed within the public land reserve, a permit under the FFG Act will be required. The Panel supports the position that the Stockyard Hill Road reserve should be excluded from construction activities as far as practicable and micro‐siting of windfarm infrastructure to avoid habitat areas should be undertaken. The Panel also considers that if it is not feasible to avoid areas of know habitat, DELWP should determine whether a salvage protocol for relocation is appropriate in the circumstances. DELWP should also ensure that in satisfying the EPBC Act requirements, the Applicant incorporates the appropriate measures from the Action Statement to minimise impacts on the species. Noting that Mr Organ advised that 39.63 hectares of medium quality Striped Legless will be impacted, the Panel agrees with the proposal that wind farm infrastructure should be subject to micro‐siting in medium quality habitat areas. As an Offset Management Plan / Conservation Management Plan will be required for the impact on medium quality habitat, DELWP should ensure the Applicant incorporates appropriate measures to minimise impacts on the species.

Avifauna not including Brolga

The Panel accepts the approach taken by Mr Smales to assess the impact on bird and bat species for the proposed amended wind farm and the use of EPBC Act significant impact guidelines in the absence of published guidelines under the FFG Act or the DEPI advisory list. These guidelines focus on the effects on the viability of populations rather than individuals in a population. The Panel agrees with the advice that proposed amended wind farm will not result in any significant impact on populations of any species listed under the FFG Act or included on the DEPI advisory list. The Panel notes that there are no records of listed bat species for the study area and the focus of Mr Smales’ assessment was for listed bird species and his assessment of their likely occurrence in the study area.

The Guidelines for the Development of Wind Energy Facilities90 indicate that in addition to impacts on listed species, consideration should be given to:

the sensitivity of any protected species to disturbance.

measures to minimise the impacts on any native species.

The mortality studies from Macarthur Wind Farm provide an assessment of the scale of bird and bat mortality at the wind farm, with raptors making up approximately 30 per cent of the native birds killed. The Panel notes the suggestions about raptor behaviour that possibly make them more susceptible. No empirical information was provided to the Panel about whether increased turbine size (higher turbines, bigger rotor blade length, larger rotor swept area) would result in increased raptor mortality (or other bird and bat species). However, this is a matter that should be examined through implementation of a bird and bat

90 Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria. 2016. p33.


Page 66

monitoring plan that incorporates monitoring for at least five years and requires periodic reporting.

The Panel notes the advice of Mr Smales that there are no listed raptor species that are at risk from the wind farm. However, the Guidelines for the Development of Wind Energy Facilities clearly provide for consideration of native species other than listed species that, for example, might be sensitive to disturbance.

The Panel agrees with submitters that the impact of wind farms on raptor mortality is an area that requires evaluation. If the mortality rates at Macarthur Wind Farm were repeated at all the wind farms that have been constructed and are progressively constructed, the cumulative impact on regional populations may be significant and go undetected. The Panel considers that the cumulative impact on regional raptor populations is a matter that requires investigation and that DELWP should undertake an evaluation program to assess the cumulative effects on raptor populations and other native species that may be vulnerable to wind farm mortality and determine the need for mitigation measures.

(iii) Conclusion and recommendation

That the impacts on fauna and avifauna (not including Brolga) should be able to be managed to an acceptable level subject to the development of an Environmental Management Plan and the incorporation and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

Planning permit conditions are recommended in Appendix D accordingly.


The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning undertake an evaluation program to assess the cumulative effects on raptor populations and other native species that may be vulnerable to wind farm mortality and determine the need for mitigation measures.

That the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan incorporate a monitoring period of at least five years and require regular reporting.

7.3 Brolga


Submitters raised the following issues:

The larger turbines with increase rotor swept area will have a greater impact on Brolga mortality (Submission 18, 43).

The larger turbines will pose a greater impact Brolga and the Applicant’s modelling cannot be relied on (Submission 3).

Because of the extra height and span, turbines H6 and H7 protrude into recognised Brolga flight path between Lake Goldsmith and Lake Wongan (Document 51).

The Biosis collision risk model is flawed and provides inaccurate predictions on bird mortality and should not be relied on (Document 33).

The collision risk model based on the ‘dart through the fan’ theory is the most conservative risk and angle that a bird can have through a turbine and is a more accurate (Document 33).


Page 67

The Biosis collision risk model does not take account of all the Brolga flight behaviours (Document 33).

Brolga mitigation measures must be mandatory and measured to demonstrate that they are successful (Document 33).

Mr Smales91 indicated that while there was a previous Brolga collision risk assessment at the time of the original permit application, following the issue of a permit in October 2010 to enable the development of Stockyard Hill Wind Farm for 157 turbines, there had been no documented assessment of Brolga collision risk as permitted. Consequently, in order to consider the potential impacts of the proposed amended wind farm it was first necessary to consider the impacts of the permitted wind farm in light of current information. Mr Smales advised92 that in making his assessment of Brolga he gave particular attention to the Brolga Guidelines.93

The Brolga Guidelines describe a three step assessment approach:

Level one assessment: Initial Risk Assessment (Desktop studies of known potential habitat, site inspection, community consultation and landowner surveys).

Level two assessment: Impact Assessment (Breeding and non‐breeding season surveys potentially incorporating aerial surveys, roaming surveys and flight behaviour surveys).

Level three assessment: Mitigation and Offset (Avoid impacts, Collision Risk Analysis, Population Viability Analysis, compensation strategies).

In summary, the Brolga Guidelines aim to:

Remove all significant impacts from flocking and nesting sites through turbine free buffers.

Develop a site specific collision risk model for Brolgas.

Model the risk to the Brolga population through Population Viability Analysis.

Mitigate the estimated Brolga loss to produce a zero net impact on the Victorian population.

With the exception of aerial survey, Mr Smales94 advised that all the Levels 1 and 2 assessments were fulfilled prior to issue of the planning approval for the permitted wind farm.

Aerial survey was not a requirement at the time of planning approval for the permitted wind farm and subsequently DELWP have advised in 2015 that an aerial survey would not be required for the assessment of the amended wind farm, because of the dry conditions of most potential breeding wetlands.

91 Expert Witness Statement of Ian John Smales. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. 2017. p 2. 92 Ibid. p3. 93 Interim Guidelines for assessment, avoidance, mitigation and offsetting of potential wind farm impacts on

the Victorian Brolga Population 2011 (DSE 2012). 94 Biosis. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Bird and Bat Impact Assessment. May 2016. p26.


Page 68

To ensure that information was current for the assessment of the amended wind farm, information on the distribution, breeding and flocking of Brolgas in the local area was obtained up to and including 2015. Mr Smales advised that:

A review of data for Brolgas in the zone within 10 kilometres of the [proposed wind farm] includes 31 records of the species submitted since 2009. These indicate that Brolgas used no breeding or flocking sites that were not already known and used to inform collision risk modelling for the species in the original planning permit application.95

Furthermore, Mr Smales advised that:

All zones designated as turbine free buffer areas around wetlands in the permitted wind farm remain free of turbines in the layout of the amended wind farm.96

The Panel was advised that the focus of the Brolga assessment was concentrated on the potential risk to Brolgas colliding with turbines in particular and the internal overhead powerline because these risks were those in which the proposed amended Stockyard Hill Wind Farm is most likely to represent different potential for impacts from those of the permitted wind farm. The Biosis Deterministic Collision Risk Model was used in the assessment.

As an attachment to the Bird and Bat Impact Assessment report, Mr Smales provided a copy of a refereed paper97 describing the Biosis model. The paper describes key aspects of the model including:

its capacity to evaluate risk from multidirectional flights by its calculation of a mean presented area of a turbine;

its use of bird flight data to determine the annual flux of movements;

a mathematical solution to a typical number of turbines that might be encountered in a given bird flight; capacity to assess wind farm configurations ranging from turbines scattered in the landscape to linear rows of turbines;

and the option of assigning different avoidance rates to structural elements of turbines that pose more or less risk.

In modelling the risk assessment, a description of the variables that are specific to the Stockyard Hill WEF and for Brolgas from the vicinity of the wind farm are provided in the Bird and Bat Impact Assessment report.98

The following is taken from that report:

The numbers of Brolga flights below rotor height and for which just the lower portion of turbine towers present a collision risk.

95 Biosis. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Bird and Bat Impact Assessment. May 2016. p34. 96 Expert Witness Statement of Ian John Smales. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. January 2017. p5. 97 A Description of the Biosis Model to Assess Risk of Bird Collisions with Wind Turbines. Wildlife Society

Bulletin 37(1):59‐65. March 2013. 98 Biosis. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Bird and Bat Impact Assessment. May 2016. p31.


Page 69

The numbers of Brolga flights at heights within the zone swept by turbine rotors and for which the upper portion of towers, nacelles and rotors present a collision risk.

The mean area (square metres per turbine), of tower nacelle and stationary rotor blades of a wind generator that present a risk to birds. Thus, the mean area presented by a turbine is between the maximum (where the direction of the bird is perpendicular to the plane of the rotor sweep) and the minimum (where the direction of the bird is parallel to the plane of the rotor sweep). The mean presented area is determined from turbine specifications supplied to Biosis for specific make and model of turbine. It represents the average area presented to an incoming flight from any direction.

The additional area (square metres per turbine) presented by the movement of rotors during the potential flight through a turbine. This is determined via a calculation involving species‐specific, independent parameters of flight speed and body length and supplied turbine specifications.

The model assumes all turbines in the WEF represent equal risk.

A calculation of the average number of turbines, a Brolga is likely to encounter in a given flight through the WEF. This is based on the scattered configuration of turbines in the landscape and the total number of turbines proposed for the WEF.

The rationale and input values used for the modelled assessments are also provided.99 Mr Smales advised that there is no empirical data currently available for some inputs to the risk modelling such as capacity for Brolgas to avoid collisions with turbines. Turbine collision avoidance rates used were within the range of rates applied to such situations internationally.100 The results are presented for three possible avoidance rates (95, 98 and 99 per cent).

A summary of the results of the collision risk assessment provided by Mr Smales101 for a 95 per cent avoidance rate is presented in the following table.

Table 6: Estimated number of Brolga collisions

Estimated number of Brolga collisions

Permitted (157 turbines)

95% avoidance

Amended (149 turbines)

95% avoidance

Annual average collisions total (turbines) 0.057 0.080

Annual average collisions total (internal overhead powerlines)

0.029 0.013

Annual average combined total 0.086 0.093

99 Ibid. p34‐44. 100 Expert Witness Statement of Ian John Smales. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. January 2016. p3. 101 Document 13. p10 and 11.


Page 70

Mr Smales102 advised that the difference between these results is so small that the population viability analysis cannot discern any difference in potential effects between the permitted and amended wind farm on the Victorian population of Brolga. There is very little difference in the risks between the permitted and proposed amended Stockyard Hill Wind Farm and that based on the assumptions used this could be compensated by production and survival of one additional fledgling every ten years. Mr Smales advised that measures to achieve this could be readily implemented and this would meet the requirements for a zero net impact of the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm on the Victorian Brolga Population.

The potential for mortality due to collisions with the proposed external overhead powerline was assessed. The report103 found that there was potential for a very low impact. The modelled estimate was for an average of 0.020 Brolga collisions. The report concluded that the mitigation offset measures proposed for the WEF and internal powerlines would fully address any effects of likely collisions with the external powerline.

DELWP104 advised that it was satisfied that the Brolga assessment had been carried out according to the Brolga Guidelines and that it concurred with the assessment outcome. Furthermore, it advised that after reviewing bat and avifauna documentation associated with the proposed amended wind farm it considered that:

The application documentation provided adequate identification of the risks posed to bird (sic) and bats;

There did not appear to be any key uncertainties, gaps or inaccuracies in the information provided;

Any residual risk posed by the project on bird (sic) and bats could be accommodated through the provision of a bird and bat management plan via a condition on the permit (if granted).

In modelling the collision risk for the proposed amended wind farm, Mr Smales considered a turbine with a height below rotor sweep of 38 metres. The permit being sought by the Applicant indicates that the bottom blade tip height would be not less than 32 metres above natural ground level. The Panel sought advice on what effect the lowering of the bottom blade tip height would have on the estimated annual number of Brolga collisions. Mr Smales105 provided an assessment which showed that, for the amended wind farm, the estimated annual average total collisions would change from 0.093 to 0.096. Mr Smales advised that such minor modifications in turbine dimensions would not change the assessment conclusions.

Submitters expressed concern that the increase in turbine size represented an 86 per cent increase in the rotor swept area per turbine and a 77 per cent increase in the total rotor swept area for the proposed amended wind farm, this would have a proportionally greater impact on Brolga. In providing information on the Biosis model, Mr Smales indicated that

102 Expert Witness Statement of Ian John Smales. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. January, 2017. p5. 103 Document 65. p4. (Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Impact Assessment. Risks of Brolga collisions with external

powerline. Biosis. March 2016.) 104 Document 11. p3. 105 Document 63. p2.


Page 71

the model does not treat the rotor swept area as a solid plane, but in the model, turbine components are aggregated into a mean presented area.106 The model requires calculation of the mean static area (square metres per turbine) of tower, nacelle and stationary rotor blades that present a risk to birds for a specific make and model of turbine. An additional dynamic area (square metres per turbine) presented by the movement of rotors during the potential flight through a turbine is also calculated. At the request of the Panel, turbine specification parameters utilised in calculating these areas were provided.107

The Panel was provided with information (Documents 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33) relating to several wind farms to support a criticism that the Biosis collision risk model was flawed and had provided inaccurate predictions on bird mortality at other wind farms and could not be relied on. An alternative ‘dart through the fan’ model was suggested as a more conservative approach.

In responding Mr Smales stated:

The submission contends that Biosis modelling of collision risk has been demonstrated to be flawed for Yaloak South, Woolnorth (i.e Bluff Point and Studland Bay wind farms combined), Macarthur and Cattle Hill wind farms. This contention is not correct. Yaloak South and Cattle Hill wind farms have not been built to date. Biosis never undertook collision risk modelling for Macarthur Wind Farm. Validation results for eagle species at Bluff Point and Studland Bay wind farms suggest that projections of the collision risk model were accurate.108

Furthermore, Mr Smales addressed the criticism about the predictive capacity of the Biosis model by reference to Bluff Point and Studland Bay wind farms in Tasmania:

… where empirical data (for two eagle species) for long term averages of documented collisions over ten and five years, respectively, equate closely to the model’s projections at 95 per cent avoidance rate.109

With respect to Brolga, Mr Smales conceded that there was no empirical validation of the Biosis model available to date because no wind farms for which the model has been used for that species has yet been built.110

(ii) Discussion

The Panel is satisfied that the assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Brolga Guidelines. It accepts the desk top approach and notes the advice that Brolgas used no breeding or flocking sites that were not already known and used to inform collision risk modelling for the species in the original planning permit application. The Panel also notes

106 Biosis. Stockyard Hill Wind Farm. Bird and Bat Impact Assessment. May 2016. p31. 107 Document 63. p3. 108 Document 63. p5. 109 Document 63. p5. 110 Document 63. p5.


Page 72

the advice from DELWP that there did not appear to be any uncertainties, gaps or inaccuracies in the information provided.

The Panel notes that the zones designated as turbine free buffer areas around wetlands in the permitted wind farm remain free of turbines in the layout of the amended wind farm and will not be encroached upon by the larger turbines proposed in the amendment.

The Panel recognises that there is no empirical data on the behaviour of Brolga and their avoidance of turbines. Avoidance rates from overseas studies have informed the Biosis collision risk modelling. The Panel is aware of the information provided by the Macarthur Wind Farm monitoring studies that show Brolga utilise the wind farm site for foraging under favourable wetland conditions and attempted breeding although no chicks were fledged. The results also included observations of Brolga demonstrating a capacity to avoid turbines and that no Brolga mortalities from turbines have been recorded. However, this was from a small sample of birds and more complete data is required to develop an understanding of Brolga avoidance rates.

The Panel understands that the approximation of real world behaviours of Brolga in a model, may raise concerns about the accuracy of the predictions particularly when the model has not been validated for Brolga at an operating wind farm. The Panel also considered that it would have wider acceptance if all aspects of the model were available for review rather than a black box approach. However, the Biosis model is a coherent approach that has been widely applied in assessments of potential wind energy developments in Australia, unlike an alternative model suggested to the Panel, and the approach has been accepted in the published scientific literature. The Panel is satisfied that the collision risk modelling applied in assessing the amended wind farm meets the requirements outlined in the Brolga Guidelines. However, uncertainty about the predictions will remain until the model can be validated.

The Panel notes that the difference between the results of the collision risk modelling for both the permitted and amended wind farm is so small that the population viability analysis cannot discern any difference in potential effects between the permitted and amended wind farm on the Victorian population of Brolga. The compensation required to achieve zero net impact is the survival of one additional fledging every ten years and this will need to be incorporated in a Brolga compensation plan. However, until the model is validated, a more conservative compensation target would be appropriate based on a more conservative avoidance rate say five birds for each 10 years.

The Panel agrees with submitters that mitigation measures to offset Brolga mortality should be measurable. The Panel also heard that achieving Brolga breeding success is difficult. To give greater certainty that zero net impact is being achieved, a compensation plan should clearly define accountabilities, the outcomes to be delivered, interim milestones, incorporate regular monitoring and require public reporting over the expected life of the project (25 years). The Panel also considers that Regional scale programs of habitat restoration for Brolga, coordinated by DELWP, incorporating individual wind farm offset obligations, would be a more effective mechanism for delivery of Brolga offsets.


Page 73

(iii) Conclusion

That the impacts on Brolga should be able to be managed to an acceptable level subject to the development of an Environmental Management Plan and the incorporation and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

(iv) Recommendations


Amend the relevant condition to require the Bat and Avifauna Management Plan to include a separate section on Brolga monitoring and compensation that describes the monitoring requirements, the specific accountabilities, the compensation outcomes to be delivered based on a more conservative target than that predicted by the modelling, the interim milestones, and the schedule of public reporting over the expected life of the project (25 years).

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning co‐ordinate a strategic region wide response to Brolga habitat planning, restoration and management that includes the identification and mapping of turbine free Brolga buffer areas and incorporates individual wind farm Brolga offset obligations.


Page 74

8 Aviation

8.1 Introduction

(i) Background

The height of wind farm turbines can be substantial, resulting in potential impacts upon nearby air fields and air navigation. Applicants are required to address aircraft safety issues by considering the proximity of the site to airports, aerodromes, or landing strips.

The 2010 Panel report considered aviation issues in detail and the main issues related to:

Hazard lighting (Section 7)

Aviation safety (Section 17.6)

Aerial agriculture (Section 17.5)

Aerial firefighting (Section 14).

In summary, the 2010 Panel concluded or recommended that:

there be no aviation hazard lighting

there will be no impact on protected airspace

there is no legal requirement for land use on adjoining properties to provide for the ongoing operation (aerial agricultural flights) of a private airstrip on a property

the removal of turbines T54, T47, and T34 will alleviate the problems relating to the conduct of aerial agriculture operations at the Hawker property

while not critical the micro‐siting of T40 and T52 (now J5 and J6) could benefit the operation of the private airstrip on the Hawker property

wind farms did not significantly increase fire risk or unacceptably prejudice the fighting of fires using aerial operations.

The Minister for Planning imposed conditions that:

Prohibited aviation safety lighting on any turbine – condition 4e.

Require a Fire Prevention and Emergency Response Plan prepared in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and Pyrenees Shire – condition 6e.

Various CFA conditions requiring access, infrastructure, water supply and fuel/vegetation management – conditions 43, 44, and 45.


Amended wind farm

The wind farm amendments which have the potential to affect aviation issues include:

Increasing the maximum tip height from 132 to 180 metres, the maximum hub height from 80 to 120 metres, and replacing a blade length of 52 metres with a rotor diameter of no greater than 142 metres.

Reduction in turbines from 157 to 149.

The Applicant is not seeking amendments to any conditions which relate to aviation issues.


Page 75

The existing permitted wind farm is substantial and represents a hazard to aviation; this remains similarly true for the amended wind farm.

Applicable policy

The 2010 Panel considered aviation issues in relation to the September 2009 Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria. The current WEF Guidelines are not significantly different and are consistent with the decision guidelines in Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facility).

This Panel is not tasked with undertaking a ‘first principles’ review of the potential impacts or the 2010 Panel report. Even so this Panel is satisfied that the 2010 Panel report represents a comprehensive, objective and reasoned assessment of aviation issues. As per the Directions Hearing of 14 November 2016 all parties, including this Panel “should focus on changes from the existing approved project rather than undertaking a ‘first principles’ review”.

The Panel has accepted submissions, evidence and cross examination that probably overlaps into a ‘first principles’ review of aviation matters. However, the Panel has taken a more disciplined and brief assessment approach with respect to this report. That is, with respect to aviation the planning policy framework has not changed, the amendments to the wind farm from an aviation impact assessment perspective are arguably minor.

8.2 Hazard lighting

The Panel notes the ongoing concern of the Shire and several other submitters regarding the potential for aviation hazard lighting to be installed.

Notwithstanding the prohibition of lighting in the current permit conditions, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recommends aviation hazard lighting, as per Section 9.4 of the CASA Manual of Standards Part 139, if wind farm proponents wish to make the turbines more conspicuous.

The Panel understands CASA lacks the authority to mandate aviation hazard lighting where the obstacle is beyond the aerodrome Obstacle Limitation Surface and does not penetrate the Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS‐OPS) surfaces, Lowest Safe Altitudes (LASALT) or any other prescribed airspace. It was Mr Jennings’s evidence that the wind farm does not infringe any of these areas.

In submissions, the Applicant argued that night lighting is not an appropriate requirement and refers to section 7.2 of assessment report at Appendix Z (Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Aeronautical Impact Assessment Aviation Impact Statement Qualitative Risk Assessment and Obstacle Lighting Review 180 metre turbines) of the Application and Mr Jennings’s evidence which explains why hazard lighting is not considered necessary. Specifically, the Obstacle Lighting Review concluded that, in line with the National Airports Safeguarding Framework Guideline D and the findings of the Quantified Risk Assessment , aviation safety lighting is not considered necessary as the assessed risk is ‘low’ and no additional mitigation is required. This argument and evidence was uncontested by other parties.

In conclusion, this Panel does not believe the amended wind farm results in a material change to aviation hazard lighting impacts. The Panel agrees with the conclusions and


Page 76

recommendation of the 2010 Panel and the Panel see no reasonable justification to amend the existing permit conditions or alter the Application.

8.3 Aviation safety

(i) General safety

Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facility) requires the Panel consider the “impact of the facility on aircraft safety” and the Guidelines indicate consideration of “the proximity of the site to airports, aerodromes or landing strips, and ensure that any aircraft safety issues are identified and addressed appropriately”.

The potential change in impacts has been documented by the Applicant in Aviation Impact Statement, Aeronautical Impact Assessment, Qualitative Risk Assessment and an Obstacle Lighting Review (Ambidji, April 2016), contained in Appendix Z of the Submission to Support Application to Amend Planning Permit No. PL‐SP/05/0548 (Jacobs, May 2016). Mr Jennings, the author of the Ambidji report provided an expert witness statement and appeared before the Panel. The weight of evidence reveals that level of risk to aviation safety from the amended wind farm is low and therefore does not present a significant hazard to aviation safety or change the potential impact on aircraft safety, compared to the approved permit.

The Panel notes that Mr Hawker and Mr Mitchell, and experts Mr Wheeler and Mr Foster called by Mr Hawker did not undertake a review of the Ambidji report or present compelling evidence to the contrary. The matters they did raise are addressed in the following two sections.

In conclusion, this Panel does not consider the amended wind farm results in a material change to aviation safety impacts. The Panel agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the 2010 Panel and the Panel sees no reasonable justification to amend the current permit conditions or alter the layout of the amended wind farm.

(ii) Aerial agriculture

The Panel found most of the material presented to it on this matter was not pertinent to changes proposed by the amended wind farm and the task before the Panel. The Panel therefore has not (re)canvassed the various submissions and arguments; suffice to say it refers all parties to the 2010 Panel report.

Having said that, the Panel notes the submission of Mr Hawker, the evidence of Mr Wheeler and Mr Foster and the argument that larger turbines may produce more turbulence and therefore will increase the hazard and risk posed to aircraft. The Panel did not find this argument convincing, for the following reasons:

Turbulence whether generated by a wind farm, convection, adverse weather conditions, terrain or obstacles is one of numerous hazards a responsible pilot needs to consider and manage when planning and operating an aircraft, e.g Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) CAR 157 – Low Flying and CAR 92 – Use of Aerodromes.

Rightly, Mr Foster under questioning by the Panel indicated they (Woorayl Air Services) have a one kilometre buffer policy from wind farms when they are undertaking aerial spraying, irrespective of their size and even so could still spray Mr Hawker’s property east–west.


Page 77

No assessment was provided regarding the quantitative difference in turbulence between the permitted and the amended wind farm, this may have been useful to the Panel. The Panel is left having to speculate whether that difference is significant or not.

In relation to Mr Wheeler’s evidence the UK guidelines do not apply in Australia and if they did it would most likely be in relation to authorised, certified or military aerodromes and not an uncertified Aeroplane Landing Area like Mr Hawker’s landing strip.

In conclusion, this Panel does not consider the amended wind farm results in a material change to aerial agricultural impacts. The Panel agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the 2010 Panel and it sees no reasonable justification to amend the current permit conditions or alter the layout of the amended wind farm.

8.4 Aerial firefighting

This Panel was not persuaded that the amended Applicant would result in any significant change in the ability to fight fires using aircraft, compared to the existing permitted project.

Under questioning by the Panel Mr Foster provided expert evidence that it would not be possible to fly firefighting aircraft between turbines and there would be no practical difference if they were 142 or 180 metres high. The Panel also notes the Country Fire Authority has no opposition to the amended wind farm and has previously advised the 2010 Panel that wind farms do not create a tactical disadvantage in firefighting.

The Panel found most of the material presented to it on this matter was not pertinent to changes proposed by the amended wind farm and the task before the Panel. The Panel has not (re)canvassed the various submissions and arguments; suffice to say it refers all parties to the 2010 Panel report.

In conclusion, this Panel does not consider the amended wind farm results in a material change to aerial firefighting impacts. The Panel agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the 2010 Panel and it sees no reasonable justification to amend the current permit conditions or alter the layout of the amended wind farm.


Page 78

9 Traffic and road asset management

9.1 Introduction

(i) What changes are proposed

Condition 35 of the Wind Farm Permit requires the preparation of a traffic management plan (TMP), in consultation with Pyrenees Shire Council, Corangamite Shire Council and VicRoads to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The condition includes a number of specific requirements for the TMP, including an existing conditions survey; recommendations on the need for road and intersection upgrades, a program to rehabilitate roads; and if required by Pyrenees or Corangamite Shire Council, the payment of a security deposit(s) or bond(s) in respect of roadworks covered by the TMP. Condition 35 requires the traffic management and road upgrade and maintenance works associated with the wind energy facility to be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. It also requires the cost of such works to be at the expense of the wind energy facility operator.

9.2 Traffic management


The WEF Guidelines require an application to include an assessment of the traffic impacts of a proposal during the construction and delivery of materials and the impact on roads.


GHD prepared a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) which accompanied the Application. The TIA assessed the traffic impacts of the proposed amendments to the Wind Farm compared to the permitted Wind Farm. These two scenarios were further broken down into comparisons with and without the on‐site quarry. In summary, the TIA concluded that:

The amended wind farm with the on‐site quarry generated the least amount of daily and peak hour traffic. For heavy vehicle traffic, there would be 14 fewer vehicles per hour and 136 fewer vehicles per day compared to proceeding with the Wind Farm as currently approved without the on‐site quarry.

The provision of the on‐site quarry would reduce the number of heavy vehicle trips on the extended public road network considerably. For the permitted Wind Farm, the reduction was estimated to be 30,664 fewer two way trips whereas for the amended wind farm the reduction is 29,225 fewer two way trips, or approximately 70 vehicles per day. Further, the TIA identified that 35 percent of the quarry traffic necessary to construct the turbines can occur via internal access tracks, thereby avoiding the public road network.

The surrounding road network has ample spare capacity to accommodate the construction traffic associated with the Wind Farm with negligible impact in terms of congestions and delays. The TIA determined that this was the case for all of the scenarios it assessed, even without the benefit of an on‐site quarry.


Page 79

The site access intersections currently have very little traffic and would not warrant upgrade in terms of capacity, although some changes may be necessary to accommodation the swept path requirements of some heavy and over‐dimensional vehicles.

A number of submissions have raised concerns about traffic impacts, including in relation to damage to roads and the associated repair costs. Concerns were also raised in relation to school bus routes.

The Applicant submitted that the TIA supports the conclusion that the traffic impacts of the Wind Farm can be appropriately addressed through the existing condition, and the TMP that must be prepared under it. These establish that the responsibility for repairing damaged roads, and the costs of those repairs, is borne by the Applicant.

The Applicant submitted that the current conditions ensure that any necessary works or upgrades arising due to the project are identified and funded by the Applicant. Additionally, the Applicant and DELWP now propose that the Pyrenees Shire Council (and VicRoads for Category 1 roads) have the ultimate responsibility for endorsement of the TMP. An amended form of condition 35 reflecting this change has now been tabled with the Panel for consideration. The Applicant submits that this change will further ensure that the Pyrenees Shire Council has an integral role in ensuring traffic impacts are managed for their local community.

In relation to ensuring an integrated approach to traffic across the permits, the proposed quarry permit includes the condition 11:

Traffic from the quarry shall at all times operate in accordance with any Traffic Management Plan endorsed under planning permit PL‐SP/05/0548, unless varied with the written consent of the relevant road authority. This does not apply to establishment and rehabilitation of the quarry which is regulated by the Traffic Management Plan required by condition 10 of this permit below

Council submitted that:

Either of the following two approaches would be acceptable to Council:

The same TMP is integrated across both the quarry and wind farm permits.

The Wind Farm TMP is conditional on the Quarry TMP, meaning that the Wind Farm TMP will not be approved by Council until such time as the Quarry TMP has been approved.

The Applicant agreed with the intent of Council’s approach.

Council sought changes to the Traffic and Asset Management Plan condition to ensure roads were maintained at a certain condition rather than rehabilitated to an agreed condition:

a program of regular inspections to be carried out during the construction period in line with the requirements of the relevant road authority to identify maintenance works necessary as a result of construction traffic.

a program to rehabilitate maintain roads to at the condition identified by the surveys required under condition 34(a).


Page 80

a program to rehabilitate roads after construction to ensure the condition of roads is sufficient to accommodate traffic movements associated with the ongoing operation of the wind energy facility after it is constructed.

Council also sought changes to ensure the traffic management and road upgrade and maintenance works associated must be carried out ‘using approved road materials’.

(iii) Discussion

The 2010 Panel concluded in its report that:

We have also considered the requirement in the draft permit conditions for a Traffic Management Plan and its specified components. We consider these to cover the central matters for attention.

Specifically we find that … [t]he road network within and accessing the Stockyard Hill WEF area can accommodate the additional traffic loads and the types of traffic (from private vehicles through to Over‐Dimensional vehicles) that will need to access the area during the construction and operational phases.

The project as assessed in 2010 did not include the provision of an on‐site quarry. With this included as part of the project, the traffic impacts associated with construction of the Wind Farm are predicted to be significantly reduced.

It is important that the traffic management plan for the quarry and wind farm are coordinated.

It is not clear to the Panel that it is possible or practical to maintain the roads during the construction phase. Certainly, the roads will need to be kept in a safe and serviceable condition, but it is not clear that it is practical to maintain the roads at current conditions during construction. It may be that the case that the roads do suffer wear during construction but provided they are rehabilitated in a timely fashion the Panel agrees this could be a problem.

The Panel understands that this was a significant issue at Macarthur where, according to some reports, roads became practically unusable during construction for normal light vehicles. The Traffic and asset management plan should address this issue.

The road upgrade and maintenance works associated must be carried out to the satisfaction of Pyrenees Shire Council and VicRoads and the Panel presumes that his includes the standards of material used. The Panel does not see the need to specify this explicitly.

(iv) Recommendation


Update the Traffic Management Plan conditions to make it clear that it must also address the operation of the quarry.


Page 81

10 Quarry

10.1 Introduction

A quarry is now proposed to be located within the boundary of the wind farm. The quarry will produce an estimated total of 1,200,000 tonnes of crushed rock to be used for construction of internal access roads, turbine hardstands, power pole hardstands and concrete aggregate. In addition, general and bulk fill may be required to upgrade or remediate local public roads which need to be upgraded to facilitate the construction of the wind farm or which sustain wear beyond normal use during the construction.

The quarry will enable potential impacts on the local community, including roads, traffic and local material supplies to be minimised. The movement of aggregate material from the proposed quarry to construction sites will be predominantly be via internal haul roads established as part of the construction.

The Applicant has provided the following information in relation to the key characteristics of the quarry:

The quarry is proposed to be in the centre of the site (Lot 2 PS 604 561).

No natural surface water courses or groundwater springs were identified at the site.

The proposed excavation is an approximately rectangular area measuring around 450 metres x 350 metres, having an area of approximately 157,500 square metres (15.75 ha).

The excavation floor has a grade of 1 in 100, which will allow natural drainage and prevent water ponding in the excavation during or after extraction.

Surface run‐off from the quarry pit will be directed to the outlet at the north‐west of the quarry and will drain naturally (via gravity) into a water dam to be constructed to the west.

The north‐western side of the quarry is at current grade level (~372 metres AHD), and cuts into the hill to the south‐east. At the deepest part of the quarry pit, i.e. the south‐eastern end, the total depth of extraction will be approximately 8 to 9 metres below the existing topography (~376 metres AHD). The outline of the proposed quarry in a sectional view is shown in Figure 6 below.


Page 82

Figure 6: Section view of the proposed quarry

Note: North‐west to south‐east positioned cross‐section across the site (Groundwater elevations estimated based on July 2013 and December 2016 gauging results).

It is noted:

No groundwater extraction is proposed.

Water will be carted to site if necessary for site use to supplement the water to be collected in the water dam and rainwater tanks associated with site buildings.

Sewerage from the site will be treated by septic tanks on site.

Diesel fuel for use on site will be stored in a bunded, above ground storage tank. Oils, lubricants and diesel fuel will be stored appropriately in a suitable area. No explosives or detonators will be stored at the quarry.

The quarry is intended to operate for approximately 3 years, during construction of the wind farm.

Post extraction, the quarry will be remediated and returned to farmland. The batter slopes will be no steeper than 5H:1V, which will be consistent with the gently undulating nature of the existing terrain.

Post extraction the water dam will be filled using the material previously excavated as part of its construction and the quarry floor will be covered with a layer of topsoil and seeded with pasture grasses.

The Applicant regards a key benefit of the quarry is that construction material for the wind farm foundations can be sourced on site rather than requiring additional transport movements to bring material to site. This approach is expected to minimise the amount of truck movements on the public road network, a proposition supported by the Shire and VicRoads.


Page 83

Approvals and Planning Policy Framework

The planning policies and objectives with respect to the quarry are outlined in Section 2. In addition, approval is required for the use and development of the quarry via a work plan and Work Authority under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSD Act) and a planning permit under the Pyrenees Planning Scheme. A separate planning permit application has been lodged for the quarry with the Shire of Pyrenees.

As part of a Work Authority process, a draft work plan (WA1518) was prepared and endorsed by the Department of State Development and Business Innovation, now the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources under the MRSD Act on 5 May 2014. The endorsed work plan will be finalised following the issue of the planning permit to ensure consistency..

Additionally, a voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan (12648) was prepared for the quarry, and approved by Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation on 14 May 2014.

Self‐assessments under the Environment Effects Act 1978 and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 have been undertaken and the Applicant considers referrals under these Acts are not required, as the quarry will not have a significant impact on the environment.

10.2 Submissions and evidence

The Applicant has provided a Submission to Support Planning Permit Application for Extractive Industry, Jacobs, May 2016. This document contains several technical appendices and plans, including:

Endorsed Work Plan

Air and Noise Modelling Assessment

Environmental Management Plan

Effects of Blasting Assessment

Flora and Fauna Surveys

Stakeholder and Community Engagement Plan

Landscape and Visual Assessment

Traffic Assessment and Framework Management Plan

Traffic Impact Assessment

Social Impact Assessment

Approval for Voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan.

Written objections and submissions before the Panel raised two main potential impacts with respect to the proposed quarry, that is:

traffic impacts – increased heavy truck movements, risk of accidents and conflicts and premature deterioration of road pavements

hydrogeology and water.

Other matters addressed by the Applicant in their documentation will not be assess further as they are not considered to have unacceptable impacts and/or can be adequately managed through enforceable conditions pursuant to the MRSD Act and the permit conditions.


Page 84

Traffic impacts

Traffic impacts from the amended Application and the quarry application are addressed in an integrated way in Chapter 9 of this report. There will be a single Traffic Management Plan for the project (wind farm, transmission infrastructure and quarry), which will be endorsed by Council and VicRoads as the responsible authority. Traffic is not considered further in this section.

Hydrogeology and water

The Panel found some of the material presented to it was not pertinent to the quarry Application and was a re‐prosecution of potential impacts already considered by the 2010 Panel, covered by existing permit conditions and for which no significant change is proposed by the Applicant. Even so and because water is such a vital issue in rural communities the Panel provides the following summary.

The 2010 Panel considered in detail potential impacts on hydrogeology and groundwater from the construction of turbine foundations, operation of concrete batching plants, track/road construction, dust suppression, water requirements (60‐70ML) and surface and groundwater contamination (e.g. possible turbidity and siltation). The 2010 Panel found that:

the project water requirements were relatively small when considered on a regional scale and groundwater pumping for construction would not be sustained over the long term and therefore would be insufficient in volume and longevity to significantly impact other water users

the hard surface area created by the turbines and associated infrastructure (roads, tracks, hard stand areas and the like) covers a very small proportion of the project area and any run‐off from foundation and tracks will continue to access groundwater

turbine foundation construction to a depth is unlikely to create any hydrogeological impact on the bedrock

any potential threat to surface or ground waters (e.g. because of possible siltation) during the operation could be managed in accordance with an approved Environmental Management Plan

the potential for construction or operation to impact local springs fed from the Newer Volcanics (stony rises) areas was not considered significant.

Accordingly, the Minister for Planning imposed the following conditions to protect surface and groundwater:

Environmental Management Plan – condition 6

Construction and Site Works Management Plan – conditions 6a

Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan ‐ condition 6b.

For these reasons the following section is confined to the hydrogeology and water matters applicable to the quarry.


Page 85

10.3 Hydrogeology and water impacts of the quarry


In preparing her expert evidence Ms Krusic‐Hrustanpasic reviewed the Groundwater Assessment Report (Golder, 2014) and Addendum (Golder, 2017) and provided the following evidence:

Groundwater is inferred to flow westerly and south‐westerly from the site. There is the potential for groundwater flow from the northern part of the site towards Wangatta and Water Sump springs located to the west of the site. However, it is unlikely for groundwater to flow from the site towards Horse Spring and Mawallok Home Spring located to the north‐west of the site.

The depth to groundwater beneath the site was between about 10.7 metres and 24.4 metres when measured in December 2016.

The water table beneath the site is a subdued reflection of the ground surface topography (see Figure 6), as would be expected for shallow groundwater within the basalt of the Newer Volcanics.

Discharge of groundwater at the ground surface (manifested as springs) occurs locally in these low lying landscapes where there is a break in slope.

Based on the quarry floor elevation and slope, the groundwater table in December 2016 was between approximately 13 metres and 16 metres below the proposed base of the quarry. Water levels from December 2016 would be relatively high following a wet Spring season in 2016, which is supported by results of gauging undertaken in 2013 and 2016.

Ms Krusic‐Hrustanpasic concluded that the quarrying activities are not likely to have a significant impact on local and regional groundwater levels, groundwater flows and quality; based on the following:

The depth to groundwater of approximately 13 metres to 16 metres being well below the proposed base of the quarry as measured in December 2016 and after a wet spring. It is unlikely that groundwater could interact with the quarry pit floor. This also means that it is unlikely that evapotranspiration from the quarry could alter the local salinity and hence water quality of the groundwater.

Changes in groundwater recharge rates, and hence discharge rates at springs, due to quarry operations. The unlikely potential for interaction of groundwater with the quarry pit floor means that even if groundwater from the site flows towards Wangatta and Water Sump springs, it is not likely to noticeably affect the water flow from the springs. Considering the total area of the excavation in comparison to the total spring catchment area, any change in flow dynamics is likely to be minor. Additionally, any changes in groundwater recharge would be further limited by presence of low permeability fresh basalt horizons above the water bearing aquifer zone. Based on the inferred westerly and south‐westerly groundwater flow direction, the Mawallok Home Spring and Horse Spring are outside the quarry groundwater flow path.

Potential contamination impacts resulting from storage, use and handling of chemicals and fuels. This risk was assessed in the EMP as low, assuming the


Page 86

implementation of mitigation measures including bunded storage of chemicals and fuels within hardstand areas, refuelling of plant to take place within hardstand areas, and limited volume of chemical and fuel storage on site. Impacts on groundwater from the storage, use and handling of chemicals and fuels at the quarry would be further reduced by presence of low permeability fresh basalt horizons above the water bearing aquifer zone.

Potential contamination impacts resulting from use of blasting explosives within the quarry. The EMP recommends use of low composition ammonium nitrate explosives as a mitigation measure to reduce risk of nitrate impact to groundwater quality. This product is similar in nitrate composition to agricultural fertilisers, so would not greatly change the risk to groundwater from that presented by the current agricultural land use, considering the existing nitrate impacts in groundwater.

Potential damage to the aquifer properties from blasting within the quarry. The Terrock (2013) report, indicated that blasting will be undertaken to break enough rock to be excavated and fracturing is not likely to propagate more than a few metres beyond the quarry. Terrock also concluded that the aquifer (and nearby groundwater wells) will not be damaged by blast vibration.

Condition 4 requires that the quarry operates in accordance with the Approved Work Plan. The EMP is an appendix to the work plan; relevant groundwater pollution prevention and monitoring requirements are contained in the EMP. If results of groundwater monitoring suggest that a protected beneficial use of groundwater may be impacted then contingency measures will be developed, incorporated into the EMP and implemented.

Additionally, if groundwater is intercepted during quarry operation, excavation will cease until relevant permits are obtained, contingency measures are developed, incorporated into the EMP and implemented.

Mr Stuckey also provided expert hydrogeological evidence to the Panel. With some exceptions, the Panel found Mr Stuckey’s expert witness statement and evidence to be consistent with Ms Krusic‐Hrustanpasic evidence.

(ii) Discussion

One of the matters of some contention related to groundwater flow direction and whether any flow under the quarry moves to northwest towards Mawallok property. In his expert witness statement Mr Stuckey presented inferred groundwater contours based on groundwater data collected at bores at different times, and given the responsive nature of the aquifer this is not considered acceptable by the Panel. To make matters worse Mr Stuckey presented this same figure in the hearing (via PowerPoint) overlayed with straight groundwater flow direction lines, which were not perpendicular to his inferred groundwater contours. Notwithstanding the questionable inferred groundwater contours of Mr Stuckey, Ms Krusic‐Hrustanpasic provided the Panel with a figure correctly showing groundwater direction lines perpendicular to the inferred contours provided by Mr Stuckey. This figure indicated groundwater flow under the site moving west and not northwest towards Mawallok.


Page 87

Either way the Panel regards the direction of groundwater flow a moot point, because the Panel is satisfied that the quarry will not significantly impact the quantity or quality of groundwater flow, a point not contested by Mr Stuckey.

On the other hand, Mr Stuckey does contest that there is potential for turbine footings to intersect and reduce groundwater flow and the physical reduction in groundwater flow due to groundwater extraction for construction of turbine footings. As discussed above the Panel notes that neither of these matters are relevant to the Panel’s consideration of the quarry Application because they have been considered by the 2010 Panel.

Given the number of concerns raised with respect to hydrogeology and water the Applicant in submissions is prepared to accept a condition that provides submitters with greater certainty around management of impacts to groundwater. They propose such a condition could require the following:

Monitoring to be undertaken prior to commencement of development to establish a groundwater quality baseline, setting out the existing beneficial uses of the groundwater in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria).

During operation, biannual monitoring of the quality of the groundwater at the quarry site to ensure that the beneficial uses of the groundwater as established in the baseline report are maintained.

If any existing beneficial use from the baseline study is impacted then a groundwater monitoring and management plan must be developed and implemented to the responsible authority’s satisfaction.

The Panel supports a condition of this nature.

10.4 Recommendation

The Panel recommends that:

Include on any permit for the quarry, a condition requiring a comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan that includes the development of a baseline on the site and at beneficial users, a regular operational groundwater monitoring plan, public reporting and a management response framework to ensure incidents and performance outcomes are achieved.


Page 88

11 Other issues

11.1 Responsible authority

Pyrenees Shire Council's proposed amendments include a change that provides that the Minister is the responsible authority for administration and enforcement of the planning permit, rather than Council.

Under the provisions of Clause 61.01‐1 of the Pyrenees Planning Scheme, the Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for a WEF, except for permits for a WEF issued before 2 April 2015 under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act) for which Council is responsible authority for endorsement, administration and enforcement of a WEF planning permit, subject to the operation of section 97H of the P&E Act which deals with:

any matters which the permit specifies to be done by, approved by or done to the satisfaction of the Minister

any extension of time under section 69 in relation to the permit

the correction of any error

the amendment of the permit.

Based on the operation of Section 97H of the P&E Act, and as the current planning permit states that the Minister for Planning is responsible for approving and endorsing extensive secondary consent matters.

The effect of Clause 61 of the Planning Scheme together with section 97H of the P&E Act is that Council is the responsible authority for enforcement. This cannot be changed by altering the permit.

The Panel has some sympathy for Council but does not see how it is an issue that can be effectively addressed by the Application. The Panel’s understanding is that it would require changes to the planning scheme.


Page 89

Appendix A Submitters to the Amendment

No. Submitter

1 Hamish Cumming

2 David and Robyn Gerrard

3 Mawallok Pastoral Company Pty Ltd

4 Andrew and Pat Gabb

5 Lynette Heenan

6 Peter Mitchell

7 Philip Hawker

8 Noel Dean

9 Ann Gardner

10 Cassie Franzose

11 Jenny Bruty

12 Andrew Gardner

13 Neil Blain

14 John and Helen Roxburgh

15 Venita Driden

16 The Stockyard Hill Community Guardians

17 Caroline Forbes

18 The Stockyard Hill Community Guardians

19 Rod and Rebecca McErvale

20 Bill Mulcahy

21 John Kilpatrick

22 Colin Fraser

23 Megan and Warwick Read

24 Andrew and Heather Millar

25 Ewan and Tracey Read/Millar

26 Myles and Joanne Read

27 Ewan and Tracey Read/Millar

28 Melissa Ware

29 Jason and Merrewyn Chapman

30 Pyrenees Shire Council


Page 90

No. Submitter

31 Steven and Wendy Crick

32 Lake Goldsmith Pastoral Co Pty Ltd

33 Paul and Romana Huckstepp

34 Anne and Colin Fraser

35 Adrian and Jillian Franc

36 Hancock Victorian Plantations Pty Ltd

37 Craig Wilson

38 Bernard Kehoe

39 Wind Industry Reform Victoria Inc.

40 Donald Thomas

41 Nicholas Franc

42 Serena Mitchell

43 David Jackson

44 B D and E A Kirby

45 Rodney and Margaret Read


Page 91

Appendix B Document list

No. Date Description Tabled by

1 6/02/2017 Submission on behalf of Minister for Planning Hugh Griggs (DELWP)

2 6/02/2017 Draft permit conditions with track changes and comments

Hugh Griggs (DELWP)

3 6/02/2017 White & Case Main Submission Part A Origin Energy Michelle Quigley

4 6/02/2017 Map and table of project and dwelling locations by Origin Energy

Michelle Quigley

5 6/02/2017 Environmental Noise PowerPoint presentation Chris Turnbull

6 6/02/2017 Paper by Hansen C What's our ethical responsibility? Tony Edney

7 6/02/2017 Photo of wind turbines showing dust wake in the background

Tony Edney

8 7/02/2017 AO Photomontages printed out Allan Wyatt

9 7/02/2017 Photomontage from Mawallok Homestead terrace Allan Wyatt

10 7/02/2017 Figure 5: Visual magnitude thresholds graph from NSW guidance

Stephen Mitchell

11 7/02/2017 Submission on behalf of DELWP Environment Portfolio (ecology)

Stewart Dekker (DELWP)

12 7/02/2017 Ecology PowerPoint presentation Aaron Organ (Ecology and Heritage Partners)

13 8/02/2017 Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Bird and Bat Impact Assessment PowerPoint presentation

Ian Smales (Biosis)

14 8/02/2017 Quarry groundwater impact PowerPoint presentation Irena Krusic‐Hrustanpasic (Golder)

15 8/02/2017 Rainfall graph Irena Krusic‐Hrustanpasic (Golder)

16 8/02/2017 Water flow direction analysis slide Irena Krusic‐Hrustanpasic (Golder)

17 9/02/2017 4x Additional Groundwater slides Irena Krusic‐Hrustanpasic (Golder)

18 9/02/2017 White & Case Main Submission Part B Origin Energy Michelle Quigley


Page 92


19 10/02/2017 Draft permit conditions with track changes and comments from Pyrenees Council

Maria Marshall (Maddocks)

20 10/02/2017 Summary of Pyrenees Council submission Maria Marshall (Maddocks)

21 10/02/2017 Written submission and Wind energy facility map John McMahon (Wind Energy Reform Victoria)

22 13/02/2017 Environmental noise PowerPoint presentation Les Huson

23 14/02/2017 Hydrogeology PowerPoint presentation Mark Stuckey (Environmental Earth Sciences)

24 15/02/2017 Email for Les Huson on turbine separation calculations Les Huson

25 15/02/2017 Email 1 from Hamish Cumming with attachments Hamish Cumming








33 15/02/2017 Written submission by Hamish Cumming Hamish Cumming

34 15/02/2017 Peter Watts (Heritage) errata Peter Watts

35 15/02/2017 Dennis Williamson (Visual) errata Dennis Williamson

36 15/02/2017 Attachment to document 37, correspondence from Origin Energy and letter from Hart Aviation

Sarah and Philip Hawker

37 15/02/2017 Written submission Sarah and Philip Hawker Sarah and Philip Hawker


Page 93


38 15/02/2017 Photomontages x 2 Sarah and Philip Hawker

39 16/02/2017 Written submission by Megan and Warwick Read Megan and Warwick Read

40 16/02/2017 Copy of Council minutes of 19 March 2013 Megan and Warwick Read

41 16/02/2017 Written submission by Patricia Gabb Patricia Gabb

42 16/02/2017 Video "Origin of Evil" Andrew Gabb

43 16/02/2017 Written submission by Andrew Gabb and 21 attachments Andrew Gabb

44 16/02/2017 Written submission by Peter R Mitchell and 7 attachments

Peter R Mitchell

45 17/02/2017 Various Documents from Wind Refugees as part of Andrew Gabb submission

Andrew Gabb

46 17/02/2017 Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources PowerPoint presentation

Bessie Abbott

47 17/02/2107 Visual effects at Mawallok Homestead PowerPoint presentation

Dennis Williamson

48 17/02/2017 Figure A4‐2 Mawallok Viewpoint 2 Dennis Williamson

49 17/02/2017 Expert witness statement (with errata track changes 15/2/2017) ‐ Visual effects Mawallok Homestead

Dennis Williamson

50 17/02/2017 Written submission by Stephen Mitchell Stephen Mitchell

51 17/02/2017 Written submission by John H Chapman and 1 attachment

John H Chapman

52 17/02/2017 Written submission by David C Jackson David C Jackson

53 17/02/2017 Written submission by Carmel Callus Carmel Callus

54 17/02/2017 Photomontages x 2 Carmel Callus

55 20/02/2017 Written submission by Donald Thomas Donald Thomas

56 20/02/2017 Written submission by Ann Gardner and 10 attachments Ann Gardner

57 20/02/2017 Written submission by Andrew Gardner and 2 attachments

Andrew Gardner

58 20/02/2017 Written submission by Venita Dridan Venita Dridan

59 20/02/2017 Origin contract with participants Michelle Quigley

60 20/02/2017 Final written submission by Applicant Michelle Quigley

61 20/02/2017 BMC Neuroscience ‐ acoustic reflex paper Michelle Quigley


Page 94


62 20/02/2017 Assoc of Aust Acoustical Consultants letter to Select Committee on Wind Turbines re Cape Bridgewater Testing

Michelle Quigley

63 21/02/2017 Biosis letter to Origin re submission by Mr H Cumming, Biosis letter to Origin re minor change to turbine dimensions, Paper by Ian Smales on modelling collision risk and populations

Michelle Quigley

64 22/02/2017 Map of comparison of powerlines Michelle Quigley

65 23/02/2017 Biosis report Risks of Brolga collisions with external powerline

Michelle Quigley

66 24/02/2017 Letter from Hon Richard Wynne re referral under the Environment Effects Act 1978

Michelle Quigley

67 25/02/2017 Email from CFA on permit and emergency management guidelines for wind energy facilitates

Michelle Quigley

68 26/02/2017 AIP Australia advisory on Hawker runway Michelle Quigley

69 27/02/2017 Information on Waubra Foundation and Wind Industry Reform Victoria

Michelle Quigley

70 20/02/2017 Draft permit (PL‐SP/05/0548) conditions with track changes and comments

Michelle Quigley


Megan Reed (Guardians)

72 20/02/2017 Draft permit conditions (noise) Megan Reed (Guardians)



74 20/02/2017 Draft Permit conditions (quarry) with track changes and comments


75 20/02/2017 Draft Permit conditions (quarry) with track changes and comments

Megan Reed (Guardians)

76 20/02/2017 Additional information Waubra Foundation


Page 95

Appendix C Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

Minister for Planning represented by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Represented by Hugh Griggs and Stuart Dekker

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Pty Ltd Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Pty Ltd represented by Michelle Quigley briefed by White and Case Lawyers and calling evidence in:

‐ Acoustics (Chris Turnbull)

‐ Landscape (Allan Wyatt)

‐ Flora and Fauna (Aaron Organ)

‐ Avifauna (Ian Smales)

‐ Aviation (Ian Jennings)

‐ Groundwater (Irena Krusic‐Hrustanpasic)

Pyrenees Shire Council Maria Marshall of Maddocks Lawyers with Traffic and Road Management issues presented by Douglas Gowans, Pyrenees Shire Council

Wind Industry Reform Victoria John McMahon

Stockyard Hill Community Guardians Represented by Tony Edney with Megan Read, Stephen Mitchell and Hamish Cummings and calling evidence in:

‐ Health (Sarah Laurie)

‐ Acoustics (Les Huson)

‐ Hydrology (Mark Stuckey)

Sarah Hawker calling evidence in:

‐ Acoustics (Les Huson)

Phillip Hawker calling evidence in:

‐ Wind turbulence from turbines and its impact on aviation operations (Stephen Wheeler via video link from the UK)

‐ Aerial agriculture, firefighting and Hawkwood Airstrip (Barry Foster)

Megan and Warwick Read

Tarnawa Pastoral Company Represented by Andrew and Patricia Gabb, Andrew Lang and other advocates who shared their experiences living near wind farms

Peter Mitchell


Page 96

Submitter Represented by

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (in relation to the approval process for the quarry)

Bessie Abbott of the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

Mawallok Pastoral Company Pty Ltd Mawallok Pastoral Company Pty Ltd represented by Jason Pennell of counsel calling evidence in:

‐ Landscape and heritage impacts (Dennis Williamson)

‐ Landscape and heritage impacts (Peter Watts)

‐ Landscape and heritage impacts (John Patrick)

John and Merrewyn Chapman

David Jackson

Philip Bennett

Carmel Callus

HVP Plantations Represented by Warwick Williams, Corporate Counsel

Donald Thomas

Ann Gardner

Andrew Gardner

Venita Dridan


Page 97

Appendix D Preferred permits


Page 98

Appendix D1 Quarry

PLANNING PERMIT

Permit No.: PA2499/16

Planning Scheme: Pyrenees

Responsible Authority: Minister of Planning

ADDRESS OF THE LAND:

Stockyard Hill‐Wangatta Road, Stockyard Hill (Lot 2 PS604561R)

THE PERMIT ALLOWS: The use and development of the land for stone extraction.

Development plans 1. Before the development starts, development plans must be prepared to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plans will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be fully dimensioned, drawn to a scale and three copies must be provided to the Minister for Planning. The plans must be generally in accordance with the ‘Quarry Indicative Layout Plan’, but modified (where required) to show: a) Demountable buildings; b) Truck wash areas; c) Hardstand and/or work areas; d) Car parking areas; e) Stockpiling areas; and f) Road treatments.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Minister for Planning.

Works permit 3. The use and development of the subject land must not commence until a Work

Authority and Approved Work Plan is granted for the quarry in accordance with the requirements of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSDA).


Page 99

Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) condition 4. The use and development must operate at all times in accordance with the Work

Authority and Approved Work Plan. No amendment and or variation to either the Work Authority or Work Plan is permitted unless in accordance with MRSDA.

Materials extracted 5. All materials extracted must only be used for the development of the

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm as approved by planning permit PL‐SP/05/0548 and development associated with planning permits PA1600101 and PA1600126.

6. Materials extracted shall not be for sale to any other party.

Hours of operation 7. The quarry must only operate between the following hours, unless varied by

the written consent of the Minister for Planning: a) 7am to 6pm, from Monday to Friday. b) 7am to 1pm on Saturdays.

Drainage and Water Storage Management Plan 8. Before development starts, a Drainage and Water Storage Management Plan

must be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning. The plans must be in accordance with the Approved Work Plan, but must also include: a) The management and disposal of waste waters generated from the

site, in particular from the truck wash and demountable buildings; b) The management of surface water generated on the site, with

particular reference to land used for demountable buildings and hardstand areas; and

c) The location of a septic tank and effluent disposal fields required to manage wastewater generated on site.

Groundwater quality 9. Before commencement of development, groundwater monitoring shall be

undertaken from the existing bores at the quarry site to establish a groundwater quality baseline, in particular setting out the existing beneficial uses of the groundwater in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria). The groundwater quality baseline shall be set out in a report to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. During operation, biannual monitoring of the quality of the groundwater at the quarry site shall be undertaken. If any existing beneficial use from the baseline study is impacted then a groundwater management plan (including contingency measures) must be developed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.


Page 100

Ground water monitoring

Include a condition requiring a comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan that includes the development of a baseline on the site and at beneficial users, a regular operational groundwater monitoring plan, public reporting and a management response framework to ensure incidents and performance outcomes are achieved.

Interception of groundwater 10. During operation if groundwater is intercepted on the site the permit holder

must: a) Immediately cease excavation; b) Immediately contact the Minster for Planning and the relevant water

authority; and c) not recommence excavation until:

i. The relevant water authority has advised that a groundwater licence is not required, or any necessary groundwater licence has been acquired; or

ii. The operation is modified to the satisfaction of the relevant water authority and the Minister for Planning.

Accordance with wind farm permit (PL‐SP/05/0548) Traffic Management Plan 11. Traffic from the quarry shall at all times operate in accordance with any

Traffic Management Plan endorsed under planning permit PL‐SP/05/0548, unless varied with the written consent of the Minister for Planning. This does not apply to establishment and rehabilitation of the quarry which is regulated by the Traffic Management Plan required by condition 10 of this permit below.

Traffic Management Plan – establishment and rehabilitation 12. Before the development starts, a Traffic Management Plan must be

submitted to and approved by Pyrenees Shire Council for the establishment and rehabilitation of the quarry. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified traffic engineer in consultation with VicRoads and Pyrenees Shire Council and must: a) identify proposed haul routes to and from the quarry site; b) include an existing conditions survey of public roads proposed as haul

routes (including details of the suitability, design, condition and construction standard of the roads);

c) identify vehicle access points to the quarry site which ensure safe sight distances, turning movements and which avoid potential traffic conflicts;

d) identify measures to manage traffic impacts associated with the establishment and rehabilitation of the quarry on surrounding public roads, including but not limited to: i. the designation of operating hours, ii. speed limits, iii. avoidance of school bus routes and/or school bus times where

relevant, and


Page 101

iv. road safety signage; e) include a program of regular inspections to be carried out during the

establishment and rehabilitation phases to identify maintenance works necessary as a result of quarry establishment and rehabilitation traffic; and

f) Include a program to rehabilitate existing public roads to the condition identified in the surveys carried out under condition 9(b).

Establishment and Rehabilitation 13. All traffic required to establish and rehabilitate the quarry shall be restricted

to the haul routes identified in the endorsed traffic management plan unless the prior written consent of VicRoads and the Shire of Pyrenees (as relevant) is obtained.

14. Rehabilitation must commence in accordance with the Work Authority following the completion of extraction of material necessary for the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm.

Other conditions 15. The use must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not

detrimentally affected, through the: a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or

from the land b) appearance of any building, works or materials c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration. smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,

steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil d) presence of vermin.

16. Noise levels emanating from the land must comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority's Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria guideline (EPA publication 1411).

17. Provision must be made on the land for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

18. All roads/storage areas/external stockpiles/vacant or grazed areas must be maintained to avoid dust nuisance to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

19. No polluted and/or sediment laden run‐off is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Councils drains or watercourses. To this end, pollution or litter traps must be provided on site.

20. All works must be undertaken in a manner that minimises soil erosion, and any exposed areas of soil must be stabilised to prevent soil erosion, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

21. Soil erosion control measures must be employed throughout the construction stage of the development to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. All cleared areas for vehicle use must be stabilised, drained and


Page 102

surfaced to prevent soil erosion to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

22. The area approved by this permit and subject to the extraction is to be rehabilitated, on completion of the removal of quarried material, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

23. All topsoil to be removed during the earthworks must be stockpiled, maintained in a weed‐free condition, re‐spread on disturbed ground after completion of the earthworks and re‐vegetated to prevent erosion, all to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

24. No environmental weeds may be planted on or allowed to invade the site. 25. Access to the site shall only be at the nominated crossing shown on the

endorsed plan. The crossing and road pavement works are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Pyrenees Shire Council.

26. The loading and unloading of goods from vehicles must only be carried out on the land at all times.

Expiry

27. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) the development is not started within five years of the date of this permit

b) the development is not completed within ten years of the date of this permit. c) the Work Authority and Approved Work Plan for the use issued under the

provisions of the MRSDA is no longer in force in accordance with this MRSDA.

d) The development of the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm as approved by planning permit PL‐SP/05/0548 and development associated with planning permits PA1600101 and PA1600126 is completed.

28. The Minister for Planning may extend the permit if a request is made in writing:

a) prior to the expiry of the permit, or

b) within six months after the permit expires.


Page 103

Appendix D2: Corangamite: vegetation removal for power line

PLANNING PERMIT

Permit No.: PA1600126

Planning Scheme: Corangamite



Volume 9997 Folio 742 Lot 1 PS305525

Volume 9302 Folio 593 Lot 1 TP192787

Volume 3459 Folio 739 Lot 19 LP5333

Volume 7430 Folio 896 Allotment 29 Parish of Lismore


Volume 10184 Folio 769 Allotment 4 Section 19 Parish of Borriyalloak

Volume 6313 Folio 544 Allotment 5A Section 7 Parish of Skipton

Volume 742 Folio 377 Allotment 9C Section 15A Parish of Skipton

Volume 1944 Folio 740 Allotment 9A Section 15A Parish of Skipton

Volume 6588 Folio 408 Allotment 5 Section 12 Parish of Skipton

Allotment 7A Section 7 Parish of Skipton

Allotment 2010 Parish of Nanimia

Volume 6313 Folio 544 Allotment 2A Section 8 Parish of Skipton





Page 104



Volume 3480 Folio 837 Lot 2 LP5333

Allotment 2005 Parish of Galla

Allotment 2014 Parish of Skipton

Unused Government Road ‐ Between parcels Allotment 2A Section 8 Parish of Skipton and Lot 10 TP863437

Unused Government Road – Between parcels Allotment 1A Section 12A Parish of Skipton Lot 10 TP863482 and parcel Lot 13 TP863437

Unused Government Road – Between parcels Lot 13 TP863437 and Lot 11 TP863482

Hamilton Highway

Bradshaws Road

Mount Bute Road

Rokewood‐Skipton Road

Spring Hill Road

Glenelg Highway

THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

Removal of native vegetation and create and alter access to roads within the Road Zone Category 1

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT

Development plans

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Minister for Planning.

Vegetation removal

2. This permit allows for the removal of up to 1.422 hectares of remnant patch native vegetation and 4 scattered indigenous trees, unless varied with the written consent from the Minister for Planning.

DELWP Environment portfolio conditions

Notification of Permit Conditions


Page 105

3. Before works start, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking the vegetation removal or works on site of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory requirements or approvals.

Protection of Native Vegetation

4. Before any permitted clearing of native vegetation starts, a report to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning must be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning detailing the measures to be implemented to protect the native vegetation to be retained during construction works, and the person/s responsible for implementation and compliance.

Protection of Remnant Vegetation and Trees

5. Before works start, a native vegetation protection fence must be erected around all remnant patches and trees to be retained on site. This fence must be erected around the remnant patch at a minimum distance of 15 metres from retained native vegetation. The fence must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The fence must remain in place until all works are completed.

Except with the written consent of the Minister for Planning within the area of native vegetation to be retained and any tree protection zone associated with the permitted use and/or development, the following is prohibited:

a) vehicular or pedestrian access; b) trenching or soil excavation; c) storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery

or waste products; d) entry and exit pits for underground services; or e) any other actions or activities that may result in adverse impacts to

retained native vegetation.

Protection of Scattered Trees

6. Before the works start, a fence must be erected around all scattered trees to be retained on site. This fence will protect the tree by demarcating the tree protection zone and must be erected at a radius of 12 x the diameter at a height of 1.3 metres to a maximum of 15 metres but no less than 2 metres from the base of the trunk of the tree. The fence must be constructed of star pickets, flagging or similar to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The fence must remain in place until all works are completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

Offset requirement

7. To offset the removal of native vegetation the permit holder must secure a native vegetation offset, in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation ‐ Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013) and Native vegetation gain scoring manual (DEPI 2013) as specified below:

7.1 General Offset


Page 106

A general offset of 0.311 general biodiversity equivalence units with the following attributes:

a) be located within the Corangamite / Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority boundary or Corangamite Shire Council municipal district

b) have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.312.

7.2 Offset evidence and timing

Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that the required offset for the project has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

7.3 The offset evidence can be:

a) a security agreement signed by both parties, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including a 10 year offset management plan; and/or

b) an allocated credit extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.

A copy of the offset evidence must be provided and will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and form part of this permit. Within 30 days of endorsement of the offset evidence by the Minister for Planning, a copy of the endorsed offset evidence must be provided to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. At the conclusion of the project, offset requirements can be reconciled with agreement by the Minister for Planning and referral authority.

7.4 Varying offsets

The offset may be varied with the written consent of the Minister for Planning.

The offsets may be varied with the written consent of the Minister for Planning, if the Minister for Planning is satisfied that:

following detailed design the extent of native vegetation removal will be less than described in this condition; or

upon the completion of development an audit of the final quantity of native vegetation removed identifies that it is less than the amount already secured.

VicRoads Conditions

8. All access crossovers to RDZ1 must be generally in accordance with the attached drawing Truck Access to Rural Properties Type B (VicRoads Standard Drawing SD 2065) to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

9. The developer shall ensure that all relevant approvals have been sought prior to any works being undertaken in the road reserve.

Expiry


a) the development is not started within five years of the date of this permit


Page 107

b) the development is not completed within ten years of the date of this permit.

The Minister for Planning may extend the permit if a request is made in writing:

c) prior to the expiry of the permit, or

d) within six months after the permit expires.


Page 108

Appendix D3: Pyrenees: vegetation removal for power line

Permit No.: PA1600101

Planning Scheme: Pyrenees







Volume 8350 Folio 829 Allotment 5B Section A Parish of Nanimia

Volume 5826 Folio 143 Lot 1 Section 1 Parish of Enuc

Unused Government Road ‐ Between parcels Lot 1 TP571312 and Lot 3 TP406280

Oddies Road

Dunnets Road

Skipton Road

Mount Emu Settlement Road

Nanimia Pit Road

THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

Removal of native vegetation and create and alter access to roads within the Road Zone Category 1

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT

Development plans

1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Minister for Planning.

Vegetation removal

2. This permit allows for the removal of up to 0.523 hectares of remnant patch native vegetation and 37 scattered indigenous trees, unless varied with the written consent from the Minister for Planning.

DELWP Environment portfolio conditions

Notification of Permit Conditions

3. Before works start, the permit holder must advise all persons undertaking the vegetation removal or works on site of all relevant permit conditions and associated statutory requirements or approvals.


Page 109

Protection of Native Vegetation

4. Before any permitted clearing of native vegetation starts, a report to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning must be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning detailing the measures to be implemented to protect the native vegetation to be retained during construction works, and the person/s responsible for implementation and compliance.

Protection of Remnant Vegetation and Trees

5. Before the works start, a native vegetation protection fence must be erected around all remnant patches and trees to be retained on site. This fence must be erected around the remnant patch at a minimum distance of 15 metres from retained native vegetation. The fence must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The fence must remain in place until all works are completed.

Except with the written consent of the Minister for Planning within the area of native vegetation to be retained and any tree protection zone associated with the permitted use and/or development, the following is prohibited:

f) vehicular or pedestrian access; g) trenching or soil excavation; h) storage or dumping of any soils, materials, equipment, vehicles, machinery or

waste products; i) entry and exit pits for underground services; or j) any other actions or activities that may result in adverse impacts to retained

native vegetation.

Protection of Scattered Trees

6. Before the works start, a fence must be erected around all scattered trees to be retained on site. This fence will protect the tree by demarcating the tree protection zone and must be erected at a radius of 12 x the diameter at a height of 1.3 metres to a maximum of 15 metres but no less than 2 metres from the base of the trunk of the tree. The fence must be constructed of star pickets, flagging or similar to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The fence must remain in place until all works are completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

Offset requirement

7. To offset the removal of native vegetation the permit holder must secure a native vegetation offset, in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation ‐ Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013) and Native vegetation gain scoring manual (DEPI 2013) as specified below:

7.3 General Offset

A general offset of 0.105 general biodiversity equivalence units with the following attributes:


Page 110

c) be located within the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority boundary or Pyrenees Shire Council municipal district

d) have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.205

7.4 Specific Offset

A specific offset of 0.602 specific biodiversity equivalence units for Button Wrinklewort, Rutidosis leptorhynchoides.

7.5 Offset evidence and timing

Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that the required offset for the project has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The offset evidence can be:

c) a security agreement signed by both parties, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including a 10 year offset management plan; and/or

d) an allocated credit extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.

A copy of the offset evidence must be provided to and will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and form part of this permit. Within 30 days of endorsement of the offset evidence by the Minister for Planning, a copy of the endorsed offset evidence must be provided to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. At the conclusion of the project, offset requirements can be reconciled with agreement by the Minister for Planning and referral authority.

7.4 Varying offsets

The offset may be varied with the written consent of the Minister for Planning.

The offsets may be varied with the written consent of the Minister for Planning, if the Minister for Planning is satisfied that:

following detailed design the extent of native vegetation removal will be less than described in this condition; or

upon the completion of development an audit of the final quantity of native vegetation removed identifies that it is less than the amount already secured.

VicRoads Conditions

8. The access crossover to Skipton Road, adjacent to Lot 1, TP242371, shall be constructed generally in accordance with the attached drawing Truck Access to Rural Properties Type B (VicRoads Standard Drawing SD 2065).

9. The access crossover to lot 1, TP571312 may be constructed to the applicant’s design.

10. The developer shall ensure that all relevant approvals have been sought prior to any works being undertaken in the road reserve.

Expiry



Page 111

e) the development is not started within five years of the date of this permit

f) the development is not completed within ten years of the date of this permit.

The Minister for Planning may extend the permit if a request is made in writing:

g) prior to the expiry of the permit, or

h) within six months after the permit expires.