planning and environment act 1987 · 2017-06-01 · planning and environment act 1987 panel report...

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment of Planning Permit 2006/0220 Woolsthorpe Wind Farm

Front page

10 April 2017

Planning and Environment Act 1987

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

Moyne Planning Scheme: Amendment of Planning Permit 2006/0220

Woolsthorpe Wind Farm

10 April 2017

Nick Wimbush, Chair

Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment of Planning Permit 2006/0220

Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Panel Report 10 April 2017

Contents Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2

1.1 Subject site .............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Existing planning permit .......................................................................................... 4 1.3 The proposed amended permit .............................................................................. 4 1.4 Scope of submissions and issues addressed in this report ..................................... 4

2 Southern Bent‐wing Bat .............................................................................................. 6

2.1 The issue .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Evidence and submissions ....................................................................................... 6 2.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 7 2.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 8

3 Landscape and visual impact ....................................................................................... 9

3.1 The issue .................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Evidence and submissions ....................................................................................... 9 3.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 10 3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 11

4 Other issues .............................................................................................................. 12

4.1 Shadow flicker ....................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 13 4.3 Traffic and transport ............................................................................................. 15

5 Planning permit assessment ..................................................................................... 17

5.1 Permit triggers ....................................................................................................... 17 5.2 State and Local Planning Policy ............................................................................. 17 5.3 Clause 52.32 – Wind Energy Facility ...................................................................... 18 5.4 Other relevant documents .................................................................................... 18 5.5 Submissions from agencies ................................................................................... 18 5.6 Discussion and conclusions ................................................................................... 18 5.7 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 19 5.8 Responsible authority ........................................................................................... 20

Appendix A Document list

Appendix B Panel recommended permit

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 Wind farm subject site ............................................................................................ 2

Figure 2 Wind farm layout ..................................................................................................... 3



List of Abbreviations The Act Planning and Environment Act 1987

BAM Plan Bat and Avifauna Management Plan

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

CFA Country Fire Authority

Council Moyne Shire Council

dB Decibels

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

RSA Rotor swept area

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VCAT Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

WEF Wind Energy Facility

Wind Farm Guidelines Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria



Overview

Application summary

The application Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment to Planning Permit 2006/0220

Common name Woolsthorpe Wind Farm

Brief description The Application is to amend Planning Permit 2006/0220 to:

‐ increase turbine height from 135 metres to 168 metres

‐ increase tower height from 90 metres to 98 metres

‐ increase the blade length from 50 metres to 70 metres (resulting in a decrease in clearance under the blade to ground surface from 35 metres to 28 metres)

‐ provide a new site entrance from the Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road

‐ require noise to be compliant with the contemporary standard

‐ introduce a secondary consent mechanism

‐ other minor amendments.

Subject site The Woolsthorpe Wind Farm proposal is south of the Woolsthorpe‐Heywood Road and west of the Woolsthorpe township.

The Applicant Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd

Responsible Authority Minister for Planning

Exhibition 6 December 2016 – 30 January 2017

Submissions Country Fire Authority

Graeme Broderick

Noel Anscombe (objection)

Basil Anscombe (objection)

William Slattery

Nick Slattery

Environment Protection Authority

Moyne Shire Council

VicRoads



Panel Process

The Panel Nick Wimbush

Panel Hearing 6 March 2017 at Dialogue, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne

7 March 2017 at Planning Panels Victoria, 1 Spring Street, Melbourne

Parties to the Hearing Michael Juttner, Senior Planner, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) for the Minister for Planning.

Geoff Brooks, Program Manager Regional Planning & Approvals for DELWP.

Aaron Moyne, Strategic Planner, Energy and Major Projects Officer and Vicki Askew‐Thornton, Major Projects Liaison Officer for Moyne Shire Council.

Paul Chiappi, Barrister, instructed by K & L Gates representing the Applicant who called evidence from:

‐ Tom Evans of Resonate Acoustics in Noise

‐ Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership in Landscape, visual and amenity

‐ Cameron Gentle of Hansen Partnership in Planning

‐ Jerome Rowcroft of Wind Farm Developments in Shadow Flicker (written statement only)

‐ Richard Gower in Aviation (written statement only)

Date of this Report 10 April 2017



1 of 41

Executive Summary

(i) Summary

The Woolsthorpe Wind Farm has an existing planning permit to construct a 20 turbine wind farm approximately 4 kilometres west of the township of Woolsthorpe.

The Applicant has applied to amend that permit to increase the blade tip height at the highest point from 135 metres to 168 metres and increase the blade length and tower height, with a consequent increase in rotor swept area and power output. The changes will result in a decreased distance between the blade tip at lowest point and the ground surface from 35 metres to 29 metres.

The number of turbines will remain the same.

The proposal will also need to comply with a revised noise standard, and a new site entrance off the VicRoads controlled Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road is proposed.

When exhibited, the amendment application attracted nine submissions, including two objections. Having reviewed the application and submissions, the Panel considers the key issues relate to increased landscape and visual impact, potential impact on the Southern Bent‐wing Bat and compliance with the new noise standard.

Having reviewed these and other issues, the Panel concludes that the amendment application is strongly supported by policy, and the project, when operational, will contribute to meeting Victoria’s renewable energy commitments and targets.

The Panel considers that residual impacts can be successfully mitigated through the application of planning permit conditions. A set of permit conditions were discussed in the Hearing, and the Panel’s preferred version is attached to this report.

(ii) Recommendation

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

The Minister for Planning issue amended Planning Permit 2006/0220 for the 1.

Woolsthorpe Wind Farm with the conditions as shown in Appendix B to this report.



2 of 41

1 Introduction

1.1 Subject site

The wind farm site is approximately 4 kilometres west of Woolsthorpe and 7.5 kilometres south‐east of Hawkesdale, amongst mostly cleared agricultural land. The proposed wind farm abuts the approved Hawkesdale Wind Farm to the north as shown in Figure 1. The proposed wind farm layout is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1 Wind farm subject site



3 of 41

Figure 2 Wind farm layout1

1 From http://www.woolsthorpewindfarm.net/planning.



4 of 41

1.2 Existing planning permit

Planning Permit 2006/0220 allows for the use and development of land for the construction of a Wind Energy Facility (colloquially known as a wind farm), comprising 20 wind turbines with a maximum overall blade tip height of 135 metres, tower height of 90 metres and blade length of 50 metres, along with associated infrastructure.

The permit was issued on 17 April 2008 by the Minister for Planning following a Panel process.2 Endorsed plans for the proposal and associated documents were issued by the Minister for Planning at the direction of VCAT3 in late 2012.

1.3 The proposed amended permit

The Application is to amend Planning Permit 2006/0220 to:

increase turbine height from 135 metres to 168 metres

increase tower height from 90 metres to 98 metres

increase the blade length from 50 metres to 70 metres (resulting in a decrease in clearance under the blade to ground surface from 35 metres to 28 metres)4

provide a new site entrance from the Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road

require noise to be compliant with the contemporary standard

introduce a secondary consent mechanism

other minor amendments.

1.4 Scope of submissions and issues addressed in this report

(i) Submissions and issues

The exhibition of the planning permit amendment attracted nine submissions as shown in the overview table at the front of this report. The two objecting submissions raised the following issues related to the increased turbine size:

visual amenity and landscape impact

noise

shadow flicker.

Moyne Shire Council (Council) provided a comprehensive ‘neutral’ submission raising a number of issues including:

noise and acoustics

flora and fauna

landscape and visual amenity

roads and traffic management

responsible authority status and permit conditions.

2 Woolsthorpe Windfarm (ACI) [2008] PPV 16. 3 Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2012] VCAT 1693. 4 Calculated by subtracting rotor diameter of 140 metres from the maximum height to blade tip of 168

metres = 28 metres.



5 of 41

The issues above are discussed in the following chapters of this report, where relevant. The Panel considers that based on the submissions and evidence before it, the key issues relate to the Southern Bent‐wing Bat (SBWB), landscape and visual impacts and noise.

Other submissions such as those of the Slattery’s (project landowners) and Mr Broderick were in support of the proposal. Mr Broderick’s submission raised a number of issues of detail that need to be addressed during project development. Having reviewed these issues, the Panel is satisfied that they are largely related to construction management and can be satisfactorily addressed through permit conditions applied to the project.

Agency submissions generally did not object to the permit amendment, subject to permit conditions or modified project design.

(ii) Other matters

Aviation lighting

The Applicant tabled evidence in relation to aviation obstacle lighting. There is general agreement that, if possible, such lighting should be avoided to minimise visual and fauna impacts. A condition is proposed such that, if the lighting is required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)5, then it can be provided. This issue is not addressed further.

Cumulative impact

Council submitted that the cumulative impacts of wind farms are still a significant issue, particularly in relation to landscape impacts and for this project the SBWB. Panels for over a decade have been lamenting the lack of a cumulative impact assessment framework (for benefits and disbenefits) for wind farms. The original Panel report for this project is a case in point.

In the Panel’s view this is still a pressing need in planning so that the impact on threatened species, for example, of a particular project can be put into context at a population and population distribution level.6

For this project, the Panel is satisfied that the increases in turbine size do not give rise to a significant increase in cumulative impact over and above the existing approved proposal. The primary impact, such as it is, would occur even if the wind farm was built under the existing permit. However, the broader issue of cumulative impact remains for wind energy developments, particularly in Moyne Shire which has a significant number of approved and proposed projects.

5 The Panel understands that CASA can recommend obstacle lighting in such a location but cannot mandate

it. Waubra Wind Farm was initially lit but then the obstacle lighting turned off after some time of operation.

6 The Dundonnell Wind Farm report addressed this issue at length in relation to Brolga.



6 of 41

2 Southern Bent‐wing Bat

2.1 The issue

DELWP (Environment Portfolio) attended the Hearing to provide a submission particularly on issues surrounding the Southern Bent‐wing Bat (SBWB). The issue largely relates to the separation distance between the ground and the rotor at its lowest point.7

The Panel directed that DELWP and experts for the Applicant meet to discuss the SBWB issue prior to the Hearing. Notes of that meeting were tabled as Document 4.

2.2 Evidence and submissions

DELWP submitted that, since the original approval for Woolsthorpe, there have been a number of developments in relation to the SBWB. In particular, it was noted that: there is additional localised data that has been collected for Hawkesdale Wind Farm; there is increasing researching data on the movement patterns of SBWB; and the conservation significance of the SBWB at the Commonwealth level has moved from ‘conservation dependent’ to ‘critically endangered’.8

DELWP noted that the 2008 Panel report required the preparation of a Bat and Avifauna Management Plan (BAM Plan), a minimum rotor ground clearance of 35 metres and a bat strike monitoring program.

DELWP submitted that a revised BAM Plan will be required. It would preferably be consistent with the approach taken at Hawkesdale, which:

is statistically robust enough to detect threatened bat and avifauna species mortality with a high level of confidence, reflecting current literature on search area required for turbine size

includes provision for installing anabat detectors at varying heights at relevant locations across the WEF during the active bat period in order to provide data that would assist DELWP to investigate the correlation between height above ground and bat presence

reflects the number and size specifications of turbines in the amendment.9

DELWP concluded that it does not object to the permit amendment provided that:

the 35 metre minimum ground clearance or greater is retained as per the existing permit rather than 28 metres proposed in the permit amendment

data is provided on SBWB utilisation of the site at varying heights for at least two years

any SBWB mortalities are recorded and analysed through the BAM Plan.

7 DELWP confirmed that they consider the permit amendment is unlikely to materially increase the risk to

other threatened species, notably the Powerful Owl and Barking Owl. 8 Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 9 Document 5, paragraph 5.3.



7 of 41

Mr Brett Lane was called to give evidence for the Applicant on the SBWB and other avifauna. He noted the work that had been done on bats for the original permit assessment in 2007, the new information related to conservation significance and SBWB activity at Hawkesdale.

He also reviewed other assessments and research on the SBWB provided through the meeting with DELWP. His evidence, in summary, was that:

SBWB utilisation appears to be generally at lower levels, and the only risk to SBWB appears to be in the lower part of the rotor swept area (RSA)

The difference between 35 metres and 28 metres clearance is unlikely to be significant in itself; and the presence of treed habitat is likely to be more significant as bats foraging at tree height (approximately 25 metres) would be closer to the RSA

Separation of turbines from treed habitat is likely to be more successful at managing risk rather than maintaining the 35 metre separation distance between RSA and ground level.

He suggested that a permit condition be included that if a separation of less than 35 metres between RSA and ground level is proposed then a minimum setback from treed habitat should be required of blade length plus 120 metres.

A question was asked about an increased blade tip height above 168 metres. Mr Lane responded that he did not hold too many concerns with such an increase, as the greatest bird and bat activity is at the lower levels.

Ms Lauren Eddy was called to give evidence in relation to the BAM Plan, submitting that the revised plan adequately addresses issues raised by DELWP and that DELWP were consulted during its preparation.10

In response to a request from the Panel, Mr Chiappi for the Applicant advised that if the 35 metre separation distance is maintained, then it could have implications on design and viability in terms of turbine choice or the need to ‘go up’ a size and consider a higher blade tip.

Council also submitted that they have concerns in relation to fauna and flora. It was submitted that the studies undertaken approximately 10‐13 years ago may not be suitable for use in assessing the permit amendment.

2.3 Discussion

The Panel notes the primary issue in relation to the SBWB is the reduction in separation distance between RSA and ground level from 35 metres to 28 metres. The Panel is acutely aware of the view of the original Panel in 2008 about the uncertainty of impacts on the SBWB; and that the 35 metre minimum separation was considered as a risk management measure in the face of that uncertainty.

10 Ms Eddy also advised that in her opinion the new site entrance will not impact on native vegetation, and

the Panel notes the amended permit application does not apply for native vegetation removal.



8 of 41

For the minimum separation to be reduced, the Panel considers that there would need to be substantial new research and assessment of SBWB utilisation of this site. Instead, the Panel is faced with:

ten year‐old survey data from the original application

a significant change in the conservation status of the SBWB to critically endangered, essentially recognition that the species is more vulnerable now than ever

the suggestion that SBWB utilisation of the general area may be significantly higher than the original assessment indicated; but no way of being more certain without further assessment.

The Panel does not consider that it is in a position to support the reduction in separation distance in these circumstances. This is not to say that it rejects Mr Lane’s evidence out of hand, but rather that it is left with his evidence on the one hand, and the considerable weight of DELWP’s own expertise on the other. As mentioned above, to reduce the separation distance in the face of such uncertainty would require more justification than is before this Panel. It is not a case of approving the reduction and then seeing what happens through monitoring. This is a threshold issue that in the Panel’s view requires additional assessment of SBWB utilisation by height if the reduction were to be supported.

The Panel is aware that this view may have implications for turbine choice and design, but it must consider the merits of the application before it and conclude accordingly.

In relation to the BAM Plan, the Panel thinks it reasonable that it be consistent at some level with the approach being taken at Hawkesdale (or indeed vice versa). This will provide some of the input to ensure that cumulative impacts on the SBWB can be assessed and help provide a consistent data set for informing future research and recovery of the species. This is an issue that can be addressed through the finalisation and endorsement of the BAM Plan and will clearly require DELWP to undertake a coordinating role between the wind farms.

2.4 Conclusions

The Panel concludes:

The reduction in separation distance between ground level and the bottom of the RSA from 35 metres to 28 metres has not been substantiated.

The 35 metre minimum separation distance between ground level and the bottom of the RSA should be retained in the permit.

The separation from treed habitat recommended by Mr Lane should be considered in the permit.

The BAM Plan should be further revised to enable additional monitoring of the SBWB at height and for a reasonable time period.

These conclusions have been incorporated into the panel preferred version of the permit as shown in Appendix B.



9 of 41

3 Landscape and visual impact

3.1 The issue

The proposed increase in tower height and blade length with no reduction in turbine numbers will increase the visual impact of the wind farm to some extent. The key question is whether it will increase the impact to the point where an amended permit should not be issued.

3.2 Evidence and submissions

Mr Craig Czarny was called to give evidence on behalf of the Applicant in the form of a peer review of the Landscape and Visual Impact Analysis (LVIA) undertaken for the application. In his evidence, Mr Czarny analysed the methodology of the LVIA in detail and concluded that whilst not necessarily ‘contemporary’, it is appropriate for the purpose of assessing the turbine height change.

His assessment of the impact of the permit amendment noted that the project is outside the areas of significance identified in the South West Victoria Landscape Assessment Study and the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study.

Mr Czarny undertook a qualitative assessment of the visual impact from the six public viewpoints and generally agreed with the impact ratings in the LVIA. In relation to impacts on private dwellings, he supported additional or ‘reinforced’ landscaping to mitigate the impact of viewing the higher turbines.

Mr Czarny concluded that the impacts of the increased turbine height are slight to moderate and in principle that the planning permit amendment is acceptable from a landscape and visual perspective. In particular, he agreed with the LVIA assessment that the increase in turbine height at distance (2 kilometres) is only a 1 to 2 degree increase in the vertical field of view.

Mr Czarny also submitted that the wind farm should be viewed as one large project when considered with the Hawkesdale project, as from some directions they will appear as one but that this does not mean the impact is unacceptable.

Council in their submission at the Hearing11 were critical of the LVIA undertaken for the permit amendment at many levels. This criticism, in summary, was founded on their view that:

the technical basis of the LVIA and the qualifications of the report author

poor quality of photomontages compared to other wind farm proposals limit Council’s ability to assess the impact

lack of detailed assessment to enable the impacts on nearby dwellings

lack of consideration of the site in its regional context and other wind farms.

Council requested an increase in the landscape mitigation out to 4 kilometres via condition, to be consistent with the recently approved Dundonnell Wind Farm. In response to a

11 Document 7.



10 of 41

question on this issue, Mr Czarny did not support the increase on the basis that it might pick up the core of the Woolsthorpe township which would be a challenge.

Council urged the Panel to consider whether the LVIA assessment was adequate to enable a proper assessment of the permit amendment. Council also requested the Panel consider the landscape and visual assessment commentary and conclusions in the Panel report for the original application.

The objecting submissions from the Anscombe’s raised the issue of landscape and visual impact and whilst some distance from turbines they should be included in the voluntary landscaping mitigation program if their dwellings are within 4 kilometres and they choose to participate.

3.3 Discussion

The original Panel for the Woolsthorpe Wind Farm undertook a comprehensive review of the landscape and visual impacts of the original proposal including the approach and the framework in planning policy.

This Panel considers that that work still stands, and notes some of the specific conclusions that:

the wind farm is not incompatible with existing uses

visual impact alone is not an impediment to approval

a screening mitigation program is warranted

the cumulative visual impacts with Hawkesdale Wind Farm are unknown

the lack of a cumulative framework for landscape assessment is of concern.

The question for this Panel then is whether the change to the project, and specifically the change in height, gives rise to an increased impact such that the permit amendment should be refused.

Whilst there have been some changes to planning policy around wind farms, the Panel does not consider that these are significant changes in relation to landscape and visual assessment since the original proposal was approved.

The Panel notes that the particular landscape of the area, whilst attractive undulating farmland, is still not identified anywhere in the planning scheme as being of particular landscape significance.

What then of the increase in visual impact? In the Panel’s view, it is overly simplistic to suggest that a 24 percent increase in height to blade tip equates to a 24 percent increase in impact; and even if it did, this does not help in the assessment as there is no objective point between 135 metres and 168 metres at which the height might move from acceptable to unacceptable.

As Mr Czarny noted, there will always be an element of qualitative or subjective assessment in such a process.

In the Panel’s view, the approved wind farm if constructed to 135 metres is going to be a significant element in the landscape that will appeal to some and not others. The



11 of 41

amendment to turbine height sought is likely to reinforce those opinions, but in the Panels’ view will not result in a significant change in impact.

The wind farm as already approved is going to be visible from a long distance in many directions and this visibility will increase if the amended permit is approved. It does not follow that this is unacceptable or should result in the refusal of the amendment application.

Offering visual impact mitigation out to 4 kilometres is an issue the Panel considers should be supported in principle, but it also notes and agrees with Mr Czarny that this would be difficult for the Woolsthorpe township. The Panel does not think it necessary or appropriate to offer landscaping to all the residents of Woolsthorpe given the township is already heavily wooded and the urban context is different from a rural homestead. The Panel recommends that mitigation landscaping be offered to 4 kilometres from the nearest turbine via permit but excluding properties in the Woolsthorpe Township Zone.

The objections from the Anscombe’s related to visual impact and amenity are noted, but the Panel does not consider the overall impact will be significantly different to that from the already approved, but not constructed wind farm. The Anscombe’s should be included in the voluntary landscaping mitigation program if they choose to participate as their dwellings appear to be within 4 kilometres of the wind farm.

The Panel notes the concerns of Council in relation to the quality of the LVIA undertaken for the permit amendment, and considers some of these concerns are reasonable. However, the Panel is satisfied that, based on the evidence of Mr Czarny, the methodology and results are suitable for the purpose of assessing the amendment to the permit. It may not be a gold plated belts and braces approach, but the Panel concludes that it is satisfactory in the circumstances.

3.4 Conclusions


The landscape of the subject site is not identified as one of such significance to prevent the revised proposal proceeding.

Visual impact will be increased and offsite landscaping to dwellings should be offered via permit condition to mitigate this impact out to 4 kilometres, excluding Woolsthorpe township.

The original Panel’s comments about cumulative impact are noted and it remains difficult to assess the cumulative visual and landscape impact of windfarms against any objective criteria.

Where relevant the above conclusions are included in the proposed permit in Appendix B.



12 of 41

4 Other issues

4.1 Shadow flicker

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the amended proposal can meet the requirement in the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (the Wind Farm Guidelines) that shadow flicker should not exceed a total of 30 hours per year in the garden fenced area of a dwelling.

(ii) Evidence and submissions

Mr Jerome Rowcroft provided a written statement of evidence for the Applicant. He was not required to give verbal evidence and his written evidence was not challenged. He concluded that the only two dwellings that may be affected by shadow flicker are House B (east of the wind farm) and House C (west of the wind farm).

House B

House B has modelled shadow flicker of 12.3 hours per year. Mr Rowcroft’s evidence noted that previous vegetative screening around the dwelling has been removed and so was not included in the modelling. Proposed mitigating landscaping at the property should reduce the hours of exposure even further when the vegetation matures.

House C

Mr Rowcroft’s evidence is that although shadow flicker at House C is generated by four turbines, only one to the immediate south east (Turbine 20) is within the threshold distance for assessment. His evidence is that vegetation at the house is likely to block the view (and thus shadow flicker) of Turbine 20, with zero hours of exposure likely.

In response to the objecting submissions, Mr Rowcroft’s evidence was that the two objector’s properties are at such distance that shadow flicker should not be discernible.

(iii) Discussion and conclusions

The Panel notes that the permit condition relating to shadow flicker is a ‘closed’ condition. That is, the maximum 30 hours of shadow flicker per year must be met for the wind farm to be in compliance. The Panel is satisfied that based on the evidence of Mr Rowcroft compliance can be achieved.


Compliance with shadow flicker criteria should be able to be achieved.

The standard planning permit condition for shadow flicker should be retained in the planning permit.



13 of 41

4.2 Noise

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the wind farm can comply with the New Zealand Standard NZS 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (the Standard)12 as required by the Wind Energy Guidelines and the Moyne Planning Scheme.

The Standard provides noise criteria of 40dB LA90 or background level (L90) plus 5dB(A).

(ii) Evidence and submissions

At the Hearing Mr Thomas Evans was called to give evidence by the Applicant. His evidence included:

Background noise at the site will need to be remeasured to ensure compliance with the Standard, particularly in referencing noise to hub height wind speed; this is commencing in the week of 27 February 2017.

The ‘high amenity’ requirements in the Standard are not relevant in accordance with the Cherry Tree Wind Farm case13.

Of the four turbine models modelled for noise, the two GE turbines may not meet the 40dB(A) limit at House C (west of the wind farm) but all turbine models comply at all other locations without reference to background noise.

In relation to House C, Mr Evan’s evidence was that compliance could be achieved via:

consideration of remeasured background noise; if the background noise plus 5dB(A) exceeds the predicted turbine noise level compliance will be achieved

choice of turbine to reduce sound power output

operational control of turbines near House C to reduce output (and thus sound power output) under north‐easterly to south‐easterly winds above 9 metres per second.

Mr Evans also addressed the issue of impact of noise on House A from both Woolsthorpe and Hawkesdale Wind Farms. Modelling of noise from both wind farms produce a figure of 42dB(A); assuming in the model that wind is blowing from all directions at once to House A. Mr Evans noted that:

House A is owned by a Hawkesdale stakeholder and thus may not need to meet the 40dB(A) criteria14.

In reality, House A will only get noise from one wind farm at a time depending on wind direction and thus the 40dB(A) limit is likely to be met.

In response to questions from Mr Chiappi for the Applicant, Mr Evans suggested that he:

did not consider further pre‐construction assessments are warranted and that the post construction assessment is more relevant

12 The original permit was assessed against the 1998 New Zealand Noise Standard. 13 Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd v Mitchell SC & Ors (Includes Summary) (Red Dot) [2013] VCAT 521 (4 April

2013). 14 Stakeholder dwellings have commonly had a 45dB(A) limit applied in Victoria.



14 of 41

is not aware of the need for an ‘environmental auditor’ to sign off on noise assessments or even if there are any auditors appointed for noise.

Council, in their original submission and at the Hearing, raised a number of issues in relation to noise, including commissioning SLR Consulting to undertake an evaluation of the noise assessment in the application. Many of these issues were addressed in Mr Evan’s evidence, and indeed it appears his evidence was prepared and called primarily to address the concerns raised by Council.

In relation to the environmental auditor, DELWP submitted that such an approach is now contained in the Wind Farm Guidelines on a voluntary basis. They also noted that the Government response to the EPA Inquiry has supported making this a requirement.15

(iii) Discussion and conclusion

The Panel notes that the site is well placed for noise compliance with a limited number of off‐site sensitive receptors in the vicinity.

Based primarily on the evidence of Mr Evans, the Panel is satisfied that the criteria in the Standard can be met by the project; albeit that some mitigation may be needed in the vicinity of House C either by turbine choice or operational control. This can be confirmed in the post‐construction assessment.

As for shadow flicker, the requirement to meet the criteria is ‘closed’; that is the criteria must be met. Noise from wind farms has had a vexed history but assessment of the project against the contemporary standard goes some way to ensuring that compliance should result in limited offsite impacts.

A number of different options for conditions were presented in relation to pre‐construction assessments, assessment by environmental auditors and other matters. The Panel has generally supported the submissions of DELWP on these conditions and gone for a higher level of regulatory control. As mentioned above, the assessment and enforcement of noise from wind farms has at times been challenging and the Panel in this case, leans towards a more conservative approach.

The Panel also observes that it is disappointing that the Applicant had not undertaken revised background noise monitoring in accordance with the Standard until the 11th hour, which suggests a somewhat ‘casual’ approach to the Application. The Panel notes, however, that at the time of writing this report, the measurement is either complete or under way and will provide an important input to project development and monitoring.


The Standard can be complied with to ensure nearby dwellings are not subject to unreasonable wind farm noise.

Pre and post construction assessments followed by a monitoring regime with independent peer review is appropriate to ensure noise compliance.

Appropriate permit conditions are included in Appendix A.

15 Document 12.



15 of 41

4.3 Traffic and transport

(i) The issue

The issue is whether the amended permit application raises traffic issues that need to be addressed via the planning permit.

(ii) Submissions

Council submitted that they had a number of concerns in relation to traffic and the amended permit including, in summary:

The lack of an updated Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) makes it difficult to assess the application.

The Traffic Management Plan (TMP) was endorsed some time ago and the implications of the larger turbine infrastructure on traffic volumes is not known.

A revised estimate of heavy vehicle movements and a revised TIA should be submitted to the Panel, taking into account the new access point.

Council did acknowledge that the proposed new access point, directly off the Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road (a VicRoads managed road) is a superior outcome to using the originally proposed Slattery’s Road (a Council managed road).

As part of their submission, Council included a comprehensive suggested set of traffic related permit conditions. Council submitted these are similar in form to those put forward and accepted for the Dundonnell Wind Farm, and recently accepted by the Applicant for the Mortlake Wind Farm permit amendment application. The conditions go to:

Council involvement in approving the TMP

a high level of definition of what should be in the TMP

the use of a Road Quality Auditor to oversee planning and works

specification of upgrades and maintenance required prior to, during and after construction.

The Applicant objected to the significant changes to the traffic permit conditions on the basis that they are a major change outside the scope of what ought be considered in an amended planning permit. Mr Chiappi noted that the use of a new access road direct from the Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road ”…removes the single Council road from consideration”.

The Applicant also submitted that a new TIA was not required as the larger towers and blades would require a marginal increase in over‐dimensional vehicles but otherwise there would be limited impacts on traffic generation rates.

VicRoads did not object to the permit amendment subject to the conditions shown in Appendix B of this report.

(iii) Discussion and conclusions

The Panel understands and accepts that Council has unmatched experience in the assessment and management of wind farm construction traffic from a number of projects within Moyne Shire.



16 of 41

The Panel in principle accepts the comprehensive permit condition approach put forward by Council, but does not think they should apply in the circumstances here. This is for two reasons:

No Council managed roads are proposed to be used to access the site and VicRoads will be responsible for traffic management through the TMP.

The Panel considers that the change to the conditions is considerably broader in scope than that included in the original permit.

If this was a new application, the Panel would be more inclined to recommend the conditions put forward. The Panel considers them to be ‘best practice’ in terms of new proposals. That they have been accepted in the Mortlake permit amendment the Panel cannot comment on, not having been a party to that Hearing. There may be particular circumstances for the Mortlake Wind Farm that make the permit conditions appropriate for that project.

The Panel is disappointed that the Applicant did not provide any assessment or evidence to show that proposed traffic volumes will or will not change until the submissions in the Hearing. It would have been helpful if an assessment, even at a broad level, had been undertaken earlier to justify the Applicant’s position.


The planning permit conditions relating to traffic should be applied generally as exhibited as shown in Appendix B.



17 of 41

5 Planning permit assessment

The consideration of planning permit applications for wind farms, and the amendment of same, is undertaken within a comprehensive planning framework, in this case in the Moyne Planning Scheme.

The application is for an amendment to an existing permit, and thus the use and development for a wind farm (technically a Wind Energy Facility in the planning scheme) in principle has already been assessed and found appropriate through the earlier permit process. The assessment for the permit amendment needs to consider the proposed changes to the wind farm and whether the policy framework itself has changed in relation to wind energy.

5.1 Permit triggers

The project requires planning permits as follows:

Clause 35.07‐1 – Farming Zone: Section 2 permit required for the use. The use is conditioned such that it must meet the requirements of Clause 52.32 – Wind Energy Facility.

Clause 35.07‐4 – Farming Zone: Permit required for buildings and works associated with the use.

Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1.

The purposes of the zones and clauses and relevant decision guidelines in addition to the general Clause 65 decision guidelines were outlined in the submission from DELWP16 and are not repeated here.

5.2 State and Local Planning Policy

The submissions of DELWP17 and Moyne Shire Council18 and the evidence of Mr Gentle for the Applicant identified what were said to be the relevant State and Local Planning Policy under which to consider the Amendment. In particular DELWP’s submission provided a comprehensive listing of policy.

Mr Gentle’s evidence19 provided an assessment of the planning considerations, including in summary:

State planning policy continues to support wind energy, and particularly at Clause 19.01‐1 which seek to promote same.

The need to consider the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (the Wind Farm Guidelines).

Identification of the key issues for assessment being amenity, aviation safety and flora and fauna.

Consideration of commentary from the previous Panel.

16 Document 1, page 12 onwards. 17 Document 1. 18 Document 7. 19 Commencing on page 17.



18 of 41

No party or submitter sought to argue against policy support for the permit amendment in principle, although Council’s submission encouraged the Panel to carefully review the applicable policy.

5.3 Clause 52.32 – Wind Energy Facility

The particular provision Clause 52.32 has as its purpose:

To facilitate the establishment and expansion of wind energy facilities, in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.

The clause outlines application requirements and the requirements for a design response to the particular location context for the wind farm proposal. Importantly, amongst reference to the State and local planning policy frameworks and a number of specific issues the decision guidelines call up reference to the Wind Farm Guidelines.

The Wind Farm Guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment framework for new and amended wind farm proposals.

Relevant provisions for the key issues identified in this report include:

5.1.2(a) noise and amenity – including assessment against the revised Standard

5.1.3 landscape and visual amenity – including consideration of particular identified significant landscapes

5.1.4 flora and fauna – including consideration of listed species.

The detail of these issues are considered in chapters 2‐4 above.

5.4 Other relevant documents

DELWP submitted that there are a number of other policy statements that are relevant to the amendment application including:

Victoria’s Renewable Energy Roadmap

Victoria’s renewable Energy Auction Scheme

Victoria’s Regional Statement.

These are not part of the planning scheme but are an indication of broader Victorian Government support to the development of renewable energy in regional Victoria.

5.5 Submissions from agencies

The only Section 55 referral authority under the Act was VicRoads due to the access proposed to the Road Zone 1 (Woolsthorpe‐Heywood Road). VicRoads did not object subject to conditions. These conditions are included in the recommended permit in Appendix B.

Submissions were also received from the CFA, EPA, CASA, DELWP (Environment Portfolio) and Moyne Shire. These submissions have been addressed through permit conditions or in the issues chapter of this report as relevant.

5.6 Discussion and conclusions

Of note for this permit amendment application is the limited number of objections received. The Panel understands this was also the case for the original application. This is somewhat



19 of 41

unusual for planning permit applications for wind farms which have frequently attracted significant opposition (and support).

The Panel notes the conclusion of the 2008 Panel prior to the existing planning permit being issued:

Based on the reasons set out in the earlier parts of this report, we have formed the view that the Woolsthorpe Wind Farm project should be given planning approval. In general the site is one which is quite suitable for wind farm development if certain conditions are applied which would ameliorate adverse amenity and environmental impacts, and provided that any combined effects of this project and the adjoining Hawkesdale Wind Farm are addressed.20

The Panel’s view is that the policy framework, if anything, has strengthened in support of wind energy facilities since that time. The references to wind farms are invariably in terms of ‘promote’ or ‘facilitate’ subject to the addressing of any adverse environmental and amenity impacts.

The supporting framework for the project still stands. The issue is whether the increased impacts from increased turbine size, and particularly those related to the SBWB, landscape and visual and noise give rise to such impacts that the amended permit should not be issued. As discussed in the individual issue chapters, the Panel is satisfied that the strong policy support for wind energy strongly outweighs the limited disbenefits that might accrue. In net community benefit terms there will be strong State, regional and local benefits of the enlarged project and limited local disbenefits.

The Panel considers the planning framework around the cumulative impact of individual wind farms is less developed than it could be given the length of time that such proposals have been considered in Victoria. However the Panel notes there have been improvements in this area as well, for example the strategic landscape studies of the coast and hinterland in western Victoria.


No party sought to argue that the planning policy framework for the proposal did not support the amendment application.

The planning permit amendment is strongly supported in planning policy subject to a number of issues being addressed via planning permit conditions.

An amended planning permit should be issued.

5.7 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

The Minister for Planning issue amended Planning Permit 2006/0220 for the Woolsthorpe Wind Farm with the conditions as shown in Appendix B to this report.

20 Woolsthorpe Windfarm (ACI) [2008] PPV 16 at page 205.



20 of 41

5.8 Responsible authority

Council submitted that the Minister for Planning should be the sole responsible authority for administering and enforcing the planning permit under the Moyne Planning Scheme. This is because:

New proposals are approached in this way under Clause 61.01‐1 of the planning scheme (excluding for enforcement under Division 6 of Part 4).

Council has limited capacity to endorse and enforce complex wind farm permits.

There is considerable room for inconsistency in secondary consents; one responsible authority (the Minister) could resolve this.

Given experience and expense incurred at the Macarthur Wind Farm it is an unfair burden on Moyne ratepayers to manage a Ministerial permit.

As works have not substantially commenced there is no additional burden on the Applicant if the responsible authority changed.

The State has the technical capacity and is the architect of the complex wind farm assessment process; so the Minister should retain the responsible authority role rather than assigning responsibility to Council.

The Panel has some sympathy for the position of Council and other Panels have also addressed this issue. There are logical arguments for the Minister for Planning being responsible for approving, administering and enforcing wind farm permits.

However, as the planning scheme at Clause 61.01‐1 is explicit on this point, and was changed as recently as January 2016, it is clear that the framework around the responsible authority for pre‐April 2015 permits has been set by the State. This would appear to be a policy issue which should be addressed directly with the Department rather than on a case by case basis.



21 of 41

Appendix A Document list

No. Date Description Tabled by

1 6/3/17 Submission on behalf of Minister for Planning DELWP

2 6/3/17 VicRoads referral letter dated 28 February 2017 DELWP

3 6/3/17 Draft Planning Permit ‐2 March 2017 marked up version with DELWP suggestions

DELWP

4 6/3/17 Notes from DELWP Biodiversity and Applicant meeting DELWP

5 6/3/17 DELWP, Environment Portfolio, submission DELWP

6 6/3/17 Woolsthorpe Wind Farm and known Southern Bent‐wing Bat Roost Caves

DELWP

7 6/3/17 Submission by Moyne Shire Council Moyne Shire Council

8 6/3/17 Visual Impact Assessment – Craig Czarny PowerPoint presentation

Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd

9 6/3/17 Submission by Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd

10 6/3/17 VCAT decision Woolsthorpe Wind Farm v Moyne Shire Council

Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd

11 7/3/17 MacArthur Wind Farm – Details of Wind Turbines Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd

12 7/3/17 Extract from Government Response to the Independent Inquiry into the Environment Protection Authority

DELWP

13 7/3/17 Endorsed plans for existing permit Woolsthorpe Wind Farm Pty Ltd



22 of 41

Appendix B Panel recommended permit

PLANNING

PERMIT

Permit No.: 20060220

Planning Scheme: Moyne Planning Scheme

Responsible Authority for Enforcement of this Permit:

Moyne Shire Council

ADDRESS OF THE LAND: Land in Woolsthorpe, described as:

Lot 1 TP 5031 Vol 10282 Folio326

Lot 2 TP 5031 Vol 10282 Folio327

95438J Vol 10129 Folio252

95438J Vol 10129 Folio253

95438J Vol 10129 Folio255

95438J Vol 10129 Folio256

THE PERMIT ALLOWS:

Use and development of land for a Wind Energy Facility and

to alter access to a road in Road Zone, Category 1.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:

DEVELOPMENT PLANS

1. Before the development starts, development plans to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning

must be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning. When approved, the plans will

be endorsed by the Minister and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be drawn to

scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.

The plans must show the location, setbacks to property boundaries, layout and dimensions of all

on‐site buildings and works including all wind turbines, access tracks, underground cables, any

temporary concrete batching plant, the sub‐station, the switchyard, landscaping, any designated

car parking areas, any signage, those turbines fitted with obstacle lighting (as appropriate) and

ancillary works, such as construction compounds and water tanks, as well as off‐site road works.

The plans must be generally in accordance with the amended plans submitted with the advertised

permit amendment but modified to show:

a) any necessary adjustment to the layout of the wind farm:



23 of 41

to ensure that clearing of native vegetation identified in flora surveys conducted in

accordance with Condition 4 is avoided to the satisfaction of the Minister of Planning;

to ensure that ground disturbance associated with the construction of the wind energy

facility does not adversely impact on designated waterways and is located more than

100 metres from any designated waterway;

to ensure the habitat setback requirements in Condition 3 e) are met;

to ensure that any indigenous or non‐indigenous archaeological site identified by the

on‐site archaeological survey required by Condition 13 f), and required to be

protected, is avoided.

b) details of the new site entrance off the Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road at the existing farm gate

and track approximately 630m north west of the intersection of Camerons Road and the

Woolsthorpe – Heywood Road;

c) Southern Bent‐wing Bat Habitat as required in Condition 3 e);

d) global positioning system coordinates for each turbine;

e) all wind turbines set back not less than 150 metres from the boundaries of neighbouring land

owned by persons other than the landowner of the subject site including the boundary of the

Woolsthorpe‐Heywood Road;

f) details of the model, sound power level and capacity of the wind turbines to be installed;

g) elevations, materials and finishes of the wind turbines and other buildings and works;

h) if aviation obstacle lighting is to be installed, the location of turbines with lights, and type and

intensity of any aviation lighting including directional screening as required by Conditions 3

and 9;

i) details of any signage, which must be limited to:

directional signs showing the location of any entry access;

signs required specifically in relation to site safety issues including as required by

Condition 35;

signs included in the approved Traffic Management Plan required by Condition 11.

j) vegetation exclusion zones based on the zones of high habitat value shown on Maps 2 and 3

of Appendix E to the Planning Application Report and defined in consultation with DELWP

Environment Portfolio to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

k) access tracks within the site designed in consultation with the CFA that provide appropriate

access for fire fighting vehicles to the satisfaction of the Minister of Planning.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified

without the written consent of the Minister for Planning; except that the micro siting of wind

turbines and consequential micro‐siting of associated tracks and reticulation lines as defined



24 of 41

below does not require written consent and will be viewed as generally in accordance with the

endorsed plans.

For the purposes of this condition, micro‐siting of wind turbines:

is where the siting of a wind turbine is altered by no more than 100 metres but is not

relocated closer to any site boundary or waterway than is shown on the endorsed plans;

includes any consequential changes to any associated tracks and reticulation lines;

is only allowed where the Minister for Planning is satisfied that the relocation of the

turbine and any associated track or reticulation line will not give rise to a material change

to assessed landscape, vegetation, cultural heritage, visual amenity, shadow flicker, noise

or aviation impacts when compared to the site shown on the endorsed plans.

To this end, any request for confirmation of the Minister’s satisfaction in relation to micro‐siting must

be accompanied by supporting material addressing these matters as relevant except that in all cases

the request must be accompanied by the results of supplementary flora surveys of any areas no

surveyed in accordance with Condition 4 which have been prepared in consultation with DELWP

Environment Portfolio to the satisfaction Minister of Planning.

SPECIFICATIONS

3. The wind energy facility must meet the following requirements, and shall not be altered or

modified without the written consent of the Minister for Planning:

a) the wind energy facility may include not more than 20 wind turbines;

b) the overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the tip of the rotor blade when vertical)

must not exceed 168 metres above natural ground level;

c) the spacing between turbines must be 350 metres or greater;

d) the distance between turbine rotors and the ground must be 35 metres or greater;

e) all wind turbines must be set back a distance of 120 metres plus the length of the turbine

blade to treed vegetation identified as suitable habitat for the Southern Bent‐wing Bat by a

qualified ecologist;

f) turbines must located in open paddocks devoid of trees on in areas of only sparsely scattered

trees to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

g) all work required to construct and operate the wind farm must be able to be completed

without entering or disturbing the vegetation exclusion zones as shown on the development

plan;

h) the wind turbine towers, nacelles and rotor blades must be pale grey or other colour that

blends with the landscape to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, and must be of a

non‐reflective finish to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;



25 of 41

i) the colours and finishes of all other buildings and ancillary equipment must be such as to

minimise the impact of the development on landscape to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning;

j) the transformer associated with each wind generator must be located beside each tower and

pad mounted, or be enclosed within the tower structure;

k) access tracks within the site are sited and designed to minimise impacts on overland flows,

soil erosion, the landscape value of the site, environmentally sensitive areas and, where

appropriate, the farming activities on the land, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning;

l) all new electricity cabling associated with the wind energy facility must be placed under the

ground except for connection between the substation and the 66kV overhead line connecting

the wind farm to the electricity network;

m) all wind turbines must be set back at least 150 metres from boundaries to neighbouring

properties owned by persons other than the landowner of the subject site including

Woolsthorpe Heywood Road;

n) not more than 10 turbines may be fitted with obstacle lighting;

o) a minimum of 45,000 litres of water to be used solely for fire fighting purposes must be

provided on the site in not more than two tanks. The tanks must meet the access and outlet

requirements specified in Condition 15 e) (ii).

FLORA SURVEYS

4. The development plans lodged for approval as required by Condition 1 of this permit must be

supported by the results of flora surveys conducted by a suitably qualified expert covering all

areas to be disturbed plus areas beginning at the perimeters of those areas and extending a

distance of 10 metres outside those perimeters.

The flora survey results must be those of surveys conducted utilising procedures developed in

consultation with the DELWP Environment Portfolio and must include results of surveys

conducted in spring/early summer.

Flora survey results provided to the Minister of Planning must include a list of all flora species

observed.

Note: The development plans may not be approved if any species observed are listed under the

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Flora and Fauna

Guarantee Act 1988, unless, upon the advice of DELWP Environment Portfolio, it is determined

that the endangered plants may be transplanted and arrangements are in place which are to the

satisfaction of the Minister of Planning to carry this out.

LANDSCAPE/VISUAL AMENITY



26 of 41

5. Before the use and development starts:

a) a program of voluntary landscape mitigation works to the satisfaction of the Minister for

Planning must be offered to the owners of dwellings existing on 21 April 2007 within 4

kilometres of any turbine excluding any dwellings within the Woolsthorpe Township Zone;

b) as part of that program, an off‐site landscaping plan must be prepared in consultation with

those owners within that area who wish to have landscaping mitigation works carried out.

The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and must be submitted to and

approval by the Minister for Planning.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit.

The plan must provide:

details of planting or other treatments that will be used to reduce the visual

impact of the wind turbines at the dwellings of the participating landowners;

details of the plant species to be used, including the height and spread of

plants at maturity; and

a timetable for implementation of the landscaping works.

The landscaping as shown on the endorsed off‐site landscape plan must be completed to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning within 12 months of the completion of the

development or any relevant stage of it, at the cost of the operator under this permit.

6. All access tracks associated with the wind farm must be constructed with local gravel and/or

other surface material that will not unduly contrast with the landscape to the satisfaction of the

Minister for Planning.

DRIVER DISTRACTION

7. Should VicRoads determine at any time during the life of the wind farm that the proximity of the

turbines to the Woolsthorpe–Heywood Road is causing driver distraction and hence

compromising road safety, the operator under the permit must pay for or undertake remedial

measures to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

LIGHTING

8. Except in the case of an emergency or operational call out, no external lighting of infrastructure

associated with the wind energy facility, other than low intensity, low level security or aviation

lighting in accord with Condition 9 below may be installed or operated.

9. Any installed obstacle lighting must meet the following requirements:



27 of 41

a) For each lit turbine the lighting must consist of twin lights mounted above the nacelle

of each of those turbines so that one is visible from an aircraft approaching from any

direction;

b) Each light shall be red medium intensity flashing light as defined by CASA. Each light

shall be a directed light such that no more than 5 per cent of the nominal light intensity

is emitted at or above and below 5 degrees above and below horizontal, and such that

no light is emitted at or below 10 degrees above and below horizontal;

c) All lights will flash in unison;

d) The lights are to switch on and off at times or ambient lighting conditions as directed by

CASA.

The final position of the structures exceeding 110m height must be advised to CASA and RAAF.

During construction the position of structures exceeding 110m in height must be progressively

notified to CASA and RAAF and fitted with obstacle lights as required.

10. Before the development starts, a Lighting Maintenance Plan (LMP) must be developed for the site

to the satisfaction of the Minister of Planning and must include:

a) a monitoring and maintenance procedure for the obstacle lighting;

b) a system to ensure outages are detected and rectified; and

c) a system to ensure that CASA and the RAAF are immediately notified of any obstacle

light failure.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

11. Before the development starts, a traffic management plan must be prepared in consultation with

VicRoads to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning for submission to and approval by the

Minister for Planning. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this

permit. The plan must include:

a) an existing conditions survey of public roads on designated construction transport routes and

in the vicinity of the wind energy facility that may be used for access, including details of the

suitability, design and construction standard and condition of the roads;

b) the designation of appropriate construction transport vehicle routes to the wind energy

facility site;

c) the designation of operating hours and speed limits for trucks on routes accessing the site so

as to avoid the time and routes of passage of school buses where relevant, and to provide for

resident safety;



28 of 41

d) the identification any areas of indigenous roadside vegetation that may require removal or

pruning, the pruning practices to be followed;

Note: this does not obviate the need for a permit for native vegetation removal where one is

required.

e) the identification and timetabling of any required pre‐construction works;

f) details of any large over dimension vehicles to be used (such as those used for the transport of

the nacelles, blades and tower sections) and details of the transport route to be taken, the

proposed escort arrangements and requirements for over dimensional permits from Vic

Roads;

g) recommendations on the need for road and intersection upgrades to accommodate any

additional traffic or site access requirements, whether temporary or on‐going and the timing

of when these upgrades are to be undertaken;

h) measures to be used to manage traffic impacts associated with the ongoing operation of the

wind energy facility on the traffic volumes and flows on surrounding roads;

i) engineering plans demonstrating how truck movements can be accommodated on sealed

roadways must be prepared for the Princes Highway that will be utilised by trucks travelling

to or from the site. The plan must include details of any required road construction works;

j) intersection upgrades in Warrnambool‐Carramut Road and Woolsthorpe–Heywood Road

designed to avoid or minimise disturbance or removal of native vegetation if this intersection

is used by traffic associated with the wind energy facility;

k) a program of regular inspections to be carried out during the construction period to identify

maintenance works necessary as a result of construction traffic;

l) a program to rehabilitate roads to the condition identified by the surveys required above by

condition 11 a) above within 3 months of the need for such rehabilitation being identified by

the regular inspections required by condition 11 l) above.

Note: VicRoads approval for the movement of Over Dimensional loads is required. VicRoads

contact officer is Mr Paul Frost – Team Leader Safety Services (Tel: 03 5225 2578 or mobile 0417

483 421). Contact should at an early date is recommended.

12. The traffic management and road upgrade and maintenance works associated with the wind

energy facility must be carried out in accordance with the traffic management plan and the cost

of any works including maintenance are to be at the expense of the permit holder.

VICROADS CONDITIONS



29 of 41

13. Alterations to the crossovers and driveways are to be constructed generally in accordance with

VicRoads SD2065 (attached) at a minimum, taking into consideration the necessity for access by

over‐dimensional vehicles, to the satisfaction of, and at no cost to, VicRoads prior to the

commencement of the use hereby approved.

14. At least 10 working days prior to commencing work within the declared road, the developer must

contact Mr Mark McDonald, Senior Surveillance Officer, on telephone number 0400 051670, to

discuss construction methods and traffic management issues.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

15. Before the development starts, an environmental management plan must be prepared to the

reasonable satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, in consultation with the DELWP Environment

Portfolio, Moyne Shire Council, CFA and other agencies as specified in this condition or as further

directed by the Minister for Planning. The plan must be submitted to the Minister for Planning

for approval. The environmental management plan may be prepared in sections or stages. When

approved, the plan will be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and will then form part of this

permit.

The use and development must accord with the endorsed plan at all times.

The environmental management plan must include:

a) A construction and work site management plan which must include:

(i) procedures for access, noise control, dust emissions, spills and leaks from the

handling of fuels and pollution management. Such procedures are to be

undertaken in accordance with EPA Publication 480 Environmental Guidelines

for Major Construction Sites and EPA Publication 275 Construction Techniques

for Sediment Pollution Control.

This must include arrangements for effectively dealing with construction

noise complaints including provision for an effective and rapid response to

noise from mechanical faults;

(ii) the identification of all potential contaminants stored on site;

(iii) the identification of all construction and operational processes that could

potentially lead to water contamination;

(iv) the identification of appropriate storage, construction and operational

methods to control any identified contamination risks;

(v) the identification of waste re‐use, recycling and disposal procedures;

(vi) appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff in

accordance with the EPA Publication 891 Septic Tanks Code of Practice;



30 of 41

(vii) procedures, where practical, to construct turbine bases, access tracks and

power cabling during warmer months to minimise impacts on ephemeral

wetlands, local fauna and sediment mobilisation;

(viii) procedures for construction vehicles and equipment to use designated tracks

and works areas to avoid impacts on native vegetation;

(ix) procedures to cover trenches and holes at night time and to fill trenches as

soon as practical after excavation, to protect native fauna;

(x) procedures for the rehabilitation of construction zones with appropriate

pasture species;

(xi) identification on site of the vegetation exclusion zones and their protection

from vehicles and storage of materials and equipment or other damaging use

during the construction period; and

(xii) procedures for the removal of works, buildings and staging area(s) on

completion of construction of the project.

b) A sediment, erosion and water quality management plan. This plan must be prepared in

consultation with the Glenelg‐Hopkins Catchment Management Authority and other

authorities as may be directed by the Minister for Planning.

The plan must include:

(i) a procedure to ensure that silt from batters, cut‐off drains, table drains and road

works is retained on the site during and after the construction stage of the project.

To this end:

all land disturbances must be confined to a minimum practical working area and

to the vicinity of the identified works areas;

soil to be removed must be stockpiled and separate soil horizons must be

retained in separate stockpiles and not mixed; and

stockpiles must be located away from drainage lines.

(ii) arrangements for the storage of fuel and chemicals in securely bunded areas during

and after construction away from waterways and vegetation;

(iii) criteria for the siting of any temporary concrete batching plant associated with the

development of the wind energy facility and the procedure for its removal and

reinstatement of the site once its use finishes. The establishment and operation of any

such temporary concrete batching plant must be designed and operated in accordance

with the Environment Protection Authority Publication 628 Environmental Guidelines

for the Concrete Batching Industry;



31 of 41

(iv) the installation of geo‐textile silt fences (with sedimentation basins where appropriate)

on all drainage lines from the site which are likely to receive run‐off from disturbed

areas;

(v) procedures to suppress dust from construction‐related activities. Note: appropriate

measures may include water spraying of roads and stockpiles, stabilising surfaces,

temporary screening and/or wind fences, modifying construction activities during

periods of heightened winds and revegetating exposed areas as soon as practicable;

(vi) procedures to ensure that steep batters are treated in accordance with Environmental

Protection Authority Publication 275 Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution

Control;

(vii) procedures for waste water discharge management;

(viii) a process for overland flow management to prevent the concentration and diversion

of waters onto steep or erosion prone slopes;

(ix) pollution management measures for stored and stockpiled materials including waste

materials, litter and any other potential source of water pollution;

(x) incorporation of pollution control measures outlined in EPA Publication 480

Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites;

(xi) siting of concrete batching plant and any on‐site wastewater and disposal and

disposal treatment fields at least 100 metres from any watercourse;

(xii) appropriate capacity and an agreed program for annual inspection and regular

maintenance of any on‐site wastewater management system constructed to service

staff, contractors or visitors; and

(xiii) immediate remediation of localised erosion with a specified response time.

c) A blasting plan

This plan is only required if blasting is proposed to be undertaken at the site as part of the

construction of the wind energy facility.


(i) name and qualification of the person responsible for blasting;

(ii) a description of the location of where the explosives will be used, and the location of

every licensed bore on any property with an adjoining boundary within 1km of the

location of the blasting;

(iii) a requirement for the identification and assessment of any potentially sensitive site

within 1 km of the location of the blasting, including the procedure for pre‐blast and

post‐blast qualitative measurement or monitoring at such site;



32 of 41

(iv) the procedure for site clearance and post blast reoccupation;

(v) the procedure for the storage and handling of explosives;

(vi) a requirement that blasting only occur after at least 24 hours prior notification in

writing of the intention to undertake blasting has been given to all adjoining

neighbours of the proposal with a property boundary within 1km of the location of

the proposed blasting; and

(vii) a requirement that blasting only be undertaken between the hours of 8am and 4pm.

d) A hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan.


(i) procedures for any on‐site storage of fuels, lubricants or waste oil to be in bunded

areas; and

(ii) contingency measures to ensure that any chemical or oil spills are contained on‐site

and cleaned up in accordance with EPA requirements.

e) A fire emergency response plan to the satisfaction of the Minister of Planning and prepared

in consultation with the CF A, the DELWP and Moyne Shire Council.

This plan must include:

(i) the provision of 1 or 2 static water supply tank(s) solely for fire fighting purposes with

the minimum capacity specified in Condition 3 to the satisfaction of the CFA;

(ii) the tank(s) must;

be fitted with outlets of at least one 64mm, 3 thread/25mm by 50mm

nominal bore British Standard Pipe (BSP), round male coupling;

be signed to the satisfaction of CFA; and

be able to accessed to within 4 metres of the outlet, in all weather

conditions, by fire fighting vehicle access of up to 15 tonnes with a

minimum turning circle of 10 metres;

(iii) procedures for vegetation management, fuel control and the provision of fire fighting

equipment during declared fire danger periods;

(iv) minimum standards for access roads and tracks to allow access for fire fighting

vehicles;

(v) the facilitation by the operator under the permit, before or within 3 months after the

commencement of the operation of the wind energy facility, of a familiarisation visit

to the site and explanation of emergency services procedures for the C FA, Rural



33 of 41

Ambulance Victoria, Moyne Shire Council’s Municipal Emergency Management

Committee and Victoria Police;

(vi) subsequent familiarisation sessions for new personnel of those organisations on a

regular basis and/or as required; and

(vii) if requested, assist in the training of authority personnel in relation to suppression of

wind energy facility fires.

f) A cultural heritage and archaeology management plan to address Aboriginal and European

cultural heritage. The plan must be prepared in consultation with the Framlingham

Aboriginal Trust.

This plan must include:

(i) That, before the development plan is endorsed an archaeological survey is to be

conducted by a qualified archaeologist and representative of the Framlingham

Aboriginal Trust that locates, records and assesses any Aboriginal sites and European

places and objects on those parts of the site which have the potential to be affected by

the wind energy facility. This must include land that may be disturbed by associated

works such as turbine footings, access tracks, buildings, services and or possible

erosion arising from such works. The results of that survey must be made available to

the Minister of Planning at the time the development plan in lodged for approval;

(ii) arrangements for a qualified archaeologist and representative of the Framlingham

Aboriginal Trust to be on‐site during initial excavation works to identify any

archaeological artefacts, and initiate measures for interim protection and reporting of

any such objects or sites;

(iii) protocols for the activities of construction contractors on sites which have been

identified to have potential effects on sites of cultural significance;

(iv) protocols for ongoing consultation with the Framlingham Aboriginal Trust

throughout the project, especially those relating to the detailed surface and sub‐

surface archaeological investigations, including maintaining confidentiality (where

considered appropriate) concerning the locations of Aboriginal archaeological sites;

(v) procedures for seeking and obtaining any necessary permits and for entering into any

necessary agreements under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006; and

(vi) protocols for protecting and reporting the discovery of any human remains in

accordance with the requirements of the Victoria Police, the Victorian State Coroners

Office and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

g) A pest animal management plan to be prepared in consultation with the DELWP and the

DEDJTR to the satisfaction of the DEDJTR.



34 of 41

The plan must include procedures for the control of pest animals for all areas disturbed by the

wind farm works for a period of 2 years after completion of the development or, if staged of

each stage; particularly by negating opportunities for the sheltering of pests.

h) A pest plant management plan including:

(i) procedures to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens from earth moving

equipment and associated machinery including the cleaning of all plant and

equipment before transport to the site and the use of road making material

comprising clean fill that is free of weeds;

(ii) sowing of disturbed areas with perennial grasses; and

(iii) a protocol to ensure follow‐up weed control is undertaken on all areas disturbed

through construction of the wind energy facility for a minimum period of 2 years

following completion of the works.

i) A training program for construction workers and permanent employees or contractors at the

wind energy facility site including a site induction program relating to the range of issues

addressed by the Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Minister of

Planning.

j) A program for reporting including a register of environmental incidents, non‐conformances,

complaints and corrective actions.

k) A timetable for implementation of all programs and works identified in a plan referred to in

conditions a) to j) above.

16. The environmental management plan must be reviewed and if necessary amended to the

reasonable satisfaction of the Minister for Planning every 5 years to reflect operational experience

and changes in environmental management standards and techniques and must be submitted to

the Minister for Planning for re‐endorsement.

BATS AND AVIFAUNA

17. Before the development starts, the operator under the permit must engage the services of a

suitably qualified expert(s) to prepare a Bat and Avifauna Management Plan (BAM Plan) to the

satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. It must be prepared in consultation with the DELWP

Environment Portfolio, and must be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning.

When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The use must

thereafter accord with the endorsed plan.

The BAM Plan must include:

a) an overall strategy for managing and mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising

from the wind energy facility operations;



35 of 41

b) a bat and bird strike monitoring program specifying, at least, its duration, timing, data

recorded, methodology, correction factors and reporting protocols;

c) a Southern Bent‐wing Bat monitoring program of at least two years duration to establish

utilisation of the site including monitoring of bat presence at different heights up to 168m;

d) specification of mortality rates for the Southern Bent‐wing Bat and birds species listed under

the EPBC or the FFG Act that would trigger the requirements for appropriate ameliorative

measures; and

e) management and mitigation measures or offset measures that can be taken in response to

monitoring results relative to relevant triggers and standards.

NOISE STANDARD

18. Except as provided below in this condition, the operation of the wind energy facility must comply

with New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (the Standard) at any dwelling

existing on land in the vicinity of the wind energy facility as at 7 June 2016, to the satisfaction of

the responsible authority.

In determining compliance the following apply:

a) The operator must ensure that at any wind speed, wind farm sound levels at noise sensitive

locations do not exceed a noise limit of 40dB LA90 (10 min), provided that where the

circumstances specified in condition 18 b apply, the noise limit of 40dB LA90 (10 min) will be

modified as specified in condition 18 b.

b) At the specified assessment positions referred to in condition 18, the noise limit of 40dB LA90

(10 min) referred to in condition 18 a will be modified in the following way when the

following circumstances exist:

(i) where the background sound level is greater than 35 dB LA90 (10 min), the noise limit

will be the background sound level LA90 (10 min) plus 5 dB;

(ii) where special audible characteristics, including tonality, impulsive sound or

amplitude modulation occur, the noise limit will be modified by applying a penalty of

up to + 6 dB LA90 in accordance with section 5.4 of the Standard.

This condition does not apply if an agreement has been reached with a landowner through which

the landowner accepts predicted noise levels and acknowledges that the operation of the wind

energy facility may still generate noise in outdoor areas at the noise sensitive residence (s) which

may from time to time exceed the Standard.

In such circumstances, the operator under this permit must, as soon as practicable, enter into an

agreement with the Minister for Planning and the registered proprietor of the affected land

pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Section 173 Agreement) to



36 of 41

provide that, except with the written consent of the Minister for Planning, any noise sensitive

residence on the land should not be occupied by persons other than:

(i) those with an interest in ownership and management of land on which the wind

energy facility is located and their families, or

(ii) persons who otherwise receive a financial benefit as a result of the location of the

wind energy facility on the land;

and application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register the Section 173 Agreement on

the title to the land under Section 181 of the Act.

NOISE COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT

Pre‐construction assessment

19. Before development starts, a pre‐construction noise assessment must be undertaken to reflect the

final turbine layout and turbine model chosen. The pre‐construction noise assessment shall be

prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced independent acoustic engineer to demonstrate

that the wind energy facility will comply with the relevant noise limits specified in this permit, to

the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.

20. A post‐construction noise monitoring program must be carried out in accordance with the New

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

21. For the purposes of determining compliance, the following requirements apply:

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) All acoustic compliance reports must be accompanied by a report from an environmental

auditor accredited under the Environment Protection Act 1970 with their opinion on the

methodology and results contained in the noise compliance testing plan. If a suitable auditor

cannot be engaged, the proponent may seek the written consent of the Minister for Planning

to obtain an independent peer review of the noise report instead.

c) Noise assessment positions must be located as close as possible to previous locations or

according to the Standard, and shown on a map.

d) 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).

e) A final compliance report must be submitted to the responsible authority after a 12 month

period following full operation of the wind energy facility.

f) Compliance reports should be publically available.



37 of 41

NOISE COMPLAINTS EVALUATION

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

a) Post installation sound levels shall, where practical, be measured at the same 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 with condition 18 is detected, or an acoustic investigation is required

under the complaints investigation and response plan endorsed under condition 23, 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 operator under the

permit 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.

d) If investigations indicate special audible characteristics are potentially occurring, procedures

outlined in Appendix B of the Standard should be applied.

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSE PLAN

23. Before the development starts, the permit holder must prepare a Complaint Investigation and

Response plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be

endorsed by the responsible authority and will then form part of this permit. The complaint

investigation and response plan will be designed to respond to all aspects of the wind farm

including (but not limited to): operation noise, construction noise, construction impacts, traffic,

shadow flicker.

24. The endorsed complaints investigation and response plan must be publicly available on the wind

farm operator’s website.

25. The plan must be prepared in accordance with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS

10002:2014 – Guidelines for complaint management in organisations and shall include:

a) a process of investigation to resolve a complaint



38 of 41

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

c) how contact details will be communicated to the public

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

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

available)

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

(i) the complainant’s name

(ii) any applicable property reference number if connected to a noise background testing

location

(iii) the complainant’s address

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

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

including the potential incidence of special audible characteristics (for a noise

complaint)

(vi) the processes of investigation to resolve the complaint.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. The owner of the wind energy facility must implement and comply with the approved Complaint,

Investigation and Response Plan for the duration of the operation of the wind energy facility.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE WORKS

29. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of preliminary investigative works, including

geotechnical investigations, for the purposes of gathering data or making other assessments

necessary or desirable in order to prepare the development plan or other plans specified in this

permit, is not considered to be commencement of the development.



39 of 41

BLADE SHADOW FLICKER

30. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per annum at any

dwelling existing at 7 June 2016.

This condition does not apply to any dwelling on land on which part of the wind energy facility is

erected. Any required exemption must be given affect through an agreement with the landowner

which is registered on the title to the land and will apply to any occupant of the dwelling. The

agreement must be entered into before the use commences.

Note: inclusion of the exemption as part of any agreement made under Condition 18 will be one

way to satisfy this condition.

31. Before the use starts, details of a complaint evaluation and response process must be submitted to

and approved by the Minister for Planning to assess any alleged breach of Condition 30.

TELEVISION AND RADIO RECEPTION AND INTERFERENCE

32. Prior to commencement of works, a pre‐construction survey must be carried out to the satisfaction

of the Minister for Planning to determine television and radio reception strength at selected

locations up to 3kms from all wind turbines. The location of such monitoring is to be determined

by an independent television and radio monitoring specialist appointed by the operator under

this permit.

33. If, following commencement of the operation of the wind energy facility, a complaint is received

regarding the wind energy facility having an adverse effect on television or radio reception at the

any dwelling in the area which existed at the date of the pre‐construction survey, a post‐

construction survey must be carried out at the dwelling.

34. If the post‐construction survey establishes any increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind energy facility operations, the wind energy facility operator must undertake measures to

mitigate the interference and return the affected reception to pre‐construction quality at the cost of

the operator and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

SECURITY

35. All site entries and wind turbine access points and electrical equipment must be locked and made

inaccessible to the general public to the reasonable satisfaction of the responsible authority. Public

safety warning signs must be located on all towers and all spare parts and other equipment and

materials associated with the wind energy facility must be located in screened, locked storage areas

that are inaccessible to the public to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

AVIATION SAFETY CLEARANCES

36. Prior to the approval of the development plan, the operator under the permit must provide

written evidence to the Minister for Planning that satisfies the Minister that the wind energy



40 of 41

facility structures are sited and designed in accordance with any applicable CASA code or

regulation.

37. Copies of the approved development plans must be provided to CASA, the Department of

Defence, CFA State Aircraft Unit and to any organisation responsible for providing air ambulance

services in the area, to enable details of the wind energy facility to be shown on aeronautical charts

of the area.

DECOMMISSIONING

38. The operator under the permit must, no later than 2 months after all the wind turbines have

permanently ceased to generate electricity, notify the responsible authority in writing of the

cessation of use. Within a further 12 months of this date, the operator under the permit, or in the

absence of the operator under the permit, the owner of the land on which the relevant turbines are

located, must undertake the following to the satisfaction of the responsible authority within such

timeframe as may be specified by the responsible authority:

a) remove all above ground non‐operational equipment;

b) remove and clean up any residual spills;

c) clean up and restore all storage, construction and other areas associated with the use,

development and decommissioning of the wind energy facility, if not otherwise useful to the

on‐going management of the land;

d) restore all access tracks and other areas affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if

not otherwise useful to the on‐going management of the land;

e) submit a decommissioning traffic management plan to the responsible authority and, when

approved by the responsible authority, implement that plan; and

f) submit a post‐decommissioning revegetation management plan to the responsible authority

and, when approved by the responsible authority, implement that plan.

39. In the event that one or more turbines have permanently ceased to generate electricity prior to

cessation of operation of the whole wind energy facility, the operator under the permit must,

within 2 months of that event, notify the Minister for Planning. Within a further 6 months of this

date, the operator under the permit must undertake the following to the satisfaction of the Minister

of Planning:

a) remove the turbine including the rotor, nacelle and tower;

b) remove and clean up any residual spills;

c) submit a traffic management plan to the Minister for Planning for the removal of that

turbine(s) and, when approved by the Minister for Planning, implement that plan.



41 of 41

STAGING

40. The use and development authorised by this permit may be completed in stages as shown on the

endorsed development plan(s) to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, and any

corresponding obligation arising under this permit (except the preparation and approval of the

development plan under Condition 1) may be similarly completed in stages or parts.

EXPIRY

41. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(i) the development is not started within 3 years of the date of this permit;

(ii) the development is not completed within 6 years of the date of this permit.

The Minister for Planning as responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request

is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Date issued XXXXXXXXX

Signature of Responsible Authority.

THIS PERMIT HAS BEEN AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

Date of amendment Brief description of amendment.

15 November 2011 Pursuant to section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this

permit was extended so that development must start no later than 15

March 2012.

31 October 2013 Pursuant to section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this

permit was extended so that development will expire if the

development is not completed by 12 March 2016.

4 June 2015 Pursuant to section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this

permit was extended so that development will expire if the

development is not completed by 12 March 2018.

XXXXXX Add this amendment

planning and environment act 1987 · 2017-06-01 · planning and environment act 1987 panel report...

Documents