Acciona Energy Oceania Pty Ltd v Corangamite SC [2008] VCAT 1617 (11 August 2008)

Last Updated: 18 August 2008

VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

ORDER

1. In permit application no. P2007/080, the decision of the Responsible Authority is set aside.
2. A permit is granted and is directed to be issued for the land known as Lot 1 TP888561P, CA11 Section 3, Lot 1 TP669318W, Lot 1 TP324172A, Lot 1 TP080920R, CA 14 Section 4, CA21B Section B, all in the Parish of Paaratte, Cobden-Port Campbell Road, Newfield.
3. The permit will allow the use and development of the land for a wind energy facility (15 turbines) and associated infrastructure including access tracks and underground cables, transformers, electrical switchyard and substation, permanent wind monitoring mast, public viewing area and temporary construction staging area including a temporary concrete batching plant, and native vegetation removal.
4. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix 1 to these reasons.
   
   

APPEARANCES

INFORMATION

REASONS

What is this review about?

1. A 15 turbine wind farm is proposed at Newfield, 7.5 – 10 km inland of Port Campbell. It would be located between Collins Road and Waarre Road, along a ridgeline for a distance of approximately 4km.
2. The Corangamite Shire Council refused to grant a permit for this proposal. Its grounds relate to:
   • The visual and landscape impacts of the wind turbines on views from the Two Mile Bay car park and walk, and from the Port Campbell National Park, that the Council says are contrary to the landscape principles of the Great Ocean Road Region Strategy.
   • The visual and other impacts of the wind turbines on residences proximate to the ridgeline particularly when coupled with the existing gas plants.
   • The impact of the turbines on the scenic qualities of the Cobden-Port Campbell Road and the Timboon-Port Campbell Road.
   • Issues associated with the social impact assessment.
3. Respondent Objectors support the Council’s grounds. They are also concerned about the proposal in terms of other potential impacts, such as on road safety, health, tourism, farm operation, milk production, wedge-tailed eagles, land stability, property values and community cohesion.
4. For the Applicant, Ms Quigley said although the wind farm would be seen inland along a short section of the Great Ocean Road, the proposal would be a small element at a long distance in three confined places. On that basis, she submitted the proposal is acceptable in the man-modified environs beyond the iconic Great Ocean Road heathland. The Applicant also submitted the proposal’s visual impact in the site’s rural setting would be acceptable given strong support in State planning policy for wind energy facilities. Other potential issues with respect to matters such as noise emissions and shadow flicker were argued by the Applicant to meet the applicable standards. Attention was drawn to the Council officer’s recommendation in favour of the permit application.
5. The Tribunal must decide whether to grant a permit having regard to the provisions in the Corangamite Planning Scheme. Given the requirements of the Scheme expressed in Clauses 15.14 and 53.32 as well as the Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities[2], we find technical matters have or can be satisfied. We find the determinative issues raised by the proposal are its visual impact in near and distant contexts. After careful review of all material and a very comprehensive site inspection, we are persuaded to grant a permit. Our reasons follow.

What material provides the basis for the Tribunal’s decision?

6. Many of the points made by the parties in this proceeding are those frequently associated with wind farm proposals. [3] Visual impacts and noise emissions stand out as the main issues in this proceeding although the former is the most critical in our view given we find technical compliance with the applicable noise standards can be achieved. Social effects are also important to acknowledge.
7. Our reasons focus on these key issues, and then briefly address other matters raised in submissions made at the hearing and in statements of grounds filed with the Tribunal. In reaching our conclusion, we have considered all written and oral submissions, statements of grounds, and statements of evidence. We do not recite all of this material in these reasons as all documentation is retained on the Tribunal’s file.
8. We have been assisted by a video/DVD prepared on behalf of the proponent simulating a vehicle travelling along the Great Ocean Road and demonstrating the locations where the turbines would be seen. The images do not include the now complete second gas plant. We have also been assisted by photomontages prepared by Mr Wyatt from various viewpoints. We have been particularly mindful of the lens representations used in the video/DVD and photomontages. Mr Wyatt’s evidence was the most accurate representation as to what the eye would see relies on a 90mm lens and sized at A0. That contrasts with the oft-relied upon 50mm or 60mm. Even smaller representations result from a standard 35mm camera lens.
9. Our unaccompanied site visit occurred on Tuesday 22nd July 2008 including the places parties invited or asked the Tribunal to inspect. It included the Port Campbell township; public roads near to and some distance from the site for the wind farm; travelling along the Great Ocean Road multiple times in both directions; visiting the Twelve Apostles Car Park, Visitor Centre and Viewing Platform as well as the Loch Ard Car Park; visiting the Two Mile Creek Car Park and walking part of the walking track. Our site visit also included inspections of the dwellings occupied by Mr M McKenzie and Mr P Van Rijthoven and viewing all other dwellings within two kilometres of the proposed turbines (from roads and along driveways). We also viewed the two gas plants from near and distant locations. We visited the location of the proposed public viewing platform and sites shown in all of the photomontages presented through Mr Wyatt’s evidence.
10. In addition, members of the Tribunal are variously familiar with wind farms that have been constructed in other parts of Victoria, such as Toora, Cape Bridgewater, Codrington, Yambuk and Callicum Hills, and have seen other facilities interstate (eg. King Island) and overseas.
11. Before we discuss the two key issues, we refer to the planning context for any decision on the merits of the permit application.

What is the planning context for deciding upon the permit application?

12. Decisions about planning permits are not popularity contests. A responsible authority, and Tribunal on review, must decide upon a permit application on the basis of the provisions contained in the applicable Planning Scheme. Those provisions, as they exist today, must be objectively applied to the permit application.[4] It is not open to the Tribunal to replace its preferences for those expressed in the Scheme or to superimpose the preferences and values of parties in the proceeding. There are often legitimate differences in opinion when applying policy-based provisions but, in the case of wind energy facilities, the Corangamite Planning Scheme directs our consideration in a specific way as we summarise next.
13. An assessment of the proposed Newfield wind farm is based on the criteria for assessing wind farms contained in the Corangamite Planning Scheme. State policies, Clause 52.32 and the Policy Guidelines seek to facilitate wind energy facilities. For example, the purpose of Clause 52.32 is:

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

14. The reference to “minimal impact on the amenity of the area” does not mean there must be no impact. The Policy Guidelines provide a consistent basis for assessment of wind farm proposals of all sizes.[5] That consistency is achieved by prescribed standards for measurable impacts such as noise, blade glint, shadow flicker, and electromagnetic interference. These are all dealt with as potential amenity impacts.[6] Visual amenity is assessed differently. It is self-evident that wind energy facilities will usually have some visual impact given the places where the wind resource is greatest. When assessing visual amenity, the Policy Guidelines state:

Consideration of the visual impact of a proposal should be weighted having regard to the Government’s Policy in support of renewable energy development. [Tribunal emphasis]

15. Thus, we must look upon a wind energy facility positively when assessing visual impact given its expected contribution to renewable energy goals. That does not mean every location will be suitable for a wind farm, indeed turbines are excluded from National Parks many of which are on the coast.[7] But the policy does not assume wind turbines represent visual blight as underlies some submissions we received. Moreover, visibility alone does not equate to a negative visual impact. Rather, the critical visual issues are the sensitivity of the landscape and degree of visibility. Ultimately, based on Clause 11, we must weigh up all relevant factors to decide if a proposal is in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.

Would the proposal have unreasonable visual impacts?

What principles and policies are relevant in assessing visual impact?

16. Clause 15.14 brings with it an expectation of wind farms in valued locations where it is policy that planning should:

Recognise that economically viable wind energy facilities are dependent on locations with consistently strong winds over the year and that such sites are likely to be close to the exposed coastline and may be highly localised.

17. As discussed in Perry[8], the perception of landscape quality and visual impact can be very subjective. Human responses to wind farms (regardless of size) vary. Many people find them interesting and rhythmic in a positive way whereas others find them ugly and industrial in nature.
18. Community perception studies referred to by Mr Wyatt make the point that wind farms have a significant level of community acceptance. We have no information as to whether community acceptance has increased over time with greater awareness of global warming and climate change issues. Nor do we have any post-construction assessments in specific local areas.
19. The Scheme and Policy Guidelines give weight to impacts on landscape values, significant views, including visual corridors and sightlines with various factors identified as relevant to an assessment.[9] They include the visibility of the development, the locations and distances from which the turbines would be seen and the significance of the landscape as described in a Significant Landscape Overlay, and the sensitivity of the landscape to change. Visual impact can also be influenced by whether the viewer is stationary (eg. in a dwelling) or moving (eg. in a motor vehicle or tour bus).
20. The review site and surrounds are not in a Significant Landscape or another Overlay. That does not mean the landscape has limited value for the local community or tourists. Indeed, it is relevant that the evaluation criteria for visual amenity in the Policy Guidelines use the presence of a Significant Landscape Overlay as a consideration together with “planning scheme objectives for the landscape”. That is important given the Council’s emphasis on the importance of the inland rural setting and the values it holds in the Council’s overall environmental and tourism strategies as represented through Clauses 21 & 22 of the Corangamite Planning Scheme.
21. We agree that the area has attractive scenic qualities but we consider the scenic qualities of the Great Ocean Road recognised through State Planning Policy are pre-eminent.[10] We do not need to spend time in these reasons referring to the outstanding landscape, community and tourism values of the Great Ocean Road as these are renowned and indisputable.
22. It is important to our assessment of public realm visual impact that:
    • The Great Ocean Road Landscape Character Assessment, restated in the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study State Overview[11] recognise the “Coastal cliffs and coastal hinterland landscape” as of national significance. The inland area around the review site is not identified in this work as of national, state or regional significance.
    • The Great Ocean Road Region Land Use and Transport Strategy[12] and the Great Ocean Road Landscape Character Assessment[13] identify precincts with distinctive qualities including:
      • Precinct 2.2 applying to the review site and surrounds –

...It is characterised by hilly topography, varying from gentle to steep, and often incised with rivers, creeks and gullies. A patchwork of paddocks and shelter belts exist throughout this landscape character type...

Landscape objectives include to ensure buildings and structures sit within, rather than dominate, the landscape and to ensure ridgetops and visually prominent hill faces are kept largely free of development.

• Precinct 3.1 focussed along the coast and its environs although it extends inland to around Eastern Creek that, in relative terms, is a short distance to the south of the site of the southern-most turbine –

... It is characterised by dramatic sea cliffs, including spectacles such as the Twelve Apostles and Loch Ard Gorge, with gently undulating topography further inland. Vegetation is low coastal scrub, with reserves of natives or plantations, and paddocks with shelter belts in the hinterland.

Landscape objectives include to protect and increase indigenous vegetation; retain clear views of coastal cliffs and formations; ensure long stretches of the coastal strip remain free of development; retain the dominance of an indigenous natural landscape in coastal areas between townships particularly when viewed from the Great Ocean Road; and ensure buildings and structures inland do not dominate views from the Great Ocean Road.

23. Mr Walker referred to a Significant Landscape Overlay inland of the Great Ocean Road. SLO3 does not coincide with the above precincts and does not extend as far inland as the review site. SLO3 has objectives including to provide control over the visual impact of development in visually prominent locations. The aim is for development to integrate with the landscape rather than dominate it; to “avoid marked visual intrusion”. Development outside the SLO3 area is seen from the Great Ocean Road.
24. Some parties contended the Great Ocean Road Landscape Character Assessment did not consider wind farms when formulating its design responses and objectives. We observe, however, that a design response for Precinct 3.1 has had regard to the potential for structures and infrastructure:

Locate and screen large buildings and structures (eg very large sheds, high tension transmission lines and associated cleared easements etc) to minimise visibility from the Great Ocean Road and key viewing points.

25. Another design response is to avoid any development on the coastal side of the Great Ocean Road.
26. The Great Ocean Road is one of our nation’s most precious and treasured assets. These policy documents, to which we must give effect, seek to minimise visual impacts and maintain the landscape’s dominance but they do not go so far as to require structures inland of the road to be invisible. We note that the Minister for Planning did not require an environment effects statement for the proposed Newfield wind farm because[14]:
    • The project site mostly consists of cleared agricultural land, with considerable scope to adjust the siting of turbines and associated infrastructure for this wind energy facility to avoid significant adverse effects on indigenous flora and fauna and to mitigate other environmental effects.
    • Potential effects on landscape values and residential amenity are likely to be of no more than local significance.
    • The planning permit process, informed by the Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, offers a suitable mechanism to assess potential environmental effects and related issues. [Tribunal emphasis]
27. Within the framework of the goals and policies to which we have referred, the critical questions relate to the scale and degree of visual impact – will the proposed wind farm be an unreasonably dominant element? That will be decided by factors such as the existing landscape qualities including qualities recognised by the Planning Scheme; the extent of change in the landscape at present (that influences the extent to which new development can be absorbed); features of the landscape such as topography and vegetation; the horizontal and vertical effects of the proposed turbines; and distance that influences the degree of visibility and potential dominance.
28. There is no prescribed test in relation to the visual impacts of a wind energy facility on private dwellings nor a standard buffer or setback between turbines and dwellings that applies through the Corangamite Planning Scheme or elsewhere in Victoria. That does not mean private dwellings are to be disregarded. Indeed, impact reduction measures referred to in the Policy Guidelines include:

siting and designing to minimise impacts on views from areas used for recreation based on landscape values and from dwellings. [Tribunal emphasis]

29. An assessment of the visual impacts upon private dwellings must be in the context of the land’s zoning and magnitude of change caused by the proposed wind energy facility. The same types of factors influencing visual impact in the public realm are relevant to assessing impacts from the private realm of dwellings and farms. In addition, we must take into account the extent or proportion of view that would be affected and the importance and value of that view in the context of other aspects of residential amenity.
30. Several cases before this Tribunal have involved land in a Farming Zone and have needed to consider submissions that some “priority” be given to rural residential dwellings in such a setting.[15] That is, houses on small lots with no association with farming or rural activities. The principle adopted in those cases has been that rural residential or lifestyle properties in a farm setting do not gain any priority in a Farming Zone, consistent with many other decisions about land use and development in a rural or farming zone. The circumstances in the current proceeding differ. We understand the area was divided into 100 acre lots decades ago through settlement programmes. There are dwellings within or around 3km from the closest turbine but our inspection suggests nearly all appear as being associated with farming land and not rural living of the nature just described. Having said that, we recognise the lifestyle attributes and benefits for these farming families. Similarly, we recognise that farm houses can be sited to take up the opportunities to enjoy valley or sea views and, simply because they do so, does not place them into the category of rural living of the type discouraged in the Farming Zone.

What would be the visual impact from the public realm?

31. Our review has focussed on three main considerations with respect to the visual impact of the proposed wind farm from the public realm – one is from stationary and moving vantage points along the Great Ocean Road, the second is from public roads around the review site, and the third is from the Port Campbell township. We address each in turn.
32. First we consider the Great Ocean Road. We have examined the impact of the proposal in sections for ease although we have also considered the impact with respect to one’s experience of the Great Ocean Road a whole.
33. The Applicant’s case relies on its assessment that, over the 15 km drive between the Twelve Apostles car park/visitor centre and Port Campbell, that takes around 12 minutes at the speed limit, there would be three occasions when some or all of the turbines would be seen for 30-60 seconds each time or a total of around 2½ minutes. Views would otherwise be shielded by landform and existing vegetation.
34. Our assessment is based on today’s landscape. A loss of heathland could expose more of the turbines while new plantings or continued growth of existing vegetation height may mean views of the wind farm would be reduced. We have travelled the same section of road multiple times, in both directions, noting the gas plant infrastructure that is a small visible element. We also are aware that some travellers would have longer and more sustained views, such as someone sitting on the inland side of a large/high touring coach, compared with a passenger in a vehicle on the coast-side of the road. We have been mindful of the dynamic nature of the turbines.
35. Views would be confined and relatively short duration. The wind farm would be inland and would not be seen from the key viewing points of the Twelve Apostles or Loch Ard.
36. Moving eastwards from Port Campbell, the wind farm would be to one side and progressively behind the viewer given the road’s orientation. We do not consider this to be problematic.
37. The experience travelling westwards would see the wind farm being a forward visual element and noticeable in three places. Here, the turbines would seem small and have a confined horizontal dimension as noted next.
38. In the most distant view, the turbines would be seen with a foreground of heathland and then farmland, along a limited section of road between the Twelve Apostles car park and Loch Ard car park. The turbines would be more than 9km inland. This inland section of the Great Ocean Road between the Twelve Apostles has several noticeable structures plus an obvious powerline close to the inland roadside. We do not consider the minor visual incursion of the wind farm in this context to unreasonably detract from the experience of the Great Ocean Road or to dominate the landscape.
39. Moving further west of the Loch Ard car park toward Port Campbell, there are two locations where there would be more exposed views of the wind farm. The turbines would be closer, at around 7-7.5km, and more would be visible as demonstrated in the photomontages. We detected one location where the turbines would be seen, in a horizontal row, with the appearance of heathland in front and no obvious farmland in the foreground. For the balance of the 30-60 second period, farmland would be in the same foreground and the turbines would be a confined horizontal element. In no views would the coastline be in the same direct viewing corridor.
40. Although the wind farm would be visible, we accept submissions by the Applicant that would be a small element at a long distance and would not detract from one of our most important icons and tourist features. We do not consider the turbines to be dominant vertically or horizontally in this wide and open setting albeit they would be seen. If we had felt the proposal would compromise the Road’s scenic qualities we would have declined a permit. The lack of objection by bodies such as Parks Victoria and coastal protection/environmental groups is notable.
41. Although we are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable as it has been put forward, and accords with the policies at Clause 15.08-3 and landscape principles of the Great Ocean Road Region Strategy, it may be possible for additional roadside indigenous planting to provide further screening, in the form of slightly taller species if available as part of ongoing revegetation programmes. That could be a benefit and could be considered by the park manager if felt necessary potentially with the financial assistance of the Applicant as part of its community fund.
42. West of Port Campbell township is a lookout over the harbour and beyond is the Two Mile Bay car park. The Council expressed concerns about views of the turbines from this car park and the Port Campbell Discovery Walk that starts at the car park and finishes at the Two Mile Bay lookout. The start of the walk provides commanding views of the coastal cliffs can be are more difficult to see from the Great Ocean Road. One’s attention is focused on the sea and cliffs, with the Port Campbell township clearly seen. The orientation of the walking path means that for 100-200 metres there would be direct views to some turbines at a distance of around 9km, framed by vegetation along the pathway. Towers at the gas plant can also be seen as well as closer farm buildings and extensive vegetation. Moving further along the walk, the turbines would not be visible given the intervening landform and vegetation. We do not consider the visibility of the turbines at this location to be dominant or offensive. Changes in the vegetation could change the degree of view, with more plantings meaning views could be reduced. There would also be some glimpses from the access road leading into/from the Two Mile Bay car park. We again do not consider these would dominate. Similarly, the experience of driving the Great Ocean Road from Two Mile Bay to Campbells Creek bridge would not be severely or detrimentally impacted by several confined glimpses of several turbines.
43. Second we consider views from public roads around the review site, such as the Cobden-Port Campbell Road, Timboon-Port Campbell Road, Melrose Road, Waarre Road and Collins Road. Visibility will be affected by the extent of roadside vegetation, road alignment and topography. Views to the proposed turbines from these roads would vary – in some places the row of 15 turbines could be experienced as a dominant element while in other places the views would be limited by roadside vegetation, landform or other physical barriers. For example, the shallower slope along the east side of the ridgeline means wider views of the turbines would be gained along Melrose Road when compared with parts of the Cobden-Port Campbell Road to the south/south-west of the ridgeline. Some visitors would find the turbines interesting and appealing while others would not.
44. There is no doubt that valleys and hills are attractive but we have not been persuaded that the visual impact is unacceptable, offensive or disrespectful to the setting. Nor do we think the turbines would detract from the tourist experience in a manner that would undermine the strategic directions of the Scheme.
45. We have considered the cumulative impact of the proposed turbines and the gas plants in this setting. There is clearly a localised impact. They are very different types of structures with very different visual impacts. The industrial format of the gas plants is not the same as the turbines and although the two would be seen together in views around the area, we do not consider the combination of the two land uses warrants rejection of the proposal for reasons of unreasonable visual impact on the public realm. That is both in terms of short range and long distant views, day or night.
46. Third is the Port Campbell township. On the information before us, the wind farm could be seen from some of the streets and dwellings that would sit higher in the landscape, as demonstrated in the photomontages. There are no submissions before us challenging this aspect of the proposal and we also do not consider views from the township, to the extent possible, would be unreasonable or dominant. We note some of the potential views would be masked with new development/landscaping on private lots in time.

What would be the visual impact from the private realm?

47. We next consider visual impacts from the private realm, being dwellings and external spaces. As indicated, we viewed all houses within 2km of the closest turbine to enable us to make a properly informed decision. We were surprised that the same process had seemingly not been undertaken by the Applicant or the Council, or if it had, was not presented to the Tribunal. The Applicant’s case relied on what it felt to be a representative sample of six dwellings around the review site as contained in Mr Wyatt’s evidence. He assumed a “worst case” situation for the dwellings by rating the visual impact as high and offering landscaping to property owners within a 3km radius of the closest turbine should they so desire.
48. The degree and extent of turbine visibility is influenced by the position and scale of landform and vegetation as well as the orientation of dwellings. Much of the valley is cleared thereby exposing dwellings and properties to the ridgeline. As evident from our assessment, that is summarised below, it is because of these factors that the most affected dwellings are not always the closest to the proposed turbines.
49. In our assessment, we have considered the number, size and movement associated with the proposed turbines. We have also considered factors such as:
    • the outlook from the dwellings and outdoor recreational areas and assessed whether views would be dominated by turbines in horizontal and/or vertical dimensions.
    • the impact of the turbines taking into account the extent of visibility of the gas plants.
    • whether existing vegetation can screen turbines given that the wind farm would have an expected life of about 25 years.
    • whether new plantings could be undertaken so as to serve as an effective visual screen over a 25 year project life.
    • the potential for “micro-siting” that could cause turbines to be shifted.
50. Our assessment of the visual impact of the turbines on the dwellings most exposed to views of all or part of the ridgeline and turbines is summarised in the table below.
    
    

51. All but three of these dwellings are more than one kilometre from the closest turbine. At some of the distances involved, the turbines would be low vertical elements albeit they would be seen as would their movement. They would vary in terms of their horizontal extent. Some would be peripheral views. We find the greatest visual impact, and most limited scope for remedial landscaping in the short term, would be with respect to house #66, Mr M McKenzie’s property. The dwelling would retain an open northern aspect. House #38 is sensitive because it would be only 600 metres from the southern end of the turbine row.
52. House #38 would, however, be comparatively less affected visually given existing plantings and because the row of turbines would recede northwards along the ridgeline.
53. Dwellings opposite the central section of the turbine row, either on Melrose or the Cobden-Port Campbell Road would also be among the most exposed given the breadth of view to the turbine row (eg. #16, 33, 34 and 62). There is, however, scope for new plantings on these four properties.
54. Our findings with respect to the additional dwellings within one kilometre of the closest turbine are summarised in the table below (noting three of these dwellings are associated with a gas plant):
    
    

55. Despite the proximity of the turbines, the existing vegetation, landform and/or house orientation would be factors limiting the visual impact of any, some, or all of the turbines from houses although they may be seen from driveways/paddocks.
56. The above analysis has not identified the homes of two Objectors – #19 (Mr Flanner’s primary residence) and #50 (Mr Van Rijthoven’s primary residence; he also owns house #61 that is occupied by a share farmer). We are not persuaded these dwellings and properties would experience an unreasonable visual impact, despite turbines being seen. We observe:
    • House #19 would be 1.28km from the closest turbine to the south/south-east. The dwelling is well screened by existing vegetation that would limit views to the turbines.
    • House #50 would be 2.2km from the closest turbine to the south-east. The house is elevated and would gain views to turbines. Views would be apparent from the yard and paddocks. Given the distance, and that turbines would be receding to the south-east, we find the impact to be acceptable noting there is scope for planting close to the dwelling.
57. As said by the Tribunal in Thackeray[25] “for those for whom the 'manufactured' will always come out second best against nature - even a highly modified nature as is the case here - these structures could, we acknowledge, engender a negative response”. In this respect we understand concerns expressed by Mr Van Rijthoven and some other parties. However, in the planning context we have explained, we find the proposal to be acceptable in terms of visual impact on private properties.
58. No mitigating measures in the form of additional planting are necessary for many properties. For others, mitigating measures are possible and would be effective. Owners may wish to take up the Applicant’s offer to provide vegetation on properties to supply supplementary screening. We will require that offer to be made available for dwellings within 3km of the closest turbine consistent with Mr Wyatt’s evidence. We will require no turbine come any closer to a dwelling than 500 metres and micro-siting to be limited to a change of no more than 100 metres – other than for houses #33, 34, 35 and 38 that should not have turbines brought any closer. We will also require turbine #15 to be brought no closer to houses to its west, and in this respect we observe the alternative turbine position no. 15A (refer plan in Appendix 2) that indicates scope for micro-siting eastwards. In addition, we will require screening around the substation compound.
59. It is true, as some parties observed, that additional vegetation can affect views over farms and the ability to monitor some farm activity. However, we have not been persuaded that this impact would warrant refusal of the proposal if it is otherwise found to be acceptable. Similarly, although we have acknowledged there are several properties where mitigating works would be more difficult, the most notable of which is house #66, given the directions of the Scheme and Policy Guidelines, we are not persuaded the proposal must be refused if this is the only outstanding issue.
60. Finally we refer to the visual impact of the turbines at night, a matter raised in some submissions given the presence of the gas plants. We note the gas plants have a level of illumination that is noticeable but the non-reflective coating to be used on the turbine blades should prevent reflection. In addition, no floodlighting of the turbines is proposed and that can be confirmed by permit conditions. We are therefore satisfied that the proposal would not cause an unreasonable night-time impact.

Is the proposal acceptable in terms of noise emissions?

How is an assessment of noise impacts approached?

61. Noise is a significant concern for residents of dwellings that are closest to the proposed wind energy facility although the greatest noise impacts might not be upon the closest houses.
62. As noted in Perry, noise impacts upon existing residents are given weight in the Policy Guidelines, decision guidelines of Clause 52.32, and Clause 15.05 of State policy. Noise measures are complex and often not readily understood. The Policy Guidelines acknowledge emissions can arise from the mechanical noise produced by wind turbine generators, the movement of rotor blades through the air and construction noise. Sound emissions increase with wind speed. The extent to which the sound may be audible will depend on background noise levels, influenced by elements such as wind movement through trees and wind direction. Landform can have a masking effect. Tonal qualities may influence the perception and experience of noise.
27. The Policy Guidelines state “A wind energy facility should comply with the noise levels recommended for dwellings in the New Zealand Standard NZ6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators”[26]. The NZS6808 guideline requires wind farm noise at a dwelling to not exceed natural background noise plus 5dBA(L_A95) or 40dBA (L_A95) whichever is the greater[27]. We adopt the comments on the Tribunal in Perry[28] and Synergy Wind[29] wherein the different divisions of the Tribunal observed:
    • The noise criteria are not designed to achieve inaudibility. Turbine noise may be audible even if the proposal complies with the applicable standard. The aim is to ensure any noise, if audible, does not give rise to nuisance within dwellings. Higher noise levels could occur outside dwellings and on land closer to the wind farm.
    • Background noise, notably wind, can mask turbine noise.
    • The criteria relate to dwellings and not the whole of a nearby property. The criteria are set on the basis that indoor noise levels at night are such as to protect against sleep disturbance.
    • Panels/EES reviews have observed that the NZ standard is based on the assumption that the wind always blows towards the affected dwellings[30], which will not be the case with the turbines here.
    • Some individuals may have particular sensitivity to noise, as expressed in statements to the Tribunal, but that is not a basis to vary from the standards set by NZS6808.
    • The model is expected to predict higher than actual noise levels in situations where topography (land rise or structure between receiver and wind farm) or ground effects (heavy foliage) will lower noise levels.[31]
    • A 5dBA penalty provisions is contained in NZS6808 and is to be applied to address special audible characteristics upon a wind farm’s commissioning.
64. As also acknowledged in Perry, the Tribunal and independent Planning Panels have consistently concluded that although many people wish to maintain a peaceful setting, tranquility is not the test upon which reasonable expectations in a Farming Zone is based. An area’s tranquillity is not something the Planning Scheme seeks to protect per se. Rather, the Scheme applies standards against which noise impacts in rural areas are assessed.
65. There is no mandatory separation distance between dwellings and a wind energy facility in the Policy Guidelines or any other applicable document in Victoria. Thus, there is no basis for us to adopt what was said in one statement of grounds to be a 1.5 km separation required in overseas situations. Suitable buffer areas will depend on a range of factors such as those referred to above as well as the size of the proposed wind farm.
66. Similarly, several submissions referred to standards adopted in other places, such as the South Australian wind farm guidelines[32] that take a different approach when compared with the Victorian Policy Guidelines. It is not necessary for us to refer to, or analyse, the differences between the policies because we are required by the Planning Scheme to apply the New Zealand Standard. We simply remark that an Australian standard would be desirable, a draft of which was prepared but, as far as we are aware, has not been finalised.

Would noise impacts from the wind farm comply with the Policy Guidelines?

67. The Applicant relied on evidence of Mr Delaire that the predicated noise levels from the turbines would comply with NZS6808 at all residential properties. Mr Delaire’s assessment relied on the turbine model IT77/1500IIIH80 and took into account the noise generated by all turbines.
68. We do not intend reciting the details of his evidence although we note it is based on a sample of assessed properties as often occurs (#33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 64). Based on that analysis, Mr Delaire concluded:
    • All non-stakeholder properties comply with the NZS6808:1998 noise limits at all wind speeds.
    • The stakeholder property complies with the lowest possible NZS6808:1998 noise limits of 40dBA.
    • All non-assessed residential properties will experience worst-case noise levels of 34dBA or less.
69. We understand the impact of turbine noise may be most noticeable at wind speeds of 5-8 metres/second. The evidence is the turbine noise would be potentially greater than background noise for a limited number of assessed dwellings at 6-8 metres/second but still well within the required standard.
70. On behalf of the Council, Dr Broner raised a number of matters arising from the New Zealand standard and Mr Delaire’s analysis, leading to a submission by Mr Walker that there is no guarantee that the proposed use and development will comply with NZS6808. Dr Broner raised issues with respect to:
    • uncertainty associated with noise predictions;
    • difficulty in ascertaining whether or not someone might be disturbed from their sleep;
    • the desirability of making an allowance in advance for a 5dBA penalty to address special audible characteristics;
    • the need for loggers recording background noise to be rated the appropriate wind speed;
    • changes in predictions that would occur with the micro-siting of turbines;
    • the potential for noise level creep given the gas plants and wind farm.
71. Mr Van Rijthoven also questioned the background noise reading for his dwelling #61 given that was said to be at harvest time when noise levels on the land were higher than usually the case.
72. We have considered responses to the Council’s and Objector’s concerns given by Mr Delaire in evidence at the hearing.
73. Having carefully reviewed the material, we are satisfied that the outcome of Mr Delaire’s analysis shows the noise impacts upon dwellings within range of the proposed wind farm would or could comply with NZS6808. Compliance testing can ensure that outcome. We are not persuaded that some of the uncertainties referred to by Dr Broner are valid given Mr Delaire’s responses nor do we find it appropriate to require a 5dbA allowance to be required “up-front” when the standard we are obliged to apply operates differently. Micro-siting could alter the results but assessment in considering any shift of the turbines and then compliance testing can ensure the required standards are met.
74. We add two further considerations that have been relevant to our conclusion that noise impacts would be within the accepted standards having regard to the Policy Guidelines:
    • adding to the assessment’s likely conservatism are ground attenuation and to a lesser extent landform. Ground attenuation is a likely influence in the current case with less reliance possible on landform (other than where dwellings are nestled into a rise causing a small ridge behind the dwelling) given the often open nature of the topography.
    • modern upwind wind farms have been said to typically not exhibit noise characteristics such as low frequency, modulation or impulsiveness.

What about other noise considerations?

75. We have no information with respect to the potential for noise from the substation that would be on Waarre Road. We asked Mr Delaire about this at the hearing. He said it would be appropriate for noise emissions from the substation to comply with the Environment Protection Authority’s Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise for Industry N3/39 (referred to in Clause 15.05 of the Scheme). We consider this to be appropriate to ensure impacts on houses such as #38, #39 and #40 are within acceptable limits.
76. Some parties referred to their concern about the cumulative effect of noise from the gas plants and the wind farm. Mr Delaire also gave evidence on this matter, stating predicted noise levels would be influenced by an additional 1dBA at two houses – #40 and #48 – as a result of the two gas plants. We understand dwelling #40 is associated with one of the gas plants (Woodside Energy) and #48 is a house of one of the landowners of the review site in this case (Mr J McKenzie). Both dwellings would, however, maintain compliance with NZS6808 based on Mr Delaire’s evidence.
77. Finally, with respect to noise in construction, we say permit conditions can assist to manage noise during this time although it is self-evident that there would be some short term impacts.

Would the proposal give rise to adverse social effects?

78. On the information available to us, including the Social Impact Assessment undertaken by the Applicant[33], the proposal has generated some adverse social impacts. It may build on pre-existing tensions such as might have arisen from the gas plant projects. Community division appears to be at the forefront of these impacts focussed on differences in opinion about the benefits and disbenefits of the proposed wind farm.
79. The Council’s grounds of refusal referred to issues with the Social Impact Assessment. It believes the Assessment overstates the extent of local community support for the proposal before us. There are also submissions before us with respect to a lack of public consultation about the proposal.
80. In response, Ms Quigley referred to steps undertaken by the proponent to consult with the community, as documented in some of the material before us, and to the community perception studies referred to by Mr Wyatt.
81. Section 60(1A)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that before deciding on an application the responsible authority (and Tribunal on review) “if the circumstances appear to so require, may consider any significant social and economic effects of the use or development for which the application is made”. We have considered all concerns raised by Respondent Objectors that have been able to be raised through the public notice and independent review processes under the Act that are in addition to consultation undertaken at other times by the Council or Applicant. We appreciate the importance of the highly valued sense of community and unity that is often so strong in rural communities and townships. We also accept impacts upon community interaction and the sense of community do occur. However, we do not consider the proposal should fail because of existing and/or increasing tensions, for which there might be a range of causes. The Social Impact Assessment proposes ongoing consultation and a community fund. We hope that through these and other measures that might be put in place, the local community can work together to maintain and rebuild its important support networks.

Do other matters raised in submissions/grounds warrant refusal?

Would the proposal positively contribute to sustainability outcomes?

82. Some statements of grounds question the degree to which the proposal would contribute to greenhouse reductions. Part of this argument is, we understand, that the proposed wind farm would not produce significant benefits to justify the negative impacts of concern to Respondent Objectors. Another arm to this case is that the offsets do not take into account the operational requirements of coal fired power plants.
83. Sustainability Victoria’s views about the contribution of the proposal to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are required to be considered by the decision guidelines of Clause 52.32. The Authority’s referral response to the Council[34]calculates the potential greenhouse gas abatement based upon information supplied by the proponent including the expected energy production. The abatement calculated by Sustainability Victoria is 63,000 tonnes per annum based on an assumed capacity factor of 30% noting the coastal location may produce a higher output than predicted.
84. As observed in other wind farm cases, such as Perry[35], we have no data to suggest that the projected benefits are over-stated, accurate or under-stated. Moreover, as observed in Perry, no scientific data seems to be available about the operation of other wind farms to enable us to draw a sound and informed conclusion as to whether projected benefits and outputs are likely to be achieved and we would recommend more reporting from operating wind farms in Victoria to address questions and anxiety as to the contribution wind farms are making to greenhouse gas abatement.[36]
85. That said, we consider the probabilities weigh in favour of greenhouse gas abatement benefits being achieved and the proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of Clauses 15.14 and 52.32 of the Scheme that require consideration of the benefits to the broader community of renewable energy generation as well as the contribution of the proposal to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Is the proposal acceptable in terms of the purposes of the Farming Zone?

86. This question focuses on potential impacts on agricultural activities such as farm practices, aerial spraying, milk production by cattle, and organic farming enterprises. Mr Van Rijthoven referred to the sensitivity of cattle and said there is no evidence to show milk production would not be affected by the turbines. Mr M McKenzie referred to issues relating to aerial spraying, upon which evidence in reply was provided by Mr Rossington.[37] Another party felt that blade flicker would affect his cattle.
87. Zoning is an important question in terms of a balanced assessment of the merits of the permit application. The proposal would have only limited loss of agricultural land to allow for tracks and items such as the sub-station and its compound. Animals would still be able to graze on the review site.
88. The review site and surrounding properties are within a Farming Zone where primary production is the priority land use. It is essential that the proposed wind farm not unreasonably impact on the existing productive pursuits and enterprises. In this regard we conclude as follows:
    • We understand from Mr Rossington’s evidence that aerial spraying will still be possible without increasing flying time and therefore cost. Moreover, aerial sprayers are trained to avoid hazards such as trees, electricity wires and mobile telephone towers. We do not consider the turbines would be an unacceptable hazard.
    • We appreciate apprehensions about adverse affects on animal behaviour and primary production. However, no evidence was presented to support the submissions made. Moreover, as far as we are aware, there is no evidence of any problems of the type feared emerging in locations where wind farms have become operational.
89. Thus, we are not persuaded the proposal should fail because of potential impacts on the operation of existing farms. We agree that the area’s character has changed with the gas plants and the proposal would add another man-made element into the landscape. But that is not fundamentally inconsistent with the Farming Zone where the use of land for a wind energy facility is the most likely place for such as facility.

Would there be other potential unreasonable impacts upon nearby dwellings?

90. In addition to the matters we have already addressed, the main potential impacts on dwellings are from shadow flicker, blade glint and electronic magnetic interference. Expert evidence addressing these matters was tendered by Ms Quigley. We are satisfied that technical compliance can be achieved as assessed through the requirements of permit conditions.
91. The only potential issue arising, with respect to the project’s ability to comply with standards set through the Policy Guidelines, was some doubt that the evaluation criteria might not be met with respect to shadow flicker for two dwellings (#38 and #61). We are, however, persuaded that the standards should be able to be met mindful of a reduction factor applied and the presence of vegetation around house #38. Further, we have already indicated that there should be no turbine closer to this dwelling. In addition, there is scope for additional planting that might further mitigate the potential for shadow flicker at these and other properties.

Is the proposal acceptable in terms of impacts on wedge-tailed eagles, avi fauna, raptors?

92. Mr Van Rijthoven referred to a pair of wedge-tailed eagles that nest and breed in native vegetation between proposed turbines #7 and 12.
93. A purpose of Clause 35.07 to “protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area”. A decision guideline in that Clause is “The impact of the use or development on the ... fauna on the site and its surrounds”. We expect the patches of native vegetation and roadside vegetation are habitat for many species. The wedge-tailed eagle is neither a threatened nor a vulnerable species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 but we accept its presence in the area. The Department of Sustainability and Environment has referred to the presence of the threatened Grey Goshawk. To protect this raptor, the Department of Sustainability and Environment have sought a 200 metre clear zone around the forested area where practicable. That could impact upon the siting of turbines #7, 8 and 12. In addition, the Department of Sustainability and Environment reviewed a fauna study for the proponent specifically to address a local ibis rookery in cypress around 1.2km from the wind farm.
94. DSE assessed the potential impact in terms of mortality rates to not be significant. DSE also proposed several management plans be prepared to address impacts on bats and other avifauna.
95. The Applicant has not opposed monitoring and mitigation plans sought by DSE although, as noted on the last day of the hearing, it has engaged in discussions with respect to the 200m clear zone.
96. We have not been persuaded of an unacceptable risk to wedge-tailed eagles, ibis or other fauna in the current proceeding. That does not mean there will be no bird mortality. Like others, we have concerns about this, but the impact is not expected to be significant on any bird or fauna population and is not dissimilar to other causes of mortality that arise from human activities in the natural environment. We accept the measures proposed by the referral authority to address potential impacts and to ensure monitoring and management.

Is the proposal acceptable in terms of native vegetation impacts?

97. Mr Flanner and Mr Van Rijthoven raised concern about impacts on native vegetation including the removal of vegetation for access tracks and roads.
98. We were advised the project requires the removal of two trees. An offset plan is proposed to address the requirements of Clause 52.17 relating to the removal of native vegetation. We consider the loss of vegetation to be limited and that offsets can be achieved through permit conditions.

Would the proposal adversely impact upon road safety?

99. Some residents referred to the existing road conditions and driver behaviour in the area and their concerns that the turbines would be distracting to drivers. The potential to jeopardise the safety of school children waiting for buses was also identified in some statements of grounds.
100. We understand this concern and are aware from our own experience of driving in areas with wind farms what road behaviour might or might not occur. However, we are not persuaded that distraction, to the extent it might occur, should cause the permit application to fail. We give weight to the fact that VicRoads has reviewed the proposal and offered no objection subject to conditions addressing the proposed public viewing area.

Would there be adverse health impacts on the local community?

101. Respondent Objectors canvassed their significant concern about the impact of the wind farm upon the health of local residents. Part of this concern relates to noise issues that we have referred to above as well as matters such as vibration and the uncertainty as to what health outcomes might arise.
102. We note comments attributed to a resident near the Toora wind farm and articles to which Mr Van Rijthoven referred that contend other effects such as headaches, vertigo and shadow flicker. One of the articles refers to the work of Fritz van den Berg. Other wind farm reviews[38] have said little work has been done to demonstrate whether the “van den Berg effect” with respect to increased noise associated with stable air conditions is specific to Rhede (Germany) or is found in other locations with the same severity. Infrasound (low frequency noise below the audible frequency range) was mentioned in the earlier South Australian wind farm guidelines[39]:

Infrasound was a characteristic of some early wind turbine models that has been attributed to early designs in which turbine blades were downwind of the main tower - the turbulence generated around the tower was cut through by the blades, generating this effect.

Modern designs generally have the blades upwind of the tower. Wind conditions onto the blades and improved blade design minimise the generation of the effect. The EPA has consulted the working group and completed an extensive literature search but is not aware of infrasound being present at any modern wind farm site.

103. There is no evidence of health impacts that persuades us that rejection of the permit application is warranted given the proposal’s compliance with the applicable standards. If there are significant issues arising then there needs to be some independent assessment and documentation leading, if required, to variations in the standards applied in Victoria.

What employment benefits would be achieved?

104. Several parties opposing the proposal referred to a lack of local employment resulting from the completed facility.
105. The proposal would generate employment during construction although few staff would be required once the facility is operational. We have not given significant weight to any contended boost in local employment post-construction and none was particularly relied upon by the Applicant in the hearing.

Would the proposal affect tourism or achieve tourist outcomes?

106. Some submissions referred to the potential for the project to impact on tourism, or not achieve the stated tourism benefits.
107. Again there it little information to support these submissions and we have not been persuaded that the proposal would jeopardise existing tourism or plans for new tourist initiatives such as an extension of the coastal and inland walks.

Would the proposal give rise to land stability or water table problems?

108. Several parties expressed concern about the stability of the soil and the prospect of turbines being constructed on unstable land with impacts upon the water table and land stability more generally.
109. A geo-technical assessment[40] found the site has significant geotechnical issues relating to slope stability reflecting some observations made by local residents. While noting existing conditions with some slippage, including issues referred to in Mr Brown’s evidence with respect to the construction of the gas plants, we do not consider there to be such fundamental issues arising at this planning stage that warrant rejection of the proposal. Mr Brown has proposed a range of measures to mitigate the risk of additional instability and reduce the impact of existing instability. Detailed geotechnical investigations are proposed by way of permit conditions.

Would there be impacts on Aboriginal and European cultural heritage?

110. This was not raised as a ground in the submissions or statements of grounds but we record that we are satisfied Aboriginal and European heritage matters have been considered (as evidenced in the material submitted with the permit application) and there is no reason to deny a permit on these bases.

Impacts on property values

111. The potential for the proposal to devalue surrounding properties was referred to by some Respondent Objectors.
112. It is a well established planning principle that depreciation of land values as a result of a proposed development is not a relevant ground by which to refuse a proposal. That is, property value is not, in itself, a planning consideration. Amenity is relevant and we have addressed potential amenity impacts in these reasons.

How has the Tribunal approached conditions?

What conditions are appropriate in the circumstances?

113. We have generally adopted the conditions that were agreed on a “without prejudice” basis by the Council and Applicant with input from some Respondent Objectors at the hearing. Not all matters were agreed and some require our comment. This follows:
     • Micro-siting. We accept the need for micro-siting given the geotechnical conditions but will place parameters on the extent to which turbines are moved consistent with our findings.
     • Turbine selection. All assessments have been undertaken on the basis of the IT77/1500IIIH80 turbine. We will require use of this model or another model that is to be satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Council can seek further information about an alternative including confirmation that noise emissions can comply with NZS6808. A noise commissioning report will also ensure compliance with the applicable standard.
     • Landscaping. We will accept the proposal to plant on private properties should owners request and for that to apply within 3km of the closest turbine consistent with Mr Wyatt’s evidence.
     • Section 173 agreement. We have not been persuaded Section 173 agreements are required with respect to Conditions 12 and 19.
     • Community Fund. We will not oblige the Applicant contribute to/set up a community fund; that is for it to decide but we understand it is to occur. We have referred to planting along the Great Ocean Road as an opportunity that could be picked up by a fund.

What of concerns about non-compliance with permit conditions?

114. Mr M McKenzie referred to problems of monitoring compliance with permit conditions based on his experience of the gas plant(s). He said the Council does not have the necessary expertise in monitoring some matters.
115. We are not persuaded there are grounds to depart from the usual practice of assuming conditions will be complied with because there remedies if they are not. Any breach of conditions is a serious matter that exposes a permit holder to enforcement proceedings that can be brought by an individual or the Responsible Authority. The conditions have been structured to ensure expert information is provided to the Council and it is always open to the Council to obtain expert advice or have material peer reviewed.

Conclusion

116. We doubt many locations are as highly valued and recognised along the Victorian coastline as the Great Ocean Road. Uninformed comments of which we aware through the material provided during the hearing referred to the proposed Newfield wind farm as being on the Great Ocean Road. That description is wrong. The proposal is a small-scale, 15 turbine, wind farm located 7.5 - 10km inland from the Great Ocean Road at the closest points. There would be three short sections where the proposed turbines would be seen from the Road in a low profile at this considerable distance with a man-altered foreground landscape in part.
117. Having regard to the provisions of the Corangamite Planning Scheme that we are required to apply, we have not been persuaded this degree of visibility equates to a significant or dominating visual impact that warrants refusal of the proposal.
118. Similarly, although the scenic qualities of the valleys and rolling hills around Newfield are recognised, as are the qualities of the settings of farming houses within this district, we are again not persuaded that the localised impact warrants rejection of the proposal given the policy context we are bound to apply.
119. Finally, we are satisfied that technical matters relating to noise, shadow flicker, blade glint and other considerations have or can be satisfied.
120. Thus, we will direct a permit be issued.
     
     

APPENDIX 1

Conditions for Permit P2007/080

1. Prior to the commencement of the development the following further investigation will be undertaken:
   • (a) A geotechnical investigation of the wind generator construction sites to assess the following:
     • (i) That the foundation system will have adequate capacity to support the structures without excessive settlement, collapse or movement;
     • (ii) A risk assessment of the potential risk to turbines posed by landslip;
     • (iii) The presence of groundwater and the potential impact of the project on the groundwater;
     • (iv) Remedial measures to limit impacts upon groundwater as a result of the project if required.

The results of these investigations shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority. Any remedial measures required to deal with groundwater impacts shall also be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed development plans or other plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must not be altered or modified in any way without the written consent of the Responsible Authority save that the micro siting of wind generators will be regarded as generally in accordance with the endorsed plans if the Responsible Authority is satisfied that it will not give rise to a material change to assessed landscape, vegetation, cultural, visual, shadow or noise impacts and:
   • (a) the turbine location is altered by no more than 100 metres and:
     • (i) no turbine is no closer to any dwelling than 500 metres; and
     • (ii) houses #33, 34, 35 and 38 should not have any turbine brought any closer than shown in the application plans; and
     • (iii) turbine #15 is brought no closer to any existing dwelling than shown in the application plans.
   • (b) no turbine is located within 50 metres of a title boundary or a road.

LIGHTING

3. Where the tops of the blades of the wind generators exceed 110 metres above ground level the plan is to be referred to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to ascertain their requirements, if any, for lighting. If CASA requires lighting to any turbine the permit holder must remove or reduce the height of that turbine so that it does not exceed 110 metres above ground level to avoid the requirement for lighting.
4. No permanent external lighting of infrastructure associated with the wind energy facility, other than low level security lighting where appropriate, may be installed or operated without further consent from the Responsible Authority.

SPECIFICATIONS

5. The wind energy facility must be constructed in accordance with the following specifications, which must not be changed without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority:
   • (a) A total of not more than 15 wind turbine generators;
   • (b) The turbines must be IT77/1500IIIH80 or another model that is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   • (c) The wind turbines shown on the plan shall have an overall height of not more than 110 metres and a base diameter at ground level of no greater than 5.0 metres;
   • (d) The rotor on each wind generator must comprise of three blades;
   • (e) The tower, nacelle and rotor blades must be off-white or another colour satisfactory to the Responsible Authority, and must be of a non-reflective finish;
   • (f) The colours and finishes of all substations and ancillary equipment must be specified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so as to ensure that impact on landscape values is minimised;
   • (g) All new electricity cabling associated with the collector network within the wind energy facility generator cluster must be placed under the ground with the exception of the connection from the substation to the existing overhead distribution lines on Waarre Road.
   • (h) The access tracks within the site are to be sited to ensure minimum impacts on the site, including impacts on erosion and overland flows and, where appropriate, having regard to the farming attributes of the land.
   • (i) A permanent wind monitoring mast of approximately 70 metres high located on the ridgeline.
   • (j) An onsite electrical substation and switchboard to transmit power generated to the local electrical grid located adjacent to Waarre Road frontage of the property next to the existing electrical line that services the gas plants on adjoining land.
   • (k) A control room, workshop, compound area and switchyard located within the substation area.
   • (l) A public viewing area of 40 metres by 20 metres, including a car park and interpretive boards adjacent to the Cobden-Port Campbell Road, off Alsops Road.
6. The construction of the wind energy facility must not be staged without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

7. Before the development starts, a Traffic Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, in consultation with VicRoads, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The plan must include:
   • (a) An existing conditions survey of public roads in the vicinity of the wind energy facility that may be used for access, including details of the suitability, design and construction standard of such roads;
   • (b) The designation of appropriate construction and transport vehicle routes to the wind energy facility;
   • (c) The designation of vehicle access points to the wind energy facility from surrounding roads, including main road access points to local access roads;
   • (d) The designation of vehicle access points;
   • (e) The designation of operating hours and speed limits of trucks on relevant routes accessing the site so as to avoid the time and routes of passage of school buses, and to provide for resident safety;
   • (f) Any necessary pruning of street planting or roadside vegetation to provide for transport of materials to the site, and pruning practices to be followed;
   • (g) The designation of vehicle access ways and car parking areas;
   • (h) The requirements for Over Dimensional Load permits and escorting of long or large loads along roads in the area;
   • (i) Recommendations on the need for road intersection upgrades to accommodate any additional traffic or site access requirements, whether temporary or ongoing;
   • (j) A timetable for implementation of any pre-construction works identified to be undertaken;
   • (k) A time table of regular inspections to be carried out during the construction period to identify maintenance works necessary as a result of construction traffic.
   • (l) Over-dimension Construction Vehicle Route:
     • (i) The construction vehicles from Cobden Port Campbell Road to the subject site should be limited only to the following local road routes:
     • (ii) Cooriemungle Road, Melrose Road and Waarre Road; and
     • (iii) Collins Road.

No access will be permitted via Eastern Creek Road.

Operation of Over-dimension vehicle is prohibited during the hours in which school buses operate in the vicinity of the windfarm or along windfarm transport routes.

(m) Access from Waarre Road:

• (i) The proposed access point from Waarre Road is located in the vicinity of a crest in Waarre Road. Civil engineering designs and construction drawings showing a Longitudinal section along the Waarre Road and a detailed alignment plan of the proposed access to provide:
  1. Adequate horizontal and vertical sight distances in accordance with Clause 6.2 of “Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 5: Intersection at Grade”, Austroads, 2005.
  2. RCP culvert with endwalls to maintain the flow of existing table drain at proposed access at full cost to the applicant.
  3. Asphalt surfacing of Waarre at the access point to strengthen the road surface against the screwing from turning movement of heavy construction vehicles at full cost to the applicant.
  4. Asphalt surfacing of access road from existing edge of seal to the fence line to minimise the amount of dirt carried on to Waarre Road at full cost to the applicant.

(n) Access from Collins Road:

• (i) The intersection treatment at Cobden Port Campbell Road and Collins Road shall be in accordance with VicRoads conditions and specifications. The following works as a minimum must be carried out at the Collins Road access:
  1. Improve drainage at intersection at Cobden Port Campbell Road.
  2. Strengthen the road pavement of Collins Road to withstand heavy construction vehicle loadings.
  3. Maintain Collins Road in driveable condition during the construction period.
  4. Repair any damage to the road at the end of construction period.
  5. Reinstatement of existing farm access points if disturbed.

(o) Access to Public Viewing Area from Alsops Road:

• (i) The intersection treatment at Cobden Port Campbell road and Alsops Road shall be in accordance with VicRoads conditions and specifications. The Responsible Authority requires civil engineering drawings and alignment plan to address the safety performance of the proposed access to Public Viewing area from Alsops Road prior to the commencement of the use.

8. The use and development must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed Traffic Management Plan and the cost of any works including maintenance are to be at the expense of the permit holder.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

9. Before the development starts, an Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be prepared, in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment, water supply authorities and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Environmental Management Plan may be prepared in sections or stages. When approved, the plan will be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The Environmental Management Plan must include:
   • (a) A construction and work site management plan. This plan must include:
     • (i) Procedures for access, noise and pollution management.
     • (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) A management plan for the concrete batching plant to prevent pollution of local waterways particularly from wash water and waste concrete materials.
     • (vii) Appropriate sanitary facilities for construction and maintenance staff.

The plan must contain procedures for the removal of works buildings and staging area on completion of construction of the project and for the return of the site to its former condition.

(b) A sediment, erosion and water quality management plan. This plan must be referred to and approved by relevant water supply authorities, as described in Clause 66.02-10 of the Planning Scheme, who may consult with and take into account the views of the relevant Catchment Management Authority and other authorities. The sediment and erosion plan must include:

• (i) Procedures to ensure that silt from batters, cut-off drains, table drains and road works is retained on the works site during and after the construction stage of the project. 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. Stockpiles must be located away from drainage lines.
• (ii) The installation of geotextile silt fences (with sedimentation basins where appropriate) on all drainage lines from the site which are likely to receive run-off from disturbed areas.
• (iii) Procedures to contain any contaminated or turbid run-off during and after construction of the wind energy facility.
• (iv) Procedures to suppress dust arising from construction-related activities. Appropriate measures may include water spraying of roads and stockpiles, stabilising surfaces, temporary screening and/or wind fences, modifying construction activities during periods of heightened winds and revegetating exposed areas as soon as practicable.
• (v) Procedures to ensure that steep batters are treated in accordance with Environmental Protection Authority recommendations detailed in the ‘Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control’ No 275, May 1991.
• (vi) 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 temporary concrete batching plant must be in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority’s Environmental Guidelines for the Concrete Batching Industry, Publication No. 628.
• (vii) Procedures for waste water and discharge management.
• (viii) A process for overland flow management to prevent the concentration and diversion of waters off site or erosion prone slopes.
• (ix) Pollution management measures for management of stored and stockpiled materials including waste materials, litter and any other potential source of water pollution.
• (x) Incorporation of control measures outlined in EPA publication No. 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.
• (xiii) Immediate remediation of localised erosion, with a specified response time.
• (xiv) Method identified under condition 9(a)(iv) to protect groundwater aquifiers.

(c) A hydrocarbon and hazardous substances plan. This plan must include:

• (i) Procedures for the storage of any fuels, lubricants or waste oil to be stored in bunded areas.
• (ii) Contingency measures to ensure that any chemical or oil spills are contained on-site and cleaned up in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority’s requirements.

(d) A wildfire prevention and response plan in consultation with the Country Fire Authority, the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Responsible Authority.

(e) While no Aboriginal sites were recorded during the survey there is low-moderate potential for very diffuse stone artefact scatters and scarred trees to be present within the study area. To ensure there is no accidental damage to potential sites it is required that:

• (i) Contractors are provided with information on Aboriginal site identification and what to do in the event that suspected Aboriginal site material is uncovered. This ‘induction’ should be undertaken by Aboriginal Affairs Victoria or Framlingham Aboriginal Trust, prior to works commencing.
• (ii) Monitoring of construction activities associated with the Newfield wind farm is undertaken by Aboriginal representatives. Works which require monitoring are initial topsoil stripping in all areas where ground disturbing activities are taking place. Aboriginal monitors will primarily be monitoring the works to determine whether unregistered sites are uncovered during construction. An archaeologist should be on call if Aboriginal monitors detect cultural heritage material. The archaeologist can assist the Aboriginal representatives to record any cultural material uncovered. They will also be able to provide management advice and if necessary, make arrangements for Consent to Disturb.
• (iii) Procedures for the management of potential Aboriginal site values for the project, should be outlined in a Cultural Heritage Management Plan, prepared in consultation with the Registered Aboriginal Party and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
• (iv) If suspected Aboriginal cultural heritage material is located in the study area contact: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria (1300 888 544) and Framlingham Aboriginal Trust (03 5567 1003). If suspected non-Aboriginal cultural heritage material is located in the study area contact Heritage Victoria (9637 9475).

(f) A native vegetation protocol. This protocol is to be established in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment – South West Region. The protocol is to clarify the circumstances in which a further planning permit will be sought for native vegetation removal. The protocol is to also include the Net Gain actions that will be undertaken if native vegetation disturbance or removal cannot be avoided for the construction, operation and decommissioning stages of the project.

(g) A pest animal management plan. This plan is to be prepared in consultation with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Department of Primary Industries. This plan must include procedures for the control of pest animals, particularly by negating opportunities for the sheltering of pests. The procedure should provide that follow-up pest animal control is undertaken on all areas disturbed by the wind energy facility construction works for a period of two years following the completion of the wind energy facility.

(h) 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.

(i) A program of early identification and eradication of weeds in disturbed areas and follow-up weed control for a minimum period of two years following the completion of the works.

(j) An environmental monitoring plan.

(k) A training program including a site induction program relating to the range of issues addressed by the Environmental Management Plan.

(l) A program for reporting, including a register of environmental incidents, non-conformances, complaints and corrective actions.

(m) A timetable for implementation for any programs and works identified in a plan referred to in paragraphs (a) to (l) above.

10. The Environmental Management Plan is to be reviewed every five years (or as required) to reflect operational experience and changes in environmental management standards and techniques and is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority for re-endorsement.
11. The use and development must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed Environmental Management Plan.

NOISE

12. The operation of the wind energy facility must comply with the New Zealand Standard ‘Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators’ (NZ 6806:1998) (the ‘New Zealand Standard’), in relation to any dwelling existing at the date of approval of this document to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In determining compliance with the New Zealand Standard, the following apply:
    • (a) The sound level from the wind energy facility, when measured outdoors within 10 metres of a dwelling at any relevant nominated wind speed, should not exceed the background level (L₉₅) by more than 5dBA or a level of 40dBA L₉₅, whichever is the greater.
    • (b) When sound has a special audible characteristic, the measured sound level of the source shall have a 5dBA penalty applied.
    • (c) Compliance at night must be separately assessed with regard to night time data. For these purposes the night is defined as 10.00pm to 7.00am. For sleep protection purposes, a breach of the standard set out at Condition 13(a), for 10% of the night, amounts to a breach of the condition.

Condition 12 does not apply if an agreement in writing has been reached with a specific landowner under which the landowner accepts predicted noise levels and/or appropriate acoustic attenuation measures are installed for the landowner to ensure a reasonable level of acoustic amenity in relation to the indoor habitable areas of any dwelling, and acknowledges that the operation of the wind energy facility may still generate noise in outdoor areas on the land which may from time to time exceed the New Zealand Standard.

This exemption is limited to dwellings on land on which turbines are erected and where the dwellings are occupied by the persons deriving rent from turbines on the land and their immediate family or persons employed by the wind farm operator and their immediate family.

13. Before the use commences, details of a noise complaint, evaluation and response process must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority to address any alleged breaches of Condition 12. This evaluation process should include, but not be limited to the following components:
    • (a) A noise complaint telephone service;
    • (b) Details of validity requirements for noise complaints (that is: date, time, noise description and weather conditions at the receptor);
    • (c) Response protocol to valid noise complaints including, but not limited to:
      • (i) determination of the meteorological circumstances at the time of the breach and the operational status of the turbine(s) at that time;
      • (ii) noise optimisation of the relevant turbine(s) under the same meteorological circumstances as occurred at the time of the breach;
      • (iii) in the event of further breaches the selective shut down of the relevant wind turbine(s) in the same meteorological circumstances; and
      • (iv) where under the same meteorological conditions subsequent confirmed noise breaches occur, the decommissioning of the relevant turbine(s).
    • (d) A register of complaints, responses and rectifications which may be inspected by the Responsible Authority;
    • (e) Provision for review of the complaint and evaluation process, including review of the process six months after commencement of the operation of the wind energy facility.
    • (f) Upon receiving a written request by the Responsible Authority, the operator must within 30 days of that request supply an assessment of noise levels emitted by the wind energy facility by a qualified acoustic consultant with readings taken at times and locations specified by the Responsible Authority. Recommendations to address any non-compliance with NZS6808 must be included in the report and, on agreement by the Responsible Authority, measures to address non-compliance must be immediately implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. An independent post-construction noise monitoring program must be commissioned by the proponent within two months from the commissioning of the last generator and continue for 12 months all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The program must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand standard as varied by Conditions 12 (a), (b) and (c) above. The permit holder must pay the reasonable costs of the monitoring program.
15. An independent report summarising the results of the monitoring program, and the data collected, and indicating compliance or non compliance with the New Zealand Standard, must be forwarded to the Responsible Authority within 45 days of the end of the monitoring period. The results must be written in plain English and formatted for reading by lay people.
16. The Responsible Authority must make a copy of the report referred to in Condition 15 and any data available as soon as practicable during office hours for any person to inspect free of charge.
17. For the purposes of this permit, the carrying out of preliminary investigative works is not considered to amount to commencement of the Development.
18. The substation and associated infrastructure and activities in the substation compound must comply with the Environment Protection Authority’s Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise for Industry N3/39 at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

BLADE SHADOW FLICKER

19. No existing dwelling will experience over 30 hours blade shadow flicker per annum.

Condition 19 does not apply if an agreement in writing has been reached with a specific landowner through which the landowner accepts predicted levels of shadow flicker at a dwelling which may from time to time exceed the 30 hour per year standard.

This exemption is limited to dwellings on land on which turbines are erected and where the dwellings are occupied by the persons deriving rent from turbines on the land and their immediate family or persons employed by the wind farm operator and their immediate family.

20. Before the use commences, details of a complaint, evaluation and response process must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority to assess any breach of Condition 19.

TELECOMMUNICATION AND TELEVISION RECEPTION AND INTERFERENCE

21. A pre-construction qualitative survey must be carried out of television and radio reception at all residences located within 3km of any turbine to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
22. If complaints are made regarding the television and radio reception at the above residences, or regarding the GPS system, a post-construction qualitative survey must be carried out. If the qualitative survey establishes any detrimental increase in interference to reception or transmission, measures must be taken to mitigate the interference to return the affected reception or transmission to pre-construction quality at the cost of the wind energy facility operator and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

SECURITY

23. All site and wind generator access points and electrical equipment must be locked and made inaccessible to the general public to the 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.

EMERGENCY ARRANGEMENTS

24. Before the use starts, the operator of the wind energy facility must conduct a familiarisation visit and explanation of emergency procedures for the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and the State Emergency Service (SES), and thereafter must continue to provide such sessions for the CFA and SES on a regular basis and/or as required by those agencies.

RE-POWERING

25. No wind turbine or any component of a wind turbine, approved in the plans endorsed under Condition 2 of this permit, shall be replaced in a manner that would materially affect the location, size, external visual appearance, sound power characteristics, model, generator capacity, or electrical output of the turbine, without further written consent from the Responsible Authority.

DECOMMISSIONING

26. The wind energy facility operator must, without delay, notify the Responsible Authority in writing as soon as all or any wind energy facility generators have permanently ceased to generate electricity, whether due to planned removal, faults or otherwise. Within 12 months of that date, the wind energy facility operator, or in the absence of the operator, the owner of the land in which the relevant generator is located must undertake the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
    • (a) Remove all non-operational or downed equipment;
    • (b) Remove and clean up any residual spills;
    • (c) Clean up and restore all storage, construction and other area associated with use, development and decommissioning of the wind energy facility, including provision of soil cover and grassing over the wind generator site;
    • (d) Restore all access roads and any other area affected by the project closure or decommissioning, if not otherwise useful to the on-going management of the land;
    • (e) Prepare and submit a post-decommissioning traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and, when approved by the Responsible Authority, implement that plan; and
    • (f) Prepare and submit a post-decommissioning revegetation management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and, when approved by the Responsible Authority, implement that plan.

AGREEMENTS

27. Agreements required under Conditions 12 and 19 shall be retained by the wind energy facility operator for inspection by the Responsible Authority and any prospective purchaser of a property containing wind turbines.

DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT

28. Where practical, to reduce the impact on Bats and Avifauna, a 200m exclusion area surrounding the forest block is to be established where no wind turbines can be located to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. This may require additional micro-siting of turbines 7, 8 and 12.
29. Before the development starts, a Bat and Avifauna Management Plan (BAM Plan) must be prepared and approved by the Department of Sustainability and Environment. 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) A statement of the objectives and overall strategy for managing and mitigating any significant bird and bat strike arising from the wind energy facility operations.
    • (b) A monitoring program of at least two years duration from the commissioning of the last turbine including surveys during the breeding and migratory seasons to ascertain:
      • (i) The presence, behaviour and movements of any avifauna, especially Ibis and birds of prey in the vicinity of the wind energy facility.
      • (ii) The presence, behaviour and movements of any Bats species including White-stripped Freetail Bat, Common Bentwing Bat, Southern Bentwing Bat and forest bats in the vicinity of the wind energy facility.
      • (iii) The species, number, age, sex (if possible) and date of birds and bat strikes;
      • (iv) Procedures for the reporting of any bird and bat strikes to the Department of Sustainability and Environment within seven days of becoming aware of any strike;
      • (v) Seasonal and yearly variation in the number of birds and bat strikes;
      • (vi) The efficacy of searches for carcasses of birds and bats, and where practical, information on the rate of removal of carcasses by scavengers, so that correction factors can be determined to enable calculations of the total number of mortalities;
      • (vii) Procedures for the regular removal of carcasses likely to attract raptors to areas near turbines; and
      • (viii) Requirements for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes of the findings of the monitoring to the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the local community;
    • (c) Recommendations in relation to a mortality rate for specified species which would trigger the requirement for responsive mitigation measures to be undertaken by the proponent to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment; and
    • (d) A strategy to offset any impacts detected during monitoring. Measures to offset the impact may include management or improvement of habitat or breeding sites away from the wind farm in the region to improve breeding productivity, or other offsets as may be approved to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
    • (e) Following the completion of the monitoring program, a report must be prepared by the applicant setting out the findings of the program and in particular assessing any cumulative impact of the wind energy facility on the defined bird and bat species, to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. The report should be generally in accordance with Wind farm collision risk for birds: Cumulative risks for threatened and migratory species, Department of Environment and Heritage (2006).
    • (f) Following consideration of the report, the Department of Sustainability and Environment may determine whether any further detailed investigation of any potential impacts on birds and bats is warranted and the extent of such investigation, such further detailed investigations are to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
30. Prior to the start of construction, an Environmental Management Plan for the management and operation of works must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority upon the advice of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. When approved the plan will be endorsed and form part of the permit. The plan must include:
    • (a) Overall environmental objectives for the project and techniques to ensure these objectives are met.
    • (b) An outline of procedures to ensure that no significant adverse environmental impacts occur as a result of the works.
    • (c) An outline of mitigation measures to minimise environmental risks.
    • (d) Proposed monitoring systems.
    • (e) Identification of possible risks of operation failure and response measures that will be enacted.
    • (f) Day to day management requirements for the works.
    • (g) Others as appropriate.
31. Prior to the removal of any native vegetation, an offset management plan is to be prepared and submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority upon the advice of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Offset measures may include the following:
    • (a) Permanently protecting or reserving with fencing an area of native vegetation;
    • (b) Proposed enhancement measures including regeneration, in-fill planting, noxious weed eradication and environmental weed eradication or control.
    • (c) Consideration of other options available to the proponent as appropriate (eg increasing the security of existing remnants, contributing to management or purchase of other remnants in the bioregion or forgoing impacts on remnant vegetation including grazing).
    • (d) Proposed revegetation, including the number and species proposed to be planted. Indigenous species of the same type as those removed is required unless impractical to do so.
    • (e) Long term monitoring and management of native vegetation offsets (both protected and revegetated native vegetation) eg stock control, pest plant and animal control, management of newly established vegetation.
    • (f) The replanting required must be permanently protected (by fencing) and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority upon the advice of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
    • (g) Seed stock must be collected prior to vegetation removal and stored for rehabilitation purposes to the satisfaction of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
    • (h) An outline of the ratio of indigenous trees and shrubs will be planted to compensate for the removal of trees. Replacement trees and shrubs are to be planted within 12 months of tree removal.
    • (i) A survival rate of at least 80% is to be achieved after 24 months. Replanting is to be undertaken until that rate is achieved.
    • (j) Environmental weeds must not be planted on the subject land.

VICROADS

32. To provide for safe turning movements into the proposed viewing platform, a type “C” intersection treatment, with left and right turn lanes must be provided within the pavement of the Cobden-Port Campbell Road. All works associated with the design and construction of the intersection must be designed to standards specified in AUSTROADS publication “Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, Intersection at Grade, Part 5”.
33. Detailed layout plans of all mitigating works associated with the construction of the intersection, must be submitted and approved in writing by VicRoads and the Responsible Authority.
34. The applicant must provide evidence that the developer/developer’s contractor has a level of cover for public liability insurance acceptable to VicRoads for the duration of the proposed works.
35. The applicant must prepare a specification for the works in accordance with relevant section(s) of the VicRoads Standard Specification for Roadworks.
36. Prior to the commencement of any works any consultants and or contractors engaged in the design or construction processes are to be approved by VicRoads.
37. The applicant must demonstrate that all works will be administered in accordance with quality assurance principles, occupational health and safety, and environmental management practices.
38. Work site practices are to be in accordance with VicRoads Roadwork’s Signing Code of Practice.
39. The applicant must meet all associated VicRoads’ surveillance costs incurred during the installation of the traffic signals.
40. The applicant must provide a security deposit of 5% of the estimated value of the works within the road reserve to VicRoads, of which 2.5% will be returned to the applicant on the practical completion of the works. The balance of the deposit will be returned to the applicant following the completion of a maintenance defect period of twelve (12) months.

LANDSCAPE

41. Before the development starts, a program of landscape mitigation works is to be offered to the owners any house within 3km of a wind turbine. As part of this program an Off-site Landscaping Plan must be prepared and submitted, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The Off-site Landscaping Plan may be submitted in stages, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (such that not all stages are completed before the development starts) and must include:
    • (a) A provision for the owners of any other dwellings within 3km of a wind turbine to have the opportunity to accept the offer of visual screen planting at any time up to until 12 months after the commissioning of the last wind turbine generator;
    • (b) The process by which the owners of any other dwellings within 3km of a wind turbine will be informed of this offer and the process by which it can be accepted;
    • (c) Details of planting or other treatments that will be used to reduce the visual impact of the wind turbines at the dwellings of participating landowners;
    • (d) Details of the species proposed to be used for the landscaping including details of height and size of species at maturity;
    • (e) A timetable for the implementation plan.
42. Before the development starts, a Sub-Station Landscape Plan landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. It must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and show details of landscaping of around compound to minimise the visual impact of the facility from public roads and nearby dwellings. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
43. The development must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed Off-site Landscaping Plan and Sub-Station Landscape Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ADVERTISING SIGNS

44. Details of any signage proposed to be displayed as part of the wind farm must be approved by the Responsible Authority and limited to:
    • (a) Directional signage showing the location of the viewing area.
    • (b) One logo or company identification for the wind facility operator or wind generator manufacturer displayed on each wind turbine.
    • (c) Signs required specifically in relation to site safety issues.

EXPIRY

45. Notwithstanding other provisions of these conditions, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
    • (a) The development is not started within three years of the date of this permit.
    • (b) The development is not completed and the use is not started within five years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

END CONDITIONS

APPENDIX 2

Image extracted from Mr Delaire’s evidence showing wind farm location and existing dwellings

Image removed for publishing