Resource Library Category: Australia (28 items)

RSSAustralia

Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.

---

Wind Turbines: Parliamentary Debate, Australia

Source:  Australia House of Representatives

Debate resumed on the motion by Mrs Moylan:

That this House:

(1) recognises the importance of clean energy generation technologies in Australia’s current and future energy mix;

(2) acknowledges the exponential growth of wind power across Australia;

(3) appreciates that prudent planning policies are key to ensuring new infrastructure development does not adversely impact upon the social fabric of communities;

(4) notes that:

   (a) the Environment Protection and Heritage Council has decided to cease further development of the National Wind Farm Development Guidelines;

   (b) there is significant anecdotal evidence supporting concern about the health and associated social effects of wind farms which remain unresolved; and

   (c) the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee’s report, The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms has, as a matter of priority, called for adequately resourced studies into the possible impact that wind farms have on health;

(5) recognises that the National Health and Medical Research Council’s rapid review into Wind Turbines and Health is only a cursory compilation of literature on the topic and not an in depth study and should not be principally relied upon to inform planning guidelines;

(6) calls on the Government to urgently commence full in-depth studies into the potential health effects of wind turbines, especially low-frequency infrasound;

(7) requests that the Government fully investigate international best practice in planning policies regarding wind farms and, in conjunction with State governments, publish comprehensive updated guidelines;

(8) calls on State, Territory and local government authorities to adopt cautious planning policies for wind farms and in the interim provide adequate buffer zones and not locate wind farms near towns, residential zoned areas, farm buildings and workplaces; and

(9) calls for approval processes to require wind farm developers to indemnify against potential health issues arising from infrasound before development approval is granted.

Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce): … Wind farms are decades old; they are not new. But in modern times the magnitude and the proliferation have grown exponentially. A single wind farm can require tens of thousands of hectares of land, housing hundreds of turbines as tall as the Sydney Harbour Bridge. A single project may amount to a billion-dollar investment. Despite the fact that wind power projects are set to quadruple over the next 30 years under the government’s clean energy package, there are no nationally consistent policies or laws governing their development. Planning decisions taken by state governments vary and may involve legislation that uses an arbitrary rule in relation to proximity to dwellings and workplaces. They do not necessarily take into account the geography or the topographical features of a landscape that wind farms will be located in. In Western Australia, for example, there is no legislation enforcing development plans~just guidelines loosely developed with consideration to the rapid review undertaken by the federal government.

In any jurisdiction in the country, stringent planning policies apply to everything from a backyard shed, or indeed a fence, to an airport. Just ask any developer. Yet planning policies for wind farms are approached on an ad hoc basis, informed by cursory investigations into concerns that in some cases are tearing communities apart, particularly rural communities, and causing many people to vacate their homes. The increased size o f turbines and the increased amount of land utilised for the farms are growing to mammoth proportions. Therefore, it seems fundamental that we need proper planning procedure to ensure that the community anxiety is addressed and that the best outcome is achieved for all stakeholders.

I think that we should work on the basis that we should do no harm with this policy. Although wind power is a clean technology, that does not mean that it has no environmental impact. A number of people Jiving near to wind farms have reported a myriad of health issues. The low-frequency noise and infrasound produced by wind turbines has been identified as a potential cause of some of these problems. The science behind infrasound is quite detailed and requires a thorough examination. …

Mr SCHULTZ (Hume): It is a shame that I will not have more time to expose the great fraud on the Australian people that is the wind turbine industry. Communities in proximity to wind turbine complexes are experiencing health and noise impacts that interfere with their lives. They did not experience these issues before the turbines came online. I have received complaints from my constituents that confirm similar experiences at other sites. It appears that noise frequencies occur inside houses, which some people hear and others do not hear. Similarly, it appears from testing that there are low frequencies in houses that are below the threshold of hearing that can generate effects on people, giving rise to headaches and nausea. There is no transparency in relation to noise testing. It is all in-house by the wind operators and nothing is released in the public domain. The wind turbine industry says there are no problems but there are cracks appearing in this position. A number of wind turbine operators are now buying houses when there is proof of a noise issue even when they say there is no problem. There are proposals for hundreds of turbines to be installed and we still do not have the health and noise studies nominated in the Senate inquiry. It is foolish to proceed with more turbines on the problems with the current ones simp1y have not been resolved.

Rural communities believe they are being discriminated against by the provision of wind farms producing excessive noise. They have every reason to believe this when you investigate the conduct of the New South Wales planning department in their lack of due diligence and accountability in the noise compliance assessment process. That the New South Wales Department of Planning is clearly complicit in also hiding the truth from rural communities can be seen from this noise compliance assessment document of the Capital Wind Farm which has had 80 per cent of the data removed prior to the document being released under a freedom of information request. …

Mr MATHESON (Macarthur): … While it is important that we explore and pursue cleaner energy solutions, little research has been conducted into the detrimental health and social effects of wind turbines on nearby populations. People living near wind turbines report a range of symptoms: chronic sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea, increased stress and what Dr Nina Pierpont MD has coined ‘wind turbine syndrome’. Wind turbine syndrome is a recently diagnosed illness mainly because wind turbines are a relatively new technology. This syndrome is believed to be caused by ultra–low frequency noises known as ‘infrasound’ generated by turbines moving through the air. Many within the wind industry construe wind turbine syndrome as a fabricated illness; however, people living near wind turbines all over the world are reporting a uniform set of symptoms.

As the body of evidence supporting the detrimental health effects of wind turbines is still largely anecdotal, the government must as a matter of urgency commence full in-depth studies into the potential health effects of wind turbines, especially low-frequency infrasound. Additionally, the government must fully investigate international best practice in planning policies regarding wind farms, and publish comprehensive updated guidelines. As a nation we are investing billions of dollars in wind energy, which is expected to continue over the coming decades. It is incredibly important that our planning policies ensure that new developments do not adversely impact on the health of our communities. Many of these health concerns have not been investigated. Nor have there been any in-depth studies into the potential health effects of wind turbines, especially low-frequency infrasound. It is poor policy to allow wind farms to be constructed without proper planning guidelines to protect our rural and regional populations.

The Senate Community Affairs References Committee report The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms has called for adequately resourced studies into the possible impact wind farms have on health as a matter of priority. The government has failed to implement any of these recommendations. …

Federation Chamber
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Wind Turbines
PROCEDURAL TEXT
Monday, 19 March 2012
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Download original document: “Wind Farm – Moylan PMM, Hansard 19th March 2012″

---

Response to NSW Planning Department Draft Guidelines for Wind Developments

Source:  Waubra Foundation

SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES

On the basis of current limited knowledge, these proposed draft guidelines will inevitably result in serious and predictable harm, to the health of current and future rural residents in New South Wales, from the harmful effects of sound and vibration energy generated by industrial wind turbines.

The New South Wales Department of Health’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of an emerging serious global public health problem with exposure to operating wind turbines, is a gross dereliction of their responsibilities to protect the health of rural citizens who will inevitably be adversely impacted by these developments.

Rural residents are already significantly disadvantaged with respect to decreased access to health care and related services, and suffer a greater illness burden as a result. The additional burden of ill health, which these turbines will directly cause rural citizens, is entirely preventable, if wind turbines are located appropriately. This is clearly a planning issue.

To proceed with the proposed setbacks outlined in the draft guidelines is deliberately ignoring the warnings of a growing number of clinicians and acousticians internationally, based on limited but compelling empirical data and adverse event reports, from both residents and their treating doctors. Acousticians such as Professor Phillip Dickinson, from New Zealand, who is well aware of the problems experienced there, has suggested that a 5-10km setback would prevent many of the problems, concurring with our advice.

Urgent independent collaborative multidisciplinary acoustics and clinical research is required to investigate the problems, in order to determine what a safe turbine setback distance is, given a multitude of different variables. The planning requirements need to take into account the “worst case” scenarios for noise impacts, because this is what people will be living with.

The effects of audible and inaudible sound and vibration energy are resulting in frequent sleep disturbance for residents up to 10km away from thirty seven 3MW turbines in South Australia at TRU energy’s Waterloo Wind Development. As 3MW turbines and larger are planned for multiple sites in NSW, it is inevitable that these adverse effects will be felt out to this distance and beyond. In France, at 4,000 feet above sea level, there are credible reports of people characteristically affected at distances of 12-14km away as the crow flies, from six 2MW turbines. This is of major concern, and highlights the knowledge vacuum we are operating in, and the need for urgent clinical and acoustic data collection globally.

There is a complete lack of knowledge nationally and internationally about the actual dose of sound energy at different frequencies being experienced by people inside their homes and workplaces, and no knowledge of what constitutes a “safe” dose with cumulative exposure. Consistently, people’s health relentlessly deteriorates with ongoing exposure, if they are affected.

Siting turbines too close to institutions such as schools, jails, hospitals and nursing homes, with vulnerable and powerless groups, will result in serious harm to those living, and working in those establishments. This will be the inevitable outcome from many of the currently planned and unsafely sited wind developments in NSW, particularly those with larger turbines, placed on hills.

Rural residents in New South Wales are currently being damaged by the sound and vibration pollution emissions from existing wind developments at Capital, Woodlawn, Crookwell, and Cullerin. NSW Department of Health deny the problem exists, because there is “insufficient credible peer reviewed published evidence” but refuse to investigate the reports of serious health problems occurring in rural residents for themselves, apart from one or two phone calls which have not resulted in follow-up, according to the residents.

Nor has there been any proper independent and comprehensive acoustic assessment of the full range of acoustic pollution to which residents are exposed, inside their homes, and in their workplaces, despite numerous complaints being made. Preliminary acoustic data of this type collected by an independent acoustician at residences impacted adversely by Infigen’s Capital and Woodlawn Wind Developments and funded by concerned rural residents suggests that there are indeed problems relating to the infrasound and low frequency sound energy measured inside resident’s homes where those residents are becoming ill.

The current NSW audit of wind turbine noise does not include full spectrum noise assessments, nor does it include inside home measurements. This is ignoring the precise frequencies and locations (inside homes and workplaces) which we suspect are doing the most damage to health.

There may well be additional health effects from Electromagnetic field effects for some residents, in some locations, which similarly remain uninvestigated.

These serious health problems are entirely preventable, by adopting a truly precautionary approach, based on existing relevant information including field observations, until more definitive independent multidisciplinary acoustic and medical longditudinal research is conducted. This is precisely what the Waubra Foundation’s Explicit Cautionary Notice suggested, in June 2011, and it was based on the best field observations and limited research literature available at that time. Subsequent information is revealing that even this distance may be inadequate to protect the health of surrounding neighbours in some locations.

Two research proposals by suitably qualified and experienced independent acousticians, Dr Bob Thorne and Professor Colin Hansen, were first suggested to the NSW government Health Department representatives at an En Health meeting in November 2010. Subsequent proposals have been submitted directly to the NSW government by Acoustics researchers since that time.

Research was also recommended by the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into Rural Wind Farms in June 2011.

In the meantime, the suggestion by the NHMRC to “adopt a precautionary approach” is being ignored by developers and bureaucrats from planning and health departments alike. The justification given is that “there is no evidence” or “there is no credible peer reviewed published scientific evidence”.

Yet people’s health is being seriously damaged, and has been for years in Europe, the UK, North America, New Zealand, and in Australia. The voices of the sick residents, their clinicians, and their advocates, have been universally ignored by these bureaucrats, and the politicians they advise.

This lack of relevant research, despite the longstanding reported problems, is a global public health disgrace. So are the attempts of the wind industry to deny the problems, despite being well aware of them, as the letter from the Vestas CEO to the then Minister for the Environment in Denmark shows. Clearly corporate profits are being put ahead of the health of rural residents, the world over.

THEREFORE: to proceed with these inadequate guidelines, and without investigation into the current problems at existing developments, is reckless and irresponsible in the extreme.

What is urgently needed is:

1. Full sound spectrum acoustic monitoring at all the homes of impacted residents in New South Wales, by acousticians who do not rely on the wind developers for their income, including inside and outside measurements concurrently. Data required by the acousticians from the developers to properly determine their results must be handed over.
2. Thorough clinical assessment of impacted residents, paying particular attention to the commonly reported health problems experienced by residents elsewhere.
3. Concurrent sleep and acoustic studies at the homes of people reporting regularly disturbed sleep, to assist with determining the cause of their sleep disturbance.
4. Other broader epidemiological studies will be dependent on available funding, but as a minimum there should be an assessment which includes the population within 10km of existing developments, and suitable controls not exposed to low frequency noise for comparison. There must also be longditudinal data collected, as it is widely observed that symptoms deteriorate over time, with increasing exposure.

Submitted March 14, 2012

DR SARAH LAURIE
Bachelor of Medicine,
Bachelor of Surgery
FLINDERS UNIVERSITY, 1995

Chief Executive Officer
WAUBRA FOUNDATION

Download original document: “Response to NSW Planning Department Draft Guidelines for Wind Developments”

---

Evaluation of wind farm noise policies in South Australia: a case study of Waterloo Wind Farm

Source:  Wang, Zhenhua

This study was conducted as part of a Master’s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang at the University of Adelaide, in the Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population. The dissertation was submitted on November 21, 2011. It evaluated the effectiveness of South Australia “wind farm” noise guidelines regarding both wind energy development and community amenity.

For the latter aim, questionnaires were delivered on July 15, 2011, to residents of Waterloo Township who lived within 5 km from the Waterloo wind energy facility (n = 75). A total of 48 questionnaires were returned for use in the study. In-depth interviews of six residents added to the information gathered.

More than 70% of the respondents claimed that they had been negatively affected by noise from the wind energy facility, and more than 50% “moderately” (35%) or “very” (19%) negatively affected. Respondents affected by noise from the Waterloo wind energy facility experienced it an average 2 days per week. A few claimed that they experienced it every day.

At the time of the survey, 40% of the respondents were neutral about wind energy, 35% were opposed, and 25% were supportive. Only 21% of the respondents supported further wind development around Waterloo; 67% of them did not and 12% were not sure.

Also according to the survey 38% of the respondents made noise complaints to the developer, 25% to the local council, and 19% to the Environment Protection Authority. Furthermore, 38% of those affected claimed to have experienced adverse health issues caused by the wind energy facility noise, and 38% were not sure if their health had been affected. Health issues mainly related to sleep deprivation and headaches.

Many affected respondents took actions to address the annoyance being caused by the wind farm noise, e.g.: “moved to other areas for sleeping well when it is windy”; “had medicine or saw doctor to help sleeping well”; “installed double-glazed window to block the wind farm noise”; “planted trees”; “used ear plugs”; “played music all night”. Several respondents had bought property in other places, where no wind energy facilities are established.

The top two expectations of the affected residents were to “turn off the wind turbine during night time” and that “affected residents obtain appropriate financial compensation from wind developers”.

More information about Mr. Wang’s dissertation may be obtained from:

• the study supervisor at the University of Adelaide, Melissa Nursey-Bray (Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population): tel +61-8-8313-3497, e-mail melissa.nursey-bray@adelaide.edu.au;
• the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President (Research), Mike Brooks: tel +61-8-8303-5665, e-mail enquiries.dvcr@adelaide.edu.au; or tel +61-8-8313-5665, e-mail michael.brooks@adelaide.edu.au;
• or the Dean of Graduate Studies and Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Operations, Richard Russell: tel +61-8-8313-5665, e-mail richard.russell@adelaide.edu.au

---

Wind energy facilities in Victoria

Source:  Dept. of Planning and Community Development, Victoria, Australia

Amendments VC78 and VC82 implement the [Victoria State] government’s policy on wind energy facilities.

Amendment VC82

Amendment VC82, gazetted on 29 August 2011, amends the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria to implement further aspects of the government’s policy on wind energy facilities. Amendment VC82 prohibits a wind energy facility in the following circumstances and locations:

1. Turbines within two kilometres of an existing dwelling except where the planning permit application includes evidence of written consent from the owner of the dwelling to the location of the turbine.
2. Areas of high conservation and landscape values including National and State Parks described in a schedule to the National Parks Act 1975 and Ramsar wetlands as defined under section 17 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999.
3. Locations that feature a high degree of amenity, environmental value, or significant tourist destinations including the Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges, Mornington Peninsula, Bellarine Peninsula, Macedon and McHarg Ranges, Bass Coast and the Great Ocean Road region.
4. Locations identified for future urban growth including land in the Urban Growth Zone and designated regional population corridors specified in the Regional Victoria Settlement Framework Plan in the State Planning Policy Framework.

The policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria has been updated to include the changes introduced by Amendment VC82. The guidelines are now a reference document in the Victoria Planning Provisions and planning schemes and address:

1. What evidence is required to be provided to a responsible authority of the consent of an owner of a dwelling for a turbine proposed to be located within two kilometres of a dwelling. A written statement of consent form (DOC – 55 KB) may be used.
2. Model permit conditions that should be considered by a responsible authority when issuing a planning permit for a wind energy facility.Appendix B of the Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, August 2011 (PDF – 553 KB) contains model permit conditions.

Model permit conditions to be applied as appropriate (DOC – 123 KB)

A full copy of Amendment VC82 is available via Planning Scheme Amendments Online.

Advisory note 36 provides information about the changes made by Amendment VC82.
Advisory note 36: Amendment VC82 – Changes to wind energy facility provisions – August 2011 (PDF – 243 KB)

Amendment VC78

Amendment VC78, gazetted on 15 March 2011, amended the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria to remove the Minister’s decision making powers regarding 30+ megawatt wind energy facilities. Councils are now the responsible authority for all planning permit applications for the use and development of land for the purpose of a Wind energy facility.

Amendment VC78 also made other changes to strengthen wind farm policy by promoting greater consideration of local amenity impacts, introducing additional application requirements, updating the New Zealand wind farm noise standard and introducing new guidelines – Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (March 2011).

The DPCD will work with local government, the Municipal Association of Victoria and other agencies to support the transition and assist ongoing implementation. Expert advice will be available to councils; and in cases where a proposal straddles local government boundaries or presents particularly complex issues beyond the technical expertise or resource capacity of a council, the option to refer a project to the Minister for Planning is available.

A full copy of Amendment VC78 is available via Planning Scheme Amendments Online.

The advisory note ‘Amendment VC78 – Wind energy facility provisions – Clause 52.32′ provides information on the practical implementation arrangements for the amendment.
Advisory note 35: Amendment VC78 – Wind energy facility provisions – Clause 52.32, March 2011 (PDF – 533 KB)
Advisory note 35: Amendment VC78 – Wind energy facility provisions – Clause 52.32, March 2011 (DOC – 83 KB)

Wind energy facility guidelines

The Victorian Government’s ‘Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria’ (the Guidelines) has established a consistent approach to the development of wind energy facilities since 2002.

The latest August 2011 edition of the Guidelines ensures that the policy and technical assessment criteria are up to date.
Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities, August 2011 (PDF – 553 KB)

Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, August 2011 (DOC – 155 KB)
Appendix B of the guidelines – Model permit conditions to be applied as appropriate (DOC – 123 KB)

Wind energy projects in Victoria

A summary of current and proposed wind energy projects in Victoria can be found at the Department of Primary Industries website at Wind Projects in Victoria

Planning permit conditions

Model planning permit conditions for wind energy facilities have been developed to assist all parties involved in permit applications for wind energy facilities. They are provided in Appendix B of the Policy and planning guidelines for wind energy facilities in Victoria, August 2011.

The conditions are for guidance only and should be adapted depending on the individual circumstance of each wind energy proposal.

The manual Writing Planning Permits (February 2007) (PDF 209kb) includes conditions relevant to native vegetation including offset requirements.

---

« Later Documents • Home • Earlier Documents »