Turbine Bombshell – Shire, State Must Act on Turbine Noise

Noise ‘detrimental and unreasonable’

South Gippsland Sentinel-Times
September 11, 2018

http://sgst.com.au/2018/09/turbine-bombshell/

THE investigation commissioned by the South Gippsland Shire Coun­cil, at a cost of $33,600, into Noise Complaint Notifications by residents living near the Bald Hills Wind Farm is complete.

And two and a half years after they first made their grievances known, the report has found their complaints were fully justified.

Described by the shire as “a high­ly experienced independent public health consultant”, at his appoint­ ment in· February this year, James C. Smith and Associates has found that “there is a nuisance caused by wind farm noise, in that, the noise is audible frequently within individual residences and this noise is adversely impacting on the personal comfort and wellbeing of individuals”.

The conclusion has been welcomed by the lawyer representing seven of the complainants, Dominica Tannock of DST Legal of Abbotsford as “a very, very significant finding”.

But she is alarmed by the shire’s decision to put the findings to the operator of the wind farm, the Infra­ structure Capital Group (ICG) first instead of simply accepting the report and the process they put in place and taking the appropriate action.

In fact, she says, by the admissions of their CEO Tim Tamlin at the Su­preme Court on March 20 this year, the shire council isn’ t qualified to do anything but accept the report’s find­ings.

“The council should be concerned by these findings and they need to make a decision. They want to get the operators’ comments but they’ve been getting complaints from the affected property owners for three years that the noise emissions are making them sick.

“They have an obligation under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act to investigate the nui sance and to take action in a timely manner.

“But despite being in possession of the clear findings of an independent expert, they’re not prepared to make a decision.

“The evidence is plain and yet they are afraid of making a decision because its a first in Aus­ tralia and because they are scared of upsetting the operator.

“But what about their own ratepayers? These are ordinary people with legitimate health con­cerns and all the council can think about is get­ting feedback from the operator.”

In a letter to the shire’s lawyers, Maddocks, Ms Tannock has objected to giving the opera­tor 14 days to respond as “extraordinarily and procedurally unfair”.

The report by Mr Smith, an expert in public health follows a botched attempt by the shire to investigate the complaints itself between May and November 2016, after which the shire produced a finding of “no nuisance” in January 2017 before telling the affected property owners that the case was closed in April 2017. But it wasn’t closed and the complainants took Supreme Court action to get a proper investigation. The matter is due to go back to the Su­preme Court on November 26, two days after the next state election.

Conclusion

The investigation by James C. Smith and As­sociates has found:

“That there is a consistency with the tnforma­tion contained in the completed log books and with subsequent discussions held with Mr Za­kula, Mr and Mrs Fairbrother, Mr and Mrs Jelbart, and Mr Uren about their individual experi­ences with wind farm noise during that period.

“Without exception there are allegations that the wind farm noise is audible inside their in­dividual homes and, as a result, there ls sleep disruption during the night and early morning hours. There are also allegations that the wind farm noise ls disruptive to day-time domestic and work activities.

”A particular difficulty in undertaking the in­vestigation was to predict noise patterns based on weather forecasts and the experience of resi­dents. It became apparent that noise patterns were unpredictable and highly changeable. However, on 24th and 25th July 2018, wind farm noise was clearly audible in the Zakula and Jelbart dwellings, with windows and doors shut, between the hours of 6.50pm and 9.40pm and 7.40pm and 8.40pm respectively.

“In the case of the Jelbart dwelling the noise level increased to a point where it intruded into conversation between investigators and Mr and Mrs Jelbart thus, corroborating that wind farm noise was clearly audible in dwellings and, at limes, intrusive.

“It seems likely then that such noise could be heard over a television, or radio as had been re­corded in some noise logs, and reported in dis­cussions with Mr and Mrs Jelbart, and Mr Uren. It is noted that a noise mitigation strategy was in place at the wind farm at the time. This strategy was described by the wind farm opera­tor as ‘… comprising a select number of wind turbines operating at reduced sound modes for a limited range of wind speeds and directions’ .

“It Is clear from the investigation that noise from the wind farm is audible within residenc­es although there are noise monitoring reports stating that there is compliance by the wind farm with permit conditions and the New Zea­land Standard 1998, and with a noise mitigation strategy in place at the wind farm.

“The noise was clearly audible in Mr Zakula’s dwelling at night time twice and in the Jelbart residence at night time twice and this is held to be unreasonable in both cases.

“The experience at the Jelbart residence on 24th and 25th July 2018 whereby wind farm noise intruded on conversation within the resi­dence at night time is seen to be detrimental to personal comfort and the enjoyment of the residential environment by Mr and Mrs Jelbart.

“After consideration of the completed noise logs by individual complainants and subse­quent discussions with some of these individ­uals it appears there is a nuisance caused by wind farm noise, in that, the noise is audible frequently within individual residences and this noise is adversely impacting on the personal comfort and wellbeing of individuals.”

Despite offering the operators of the Bald Hill Wind Farm’s 52 turbines 14 days to respond, the CEO Mr Tamlin said the matter was set to go to council for decision on Wednesday, September 26. All councillors, DST Legal and the operators of tlle wind farm have been provided with copies of the 25-page report and attachments, which in­clude contemporaneous comments by the wind farm neighbours including “woken up at 4am”, “woken up at 2am roaring sound”, “woken up at 4am roaring/rolling noise” and “woken up at 3.30am could get back to sleep, got up at 7am could still hear noise through radio”.

Download Michael Giles’ Comment in the Sentinel Times →