//
[960]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/48
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-10-08
Original judgment source is linked above.
This matter was not discussed during the Hearing and the IAC has not made specific recommendations about the model for involving the community, however it has included this as a general requirement in MM-SE02. The IAC is satisfied the exact role for community in management and governance can be suitably determined in consultation with Glenelg Shire Council when preparing the Shared Benefits Strategy. The IAC also recommends the program be renamed Community Benefit Program to ensure its intent is clear and the language is more consistent with industry practice as expressed in the Community Engagement Guide.
The IAC does not recommend the focus of the fund should be Nelson, as suggested by some submitters. The IAC is satisfied the distribution of funds will be resolved through consultation with Glenelg Shire Council and appropriate governance structures, as recommended.
The IAC has reviewed EES Chapter 6 (Community and stakeholder engagement) and considers the plan broadly complies with the Community Engagement Guide. It appropriately:
Mitigation measure MM-AH01 commits to ongoing consultation and involvement with GMTOAC, and MM-SE05 (Aboriginal Participation Plan) is intended to guide consultation with GMTOAC to facilitate culturally appropriate benefits for First Nations people. This consultation is important and is supported by the IAC. Matters relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage and engagement with GMTOAC are discussed in Chapter 9.
MM-SE01 states the Community Engagement Strategy will be implemented to ensure consistent and consultative engagement with communities throughout the life of the Project, and it is critical to ensure social acceptance, strong local partnerships and more successful and sustainable Project outcomes. The Day 4 MM-SE01 introduces a requirement for the Community Engagement Strategy to be prepared in consultation with Glenelg Shire Council. This is supported by the IAC.
The Community Engagement Guide explains social licence to operate as a "level of acceptance or approval continually granted to an organisation's operations or project by the local community". It includes information on sharing significant benefits with the community, but does not mandate a specific approach. Innovation is encouraged. It also notes that a lack of social licence, "or one that diminishes over time, can have significant impacts on key milestones in a project's development, such as permit approvals". The IAC's recommendation above to provide for community involvement in the Community Benefits Fund is made in this context.
As a successful tenderer through the CIS process the Proponent has been required to demonstrate it has:
...properly engaged with First Nations and local communities to build social licence, and demonstrated considered and meaningful benefits sharing programs and social and First Nations commitments, that could be translated into contractually binding obligations under the CIS agreement.[64]
The IAC accepts the advice of the Proponent regarding the CIS commitments, but does not rely on this for acceptability of social impacts. The Project and proposed mitigation measures are assessed to with a view to ensuring acceptable impacts. Matters relating to the CIS and renewable energy policy are discussed in Chapter 17.3.
For the many reasons discussed in this Report, the Project does not enjoy universal support. While the IAC finds Mr Weston's comment that community concerns can be expected to "dissipate overtime, as real-world experience of the Project accumulates" somewhat flippant and not clearly justified, it does agree that for community acceptance impacts must be managed in an acceptable way. In the context of a highly sensitive environment (based on the combination of values) every effort should be made to achieve this.
The IAC has discussed and made conclusions regarding net community benefit in Chapter 18.1 of this Report.
Amend MM-SE02 (Shared benefits strategy) to rename the Community Enhancement Plan to Community Benefit Program and to require community involvement in its management and governance
Amend MM-SE04 (Workforce Accommodation Management Plan) to require an update assessment of accommodation supply and to clarify the demand reduction step.
These changes are included at Appendix F:1.
The issue is whether economic effects are appropriately assessed and acceptable.
The EIA (EES Appendix S) was supplemented by additional material and commentary in EES Chapter 17. The EIA considered various local, regional and State economic output and labour market impacts based on high, medium and low impact scenarios. Workforce composition was modelled under two scenarios that used different local and non-local workforce participation rates (25/50 per cent and 75/50 per cent respectively).
The EIA noted that 350 workers will be required during construction, equating to 253 full time equivalent positions. Construction would generate the following total economic output (assuming 25 per cent local employment) of between:
The Proponent advised the Project would require 14 local jobs when operational. The EIA assessed the operational phase would generate the following total economic output (assuming 100% local employment) of between:
The EIA made the following findings in relation to other economic factors:
EES Chapter 17 provided further discussion about various economic effects and outlined the relevant mitigation measures.
In relation to tourism, it noted that the local tourism sector might experience a decline because of the perceived industrialisation of the natural landscape but found this would be offset by the broader economic activity generated by the Project. In contrast, it also noted that the Project might increase tourism in the area by becoming a new attraction for visitors. It highlighted various mitigation measures such as the Community Engagement Strategy (MM-SE01) and Shared Benefits Strategy (MM-SE02), particularly in association with tourism providers and groups such as Friends of the GSWW.
The EES noted the Proponent is investigating opportunities to supply power to the Portland aluminium smelter, a significant local employer.
The Proponent submitted the Project would bring significant economic benefits to Victoria, Portland and the local area, particularly those associated with employment and the use of local service providers. It noted the broader economic benefits associated with providing additional, more affordable electricity supply and submitted that the Project has the potential to increase tourism in the area by becoming a new attraction for visitors.
The Proponent submitted any negative impacts on some tourism activities, such as eco-tourism, could be addressed by the proposed community benefit mitigation measures. In relation to agriculture, the Proponent noted the Project is largely within a pine plantation and would have little effect on agricultural productivity. The Proponent acknowledged the turbines would be sourced from overseas suppliers, but noted there would be opportunities for local procurement, including through the Local Participation and Social Procurement Strategy required under MM-SE03.
The Proponent also noted that the CIS contract with the Commonwealth required it deliver specific targets relating to training, workforce participation and local capital and operational expenditure.
The submission from Alcoa Portland Aluminium Pty Ltd (S64) advised it is working with the Proponent under a memorandum of understanding "to explore potential contracting opportunities".
Glenelg Shire Council noted the Project's potential negative impacts on tourism resulting from the industrialisation of the landscape. It provided comments on the Community Benefit Fund and Workforce Accommodation Management Plan discussed earlier.
Submitters, including the Committee for Portland (S163), the South West Trades and Labour Council (S45) and various local businesses supported the Project and submitted that the economic benefits, particularly in the local area, would be significant. The Committee for Portland noted the need for effective local procurement policies and the use of local labour and businesses.
Other submitters raised concerns about anticipated negative economic effects and the belief the EES overstated the economic benefits the Project might bring. Key concerns included negative impacts associated with:
Various local and regional strategies highlight the region's wind resource and the economic opportunities associated with windfarms and other renewable sources of energy. The IAC is satisfied the Project is broadly consistent with the economic elements of those strategies.
The IAC accepts that the Project will bring economic benefits to the local, regional and State economies and is satisfied their assessment in the EES is generally sound. These benefits will primarily be derived through the construction phase and the additional employment and other inputs that it generates. Operational benefits will be less significant and mainly associated with additional employment and through various mitigation measures included in the EMF, including the Shared Benefits Strategy (MM-SE02), the Local Participation and Social Procurement Strategy (MM-SE03) and the Aboriginal Participation Plan (MM-SE05). The requirements under the CIS contract will reinforce and expend on those benefits.
The Project will assist in achieving renewable energy policies, although the extent to which it might contribute to lowering energy prices is difficult to determine and is not a benefit that the IAC can quantify. Similarly, the potential to supply energy to the Portland aluminium smelter is not a significant factor in the IAC's assessment given its understanding that there is no agreement in place to supply energy to the smelter. The IAC notes that other wind farm projects in the region indicated they could supply power to the smelter, although it does not appear that this has eventuated.
A more problematic issue is the potential impact the Project might have on local tourism, including national park visitation and eco-tourism. The EES was contradictory on this, suggesting that the Project might increase tourism by becoming a new attraction for tourists, while noting that the industrialisation of the landscape might decrease the areas attractiveness to tourists.
The IAC was not presented with any evidence that tourism would increase and it is not clear how the development of another wind farm in the area would create an additional tourism draw. It is more likely that the Project will act a disincentive to some nature-based tourism associated with the National Parks and the GSWW given the visual and landscape impacts discussed in Chapter 10 of this Report. This view was shared by Glenelg Shire Council (S183) that expressed a particular concern about the GSWW and submitted it is "unlikely that the loss of amenity can be adequately offset or compensated". However, the IAC was not presented with any compelling evidence or material that confirmed the extent of potential impacts and it is difficult to form any definitive conclusions about this, other than to observe that tourism impacts are more likely to be negative than positive.
The IAC agrees with submitters that the potential for local benefits will be maximised if effective local procurement policies are in place and it supports the implementation of the Local Participation and Social Procurement Strategy (MM-SE03).
The IAC agrees with the EIA that the Project is unlikely to displace or negatively impact existing industries or businesses, subject to its concerns about potential impacts on tourism and eco-tourism. It also agrees that the impacts on agricultural production would be negligible, particularly during the operational phase.
Some submitters were concerned that the Project would negatively impact property values although there was no evidence provided in support of this. Nevertheless, the IAC accepts the value of some properties that are close to turbines might be negatively affected depending on various factors, such as the extent to which the turbines are visible. This was addressed in the EES and the EMF provides for a Neighbours Benefit Plan and financial payments (MM-SE02) for the owners of dwellings within 3.5 kilometres of a turbine. The IAC accepts the findings of the EES that residual impacts on property values is likely to be low.
15.4 Overall conclusions on socio-economic effects
Subject to applying its recommendations, the IAC is satisfied the Project is consistent with relevant policy and legislation and relevant draft evaluation objective. The likely socio-economic effects are not significant and the IAC is satisfied any effects are acceptable and do not preclude the Project being approved.
The relevant Scoping Requirements draft evaluation objective is:
To avoid and minimise adverse effects on land use, social fabric of the community, local infrastructure, aviation safety and to neighbouring landowners during construction, operation and decommissioning of the project.
To avoid and minimise adverse effects for community amenity and safety, with regard to construction noise, vibration, dust, traffic and transport, operational turbine noise and fire risk management.
The exhibited EMF includes the following mitigation measures:
Table 21 lists the experts providing evidence on safety, hazard and risk.
The Proponent provided the following Technical Notes and submissions:
The IAC has had regard to relevant policy and guidelines, including:
The issue is whether electromagnetic interference (EMI) effects are appropriately assessed and acceptable.
The EES explained that EMI can be caused by extraneous sources of electrical signals/noise or when objects are placed between a signal source and a signal receiver. For wind farms, the wind turbines may produce unwanted electrical noise and the structures themselves can alter how wanted signals propagate to the intended receivers which could result in the degradation of the service.
An EMI assessment was undertaken to determine which areas of the Project site are unsuitable for installation of turbines as well as to consider the impacts on the wide-area services in the region.
The EES stated there are limited telecommunication services in the vicinity of the Project and potential impacts on Telstra point-to-point radio systems have been avoided by changes to the Project layout.
The EES concluded that television broadcasting at dwellings south of the wind farm may be affected and there may be FM radio signal degradation for receivers in immediate vicinity of the wind farm. A specialist will be engaged to prepare a pre and post-construction assessment, and measures to restore affected reception will be undertaken if needed.
The Proponent relied on the EES and its responses in TN8 (RFI 42 and 43), which concluded:
Some submitters raised questions about EMI to FM radio, TV services and internet.
The CFA's submission raised a question about interference to their operational communications systems and radios (land mobile radios - LMR) used in firefighting. In response to a question from the IAC the CFA confirmed it had not had any indication of interference with radios when fighting fires in and around wind farms.[66]
Mr Potter gave evidence that "Studies have not determined that there is any interference with emergency service radio communications. It is our understanding that this issue has not been reported at other existing Wind Farms across Victoria".[67] In response to a question from the IAC the Proponent clarified the "studies" Mr Potter referred to was the EES Technical Appendix U.[68]
The IAC is satisfied the methodology for the EMI assessment was appropriate. It appropriately identified and assessed impacts and recommended Project refinements and mitigation measures to manage these. Potential impacts on the Telstra point-to-point radio system have been avoided by wind farm layout changes.
The EES Technical Appendix U appropriately recommends mitigation measures including:
The IAC supports the Day 4 mitigation measures relating to EMI, subject to minor drafting changes showing in Appendix F:1.
The issue is whether aviation effects are appropriately assessed and acceptable.
The EES explained there are two regulated aerodromes and two unregulated aerodromes near the wind farm.
The EES found the closest regulated aerodrome, Portland aerodrome, is 10 nautical miles (nm) (18.5 kilometres) south-east of the nearest turbine, and the wind turbines would protrude into one of the instrument approach procedures. Several amendments are required to the non-precision instrument approach procedures and consultation is underway the Glenelg Shire Council (the Portland Aerodrome operator) and Airservices Australia. Glenelg Shire Council supports the changes.
The Project has been reported to Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia has been notified (in accordance with CASA publication AC 139-08(1) Reporting of Tall Structures) to ensure the position of wind turbine and met masts are included within the vertical obstacle database and marked on aeronautical charts.
The EES found the Project would not affect any air routes for other aerodromes and turbines would be appropriately painted.
The qualitative risk assessment determined the overall risk of the Project to aviation is low, and that the wind farm is not a hazard to aircraft safety. Obstacle lighting is not required for the Project.
The Proponent relied on evidence of Mr Jennings and EES Technical Appendix T. It said the EES has appropriately assessed aviation impacts, and those impacts will be "mitigated to the extent reasonable to do so, through the design of the Project, and with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures".[69]
Mr Jennings noted a number of amendments and corrections to EES Chapter 18, but advised they were made for the record and were not material to his conclusions.
Mr Jennings provided a detailed response to issues raised by submitters and explained the Project:
As a result, a pilot will have appraised themselves of the issues that may affect their flight and planned accordingly. This includes having contingency plans (and necessary fuel) to divert the flight to a suitable alternate aerodrome should the need arise.
Mr Jennings considered the Project would have a small impact on the agricultural aerial applications.
Mr Jennings recommended some drafting changes to MM-AI03 and MM-AI05, and recommended deleting MM-AI04 (Wind turbine design) as it was not necessary.
Some submitters raised issues relating to potential impacts on air safety and operation of nearby aerodromes and aerial firefighting.
Council raised the issue of cost associated with raising non-precision instrument approaches at Portland Aerodrome in its comments on the EMF (D451).
In relation to the mitigation measures, the Proponent:
Technical Note 32 has been filed which confirms that the turbines will be white or off-white in colour, as those are the standard colours that turbine manufacturers supply. Neither Mr Jennings nor Mr Haack have any concerns about those colours in terms of visual and landscape impacts, and aviation impacts.[70]
The IAC is satisfied the aviation assessment methodology was appropriate.
The Project will not impact aviation safety on the basis:
The IAC accepts that turbine lighting is not required.
The IAC accepts the changes to the EMF proposed by the Proponent and Council to:
The IAC agrees with the Proponent to retain MM-AI04 (Wind turbine design) which species wind turbines that wind turbines must be of conspicuous colour and size to ensure visibility. While Mr Jennings recommended this mitigation measure be deleted as it was unnecessary, the IAC agrees with the Proponent the measure provides certainty.
The IAC supports the Day 4 mitigation measures relating to aviation, subject to minor drafting changes showing in Appendix F:1.
Matters relating to aerial firefighting are discussed in Chapter 16.4.
The issue is whether bushfire effects are appropriately assessed and acceptable.
The Bushfire Risk Assessment assessed potential fires from within and external to the Project area, during the construction and operational stages of the Project.
It noted the wind farm is mostly located within a commercial pine plantation managed by GTFP. GTFP is also the manager of the local CFA brigade. The Proponent and GTFP have drafted a bushfire protocol agreement to ensure best practice bushfire management can continue and adapted for the Project.
The Bushfire Risk Assessment was undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000, as incorporated into the National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines. The methodology included:
Following implementation of proposed mitigation measures, residual bushfire risks were assessed as medium for both construction and operations.
The Proponent relied on the evidence of Mr Potter and Mr Taylor who submitted the Project:
The Proponent said it is committed to best practice bushfire mitigation and management measures, and to continued consultation with the CFA. It referred to the Delburn Wind Farm Panel Report (D352) which considered similar bushfire issues.
The Proponent explained the Project responded appropriately to planning policy provisions in the Glenelg Planning Scheme, the CFA Guidelines and other relevant guidelines.[72] It noted the CFA Guidelines establish a set of principles and model requirements, which while relevant to the IAC's considerations are not statutory requirements.
The Proponent submitted that several features of the Project and its setting will not lead to increased risk, and may in fact reduce bushfire risk for the Project area and surrounds. Noting that the plantation setting is identified as a higher risk environment, proposed measures include:
The Proponent submitted the Project will not have any material impact on aerial firefighting, as agreed by the CFA, Mr Taylor and Mr Jennings. It explained aerial firefighting already occurs in and around wind turbines and the critical limitations to aerial firefighting arise from weather, terrain and smoke. The CFA Guidelines contemplate introduction of turbines to high-risk environments and recommend 300 metre minimum spacing (which the Project satisfies) and the turbines and met masts above 100 metres to be notified to Airservices Australia.
The Proponent submitted that Mr Piper is not an expert in aerial firefighting and his evidence should be given no weight.
Mr Potter and Mr Taylor gave evidence that the Bushfire Risk Assessment was appropriate. They provided updates based on further assessment and investigations including:
The experts said the Project appropriately prioritised protection of human life. They recommended changes to the mitigation measures to ensure the documentation requirements align with the CFA Guidelines. Subject to their recommendations the experts said the bushfire risk can be acceptably mitigated.
The experts said in their experience "fires involving Wind Energy Facilities are associated with older technology". They explained the occurrence of fires in modern wind energy facilities is rare and learnings from previous events have been incorporated into the Project design, CFA Guidelines and the proposed mitigation measures, including smoke and gas detection and suppression systems in nacelles, static water supplies, access tracks, and improved monitoring systems.
They noted an early smoke detection camera network had been installed by the GTFP, and recommended an additional camera be installed for coverage of the eastern and south-eastern parts of the Project area. Consistent with the CFA Guidelines the turbines were appropriately spaced at a minimum 300 metres.
The experts said the Project responded appropriately to concerns raised by CFA brigade members, including issues relating to safety, assessment and management of risk, monitoring of the Project area, coordination of firefighting services and communications, provision of adequate training and equipment. They were satisfied that coordinated slow or shut down of the wind farm could be activated rapidly if needed.
The Proponent's experts were satisfied that subject to their recommendations, the EMF would ensure fire risk was acceptable.
Save our Surroundings Riverina (S202) provided a written submission that mentioned fire risk associated with batteries, but no substantive submissions on the matter. It organised expert evidence provided by Mr Piper but did not appear at the Hearing or lead his evidence at the Hearing.
Mr Piper stated that wind farm proponents routinely discount the negative effect on aerial firefighting. In response to questions of cross examination from the Proponent Mr Piper agreed he had not reviewed the EES of the EMF, the CFA Guidelines, he had no experience as an aerial firefighter or supervising aerial firefighting in Victoria and was primarily opposing the Project because it is a renewable energy project.
CFA submitted the CFA Guidelines provide "standard considerations and measures for fire safety, risk, and emergency management in designing, constructing and operating renewable energy facilities in the state of Victoria". The guidelines support wind farms in high-risk environments, such as plantations, with specific requirements such as nacelles being equipped with fire detection and suppression systems, increased vegetation management, minimum 300 metre spacing of turbines and a fire protection system. Further:
Well-managed plantations with good access, fuel management, and early detection systems, along with effective strategies built into the Fire Management Planning, are key to successful fire control. This development will see a number of access road being constructed for the installation of the wind infrastructure. The new roads installed for this development, along with the existing road networks will allow for access to the site from multiple entry points, allowing greater access than is available today.
CFA said the biggest risk is fire ignition from a turbine nacelle. It submitted that even with the best efforts of the Proponent and effective permit conditions there is likely to be an increased risk from the Project. When the technology has been decided it can assess if residual risk is acceptable. It advised that vegetation management around turbines could involve pruning of pine trees, and that complete clearance of trees and shrubs may not be required.
Regarding aerial firefighting the CFA said the relevant guidelines focus on lower risk environments such as grasslands. It said the decision on aerial firefighting rests with the pilot of an aircraft, and under some conditions it may not be possible.
CFA advised it had developed an internal renewable energy action plan and standard operating procedures to ensure members are appropriately informed, trained and resourced to undertake firefighting safely and efficiently in renewable energy facilities.
CFA recommended changes to the mitigations measures relating to communications, consultation with CFA, correct reference to documents and a request for installation of a lightening detection system (D443).
DEECA was generally satisfied with the mitigation measures relating to fire, however it sought specific restrictions on works along Boiler Swamp Road during January and February, as these are the highest fire danger months.
Mr Lomas (S160), an experienced local CFA volunteer, spoke passionately at the Hearing about the bushfire implications of the Project. He was concerned about of the high-risk environment, impacts on aerial firefighting and lack of firefighting resources.
In response to evidence and submissions the Proponent's Day 4 EMF included amended and reordered mitigation measures.
In response to CFA submissions the Proponent noted the:
The Proponent largely accepted changes proposed by the CFA apart from:
In response to a question from the IAC following the Hearing, the Proponent clarified (D503) that MM-BF03 was intentionally removed from the EMF on the basis the requirements can be determined in consultation with the CFA as required by revised MM-BF04 (Risk Management Plan).
The Proponent proposed new MM-BS01 which addresses emergency access during construction along Boiler Swap Road. In response to DEECA it said the EMF should not be prescriptive about months as bushfires do not always occur at this time or in all high-risk locations around the State. It proposed in MM-BS01:
The relevant trigger for limitation on construction activities should be fire danger, with no construction activities to occur during higher fire danger periods; with a process in place to manage emergency access during those periods. [76]
Key issues for the IAC are whether the Bushfire Risk Assessment is adequate, protection of human life is appropriately prioritised, mitigation measures are appropriate and bushfire risk is acceptable. Specific issues relate to risk of turbine ignition and whether aerial firefighting will be impeded.
Taking into consideration the Bushfire Risk Assessment and further work undertaken by Mr Potter and Mr Taylor, the IAC is satisfied that bushfire effects have been appropriately identified and assessed in consultation with the CFA.
The Project is in an existing high-risk environment, and the IAC accepts the landscape bushfire risk will not be increased by the Project. The CFA Guidelines contemplate wind farms in high-risk environments and provide guidance on how risks can be managed. The Bushfire Risk Assessment makes recommendations for managing bushfire risk in the context of the high-risk environment and the guidelines. Critically, the assessment notes the Project will not increase bushfire risk if its recommendations are adopted.
The Project does however introduce a potential source of ignition and appropriate equipment selection is critical to minimise risk. The CFA Guidelines say that nacelles must be equipped with automatic fire detection, alarm and fire suppression systems. The IAC accepts the Proponent's submissions and evidence that the risk of ignition in modern turbine nacelles is low and installing a detection and suppression system will reduce the risk of fire to very low. The Proponent proposes these requirements be included in new MM-B04 (Risk Management Plan). The IAC is satisfied this will appropriately inform equipment selection, on the basis the CFA Guidelines state the Risk Management Plan must "form the basis for the design of the facility".[77]
It is noted that while the CFA advised that acceptability of the proposal would need to be determined when the technology has been decided, it did not object to the Project and suggested some refinements to the EMF to ensure design detail responds appropriately considers bushfire risk. The Proponent's Day 4 MM-BF04 appropriately requires the Risk Management Plan be developed in consultation with the CFA.
The IAC accepts the evidence of bushfire experts and Mr Jennings that there will be no material impacts on aerial firefighting. It agrees with the Proponent that Mr Piper is not an expert in aerial firefighting and accordingly his evidence on this matter has been given no weight.
Located in a high-risk environment the critical limitations to aerial firefighting exist independently of the wind farm infrastructure. Pilots should not fly if the conditions are not suitable for aerial firefighting, regardless of the turbines. While the IAC does not rely on the Delburn Wind Farm Panel Report (D352), it notes the panel concluded the Delburn wind farm will not result in loss of aerial firefighting ability, and "wind turbines are additional obstacles pilots must factor into flight settings as part of dynamic risk assessment"[78].
The Project responds to the aerial firefighting guidance in the CFA Guidelines by:
The IAC recommends amending MMBF-04 and BF05 to refer to automatic shut down, consistent with the CFA Guidelines.
In relation to concerns raised by the CFA brigades, the IAC is satisfied the firefighter safety has been adequately considered at this stage of the process, and that the EMF provides for development and refinement of fire emergency management processes, communications, training and equipment resourcing.
Overall, the IAC accepts that the Project can avoid an increase in bushfire risk through design and the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The proposed approach prioritises protection of human life as required by the Glenelg Planning Scheme.
The Proponent repackaged and reordered the bushfire mitigation measures to align more clearly with the CFA Guidelines. This is sensible. The Day 4 mitigation measures appropriately require:
While the IAC accepts the Proponent intentionally removed MM-BF03 it is not entirely clear how the requirements are adequately captured in new MM-BF04. The exhibited MM-BF03 included requirements relating to, for example, static water supply and access tracks. Noting the parties, including the CFA, did not raise concerns with removal of MM-BF03 the IAC accepts its deletion. However, it recommends MM-04 include a reference to the Risk Management Plan model requirements in the CFA Guidelines to ensure these requirements considered are considered. To avoid confusion the IAC also recommends renumbering the bushfire mitigation measures.
The IAC accepts the Proponent's drafting of new mitigation measure MM-BS01 which requires a Construction Environmental Management Plan Boiler Swamp Road which addresses emergency access during January and February and on days declared as Extreme or Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating. Access arrangements must be prepared in consultation with DEECA Bushfire Forest services.
Amend MM-BF03 (Risk Management Plan) to require consideration of the model requirements in the Country Fire Authority's Design Guidelines and Model Requirements, Renewable Energy Facilities (as amended from time to time) and to refer to automatic shut down of turbines.
Amend MM-BF04 (Operational Fire Emergency Management Plan) to refer to automatic shut down of turbines.
These changes are included at Appendix F:1.
16.5 Overall conclusions on safety, hazard and risk effects
Subject to applying its recommendations, the IAC is satisfied the Project is consistent with relevant policy and legislation and relevant draft evaluation objectives. The likely safety, hazard and risk effects are not significant and the IAC is satisfied any effects are acceptable and do not preclude the Project being approved.
As noted in Chapter 2.3 of this Report, the EES assessed two options for part of the internal 275 kV transmission line within the Project area. These were subsequently described by the Proponent as the 'northern' and 'southern' options.
The southern option was the Proponent's preferred option and would involve an underground transmission line between the eastern collector substation to Portland-Nelson Road / Sandy Hill Road intersection. It would run beneath existing roads in the GTFP pine plantation and extend for approximately six kilometres.
The northern option would involve an overhead transmission line continuing from the collector substation along Portland-Nelson Road to a transition station at Portland-Nelson Road / Sandy Hill Road intersection. It would extend for approximately 3.5 kilometres and would run adjacent to the road reserve.
In its Part A submission, the Proponent advised that it preferred a third option it identified as the 'central' option. The 'central' option would be an overhead transmission line extending approximately 3.8 kilometres within the Project area.
The three options are shown in Figure 4 of this Report and are all within the GTFP pine plantation.
The issue is whether the new 'central' internal transmission line option is acceptable.
The EES assessment of the northern and southern options found that:
The underground [southern] option is preferred as it would avoid impacts on native vegetation and Aboriginal cultural heritage, avoid potential visual impacts at the Hedditch Hill lookout, and reduce traffic disruptions along Portland-Nelson Road during construction. The Portland-Nelson Road corridor between Wilsons Lower Road and Sandy Hill Road has a relatively narrow shoulder and tight corners, making it a highly constrained section of road where impacts on native vegetation could not be avoided. A large artefact scatter is also located at the Portland-Nelson Road / Telegraph Track intersection which could be difficult to avoid.[79]
In its Part A submission (D52), the Proponent advised it preferred a new 'central' internal transmission line option. This option had become feasible following the rezoning of the land from PPRZ to Farming Zone[80] and the Proponent's view that the Project was more consistent with the purpose of the Farming Zone than the public land objectives of the PPRZ. It noted that the central option would avoid native vegetation and the artefact scatter associated with the northern option and would be shorter and more cost-effective than the southern option.
In its closing submission (D380) the Proponent advised that the cost of undergrounding the line is approximately four times higher than for an overhead line.
The Proponent instructed its experts to consider all three options and to provide any opinions on the options where relevant. The responses are summarised below:
They considered that the central option would increase the risk of bird and bat collision, although Mr Gibson noted that undergrounding this option would have low impact and address that risk. Mr Gibson also advised that the northern option was unacceptable given the other options that were available.
The IAC queried whether the central option required any notification given it had not been described in the exhibited EES. The Proponent noted the SCO and Incorporated Document allow for alternative configuration and submitted that adopting the central option, being between the northern and southern options, would not give rise to a need for further notice.
The IAC also queried whether the Proponent had undertaken any investigations into undergrounding the central option or was aware of any impediments to it being underground. This was in response to Mr Gibson's evidence about undergrounding the central option. The Proponent advised it had not specifically investigated this but was not aware of any technical constraints on this approach. It preferred the central above ground option, but acknowledged undergrounding along this alignment would be a 'fallback' position. It noted that only part of the central option is within the Brolga movement buffer and that a 'hybrid' option with part underground and part overground could be implemented.
DEECA preferred the underground southern option because it would minimise potential impacts on Brolga. It noted that if a different option was then chosen and an overhead transmission line was to go through the Brolga breeding buffer additional mitigations would need to be applied, and the Collision Risk Modelling (CRM) would need to be recalculated and added to the Brolga compensation plan.
Glenelg Shire Council expressed a general preference that the internal transmission line be underground (D404).
The IAC notes the potential fauna and visual impacts associated with the aboveground northern option and agrees with the EES and Proponent that the southern underground option is preferable.
The central option, while shorter and significantly less costly than the southern option, extends through the Brolga movement corridor. For this reason, the ecology experts did not support an overhead transmission line in this area but noted potential impacts would need to be addressed if the line was underground. The central option is also close to the Kentbruck Heath and there is potential for Brolga, Australasian Bittern, Blue-winged Parrot and other threatened species to fly through this area when travelling from the Kentbruck Heath area to the coast.
The IAC agrees with the Proponent that a hybrid version of the central option, partly underground and partly overground, might be acceptable subject to further analysis of bird impacts and the outcomes of pre-construction surveys. Other issues such as potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage might also require further analysis.
The IAC has included in its recommendations an option to pursue the central option, given the identified potential benefits, subject to further work demonstrating the impacts are acceptable to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Adopt the underground southern option for the internal 275 kilovolt transmission line or alternatively the central option, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, subject to:
a) undergrounding all or parts of the central option to address bird impacts as required in the recommended Incorporated Document (see Appendix F:2 of this Report)
b) considering other potential impacts arising from undergrounding all or part of the central option, including impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage.
The issue is whether the requirements in relation to decommissioning the Project are appropriate.
The exhibited Incorporated Document requires the Proponent to provide advice on the process and indicative timing of preparing a DEMP.
The exhibited EMF includes requirements and guidance for preparing the DEMP and includes mitigation measures that apply to the decommissioning phase of the Project, including requirements to address decommissioning in various plans and actions. It also establishes that the DEMP is subject to auditing by the IEA (MM-IA01).
The Proponent advised that at the end of the Project's operational life it will either be decommissioned or upgraded with new turbines and ancillary infrastructure. Key decommissioning activities would include removal of all above ground non-operational equipment, removal and clean-up of any residual contamination, and rehabilitation of all storage areas, construction areas, access tracks and other areas affected by the Project.
The Proponent noted the DEMP will manage potential environmental impacts and specify controls for the management of waste at the end of the Project's life, including the removal or replacement of turbines. The DEMP will be prepared in consultation with agencies relevant to the decommissioning works and as required by relevant mitigation measures. An IEA will be appointed to audit compliance with the DEMP.
The Proponent advised the decommissioning of the transmission line would be addressed in the DEMP and would include consultation with the relevant agencies, including DEECA and Parks Victoria. It submitted that for the purposes of the IAC's assessment, if the transmission line is required to be removed, the impacts would be similar to those during construction and therefore minimal.
Some submitters were concerned about the decommissioning process, who would be responsible for it and whether the turbines would be left on-site. Ms Chalmers (S188) (D454), for example, raised concerns about the retention of the concrete turbine foundations, Ms Taunt (S121) was concerned about the responsibility for decommissioning and Mr Turner was concerned about decommissioning of the transmission line along Boiler Swamp Road. Others had general concerns about potential, noise, dust and traffic impacts.
The DEMP requirements are not prescriptive about how the Project might be decommissioned but establish what the DEMP must consider and address. This approach is reasonable given the uncertainties about when the Project might be decommissioned and whether it might include upgrading/renewal of the facility or its closure and removal.
The IAC does not expect that the DEMP would be prepared for some time given the Project's anticipated 30-year operational life and believes there would be little benefit in specifying outcomes now, including the types and extent of infrastructure to be removed. It would be better to make those decisions when more is known about the operational life of the Project, its possible renewal and any associated decommissioning. This might, for example, include the removal or retention of turbine foundations and underground transmission lines. It should also be prepared in the context of the regulatory framework that applies at the time.
The IAC is satisfied the Incorporated Document and EMP include appropriate content to manage the Project's decommissioning, including consultation with relevant stakeholders. However, it believes the DEMP should be approved by the responsible authority because of the location of the transmission line within the Cobboboonee National Park[81] and the proximity of other Project infrastructure to the various national and coastal parks in the area. Adopting this approach would build on the DEMP consultation with DEECA and Parks Victoria required under the EMF and ensure appropriate regard is had to protecting public land assets. The IAC has included this requirement in the recommended EMF at Appendix F:1.
Require the Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
17.3 Renewable energy legislation and policy support
Table 22 lists the experts providing evidence on renewable energy legislation and policy.
Table 22 Evidence on renewable energy legislation and policy
The IAC has had regard to relevant policy and guidelines, including:
The issue is whether the Project is consistent with the legislative and policy framework for renewable energy.
The EES provided an overview of the relevant legislation and policies and described how the Project would assist in achieving their objectives.
The Proponent discussed the Commonwealth and State legislative and policy contexts for renewable energy in its Part A, Part B and closing submissions. It described the role the Project would play in the ISP and the National Electricity Market (NEM) and submitted there was broad legislative and policy support for the Project.
As noted in Chapters 2.4 and 15, the Proponent outlined the Project'[83]inclusion in the CIS83. It described the CIS tender process, outcomes and responsibilities and noted that projects were selected "...by reference to, inter alia, deliverability and timetable, reliability, emissions reductions, impact on electricity pricing, and First Nations and community engagement [84]d commitments"84. It submitted the Project's successful tender demonstrated it had high level legislative and policy support.
The Proponent noted the draft VTP and its role in planning renewable energy zones (REZ) and infrastructure in Victoria. It acknowledged that the draft VTP did not specifically reference the Project or include the Project site within the proposed South West REZ, however, it provided advice from VicGrid (the author of the VTP) that:
Notably, the 2024 VTP Guidelines identified the Project site as a mixture of "deprioritised" and "avoidance" areas, presumably a response, in part, to the potential environmental sensitivity of the area.
Mr Bolt provided an overview of the electricity market and his assessment of the Project's consistency with relevant legislation and policies. He also provided responses to relevant issues raised in submissions. He was satisfied the Project was consistent with the legislative and policy framework and would contribute to energy security, greenhouse gas abatement and lower electricity prices. He highlighted the urgency of developing renewable energy to address climate change.
Some submitters were critical of energy policy and raised specific issues about:
Others were satisfied the Project was consistent with energy policy, although some noted the potential environmental disbenefits including biodiversity and visual impacts.
Save our Surroundings Riverina (S202) provided a brief written submission that included references to "national electricity law", but no substantive submissions about the Project's consistency with energy policy. It organised expert evidence provided by Mr Morrison but did not appear at the Hearing or lead his evidence at the Hearing. Mr Morrison was critical of current energy policy, including the ISP and the transition to renewable energy. He did not believe the Project would improve energy security or contribute to lower electricity prices. He advised he had not read the relevant EES content, Mr Bolt's evidence or PPV Practice Note 1 (Expert evidence). He noted the IAC was bound by the existing policy framework and that that the Project was likely consistent with current policy, while maintaining his opposition to that policy.
The Proponent's closing submission was critical of the circumstances and content of Mr Morrison's evidence and submitted the IAC should not give it any weight.
The IAC agrees with the Proponent and Mr Bolt that the Project is consistent with renewable energy legislation and policy. Although Mr Morrison and some submitters were critical of the policy framework, the IAC agrees with the Proponent's observation that it "...is bound to assess the Project by reference to the existing state of the law, and it is not open to the Committee to conclude that the existing legislative and policy settings are in any way deficient"[86].
The IAC agrees with the Proponent that the Project's inclusion in the CIS is evidence of its broad consistency with renewable energy policy, although it notes the CIS process was more focussed on deliverability, supply and grid outcomes rather than the site-specific impacts being considered as part of this EES process.
The IAC acknowledges submissions about whether the Project is consistent with the VTP and notes the VTP was approved in August 2025, after the Hearing concluded. However, the relevant elements are generally consistent with the draft VTP discussed during the Hearing. Notably, neither document referred to the Project and the site is outside the South West REZ shown in Figure 17.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 17 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The VTP was informed by the 2024 VTP Guidelines and its assessment of the general area within which the Project is proposed. From the IACs reading of the document, it seems that the REZ does not extend to the Project site partly because of the environmental sensitives in that area.
Nevertheless, the IAC accepts that the Project has been in development for some time[87] and was within the South West REZ identified in the Victorian Renewable Energy Zones Development Plan Directions Paper released in 2021. It also notes VicGrid's advice that the VTP had assumed the Project was a fixed input and likely to be granted grid access. While it might be arguable that the Project site is inconsistent with the VTP because it is outside the South West REZ, this does not preclude it being considered on its merits through the EES process.
The general issues raised by submitters about renewable energy, and in particular windfarms, are of limited relevance given the IAC's overarching finding that the Project is consistent with the renewable energy policy framework. Mr Morrison's evidence was not relevant or helpful given his focus on the merits of the policy framework rather than the Project's compliance with it.
PART C: APPROVALS AND INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT
18.1 Draft Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C116gelg
The IAC was appointed as an Advisory Committee pursuant to part 7, section 151(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
...any appropriate conditions that may be lawfully imposed on any approval for the project, including with respect to the structure or content of draft PSA; the content of a work plan or conditions on any approval required for the on-site quarry, if issued under the MRSD Act; or conditions that should be attached to consents under the National Parks Act and the Forests Act if such consents are to be granted.
Table 23 lists the experts providing evidence on these effects.
Table 23 Evidence on land use and planning impacts
The Proponent provided the following Technical Notes and submissions:
The EES includes the draft PSA and Incorporated Document at EES Technical Appendix Y, together with a planning report and assessment.
The draft PSA applies the SCO to the wind farm footprint and transmission line corridor. The SCO would introduce the Incorporated Document to regulate the use and development of Project infrastructure.
The Proponent described how the draft PSA and Incorporated Document would operate and the rationale for using the SCO. It explained the SCO would allow the Project to occur without the need to separately obtain a planning permit on the basis that the Project has been subject to detailed assessment through the EES process. It submitted that the use of the SCO was appropriate for a Project of this type and scale, and consistent with the guidance about using the SCO in the Practitioner's Guide to Victoria's Planning Schemes, DTP.
The Proponent supported these changes and they are included in the IAC recommended Incorporated Document at Appendix F:2.
The EPA (S129) made various suggestions in relation to the Incorporated Document, including:
The Proponent agreed to review the numbering and cross referencing in the Incorporated Document. It noted that the GED is legislated through the EP Act and the Incorporated Document is a subordinate legislative instrument which does not displace existing statutory duties and requirements. The Proponent submitted that, consistent with good drafting practices, it was not appropriate to adopt this recommendation as it would duplicate existing legislation.
Glenelg Shire Council (S183) expressed concerns about who would be responsible for enforcement under the SCO. It did not want to assume this role given the scale and complexity of the Project and believed it should rest with the Minister as responsible authority. The Proponent advised it was intended that the Minister would be responsible for enforcement and cited references to this in the EES. In order to clarify this, the Proponent sought a recommendation from the IAC that the Schedule to Clause 72.01 in the Planning Scheme be amended to specify that:
The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for administering and enforcing clause 45.12 of the planning scheme in respect of the Kentbruck Green Power Hub Project, [month] 2025.
The Proponent cited examples of where this approach had been adopted, including the West Gate Tunnel Project and the North East Link Project. It submitted there were no 'notice' issues arising from this recommendation given the clear intention expressed in the EES that the Minister would be responsible for enforcement.
Glenelg Shire Council requested that the Incorporated Document be formally referred to it for consideration. The Proponent did not agree, noting the draft PSA had been publicly exhibited and the EES Hearing process provided opportunities for Glenelg Shire Council to request changes and to comment on various revisions and iterations provided by the Proponent and others.
The Proponent was satisfied there had been adequate opportunity for Glenelg Shire Council to review and consider the draft PSA, particularly given the Minister for Planning would be the responsible authority for the Project.
The Proponent sought a recommendation from the IAC that the draft PSA should proceed, including the Day 3 version of the Incorporated Document, subject to:
Other issues about the draft PSA raised in evidence and submissions are discussed in Part B of this Report.
The IAC has reviewed the draft PSA and is satisfied that the use of the SCO and Incorporated Document is an appropriate use of the Victoria Planning Provisions. The IAC generally supports the Proponent's Day 4 Incorporated Document unless otherwise stated in this Report. The recommended Incorporated Document will provide a suitable framework for managing the use and development of the Project.
The IAC is also satisfied the preparation and exhibition of the draft PSA have been consistent with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and there are no statutory impediments to it being approved.
The Proponent has proposed extensive changes to the exhibited Incorporated Document in response to its consideration of submissions and evidence. These are discussed in Part B of this Report and are generally supported by the IAC and included in the recommended version at Appendix F:2.
The IAC supports Mr Glossop's assessment and his drafting and mapping recommendation. These are in the recommendations provide below.
The IAC supports the Proponent's response to the EPA submission. It notes the Incorporated Document has been substantially revised, including changes to numbering and cross references and agrees that the changes to exhibited Clause 7.8 (b and c) sought by the EPA are unnecessary.
The IAC supports the Proponent's response to the Glenelg Shire Council's submission. It agrees the Minister for Planning should be responsible for enforcement under the SCO and supports the inclusion of a reference in the Schedule to Clause 72.01 to confirm this. Whether or not this inclusion is necessary is a matter of drafting and interpretation, but the IAC is not opposed to clarifying the Minister is responsible for enforcement. The IAC does not believe Glenelg Shire Council need be provided with a further opportunity to comment on the Incorporated Document. As the Proponent noted, the EES process has provided Glenelg Shire Council with multiple opportunities for review and input, and the need to provide a further opportunity has not been established, particularly given that the Minister is the responsible authority.
The IAC notes that the draft PSA refers to SCO10 and that the GPS Glenelg currently includes the SCO10 and SCO11. The Schedule number will need to be updated in the amendment documentation.
The recommended Incorporated Document includes significant changes from the exhibited version, including the repositioning of various material from the EMF. The IAC has sought to identify any consequential changes that might be required to address this but believes both documents would benefit from further detailed review to ensure that any necessary consequential changes to both documents are identified.
Draft Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C116gelg
Approve draft Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C116gelg subject to reviewing it for consistency and to address any consequential changes resulting from other recommendations in this Report and to:
a) include the recommended Incorporated Document at Appendix F:2
b) modify the Specific Controls Overlay Schedule 10 mapping as identified by Mr Glossop (Document 88)
c) modify the Schedule to Clause 72.01 to establish the Minister for Planning is responsible for enforcement under the Specific Controls Overlay
d) include an Instruction Sheet and revised Explanatory Report as recommended by Mr Glossop (D88)
e) update the Specific Controls Overlay Schedule number.
Review the recommended Kentbruck Green Power Hub Project Incorporated Document at Appendix F:2 for consistency and to address any consequential changes resulting from the recommendations in this Report.
Clause 35f of the IAC's ToR require its report to contain:
recommendations as to the structure and content of the proposed environmental management framework, including with respect to monitoring of environmental effects and contingency plans and site rehabilitation
The IAC discusses the relevant elements of the EMF in Part B of this Report where it makes various recommendations that are included in the recommended EMF at Appendix F:1.
The exhibited Incorporated Document requires an EMF be approved and endorsed by the Minister for Planning. The Incorporated Document describes what the EMF must include, and includes a requirement for the EMF submitted to the Minister to be accompanied by an explanation of any differences between it and the Minister's Assessment under the EE Act.
The Proponent described the role of the EMF and the various changes it proposed following its consideration of evidence and submissions. These included various drafting changes to improve its clarity.
The specific issues raised by submitters and experts, particularly in relation to the mitigation measures, are discussed in Part B of this Report.
The IAC notes the Proponent made extensive changes to the exhibited EMF following its consideration of submissions and evidence. The IAC generally supports the Proponent's Day 4 EMF unless otherwise stated in this Report. These changes, in combination with the further changes recommended by the IAC, significantly improve the EMF.
The IAC is satisfied the EMF will provide an appropriate framework for the design, construction and operation of the Project, subject to the recommended changes discussed in Part B of this Report and included in Appendix F:1.
The IAC has also recommended various language and content changes to the EMF that clarify its requirements and the actions that need to be undertaken. These will assist its implementation. Some of these address detailed drafting matters raised by submitters.
The IAC has undertaken limited review for consistent use of language and formatting. The EMF will need further revision, including format changes and updated page and section numbering, so that it can be read as a standalone document rather than as part of the EES.
The IAC's recommended EMF includes significant changes from the exhibited version, including new material and the repositioning of various material from the Incorporated Document. The IAC has identified some consequential changes but believes both documents would benefit from further detailed review to ensure that any necessary consequential changes to both documents are identified and resolved.
Approve the Environmental Management Framework included at Appendix F:1 of this Report, subject to reviewing it for consistency and to address any consequential changes resulting from other recommendations in this Report.
18.3 National Parks Act 1975 and Forests Act 1958
Sections 27 (1) and (2) of the National Parks Act 1975 are:
(1) Subject to this Act and the regulations, a public authority may, where it has obtained the consent of Parks Victoria or the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority (as the case requires), perform its functions and exercise its powers in and in relation to a park in accordance with the conditions (if any) to which the consent is subject.
(2) Parks Victoria or the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority (as the case requires) may not give consent to the performance of functions or exercise of powers by a public authority where the Minister considers that the performance of functions or exercise of powers may substantially affect a park unless the Governor in Council has determined that the consent should be given.
There were submissions and discussion during the Hearing about these provisions, including the interpretation of 'substantially affect'.
Section 52(1C)(f) of the Forests Act 1958 includes:
A licence or permit granted under this section to enter land set aside in section 50(1), may be for any one or more of the following purposes that is specified in the licence or permit - ...
(f) to provide any other facility or service which the Minister considers appropriate.
The IAC notes that the approvals required under the two Acts are different, and that the National Parks Act 1975 is more prescriptive than the Forests Act 1958. For the purposes of its assessment, the IAC has applied the test of whether the Project would 'substantially affect' the park to both parks.
Clause 35e of the IAC's ToR provide for it to recommend:
...any appropriate conditions that may be lawfully imposed on any approval for the project, including with respect to the structure or content of draft PSA; the content of a work plan or conditions on any approval required for the on-site quarry, if issued under the MRSD Act; or conditions that should be attached to consents under the National Parks Act and the Forests Act if such consents are to be granted.
The approvals are discussed in EES Chapter 5 and Appendix Y (Planning Scheme Amendment documents). The EMF notes the approvals required under the National Parks Act 1975 and Forests Act 1958 but does not include any specific mitigation measures in relation to them.
EES Appendix Z includes a draft consent application under Section 27 of the National Parks Act 1975. The Proponent advised that at the request of DEECA, the draft consent application includes details of works proposed in Cobboboonee Forest Park to support a request under the Forests Act 1958 for a lease to construct and operate the section of transmission line that is proposed within Cobboboonee Forest Park.
The issue is whether the proposed transmission line would substantially affect the Cobboboonee National and Forest Parks.
The Proponent outlined the background to the draft consent application and indicated its intention to update and simplify the application. The was supported by Parks Victoria in its submission at the Hearing (D394). The Proponent provided submissions (D386) about the application of the National Parks Act 1975 and various interpretation issues, including whether the Proponent was authorised to lodge an application and how to apply the term 'substantially affect'.
It noted the National Parks Act 1975 definition of 'public authority' included electrical distribution and transmission companies as defined in the Electricity Industry Act 2000. It submitted that the Proponent (or Ausnet) would meet that definition.
The Proponent assessed the impacts of the transmission line and their significance in the context of the objects of the National Parks Act 1975. It summarised the relevant objects as protecting the natural environment, flora and fauna, and recreational values.
The Proponent's assessment highlighted the following factors:
a) the Yellow-bellied Glider is considered to be present in the Park, but it is highly unlikely that the construction of the transmission line would impact the species, which occupies a vast area of contiguous suitable habitat in the surrounding parks; > > b) the Southern Toadlet is known to be present in the Park, including in roadside drains, but the Project would not have any direct impacts on habitat for that species, and the proposed mitigation measures are adequate to address any potential indirect impacts on that species; and > > c) there is a good understanding of which aquatic species are present in the various catchments, but the Project will not have any material effect on those species.
The Proponent requested that the IAC make a specific finding that the transmission line would not 'substantially affect' the parks.
Parks Victoria (S151) provided an initial written submission about the consent required under the National Parks Act 1975 and expanded on this during the Hearing (D394) with reference to the:
Parks Victoria provided an overview of the route options assessment (EES Appendix A Transmission Line Options Assessment) in the context of considering options that did not traverse the Cobboboonee National Park and Forest Park.
Parks Victoria advised it had not concluded whether the Proponent was a 'public authority' and would consider this when a formal application was received.
In relation to the discretion under section 27 of the National Parks Act 1975, it noted there are no explicit considerations or guidelines, but outlined the matters it would have regard to, including:
...the purposes for which the park is reserved, the objects of the National Parks Act and the protection of the environmental, cultural and recreational values of the park.[88]
It noted the Proponent's confirmation that the application will be refined and include further detail to address matters raised during the EES process. It will consider that material in its determination of a formal application.
Parks Victoria provided submissions about statutory interpretation and the meaning of 'substantially affect', noting that the term is not defined in the Act. It discussed various factors that might influence how the term is applied and the types of impacts that might eventuate. It referred to a proposed water pipeline in the Great Otway National Park and Otway Forest Park as an example where the Minister had determined that a park would be substantially affected by vegetation removal, although the project was subsequently approved by the Governor in Council.
Parks Victoria did not offer any conclusions about the significance of possible affects or whether consent would be granted.
Submitters opposed the location of the transmission line along Boiler Swamp Road and through the Cobboboonee National and Forest Parks. They raised issues about vegetation, fauna, amenity, traffic, tourism and other impacts they believed were inconsistent with the values of the Parks.
The IAC notes that any impacts associated with the transmission line will primarily occur during construction and potentially decommissioning, depending on whether the transmission line is removed or remains in place. The operational phase is not expected to impact on the Parks.
The IAC's assessment of potential impacts is provided in Part B of this Report, including chapters 5 (Flora), 6 (Fauna) and 13 (Transport). The IAC found that impacts will not be significant and will be acceptable subject to implementing its recommendations, particularly those related to mitigation measures. In this context, the IAC generally agrees with the Proponent's assessment against the objects of the National Parks Act 1975 and is satisfied the transmission line would not 'substantially affect' the Parks. In forming this view, the IAC notes the transmission line will be underground, within the highly modified environment of an existing road and involve the use of HDD in sensitive locations.
The IAC notes that MM-BS01 requires a CEMP for the works in Boiler Swamp Road to be prepared in consultation with DEECA Regions and Bushfire Forest Services and endorsed by the responsible authority. This would be in addition to any requirements under the National Parks Act 1975 and Forests Act 1958 approvals and is supported by the IAC.
Some submitters, including Parks Victoria, referred to the transmission line options described in EES Appendix A. The IAC notes that material but has primarily focussed on the potential impacts of the exhibited option and the significance and acceptability of any impacts. The exhibited option was the subject of comprehensive assessment, evidence and submissions in contrast to the more limited assessment of the other options in EES Appendix A. The IAC has concluded that the exhibited route is acceptable and has not made any findings about the merits or acceptability of other options.
Clause 35e of the IAC's ToR provide for it to recommend:
...any appropriate conditions that may be lawfully imposed on any approval for the project, including with respect to the structure or content of draft PSA; the content of a work plan or conditions on any approval required for the on-site quarry, if issued under the MRSD Act; or conditions that should be attached to consents under the National Parks Act and the Forests Act if such consents are to be granted.
The Project includes an onsite quarry (as described in Chapter 2.3 of this Report) to be regulated under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSD Act).
The Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2023 has been passed by parliament and will introduce significant changes to the regulatory framework relating to mines in Victoria.
The amended MRSD Act will take effect on 1 July 2027 and will:
The proposed quarry is discussed in EES Chapters 3, 4 and 5, as well as the relevant Technical Appendices.
EES Appendix W includes a Quarry Work Plan Requirements Report (QWPRR) that describes the quarry as follows:
The onsite quarry is proposed to supply road base material required for the construction of the Project which would incorporate hardstand areas, construction pads, upgrades and extensions to the existing roading network. The quarry will only operate to supply material for the Project and will remain available for the life of the Project to supply any materials for ongoing road maintenance during operation. The quarry will be rehabilitated when the Project requirements for material has ceased.[89]
...to provide sufficient detail of the proposed quarry for the Project's Environment Effects Statement (EES), to allow the Minster for Planning and regulators to understand the potential environmental impacts of the quarry and to make any recommendations deemed appropriate.[90]
It is not intended to meet the statutory requirements of a Work Plan.
The QWPRR explains the requirements of the MRSD Act but not the new Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990. It says the quarry would require the preparation of a Work Plan to obtain a Work Authority from the Minister for Resources for an extractive industry. The Project is exempt from requiring a planning permit for the quarry under Section 77T of the Act, because an EES is being prepared for the Project, including the quarry.
The exhibited EMF includes various mitigation measures that are relevant to the quarry, including:
The issue is whether any potential environmental impacts of the quarry are significant and acceptable.
The Proponent relied on the relevant material in the EES and evidence reports. It proposed minor drafting changes to relevant mitigation measures in the Day 4 EMF together with:
The EPA advised it will assess the quarry work plan application when it is referred under either the MRSD Act or the EPA/Earth Resources Regulation Memorandum of Understanding.
There were no specific submissions about the QWPRR or relevant mitigation measures, although there were general concerns about various amenity impacts associated with the Project and by association the quarry.
The IAC notes that the QWPRR is intended to inform the EES process and is not a draft Work Plan or intended to meet the requirements of the MRSD Act. For these reasons, the IAC has not reviewed the document in detail, assessed it against the requirements of the MRSD Act or made detailed recommendations about its content. However, it is satisfied the QWPRR provides a useful overview of the quarry's development and operation and identification of key risks and mitigations.
The implications of the changes to the MRSD Act were not explored during the Hearing. After July 2027 the duty holder will be required to determine how they meet their obligations under the new general duty. The IAC is satisfied the EMF provides adequate guidance for appropriate management of quarry impacts regardless of the regulatory tool used for approval and implementation. It recommends the EMF include reference to the amended legislation and a work plan (or equivalent) to provide some flexibility in how this requirement is satisfied.
The IAC supports the relevant mitigation measures in the EMF and refinements proposed by the Proponent. It is satisfied any impacts from the quarry can be appropriately mitigated through compliance with the EMF and further approval through the MRSD Act or future requirements of the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990. For these reasons, the IAC makes no specific recommendations in relation to the content of a work plan or conditions on any further approval required for the quarry.
The IAC believes the content relating to preparing a Quarry Work Plan (MM-NV03) should be repositioned as a new MM-QU01 so it is collocated with the other Quarry Work Plan requirements. References to addressing quarry noise impacts can be retained in MM-NV03. These changes are included in the IAC's recommended EMF at Appendix F:1 of this Report.
Relocate the requirement to prepare the Quarry Work Plan from MM-NV03 to a new MM-QU01 to collocate it with the other Quarry Work Plan requirements.
Amend new MM-QU01 (Quarry Work Plan) to provide for a Quarry Work Plan or equivalent.
Include reference to the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990 as relevant legislation in the relevant primary approvals.
The IAC is not aware of any matters that would preclude approval under the EPBC Act. The IAC notes this is a matter for the Commonwealth to determine.
The Aboriginal Heritage Act requires the approval of a CHMP before the Project can proceed. Chapter 9 discusses the CHMP process, including its status and further actions that are necessary to finalise it.
Based on the material presented to it, the IAC is not aware of any impediments to the CHMP being finalised.
The FFG Act lists threatened flora and fauna species and communities and includes requirements for removing listed species. The Project may require a permit or licence from DEECA to take or remove listed flora from public land (such as road reserves) pursuant to Section 48 of the FFG Act.
The IAC is satisfied there are no impediments to approval under this Act, subject to compliance with any relevant mitigation measures.
(iv) Wildlife Act 1975 (Vic)
The Project will require authorisation pursuant to sections 22, 28A and 28G of the Wildlife Act 1975 should any wildlife be encountered during construction and require salvage. A suitably qualified wildlife handler holding a current management authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975 may be engaged to salvage wildlife if required.
The IAC is satisfied there are no impediments to approval under this Act, subject to compliance with any relevant mitigation measures.
(v) Water Act 1989 (Vic)
A Works on Waterways permit is required for works or activities in or over designated waterways or to bore, in accordance with section 67 of the Water Act 1989. The Project will cross designated waterways at several different locations. The Project would also require a permit for the taking or use of water from a waterway or groundwater from bores, pursuant to section 51 of the Water Act 1989.
Surface water and groundwater are discussed in Chapter 7 of this Report. The IAC is satisfied there are no impediments to approval under this Act, subject to compliance with relevant mitigation measures.
The Road Management Act 2004 requires consent from the relevant road authority to conduct works in, on, or under public roads in the Victorian road network. The relevant road authorities are:
Any works that are required will be confirmed through the further work required under the EMF, including the TMPs that will be prepared to the satisfaction of the relevant road authorities.
Transport is discussed in Chapter 13 of this Report. The IAC is satisfied there are no impediments to approval under this Act, subject to compliance with relevant mitigation measures.
(vii) Marine and Coastal Act 2018 and Rivers Act 1992
The Proponent and submitters referred to the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 that requires consent for use, development and works on marine and coastal Crown land (the area 200 metres inland of the high-water mark of the sea). The Project does not include any works in this area and consequently no consent is required.
The Marine and Coastal Act 2018 also applies to land up to five kilometres inland of the high-water mark (defined as the marine and coastal environment). This area includes sections of the Project, and while no consents are required the objectives of the legislation are relevant. The IAC has discussed the objectives of the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 further in Chapter 19.2.
Some submitters referred to the Heritage Rivers Act 1992. The IAC accepts the Proponent's advice that there is no overlap between the declared Glenelg River area and the Project site. Consequently, no approval is required.
This Chapter includes the IAC's overarching assessment in relation to:
19.2 Assessment against the legislative and policy framework
The relevant legislative and policy framework is described in:
Some of the legislative and policy considerations are overarching and others relate to specific impacts and approvals. This Chapter addresses the overarching considerations and Part B of this Report includes the IAC's assessment of specific environmental effects against relevant legislation and policy requirements.
(i) Climate change, renewable energy and biodiversity
The key issue is whether the Project strikes an acceptable balance between action on climate change and renewable energy, and biodiversity protection.
The Proponent made extensive submissions on how the Project would contribute to the government's ambitious climate change and renewable energy legislation and policy. It said there is broad legislative and policy support for the Project and the Project will play an important role in contributing to Victoria's legislated renewable energy and emissions reduction targets.[91]
It advised the State government had released Joint Minister's Statement A better approach to managing the biodiversity impacts of renewable energy which recognises the challenges in balancing the transition to renewable energy with managing biodiversity values and that robust environmental assessments are needed to avoid, mitigate or manage impacts.
...were comparatively minimal and the various impacts have been minimised through design, and the proposed mitigation measures. To the extent that there are residual disbenefits that are harder to mitigate, those disbenefits need to be balanced against the overwhelmingly positive environmental benefit of the Project that is its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions".[92]
In relation to renewable energy and climate change legislation and policy, the Proponent said there will be inevitable trade-offs and the IAC should reject any proposition the location is fundamentally inappropriate. It said:
It will not be possible to realise the legislated outcomes without impacts of the type that are at issue in this case arising.
While it is understandable that some members of the community are concerned about the nature and extent of change envisaged by this Project, that is an inevitable consequence of realising the vision called for by State and Federal policy.[93]
In response to questions from the IAC about the potential loss of electricity production resulting from proposed curtailment strategies, the Proponent provided an assessment of potential generation loss (see Table 24) and explained:
Table 24 Generation loss from low wind speed curtailment
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Table 24 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Proponent called Mr Bolt to provide evidence on energy policy. Mr Bolt was satisfied the Project was consistent with the legislative and policy framework and would contribute to energy security, greenhouse gas emissions abatement and lower electricity prices. He highlighted the urgency of developing renewable energy to address climate change and concluded that it would be more difficult to achieve renewable energy and emissions reductions interim targets if the Project is not approved.
Mr Glossop described the Commonwealth and State government's commitments to action on climate change and support for renewable energy. He noted the Glenelg Planning Scheme lends considerable support for renewable energy and that one purpose of the Planning Scheme is "to support responses to climate change". He said the planning policy framework provides considerable but not unqualified support for the Project and provides guidance on interpreting other competing policy such as relating to coastal landscapes.
As discussed in Chapter 17.3, Mr Morrison gave evidence for Save our Surroundings Riverina that was critical of energy policy.
Many submitters supported renewable energy, and associated benefits of emissions reduction and climate change mitigation, and acknowledged the tension with possible environmental disbenefits including biodiversity and visual impacts.
Some submitters were critical of energy policy and said the Project would not have a material impact on emissions. Others were satisfied the Project was consistent with energy policy.
Action on climate change is critical and underpins an urgent need to facilitate appropriate renewable energy projects.
Australia is a signatory to the Paris Agreement and has given effect to this through the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) which includes objects to:
The Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) establishes national net greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets. On 18 September 2025, after the Hearing, the federal government adopted a revised interim target of 62-70 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035, with the ultimate target of net zero by 2050. Victoria also has an ambitious legislated commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2045.
The Project is clearly consistent with climate and energy legislation and policy. The EES stated it was expected to produce approximately 2,000 gigawatt hours of renewable electricity and emissions reduction of 2.4 million tonnes per year. With consideration of the policy objectives of Victoria's Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) (section 22), the IAC is satisfied the Project will:
As required by the 'principles of informed decision making' of the Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) (section 23), the IAC is satisfied the EES has adequately taken into account the best practicably available information regarding potential impacts of climate change and the potential contribution of the Project to emissions.
That said, while the IAC accepts the Project will result in emissions reduction benefits, it was not presented with detailed information regarding embodied emissions associated with Project construction. It relies on the evidence of Mr Bolt that "Wind energy has a large quantity of embodied emissions but has a quick payback period and provides other long-term emissions benefits compared to fossil fuels".[94]
As discussed in Chapter 17.3, the IAC is required to the assess the Project against the current renewable energy policy framework.
In assessing the Project, the tension between protection of biodiversity values and action on climate change was very real. The IAC accepts the benefit of the Project in the context of the governments' legislated commitment to net zero emissions. These benefits are a significant factor in balancing policy objectives, however any environmental effects must be acceptable. The IAC has not taken lightly its responsibility to assess whether the Project achieves an acceptable policy balance.
The greatest area of concern to the IAC is whether biodiversity effects are acceptable, in particular fauna effects and the aggregate and synergistic effects given the ecologically sensitive location of the Project. This is said in the context that biodiversity is critical to the health and wellbeing of the planet and people, there is a clear legislative and policy framework in place for biodiversity protection, and action on climate change is required to mitigate negative impacts on many biodiversity values.
As discussed in Chapter 5.9 of this Report, the IAC considers that from a biodiversity perspective the location is not ideal for a wind farm. The Project introduces significant risk and will require active management to address those risk and ensure effects are acceptable. The IAC has paid particular attention to:
The IAC's recommendations are informed by the precautionary principle. It recommends removing of a five of turbines to protect flight movements for Brolga, Australasian Bittern and other threated birds, unless the pre-commissioning monitoring demonstrates there is adequate certainty the risk is low if the turbines are retained. In the context of the assessment undertaken in the EES and the information presented in evidence and submissions, the IAC considers this a proportionate response to the level of risk and uncertainty.
While the location entails a degree of environmental risk, the IAC has concluded there will be no significant biodiversity impacts and overall residual effects will be acceptable if effectively mitigated. If the IAC considered residual biodiversity impacts could not be appropriately mitigated or offset this would have impacted its overall findings about whether the Project is acceptable.
The IAC understands the recommendation to remove some turbines may create some uncertainty about the Project's renewable energy outputs and potentially overall viability of the Project. Ultimately this is a matter for the Proponent to consider.
Overall, the IAC is satisfied the assessment of environment effects is adequate, and subject to its recommendations, the Project complies with and strikes an appropriate balance between potentially competing policy that includes support for action on climate change and renewable energy and protection of biodiversity.
As described in Chapter 18.5 of this Report, no approvals or consents are required for the Project under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 however insofar as the land is within the 'marine and coastal environment' (within 5 kilometres of the high-water mark) the objectives of the legislation are relevant. The Proponent submitted the Project has been designed in accordance with section 7 of the Act that sets out the objectives of the planning and management of the marine and coastal environment.
The IAC is satisfied that, subject its recommendations, the Project is consistent with the guiding principles of the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 which relate to integrated coastal zone management, ecosystem based planning, ecologically sustainable development, evidence-based decision making, precautionary principle, proportionate and risk based approach to management and regulation and adaptive management.
As discussed in other Chapters of this Report, the IAC has considered, as relevant, the objects of the National Parks Act 1975 and the vision, goals and strategies in the Ngootyoong Gunditj Ngootyoong Mara South West Management Plan May 2015. In assessing specific environmental effects the IAC has placed significant weight on protecting the amenity and natural experience of the national and coastal parks.
The IAC is satisfied that, subject its recommendations, the Project adequately takes into consideration the National Parks Act 1975 in relation to:
This finding is contingent on the mitigations and comprehensive offsets recommended by the IAC in response to landscape and visual impacts.
The IAC has addressed issues relating to approvals of the transmission line within the Cobboboonee National Park and Cobboboonee Forest Park, along Boiler Swamp Road, and has concluded that, subject to its recommendations, the proposed underground transmission line will not substantially affect the parks.
As discussed in Part B and Chapter 18 of this Report, the IAC has concluded that, subject to its recommendations, Project is consistent with and supports other relevant legislation and policy.
The Project is consistent with and supports the purpose of the Glenelg Planning Scheme and planning policy in that it:
Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) requires planning and responsible authorities to integrate planning policies to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
The IAC is satisfied the Project will deliver net community benefit, with consideration of the legislative and policy drivers and environmental and other benefits summarised in this Report. As described by Mr Glossop:
Considering the Commonwealth and State governments' policy and legislative objectives to reduce carbon emissions, and the associated strength of the policy which exists in the Planning Scheme today, the Project's negative impacts on the qualities of the coastal interface of the site would not warrant preventing this Project from proceeding.
I also note that the evidence of all of the witnesses is that the impacts (where they exist) are either acceptable, acceptable subject to certain conditions or are positive.[96]
Sustainable development (ESD) is discussed in Chapter 19.3.
The IAC finds, subject to its recommendations, the Project:
Clause 35b. of the IAC's ToR require it to have regard to the principles and objectives of ESD. The Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (DTP, 2023) state:
Ecologically sustainable development maintains the ecological processes on which life
depends both now and into the future, in a way that safeguards the welfare of future generations.
The relevant legislation and regulations refer to ESD in various forms. The Glenelg Planning Scheme includes strategies to:
The IAC has assessed the Project against the principles of ESD as described in section 3A of the EPBC Act as a guide (see Table 25).
Table 25 IAC's assessment against the principles of ESD
Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations
The Project provides for both long-term and short-term economic, environmental and social benefits. On balance the Project will provide local, regional and State economic benefits particularly during construction and social effects are acceptable (see Chapter 15). Biodiversity effects are acceptable (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6) subject to the IAC's recommendations, and the Project will make a positive contrition to emissions reduction and climate change mitigation (see Chapter 19.2). Action on climate change in particular will provide benefits relating inter-generational equity.
If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation
The principle of inter-generational equity - that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations
The IAC is satisfied the Project supports the principle of inter-generational equity. Subject to its recommendations on individual impacts (see Part B of this Report) the environmental effects are acceptable. The Project will contribute to climate change mitigation with associated benefits for biodiversity protection and the health and wellbeing of future generations.
The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision- making
The Project has been designed and refined in response to environmental values and constraints. The IAC is satisfied the consideration of biodiversity and ecological integrity has informed the Project design. The consideration of biodiversity and ecological integrity has been fundamental and central to the IAC's assessment, and its recommendations ensure this assessment informs the final Project design. Subject to its recommendations, the IAC is satisfied the Project will adequately avoid, minimise and offset environmental effects.
Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted
The Project appropriately promotes a range pricing and incentive mechanisms including an ecology fund of $1,000,000 per year for protecting endangered species and offsets for SBWB mortalities (see Chapter 5), offsets for native vegetation (see Chapter 4) and a community shared benefits strategy (see Chapter 15).
Overall, subject to its recommendations, the IAC considers on balance the Project satisfies the objectives and principles of ESD and considers it likely ecological processes will be protected and maintained now and into the future. The Project will respond to climate change objectives, facilitate emissions reduction and contribute to safeguarding the future for people, flora and fauna and ecological systems.
19.4 Assessment against the evaluation objectives
Table 26 summarises the IAC's assessment of whether the Project meets the evaluation objectives and provides a cross reference to the relevant discussion in this Report.
Table 26 IAC's assessment against the evaluation objectives
To avoid or minimise potential adverse effects on biodiversity values within the project site and its environs, including native vegetation, listed species and ecological communities other protected species and habitat for these species.
The Project will acceptably avoid or minimise potential adverse effects on biodiversity values, subject to applying the IAC's recommendations. Adverse effects on biodiversity values will be appropriately avoided, minimised or offset.
Native vegetation impacts are appropriately assessed, and mitigation measures provide for refinement as required in response to Project refinement. Threatened species impacts are acceptable. The IAC is satisfied appropriate offsets can be secured.
Other than for the Australasian Bittern, the IAC has found the Project is not likely to have significant effects on fauna including:
In relation to Australasian Bittern, while significant effects are likely, the effects are likely to be acceptable and will not compromise the recovery of the species. The IAC is satisfied that offsets are available will be required to compensate for any losses.
While the Project is proposed to be located in a biodiversity sensitive area, the IAC is satisfied the potential effects can be appropriately managed and are acceptable. Potential impacts of the underground transmission line on Cobboboonee National and Forest Parks will not be significant and are acceptable.
The IAC has found effects on MNES are unlikely to be significant and are acceptable.
To avoid or minimise adverse effects on Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage and associated values.
The Project will acceptably avoid or minimise potential adverse effects on cultural heritage values, subject to applying the IAC's recommendations.
While further investigations are necessary and are underway the IAC is satisfied the EES appropriately assessed Aboriginal cultural heritage effects and effects can be appropriately managed.
Historic cultural heritage effects are appropriately assessed and can be suitably managed.
To maintain the functions and values of aquatic environments, surface water and groundwater quality and stream flows and prevent adverse effects on protected beneficial uses.
The Project will acceptably maintain the functions of catchment values and hydrology and prevent adverse effects on protected beneficial uses, subject to applying the IAC's recommendations.
While there are some potential for impacts for surface water, groundwater during construction these can be acceptably managed. There are no likely impacts during operations.
The likelihood of impacts on GDEs is low and the EMF includes appropriate mitigation measures.
The IAC has found effects on the Ramsar site are unlikely to be significant and are acceptable.
To minimise and manage potential adverse effects on landscape and visual amenity.
The Project will acceptably minimise and manage potential adverse effects on landscape and visual values, subject to applying the IAC's recommendations. This finding is contingent on the mitigations and comprehensive offsets recommended by the IAC in response to landscape and visual impacts.
Some residual landscape character and visual impacts within national and coastal parks are unacceptable when considered in isolation from the broader Project benefits. This includes parts of the ocean beach foreshore, GSWW and Lake Mombeong, which have high visual sensitivity to visual impact. In these locations impacts would be significant and cannot be effectively mitigated.
Residual impacts can be partly offset through strengthened mitigation measures including planting and new/updated visitor infrastructure. The IAC recommends a package of mitigations and offsets be approved by the responsible authority, and for offsets to be provided within any the affected national and coastal parks.
To avoid and minimise adverse effects on land use, social fabric of the community, local infrastructure, aviation safety and to neighbouring landowners during construction, operation and decommissioning of the project.
The Project will acceptably avoid or minimise potential adverse effects on land use and socioeconomic values, subject to applying the IAC's recommendations.
This includes for air quality, noise and vibration, land use and planning, social and economic impacts and safety, hazard and risk.
Regarding land use and planning the IAC found while the Project site has various positive features that make it suitable for a wind farm, there are likely to be negative offsite impacts that can be managed.
To avoid and minimise adverse effects for community amenity and safety, with regard to construction noise, vibration, dust, traffic and transport, operational turbine noise and fire risk management.
The Project will acceptably avoid or minimise potential adverse effects on community amenity, safety, roads and transport values, subject to applying the IAC's recommendations.
In addition to the recommendations detailed above, the IAC recommends updating the EMF to include a reference to the traffic evidence in addition to the TIA.
Clause 35 of the ToR details what analysis and findings the IAC's report must contain. Table 27 summarises the IAC's response to Clause 35 including the relevant Report reference. The detailed information and analysis supporting the IAC's conclusions are included in Part B of this Report.
35a) analysis and conclusions with respect to the environmental effects of the project and their significance and acceptability
Subject to the IAC's recommendations, overall the Project's environmental effects are not expected to be significant and can be acceptably managed through the recommended EMF, Incorporated Document and other recommendations.
The IAC has assessed some individual effects as significant and unacceptable, however in the context of Project benefits it considers the effects can be offset or partially offset and the residual impacts are acceptable. Specifically, this relates to:
The IAC has recommended the southern internal transmission line option be adopted or the central option, subject to undergrounding all or part of the central option and consideration of any other impacts (see Chapter 17.1).
35b) findings on whether acceptable environmental outcomes can be achieved, having regard to legislation, policy, best practice, and the principles and objectives of ecologically sustainable development
Subject to its recommendations, the IAC considers acceptable environmental outcomes can be achieved.
35c) recommendations and/or specific measures that it considers necessary and appropriate to prevent, mitigate or offset adverse significant environmental effects
The IAC has identified specific measures to prevent, mitigate or offset adverse significant environmental effects. Table 29 includes a summary of the IAC's recommendations. As described above, the IAC has assessed some individual effects as significant and unacceptable, however in the context of overall Project benefits the effects can be offset or partially offset and the residual impacts acceptable. Specifically this relates to:
Other recommendations are intended to refine the Project to respond to best practice, avoid or further minimise risk and improve compliance with the draft evaluation objectives.
35d) recommendations relating to the project alternatives considered through the EES and any feasible modifications to the design or management of the project that would offer improved environmental outcomes, particularly in relation to reducing/mitigating significant environmental effects
The IAC has recommended the southern internal transmission line option be adopted or the central option, subject to undergrounding all or part of the central option and consideration of any other impacts (see Chapter 17.1).
Other recommendations are intended to refine the Project to respond to best practice, avoid or further minimise risk and improve compliance with the draft evaluation objectives.
35e) recommendations for any appropriate conditions that may be lawfully imposed on any approval for the project, including with respect to the structure or content of draft PSA; the content of a work plan or conditions on any approval required for the on-site quarry, if issued under the MRSD Act or conditions that should be attached to consents under the National Parks Act and the Forests Act if such consents are to be granted
Table 29 includes a summary of IAC's recommendations.
The IAC is not aware of any matters that would preclude any other relevant statutory approvals.
Parts B and Chapter 18
35f) recommendations as to the structure and content of the proposed environmental management framework, including with respect to monitoring of environmental effects and contingency plans and site rehabilitation
The IAC's recommended EMF includes recommendations relating to monitoring effects, contingency measures and site rehabilitation.
35g) specific findings and recommendations about the predicted impacts on matters of MNES and their acceptability, including appropriate controls and environmental management
The IAC finds likely effects on MNES are not significant, other than for the Australasian Bittern, and subject to its recommendations the IAC is satisfied any effects are acceptable and do not preclude the Project being approved.
Clause 36 of the ToR details what information and details of process the IAC's report should include. Table 28 identifies where this information is located in the IAC's Report.
a) information and analysis in support of the IAC's findings and recommendations
b) a list of all recommendations, including cross-references to relevant discussions in the report
Chapter 1 and Appendix C
d) a list of all submitters in response to the exhibited EES and draft PSA
e) list of the documents tabled during the proceedings
Clause 36b of the ToR requires the IAC to list all recommendations, including cross-referencing relevant sections of this Report. Table 29 includes this information.
Amend MM-BD01 (Native vegetation) to change the title to Native Vegetation Plan and to make it clear the Native Vegetation Removal Report and Biodiversity Assessment should be updated.
Amend MM-BD02 (Assessment of tree health along Boiler Swamp Road) to require the surveys to be undertaken to the satisfaction of Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action.
Amend MM-BD06 (Boiler Swamp Road assessment of losses) to require root investigations be informed by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist and an updated Native Vegetation Removal Report.
Amend MM-BD11 (Southern Bent-wing Bat Management) to refine the drafting and add or amend the following requirements:
Amend MM-BD10 (Australasian Bittern) to add a requirement for a before-after control-impact (BACI) study to provide a better understanding of potential wind farm impacts to movement behaviour and habitat use by the Australasian Bittern.
Amend MM-BD13 (Improved powerline visibility) to add a requirement for a review to be undertaken every five years to determine whether more effective diverters have become available and whether their use is warranted taking account of the results of mortality monitoring.
Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (The Discovery Bay Coastal Park)
Revise MM-LV01 (Public view locations in national and coastal parks) to require that a package of mitigations and offsets be approved by the responsible authority and to enable offsets to be provided within any or all the affected national and coastal parks.
Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (National Parks)
Revise MM-LV01 (Public view locations in national and coastal parks) to broaden the areas where mitigation and offsets might be provided.
Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (Local roads and agricultural land)
Revise MM-LV03 (On-site landscaping plan) to require analysis of the utility and possible location and depth of retained plantation buffers along Portland-Nelson Road.
Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (Maintaining mitigation and offset planting)
Amend MM-LV01 (Public view locations in national and coastal parks) to require the Proponent maintain additional plantings for 10 years.
Landscape Character and Visual Amenity (Shadow Flicker)
Amend MM-LV06 (Shadow flicker assessment) to require:
Noise and vibration (Noise and vibration assessment)
Amend MM-NV05 (Pre-construction wind turbine noise assessment) and MM-NV06 (Post-construction noise assessment) to apply High Amenity Area noise limits to campgrounds in natural areas surrounding the Project.
Noise and vibration (Construction noise and vibration)
Amend MM-NV01 (Construction noise and vibration management plan) to require refer to good environmental work practices, consistent with EPA Publication 1834.1 Civil construction, building and demolition guide, 12 September 2023.
Amend MM-TP02 (Traffic management plans) to include a reference to updated material in Ms Dunstan's evidence report (D79).
Amend MM-SE02 (Shared benefits strategy) to rename the Community Enhancement Plan to Community Benefit Program and to require community involvement in its management and governance
Amend MM-SE04 (Workforce Accommodation Management Plan) to require an update assessment of accommodation supply and to clarify the demand reduction step.
Amend MM-BF03 (Risk Management Plan) to require consideration of the model requirements in the Country Fire Authority Design Guidelines and Model Requirements, Renewable Energy Facilities (as amended from time to time) and to refer to automatic shut down of turbines.
Amend MM-BF04 (Operational Fire Emergency Management Plan) to refer to automatic shut down of turbines.
Require the Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Approve the Environmental Management Framework included at Appendix F:1 of this Report, subject to reviewing it for consistency and to address any consequential changes resulting from other recommendations in this Report.
Relocate the requirement to prepare the Quarry Work Plan from MM-NV03 to a new MM-QU01 to collocate it with the other Quarry Work Plan requirements.
Amend new MM-QU01 (Quarry Work Plan) to provide for a Quarry Work Plan or equivalent.
Include reference to the Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990 as relevant legislation in the primary approvals.
Amend Clause 7.16 to require the final offset strategy include details of the proposed security mechanism and to be agreed by DEECA.
Amend the Bird and Bat Adaptation Management Plan requirements to:
Amend the Brolga Monitoring and Compensation Plan requirements to:
Amend the Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan requirements to:
Amend the Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan requirements to:
Amend the Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan requirements to:
Amend the Independent Environmental Auditor requirements to:
Draft Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C116gelg
Amend draft Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C116gelg subject to reviewing it for consistency and to address any consequential changes resulting from other recommendations in this Report and to:
Review the recommended Kentbruck Green Power Hub Project Incorporated Document at Appendix F:2 for consistency and to address any consequential changes resulting from the recommendations in this Report.
Remove the following turbines unless pre-commissioning monitoring demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, in consultation with Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, that the risk to Brolgas is low: Turbines 12, 34, 35 and 42.
Remove the following turbines unless pre-commissioning monitoring demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning, in consultation with the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, that the risk to Australasian Bittern is low: Turbines 12, 34, 35, 42 and 112.
Adopt the underground southern option for the internal 275 kV transmission line or alternatively the central option subject to:
a) undergrounding all or parts of the central option to address bird impacts as required by the recommended Incorporated Document
b) considering other potential impacts arising from undergrounding all or part of the central option, including impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Appendix A has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation
Karen Oldaker on behalf of Nelson and surrounding community petition
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action
Barnaby Chessel SC, Alexander Guild, and Jordan Wright of Counsel, instructed by Joshua Dellios, Andrea Harwood and Dani Davidovits of Minter Ellison, who called expert evidence on:
Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action
Greg Tobin and Xander Nguyen Meacham of Harwood Andrews Lawyers
Greg Tobin and Xander Nguyen Meacham of Harwood Andrews Lawyers
Letter to Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) - Administrative errors in exhibited Environment Effects Statement (EES) documents
Email from Proponent to project mailing list regarding EES document updates (dated 19 February 2025)
Email from Proponent to project mailing list regarding EES document updates (dated 25 February 2025)
Letter from Proponent to Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) Impact Assessment Unit - Administrative errors in exhibited EES documents
Draft letter from Proponent to submitters outlining errors and corrections to exhibited EES documents (without prejudice)
Email from PPV to Proponent - Errors or omissions to the EES documents for exhibition
Letter to IAC - Notification of extension of EES exhibition
Letter from DTP Impact Assessment Unit to Proponent - Public comment extension (dated 5 March 2025)
Proponent - Neoen EES notice on changes to exhibition documents and extension - dated 5 March 2025
Kentbruck Green Power Hub IAC - Requests to be heard and key issues
Email to IAC - Procedural matter environmental presentations
Email to IAC - Procedural matter site visit locations
Email to IAC - Procedural matter site visit request
Email to IAC - Questions to be raised at the Directions Hearing
Email to IAC - Procedural matters Shaw River, Memorandum of Understanding, turbine groupings and maps of roads
Email to IAC - Procedural matters conflict of interest, DEECA and subject matter experts
Letter to IAC - Procedural matters draft directions, access and requested documentation
Email to IAC - Procedural matters visual and noise impacts
Email to IAC - Procedural matters proposed directions
Letter to IAC - Proponent response to Direction 4 and other requested matters, with attachments:
Letter to IAC - Nominations for site visit (Direction 15)
Email to IAC - Confirmation of experts (Direction 3)
Email to IAC - Nominations for site visit (Direction 15)
Letter to IAC - Nominations for site visit (Direction 15)
Email to IAC - Nominated attendees for site visit (Direction 15)
Email to IAC - Request to attend site visit (Direction 15) and other matters
Email to IAC - Further clarification of experts (Direction 3)
Letter to IAC - Request for leave to vary Direction 24
Email to IAC - Request to attend site visit (Direction 15)
Email to IAC - Nominations for site visit (Direction 15)
Letter to IAC - Response to matters raised by Nature Glenelg Trust (Direction 13)
Letter from Proponent - Document Sharing Platform details (Google Drive) (Direction 6)
Attachment 1 - Instructions for Document Sharing Platform (Google Drive)
Email to IAC - Request for copy of Sheldon 2004 report
Email to IAC - Request for raw data of EES Technical Appendix D Brolga Impact Assessment
Letter to IAC - Revised indicative hearing timetable
Attachment 1 - Revised indicative hearing timetable (updated Document 27a)
Email to Proponent - Response to request (D42) for copy of Sheldon 2004 report
Letter to IAC - Responses to Direction 19 (Shaw River, updated maps, Google Earth and powerlines)
Attachment 1 - Correct location and depiction of Shaw River (Direction 19(a)) (corrected)
Attachment 2 - Updated network maps of tracks public and smaller roads (Direction 19(b))
Google Earth KGPH Project layers (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Letter to IAC - Part A submission and expert evidence (Directions 20 and 24)
Expert Evidence statement of Ian Jennings (Aviation)
Expert Evidence statement of Mark Potter and Graeme Taylor (Bushfire)
Expert Evidence statement of Richard Bolt (Energy policy)
Email to Proponent - Response to request (D43) for raw data of Appendix D Brolga Impact Assessment
R Sheldon 2004 Honours thesis: Characterisation and modelling of Brolga (Grus rubicundus) flocking habitat in South-Western Victoria: Relationships between habitat characteristics, Brolga
Email to IAC - Request in regard to site visit pick up location
Letter to IAC - Site inspection itinerary, RFI and expert evidence
Technical Note 1 - RFI 1 - Construction staging (Direction 18)
Expert Evidence statement of Ricky Feldman (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage)
Expert Evidence statement of Rob Galbraith (Arboriculture)
Expert Evidence statement of Mark Venosta (Ecology)
Expert Evidence statement of Jon Fawcett (Groundwater and GDEs)
Expert Evidence statement of Peter Haack (Landscape and Visual)
Peter Haack - High resolution images from Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - Figures 1 to 31
Peter Haack - High resolution images from LVIA - Figures 32 to 50:
Peter Haack - High resolution images from LVIA - Figures 52 to 65:
Peter Haack - High resolution images from LVIA - Figures 66 to 93:
Peter Haack - Expert evidence statement - Appendix E - Comparative analysis of three wind turbine heights (high resolution figures):
Peter Haack - Expert evidence statement - Appendix F - Additional photo simulations and wireframe 3D model views (high resolution figures):
Expert Evidence statement of Christopher Delaire (Noise)
Expert Evidence statement of Ben Hughes (Surface water)
Expert Evidence statement of Charmaine Dunstan (Traffic)
Email from IAC to Submitter 73 - Response in regard to site visit pick up location request
Email from IAC to Proponent - Submitter 73 site visit pick up location request
Email from IAC to Submitter 212 - Response in regard to site visit arrangements request
Email to IAC - Request for an extension to provide expert evidence
Email to SOS Riverina - Response to request (D85) for an extension to provide expert evidence
Expert Evidence statement of John Glossop (Town planning)
Email to Submitter 212 - Response to site visit arrangements
Email to Proponent - Request from Submitter 212 site visit arrangements
Letter to IAC - Google earth overlays, road network and conflict of interest
Expert Evidence statement of Ivan Kennedy (windfarm wakes, drying landscapes and carbon positive nature)
Letter from NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure to Ivan Kennedy
Expert Evidence statement of Grant Piper (aerial fire fighting)
Expert Evidence statement of Grant Piper - supporting presentation
Expert Evidence statement of Aidan Morrison (energy policy analysis)
Email to IAC - Update regarding Submitter 212 site visit arrangements query
Letter to IAC - Responses to RFI, other materials, timetable correction and DEECA information
Technical Note 2 - RFI 2 - Transmission Line Options
Technical Note 5 - RFI 10 - Dr Van Harten peer review
Technical Note 7 - RFI 27 - Aboriginal cultural heritage
Technical Note 8 - RFI 42 & 43 - Electromagnetic Interference
Technical Note 10 - Mortality monitoring in a plantation setting
Email to IAC - Response to Submitter 62 request for raw data
Email to IAC - Video to support unaccompanied visits to key restored wetland sites
The role of historical sources in the restoration of Long Swamp, Discovery Bay, Victoria - Bachmann, M. R.
Restoration journey of the Piccaninnie Ponds Karst Wetlands, South Australia - Bachmann, M. R.
Wetland restoration case studies from the Discovery Bay Coast in South Australia and Victoria - AABR Forum
Email to Submitter 73 - Response to query regarding documentation
Email to IAC - Unaccompanied Wind Farm Tour Melbourne to Portland
Google Earth layer - Unaccompanied Wind Farm Tour Melbourne to Portland (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Email to Submitter 212 - Response to query on Google earth overlays, road network and conflict of interest
Email to Proponent - Matters raised by submitter 212 in Document 92
Email to IAC - Request for Transmission Line Basis of Design Report
Email to IAC - Proponents response to request for raw data
Letter from Proponent to Submitter 172 - Response to request for additional photo montages from public locations
Attachment 1 - Email from Submitter 172 and list of locations
Attachment 2 - Peter Haack's response to Submitter 172's list
Email to Proponent - Request for Transmission Line Basis of Design Report
Email to IAC - Request regarding spatial data format
Email to IAC - Flora and fauna clarification and further information requested
Letter to IAC - Part B submission, RFI responses and other materials
Part B submission - Attachment A - response to IAC RFIs
Part B submission - Attachment B - response to specific issues raised in submissions table
Part B submission - Attachment C - response to government agency and authority submissions
Technical Note 12 (Campground data) - Attachment 1 - Campground data analysis
Technical Note 12 (Campground data) - Attachment 2 - Raw data hike-in campgrounds
Technical Note 12 (Campground data) - Attachment 3 - Raw data main campgrounds
Technical Note 13 - Substation works within Brolga breeding buffer
Technical Note 15 (Offset strategy) - Attachment: Report of available native vegetation credits
Technical Note 15 (Offset strategy) - Attachment: Preliminary assessment of biodiversity offset sites
Addendum evidence statement of Rob Galbraith (Arboriculture)
Technical Note 14 - RFI 47 - Draft Planning Scheme Amendment
Technical Note 17 - RFI 14 and 15 - Southern Bent-wing Bat cost of curtailment
Technical Note 18 - RFI 13, 17, 21 and 22 - Matt Gibson (Ecology) responses
Technical Note 19 - RFI 16, 17 and 22 - Mark Venosta (Ecology) responses
Email to IAC - Preliminary matter - Regarding Mr Bolt's evidence addressing Ramsar concerns
Email to IAC - Documents referred to in Document 66
ARI Technical Report 389 - Assessment, mitigation and monitoring of onshore wind turbine collision impacts on wildlife
Foraging flights of the Southern Bent-wing Bat during two seasons Fact Sheet 2025
Email to IAC - Requesting to provide figure in Technical Note 18 - RFI 13 on a confidential basis
Email to IAC - Preliminary matter - Regarding incorrect reference in Document 52
Letter to IAC - Further response to Directions 21 and 22
Day 1 version - Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
Email to IAC - Response to Submitter 212 request for Transmission Line Basis Design Report
Downer (2022) Kentbruck Energy Park Transmission Line Basis of Design Report. Melbourne: Downer 2022
Email from Proponent to IAC - Responses to matters raised by Submitter 212 in Document 92
Kentbruck Green Power Hub Special Control Overlay (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Kentbruck Green Power Hub All Infrastructure (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Kentbruck Green Power Hub Quarry Location (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Email from Submitter 62 to IAC - Clarification on conflict of interest of DEECA in reduced Brolga Buffer
Letter from DEECA to IAC - Release and Publication of further materials
Wind Farm mitigation expert elicitation 2025 Summary Report
ARI Technical Report 394 Estimating the potential effectiveness of wind farm mitigations using structured expert elicitation
Comparison of pre and post construction wind farm survey results 2025 Summary Report
Flight height patterns of a critically endangered insectivorous bat impact by wind turbine collision - Determining flight height of Southern Bent-wing Bats
Email to IAC - Clarification required on Brolga Buffer permissioning by DEECA
Email to IAC - Requesting further clarification from the Proponent regarding the Downer (2022) Report
Email to IAC Attachment - Screenshot from Downer (2022) Report
Email to IAC - Requesting DEECA provide names of windfarms listed in Comparison of pre and post construction wind farm survey results 2025 Summary Report
[CONFIDENTIAL] Technical Note 18 - RFI 13 - Figure 2: Distribution of Southern Bent-wing Bat and locations of known maternity caves
Letter to IAC - Further response to RFI, expert presentations, hydrology and RAMSAR and native vegetation submissions and Accompanied site visit map book
Technical Note 20 - RFI 21 - Native Vegetation (A Organ response)
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - Ben Hughes (Surface water)
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - Jon Fawcett (Groundwater and GDE)
Attachment to RAMSAR and Hydrology submission - RAMSAR site Management Plan (DELWP, 2017)
Attachment to RAMSAR and Hydrology submission - Matters of National Environmental Significance impact guidelines (MNES Guidelines) (Commonwealth, 2013)
Attachment to native vegetation submission - Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (NV Guidelines) DELWP, 2017
Attachment to native vegetation submission - Permitted clearing of native vegetation Biodiversity assessment handbook - v1.0 (Assessment Handbook)
Attachment to native vegetation submission - Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of Trees Development sites (AS 4970)
Email to IAC - Request for Clarification regarding consideration of change in KGPH ownership
Email to IAC - Request for a copy of Brett Lane and Associates (BLA 2018) Database
Email from IAC to Submitter 89 - Response regarding request for clarification for consideration of change in KGPH ownership
Email from Proponent to IAC - Approximate SCO widths along Boiler Swamp Rd
Screenshots of SCO width at example locations on Boiler Swamp Road
Email from Proponent to IAC - Low thermal resistivity cementitious grout fact sheet
BluCem EA55 - Low thermal resistivity cementitious grout
Email to IAC - Questions of clarification regarding pre and post construction wind farm survey results 2025 Summary Report
Email to IAC - Follow up request for clarification on Brolga buffer permissioning by DEECA
Letter to IAC - Release and Publication of Handbook for the development of renewable energy in Victoria
Handbook for the development of renewable energy in Victoria - DEECA 29 May 2025 (Corrected version)
Letter from Submitter 73 - Submissions requesting further information from Proponent
Email to IAC - Technical Note 21 and Bushfire history
Letter to IAC - Submissions on matters raised at Day of the Hearing regarding Boiler Swamp Road, Cobboboonee National Park transmission line construction impact
Responses of Ben Hughes (surface water) to Parks Victoria's questions dated 28 May 2025
Email to IAC - Questions of clarification regarding proposed wind tower numbering for site visit map book and other matters
Attachment to email to IAC - Bushwalking news email
Email to IAC - Questions of clarification on Direction 37 - Questioning of experts
Email to Submitter 82 and Parties - Response to questions of clarification on Direction 37 - questioning of experts
Letter to IAC - Late request to be heard from Submitter 196
Technical Note 16 - Technology for monitoring detection and curtailment
Technical Note 22 - Responses to RFIs 5, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24 - A Organ (Ecology) responses
Technical Note 23 - RFI 5 and 8 (Sensitive ecological receptors and SBWB)
Technical Note 24 - RFI 20 - Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan (BBAMP)
Attachment 1 to Technical Note 24 - Updated draft BBAMP (D228)
Attachment A to Technical Note 25 - CIS Tender 1 Guidelines
Attachment B to Technical Note 25 - Email from VicGrid of 30 May 2025
Email to IAC - Submissions regarding potential conflicts of interest and attendance of DEECA subject-matter experts
Email to IAC - notification of additional fauna and flora records available in VBA
Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, Survey Reports - NGT Incidental records - Glenelg River Estuary and Long Swamp - May 2025
Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, Survey Reports - NGT Incidental records - Glenelg River Estuary and Long Swamp - June 2025
Attachment 1 to Technical Note 26 - B Lane search results (2018)
Submissions on arboreal, terrestrial and aquatic fauna
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - M Gibson (Native vegetation
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - M Gibson (Terrestrial, arboreal and aquatic fauna)
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - A Organ (Ecology)
Glenelg Planning Scheme - Clause 12.01 Biodiversity
Glenelg Planning Scheme - Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility
Glenelg Planning Scheme - Schedule to Clause 52.32 Wind Energy Facility
Assessors handbook Applications to remove, lop or destroy native vegetation - V1.1 October 2018
Email to IAC - Seeking clarification regarding Proponents response to D211
Email to IAC - question regarding VC212 Planning Provision
National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus, Commonwealth of Australia, 2022
National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus orianae bassanii, DELWP, 2020
Interim Guidelines for the Assessment, Avoidance, Mitigation and Offsetting of Potential Wind Farm Impacts on the Victorian Brolga Population, 2011 (DSE, revision 1, 2012)
Conservation advice - Australasian Bittern, Threatened Species Scientific Committee under the EPBCA, 18 January 2019
Conservation advice - Southern Bent-wing Bat, Threatened Species Scientific Committee under the EPBCA, 14 June 2021
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - M Gibson (SBWB)
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - M Venosta (Ecology)
Breeding home range movements of pre-fledged brolga chicks, Antigone rubicunda (Gruidae) in Victoria, Australia e Implications for wind farm planning and conservation - Veltheim et al 2019
Partial migration of Brolgas (Antigone rubicunda) within a restricted range is revealed by GPS tracking - Veltheim et al 2022
Interim Guidelines for the Assessment, Avoidance, Mitigation and Offsetting of Potential Wind Farm Impacts on the Victorian Brolga Population, 2011 (DSE, revision 1, 2012)
Brolga RMIT Professor Stone - Comment on Biosis Collision Risk Modelling
Berrybank Wind farm Brolga Report 1 and Preamble insert
Codrington and Yambuk Post Completion Report - with preamble email
Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Brolga Report - Documents for release p23 44 Including preamble insert
DEECA GPS Tracking Red Bird Confirmed Breeding 2024
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 No.119 BROLGA
Email from Submitter 82 to IAC - Supporting document for questions of experts
Email to IAC - question of clarification regarding MM-BD07 reference to AS4970.2009 requirement
Technical Note 28 - Update on investigations of offset Blocks 6 and 7
Technical Note 29 - RFI 23 - Brolga peer review comments (R Loyn)
How far are birds, bats, and terrestrial mammals displaced from onshore wind power development - a systematic review - Tolvanen et al 2023
Several groups of birds and mammals avoid wind turbines - Natural Resources Institute Finland
Bird displacement by wind turbines: Assessing Current Knowledge and Recommendations for future studies - Marques 2021
Stockyard Hill Wind Farm Bird & Bat Impact assessment - Biosis 2016
Dundonnell Wind Farm First Year Annual Report - Biosis - 2022
Dundonnell 2014 Brolga assessment Vol2 Annex M DDWF Brolga Report
Dundonnell Wind Farm Bat and Avifauna Management Plan Year 1 Report Final
Salt Creek Wind Farm BAM Plan Year 1 Report - endorsed
Salt Creek Wind Farm BAM Plan Year 2 Report submitted
Bennett et al (2022) Curtailment as a successful method for reducing bat mortality at a southern Australian (full article of D293)
Email to IAC - Regarding the Proponents response to D211
Email to IAC - Clarification to question regarding VC212 (D254)
Addendum of R Galbraith - regarding updated AS 4970:2025
Penshurst Wind Farm: Targeted Fauna assessment report (draft), May 2011 - Biosis Report
Brett Lane Associates 2008 superseded by signed 2010 statement - Brolga Breeding Nesting Sites including unpublished data 20 July 2009
Movements behaviour and ecology of the brolga, Antigone rubicunda, at multiple spatial and temporal scales - Phd Thesis - Veltheim 2018
Letter to IAC - Notice to ask questions of expert witness on Brolga impact assessment and attached email chain
Email referred to by A Organ during Hearing - Email correspondence between EHP and M Herring on 10 April 2025
Letter to IAC - Notice to ask questions of expert witness on visual impact and attachments
Addendum report of Peter Haack (Landscape and Visual)
Attachment to addendum of P Haack - Photosimulation of view from Portland-Nelson Road to the Project and Wind monitoring mast
Attachment to addendum of P Haack - Photosimulation of view from Portland-Nelson Road to the Southwest and the Project
Attachment to addendum to P Haack - Photosimulation of view from the residence at 611 Bridgewater Lakes Road to Northwest
Attachment to addendum of P Haack - Wireframe 3D model view - View from the residence at 611 Bridgewater Lakes Road to Northwest
Attachment to addendum of P Haack - Wireframe 3D model view from Portland-Nelson Road to the Project and Wind Monitoring mast
Attachment to addendum of P Haack - Wireframe 3D model view from Port-Nelson Road to the Southwest and the Project
Expert Evidence Summary Presentation - M Gibson (Other birds & GFF)
EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 Industry guidelines for avoiding assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebirds species
Expert evidence summary presentation of R Feldman (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage)
Expert evidence summary presentation of G Weston (Social impacts)
Email to IAC - Questions for Proponent regarding powerline bird deflector product
Email to IAC - Questions on migratory bird evidence
Technical Note 31 - RFI 36 - Landscape character and visual amenity mitigation measures
Letter to IAC - Submissions on Boiler Swamp and attached National Park Plan 112 and Cobboboonee Forest Park Plan
ARI Technical Report 302 Investigation of existing post construction monitoring at Victorian wind farms
Updated Species concern list for Victoria - relevant to onshore wind energy facilities (2024) - DEECA
Submissions on landscape, visual, shadow flicker and blade glint
Panel Report - Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C52
Expert evidence summary presentation - P Haack (landscape & visual)
Assessment of IDF Avian Detection System - Feb 2022
Cattle Hill Wind Farm - Annual Environmental Review 2024
Expert evidence summary presentation - M Potter & G Taylor (bushfire)
Questions for Mr Organ, Mr Venosta and Mr Gibson on migratory birds
Expert evidence summary presentation - J Glossop (planning)
CFA Design Guidelines and Model Requirements, Renewable Energy Facilities v4, August 2023
Background Report: Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment study
Expert evidence presentation of P Haack (version shared on screen on 18.06.25)
Letter to IAC - Regarding Visual Impact expert evidence and Glenelg River declared Heritage River area
Email to IAC - Response to electromagnetic interference impacts and land mobile radio systems used by the CFA
Letter to IAC - Submission of aviation and noise documents
Expert evidence summary presentation - Ian Jennings (Aviation)
Video on slide 14 of Ian Jennings aviation presentation (file not compatible with Engage Vic. But note a link to the video can be found in D355).
Technical Note 35 - Turbine numbering coordinates and elevations
Expert evidence summary presentation - Christopher Delaire (Noise)
Email to Proponent - Questions on additional montages undertaken by Peter Haack
Letter from DEECA & PV to Proponent - Further information installation of infrastructure Boiler Swamp Rd - 5 June 2025
Email from DEECA & PV to the Proponent - Follow up of questions - 10 June 2025
Letter from Proponent to DEECA & PV - Response to questions installation of infrastructure Boiler Swamp Rd - 13 June 2025
Expert evidence summary presentation - Charmaine Dunstan (Traffic)
Screenshots of VBA uploads shared by M Gibson on 10 June 2025
Appendix O and L locations shared on screen by the Proponent
Email to IAC - Questions for Charmaine Dunstan (Traffic)
Email to IAC - Documents for reference in questioning Charmaine Dunstan (Traffic)
Google worksheet cross reference turbine ID numbering for Appendix M, O and L (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Google earth data layer updated for the turbine locations Appendix M
Email from PPV - Response to Submitter 62 request for copy of Venosta et al 2011
Email to IAC - Request for extension to provide revised EMF and PSA
Day 2 version - Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
Table of changes proposed to the Proponent's updated draft Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan (BBAMP)
Technical Note 36 - Lake Mombeong landscape mitigation measures
Letter to IAC - Road transport impact & Great South West Walk
Analysis of Aaron Organ on pre and post construction assessment and monitoring materials
Response of Mr Gibson to analysis of Mr Organ on pre and post construction results
Response of Mr Venosta to analysis of Mr Organ on pre and post construction results
Technical Note 37 - Reconciliation of DTP condition requests
Technical Note 38 - Trees impacted on Boiler Swamp Rd
Response to outstanding requests for information (RFI)
Email to IAC - No longer available to appear at hearing
Email to IAC - Clarification on identify of Proponent
Email to Submitter 73 - Response to clarification on identify of Proponent
Email to Submitter 196 - Confirming withdrawal of submission
Letter to IAC - updated RFI response table and correction to EMF (D378)
Day 2A version - Environmental Management Framework (EMF)
Email to IAC - Additional materials for Park Victorias submission
Colac Pipeline Upgrade EPBC self-assessment report Barwon Water - 31 Aug 2022
2022-09343-Correction-Notice - Variation of conditions Colac Pipeline Upgrade
Hearing Statement with Appendices (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal case and draft conditions)
Has Seasonal Ocean Calcification Been Overlooked as a Cause of the Increasing Keeling Curve - published 10 June 2025
Letter to IAC - Response on UK Institute of Air Quality Management guidance
Response from AECOM regarding 2024 IAQM Guidance dated 1 July 2025
Attachment B - Brolga Movements and Spatial Requirements During Breeding, south-west Victoria dated November 2013
Understanding AGL's Utilisation of habitat by Brolga within the vicinity of the Macarthur wind farm 2013, by Hamish Cumming, dated 2 December 2014
Article - The 'rule' Aussies must follow if they see one of world's rarest creatures
Ararat Wind Farm - Bird and Bat Monitoring Program - First Year annual report April 2017 to March 2018
Ararat Wind Energy Facility - Panel Report - September 2010
Letter from Proponent - Concerns in regard to Natural Glenelg Trust materials
Kentbruck Green Power Hub Community Information - Brochure Friday 12 August 2022
Email to Parties - Invited comments from Council and CFA
Letter to IAC - Emails between MinterEllison and M Herring - 9 and 10 April 2025
Email to Save our Surroundings Riverina - Response to letters from CASA regarding obstacle lighting of Wind Turbine
Animation of Veltheim GPS data from VBA south of Skipton Nov 2010 to Dec 2011 (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Email to Submitter 191 - IAC response to request to accept another submission
Letter to Proponent regarding questions Nature Glenelg Trust submission
Comments on Proponents Day 2A Environmental Management Framework (D400)
Hearing Cockatoo audio (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Letter to DEECA seeking comment on particular matters
Comments on Proponents EMF and Incorporated Document
Email to IAC - Comments on Proponents Day 2 EMF and Incorporated Document
Email to Nature Glenelg Trust - IAC Response to supplementary material on Southern Bent-Wing Bat
Email Submitter 62 - IAC Response to request for DEECA clarification
Hearing presentation - Attachment 2 - Climate-related Disclosures - Australian Sustainability Reporting Standard
Hearing presentation - Attachment 3 - Australian Aluminium Council Submission to DCCEEW Response to Safeguard Mechanism Reform 24 Feb 2023
Hearing presentation - Attachment 4 - transcript William Oplinger, ALCOA President & CEO Alcoa Melbourne Mining Club Transcript 1 May 2025
Hearing presentation - Attachment 5 - transcript Meg O'Neill CEO & MD, Woodside Energy Melbourne Mining Club Transcript 6 Feb 2025
Hearing presentation - Attachment 6 - AS4970:2025 Protection of Trees on Development sites
Hearing presentation - Attachment 7 - Lower Glenelg National Park Proposed Management Plan Dec 1988 (extracts from)
Hearing presentation - Attachment 8 - Land Conservation Council Victoria, report on South Western Study Area August 1972 (extracts from)
Hearing presentation - Attachment 9 - Hansard, Heritage Rivers Act 1992, Member for Portland, Dr Napthine, House of Assembly
Hearing presentation - Attachment 10 - Australian Taxation Office, Corporate Tax Transparency report for Portland Smelter Owners
Hearing presentation - Attachment 11 - Landscape Character Types of Victoria: With Frames of Reference for Scenic Quality Assessment, Mike Leonard, Richard Hammond. 1984(extracts from)
Hearing presentation - Attachment 13 - Press Releases and Media Articles relating to Portland Smelter establishment, electricity contracts, operation, sustainability and future
Hearing presentation - Attachment 14 - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal planning permit appeal decision for Cape Bridgewater Windfarm - Hislop & Ors v Glenelg SC Hislop & Ors (VICCAT 1138 15 Oct 1998)
Hearing recording (file not compatible with Engage Vic)
Day 3 version - Incorporated Document (tracked and clean versions)
Email to IAC - Response to question on interference occurring with radios
Attachment 1 - Golden Plains Incorporated Document (May 2022)
Attachment 3 - Closing Submission - Kaiwaikawe Wind Farm - conditions
Attachment 4 - Closing Submission - Kaiwaikawe Wind Farm - decision
Attachment 5 - Closing Submission - M Gibson additional response to submissions
M Gibson response to IAC questions in D450 regarding NGT submission
A Organ response to IAC questions in D450 regarding NGT submission
Comments on Proponent Day 3 EMF and Incorporated Document
Comments on Proponent Day 3 EMF and Incorporated Document
Comments on Proponent Day 3 EMF and Incorporated Document
Comments on Proponents Day 3 EMF and Incorporated Document
Day 4 version - Incorporated Document (tracked and clean versions)
Letter from Proponent - Response to query in regard to MM-BF03
Table 30 details the key legislation for each of the draft evaluation objectives. Relevant legislation and regulations are discussed as relevant to each environmental effect chapter in Part B of this Report.
Table 30 Draft evaluation objectives and key legislation
The Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth) includes the following objectives at section 3:
(aa) to advance an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change drawing on the best available scientific knowledge; and
(a) to set out Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets which contribute to the global goals of:
(i) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre‑industrial levels; and
(ii) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre‑industrial levels; and
(b) to promote accountability and ambition by requiring the Minister to:
(ii) cause copies of those statements to be tabled in each House of the Parliament; and
(c) to ensure that independent advice from the Climate Change Authority informs:
(i) the preparation of annual climate change statements; and
(ii) the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets to be included in a new or adjusted nationally determined contribution.
It establishes the following net greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets:
The Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) (sections 22 and 23) requires government decision making to take into account the relevant policy objectives and principles, as detailed below:
(a) to reduce the State's greenhouse gas emissions consistently with the long-term emissions reduction target and interim emissions reduction targets; and
(b) to build the resilience of the State's infrastructure, built environment and communities through effective adaptation and disaster preparedness action; and
(c) to manage the State's natural resources, ecosystems and biodiversity to promote their resilience; and
(d) to promote and support the State's regions, industries and communities to adjust to the changes involved in the transition to a net zero greenhouse gas emissions economy, including capturing new opportunities and addressing any impacts arising from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy; and
(e) to support vulnerable communities and promote social justice and intergenerational equity.
(a) should be based on a comprehensive analysis of the best practicably available information about the potential impacts of climate change that is relevant to the decision, policy, program or process under consideration; and
(b) should take into account the potential contribution to the State's greenhouse gas emissions.
The Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) establishes a long-term emissions reduction of net zero by 2050, and requires interim targets be set every 5 years. Current targets include:
Section 20 of the Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) states:
The Government of Victoria will endeavour to ensure that any decision made by the Government and any policy, program or process developed or implemented by the Government appropriately takes account of climate change if it is relevant by having regard to the policy objectives and the guiding principles.
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 objectives include:
2(da) to provide for explicit consideration of the policies and obligations of the State relating to climate change, including but not limited to greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and the need to increase resilience to climate change, when decisions are made about the use and development of land.
The Glenelg Planning Scheme includes the following policy provisions relating to climate change:
Victoria's Climate Change Strategy (May 2021) is the first in a series of five yearly roadmap to help achieve net-zero emissions and climate resilience by 2045. It includes actions to transition to clean energy, invest in innovative technologies, safeguard the role of the natural environment in reducing emissions and to support business and communities to cut emissions and thrive in a net-zero emissions future.
The Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan (May 2014) identifies potential impacts of climate change and the need to address challenges across the environment, economy and social sectors.
The Victorian Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017 (Vic) legislates the following renewable energy generation targets:
While Clause 19.01-2S refers to the 2021 version of the Wind Energy Guidelines, the Proponent and its experts relied on the more recently released 2023 version. The 2023 document was considered by the IAC in its assessment however it is not incorporated into the Glenelg Planning Scheme and does not apply to the Project.
The Planning Guidelines for Development Wind Energy Facilities, DTP, September 2023 (Wind Energy Guidelines) include:
In identifying suitable locations for wind energy facilities the Wind Energy Guidelines state:
Wind energy facilities should not lead to unacceptable impacts on critical environmental, cultural or landscape values. Critical values are those protected under Commonwealth and Victorian legislation and assets of state or regional significance, mapped and recognised through planning schemes, including the Planning Policy Framework.[97]
Assessment of location suitability needs to consider:
The Wind Energy Guidelines state that wind energy facilities must be assessed against planning policy and other matters in the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Specifically:
A responsible authority should endeavour to balance environmental, social and economic matters in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
Relevant matters for consideration when assessing wind energy facility proposals include:[98]
The objects of the EPBC Act include (among others) to provide for the protection of the environment, especially aspects that are matters of Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and promote ecologically sustainable development.
The FFG Act provides a framework for conserving threatened species and ecological communities and managing processes that may threaten biodiversity in Victoria.
The land use planning framework, for example, provides a good opportunity to ensure that biodiversity is integrated early in decision-making processes.
Clause 02.03-2 (Environmental and landscape values) seeks to "encourage development that is subordinate to the natural, visual and environmental landscape character and significance"
Marine and coastal environment and national/coastal parks
The Project is within the marine and coastal environment, as defined by section 5 of the Marine and Coastal Act 2018. Accordingly, the Project must consider the objectives of planning and management of the marine and coastal environment including to (among others):
The Marine and Coastal Act 2018 includes guiding principles relating to integrated coastal zone management, ecosystem based planning, ecologically sustainable development, evidence-based decision making, precautionary principle, proportionate and risk based approach to management and regulation and adaptive management.
The national and coastal parks in the Project area are managed under the National Parks Act 1975. The objects of the act include (among others) to make provision for the:
The Marine and Coastal Policy (March 2020) sets objectives and guiding principles for the planning and management of the state's marine and coastal environment. It identifies drivers of change, including climate change, and sets out a planning and decision pathway to guide application of the Marine and Coastal Act 2018, including application of the guiding principles. The Marine and Coastal Strategy 2022 supports implementation of the vision of the policy with a five-year action plan.
Ngootyoong Gunditj Ngoootyoong Mara South West Management Plan (May 2015) is the approved management plan for a network of parks and reserves in south-west Victoria, including the national and coastal parks in the Project area. The applies to more than 130 parks and reserves and sets strategic direction for the protection of cultural landscapes, biodiversity and visitor values.
The following EMF includes the IAC's recommended changes based on the Proponent's final version (D499)
This Environmental Management Framework (EMF) has been developed to provide a transparent and consistent framework for managing environmental risk and mitigating adverse effects of the Kentbruck Green Power Hub (the Project). Development of this EMF was guided by the Scoping Requirements for Kentbruck Green Power Hub Environment Effects Statement (Scoping Requirements), as described in Section 19.1.1, and relevant legislation, policy and guidelines including the statutory approvals and consents that will be required for the Project.
The EMF outlines clear accountabilities for the delivery of the Project in accordance with the mitigation measures (MMs) and compliance with relevant environmental laws, approvals, approval conditions, environmental management plans (EMPs) and procedures. Successfully implemented, the EMF will ensure that the environmental risks and potential impacts of the Project are effectively managed.
Each technical assessment prepared for this Environment Effects Statement (EES) provides recommendations for appropriate MMs to be adopted by the Project. The measures proposed to be adopted by the Project are detailed in Chapters 7-18 of this EES and have informed preparation of this EMF.
The EMF also outlines the procedures to be followed for the preparation, review, approval and implementation of environmental management plans and procedures. It provides for the regular review and updating of these plans and procedures, as well as independent monitoring, auditing, and reporting of compliance. The roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders are defined to ensure that there are clear accountabilities for the implementation of environmental management requirements for the Project.
This chapter responds to Section 3.7 of the Scoping Requirements, which requires that an EMF be prepared as part of the EES documentation to provide a transparent framework with clear accountabilities for managing and monitoring the environmental effects and hazards associated with the construction and operational phases of the Project.
The Scoping Requirements specify that the EMF will describe baseline environmental conditions to allow evaluation of the residual environmental effects of the Project, as well as the efficacy of applied environmental management and contingency measures. The entity responsible for approval of management/environmental plans will also be identified. These two requirements are addressed in Section 19.3 and Section 19.4.1, respectively.
In accordance with Section 3.7 of the Scoping Requirements, the EMF described in this chapter includes the following:
An important aspect of the EMF is ongoing community consultation, stakeholder engagement and communications during construction and operation of the Project. The EMF also sets the procedures for the following:
Neoen Australia Pty Ltd (The Proponent) has prepared a Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) which details the stakeholders relevant to the Project and how the Proponent has and will continue to engage with each stakeholder throughout the Project's lifetime. The CSEP sets out the strategy and procedure for identifying and engaging with stakeholders, enabling matters raised to be considered and addressed as appropriate, to ensure interests and concerns are adequately reflected in the final design and operational approach of the Project and regulatory compliance requirements for stakeholder consultation are met. The EMF requires that the CSEP be kept up-to-date throughout the Project's lifetime. Further information about the Proponent's engagement approach and activities is provided in EES Chapter 6 Community and stakeholder engagement.
Section 19.4 of this EMF lists the mitigation measures proposed in earlier chapters of the EES (EES Chapters 7-18) to address specific issues. Each of the relevant management plans will describe the proposed objectives, indicators, and monitoring requirements to manage and address the Scoping Requirements.
An overview of the statutory approvals and consents required for the Project is provided in Table 19.1. Detailed information on the assessment framework is provided in EES Chapter 5 Assessment and approvals framework. All necessary consents will be obtained at the appropriate project phase and in accordance with the requisite legislation.
Table 19.1: Statutory approvals and consents required for the Project
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water
Approval under the EPBC Act will set out conditions for the Project to comply with, which will be included in the relevant management plans and sub-plans prepared for the Project.
Planning Scheme Amendment (Specific Controls Overlay and Incorporated Document) to the Glenelg Planning Scheme (the Planning Scheme)
The Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA), if approved by the Minister, will introduce a Specific Controls Overlay into the Planning Scheme, and give effect to an Incorporated Document.
Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (GMTOAC)
An approved CHMP will include conditions to manage impacts of the Project and protect Aboriginal cultural heritage. This will be implemented for the construction phase of the Project and referenced in sub plans required by the EMF.
Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (MRSD Act) /Mineral Resources and Extractive Industries Act 1990
The QWP will detail construction and operational requirements of Earth Resources Regulation Victoria (DEECA). This plan sits outside of the conditions of the Incorporated Document and is prepared by the Proponent to operate in conjunction with the approved management plans.
Consent to allow for construction and operation of the transmission line within Cobboboonee National Park
The Project is seeking consent from Parks Victoria under section 27 of the NP Act for the development and operation of the portion of the transmission line to which this act applies. This consent application will be prepared on the basis that the relevant mitigation measures outlined in this EMF will apply to the development of the transmission line and will be reflected in the consent (along with any other conditions imposed by Parks Victoria).
Licence to allow for construction and operation of the transmission line within Cobboboonee Forest Park
Victorian Minister for Environment and Climate Action
The Project is seeking a licence under the Forests Act 1958 for a portion of the transmission line corresponding with land to which this act applies.
Measures to manage impacts on species listed under the FFG Act are detailed in management plans and sub-plans in the EMF and are also included in the conditions of the Incorporated Document.
Permit required to remove, salvage, capture or relocate fauna
Fauna management sub-plans are identified in this EMF and are also included in the Incorporated Document plans and sub-plans.
Permit to undertake works on a waterway or to a bore
Procedures and measures for limiting impacts on waterways are contained within the plans and associated management sub-plans described in the EMF.
Head, Transport for Victoria for Portland-Nelson Road, Bridgewater Road, Madeira Packet Road and Henty Highway
Operation on these nominated roads and management of traffic is included in a Traffic Management Plan nominated in this EMF.
The Environment Protection Act 2017 (EP Act) came into effect in July 2021. The EP Act includes a general environmental duty (GED) that applies to all Victorians. The GED is a statutory obligation under the EP Act.
The approach described in this EMF has been prepared to address this requirement and to ensure environmental management of the Project is undertaken in a manner which is consistent with the GED.
Delivery of the Project would be facilitated primarily by the insertion of an Incorporated Document into the Glenelg Planning Scheme through a planning scheme amendment.
The purpose of the Incorporated Document is to facilitate the use and development of the Project which includes a wind energy facility and utility installation (transmission line) on land shown as Specific Controls Overlay (SCO10XX) of the Planning Scheme and is made pursuant to section 6(2)(j) of the P&E Act. A draft Incorporated Document is attached at Appendix A of Planning Scheme Amendment documents (EES Technical Appendix Y).
Clause 7.1 of the draft Incorporated Document requires Development Plans to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning prior to commencement of any buildings and works associated with the Project (excluding the preparatory buildings and works under Clauses 7.32 and 7.33 of the draft Incorporated Document).
Clause 7.8 of the draft Incorporated Document requires preparation of an EMF for the Project to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning prior to the commencement of any buildings or works associated with the Project (excluding preparatory works permitted under Clauses 7.326 and 7.337of the draft Incorporated Document). Clause 7.8 of the draft Incorporated Document requires that the EMF include management measures that are applicable to the design, construction, and operations of the Project.
Clause 7.1 of the draft Incorporated Document requires Development Plans to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning prior to commencement of any buildings and works associated with the Project (excluding the preparation buildings and works under Clauses 7.32 and 7.33 of the draft Incorporated Document). Clause 7.8 of the draft Incorporated Document requires that the EMF include the processes and indicative timing for development of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), an Operationsal Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), a Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP) and associated sub-plans.
The Proponent is responsible for preparation of the EES and obtaining primary statutory approvals for the Project, including approval under the EPBC Act, and for the PSA, CHMP, and QWP. The Proponent is responsible for preparing the final EMF following assessment of the EES and prior to or alongside the issuing of Project primary approvals by the relevant statutory authorities. The draft EMF will be placed on public exhibition alongside the EES package.
The Proponent is responsible for preparing the final EMF following assessment of the EES and prior to or alongside the issuing of Project primary approvals by the relevant statutory authorities. The final EMF will contain a consolidated list of mitigation measures. The final mitigation measures, and the associated regime of plans, controls, and responsibilities, will be given statutory weight through the PSA including the iIncorporated dDocument.
Subject to secondary approval determinations, the Proponent will introduce the Project to the market for construction and operation. Secondary approvals, design, construction, operation and decommissioning phase management measures will be the responsibility of the Proponent and its contractors to implement and monitor.
While details have not yet been confirmed, the Proponent will likely enter into one or more design and construct contracts with contractor(s) that have existing environmental management systems (accredited to AS/NZS ISO 14001:2016 Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use). The contractor (or contractors) appointed would be required to prepare a CEMP, OEMP and DEMP consistent with this EMF and their own environmental management system.
The CEMP, OEMP and DEMP would be required to be prepared in a manner that meets, at a minimum, the requirements of all relevant environmental laws, approvals, approval conditions, this EMF and the MMs. The Proponent would be responsible for ensuring the requirements of these approvals and the EMF are implemented.
The Proponent will be responsible for overseeing and engaging contractors and technical specialists across the life of the Project.
As detailed in EES Chapter 6 (Volume 1), the Proponent will be responsible for implementing consultation and engagement activities throughout the Project's lifecycle. The Proponent will be responsible for reporting compliance and / or environmental management performance to all relevant regulators, as required, under each approval or relevant statutory instrument.
The roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders relevant to the environmental management of the Project are outlined in Table 19.2.
Table 19.2: Environmental management roles and responsibilities
Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (GMTOAC)
The baseline environmental conditions to be used to monitor and evaluate the residual environmental effects of the Project are summarised in each technical assessment chapter of the EES (EES Chapters 7-18). Each technical chapter is supported by one or more specialist technical study. These reports provide a more detailed description of the existing (pre-development) conditions on site and have been attached to this EES as appendices (EES Technical Appendices C-W).
The baseline data and existing conditions will be incorporated into the EMS to inform monitoring and evaluation of the residual environmental effects.
An environmental risk register will must be developed by the Proponent prior to construction commencing to identify environmental impacts and risks of the proposed activities and assess the mitigation measures to ensure impacts and risks will be are managed to 'as low as reasonably practicable' (ALARP). The risk assessment process will must be consistent with the Australian and New Zealand Standard for Risk Management (AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018, Risk Management - Principles and Guidelines).
The environmental risk register will must be regularly reviewed and updated in response to changes to design, construction or operational activities, work methods, new technology, legislation and policy, or the occurrence of incidents or complaints.
Impact assessments were undertaken as part of the 20 technical studies prepared for this EES, involving an assessment of the nature and extent of identified impacts that the Project may have on the existing environment. Several factors were taken into consideration when determining the significance of potential impacts on social and environmental values, including the magnitude, spatial extent, and duration of potential impacts.
MMs were recommended to the Proponent by each technical specialist based on the results of each impact assessment, aiming to avoid, minimise, manage, or offset potential environmental, social and safety impacts. The Proponent has reviewed the recommended mitigation measures in the EES technical studies and has adopted a comprehensive set of measures to manage potential impacts from the Project, as described throughout EES Chapters 7-18 of the EES and collated in Table 19.3. The Project will must be delivered in accordance with these proposed mitigation measures.
The mitigation measures in Table 19.3 are listed in the same order that they appear in the EES chapters.
Develop, implement and maintain an Environmental Management System (EMS) for use through the design, construction and operation of the Project that conforms with AS/NZS ISO 14001:2016 Environmental Management Systems - requirements with guidance for use.
Develop, implement and maintain an Environment Management Framework (EMF) as described in this document and in any applicable clauses of the Incorporated Document.
Prepare and implement a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Operational Environmental Management Plan (OEMP), and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP), and other plans, as required by the mitigation measures and in accordance with the EMF.
Deliver Project in accordance with an Environment Management System EMS and EMF.
Construction Environmental Management Plan Boiler Swamp Road
Before development starts, a Construction Environmental Management Plan for Boiler Swamp Road (BSRCEMP) will must be developed to the satisfaction of DEECA Regions and Bushfire Forest Services and be endorsed by the responsible authority. The BSRCEMP may be varied with the written consent of the responsible authority. The BSRCEMP must address the following matters:
Before any native vegetation is removed, a Native Vegetation Plan (NVP) will must be prepared in consultation with the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, (DEECA Regions) and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Specific measures to be included in the NVP include:
To prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens, all vehicles must be made free of soil, seed and plant material before being taken to the works site and again before being taken from the works site, during and on completion of the Project.
Assessment of tree health along Boiler Swamp Road
If the proponent wishes to be eligible to reconcile offset credits provided against actual native vegetation losses, the following surveys must be carried out on trees adjacent to Boiler Swamp Road to assess for tree health (to the satisfaction of DEECA):
The purpose of this assessment is to compare changes in tree health and assess the extent of any tree deaths that can be attributed to the construction of the transmission line. If more offset credits were secured pursuant to the final offset strategy required by the Incorporated Document than what was needed as determined by the further post-construction survey conducted between 24 and 30 months after completion of construction, offset requirements can be reconciled with the agreement of DEECA Regions.
Trees not requiring direct removal will must be protected in appropriately marked Tree Protection Zones in accordance with AS 4970:2025 Protection of trees on development sites.
Any tree pruning required will must be undertaken by an experienced arborist to ensure unnecessary damage does not occur to the tree. Understorey vegetation will must be protected during tree pruning.
Any pruning to the canopy or major structural branches of any tree to be retained must be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard 4373-2007 - Pruning of Amenity Trees.
Best practice methods for weed and pest animal control, such as vehicle and machinery hygiene, will must be implemented in collaboration with relevant landowners and land management authorities. These methods will must be documented in the Biosecurity Management Plan (BMP), to be prepared as part of the CEMP.
The BMP will must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and in consultation with Agriculture Victoria, and DEECA Regions and Parks Victoria where it relates to works associated with the underground transmission line in the Cobboboonee National Park and Cobboboonee Forest Park.
Construction activities for the underground transmission line along Boiler Swamp Road will must be limited to the existing road formation.
Before any native vegetation is removed and before the preparation of the Native Vegetation Plan required by MM-BD01 a report must be prepared to the satisfaction of DEECA Regions addressing:
The root investigations to inform the proposed alignment will must be based on testing at the edges of the proposed construction corridor in the proximity of representative trees beside Boiler Swamp Road and may utilise 3D ground penetrating radar, hydro-trenching or other method. The root investigation program must take into account the size and species of the trees investigated and stratification along the road, and must be informed by an suitably qualified and experienced arborist. The proposed root investigation program must be approved by DEECA Regions prior to commencement of investigations.The NVP required by MM-BD01, including the updated final Native Vegetation Removal Report and updated Biodiversity Assessment Report, must be consistent with, and take account of, the report prepared pursuant to this mitigation measure.
The transmission line will must be installed in accordance with the development plan approved by the Minister report except with the written consent of DEECA Regions.
Any horizontal directional drilling will must be done in accordance with AS 4970:2025 Protection of trees on development sites, including ensuring directional drilling is at a depth of 750 millimetres or greater.
Pre-clearance surveys will must be undertaken prior to removal of native vegetation in areas with known occurrences of significant species, including but not limited to Dune Fan-flower (Scaevola calendulacea), One-flower Early Nancy (Wurmbea dioica), Hairy Boronia (Boronia pilosa), Wiry Bossiaea (Bossiaea cordigera), Rough Daisy-bush (Olearia asterotricha), Tiny Violet (Viola sieberiana), Leafy Greenhood (Pterostylis cucullata) and Western Golden-tip (Goodia medicaginea).
Pre-clearance surveys will must also investigate the potential occurrence of threatened species including but not limited to:
The surveys will must be undertaken by an appropriately qualified and experienced ecologist and at an appropriate time of year for each species to maximise the probability of detection.
Any known locations, or locations identified in pre-clearance surveys will must be marked, and treated as no go-zones if the location is within 30 metres of construction activities. If any threatened flora species are recorded within the previously unsurveyed areas, these areas will must be avoided, and subsequently addressed within the CEMP for the Project, including updating mapping.
Temporary disturbance areas, such as those associated with the turbine laydown areas and construction compounds, will must be rehabilitated as soon as possible following cessation of the disturbing activity. The sites will must be planted with appropriate locally indigenous species, unless otherwise agreed with the landowner or land manager (e.g. disturbed areas of pine plantation would be returned to the forestry company for reintegration into their operations). Rehabilitated areas will must be monitored, with adaptive management applied in locations where rehabilitation has involved planting of locally indigenous species to control weeds and ensure successful establishment of final vegetation type.
Areas to be rehabilitated, and the rehabilitation arrangements as agreed with relevant landowners, will must be detailed in the Project's CEMP.
Prior to the commencement of construction, the Proponent will must develop a Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP) in consultation with DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The FFMP will must include the following requirements:
Matters covered in the BBAMP and the BMCP do not need to be covered in the FFMP.
Any works, such as road construction, but excluding works for the main substation, within Brolga (Antigone rubicunda) breeding buffers (as the majority of known and suitable habitat for Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) is already within Brolga breeding buffers) will must be conducted outside the Australasian Bittern breeding season (October to February). This requirement does not apply where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of DEECA Regions that the Brolga breeding buffers are not suitable breeding habitat for the Australasian Bittern.
A pre-construction survey will must be conducted in December, January, February, March, and April to confirm breeding has finished before any works, but excluding works for the main substation, are commenced, noting that Australasian Bittern breeding season extends to February.
A plan to manage works for the main wind farm substation will must be prepared to the satisfaction of DEECA Regions prior to commencement of construction of these works. The plan will must be implemented if breeding activity is observed during pre-construction or construction surveys. The plan will must:
The following measures will must also be implemented and must be documented in the BBAMP:
Monitoring technologies, such as GPS/satellite/camera-based tracking of movements will must also be used in pre-commissioning monitoring to further inform potential adaptive management strategies for Australasian Bittern. Where these are identified as being available and effective, they will must be included in the BBAMP to be prepared for the Project.
The following measures and measures will must be included in the BBAMP to manage potential impacts on Southern Bent-wing Bat unless otherwise agreed to bye DEECA Regions the responsible authority:
Seasonal nocturnal low wind speed curtailment for Southern Bent-wing Bat will must be developed during finalisation of the BBAMP and include at a minimum unless otherwise agreed to by DEECA:
Seasonal nocturnal low wind speed curtailment will must be included in the BBAMP.
The overhead powerline along Portland-Nelson Road and south of Portland-Nelson Road will must be marked with standard commercially available bird diverters to increase visibility to birds and bats. Overhead powerlines along Portland-Nelson Road and south of Portland-Nelson Road will must be marked with diverters visible at night to avoid and minimise Australasian Bittern collisions as this species is most likely to move over the wind farm between dusk and dawn when moving seasonally between inland and coastal habitats. The type and spacing of diverters must also be informed by the desirability of minimising visual impacts from diverters (although not at the expense of the primary need to minimise the risk of bird and bat collisions), and black and white diverters should be used if appropriate.
A review must be undertaken every five years to determine whether more effective diverters have become available and whether their use is warranted taking account of the results of mortality monitoring.
Construction activity will must not be undertaken within Brolga (Antigone rubicunda) breeding buffers when Brolga pairs are present and engaging in breeding activity (mating displays, nest building, incubating, with unfledged chicks), until chicks fledge and the families dispersed from the buffers. This includes but is not limited to cable installation and road construction but excludes the main substation works. Brolga breeding buffers are as per the buffers shown in Figure 37a of the Flora and Fauna Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment (EES Technical Appendix C)
If a new site is found within 3 kilometres of the Project footprint, a breeding buffer will must be determined and construction activity (as described above) will must stop within the new breeding buffer during the breeding season. The breeding buffer will must be developed using the methodology outlined in the Brolga Impact Assessment (EES Technical Appendix D).
Construction activity (as described above) will must also not occur within the Brolga breeding buffers during the breeding season (July-November) even if Brolgas have not been observed during pre-clearance surveys, to ensure construction does not prevent Brolgas from breeding in those areas in any given season. Although Brolga breeding season is generally July to November, numbers can vary annually and so the following adaptive mitigation approaches will must be implemented during construction:
A plan to manage works for the main wind farm substation will must be prepared to the satisfaction of DEECA Regions prior to commencement of construction of these works. The plan will must be implemented if breeding activity is observed during pre-construction or construction surveys. The plan will must require monitoring of relevant wetlands, detail measures to avoid and minimise potential disturbance, including by requiring access to the site during breeding season from Portland-Nelson Road via Blacks Road and Mt Kincaid Road, and by staging the most potentially disruptive works outside the breeding season to the extent practicable.
The SEWQMP will must be developed in consultation with the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA).
Stormwater management at operational facilities and roads
Sediment, Erosion and Water Quality Management Plan
The SEWQMP will must outline the surface water monitoring and contingency measures for the construction phase, including a monitoring program (including, as a minimum, visual monitoring during construction activities and consideration of weather conditions) of sediment management measures, and a complaint investigation and response plan.
This contingency plan will must be aligned with industry best practice guidelines and will include a broad range of measures that will must be adopted during the event of an exceedance or failure of a mitigation measure. Aspects of the contingency plan would consider the following:
clean up procedures, including disposal of excess water.
notification of relevant authorities if unplanned incidents occur that could pose a risk to the environment.
The SEWQMP must include provision for a baseline water quality assessment to be undertaken prior to the commencement of construction.
The SEWQMP must be informed by flood and hydraulic surface water modelling undertaken in accordance with MM-SW10.
Prior to finalisation of design, flood and hydraulic surface water modelling will must be undertaken for the Project area, including the transmission line alignment. This flood modelling will must be based on topographic data and will be reviewed by GHCMA. This modelling will must inform the CEMP and SEWQMP.
To minimise the risk of final foundation locations intersecting groundwater, turbine locations should where practicable avoid areas with an inferred depth to groundwater of less than 6 metres below ground surface .
Groundwater avoidance and contingency measures Dewatering Plan
Dewatering activities will must be managed in accordance with the DWP (see MM-SW01). If groundwater may be intersected at a turbine foundation location, the following hierarchy of contingency measures will must be undertaken:
Additional water supply investigations as part of a groundwater take and use application to must be undertaken in consultation with Southern Rural Water. Water supply extraction bores must to be located along Nelson-Portland Road and within the deeper Upper-Mid Tertiary Aquifer (UMTA) to reduce potential impacts on groundwater users; in consultation with Southern Rural Water. Groundwater allocation to must be short-term and temporary transfer only (in the order of 2-3 years during construction).
Visually confirm the location of registered and unregistered bores. Prior to construction establish potential for damage or loss of access to existing bores in consultation with the landholder/bore owner. Agree to make good arrangements between the Proponent and the landholder/bore owner if required.
The following measures will must be implemented if contaminated groundwater is encountered:
Groundwater that is contaminated by ASS will must be tested and discharged or disposed in accordance with protocols outlined in the ASSMP (see MM-CA03). Specific measures to manage contaminated groundwater (if intersected) will must be included in the DWP (see MM- GW02SW01).
Groundwater contamination management must have regard to groundwater quality monitoring undertaken in accordance with MM-GW06.
Groundwater level and quality monitoring program
A groundwater level and quality monitoring program will must be developed prepared and included in the CEMP to assess for effects on groundwater levels from foundation dewatering (if encountered) and groundwater supply extraction. This will must be informed by baseline data results and include trigger levels and contingency measures.
It will must also be informed through consultation with Southern Rural Water during the groundwater take and use licence application and reflect conditions likely to be attached to any temporary licence agreed by Southern Rural Water.
A groundwater level and quality monitoring program is to be developed generally in accordance with the indicative program provided in the Groundwater Impact Assessment (EES Technical Appendix G). This will provide additional baseline (pre-construction) data and confirm 'natural' variations in groundwater levels.
Baseline monitoring of groundwater levels will must start 12 months prior to the commencement of water supply pumping and will must include:
Baseline monitoring of groundwater quality should be undertaken quarterly for at least 1 year to account for seasonal variability and should include analysis for chemicals of interest such as organochlorine and pH.
It is anticipated that mMonitoring during the Project's construction phase will must be similar in scope to the baseline monitoring. Construction phase monitoring will must be finalised based on in consultation with Southern Rural Water and other stakeholders during the groundwater take and use licence application process.
Results of baseline and construction monitoring will must inform the need for and scope of post-construction monitoring and the scope of any such monitoring, although no residual impacts were identified for the operational phase of the Project.
The groundwater level and quality monitoring program will must also consider any overlaps with surface water components. Ongoing communication and sharing of information regarding groundwater level and surface water level between the Proponent and the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority GHCMA will must be undertaken.
A Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Management Plan (GDEMMP) will must be developed prior to construction commencing in collaboration consultation with the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority GHCMA, Southern Rural Water, and DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The GDEMMP will must include:
If soils are to be moved offsite for reuse, treatment or disposal, soil sampling will must be undertaken in accordance with the EPA Publication IWRG702: Soil Sampling to ensure the appropriate hazard categorisation is applied.
A designated application will must be made to EPA to reclassify soils within Cobboboonee National Park and Forest Park where the concentration of nickel exceeds the upper fill material criteria of EPA Publication 1828.8: Waste disposal categories - characteristics and thresholds, as the nickel is considered to be naturally occurring background levels.
In the event that unknown contamination is uncovered during Project construction works, the following measures will must be undertaken:
These measures will must be outlined in the Project's CEMP.
A detailed Acid Sulfate Soil ASS Management Plan (ASSMP) will must be developed in conjunction with the CEMP and implemented to manage Acid sulfate soils (ASS) and any associated waters. Development of the ASSMP will must be guided by the Victorian Best Practice Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils (Department of Sustainability and Environment, October 2010) and the National Acid Sulfate soils guidance (https://www.waterquality.gov.au/issues/acid-sulfate soils). The ASSMP will must include (but not be limited to) the following:
If removing and disposing of ASS offsite, disposal must occur at a lawful place that is permitted to accept N123 Waste ASS or Potential ASS. and that iIf the Waste ASS/ Potential ASS has contaminants above fill material thresholds, it can be classified as N120 which is a reportable priority waste.
Management control measures relating to handling and stockpiling of spoil, movement and transport of spoil, and the reuse or disposal of spoil materials will must include:
Records of excavated soil and stockpile movements, including (but not limited to) the location of materials excavated, quantities, descriptions of materials encountered, laboratory test certificates, waste assessment and categorisation reports, disposal location, and waste receipts (from the waste transporter), will must be maintained by the site owner and operator through the Waste Tracker system.
The CEMP will must set out the controls for the transportation, storage and management of fuels and any chemicals to be used during construction, maintenance and decommissioning of the Project. This will must include but not be limited to:
Spill kits will must be located in accessible areas near where any hazardous substances or chemicals are securely stored and/or used, and in mobile fuel refuelling vehicles.
Once locations of the turbines and other infrastructure have been finalised, a pre-construction peat assessment will must be undertaken to determine whether peat exists in proposed excavation areas (e.g. for turbines, substations and underground reticulation) and whether specific fire mitigation measures are required. This peat assessment will must be limited to low-lying high risk areas of the Project Area where excavation is required, in farmland in the wind farm site east of Portland-Nelson, and within farmland in the transmission line corridor east of Cobboboonee Forest Park. These high risk areas have been identified through the Environmental Site Investigation (EES Technical Appendix I) and are summarised in EES Chapter 10 Soil contamination and acid sulfate soils. The peat assessment will must build upon the work already done to confirm the low-lying areas that would be of higher risk of peat occurrence. Test pitting will must be done in areas where infrastructure is proposed within these high risk areas to confirm the presence of peat.
If peat is found in areas to be excavated, this will must trigger implementation of the Peat Management Plan (PMP), which will must be developed as part of the CEMP. The PMP will must detail the safe work practices to be implemented when working in areas with peat and the remediation works required if these areas are to be disturbed.
Prepare, gain approval, and implement contingencies of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Avoidance of previously registered and identified Aboriginal places (being those that were registered before the assessment document in EES Technical Appendix J: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Technical Report) that through establishing an exclusion zone around the known extent of the Aboriginal place via a buffer around the place extent with protective fencing. The extent of the buffer will must be determined in further consultation with GMTOAC. Furthermore, consultation with GMTOAC will must determine if the protective temporary fencing must remain in place during operation and decommissioning/rehabilitation phases of works.
Protective fencing will must be suitable temporary fencing (e.g. with concrete pads and wire chain mesh (or similar)) that must be erected prior to the commencement of ground disturbing works associated with the construction phase in the Project Area. GMTOAC will must further undertake an inspection of the protective fencing prior to the commencement of the construction phase of works in the Project Area to ensure that the Aboriginal places are avoided by proposed works.
All employees/contractors involved in ground disturbing works will must be provided with an historic heritage awareness induction. The inductions will must be provided by a suitably qualified heritage practitioner who is knowledgeable about the history of the region and the Proponent's legal obligations for heritage protection, and will must provide the following information:
The Proponent will must implement the following measures to ensure that impacts on identified heritage sites within the study area are avoided:
Applications for the above approvals will must be prepared by a qualified and experienced archaeologist. The applications will must describe the Project's historic heritage investigative methodology, reporting requirements, and artefact discard and management policy. The Proponent will must comply with any conditions required by the consent/planning approvals.
The Heritage Act 2017 requires mandatory reporting of any archaeological site that is identified via the submission of site cards to Heritage Victoria (HV). If any excavation or damage occurs to an archaeological site, an application for Consent must be submitted to and approved by HV. In this event, the Proponent will must not recommence works until a decision is made by HV and in accordance with any relevant heritage approval regarding the heritage status of the site.
If any unexpected archaeological artefacts or features are identified during Project works, the Proponent will must implement the following unexpected discovery procedure:
The CEMP will must include procedures to be implemented if an unknown historic heritage site, value or object is identified during works associated with the Project. The procedures will must include guidelines for the collection or salvage of historic heritage objects.
Public view locations in national and coastal parks
A Landscape Character and Visual Amenity Mitigation and Offset Plan must be prepared in consultation with Parks Victoria and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The plan must investigate and provide for the implementation of mitigation measures to minimise visual effects on key public viewing locations within affected national and coastal parks, including but not limited to:
Potential mitigation measures include but are not limited to additional plantings to increase screening at sensitive viewpoints.
The plan must also investigate and provide for the implementation of offset works or strategies where impacts are not able to be fully mitigated. Offset works or strategies could include, but are not limited to, the installation of new infrastructure (such as an additional jetty and user facilities at Lake Mombeong), the upgrade of existing infrastructure to improve visitor experiences, or associated environmental programs, to offset residual impacts. Offsets can be provided in any of the affected national or coastal parks.
Any additional planting must be supported by a maintenance plan to be implemented by the Proponent (which identifies scheduled inspections, management and replacement plantings) for a period of 10 years.
Consultation with Parks Victoria to investigate and implement potential mitigation to minimise visual effects on key public view locations, including: coastal section of the Great South West walk between Nelson and Lake Mombeong; Lake Mombeong campground and the associated inland track section of the Great South West walk; and, Swan lake campground and the associated coastal access track section of the Great South West Walk. Mitigation works shall consider additional planting strategies to increase levels of screening at specific sensitive viewpoint and/or to install/upgrade existing infrastructure at these locations (including investigation of an additional jetty and user facilities at Lake Mombeong) to improve the sites, or environmental programs, as a way to offset potential impacts. Any additional planting must be supported by a maintenance plan (which would identify scheduled inspections, management, replacement plantings) for a period of 3 years.
Soft landscape works (tree and shrub planting) will must be offered to the following non-involved dwellings within 10 km of wind turbines where the Project would result in Moderate - High to High visual effects: R1, R3, R4, R6, R8 and R10 (as identified in Figure 30 of EES Technical Appendix L: Landscape and visual impact assessment),
Landscape works will must aim to filter or screen views toward wind turbines.
The landscaping works will must consider any zone and/or overlay planning requirements (including requirements of the Bushfire Management Overlay where applicable).
The implementation of landscaping works will must be based on a reasonable and feasible approach to provide substantive screening of wind turbines, and to offer property owners the opportunity to opt in, or out of landscaping mitigation works to cater for individual visual mitigation preferences.
Off-site landscape works will must be facilitated through an off-site landscaping program, which will must be prepared as part of the EMF. The off-site landscaping program will must include:
Development of an on-site landscaping plan to screen substations, buildings, the quarry and lower infrastructure and potentially turbines. This plan would include:
The on-site landscaping plan must be informed by an assessment of retaining areas of the plantation along Portland-Nelson Road to mitigate visual impacts associated with the turbines. The assessment should consider the utility, location and depth of areas that might be retained.
Electrical infrastructure, and associated buildings and structures would must be designed to have non-reflecting surface finishes and appropriate colour finishes that considers the existing visual backdrops.
Permanent project lighting associated with the Operations and management facility and terminal station and temporary lighting associated with construction areas is to must be installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4282: Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting. These measures include:
A pre-construction shadow flicker assessment will must be undertaken prior to construction once the final turbine layout has been determined, to determine potential effects of shadow flicker on existing dwellings (existing as at the date of EES Technical Appendix M: Shadow Flicker and Blade Glint) and to identify any opportunities to further minimise impacts. The methodology used in the assessment is to be generally in accordance with the methodology used in EES Technical Appendix M. There must not be an increase in exceedances of the 30 hour per annum requirement referred to in the Planning Guidelines for the Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (DTP, September 2023) for any existing dwellings above that assessed in EES Technical Appendix M, unless an agreement is entered into with the relevant landowner waiving that requirement. The assessment is to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Any agreements entered into that waive the 30 hour per annum requirement must apply for the life of the wind energy facility, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, and will be provided to the responsible authority upon request.
All wind turbine blades must be coated with a non-reflective finish to avoid possible effects of blade glint on surround dwellings in accordance with the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning Policy and Planning Guidelines for the Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (DTP, September 2023), and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
A site-specific Dust Management Plan (DMP) (sub-plan of the CEMP) will must identify potential and existing dust sources and outline best practice design controls and management practices to minimise dust. These measures will must include, but not be limited to:
Dust suppression will must be used where construction or decommissioning activities occur in unpaved work areas, where there are spoil and aggregate stockpiles, and during the loading and unloading of dust generating materials, as required. Dust suppression methods may include water sprays, water carts or other devices and will must be implemented in accordance with the applicable practices and systems identified in EPA Publication 1823: Mining and quarrying - Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment.
Vehicular movement will must be restricted by keeping vehicles, plant and equipment within the construction footprint and on designated roads and tracks and in accordance with the applicable practices and systems identified in EPA Publication 1834: Civil construction, building and demolition guide.
Crushed rock will must be placed on unsealed access tracks where required and as agreed with relevant stakeholders, to prevent disturbance of exposed soil surfaces by moving vehicles and operating plant.
Vehicle speed limit will must be restricted to 40 kilometre per hour (km/hr) on unsealed access tracks and 20 km/hr within 50 metres of the Glenelg Estuary and Discovery Bay Ramsar site and dwellings on unsealed access tracks.
Vehicles used for construction and decommissioning activities with the potential for loss of loads (such as dust or litter), will must be covered when not being loaded or unloaded.
Weather conditions will must be monitored for extreme heat and wind events (e.g. using systems such as Bureau of Meteorology forecasts), with construction and decommissioning works modified if conditions are likely to result in air quality impacts on sensitive receptors.
Dust emissions from vehicles will must be observationally monitored along unsealed access tracks. If dust is observed to leave the construction footprint, works will must be modified or stopped until the dust hazard is reduced to a manageable level.
Vehicles will must be fitted with appropriate emission control equipment, maintained frequently, and serviced in accordance with manufacturer specifications, to minimise vehicle exhaust emissions. Idling will must be avoided where possible.
Plant and equipment will must be maintained in good condition to minimise spills and air emissions that may cause nuisance.
In the event that odorous soils are uncovered during construction, the following measures will must be implemented:
Refer to the mitigation measures for managing contaminated soils (MM-CA).
Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan
Before commencement of development, a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) will must be prepared to address the effects of:
The CNVMP will must be prepared in consultation with Parks Victoria.
An environmental auditor appointed under Part 8.3 the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) would be engaged to prepare a report verifying the CNVMP as against the EP Regulations and MMs under the EMF. Both the CNVMP and the auditor's verification report must be made available to EPA on request.
The CNVMP must be submitted and approved by the Victorian Minister for Planning prior to development commencing.
All temporary concrete batching plants will must be designed and operated in accordance with the general management measures in EPA Publication 1806: Reducing risk in the premixed concrete industry to minimise industrial noise emissions and not emit unreasonable noise.
This includes not exceeding the noise limits set under the Part 5.3 Division 3 of the Environment Protection Regulations 2021 (Vic) (EP Regulations) and the incorporated Noise Protocol (EPA Publication 1826.4 Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues).
Operations will must minimise the risk of harm from noise emissions so far as reasonably practicable; and unreasonable noise, is not emitted having regard to the factors in part (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise in section 3(1) of the EP Act this includes considering the risk associated with low frequency noise as assessed in the Noise guidelines: assessing low frequency noise (EPA Publication 1997) (as amended or replaced from time to time).
Before commencement of development, a Quarry Work Plan (QWP) will be prepared in consultation with relevant authorities and endorsed as part of the Work Authority. The QWP will be generally consistent with the Quarry Work Plan Requirements Report (Appendix W) and The Quarry Work Plan (QWP) (MM-QU01) (or equivalent) will must document all reasonable practical reasonably practicable mitigation measures to be implemented the EP Act and achieving the noise limits determined in accordance with the Noise Protocol (EPA Publication 1826.4: Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues). This will must include:
Pre-construction noise assessment of substations
Prior to installing the substation plant and any enclosing structures, a pre-construction noise assessment is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority demonstrating that the substations are expected to achieve the noise limits determined in accordance with EPA Publication 1826.4: Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues, and it complies with the EP Regulations.
The assessment will must take account of reasonably practicable measures to fulfil the GED under the EP Act, including:
Prior to installing the wind turbines, a pre-construction noise assessment would be completed and approved by the responsible authority. This assessment would be undertaken to assess the final project layout and equipment selection to ensure that the noise criteria are achieved at all non-stakeholder dwellings under all wind speeds prior to construction commencing.
The pre-development noise assessment will must be based on the final wind turbine layout, representative noise emission data for the final selected turbine model, background monitoring at Lake Mombeong campground (subject to the consent of Parks Victoria), and the location of all receivers around the wind farm (existing or approved noise sensitive receivers at the date of the wind farm's approval) and application of High Amenity Area noise limits at campgrounds in surrounding natural areas. The pre- development noise assessment will must identify all involved receivers where noise agreements have been established. The pre‑development noise assessment will must be prepared in accordance with the assessment and documentation requirements of New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics - Wind farm noise (NZS 6808).
The pre-construction noise assessment will must be accompanied by a report prepared by an environmental auditor appointed under Part 8.3 the EP Act that verifies if the acoustic assessment undertaken for the purpose of the pre-construction noise assessment has been conducted in accordance with NZS 6808.
A post-construction noise assessment will must be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic consultant to demonstrate operation of the Project is compliant with applicable noise limits, including High Amenity Area noise limits at campgrounds in surrounding natural areas. The assessment will must be undertaken in accordance with the EP Regulations and the NMP prepared under MM-NV07.
An environmental auditor appointed under Part 8.3 the EP Act would be engaged to prepare a report verifying the post-construction noise assessment in accordance with the EP Regulations and MMs under the EMF. Both the post-construction noise assessment and the auditor's verification report will must be provided to the EPA within 10 days of the completion of the auditor's verification report.
Prior to installing the wind turbines, a Noise Management Plan (NMP) will must be prepared as required by regulation 131E of the EP Act.
In addition to the requirements of regulation 131E, the NMP will must also document:
The NMP must also consider the guidance of EPA-DTP Publication 3011 Wind Energy Facility Turbine Noise - Technical Guideline.
Regular wind turbine noise monitoring would be undertaken in accordance with regulation 131G of the EP Regulations and as detailed in the NMP.
Annual statements would be prepared annually in accordance with regulation 131F of the EP Regulations and as detailed in the NMP.
Decommissioning Noise and Vibration Management Plan
Prior to decommissioning, a Decommissioning Noise and Vibration Management Plan (DNVMP) would be prepared and submitted to the responsible authority for endorsement. This plan would include:
A Transport Communications Plan (TCP) will must be developed and will must contain consultation requirements relating to potential traffic and transport impacts for the lifetime of the Project. The TCP will must address as appropriate the findings from the Transport Impact Assessment (EES Technical Appendix P) and subsequently the Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) (see MM-TP02).
The TCP will must ensure construction, operations and decommissioning related information is shared with the local community, including updates on road closures and associated detours, collaborating with other road users to negotiate road access and potential impacts, and ensuring the impact of construction on access to other infrastructure ins communicated to affected stakeholders. This will must include providing the Project schedule, anticipated traffic implications and the volume of construction activities.
Stakeholder consultation, including but not limited to the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Glenelg Shire Council, Green Triangle Forest Products, Parks Victoria, Country Fire Authority (CFA) (and other emergency services), DEECA Regions, the Port of Portland (and any other ports to be used) and other freight industries where appropriate, will must be undertaken to develop the plan. The final plan should must be provided to these listed agencies.
Prior to the commencement of construction (excluding preparatory works), two Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) will must be developed (one each for the wind farm and transmission line) and implemented to minimise disruption (to the extent practicable) to affected local landowners, traffic, car parking, on-road public transport, pedestrian and bicycle movements and existing public facilities during construction and maintenance activities. The TMPs will must be developed in consultation with the relevant road management authorities, be informed and supported by an appropriate level of transport analysis and be endorsed by the relevant road authorities. The TMP's may be varied with the written consent of the relevant road authority. The actions and works identified in the TMPs must be carried out to the satisfaction of the relevant road authorities.
The TMPs will must be developed against any relevant planning conditions and in association with key stakeholders for endorsement. Evidence of this endorsement will must be documented within the TMPs.
(a) provide for appropriate safety measures around school bus routes and school bus times where relevant; and
Control measures provided in the TMPs will must cover the following aspects:
The control measures should must be amended within a reasonable timeframe, to the satisfaction of the relevant road authority, where there is there is a significant increase in vehicle numbers as determined by the Road Quality Auditor, above the anticipated movements in the TMP; or any change to any endorsed vehicle route identified in the TMP.
The relevant road authority may require the appointment of an alternate Road Quality Auditor within 21 days of making a written request, if the appointed Road Quality Auditor is unable to maintain independence to the road authority's satisfaction.
Prior to the commencement of each stage of works (such as construction of wind turbine footings, crane hardstand, internal access roads, the substation or transmission towers), road and intersection upgrade works identified in the endorsed TMP relevant to that stage of works must be undertaken and completed and assessed and approved by the Road Quality Auditor to the satisfaction of relevant road authorities.
Road safety audits (RSAs) will must be undertaken at various stages of Project development in accordance with Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 6: Road Safety Audit, such as:
RSAs will must be completed by accredited Victorian Department of Transport and Planning RSA auditor and be independent of the Project, particularly the design team.
Formal over-dimensional/Oversize overmass transport route assessments will must be completed by the transport contractor engaged by the Proponent. A survey of powerline locations and height along the secondary over-dimensioned route must be completed to inform the route assessment. Impacts of the final routes can then be verified (e.g. removal, raising or clearance of obstructions such as powerlines, structures (bridges and culverts), railway infrastructure and vegetation), and relevant stakeholders will must be engaged to facilitate the safe delivery of materials to the construction sites.
Prior to mobilising any over size and over mass vehicles from the Port of Portland to the project site, temporary infrastructure works must be designed in consultation with, and completed to the satisfaction of the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning (Regional Roads Victoria).
A site access strategy will must be developed and finalised following detailed design, in consultation with all stakeholders, particularly affected landowners. The strategy will must address traffic access and movement requirements and restrictions to local facilitates and amenities (such as tourism locations).
The number of site access points to be used for construction of the wind farm may be investigated further to utilise internal access tracks and limit movements between the site and Portland-Nelson Road. A wayfinding map should must be included within the strategy which details vehicle access routes through the internal access tracks. The wayfinding map should must be distributed to all workers, and contractors employed for the construction stage of the Project, and to relevant external stakeholders.
The strategy should must identify where the use of a spotter to guide over-dimensional/oversize vehicles through the hardstand areas is required.
Speed limits along Portland-Nelson Road and the Henty Highway in proximity to the Project site entrances will must be reviewed during detailed design to verify the need to reduce speed limits to ensure that safe intersection sight distances can be achieved and the site can be accessed safely by construction vehicles.
Site access gates would be designed and constructed in accordance with VicRoads Guideline Drawing GD4010 'Typical Access to Rural Properties' unless otherwise agreed by the relevant road authority.
Once detailed design has been completed, the designs will must be subject to Road Safety Audits, as described in MM-TP03. Locations of advanced street signage, such as at the Cowlands Lower Road access point, should must be identified in to ensure that approaching drivers do not miss access points.
It is expected that stormwater drainage management systems including swale drains and pipe culverts may be required as part of any proposed intersection upgrade works, as there is currently no infrastructure in place to divert runoff near the site entrances. This will must be reviewed as part of the detailed design process. See also MM-SW08.
Prior to the commencement of construction, the Proponent will must develop and implement a Community Engagement Strategy (CES) in consultation with the Glenelg Shire Council (GSC) to facilitate ongoing consultation between the proponent and the broader community. The CES wouldwill:
The Proponent will must continue to implement the CES to ensure consistent and consultative engagement with communities throughout the Project's planning, pre-construction, construction and operation phases. The CES is critical for ensuring social acceptance, strong local partnerships and overall, more successful and sustainable Project outcomes.
Prior to the commencement of construction, the Proponent will must develop and implement a Shared Benefits Strategy (SBS) in consultation with the Glenelg Shire Council (GSC) that establishes an approach to proactively and purposefully share the rewards of the Project with local communities.
Local Participation and Social Procurement Strategy
Prior to the commencement of construction, the Proponent will must develop a Local Participation and Social Procurement Strategy (LPSPS) in consultation with the Glenelg Shire Council (GSC). The LPSPS will must directly address and respond to the social impacts and opportunities for the Project's construction workforce. The strategy will must involve the development and implementation of initiatives that would proactively enable the maximisation of local employment and sourcing for the Project's construction and operational needs.
A Workforce Accommodation Management Plan (WAMP) will must be developed in consultation with the Glenelg Shire Council (GSC), Warrnambool City Council and the City of Mt Gambier prior to the commencement of construction and implemented to manage the incoming construction workforce required for construction of the Project.
The WAMP will be dependent on the number of incoming workers and their staging and will therefore be developed in accordance with the LPSPS (see MM-SE03). The WAMP will include an updated assessment of accommodation by supply by location and accommodation class, and will be based on availability of separate rooms suitable for occupation by a construction worker.
2a For residual accommodation needs following step 1, develop agreement(s) with existing hotel/motel, serviced apartment and caravan park operators to supply rooms for use by imported staff (focusing on Mt Gambier and Portland). The number of rooms secured would not exceed 25% of current supply in any location (eg Mt Gambier or Portland) over the tourist peak-season (November-March) or 50% for the remainder of the year.
2b For accommodation needs not met by 2a, where practicable, develop agreements with existing hotel/motel, serviced apartment and caravan park operators to develop new accommodation capacity. 100% of any new capacity developed in partnership with the Project available for use by imported workers.
2c For accommodation needs not met by 2a and 2b develop agreements with existing B&B/holiday rental providers to supply the property for use by imported staff (focusing on Mt Gambier and Portland). The number of properties secured would not exceed 25% of current supply in any location over the tourist peak-season (November-March) or 50% for the reminder of the year.
Information regarding employment and population level change will must be provided early to GSC and relevant State Government agencies to facilitate early community infrastructure provision responses.
Prior to the commencement of construction, the Proponent will must develop, in consultation with the GMTOAC, an Aboriginal Participation Plan (APP) which will aim to:
Refer also to the mitigation measures relating to the protection of cultural values (MM-AH01-03).
The Proponent will must implement the APP in consultation with the GMTOAC.
Complaint Investigation and Response Plan and Complaints Register
Prior to the commencement of construction, the Proponent will must develop a Complaint Investigation and Complaint Plan (CIRP).
Before development starts, a Complaints Register Throughout the construction and operation of the Project the Complaints Register will must be used to established which records:
Any turbines to be micro-sited will must avoid the second Fresnel zone of the Telstra point-to-point link. If entering the exclusion zone is unavoidable during construction when lifting turbines into place, the link operator (e.g. Telstra) will must be consulted before construction so they can anticipate the potential temporary service degradation and take steps to minimise or negate the impact on their services.
Pre and Post Construction Television and Radio Signal Assessments
The Proponent will must undertake a pre- and post-construction assessment of the television reception strength at the location of any existing or approved dwellings as at the date of development approval that are within the orange scatter zone (where confirmed to not be using Viewer Access Satellite Television System) for the wind farm layout. The assessments will must be undertaken by an independent television and radio monitoring specialist and include testing at locations to be determined by the television and radio monitoring specialist to enable the average television and radio reception strength to be determined.
If the post-construction assessment establishes an unacceptable increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind farm, as determined by the independent television and radio monitoring specialist, measures to restore the affected reception to pre-construction quality will must be undertaken.
The Proponent will must undertake a pre- and post-construction assessment of the radio reception strength at the location of any existing or approved dwellings as at the date of development approval that are within 5 kilometres of any turbine. The assessments will must be undertaken by an independent television and radio monitoring specialist and include testing at locations to be determined by the television and radio monitoring specialist to enable the average television and radio reception strength to be determined.
If the post-construction assessment establishes an unacceptable increase in interference to reception as a result of the wind farm, as determined by the independent television and radio monitoring specialist, measures to restore the affected reception to pre-construction quality will must be undertaken.
The Proponent will must continue consultation with the Bureau of Meteorology on the exact terms of the operational limits and/or other technical solutions for the Project to ensure that the Mount Gambier radar can maintain operational efficiency.
The wind farm will must conform with AS/NZS 61000.6.4:2012 Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Generic standards - Emission standard for industrial environments which means the wind farm will reduce, as much as is practicable, the emission of high frequency noise from the turbines, substation(s) and electronic control equipment.
The following amendments to the non-precision instrument approaches at Portland Aerodrome must will need to be made for them to remain clear of the Project:
Consultation with the Portland Aerodrome operator (Glenelg Shire Council) and the Instrument Approach designer (Airservices Australia) has been undertaken to facilitate these amendments. The required amendments must will need to occur prior to construction of the Project commencing, at the cost of the Proponent.
Airservices Australia will issue an Aeronautical Information Publication - Supplementary [AIP (SUP)] or a NOTAM that provides the location and height of the masts.
The Lowest Safe Altitudes (LSALT) for the Grid and W519 air routes will need to be raised from 2,200 feet (ft) to 2,400 feet. An application must will be made to Airservices Australia to raise the LSALT for these two air routes before construction of the Project commences.
All met masts will must be marked in accordance with the National Airports Safeguarding Framework - Guideline D Managing the Risk to Aviation Safety of Wind Turbine Installations (Wind Farms) /Wind Monitoring Tower to improve visibility as follows:
All met masts will must be notified to Airservices Australia in accordance with AC 139.E-01 v1.0. The location of the reported met masts will also be provided to the aerodrome operators at Portland and Nelson, Aerial Application Association of Australia, local aerial applications operators, Police Air Wing, Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (Ambulance Victoria), Forest Fire Management and the Country Fire Authority CFA.
AC 139.E-01 and CASR Part 175 require tall structures with a height of 100m or greater to be reported. If the met masts within the constructed turbine area are less than 100m above ground level, they do not need to be reported.
The met masts within the constructed turbine area need to be marked as described above to ensure visibility to aircraft pilots engaged in authorised low level flying.
Airservices Australia will issue an Aeronautical Information Publication - Supplementary [AIP (SUP)] or a NOTAM that provides the location and height of the reported masts.
Wind turbine designs that have a conspicuous size and colour will must be used to ensure visibility in the daytime.
The location of met masts, wind turbines and associated transmission line infrastructure will must be reported to Airservices Australia in accordance with AC 139 E-01 v1.0.
Airservices Australia will issue an Aeronautical Information Publication - Supplementary [AIP (SUP)] or a NOTAM that provides the location and height of the masts and turbines.
The location of these tall structures will be included in AIP Charts.
A Construction Fire Emergency Management Plan (CFEMP) will must be prepared and implemented that includes procedures for preparing for and responding to bushfire emergencies during the construction phase. The CFEMP will must be prepared in consultation with the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and DEECA Regions.
The preparation of the CFEMP must be informed by consultation with the plantation operator to ensure consistency with the fire management plans and processes that apply to the plantation.
The following communication activities will must be undertaken during construction to manage bushfire risk:
A Risk Management Plan (RMP) will must be developed in consultation with CFA, in accordance with the model requirements in the CFA Guidelines (as amended from time to time), and be finalised prior to construction commencing. The following design and infrastructure measures will must be assessed in the RMP following the selection of the equipment suppliers.
Where possible, non-combustible or low combustibility and low flammability liquids including oils and lubricants, will must be used within the turbine nacelles.
An Operational Fire Emergency Management Plan (OFEMP) will must be developed in consultation with DEECA Regions and the CFA, and will must:
The OFEMP must be reviewed annually and updated as appropriate, in consultation with the CFA and any other relevant emergency services.
The preparation of the OFEMP must be informed by consultation with the plantation operator to ensure consistency with the fire management plans and processes that apply to the plantation.
A Fire Management Plan (FMP) will must be developed in consultation with the CFA for the Project prior to construction and amended as required prior to operation. The FMP may form part of the CFEMP and OFEMP. The FMP will must address fire risks to and from the site and detail the control measures (systems, activities and accountabilities) for the prevention and management of fire. The FMP will must be prepared in accordance with the CFA Guidelines (as amended from time to time).
The FMP must be reviewed every three years, and updated as appropriate.
A Quarry Work Plan (QWP) (or equivalent) must be prepared before commencement of development in consultation with relevant authorities and endorsed as part of the Work Authority. The QWP must be generally consistent with the approved EMF and include relevant elements of the Quarry Work Plan Requirements Report (EES Technical Appendix W).
The onsite quarry is proposed to supply road base material required for the construction of the Project which would incorporate hardstand areas, construction pads, upgrades and extensions to the existing roading network. The quarry will must only operate to supply material for the Project and will remain available for the life of the Project to supply any materials for ongoing road maintenance during operation. The quarry will must be rehabilitated when the Project requirements for material has ceased.
Imported material may be used at the quarry to assist in rehabilitation. Material would typically include soil or "clean fill" sourced from the construction activity within the Project Area. Importing of material be undertaken in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance. All material imported to the quarry will must be managed by an Imported Materials Management Plan (IMMP). Solid inert waste and plastic concrete will must not be accepted at the quarry.
Appropriate signage at the quarry access point and adjacent to Portland-Nelson Road will must be installed, as well as appropriate signage to the immediate Work Authority, warning the public of high cliff faces and fall hazards.
Domestic and industrial waste materials generated by the quarry will must be removed by licenced contractors. Where required, waste will must be disposed of at an appropriately licenced facility, or similar.
A Site Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (SCRP) will must be developed for the proposed quarry that address all the requirements under Part 2 the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) (Extractive Industries) Regulations 2019.
The SCRP will must clearly state the rehabilitation objective(s) of the quarry and list the criteria and monitoring for determining the success or otherwise of rehabilitation.
The rehabilitation objective will must be to return the site to a landform that is safe, stable, non-polluting and sustainable as an ongoing source of plantation timber. The final landform design and all associated closure criteria and monitoring will must reflect this objective.
Soil stockpiles would must be limited in height to no greater than 2 metres and would be located at the edge of the disturbance area at a location close to extraction crests or the edge of hardstand areas where they would be ultimately used in rehabilitation. Soil stockpiles would be contoured, grassed and stabilised to manage erosion until they are required for use in rehabilitation. There would must be no soil stockpiles post closure as all the soil would be used in rehabilitation.
Overburden stockpiles would must be limited in height to a maximum of 12 metres when located within the excavation, or 8 metres if placed on natural ground. As much as possible overburden would be placed in worked-out areas of the excavation and located to not impact the overall risk assessment of the Work Authority. Overburden stockpiles would have 1V:2H side slopes with a contour drain at the base of the dump to direct any runoff into the Work Authority drainage control system. Overburden stockpiles would be contoured and vegetated as required or otherwise stabilised to manage erosion.
Product stockpiles would must be located close to the mobile processing plant and have a maximum height of 10 metres.
Soil and overburden stripping would must be avoided on hot, dry, windy days, or as much as possible after extended dry periods where the inherent moisture content is very low, to minimise dust generation and potential air quality impacts.
A Community Engagement Plan (CEP) will must be prepared as part of the QWP and will incorporate matters relating to the quarry to share relevant information about the Work Authority that may affect the community and key stakeholders. Key stakeholders for the Project quarry include the plantation owner (GTFP), Glenelg Shire Council, and ERR. Typical information that is shared includes any proposed changes in operating practices/activities that could potentially result in impacts on the local community.
The CEP will must be part of the final approved Work Plan for the quarry.
A detailed risk assessment and associated risk treatment plan addressing all the hazards on the site will must be developed to the satisfaction of ERR before the quarry can be approved.
The individual risk treatment plans required by the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Vic) will must identify specific sensitive receptors and discuss the impacts on these sensitive receptors and document the controls and provide monitoring and reporting requirements to mitigate these risks.
A separate Quarry Water Management Plan (QWMP) will must be prepared for the quarry, including water balance modelling and a determination of the water storage requirements.
a) review the CEMP, OEMP, DEMP, BMCP and BBAMP for compliance with the EMF and Incorporated Documentand the MMs; > > > b) undertake environmental audits of compliance with and implementation of the MMs, all relevant requirements of the EMF and Incorporated Document, including the CEMP, OEMP,and DEMP, BMCP and BBAMP and prepare audit reports containing the results of the audit; > > > > c) review the Ccomplaints Register (see MM-SE06) which may highlight trends or non-conformance with applicable MMs; and > > > > d) verify there are processes in place to identify opportunities for continual improvement in environmental management and performance of the MMs and EMF.
a) ecology and avifauna; > > b) environmental management during construction.
The Proponent (and its contractors) will be is responsible for preparing and implementing environmental management plans and other Project specific documentation to monitor and control environmental impacts during design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Project. The plans will be required to achieve compliance with relevant standards, guidelines and obligations under the Project's statutory approvals and consents and to reflect the MMs in Table 19.3.
The statutory approvals and consents required for the Project will must be implemented through a series of plans that will be required as conditions of the planning authorisation. These are identified in the Incorporated Document at Appendix A of Planning Scheme Amendment documents (EES Technical Appendix Y). Where applicable, the plans and procedures required by the Incorporated Document will be prepared to the satisfaction of the relevant responsible authority and in consultation with the identified relevant agencies and stakeholders, prior to works commencing. Any required amendments to these plans and procedures will be reviewed and approved in accordance with the requirements of the Incorporated Document and the EMF.
Contractors are required to address any non-compliances with these plans and report to the Proponent, who will be responsible for ensuring compliance and associated reporting to the relevant regulators as required. Audits and other reporting by an IEA will also inform the need for amendments or changes to address any non-compliances or address new or altered environmental risks arising from the construction and operation of the Project.
An overview of the key environmental documentation and their relationships is provided in Figure 19.1. The key environmental management documents which the Proponent and its contractors will prepare and implement are described in Table 19.4.
Figure 19.1 Key environmental management documentation
Table 19.4: Environmental management documentation
The Minister's Assessment of the EES provides an assessment of the acceptability of the environmental effects of the project for statutory decision-makers under Victorian law, which must consider the assessment before deciding whether and how a project should proceed. The Minister's Assessment informs approval decisions under relevant Victorian and Commonwealth legislation.
The approval of the PSA will insert a Special Controls Overlay and an Incorporated Document into the Glenelg Planning Scheme. The Incorporated Document will set out the relevant conditions for planning and environmental compliance.
In accordance with Clause 7.1 of the draft Incorporated Document, prior to commencement of any buildings and works associated with the Project, development plans will must be submitted to and approved by the Minister. The plans will be fully dimensioned and drawn to scale and will include the matters referenced in Clause 7.1 of the draft Incorporated Document.
The EMF outlines clear accountabilities for the delivery of the Project in accordance with the mitigation measures and compliance with relevant environmental laws, approvals, approval conditions, and environmental management plans and procedures. The proponent will must update the EMF and mitigation measures in response to relevant matters and recommendations contained in the Minister for Planning's assessment of the EES. The EMF will must be submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval in accordance with Clause 7.8 of the draft Incorporated Document.
Pre-Construction. Construction, Operation, Decommissioning
The construction contractor(s) will must prepare a CEMP for their package of works, as required by the project contract and in accordance with the EMF and MMs.
The CEMP will must include details of processes and responsibilities for:
Contractors for the Project will be able to prepare one CEMP for their work or individual CEMPs for components of their works. The CEMP will also be able to be prepared in stages. Contractors may also choose to create a series of sub-plans for the CEMP. The CEMP will must be prepared in consultation with stakeholders relevant to the works covered in the plan and as required by any relevant mitigation measure.
Note - not all plans required by the mitigation measures will be sub-plans to the CEMP. The structure of plans and sub-plans will be determined by the contractor to allow for an integrated approach to addressing and managing impacts across the various plans.
The operator(s) responsible for commissioning and operation will must develop and implement an OEMP, which would be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EMF and MMs and address potential environmental impacts of commissioning, operation and maintenance activities associated with the Project.
The OEMP will must identify operational activities and contain procedures and responsibilities for:
The OEMP will must be prepared in consultation with agencies relevant to the operational works covered in the plan and as required by relevant mitigation measures.
Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP)
The operator will must develop a DEMP to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
The DEMP must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EMF and MMs and to address potential environmental impacts of decommissioning activities associated with the Project.
The DEMP will must identify decommissioning activities and contain procedures and responsibilities for:
The DEMP will must be prepared in consultation with agencies relevant to the decommissioning works covered in the plan and as required by relevant mitigation measures.
In accordance with Clauses 7.19 to 7.24 of the Incorporated Document, prior to construction commencing, the Proponent is required to prepare a Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan addressing the measures to be implemented to ensure that operation of the Project does not result in net significant or lasting impacts on the viability or conservation status of identified species of concern. The content of the BBAMP is informed by MMs in the EMF.
In accordance with Clauses 7.25 to 7.29 of the Incorporated Document, prior to construction commencing, the Proponent is required to prepare a Brolga Monitoring and Compensation Plan, which has the aim to achieve net zero impact on the Victorian Brolga population.
Other plans and strategies as required by the mitigation measures
The mitigation measures (see Section 19.4.3) includes requirements to develop and implement management plans and strategies to avoid, minimise and mitigate potential impacts.
Where appropriate, the management plans and strategies required by the mitigation measures may be included as sub-plans as part of the CEMP, OEMP, or DEMP, or may be included as stand-alone plans and strategies.
A Community and Stakeholder Engagement Plan (CSEP) will must be developed and implemented to facilitate ongoing engagement and communications between the Proponent, Project stakeholders, and the broader community throughout the lifetime of the Project. It will must include detailed information on the engagement process, including methods of consultation and records of consultation undertaken. It will must also detail the communications protocols between the Proponent and its contractors.
Construction of the Project will must be undertaken in accordance with the management conditions set out in CHMP 17822 to manage potential impacts on known and unknown Aboriginal places.
This plan sits outside of the conditions of the Incorporated Document and is prepared by the Proponent to operate in conjunction with the approved management plans.
The Proponent and its contractors will must operate in accordance with their EMSs that are compliant with Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS ISO 14001. The purpose of the EMS is to establish a plan-do-check-act system to identify and manage environmental risks and impacts and ensure comprehensive and integrated identification and management of environmental risks and issues throughout the Project's lifetime. The Proponent will must review the effectiveness of the EMF for continuous improvement in accordance with its own EMS.
All contractor plans and documentation will must be prepared and approved by the Proponent prior to any works commencing. Where required, contractor management plans will must also be subject to regulatory approval from relevant government agencies. Documents will must be developed, approved, implemented, and revised as necessary throughout the life of the Project. This may include amendments based on:
Contractors will be required to submit all major revisions of environmental documentation to the Proponent for review and approval. Major documentation revisions are considered to be changes that affect work and construction practices, roles and responsibilities, social and environmental risks and overall Project delivery. Changes to any management plans approved by the Minister will be required to be amended and re-submitted and approved by the Minister.
A proactive compliance monitoring system will must be implemented to measure ongoing environmental performance during construction, operation and decommissioning. Detailed monitoring requirements will must be incorporated into the EMPs (CEMP, OEMP and DEMP) reflecting approval and regulatory requirements. Monitoring frequency and monitoring parameters will must be informed by regulatory requirements and the scale of environmental risk. Monitoring will must include periodic inspections of construction work areas and operational Project elements to ensure conditions of the Incorporated Document are being implemented and are effective in reducing environmental impacts as set by the EMF.
The Proponent will must develop an audit plan, including an audit schedule and audit scopes for each Project contractor. Any non-compliances will must be highlighted by an IEA and addressed accordingly by contractors.
The environmental compliance management system to be adopted for the Project may include the following:
Monitoring results will must be reviewed by the Proponent at regular intervals to enable early detection of potential non-compliances (with conditions of the Incorporated Document). This will help identify whether additional or modified monitoring activities are required to address Project risks.
The complaints management process will must be implemented prior to construction commencing (other than preparatory works), consistent with AS/NZS 10002: 2014 Guidelines for Complaint Management in Organisations and approved by the Minister in accordance with proposed condition 5.63 of the Incorporated Document. The Proponent will aim to respond to comments and complaints in a timely and effective manner to ensure the values, priorities and issues of affected stakeholders are acknowledged and addressed (different processes may be required for different types of complaints).
A Complaint Investigation and Response Plan will must be developed that:
A copy of the Complaints Investigation and Response Plan will must be published on the Proponent's Project website and include details for a toll-free telephone number and email contact for complaints to be received. A Ccomplaints Rregister will must be established which records:
A complete copy of the Complaints Register, along with a reference map of complaint locations must be provided to the Minister on each anniversary of the date of the Incorporated Document, and at other times on request by the Minister.
Independent environmental audits will must be conducted at regular intervals as specified within the relevant EMP, to monitor compliance of specific construction and operation related plans which includes the CEMP, OEMP, and DEMP. These independent environmental audits are an additional level of compliance monitoring proposed by the Proponent during the development and operation of the Project. The introduction of an IEA as part of the environmental landscape of the Project is a relatively new approach to wind energy facility development and is anticipated to give communities and regulators confidence in environmental management.
This approach is becoming more commonplace in approved incorporated documents for large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly in major transport projects. Recently, this approach has been adopted and accepted by the Minister for the North East Link Project and Suburban Rail Loop East Project, Level Crossing Removal Projects and the Metro Rail Project. The use of an IEA to audit and ensure compliance of a project of this scale is an efficient mechanism to enable construction to commence, provide certainty that the robust approvals conditions are being adopted, and ensure compliance is being independently assessed
At a minimum, audits will must be conducted in accordance with the following:
Additional annual independent environmental audits will must be undertaken throughout the Project's lifetime to report on:
Conformance and compliance will must be assessed through a range of mechanisms, including inspections, observations of Project works, consultation with the Proponent and its contractors, and reviews of records and meeting minutes, as agreed between the Proponent and an IEA. A register of non-compliances will must be developed and maintained for internal use, with responsibilities and timelines for addressing non-compliances to be outlined to ensure they are being addressed. This register will not be publicly accessible and will only be provided to the relevant authority though reporting, upon request or when a reportable incident occurs.
Once the Project is operational, the Proponent will must report on the Project's operational environmental performance against operation-specific MMs. Monthly meeting minutes and annual reporting of performance against MMs will must be prepared for the purposes of provision to the technical expert to audit Project compliance, and subsequently maintained and archived for the operational life of the Project. An Independent review and update of all operational management plans and associated processes would be undertaken at a five-year frequency to ensure compliance with current legislation.
Decommissioning phase management plans would be prepared towards the end of the Project's operational life. Development of management plans and engagement with statutory authorities will must be undertaken and be guided by the relevant legislation.
The Proponent will be responsible for reporting compliance to the relevant regulators. Reporting and external notification requirements will be outlined in detail within the EMPs including the identification of matters that require reporting, the authority to which the reports will must be submitted, and the timeframe within which the reporting will must occur.
The EMF and management plans will be treated as live documents that allow for continual improvement and adaptive management throughout the construction, operation and decommissioning phases of the Project. As such the EMF will be reviewed for its effectiveness when necessary based on changes to the Project, regulatory regime or as an action from auditing. This review shall generate actions for the continual improvement of the systems and supporting management plans through updates which will must be done in consultation with the Minister.
Contingency measures in the management plans would facilitate adaptive management where required and adhere to the MMs identified in Table 19.3. There is potential for unexpected environmental events and incidents to occur during all phases of the Project. Contingency measures will facilitate an efficient and effective response to such events and will must be developed and implemented to address these issues in line with relevant regulations, standards and industry best practice guidelines.
The following Incorporated Document includes the IAC's recommended changes based on the Proponent's final version (D500.)
Note the requirements for climate change and renewable energy the BMCP have been reordered but have not been shown as a tracked change other than the clause numbers.
1.1 This document is an Incorporated Document in the Schedules to Clause 45.12 - Specific Controls Overlay (SCO) and Clause 72.04 - Incorporated Documents of the Glenelg Planning Scheme (scheme).
The land identified in Clause 2.0 of this document may be used and developed in accordance with the specific controls contained in Clauses 6.0 and 7.0 of this document.
1.2 The controls in Clause 67.0 prevail over any contrary or inconsistent provision in the scheme.
1.3 The Minister for Planning is the Responsible Authority for this Incorporated Document.
2.1. This document applies to 'the land' that is required for the use and development of the Project (Project) shown as Specific Controls Overlay (SCO10XX) on the Glenelg Planning Scheme Maps 20SCO, 28SCO, 29SCO and 30SCO
3.1. Despite any provision to the contrary or any inconsistent provision in the scheme, pursuant to Clause 45.12 of the scheme:
a) the land identified in this Incorporated Document may be used and developed in accordance with the specific controls contained in this document; and
b) no planning permit is required for, and no provision in the scheme operates to prohibit, restrict or regulate the use and development of the land for the purpose of the Project save for the controls contained in this document.
3.2. In the event of any inconsistency between the specific controls contained in this document and general provisions of the scheme, the specific controls contained in this document will prevail.
4.1. The controls in this Incorporated Document expire if any of the following circumstances apply:
4.2. The Minister for Planning may extend the period for commencement of the development or any stage of it or use if a request is made in writing before the time for commencement expires or within six months afterwards.
4.3. The Minister for Planning may extend the date for the completion of the development or any stage of it if:
a) a request is made in writing before the time for completion expires or within 12 months after the time for completion expires; and
b) the development started lawfully before the approval expired.
5.1. The purpose of this incorporated document is to allow the use and development of the land for the Kentbruck Green Power Hub Project (the Project) generally in accordance with the plans approved in Clause 7.0 of this document and subject to the Clause 7.0 conditions of this document.
6.1. This document allows the use and development of the land for the purposes of the Project, which includes but are not limited to:
a) The use and development of land for a wind energy facility and utility installation, including a transmission line.
b) The construction of buildings and carrying out works for ancillary infrastructure including underground and overhead cabling, meteorological monitoring masts, a permanent site compound, quarry, hardstands, transition stations, collector and main substations and access tracks.
c) The construction of buildings and carrying out of works for temporary ancillary infrastructure including:
- batching plants;
- laydown areas;
- stockpiling of excavation materials;
- constructing and using temporary site workshop(s) and storage administration and amenities buildings;
- installing and relocating utilities and associated services; and
- construction compounds and facilities.
d) Construction and display of business identification signs.
e) The removal, destruction or lopping of trees and native vegetation, including dead vegetation.
f) The creation and alteration of access to a road in a Transport Zone - Schedule 2 (TRZ2).
6.2. The abovementioned use and development will must be undertaken in accordance with the conditions in Clause 7.0 of this Incorporated Document. The use and development may be completed in stages. Any corresponding obligations arising from the conditions in Clause 7.0 of this Incorporated Document may similarly be satisfied in stages.
The use and development allowed by this Incorporated Document must be undertaken in accordance with the following conditions:
7.1 Prior to commencement of any buildings and works associated with the Project (excluding the preparation preparatory buildings and works under Clauses 7.326 and 7.337), development plans must be prepared for the Project to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
These development plans must be generally in accordance with the following figures contained in documents that form part of the Kentbruck Green Power Hub Environment Effects Statement (exhibited between 27 January 2025 and 31 March 2025):
a) Figure 3.2 (Wind Farm Details), Figure 3.3 (Transmission Line Route Details) and Figure 3.4 (Proposed Quarry) contained in Chapter 3; and
b) Figure 6c.4 of Technical Appendix C: Flora and Fauna Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment, in relation to the 'central' overhead alignment for the internal powerline between Wilson Lower Road and Sandy Hill Road.
The development plans must also respond as appropriate to any design changes arising from the Minister for Planning's assessment of the Kentbruck Green Power Hub Environment Effects Statement.
a) the final location, specifications, materials and finishes of the wind energy facility and utility installation. All cable routes and above ground structures associated with the wind energy facility and utility installation must be shown on these plans;
b) a maximum of 105 turbines with the following specifications:
- maximum blade tip height up to 270 metres above ground level;
- minimum blade clearance from ground level no less than 60 metres; and
- maximum rotor diameter of up to 190 metres.
d) the final design and location of any proposed business identification signage;
e) the location and extent of native vegetation to be removed under this Incorporated Document;
f) no aviation safety lighting on any turbine;
g) infrastructure to be designed to maintain existing levels of flood protection associated with overland flow paths;
h) all new overhead powerlines including the transmission line to be marked with standard commercially available bird diverters;
j) elevations to all buildings proposed within the operations and maintenance facility; and
k) details of any staging of the development.
7.2 Except as permitted under Clauses 6 and 7, the use and development of the Project must be generally in accordance with the approved development plans.
7.3 The development plans may be amended or modified from time to time, with the approval of the Minister for Planning.
7.4 A development plan may be prepared and approved in stages or parts and may be amended from time to time with the approval of the Minister for Planning.
7.5 The micro-siting of turbines is permitted without any amendment of the development plans endorsed under Clause 7.1 or written consent of the Minister for Planning provided that:
a) written advice from a suitably qualified expert(s) as relevant to the infrastructure being micro-sited confirms that the micro-siting will not result in any material adverse change to landscape, vegetation, cultural heritage, visual, shadow flicker, noise, fire risk, groundwater or aviation impacts compared to the approved development plans;
b) no turbine shown on the development plans endorsed under Clause 7.1 is moved within 1 kilometre of a dwelling that existed as at the date of this incorporated document unless the operator has provided evidence to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning that the owner of the dwelling has consented in writing to the location of the turbine footprint;
c) the micro-siting does not result in the removal of any additional native vegetation unless that removal is authorised by a planning permit;
d) any micro-sited turbine is within an approved location for development under a Cultural Heritage Management Plan approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (Vic); and
e) the micro-siting does not move a turbine into a turbine free-buffer zone as shown on the development plans endorsed under Clause 7.1.
a) the measurement of any distance between a dwelling and a turbine must be from the centre of the tower at ground level to the closest point of the dwelling.
b) 'micro-siting of turbines' means:
- an alteration of the siting of a turbine by not more than 100 metres in any direction from the centre of the turbine at ground level as shown on the development plans endorsed under Clause 7.1; and
7.7 Within 3 months of the completion of any micro-sited infrastructure, the following must be provided to the Minister for Planning:
a) plans and global positioning system co-ordinates of any relocated turbines and associated infrastructure;
b) the written advice referred to in Clause 7.5.
7.8 Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works associated with the Project (excluding the preparation of buildings and works under Clauses 7.32 and 7.33), an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) must be prepared in consultation with DEECA and approved and endorsed by the Minister for Planning. The EMF must include:
a) the approvals, consents and related statutory instruments that will underpin environmental management for the Project;
b) the Mitigation Measures generally in accordance with the Minister's Assessment dated XX December 20XX made pursuant to the Environment Effects Act 1978 unless otherwise approved by the Minister for Planning. The Mitigation Measures must address the following areas and any other relevant matters:
- Aboriginal cultural heritage
- Aeronautical
- Air quality
- Bushfire
- Biodiversity
- Contaminated land and spoil management
- Electro-magnetic interference
- Groundwater
- Historic cultural heritage
- Landscape character and visual amenity
- Noise and vibration
- Socio-economic
- Surface water
- Transport;
d) the processes for monitoring, reporting, auditing and evaluating performance and environmental outcomes, as well as revising Mitigation Measures.;
7.9 The EMF submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval under Clause 7 of this Incorporated Document must be accompanied by a statement explaining any differences between it, and the matters set out in the Minister's Assessment under the Environment Effects Act 1978 dated XX 20XX.
7.10 The EMF may be approved in stages and parts to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
7.11 The EMF may be amended from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. An application for approval of an amendment to the EMF must be accompanied by a 'tracked changes' version of the EMF with a schedule explaining the proposed amendment/s.
7.12 The Project must be carried out in accordance with the approved EMF including the Mitigation Measures and all plans and procedures required by them.
7.13 The New Zealand Standard 6808:2010, Acoustics - Wind Farm Noise applies to dwellings (and the campground at Lake Mombeong) that were present at XX 20XX [insert approval date of PSA C116gelg]
7.14 No more than 8.696 hectares of native vegetation is to be removed under this Incorporated Document.
7.15 Before any native vegetation is removed under this Incorporated Document, a Native Vegetation Plan (NVP) prepared in consultation with DEECA must be submitted to and endorsed by the Minister for Planning. When endorsed, the NVP will form part of this Incorporated Document. The NVP must include or address all matters relating to native vegetation removal required by the EMF approved pursuant to Clause 7.8 of this Incorporated Document.
7.16 To offset the native vegetation removal described in the endorsed NVP, the developer of the wind energy facility must, prior to commencement of construction, secure a native vegetation offset in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017). A final offset strategy which includes details of the agreed security mechanism will must be developed in consultation with relevant public land managers and Project stakeholders, including and be agreed by DEECA.
7.17 Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that the required offset has been secured must be submitted to, approved and endorsed by the Minister for Planning. When endorsed, the evidence will form part of the Incorporated Document. This evidence must be one or both of the following:
a) A security agreement signed by the Proponent and landowner both parties, and a management plan detailing the 10-year management actions and ongoing management of the site, and/or
b) An allocated credit extract(s) from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.
7.18 In the event that a security agreement is entered into pursuant to condition 7.17(a), an annual offset site report must be submitted to the Minister for Planning by the anniversary date of the execution of the offset security agreement, for a period of 10 consecutive years. After the tenth year, the landowner must provide a report at the reasonable request of a statutory authority.
7.19 7.25 A Brolga Monitoring and Compensation Plan (BMCP) will must be prepared prior to Project construction in accordance with the Interim guidelines for the assessment, avoidance, mitigation and offsetting of potential wind farm impacts on the Victorian Brolga population (DSE 2012). The aim objective of the BMCP is to achieve net zero impact on the Victorian Brolga population. The BMCP must be prepared in consultation with DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
7.20 Prior to submission to the Minister, the BMCP must be reviewed by the Independent Environmental Auditor (IEA) (appointed pursuant to the EMF approved under this Incorporated Document) to ensure it reflects current operational obligations, relevant legislation and policy. The review must also assess whether the BMCP is suitable to meet the objective in Clause 7.26. The findings of the IEA must be submitted to the Minister with the BMCP.
a) Be implemented for the life of the Project.
b) Include performance indicators to measure performance against the objective in Clause 7.25 and allow for an assessment of whether the objective is being met.
c) Be informed by the updated population viability analysis required by Clause 7.29 of this Incorporated Document.
d) Identify the locations of potentially at risk Brolga breeding and migration activities.
e) Include a plan for a minimum of 18 months of monitoring prior to construction, with consideration of best practice survey methods and areas.
f) Include a requirement for Brolga movement corridors to be reviewed based on results from pre-commissioning monitoring.
g) Include recommendations in relation to a mortality rate for Brolga that would trigger the requirement for responsive Mitigation Measures to be undertaken.
h) Specify who is accountable for implementing the plan and the monitoring required under the plan.
j) Include evidence of landholder agreements to participate in the breeding site enhancement project for its duration.
k) Include appropriate methods of enhancement.
m) Include a before-after control-impact study tracking multiple individuals, within the same breeding season, to understand potential wind farm impacts to movement behaviour, habitat use and breeding success of Brolgas, including whether displacement has occurred.
n) Include monitoring and reporting requirements, including public reporting after 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years and 30 years from when the plan is approved, on whether the plan is expected to achieve the net zero impact objective.
o) Include five yearly performance targets for each enhancement site and the program, consistent with the outcomes of the updated population viability analysis required by Clause 7.29 of this Incorporated Document.
7.22 7.27 Implementation of the BMCP must commence before the development starts, and must be to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning in consultation with DEECA Regions.
7.23 7.28 Compensatory measures to achieve net zero impact on the Victorian Brolga population, from modelled collision and/or habitat displacement impacts resulting from the Project operation must include selection and management of wetland habitats to improve Brolga breeding success.
7.24 7.29 The population viability analysis must be re-run on the basis of a final Project design to provide an indication of the level of positive management, including increase in Brolga population to account for the estimated mortality from wind farm operation and/or habitat displacement, that would be required to achieve a zero net impact on the south-eastern Australian Brolga population.
7.25 The BMCP may be amended from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
7.26 7.19 A Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan (BBAMP) will must be developed in consultation with DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. Once approved, the BBAMP must be placed on the Project website and remain on the website for the length of the operation of the Project. The BBAMP will must be developed prior to construction commencing. The BBAMP must be revised and re-approved following completion of the pre-commissioning monitoring required by Clause 7.20 of this Incorporated Document. The primary objectives of the BBAMP isare to ensure operation of the Project:
a) does not result in net significant or lasting impacts on the viability or conservation status of identified bird and bat species of concern.
b) results in a net benefit to the recovery of the Southern Bent-wing Bat and the Australasian Bittern.
7.27 7.20 The BBAMP must be revised and re-approved following completion of the pre-commissioning monitoring required by Clause 7.21 of this Incorporated Document. Prior to submission to the Minister, the revised BBAMP must be reviewed by the IEA (appointed pursuant to the EMF approved under this Incorporated Document) to ensure it reflects current operational obligations, relevant legislation and policy. The review must also assess whether the BBAMP is suitable to meet the objectives in Clause 7.19. The findings of the IEA must be submitted to the Minister with the revised BBAMP.
a) include strategies and activities designed to:
- achieve the objectives in Clause 7.19
- minimise, manage and mitigate bird and bat mortality arising from the operation of the wind farm; and
- determine whether the presence, abundance and flight behaviours of species of concern are altered, relative to pre-construction levels, in response to the presence and operation of the wind farm;
b) include performance indicators to measure performance against the objectives in Clause 7.19 and allow for an assessment of whether the objectives are being met
c) include anything required by a Mitigation Measure in the EMF approved under Clause 7.8 of this Incorporated Document;
d) include a plan for a minimum of 18 months of monitoring of species of concern prior to commissioning, with consideration of best practice survey methods and areas of highest sensitivity;
e) adopt the use of advanced detection technologyical identification (e.g. camera identification systems or a suitable alternative) for the purpose of completing pre-commissioning monitoring for the species of concern;
f) adopt the use of advanced detection technologyical identification (e.g. camera identification systems or a suitable alternative) for the purpose of identifying operational measures to manage impacts on species of concern (such as monitoring, species and collision detection or curtailment), unless, in consultation with DEECA Regions, it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning that, as a result of the pre-commissioning monitoring undertaken:
- alternative measures are suitable for managing impacts; or
- no measures are required;
g) in determining the scope of application use of advanced detection technologyical identification (e.g. camera identification systems or any alternative) (for the purpose of operational monitoring, detection and curtailment), or whether alternate alternative measures to the use of the technology are satisfactory, consider: considerations must include
- the objectives for the BBAMP in Clause 7.19 (the primary consideration)
- the results of the pre-commissioning surveys
- the risk of harm to threatened species
- the mitigation hierarchy, as defined in the Handbook for the development of renewable energy in Victoria (DEECA 2025), in applying measures to reduce harm
- the cost of the technology and the need for responses to risk to be proportionate to the risk;
h) require utilisation monitoring for species of concern during operation;
j) regard a single Orange-bellied Parrot mortality caused by the Project as a significant impact and provide for an offset to be developed and implemented in consultation with DEECA and the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water;
k) provide for trials to establish carcass persistence and searcher efficiency, including in the pine plantation, and for the derivation of statistically robust estimates of mortalities based on trial results; and
m) contain:
- A statement of the objectives and overall strategy for minimising bird and bat mortality through design and the operation of the wind energy facility.
- A procedure for implementation of suitable Mitigation Measures for mortalities.
- A comprehensive, science-based mortality monitoring program to monitor mortality of listed species and any other bat and avifauna species. The monitoring program must commence when the first turbine is commissioned or such other time as is approved by DEECA Regions and continue for a duration of at least five years the life of the Project. The duration and timing of the monitoring plan may be altered with the written consent of the Minister for Planning and in consultation with DEECA Regions. Outcomes of the monitoring will must be reported to DEECA Regions and be incorporated into the BBAMP to ensure that the management actions are as effective as possible, with impact thresholds to trigger adaptive management responses. This program will:
- Monitor for blade strikes and collision with overhead powerlines.
- Identify impact triggers for threatened and non-threatened species requiring a management response to reduce impacts.
- Include benchmarks and confidence limits for key fauna species, including Southern Bent-wing Bat, Brolga, Australasian Bittern, South-eastern Red-tailed Black Cockatoo and Orange-bellied Parrot, specifying the proportion of total mortalities or injuries that must be detected through monitoring.
- Conduct surveys at a time interval and sampling frequency agreed with DEECA Regions to ascertain:
- The species, number, age, sex (where possible) and date of any listed species mortality and any other bat and avifauna species mortality.
- Seasonal and yearly variation in the number of listed species mortality and any other bat and avifauna species mortality.
- Whether further detailed investigations of any potential impacts on listed species and any other bat and avifauna species mortality are warranted.
- Procedures for reporting strikes/mortalities of listed species to DEECA Regions within 2 business days of becoming aware of any strike/mortality.
- Procedures for reporting strikes/mortalities of bat and avifauna species other than listed species to DEECA Regions monthly.
- Information on the efficacy of searches for carcasses of birds and bats, and, where practicable, information on the rate of removal of carcasses by scavengers so that correction factors can be determined to enable calculations of the likely total number of mortalities.
- Measures to verify whether collision mortalities are within the range predicted during assessment of the Project and to identify ongoing improvement measures.
- Procedures for determining whether further detailed investigations of any potential impacts on native birds and bats are warranted. Any further detailed investigations required are to be undertaken in consultation with DEECA Regions.
- Procedures for periodic reporting, within agreed timeframes, of the findings of the monitoring to DEECA Regions. Such reports must be made publicly available on the project website.
- A data sharing agreement to provide georeferenced, time stamped, data that is collected as part of the BBAMP. All data will be entered into a database to be maintained by the wind farm operator. Raw data will be available to relevant regulatory authorities on request.
- Procedures for the regular removal of carcasses likely to attract raptors to areas near turbines.
7.29 7.21 Within two months of the completion of each 12 months period during operation or relevant period of mortality monitoring, the operator must submit raw data and the monitoring reports to the Minister for Planning and DEECA Regions, and make the monitoring reports publicly available on the Project's website.
7.30 The BBAMP may be amended from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
7.31 7.22 The Independent Environmental Auditor (IEA) (appointed pursuant to the EMF approved under this Incorporated Document) will undertake independent review of the BMCP and BBAMP content and ongoing monitoring of the plan's implementation to ensure it they reflects current operational obligations, relevant legislation and policy. The review must also assess whether the objectives in Clause 7.19 for the BBAMP and Clause 7.25 for the BMCP are being met. Reviews are to be undertaken within 6 months of full commissioning and then every 2 years thereafter. Any recommendations of the IEA for changes to the BMCP/BBAMP will, subject to the agreement of DEECA Regions and the Minister for Planning, be incorporated into an updated BMCP/BBAMP. The findings of the IEA must be reported to the Minister for Planning and DEECA Regions within 10 days of the IEA completing their assessment and review of the BMCP/BBAMP. The findings must be made publicly available on the Project's website within 30 days of being reported to the Minister.
7.32 7.23 After considering the findings of the monitoring program and assessment by the IEA, and after consulting with DEECA Regions, the Minister for Planning may:
7.33 7.24 The BBAMP may be updated from time to time in consultation with DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning.
7.34 7.30 An offset strategy to compensate for mortalities to avoid significant impacts on the population of the Australasian Bittern must be prepared in consultation with DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. In preparing the offset strategy, consideration should be given to collaboration with other entities working on Australasian Bittern, such as the Australasian Bittern recovery team and the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority.
7.35 7.31 Before development begins, an Ecology Fund Plan will must be prepared in consultation with DEECA Regions and to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning. The plan must:s
a) detail how the $1,000,000 annual ecology fund committed to by the Proponent will be secured for the operational life of the Project (30 years);
b) detail how the ecology fund will be managed by an appropriate governance framework, which, unless otherwise agreed to by DEECA, is to include but is not limited to:
- management by an independent body;
- the specifics of the independent body and its operation, accountability, roles, and responsibilities; and
- oversight by an Advisory Committee with an independent chair;
d) specify the actions (that may be updated from time to time) that will be funded and how, including recovery actions from the National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus orianae bassanii (DELWP 2020) and the Conservation Advice Miniopterus orianae bassanii Southern Bent-wing Bat (TSSC Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2021), as well as any equivalent plans or advices that apply to other species in respect of which actions are funded by the ecology fund.
7.36 7.32 Preparatory works for the Project may commence before the plans and other matters listed in Clause 7 are approved.
7.37 7.33 Preparatory works for the Project permitted under Clause 7.32 include but are not limited to:
a) Works, including vegetation removal, that would not require a permit under the provisions of the Planning Schemes that, but for this Incorporated Document, would apply to the relevant land.
b) Investigations, surveys, testing and preparatory works to determine the suitability of land.
c) Creation and use of construction access points.
d) Establishment of environmental and traffic controls.
e) Environmental surveys and investigations required as part of the EMF and associated Mitigation Measures and management plans.
f) Fencing and temporary barriers to enable preparatory works.
[4] D133 Proponent Part B submission and D230 - TN25 Capacity Investment Scheme and the Victorian Transmission Plan
[5] The Proponent provided the current version of the document in response to a question from the IAC (D252)
[6] Updated standard released during the Hearing on 30 May 2025
[7] D186, Proponent - Technical Note 20 (RFI21)
[9] D297, Proponent - R Galbraith Evidence Statement Addendum
[11] D66, M Gibson Expert Witness Statement, page 14
[12] D84, Mr Organ Expert Witness Statement, page 31
[14] D145, TN15 (Offset strategy), attachment: Report of available native vegetation credits
[16] D484, Proponent - closing (reply) submissions, page 60
[17] The general location of the cave was provided to the IAC in confidential TN18 (D182)
[18] Bob Brown Foundation Inc v Minister for the Environment (No 2) [2022] FCA 873 (25 July 2022) at [30]-[32]
[20] Prepared under the EPBC Act, 18 January 2019
[21] D224 and D225, Proponent - Attachments to Technical Note 16
[22] D68, Dr Fawcett Expert Witness Statement, page 14
[23] D306, TN30 - Management of stockpiled acid sulfate soils
[24] D136, Proponent's response to agency submissions
[26] A prescribed form required by Heritage Victoria
[27] EES Appendix L, section 3, page 22
[28] D386, Proponent - Closing Submission, paragraph 184, page 47
[30] At Swan Lake there is a five-site campground associated with the Discovery Bay Coastal Park and a larger campground associated with the Portland Dune Buggy Club area
[31] D69, P Haack Evidence Statement, section 4.3.2.1, page 22
[32] D69, P Haack Evidence Statement, section 4.5.3, page 31
[33] D308, Proponent - Technical Note 33, page 1
[34] D308, Proponent - Technical Note 33, page 2
[35] D308, Proponent - Technical Note 33, page 3
[36] D88, Mr Glossop Expert Witness Statement, page 31
[38] The purpose of the candidate wind turbine models is to assess the viability of achieving compliance with the applicable noise limits, based on noise emission levels that are typical of the turbines being considered for the Project (D76 - Expert Statement Mr Delaire).
[39] ISO 9613-2: 1996 Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors - Part 2: General method of calculation (ISO 9613-2)
[41] D76, C Delaire Expert Witness Statement, page 13
[42] D394, Parks Victoria submission, para 116
[43] D394, Parks Victoria submission, para 125
[45] D53, Proponent Part A Submission, paras 118 and 119
[46] D76, C Delaire Expert Witness Statement, page 12
[47] D492, Proponent's updated expert recommendations table, page 3
[48] Guide to the Environmental Reference Standard (EPA Publication 1992, June 2021), page 14
[49] D492, Proponent - Updated Expert Recommendations Summary Table, page 3
[50] D495, EPA Comments on Proponent Day 4 version of EMF and Incorporated Document
[51] Ms Dunstan's evidence noted that 'pinch point 2' (the Henty Highway/Portland-Nelson Road intersection) has been modified since the Route Survey was prepared and that further modifications are no longer required.
[52] D88, J Glossop Expert Evidence Statement, paragraph 37, page 18
[53] D346, Proponent - submissions on land use and planning, paragraph 13, page 6
[54] D324, Proponent - social impact submissions
[55] D133, Proponent - Part B Submission, page 61
[57] D230, Technical Note 25 - Capacity Investment Scheme and the Victorian Transmission Plan, page 8
[58] D77, G Weston Expert Evidence Statement, page 7
[59] D77, G Weston Expert Evidence Statement, page 8
[60] D77, G Weston Expert Evidence Statement, page 21
[61] EES Chapter 17, Socio-economic, page 17-15
[62] Community Engagement Guide, page 23
[64] D230, TN25 - Capacity Investment Scheme and the Victorian Transmission Plan
[65] Australian Communications and Media Authority Radiocommunications licence database
[67] D54, Mr Potter and Mr Taylor Expert Witness Statement, page 17
[69] D358, Proponent's submissions on aviation, pages 3-4
[70] D358, Proponent's submissions on aviation, page 3
[71] EES Technical Appendix V, page 46, states "The Victorian Fire Agencies use a fire modelling tool called Phoenix RapidFire to model fire scenarios before (existing) and after (impact) of these fire risk reduction works, such as on ground fuel management activities, to calculate the residual risk. It can be a useful tool to highlight how a bushfire will move through a landscape and the potential consequences (generally expressed as the number of houses burnt). Weather inputs can be adjusted to demonstrate the different outcomes based on lower or higher Fire Danger Indices (FDI)".
[73] D335, Proponent - submissions on bushfire
[74] With consideration of Uadiale et al (2014) Overview of Problems and Solutions in Fire protection Engineering of Wind Turbines
[75] D482, Proponent - Day 3 version EMF
[76] D133, Proponent - Part B Submission, page 10-11
[78] D352, Delburn Wind Farm Panel Report, page 132
[80] Glenelg Planning Scheme Amendment C96gelg gazetted in June 2023
[81] As discussed in EES Appendix Z, Draft consent application under Section 27 of the National Parks Act
[82] The 2025 VTP was released on 17 August 2025 following the Hearing. The 2024 VTP Guidelines and 2025 draft VTP were discussed during the Hearing.
[83] The CIS was established pursuant to Part 4A of the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth)
[87] The initial EES referral to the Minister for Planning occurred in July 2019.
[88] D394, Parks Victoria Hearing Submission, paragraph 57
[89] EES Appendix W Quarry Work Requirement Report, section 1.1, page 4
[90] EES Appendix W Quarry Work Requirement Report, section 1.1, page 4
[91] Proponent's Part A, Part B and closing submissions
[92] D386, Proponent's closing submissions, page 22
[93] D484, Proponent's closing (reply) submissions, page 51
[94] D55, Mr Bolt Expert Witness Statement
[95] D484, Proponent's closing (reply) submissions, page 69
[96] D88, Mr Glossop Expert Witness Statement paras 144-145