Condition N7 Noise survey requirements and condition N9 Operational Noise Management Plan

1. The proposed amendments to Conditions N7 and N9 are related. Condition N7 requires the conducting of pre- and post-construction noise surveys and subsequent surveys and sets the method and content of the surveys. Condition N9 requires the preparation of an operational noise management plan prior to commissioning, and the post-commencement review, updating and variation and substitution of the plan.
2. The proponent proposes that the reference to Wilburville be deleted from condition N7(1.3), and that N7(2)be amended from:

2 Noise surveys must be undertaken in accordance with a survey method approved in writing by the Director, as may be amended from time to time with written approval of the Director.

2 Noise surveys must be undertaken in accordance with the methodology stated in the Operational Noise Management Plan approved under Condition N9.

1. The proponent proposes that condition N9(3) be amended from:

3 Without limitation, the Plan must include: > > 3.1 details of mitigation measures, including WTG sector management, to ensure compliance with these conditions; > > 3.2 a detailed community engagement plan including procedure for notifications of potential nuisance due to any equipment failure or fault and to receive and respond to complaints regarding noise disturbance.

3.1 details of mitigation measures, including WTG sector management, to ensure compliance with these conditions;

3.2 a detailed community engagement plan including procedure for notifications of potential nuisance due to any equipment failure or fault and to receive and respond to complaints regarding noise disturbance; and

3.3 details of background and operational noise monitoring procedures that will be implemented for noise surveys.

1. The proposed amendment to delete "(Wilburville)" from N7(1.3) is not controversial and should be made.
2. The proponent did not directly address the proposed amendments in its submissions.
3. Mr Evans considered it good practice to have a noise management plan in place that details the methodology by which background and operational noise monitoring and assessment is to be undertaken, and for that to be approved by the responsible authority. He acknowledged that it would necessitate the operational noise management plan being submitted prior to the background noise monitoring, such that it may require an initial plan prior to background noise monitoring and an updated version plan prior to commissioning.
4. The EPA opposes amendment on the basis of the timing issue. The plan is not required until the commissioning phase of the project, but noise surveys are required by condition N7 pre- and post-construction, and under condition N3 may be required at any time at the request of the Director in response to a complaint.
5. For the reasons advanced by the EPA we consider that the conditions N7 and N9 should not be amended as proposed save for the deletion of "(Wilburville)" from N7(1.3).

1. We are satisfied that neither ground of appeal is made out, but that the permit should be varied by the amendment of the Part A and Part B conditions of the permit as follows:
   1. Part A to incorporate measures to ameliorate the potential effects of shadow flicker to the residence at 344 Arthurs Lake Road; and
   2. Part B to amend:
      • condition N4(1) by deletion of the word "certified" and insertion of the words "and be certified by an independent expert" after the words "International Standard International Electrotechnical Commission 61400-1 1";
      • condition N6(1.2) by substituting "35 dB(A)L90" for "35 dB(A)"; and
      • condition N7(1.3) by deleting "(Wilburville)".
2. The decision whether to grant a permit and the conditions to be imposed on such a grant are not separate considerations but components of a single process: Meander Valley Council v Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal [2013] TASSC 42 [10]. We propose to give the parties the opportunity to agree on a condition in respect to shadow flicker before proceeding to a final determination.
3. Accordingly, we direct that:
   1. Within 14 days the Board of the Environment Protection Authority is to file and serve draft Part B conditions amended in accordance with these reasons for determination.
   2. Within 21 days the parties are to jointly file agreed Part A conditions incorporating measures to ameliorate the potential effects of shadow flicker to the residence at 344 Arthurs Lake Road.
   3. If the parties are unable to agree conditions in accordance with (2) then:
      1. within 21 days from the date of these reasons the Central Highlands Council is to file and serve proposed Part A conditions; and
      2. any party may file and serve submissions in respect to the proposed Part A conditions within 7 days following filing and service of the proposed conditions.
   4. Conditions filed in accordance with these directions are to be filed as or with an unprotected Word document.
   5. The parties have liberty to apply in respect to this timetable.