The South Gippsland Shire Council and the neighbours of the Bald Hills Wind Farm know a thing or two about being legally bullied. The

owners accused the Council of acting inappropriately after it was proven that the wind farm breached the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act. They took the Council to court. Although the legal action failed, the wind energy industry notched up another win in its game of intimidation. Which local governments and landowners willingly pursue expensive and tortuous legal action?

The developers behind the Delburn Wind Farm proposal are the same developers responsible for the troubled Bald Hills Wind Farm. They want to install even larger and noisier turbines just as close to homes in a more densely populated and fire prone region than Bald Hills. This disregard for the harm already caused is astounding. The State Government supports developers by allowing them to pay for their own compliance assessments. As stated in the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines’ Final Report (2015), “the compliance process can be easily manipulated by operators and the acousticians they pay to get the report they want.” Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd had assessed the Bald Hills

Wind Farm as compliant with the noise standards and is now responsible for the Delburn Wind Farm’s acoustic assessments. Evidence of this company’s poor practice was provided to the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines. This included Victorian Government documents stating that the company’s post-construction noise compliance report for the Waubra Wind Farm was unsatisfactory. This was due to the company’s very simplified approach to data analysis, a failure to properly assess special audible characteristics and the

inclusion of data outside the limits of the testing equipment used to measure noise. It was also documented that eleven dwellings neighbouring the wind farm had been vacated due to noise problems.

OSMI, the company behind the Delburn Wind Farm proposal, got all of the ducks lined up in a row before publicly announcing it. They had

already pitched the benefits to DELWP, local councils, community groups and environmental groups. Not one neighbour was consulted. Friends of the Earth threw their weight behind the proposal the day it was announced. Community groups salivated at the thought of grant money. Environmental groups either remained silent or willingly waived the need to scrutinise this industrial project and instantly gave credence to the horseshoe theory. The NIMBY accusation was thrown at anyone who looked at the detail and raised genuine concerns. Missioned accomplished!

Community engagement and benefit sharing is not done out of the goodness of a developer’s heart. It is cheap marketing and the promise of

money is guaranteed to divide and conquer a community. A show of community engagement and benefit sharing also increases a wind farm’s chances of being awarded lucrative certificates under the VRET scheme. Grant money is loose change compared to the revenue wind farms get from these certificates. Wind farm developers are not knights in shining armour here to save the planet. They are calculating business people who are maximising their profits by externalising as many costs as possible, even if it means siting turbines too close to neighbours or environmentally sensitive areas. 

Annette Thompson-Darlimurla