WITH the elections for Southern Grampians Shire councillors underway, and considerable local interest and concern about the proposed wind farm intended for the Dundas Tableland redgum country, we asked the 11 candidates their opinions on the matter.
We asked three questions which were generated by five areas of concern which we raised in this column last week.
The five areas of concern are:
1. The negative impact on the outstanding natural beauty of the red gum country of the Dundas Tableland.
2. The relatively few jobs which will be created for local people after completion of the project.
3. The well-documented and acknowledged risk to wildlife especially bats and raptors (eagles and hawks) as well as other birds including brolgas.
4. The contradiction which the above-mentioned risk to wildlife poses to the policies of Nature Positive and Nature Repair which are being legislated by the Federal Government.
5. An increased risk of wild/bush fire caused by turbine breakdown.
The three questions which we asked were:
2. If you do not support the proposal which, if any, of the above concerns have influenced your attitude?
3. If you do not support the wind farm but for reasons other than those listed, can you provide information regarding the formation of your opinion?
We also stressed to the candidates the following:
1. The survey is not concerned with the appropriateness of renewable energy in general but only with a wind farm in this particular location.
2. The advantages of renewable energy are taken as a given.
3. It is highly unlikely that the Shire will have any ultimate power of approval or veto over the project. What is of interest is the range of candidates’ opinions on the matter.
The items of concern and the questions were emailed to the candidates with all of them responding.
Their positions are set out in the table and their views discussed.
The need for information
THIS was the largest cohort with five of the candidates stating that they needed more information in order to form an opinion.
Sharon Jackson was clear that she was yet to make up her mind and said, “I’ll be honest and say I’m undecided. It is a beautiful area of the countryside, and the wind farm could be very disruptive to this. I would be interested to know how close they plan on putting them to places like the Wannon and Nigretta Falls as well as other key natural features in the area. As the specifics of location aren’t available yet, this is hard to answer.”
Jayne Manning said that she was glad the matter was being reported on and added; “I’d like to do some further research on the topic before commenting…”
Afton Barber told The Spectator, “I do have concerns with the proposed wind farm, mainly the environmental impact on our beautiful farming land. The possibility of turbines causing fire in a very fire prone area is also of concern.”
He concluded by saying, “I’m on the fence with the proposal and would like to see European Energy hold another meeting inviting everyone affected by the proposed windfarm have a further chance to ask questions and voice any concerns.”
Adam Campbell was clear in emphasising that the matter was one for the State Government and not the Shire. He said; “I haven’t seen all the information. If I am fortunate enough to be elected to represent the Shire, I will form an educated opinion on the matter.”
In the same vein, Albert Calvano said that the matter was for the State Government and not the Shire and that detailed information was necessary to form an opinion.
Support with reservations
THE two candidates who offered some support for the project were extremely cautious and hedged their opinions with numerous provisos.
Dennis Heslin acknowledged the need for wind farms and also spoke of compensation for affected parties when he told The Spectator, “Renewable is here, with Victoria and Australia current renewable levels around 38 per cent and with a National target for 2030 at 82 per cent, it is certainly an expansion to be aware of, particularly in South West Victoria in relation to wind energy.”
“As a Shire Council I feel it is our responsibility to lobby as hard as we can with State Government, as the ultimate umpire, to ensure the landowner is not the only local financial benefactor to a change of the natural landscape.
“I would recommend a Council has a responsibility to put forward a strong argument for the communities that are visually impacted, receive suitable compensation which can be directed to assist these communities with projects and assets that are needed. We would be neglecting the residents of our Shire if Spring St was to hold all the cards and then hope we are able to negotiate a piece of the money pie.”
Helen Henry expressed support for wind energy but frustration with the situation at hand when she said, “I find it repeatedly frustrating that country people are expected to mitigate the green guilt of the urban folk in our State.”
“However, I acknowledge that power must come from somewhere but there needs to be a community benefit and careful planning of wind farms and power lines.
“I don’t support the State dictating reforms for the country. I don’t support wind farms coming in and not paying their fair share to landowners, neighbours and communities for the inconvenience and damage to roads and fertile farmland.
“I do support wind and I would like to see a more even distribution of wind farms – offshore close to urban centres etc.
“I am concerned for the communities and I want (to) buy in before building commences and this as a private wind energy provider will need landowner support, environmental impacts studies (this is black cockatoo country), and much thinking around other ways to green our state. Why do we never discuss localised power and efficiency?”
Significant doubts
DR Tam Ramsay who has strong environmental credentials, had doubts with expressions of significant concern for wildlife.
“Currently I can’t say yes or no as there are too many issues to sort through at this early stage,” she said.
“Given there is interest from some landholders and economic benefits for the region, I would support further conversations with EE (European Energy the proposed developer), information exchange and substantive community consultation.
“I am glad to know of the mandated public consultation process.
“These are the concerns I have that would need to be assuaged before I would give a clear ‘yes’.
“I am already concerned about (points) 1 (natural beauty), 3 (risks to wildlife) and 4 (contradiction in renewables vs biodiversity policy). Although I think incorporating technology could mitigate the dangers to birds … (it) doesn’t solve the problem for bats. I note that EE mentioned mitigation strategies for them – I would like to and need to know more about how these could remove any threat to birds that rely on movement across the landscape.
“Points 2 (few jobs created) and 5 (fire risk) are insightful additions. I agree that any project of this scale should be tied to providing stable, meaningful local employment. I was surprised to learn … about the fire incident involving a wind turbine. This raises important concerns about safety, maintenance and emergency response planning in areas prone to bushfires such as our shire.”
Focussing on the fragmentation of rural land, Dr Ramsay said, “One area not mentioned about is the wind farm causing further fragmentation of our landscape and the impact this will have on wildlife.”
“The proposed area includes a variety of landscapes, primarily farm paddocks and remnant bushland,” she said.
“Much of this land has already been modified or cleared for agricultural use. This has already reduced large swathes of continuous native ecosystems to isolated patches of vegetation.
“Despite the already existing fragmentation, introducing the proposed wind farms to these areas could exacerbate the situation.
“I would be looking for conservation measures that result in a nature-positive result.”
Qualified opposition
DR Katrina Rainsford expressed strong misgivings but suggested that over a 25-year horizon the development might be acceptable.
“If we could know that these towers will be a one generation installation, I could live with it,” she said.
“I don’t support secret section by section wind farms when we don’t have the full picture. How many more towers across our landscape and where will the connector power lines go? It’s not yes or no to this project, it’s the secrecy of the whole industry. What other plans don’t we know about? There are more controls on replacing an old farmhouse on 20 acres than these major developments that have significant impact on the community that will live amongst them.”
Clear opposition
TWO of the candidates were unequivocal in their opposition.
Lee-Ann Elmes told The Spectator, “I agree with renewable energy, but I have heard really awful stories about the wind farms and so can’t in good faith support them.”
“The reason for my attitude is safety above all,” she said.
“We need to make sure that animals and humans can be safe and if some of these wind turbines have a tendency to catch fire or cause health or lifestyle problems for animals then we shouldn’t have them.”
James Leversha was similarly clear.
“I do not support the wind farm proposal for several reasons,” he said.
“The Dundas Tableland, known for its unique red gum landscape, would be severely impacted by the introduction of such large-scale infrastructure. The proposed turbines, standing at 250 meters high with blades spanning 150 meters in diameter, would alter the region’s natural beauty significantly.
“The risk to local wildlife is well-documented. European Energy has acknowledged the issue but does not appear to have a concrete mitigation plan in place at this stage … this risk directly contradicts broader environmental policies like Nature Positive and Nature Repair, which aim to protect biodiversity.”
With regard to fire he said, “There have been instances … where wind turbines have caught fire, posing a serious bushfire risk in rural areas. Given the fire-prone nature of our region, this is a significant concern that the project developers have not adequately addressed.
In regard to jobs Mr Leversha said; “While the construction phase of the wind farm may create jobs, the long-term benefits to local employment are minimal.”
He also cited strong community angst from a windfarm project in the St Arnaud district.
Conclusion
THE most notable feature of the responses from the candidates is the absence of any outright approval of the proposed wind farm.
This is particularly significant in view of the general support for renewable energy by several candidates and the absence of any questioning of wind power in general.
While it is quite possible that some of the five candidates who would like more information might come down strongly in favour of the project, the general tone of the responses ranged from caution to negativity.
While the successful candidates will not have any direct influence over the approval or veto of the scheme, their general attitudes will probably be of interest to voters.
