Can a consultant replace a council?

This question arose yesterday (July 30) as members of the public made statements at a Special Meeting of the Central Highlands Council.

The council was sitting as a Planning Authority, as it considered DA2023/34: the proposed St Patricks Plains Wind Farm

The contentious development includes 47 wind turbines, each towering 231 metres from the flat expanse of the St Patricks Plain and dominating the skyline along the surrounding ridges.

Over the past four years the Keep Tasmania’s Highlands Unique – No Turbine Action Group (NTAG) has worked tirelessly to present a well-researched case why this wind farm is in the wrong place.

The group has spent tens-of-thousands of dollars engaging specialists for opinions and reports ranging from planning law, visual impact analysis and heritage issues, to subjects as diverse as threatened species legislation, blade shadow flicker, ice throw and noise modelling regulation.

“It’s an overdone cliché, but this is a real David-and-Goliath battle,” said NTAG chair David Ridley.

The proponent for the wind farm is Ark Energy, a subsidiary of Korea Zinc Ltd – a lead and zinc smelter with an eight-billion-a-year turnover.

“We rely on donations from members, and the generosity of many professionals who help us gratis, or at heavily-discounted rates,” he added.

NTAG retains DST Legal, whose principal, Dominica Tannock, was at yesterday’s council meeting. She is considering future proceedings, with the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court both providing opportunities for challenges to yesterday’s decision.

The CHC Planning Authority comprises the entire nine councillors, although three recused themselves on the grounds of perceived bias prior to public presentations and the final vote. One speaker questioned the right of two other councillors to remain at the table, who were said to have connections to landowners who would be the beneficiaries of turbines placed on their properties.

It is understood that none of the councillors read or researched the 2500-page Environmental Impact Statement and associated documents which were released for public comment last August; nor the Supplement to the EIS (another 120 pages with 12 appendices) which came out in March this year.

This job was handed to a single consultant, who produced a 44-page report which focussed on two aspects of the Tasmanian Planning Scheme – Central Highlands, which was adopted by council in February 2023.

The report concluded that two provisions – building height and set back – were the only aspects which required interpretation, and that in the consultant’s opinion, the wind farm and its turbines satisfied these criteria.

Many of the speakers – each of whom was allocated five minutes to address the Planning Authority – raised the issue of councillors abrogating their duty to understand the issues by handing the entire EIS/DA process to a contracted employee.

Only one councillor of the six making the decision voted to disapprove the project. While she said the project appeared to provide many benefits for the area, “there were still too many questions” and she was “not happy” in casting her vote without having reasonable time to digest the 160 submissions (totalling 1253 pages) which were provided with the advisor’s report.

The remaining five were happy to give the project the tick because they said the wind farm was a permitted use; they took the consultant’s advice; or they were not legally able to counter the EPA’s determination.

One NTAG member who shares a boundary with the wind farm, and who will see most of the 47 turbines from their home, said prior to the Planning Authority’s meeting:

“Where [the council’s consultant] talks about height and location there is no mention of unreasonable impact on our property. There is no mention of fishing in the Shannon River, which is done at our property. We can see all that… from our lounge room.  There is no mention of shadow flicker affecting our working areas and camping areas at our river boundary. In all, [it’s]a very selective report that clearly doesn’t include us.“

While there is a need to replace fossil-fuelled power with renewable alternatives, desecrating the local landscape at the behest of foreign-owned entities is not in our best interests. Using Tasmanian renewable energy to greenwash smelting operations in Asia also speaks to an underlying reason for the push to invest in clean projects.

That the power is likely destined for the National Electricity Market via the contentious but seemingly-unstoppable Marinus cable is further reason to protect our environmental heritage.

There are a number of other sites on this island where wind farms can be built to produce electricity for use in Tasmania.

However, all projects need to be assessed by bodies which have a full understanding of the proposal in front of them, and a single consultant’s opinion does not pass the pub test.

There are legal avenues through which scrutiny can be bought to bear, but while we are all equal before the law, those with deeper pockets can afford to be a little more equal, more of the time.

Greg Pullen is a committee member of the Keep Tasmania’s Highlands Unique – No Turbine Action Group (NTAG) and has a keen interest in renewable energy transformation, in particular its benefits for Tasmania. He is a firm believer in the KISS Principle.