The Approval Process
Spring Range considers the approval process for wind plants flawed at many levels.
- Few Local Councils have set planning guidelines to deal with developer proposals.
- Developers are able to bypass local councils in any case if the Minister decides their proposals are of State Significance. The proposals may then be approved via the Minister and the NSW Planning Dept.
- The approval process itself is tilted towards the developers.
- Residents have limited time to respond to complex proposals while developers are under no such time pressure during plan preparation.
- Evidence exists that the Dept of Planning has been allied with developers in calling for amendments to submissions in cases where approval is likely to be withheld.
- The NSW Planning Dept has approved incomplete wind plant proposals which omit details of the route taken by power lines to connect the plant to the electricity grid. Approval is granted conditional on the later approval of the line. Residents get imprecise information on how they will be affected and the Department has inadequate information to assess the impact of a proposal in its entirety.
- Proposals lacking full end of life decommissioning plans have been approved.
- Liability issues have been allowed to remain hidden in "commercial in confidence" contracts and the Department has not made public the necessary underlying material to allow scrutiny of the process to allay community concerns.
- Developments have been approved without adequate provision for continuity of responsibility of the project over its life. Developer assurances have been accepted at face value with no requirement for lodgement of a bond or other surety to guarantee compliance with long term approval conditions.
- Where decisions have overridden local community interests for the greater public good, an inadequate standard of proof had been required of developers that the proposals will produce the benefits cited, or evidence that less damaging alternatives have been investigated.
Taken individually each of the above flaws might indicate oversight or minor negligence by those involved. Taken as a whole, systematic bias of the approval process in favour of developers has deprived residents of the protection a fair process would provide.