News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Tuki wind farm timing unknown 

Tuki wind farm timing unknown

06 Oct, 2008 01:34 AM
THE next stage of the Tuki wind farm will be unknown until the end of the year.

Wind Power met with Hepburn Shire Council last week, after mounting community concern about the proposal.

There has been community speculation over whether the proposal will go ahead at Tuki and how many turbines it would involve.

In June, wind farm opposition group Spa Country Landscape Guardians claimed the project had ended due to community opposition.

But Wind Power told The Courier the project's future depended on the unknown nature of the Emissions Trading Scheme and carbon prices, and it expected more details later this year.

Originally, 19 turbines were earmarked for the proposal, but in 2007 it was revised to be up to 50 turbines.

Wind Power spokesman Ross Richards said once the company gained relevant information it could revisit the proposal and determine its direction.

If it did go ahead, Mr Richards said Wind Power would lodge an application in early 2009.

One of the community concerns discussed last week between the council and Wind Power was the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Some hill-tops in the project's area are protected in council's planning scheme by an SLO.

While the council is not for or against wind farms, Mayor Tim Hayes said he believed the SLO would be a factor in determining an application by Wind Power.

Wind Power has received draft legal advice stating an SLO would not prevent the project's development.

If the wind farm is proposed to be more than 30 megawatts, it will go directly to the State Government planning panel for consideration. The council can then comment on the application but not determine it.

The council recently developed draft Wind Energy Facility Guidelines, to be considered with the community by the council in November.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Where's Buckle and Newbold, and their ill-fated report by ERM that states slo's preclude any type of intrusive development like a wind farm!
Posted by Steve, 6/10/2008 11:10:27 AM
It ashame the Courier didn't bother to contact the community affected by these dills. More spin with yet little substance once again
Posted by Fran, 6/10/2008 11:12:18 AM
Its more than just the hilltops that are covered by an SLO, its all of the hill and the area around it. You cannot place obtrusive buildings on these areas, it is law. Windpower had no idea this SLO protection of the volcanic cones existed. They are a small ill-informed company. Maybe those who still think wind power will save emmisions should have a look at the report from the German government which reports this is clearly not the case. Use taxpayers money on a solution that works.
Posted by richard, 6/10/2008 12:34:39 PM
Didn't wind power say they would be putting in a planning application in October 2007? Over a year ago now? This project is simply not in the right place. Wind Power knows this, as indicated in the report they had done by ERM which states that turbines should not be placed on SLOs. When an area is recognised as being nationaly signicant and protected and the whole community is outraged at what is being proposed then there must be more than a little bit wrong
Posted by pete, 6/10/2008 12:44:38 PM
It amazing to think a newspaper can print the same poorly informed article not once but three times in its paper over a few months, with the writer still unable to do some research into the issue. Wind Power's tuki tate wind farm has been a flop from start to finish with four landholders who are both desperate to cling to a deal that will break them financially.
Posted by Pete Babcock, 6/10/2008 12:52:20 PM
The turbines can't look any worse than the trail of bright yellow redundant farm equipment with ill-informed messages of opposition scattered along the roadside. They make a mockery of the SLO. I'd rather look at some turbines, knowing that they are utilising renewable energy sources, than a heap of junk rusting in a paddock.
Posted by Go Green, 6/10/2008 2:52:56 PM
I want to go green, but these wind turbines just don't stack up. I can really understand why there is so much protest against them, it looks like the only people that benefit are the developers, they even take the poor old famer for a ride after he rents them the land, with seemingly dodgy contracts. To consider putting these turbines up is to dismiss our reliance on energy when we need it, wind is unreliable, let's use geothermal power that can be relied upon when we need it, not waste our time money and landscape with wind.
Posted by phil, 6/10/2008 9:41:43 PM
Go Green, why should anyone have to put up with this near their homes? Do you have something against people upholding the law? In this case the planning laws of the state of victoria. Maybe you have something to gain financially from wind development? because the rest of the community can only lose. Get your facts right, there are no SLO areas anywhere along the road at Smeaton, they are confined to the national significant volcanic cones in the area that are protected for good reason. If you think wind is so good why not put one in your backyard and see how your neighbours react.
Posted by allison, 6/10/2008 9:52:19 PM
It's good enough for China, India and other developing countries to pull their weight on global emmissions, where their problems are much greater, but we can't even make a small contribution without some members of the community putting their own selfish views ahead of all the energy crisis the world is facing.
Posted by baj, 6/10/2008 11:02:04 PM
Well done to the small community of Smeaton that is fighting this inappropriate development. The courier should do a story on the real facts of wind energy; 1. the turbines power is intermittent 2. the energy can't be stored which most people don't realise 3. the consumer pays more to subsidize this rubbish 4. when the wind doesn't blow the power don't flow 5. the landholder ends up having to remove the turbines at over 1 million dollars each 6. solar is far better as there is a direct benefit to the holderhold that has it
Posted by Macka, 7/10/2008 10:37:37 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.

Most popular articles

1.  Magistrates Court: drive-by shooter ...
2.  Prepare now for swine flu
3.  Dry grass starts car fire on highway
4.  A-maze-ing things are happening at Gordon
5.  75 new jobs at CMI
6.  Bond for owner of distressed horse
7.  Lightning starts small fires
Photo Sales
 
Paperboy
 
Design and Print
 SEND...
Email a FriendEmail a friend
 SAVE...
FavouritesFavourites
Del.icio.usDel.icio.us
 SHARE...
FacebookFacebook
DiggDigg
StumbleUponStumbleUpon
MySpaceMySpace
RedditReddit
NewsvineNewsvine
LinkedInLinkedIn
KwoffKwoff
TwitterTwitter