WIND FARMS

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the Sellicks Hill and Myponga wind farm development.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The True Friends of the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges have contacted my office to express their concern about aspects of the wind farm proposed for Myponga and Sellicks Hill. Family First supports renewable energy projects and wind farms where there is a net benefit to the environment and the community.

The TrustPower project involves erecting 20 wind turbines on Mount Terrible, Mount Jeffcott and south of Sellicks Hill, towards Myponga. The project, considered a major development in 2002-03, was initially approved in November 2003; however, it has been subject to a number of changes since then. The project cost was originally claimed to be approximately $60 million and supposed to have a generating capacity of 35 megawatts. Recent changes sought, however, to reduce the turbine numbers from 20 to 16 but increase the generating capacity to three megawatts per turbine, raising the output from the original 35 megawatts to 48 megawatts.

The True Friends complain that this project, as it presently stands, will have adverse environmental, heritage, landscape, road safety and tourism impacts. There is a suggestion that some turbines will be located as close as 700 metres to existing homes. They have advised me that the French require turbines to be located no closer than 1.5 kilometres to housing and the English, two kilometres.

Honourable members were updated on this project by a ministerial statement and a question from the opposition on 24 July this year. Since then, on 21 August, the District Council of Yankalilla passed a motion opposing the wind farm on the basis that the development application had, in effect, expired. The Conservation Council of South Australia has also been critical of the project in the past. My questions are:

1. What was the reason for each variation of the project?

2. Will the minister now require TrustPower, almost five years since its initial approval, to apply for a fresh approval?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:33): In relation to the latter part of the question, it is something I am considering at the moment. As the honourable member said in his question, TrustPower has altered its proposal and, of course, it will need approval. If minor changes are made to a major development proposal, they can be considered by a DAC or, if they are major changes, they require alteration by the Governor, because it is the Governor who ultimately must approve major projects, and they would generally go to cabinet.

I have seen some of the information which the honourable member provided and which has been in the local paper. My information does not accord with all those facts. I am certainly aware that the proposal is to reduce the turbine numbers from 20 to 16, although I understand that the location of those 16, as proposed now by the company, would not put any of those windmills any closer to housing than was previously the case when this was granted major project approval.

It certainly is unusual that, when approval is given, it takes such a long time for construction to be undertaken. Indeed, I wrote to the proponents nearly 12 months ago, I think it was, because I was concerned at the time that there had been so little progress in relation to that process, although I was aware from correspondence with the company that there were a few issues and that the company did have some reasons for the lack of progress. If I can remember the correspondence of 12 months or so ago, I did require the company to undertake some screening. I think that at the time the RAA had raised issues about whether these wind farms would distract drivers going through Sellicks Hill, and so on.

As I understand it, there was a condition within the approval that the company was required to provide some screening, but no work had been undertaken. I wrote to the company in those terms some 12 months ago. However, here we are 12 months later and there are these proposed changes. I will be considering the changes, and I will be taking a proposition to cabinet within the next few weeks.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Brokenshire has a supplementary question.