In last week’s instalment of this column, I wrote about the proposal to construct a wind farm consisting of 45 large wind turbines. The wind farm is to be located at the beautiful area of Paternoster, on the Cape west coast.
Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Minister Barbara Creecy has granted an environmental authorisation (EA) for this. Appeals were submitted to her department, objecting on the basis of impact on tourism and heritage, as well as visual impact, avifauna impact, aviation impact, bias and a flawed process. A further appeal was lodged concerning the wake effect, which is the effect that the proposed wind farm will have on an existing wind farm nearby. In August 2020, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) dismissed all the appeals except the one relating to the wake effect. In May this year, an EA was granted. A further 16 appeals were submitted. One, dealing with the impact of wind turbine noise on the environment, was submitted by us, Machoy Consulting Acoustics Engineers cc. I am very much in love with Paternoster, all of which started when I was young, and was very diligent in our appeal submission.
We have now received a letter from Creecy, in which she writes that she dismisses all the appeals and grants the EA for the project. And so? Let’s look at the correspondence from her: in the paragraph headed ‘Evaluation’, she states that “the following grounds of appeal were raised in the previous appeals against the granting of the 2020 EA: tourism and impact on property, heritage impact, visual impact, avifauna impact, aviation, alternatives, bias, a flawed environmental-impact assessment process and the environmental management plan not approved”. And so? She writes that “I must stress that I have already deliberated on and dismissed these grounds of appeal in the appeal decision of August 30, 2020. To the extent that I have made a final decision on these grounds of appeal, I am functus officio in respect thereof, and therefore may not revisit the matter”.
In other words, she has no mandate to review the appeals. Her letter then goes on to discuss, at length, the appeal relating to the wind wake effect. Now, it happens that her evaluation of the wake effect is incorrect but that is to one side. We, Machoy Consulting Acoustics Engineers cc, submitted an appeal about the noise impact by June 18, 2021. She hadn’t seen it before because it was not submitted in 2020, as were the others. So, she’s not functus officio on it in any way. She just didn’t bother to address the matter at all. Further, despite the fact that the DFFE’s evaluation of the wake effect is very incorrect, she dismisses this appeal as well as the others, ignores ours and then, in Clause 2.22, writes that, in respect of socioeconomic development and enterprise development, the wind farm developer will invest R182.4-million into the community over a 20-year period.
Now, even if this were true (and really, how could it be?) what business is it of the DFFE? Does the department have the right to subject a community to severe impacts of tourism and property, heritage, visual impact, avifauna impact, aviation and noise and say, heck no worry, the developer paid for it? This is what used to be argued by the Nationalist Party government: “Don’t worry about the new iron-ore mine; you’ll all get some money out of it.”
Helpfully, Creecy ends her appeal decision document with a note that “should any of the appellants be dissatisfied with any aspect of my decision, they may apply to a competent court to have this decision judicially reviewed”. Ah. We didn’t know that, did we? What happens next? I know. We will get a letter saying, “I note . . . blah blah” and “I have reviewed your appeal and I regret”. To which I will reply, “Thank you, yours truly, Frankly Disgusted”.