7.1 Observations

Complaint handling

It is inevitable that major infrastructure projects will attract concerns and complaints from community members and other stakeholders – particularly during the development and construction phases of the project.

Rather than being perceived as an indicator of failure or a nuisance to have to respond to, complaints should be embraced by developers as an opportunity to correct a misperception, provide helpful information, or rectify a real issue. Further, it is a terrific opportunity to build a positive relationship with the complainant moving forward.

The clear majority of complaints received by our Office are about proposed projects in the development or construction phase. Most of these complaints are resolvable by the provision of factual information to address the concern.

Projects are typically required to establish a complaint handling procedure, together with supporting systems and processes, to comply with planning permit conditions. It is also best practice that a project can properly receive, investigate and resolve complaints during all phases of the project – from initial development through to mature facility operations.

Complaint handling procedures are generally required to be submitted and endorsed by the responsible authority. However, in many cases, limited guidance is provided in permit conditions as to the process, scope, requirements and standards that the complaint handling procedure should adhere to.

While many projects are likely to be compliant with the requirement to submit and have an endorsed complaint handling procedure, our observations have been that many projects still neglect to publish the procedure or communicate the procedure to the community. Further, it is still not often clear how community members can contact the developer to make and lodge a complaint or concern. 

This lack of transparency can make it difficult for community members to know how to make a complaint and the process by which they should expect their complaint to be handled.

Over time, many projects have adopted the Commissioner’s suggestions, making their complaint handling procedures transparent and demonstrating compliance with their processes when handling complaints. 

However, there are still further opportunities for developers to ensure they are following their own documented procedures when handling complaints and avoid situations including:

  • projects not following their own published procedure for handling complaints
  • projects failing to internally escalate the complaint for review when the complaint has not been resolved
  • multiple complaints from a complainant about the same issue or issues – with no visible action being taken by the proponent to investigate or resolve
  • multiple complaint reference numbers being issued to the complainant for the same complaint, encouraging complainants to make repetitive complaints in the hope it will carry some weight
  • a lack of rigour or process in complaint investigations 
  • poor content and lack of clarity in developer correspondence responding to the complainant
  • long delays between completing steps in the complaint handling process
  • little or no ability to close a complaint due to lack of closure criteria in the complaint handling policy 
  • complaints remaining open when they could have been closed, and
  • a lack of clarity regarding the next steps in the complaint handling process – leading to numerous complaints that remain unresolved and/or not closed.

There is also a wide range of project complaint handling procedures in place that vary within the developer’s various projects, often resulting in a mix of consistency in the quality and effectiveness of the procedures as well as confusion with developer staff and complainants. Developers may possess varying degrees of complaint handling skills, and opportunities remain to improve the capability of staff effectiveness when handling complaints and interacting with complainants.

The Commissioner has successfully encouraged a number of developers/operators to voluntarily publish their complaint handling procedures on their project website. Many developers have now complied with this request. Some developers have also revised their complaint handling procedures as a result of discussions with the Office. The Commissioner continues to make suggestions to improve existing complaint handling procedures to many industry representatives who have sought assistance from the Office. Developers also often seek assistance from the Office on suggestions for handling specific complaints that they may be dealing with.

The Commissioner’s complaint handling policy can be easily found on the Commissioner’s website and may provide ideas and insights for industry and government/regulator complaint handling policies.

Noise considerations

While objective measures and standards are used to determine compliance with noise restrictions, it is also evident that there is further scope to investigate complaints relating to noise emissions from wind turbines and other infrastructure. In assessing noise-related complaints, the objective ‘tests’ currently in place do not necessarily capture the tonal character of noise emissions that a complainant may be experiencing. For instance, maintenance or operating issues with infrastructure (such as a turbine or a substation transformer) may lead to harmonic frequencies that produce a harsher tone to the human ear. While this is not typically represented in noise assessment data, contemporary noise measurement or recording devices can be used to indicate that the tonal character of a particular noise emission may reasonably be disturbing or offensive to a complainant.

Other events can cause abnormal noise annoyance from wind turbines. These include loose bolts, whining gearboxes, lack of greasing of the rotating nacelle causing a screeching noise during the yaw breaking process, and lightning strike of a blade tip (piercing a hole in the turbine blade that causes a high-pitched whistling sound). These situations require a rapid response to the complaint, and it is in everyone’s interest that the asset be repaired, and the noise emission rectified as soon as possible.

If a resident has concerns about experiencing audible noise inside their residence, the suggested approach is for a suitably qualified acoustician to attend the property, witness the alleged noise inside the residence, determine the root causes and source of the noise, and, finally, prescribe a solution to the issue.  

Permit requirements and complaint avenues

Following the Commissioner’s discussions with the relevant Minister and Department, the Victorian Government moved quickly to introduce additional permit conditions related to complaint handling procedures and transparency based on the Commissioner’s initial observations and recommendations. It is understood that these additional conditions have been applied to both new, renewed and modified planning permits issued for wind farms in Victoria.

There may also be other avenues for complaints to be lodged by residents in proximity to a project. Until around July 2021, complaints about wind farm ‘noise nuisance’ in Victoria were able to be lodged with local government under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Victoria). While wind farms are now exempt from that legislation, Councils should still be fully aware of their responsibilities under this Act and ensure they have appropriate documented procedures to receive and handle complaints in the case they were lodged under this legislation. 

Further, the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 (Victoria) came into force in 2021 and provides additional options for residents to raise complaints about ‘unreasonable noise’ and allege breaches of the general environmental duty by the developer/operator.

Victoria has also initiated changes to wind farm noise regulation, moving investigative responsibilities from local councils to the state-based Environment Protection Authority, effective 1 July 2021. These new arrangements are similar to the regime that has been in place in New South Wales since 2013. 

With these regulatory changes in place as of July 2021, community members in Victoria can lodge noise complaints about operating wind farms to the wind farm operator, the EPA, our Office or pursue legal action in the courts for alleged breach of compliance. 

Finally, industry bodies such as the CEC, ENA and the Energy Charter may have key roles to play in leading the development and promotion of consistent, best practice complaint handling models and procedures for the renewable energy and transmission industries. These templates should be easily adopted by industry members and configurable for their specific requirements. 

Emergency procedures

The Commissioner has observed opportunities for clearer protocols to be put in place between project operators and emergency response agencies, in particular as they relate to ground and aerial firefighting, the ability to direct a rapid shutdown of assets, such as wind turbines and high voltage transmission lines, activating aviation safety lighting, and the positioning of turbine blades during the shutdown to minimise the obstacle’s interference with aircraft (the preferred position being a ‘Y’ shape, with one blade aligned with the turbine tower, also known as the ‘rabbit ear’ position).

Not all wind turbine manufacturers or specific turbine models have the ability to remotely lock the turbine blades into the ideal position for safe aerial firefighting. Some blades will continue to drift with the wind, further increasing the risks to pilots and reducing the workable airspace between turbines for planes to fly and drop retardants.

Other potential obstacles to aerial firefighting, such as meteorological masts, radio towers and powerlines, may also exist around the project site, and pilots need to be well aware of this infrastructure. A consistent standard for the visible identification of meteorological masts should be considered and adopted into planning guidelines and aviation safety assessments.

Turbines equipped with aviation safety lighting should ensure there are procedures in place to quickly activate the lights during a bushfire or fog event to increase the transparency of those obstacles to pilots. Ultimately, pilots will need to make their own assessments and decisions about whether it is safe to fly in and amongst a wind farm or transmission line, based on the weather, smoke, fog, wind conditions and any other relevant considerations or constraints.

Further information about wind farms and bushfire management can be found in the guideline document produced by the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council (AFAC), entitled Wind Farms and Bushfire Operations – Guideline – Version 3.0, 25 October 2018. Our Office contributed to this document, along with a number of key stakeholders. 

With regard to bushfires and transmission lines, there is much conjecture and confusion around the risks of a fire being started by a transmission line, through to what actions the public should take when near or fighting a fire that is in proximity to a bushfire, irrespective of the fire’s origins.

Much of the ignition confusion relates to the difference between an electricity distribution network (typically up to 66kV) versus a high voltage transmission line (typically 133kV up to 500kV).

Because of the large clearance between a transmission line’s conductors and the ground or vegetation, transmission lines are not known for igniting fires, unlike the distribution lines, which are relatively close to the ground.

To address these various concerns, Energy Safe Victoria (ESV), the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and our Office have developed a current, factual information brochure entitled Electricity Transmission Lines – Bushfire Management and Community Safety. The brochure was issued in March 2023 and is available online at the ESV and AEIC websites.


7.2.1    Planning permit conditions for projects should stipulate that the complaint handling procedures should support all types of concerns and complaints raised about the project and also meet minimum best practice standards for complaint handling procedures (such as the Australian/NZ Standard for Complaint Handling – AS10002:2014).The developer should implement appropriate systems and processes to support the procedures and maintain an appropriately detailed complaint register.

7.2.2    Planning permits should include a condition requiring the endorsed complaint handling procedure and the complaints register to be published on the project’s website. 

The website should include a direct, toll-free telephone number and an email address to contact the project to make an enquiry or complaint. Developers should also proactively implement these provisions from the very commencement of development as part of best practice transparency and community engagement.

7.2.3    Planning permits should include a condition requiring that the endorsed complaint handling procedure be followed and complied with by the proponent. Failure to comply could be deemed as a material breach of permit compliance. Complainants should be provided with a reference number, but only one reference number should be issued for the complaint, no matter how many times a complainant contacts the developer about the same issues.

7.2.4    The responsible authority should have the powers and capability to audit a project’s complaint handling process, activities and the complaints register – to monitor compliance with the endorsed procedures and the planning permit conditions. 

7.2.5    The complaint handling procedure and the project operator should have the capacity to accommodate the handling of urgent or emergency complaints. These complaints may be related to safety issues as well as unacceptable environmental impacts, such as damage to a turbine caused by external events such as a lightning strike or mechanical failure resulting in unacceptable noise emissions. The project operator should respond immediately, on-site, to assess, address and rectify such issues. While objective measures and standards may be in place for assessing matters such as noise emissions, a subjective reasonableness test should also be applied when assessing environmental conditions, such as abnormal noise emissions, tonality, special audible characteristics and low frequency noise.

7.2.6    Complaint handling bodies such as developers, local councils, state governments and compliance authorities should ensure they are able to receive and process complaints – and that their complaint handling procedures are relevant for the types of projects covered by this report. Further, these complaints need to be closed out at the appropriate time, with the complainant being advised accordingly.

7.2.7    For extreme emergency conditions, such as a bushfire or flood, the project operator should have appropriate controls, protocols and procedures in place, consistent with the emergency response requirements, to ensure the assets can be rapidly shut down. Power network operators should be aware that the wind or solar farm capacity may need to be shut down quickly in the event of an emergency event. 

7.2.8    Projects should also work closely with the relevant firefighting (and/or emergency services) agency to review and agree on protocols and procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. 

7.2.9    The project should use appropriate marking devices to ensure transparency of other aerial obstacles, such as meteorological masts, radio towers and powerlines, in consultation with the firefighting agency. Material obstacles should require planning permits. If the obstacle is a potential risk to aviation safety, the obstacle should be assessed as part of the overall aviation impact assessment, with the audited assessment being provided to the responsible planning authority.

7.2.10    Wind turbine design standards should be reviewed in light of their capability to remotely position and lock turbine blades in the event of a bushfire. Developers should strongly consider selecting turbines that conform to this standard going forward. There would also be a strong advantage if turbines were delivered with the capability to install aviation lighting, even if this is not a permit requirement or intended for use under normal conditions, as the ability to quickly and remotely activate safety lighting on turbines may assist greatly in the event of any bushfire or other emergency.

7.2.11    The industry peak bodies (CEC and ENA) should continue to provide leadership to the industry by developing and promoting best practice standards for complaint handling, along with community engagement and quality assurance of member companies. The CEC and ENA could also encourage or mandate (via a code of conduct) that its industry members voluntarily publish their project’s complaint handling procedure and contact details and that their staff are properly trained and skilled in effective complaint handling.

7.2.12    Policies and procedures for handling noise and other environmental complaints lodged with government agencies, including local councils, should be in a place where the possibility exists for complaints to be made either as an alleged breach of compliance and/or under other governing legislation, such as the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018. Overlapping legislation may well need to be adjusted to avoid unnecessary duplication of process and the prospects of vexatious complaints and litigation.

7.2.13    While guidelines are now in place relating to bushfires and wind farms (issued by AFAC) and transmission (ESV), contemporary guidelines still need to be published regarding bushfires and solar farms, large scale batteries as well as an updated, consistent guideline on working with transmission lines on farms.

Further information