The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm, arguing the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.
The appellant relied primarily on lay witnesses expressing concerns about noise, shadow flicker, aviation safety, and impacts on species at risk, supported by one expert whose evidence was found insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus under the Environmental Protection Act, as the evidence amounted only to expressions of concern and was contradicted by the respondents' extensive expert evidence.
The Tribunal also dismissed the approval holder's mid-hearing non-suit motion to dismiss the appeal for failing to establish a prima facie case, noting a lack of submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of such a motion in the public interest context of REA appeals.
The appeal was dismissed and the REA confirmed.
