MOD 3 - Wind Turbine Reduction

I am the registered proprietor on the land that is to be burdened by an easement for the purpose of the 132kV powerline detailed in the project.



The applicant has not reached agreement with me to the creation of the easement.



I object to the proposed windfarm on the basis that the applicant has not resolved the easement issue with me as the owner of land that is proposed to be burdened by the easement.



I do not consider that the applicant has properly consider alternate routes for the 132kV powerline so as not to provide the very significant impact on my property.



So as to be absolutely clear, I do not agree to granting an easement in favour of the applicant or any electricity supply authority across my land.



The applicant ceased communicating and negotiating with me in relation to the proposed easement in approximately 2015. I have not had any further contact and I assumed that the current modification would provide an alternate route for the 132kV powerline. Obviously this is not the case.



As a landowner that is identified as part of the project I do not consent to the application or the modification or the grant of the proposed easement for the 132kV powerline.

Regards

Charles Knox

I am the registered proprietor on the land that is to be burdened by an easement for the purpose of the 132kV powerline detailed in the project.



The applicant has not reached agreement with me to the creation of the easement.



I object to the proposed windfarm on the basis that the applicant has not resolved the easement issue with me as the owner of land that is proposed to be burdened by the easement.



I do not consider that the applicant has properly consider alternate routes for the 132kV powerline so as not to provide the very significant impact on my property.



So as to be absolutely clear, I do not agree to granting an easement in favour of the applicant or any electricity supply authority across my land.



The applicant ceased communicating and negotiating with me in relation to the proposed easement in approximately 2015. I have not had any further contact and I assumed that the current modification would provide an alternate route for the 132kV powerline. Obviously this is not the case.



As a landowner that is identified as part of the project I do not consent to the application or the modification or the grant of the proposed easement for the 132kV powerline.

Regards

Geoffrey Knox

Thank you for the opportunity to raise my objections to the proposed modifications to the Flyers Creek Wind Farm. Unfortunately I have only just become aware of the modification to the modifications of the wind farm, notably the addition of turbine 15, which was not included in the plans that have been in circulation, in the plans sent to us by Infigen, to Blayney council, etc. I write this as I am on a flight overseas for three weeks and therefore do not have the facilities to make detailed technical objections.
However I must make clear that we object in the most strong terms possible the inclusion of Turbine 15. Our property Cooramilla is property R056 on Modification 3, also referred to in that document as exiting property 2.
Due to the growing awareness of the impact of the turbines on us we fought Infigen for years to exercise our rights to leave the project, despite their threats to sue us for millions of dollars, despite the fact that by leaving the project we were forgoing an income of approximately $20,000 a year because we are convinced that the threat to our health, the peace and serenity of our lifestyle and the overwhelming industrial pollution of our visual environment would be intolerable. Now we discover that while Infigen have finally relented and removed turbines from our property they propose to go ahead and build a turbine on a neighbouring property closer to our house than the two that were planned on our property!
On page 9 of Infigen's proposal Infigen claim that our property is surrounded by trees which will provide screen to the visual impact of the turbines which is a nonsense. Are they really arguing because we have trees in our garden that the monstrous turbine right next door will be screened from our view? This proposition is insulting.
The turbine is far too close to our property and would not be permitted either here or elsewhere in the world under current guidelines. Infigen will claim that current guidelines do not apply, yet on page 12 of modification 3 Infigen requests no less than three changes to Conditions of Approval "to reflect contemporary wind farm conditions"
Even the most cursory observation of the layout shows what an anomalous position Turbine 15 is in at present. It's location made sense when it was part of a complex with turbines 13, 14 and 16, however it is now isolated on its own, some 3 kilometres on its own from the nearest turbine. Turbine 15 spreads the footprint of the wind farm enormously with very little benefit. It entails the construction of more than 3 kilometres of underground cable, more than 2 kilometres of road ( which passes through difficult seasonal boggy wetlands) and the construction of a lay down area all for 1 turbine! It is difficult to understand how this could be economically viable and seems from our perspective how far Infigen will go to put a turbine right in our face. While Infigen will deny this it is hard for us not to see this as a continuation of the vicious campaign waged against us and the two other landholders who wished to exercise their right to withdraw from the wind farm which has been documented in our submission to the Senate Inquiry into wind farms and after which we received great support from the Senate.
In any case Turbine 15 extends the footprint of the wind farm in an unnecessary and unacceptable way. Just to have this one isolated turbine the impacts would be unacceptable not only on us but on all our neighbours. While Infigen may claim it already has developmental approval for this turbine it can not go ahead without the modifications to underground cabling requested by Infigen in this Modification 3. Moreover as Infigen is requesting the removal of turbines 13, 14 and 16 we would ask that this be made conditional on the removal of turbine 15.
We would request the right to provide more technical critiques when we return to Australia and would ask the Dept to make an onsite inspection before any decision is made. Such an inspection would demonstrate how close the proposed turbine 15 is to us and how widespread the nuisance would be to all our neighbours due to it's location on the high plateau.

Secondly, I wish to make what I regard as extremely important objections to the Part B of Amendment 3, The Alternative alignment of the 33kv overhead powerlines to the Errowanbang road.
Keith Mills, who conducted the environmental impact study included in this Modification 3 was right to point out that much of the land in the windfarm is improved and unimproved pasture which has irrevocably changed the native ecology. It may seem ironic but some of the few vestiges of native ecology that exist in our area are road verges, free as they are from the constant grazing by farm animals. This is especially true of the Flyers Creek area as there are no nature reserves in the area at all. Indeed it is my hobby to study native flora, and in order to do so I usually have to drive at least half an hour or a lot more to find parcels of native vegetation. The only other place to do so is on the sides of the road.
Keith Mills in his environmental impact study only mentions the trees along the roadside, but not the whole complex of shrubs, grasses, perennials and herbs that make up a whole ecological flora, nor in fact their pollinators, insects and so forth. If we are looking to preserve endanged Flora and Fauna we have to look at far more than Superb Parrots and their nesting sites. We have to look closely enough to see native orchids (and their pollinators), large and small shrubs like wattles etc to see if there are endangered species and communities.
This was really brought home to me in the past few days when I was told that Infigen are being sued because of a fire that started on a wind farm of theirs near Canberra because they failed to keep cleared the land below overhead power lines and a fire caused by those lines took off and caused considerable damage.
So does that mean that Infigen will have to keep the roadsides constantly slashed and cleared and creating an ecological desert or allow the remnant floral communities to grow and create a fire hazard?
There is an alternative of course that can resolve that problem and that is to put the lines underground but Infigen have fiercely opposed that idea in the past because it would cost more.
Not good enough.
This proposal would also overcome the visual eyesore that the overhead powerlines would be.
The proposal to reroute the overhead powerlines cannot be approved until an adequate and independent review of the affected flora and fauna along the route is undertaken and a management plan is made. The concept which they are now proposing of a 100 metre wide corridor in which they can do whatever they like is absurd and should be rejected immediately. Not until they come up with a detailed proposal should this modification be even considered.

We also request that no changes be made to the project approval conditions requested by Infigen if they dilute in any way those conditions and in particular the environmental conditions.

Please find attached corrected copy for Flyers Creek Wind Farm Modification 3. Please delete previous submission.

Please Submission re Flyers Creek Wind Farm Modification 3

Authors:
Dr Alan C Watts OAM
Dr Colleen J Watts OAM

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Blayney Shire Council has no specific comments regarding Flyers Creek Wind Farm Modification 3.

It is noted Council is in the process of undertaking significant capital upgrades to Errowanbang Road including realignment of the road.

Infigen Energy are aware and have been provided with design plans showing the realignment of Errownabang Road.

Council have previously advised Infigen in its letter of 9 June 2015 as to the requirements for installation of power lines within Councils Road Reserves. These requirements would still stand. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed for your reference.

Please note the VPA which has previously been agreed and entered into may require modification to remove those properties no longer part of the project. Council would expect no other terms of the agreement would be altered.

See attached.