Jupiter Wind Farm

I strongly object to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm. I strongly object until such time as your Department has provided evidence, which will stand up in court, that the wind farm will not blight the view from my property or surrounding areas and will not in any way, such as noise, harm our sleep or health or harm our amenity of this property or in other ways harm our lifestyle, including reception to TV, radio, mobile phone and internet, and that it will not increase the risk of wildfire threat to my property or increase the difficulty of protecting my property from wildfires or devalue my property.

I look forward to the provision by you of fully researched analysis independent of the developer, in relation to my particular property and surrounding areas, to establish there will be no harm, and in the absence of such evidence, register my objection.

I agree that we should replace fossil fuel power stations with renewable energy now that they are cheaper to produce than coal and gas generators. I myself have solar panels on my home so I am not an anti-renewable energy advocate. However, I do object to the erection of the Jupiter Wind Farm, Application number SSD 6277, right next door to Barnet and other surrounding rural residential areas. Why is an industrial wind farm proposal in a rural residential area even being considered by the Government?

I am a partial owner of a 40 Hectare rural, residential property on Barnet Drive. We purchased the property for the peace and quiet that is synonymous to that rural area. My partner and I intended to build a self sufficient, solar passive home on the property but have put the architectural design on hold. I pity those who have already made their homes in a rural residential area only to have it converted into an industrial estate with noise pollution and increased fire hazard.

According to the initial bush fire brigade report, the Tarago/Mt Fairy bush fire in January 2017 was caused by the Capital Wind Farm infrastructure that burnt a bird. The fire burnt out thousands of hectares before it was controlled. I believe it was stopped on Barnet Drive after burning one shed thus saving many other homes, building structures and possible lives of the Barnet community. If the proposed wind farm starts a bush fire there is not enough time for the bush fire brigade to control it before it burns out the adjoining communities. Can the Government guarantee that the wind farm infrastructure will not cause a bush fire? If not, then this is a major threat to people and property in the adjoining rural residential area.

If the wind farm causes a bush fire, who will pay for damages and who will be responsible for the possible loss of life? I certainly would blame the Government for approving such a proposal and the wind farm managers for negligence.

I believe wind turbine blades can reach speeds of up to 270Kph which cause vortexes that can kill birds. In 2016, the US Fish and Wildlife Service recognised that wind farms "kill about 440,000 birds a year, including some iconic bald eagles, golden eagles and other protected species"1. In 2016 I saw a pair of Wedged Tail Eagles hunting on our property, the first time in 17 years. It was en-heartening to see the return of such iconic birds of prey. It is very likely that the proposed wind farm will kill many birds including this rare pair of Australia's largest eagles. Who will take the responsibility for this destruction of wildlife?

Yes, from our intended house site we can hear cars on the Goulburn Road, roosters, jets 10Km high, the train across the valley, the neighbours' dogs barking, the tranquillity of the wind in the trees, Kookaburras and other birds, but they are not a constant annoyance. I understand that our house site is 2.4Km from the nearest, proposed, wind turbine and that the wind turbines produce a lot of noise. If I can hear the road traffic, jets, and trains surely I will be able to hear the noise from the wind turbines and this will be constant whenever there is more than a slight breeze blowing.

City people don't appreciate the rural peace and quite because they are always exposed to traffic and city noise. Therefore, they don't appreciate the tranquillity of a rural setting. If I am bombarded with the constant noise pollution caused by the wind turbines and the potential increase in fire hazard then owning the property will be useless. If the wind farm is built:

who will pay for property when I can't live there because of the noise pollution and potential fire hazard?
who will compensate me for the loss of property value because an industrial site has been built next door to my rural residential property?
who will pay the $8,000 for our half completed solar passive house design?
who will pay the $8,000 for the shipping container erected as a shed for temporary shelter and building materials?
who will pay the Capital Gains Tax if my land is acquired?
who will pay the thousands of dollars that we have already invested into the property such as, weed control, rates and property tax?

The acquisition of our property because of this proposed wind farm will be a major financial loss for us and heat breaking.

If this proposal is approved, can you guarantee that I will not be able to hear the noise pollution and that the wind farm will not increase the fire hazard? If not, then I totally object to this proposal.

Every day there will be sea breezes on the headlands and along the coast near Vaucluse, Dover Heights, North Bondi, Watsons Bay, North Head, Manly, Mona Vale, etcetera in the Sydney Eastern Suburbs. This is the perfect place to erect a wind farm because it is right next to those who will use the electricity that it generates. There is concern that the property prices in Sydney are becoming too expensive. Building a wind farm in those areas will reduce the house prices and therefore solve two problems in one go.

Similarly this approach could be applied to Toorak and Kooyong in Melbourne, Red Hill in the ACT and Goulburn - the locals call the main street a wind tunnel so why not use that potential energy. However, I'm sure that those residents would object to a wind farm being built so close to their homes, yet the Government is considering a wind farm right next door to Barnet and surrounding rural residential areas.

Surely this is discrimination against those who can't afford to - and probably don't want to - live in those exclusive city areas and yet wish to seek out a peaceful existence. I will agree to this wind farm in a rural residential area when wind farms are built in the Sydney Eastern Suburbs, Canberra, Goulburn and Melbourne.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your intelligent decision and reply.

I wish to object to the Jupiter wind farm on the grounds that it is sited in inappropriate areas.
The northern part is among many non participating dwellings which would make the wind farm the most urban in NSW.
The southern part is environmentally inappropriate as it is too close to Wildlife Refuges, Conservation Areas and the Tallaganda State Park, all part of the Great Eastern Ranges corridor for wildlife. Australia is so big that there should be no need to site wind farms so close to urban or environmental hot spots which support habitat for endangered species.
The proposed wind farm is giving general wind farms bad publicity for being insensitive to land owners too close to wind towers.
My wife, Diana Engel, and I own Springwell Wildlife Refuge on the immediate southern boundary of the south portion of the proposed wind farm. The closest turbine would be 500 meters to our north. As well as being interconnected with other wildlife refuges and conservation areas the Tallaganda State Park contains the headwaters of Spring Creek, a tributary of the Shoalhaven River and of the Sydney Water Catchment area. The turbines sited too close to Spring Creek would interfere with the creek's acquifers and encounter the area's dispensable clays with dire consequences for both the Creek's water quality and the turbines' stability.
There are far too many wind towers proposed for both the north and south parts of the wind farm and we question the economic viability and costs relating to the southern extension.
The southern extension is rapidly becoming too urban also as landowners have recently subdivided properties into many hobby farms along the Mulloon to Manar Road which bisects the southern extension. It is morally wrong to entice small landowners to subdivisions and then slap a wind farm over the top!

I would like to see more clean renewable energy initiatives go ahead in Australia. I can not understand what is holding up wind farming in Australia as our country side seems particularly suited to them . I have seen wind farms all over the world, notably, California and Spain, both of which have similar climates to here. It is for this reason that I strongly support the Jupiter Windfarm and would like to see it go ahead as soon as possible.
Many thanks

I strongly support this project. Given the dangers of anthropogenic climate change, it is critical that Australia expand its renewable energy capacity and reduce its carbon emissions.

BUSH FIRE RISK

I object to the Jupiter Wind Farm Project on the basis that if this project were approved and constructed it would constitute an unacceptable increase in bush fire risk to the surrounding community.

Appendix N of the EIS does not adequately address the increased bush fire risk this project poses. It also contains a number of inaccuracies and relies on flawed reasoning, assumptions and generalist studies on bush fire risk posed by windfarms.

The flaws within this Bush Fire Risk Assessment include the statement that there are no major developments adjacent to the project area. This is incorrect. There are seven state significant developments adjacent or short distance from the project area which already constitute and cause bush fire risks to the local community. These developments are the Woodlawn Bio-Reactor, Woodlawn Zinc and Copper Mine, Woodlawn Wind Farm, Capital I Wind Farm, Capital II Wind Farm (not yet constructed, but approved), Collector Wind Farm (not yet constructed, but approved) and Capital Solar Farm. The risk assessment also claims the project area to predominately consist of rural properties used for grazing with only some small isolated lots used for personal cropping. This is an inaccurate description of the area. The area surrounding the project, based on number of properties, existing development approvals and planned development consists of predominately rural residential or lifestyle properties. The EIS and risk assessment itself goes on to note the existence of in excess of 200 properties within 5km of the project.

The proposed windfarm includes the construction of 88 turbines, high voltage power lines and substation. The use of such large industrial equipment within a bush fire prone area will irrefutably increase the bush fire risk to the area and community. The local community is already at a heightened risk of bush fire given the presence of seven other local state significant developments listed above. This was born out in the recent "Currandooly" significant bush fire adjacent to the project area. This fire was ignited by an incident related to the Capital Windfarm's infrastructure and burnt over 3,400 hectares. While it is has been reported as a "freak" incident, it cannot be denied that the "freak" incident would not have occurred if the wind farm infrastructure was not present. Constructing an additional 88 turbine wind farm in this area creates an undeniable increased fire risk by its presence and operation. This coupled with the existing wind farms and significant projects in the area creates and unacceptable cumulative risk to the community and the project should not be approved on this basis.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

I object to the Jupiter Wind Farm Project on the basis the cumulative impact on the local community in the project area is unacceptable.

The proposed project area is adjacent to or short distance from seven other large state significant developments. These include the existing Capital I and Woodlawn Wind Farms, the already approved Capital II and Collector Wind Farms, the approved Capital Solar Farm, existing Woodlawn Bioreactor and approved Woodlawn Zinc and Copper Mine. There are also a number of other smaller but still large scale quarry developments adjacent to the project area.

The local community already experiences a large number of negative impacts from the above projects including traffic, visual pollution, smell, noise, vibration and increased bush fire risk. Approval of the Jupiter project would turn the local area into the largest and densest concentration of large industrial wind farms in Australia.

The project area is one of the few remaining landscapes surrounding the above seven state significant developments that consists of hundreds of rural residential developments, as well as numerous potential future developments as a result of subdivision. Given the locality's close proximity the large regional centre of Goulburn and short commutable distance to Canberra there is significant expected growth in rural residential developments over the next 10-20 years. Approval and development of an additional wind farm in this area is in direct conflict with this alternative and more appropriate use and development of the land. Such rural residential developments increase the size and diversity of local communities, supporting their local businesses, volunteer organisations such as the RFS, CWA, and local schools. In contrast the development of this wind farm would reduce existing residential developments as impacted families move away and put a halt to any further development or growth in rural residential developments as the area is transformed into a large scale industrial landscape.

It is clear there are limited economic benefits to the community from this project. Despite claims made by EPYC in project material, the Capital I and Woodlawn Wind Farms demonstrate that only a very small number of ongoing jobs are created and required in order to manage and maintain these projects once constructed. Most of these workers do not reside in the local impacted community and would commute from either Goulburn, Bungendore or Canberra. The creation of this small number of jobs would in no way make up for the negative economic impact of reduced local population due to impacted families moving away, and halt to future growth which will result in pressure put on the viability of local businesses, schools and community organisations.

This project must not be approved as the consequential cumulative impact of this project in addition to the other seven local state significant developments would destroy the local community.

I believe the size and number of turbines will have a significantly negative impact on the health and lifestyle of people living in the area.

To the Minister for Planning,

Greetings, my name is Romana Tomlinson, I live in Tarago NSW and I am writing to object to the Jupiter wind turbine development that is proposed to be constructed in this region.
Though there are many reasons for making this objection, for ease of reading, I will keep my objections to 5 points:
Visual Impact: The height of the wind turbines that are proposed to be erected in the Tarago region stand at 173 metres tall. As you would understand, in this rural residential region, where many farming and city folk come to call home, are appalled that these industrial eyesores could even be considered for construction let alone get this far in the assessment process. These structures will significantly impact not only my view from my home, being just under 3km from the nearest proposed turbines, but for many families, these structures are proposed to almost entirely surround them and can be as close as 700 metres from their home. Like many people here in Tarago, our family moved here to not only enjoy the quiet and peaceful rural lifestyle but also enjoy the beautiful scenery, of which we are now being told that we will no longer be able to claim as a privilege in this region should this development proceed. We purchased our land and positioned our family home to take advantage of these rural views and we find it completely unacceptable to be robbed of these views.
Noise: This region is a rural residential region, not an industrial site. Tarago is a quiet and tranquil place to live, with mostly natural sounds such as birds and other animal noises, the occasional sound of a farming tractor down the paddocks and the odd car driving down the road. The noise that is produced by these wind turbines far exceeds that of what anyone could consider ambient noise, especially in this region. The noise from these turbines are an industrial noise and as such do not belong in a region like this. I recall a comment from a host farmer from another functioning wind turbine development in Crookwell, in which the farmer stated, "It's not much louder than the farmer next door driving his tractor." This may seem like an innocent comment, however, it is quite telling. Wind turbine proponents would have everyone believe that these turbines don't make noise and would not have any impact on the tranquillity of the rural lifestyle, however as this farmer happily pointed out and openly admitted that they do in fact make noise- quite a lot of noise! The sound of a tractor on your neighbour's property might not bother anyone so much... during daylight hours for certain periods of seeding and harvest, but when that sound functions day and night, all year round without the ability to stop it (accepting when the wind is not blowing), I believe you will find that this will cause huge problems for all residents for kilometres around this proposed site. As there are around 204 homes within 3kms of this site, at a conservative estimate of just 3 people per home, gives us around 612 people being permanently affected by noise from this proposal and as there are 15 people living in my family home alone, I strongly suggest that the number of residents affected is much higher than 612- and this is just within 3km! There are others who will submit objections outlining all the technical failings of the noise assessments and further show how inappropriate these structures are for this region, so I will leave it at that.

Environmental impact: From an environmental stand point, these turbines pose quite a lot of danger to many flying creatures in this region, including several species that are considered endangered, such as the glossy black cockatoo and a species of bat, forgive me as I can't remember the name of it, however, undoubtedly others will submit these concerns and provide further details. It is well known that a single functioning wind turbine kills as many as 10 or more flying creatures each year. Though this may not sound like a number that would have any lasting impact on birds in general, when you multiply this number by 88 turbines, that is a number of 880 birds and bats each year, multiplied over the lifespan of a turbine of 25 years totals a number of 22,000 flying animals. With even a small drop in numbers to endangered animals being detrimental to the species, the number of losses of life adding up to over 22,000 would be considered catastrophic to many species, not just the endangered ones. On a second note to environmental damage, it appears evident to many in this region that little attention has been given to the damage caused on the ground by such structures and the impact this has on land and even water creatures alike. Though many argue that turbines take up only a small land space once the structure is in place and finished, they neglect however, to acknowledge the enormity of the land works and construction that takes place to actually erect these structures. The disruption to soil, the massive earthworks that not only disturb the soil but will also require the destruction of multitudes of trees and bushes in this locality thus destroying the habitat of countless creatures, run off into water sources for animals and unnecessary soil erosion are all environmental impacts that this region can live without.
Additionally, there is also an argument of efficiency and effectiveness of wind turbines, or should I say lack thereof. Many desire to claim that wind turbines reduce our carbon emissions and are a `greener' source of power, however, in order for this to be true, power from wind turbines must completely replace that of other power sources such as our countries current base load of coal and gas. Unfortunately, this is not possible as it is well known that wind power requires 100% back up from other reliable power producing sources to account for when the wind is not blowing. In this matter another factor is also not often considered, that is the carbon emissions that resulted from the production of all the materials that go in to making a turbine alone. It has been calculated that a wind turbine alone could never even recoup the emissions that were emitted to produce it, let alone abate any other emissions produced by other sources. Effectively, these structures have no environmental benefit and thus are simply industrial eyesores that threaten to invade and overtake our community's sense of natural and scenic beauty. Lastly on this matter, let me say that I am not particularly against renewable energy, in fact I am quite positive towards it as I have lived off grid and on solar power for over 15 years in this region. What I am against is inappropriately placed industrial structures that don't actually abate our emissions, but for the sake of political or international favour are approved, causing endless problems and unrest for the local communities that are forced to live with these structures. The often used phrase, "The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few" is quite a novelty for project proponents, but ultimately, this argument is null and void as it is not of any benefit to the `many' as no reduction of emissions has been achieved, no coal turbines have ceased operation due to the operation of wind turbines and ultimately our electricity prices continue to increase in the name of greener energy placing pressures on the whole of our society.

Fire and Other Dangers: I would also like to bring to your attention our community's concerns of a variety of safety issues relating to the construction and ongoing operation of these turbines. During the construction phase of these types of projects, there are endless numbers of enormous vehicles and pieces of equipment being driving or transported on our local roads. This causes great concern to many residents, not just to the safety of other local road users in the region as these vehicles have often been the cause of accidents and near misses where these projects have been undertaken in other communities, but especially to the most vulnerable of our community- our children, who must often wait on the roadside to be collected by school buses each day. The project proponents have taken very little to no account to the safety of our children and we as an entire community find this risk completely unacceptable. Another great concern that many in our community have is that of fire protection in this region. With families, livestock, buildings and crops to protect from fires in this region and with the regular high fire danger in rural settings, we often rely on air support during fires, in way of water bombing and surveillance aircraft, to protect our families and way of life and to plan and prevent further damage. If these turbines were to be erected in this region, it would drastically restrict our community's ability to fight any such fires as effectively as we have been able to do in the past with air support. Due to the risk of colliding with these structures, all aircraft are not able to fly anywhere near wind turbines and thus makes it incredibly difficult to fight fires and prevent loss of life, stock and property. This leaves us incredibly vulnerable to one of the biggest risks we face here country regions. This too is an unacceptable risk to our community and way of life.
Inappropriate siting of this development: Again I will state, the Tarago region is classed as a rural residential area, not an Industrial site. Simply and easily put, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that these wind turbines are industrial structures and are certainly not appropriate to have constructed in such a high density rural residential area like Tarago.
This proposed project of wind turbines also bring many other concerns for our community including the degradation and insufficient repair of our roads and other infrastructure, property devaluation, increase in electricity prices, temporary and long-term health impacts, emotional impacts, community unrest and the destruction of our peaceful lifestyles for which is the reason we purchased our land.
It is for all the reasons stated in this letter and more that I strongly oppose the approval of the Jupiter wind turbine development and any such industrial development of this kind in this region.


Kind Regards,
Romana Tomlinson

We don't want it to interfere with tv signal, mobile phone reception or increased traffic issues. It is also too close to houses.

I don't want this wind farm to change our current lifestyle by interrupting IT devices and services including tv, mobile, Internet . Also including extra trucks and traffic during construction times.

There will be a wind turbine within 2 km from my house and many more where I will see. We have recently built our forever home which I have directed all our views towards the tranquility of the magnificent grazing land in which our stock graze, now our views will be full of turbines. I brought out here because of its beauty please do not interrupt this with turbines that this country really cannot afford. If these are to go ahead are u going to be able to assure me that my only investment in this world won't be jeopardised, meaning the resale price will be terrible. No I don't think you can. Think about it .

Very recently we had bushfires taking out livestock a residence and over 3000 hectares, our property was threatened and fortunately for us was saved from any fire damage. Now I believe if the good work of the aircraft used in this fire I.e southern bell and other planes and helicopters, there would have been a whole lot more damage and tragedy even lives lost potentially, is this office really prepared to take the risk in signing off on this proflject knowing that there is no way these aircrafts can operate in an area full of turbines, therefore potentially leading to loss of life, homes, stock and property. There would certainly be some major law suits if this was the case. Especially being that it is a preventable measure with a predictable outcome if approved.

I OBJECT!!!!!!!!!!! EPCY have taken photo's from a different angel and not from the east/north views that are in FULL view of their proposed wind turbines!!!!! The fact that they keep getting chance after chance is just disgusting and heart breaking. My husband and I have just moved from the polluted, crowded Sydney to enjoy a life style of peace and serenity in our own given rights. For EPCY to be allowed to even propose these wind turbines here is a complete kick in a guts for the home owners here living among this beautiful serenity.

Yes, I object to this project. I am not against wind farms I have few simple points that I would like to raise with you.

1. I'm disappointed that our dream property did not state in the contract that the block was in a possible wind farm area. Do Sydney councils mention this fact in their documentation ?
2. We bought our block noting it was zoned at rural residential. I didn't think you could build a 180 meter + building in a rural residential area? is this true - can you?
3. Given the fact we just had a massive bush fire in the Tarago/Mt fairy area, I note that if EPYC were to plant the thousands of trees in order to high the 180m monstrosities, this would most certainly add to bush fire fonder and be a massive fire risk to the local community.
4. I was told by EPCY they would offer $3.5 thousand dollars per year and to assist in building a wall to block my view, which would stop our family looking at why we purchased the property.

Please consider our points and even better, provide feed back to us on them.

Cheers and good luck

Duncan Briggs and family

During the past two years I have critically anaylased many different research articles in regards to health outcomes and wind turbines, I am yet to find a relaible study that shows there is no health affects from turbines, if anything I have uncovered corruption on many of level to cover it up. Until there is a feasible such study performed, which is thorough in content and non biased , then let's discuss, but until then wind turbines world wide should be put on hold.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I strongly object the project of the Jupiter wind farm project, as it will greatly affect the peace and serenity of the monastery in this location. This was the reason we bought the land in this area because of its peace and serenity.

Please have this project stopped or moved to a different location.

Thnak you for reading my submission

Mary

UNACCEPTABLE VISUAL IMPACT

I object to the Jupiter Wind Farm Project on the basis that it will constitute an unacceptable visual impact on properties within and adjacent to the project area.

There are approximately 250 residences within 5km of this project, itself an unacceptable number regardless of visual impact. However, the project would negatively impact hundreds more beyond this distance. The Visual Impact Assessment in the EIS claims "the visual catchment beyond 6-7km offset from the PA is constrained by topography and vegetation which blocks the majority of views to the turbine clusters from beyond this distance". This is an unsubstantiated and unassessed claim which cannot be accepted. For instance, my home residence is located approximately 15.5km from the existing Woodlawn Wind Farm, yet I still experience negative visual impact from that project with 6 turbines clearly visible from the main living area of my house.

The EIS Visual Impact Assessment also claims "the JWF [Jupiter Wind Farm] is unlikely to result in any significant combined or sequential cumulative visual impacts resulting from associated views towards Capital and Woodlawn wind farm developments within the study area". This again is an unsubstantiated and unassessed claim. To suggest this when the project area is located adjacent to three other large scale existing or approved wind farms (Woodlawn, Capital I and Capital II) is fanciful. There are numerous properties located adjacent to the project area, such as mine, which will experience significant cumulative negative visual impact. As noted above, I am located 15.5km from the existing Woodlawn Wind Farm and experience negative visual impact from 6 turbines. The Jupiter Wind Farm project area is only 6km from my residence and proposes to construct 88 turbines that are 40% (approximately 50m) taller than the existing Woodlawn Wind Farm turbines. To claim the project will not result in any cumulative visual impacts on my residence or those of hundreds of my neighbours is simply false.

The visual impact from the proposed turbines would destroy the natural landscape views and owners' quiet enjoyment of them for which they were originally purchased. The area surrounding the project is a rural-residential area sought after for its natural landscape views, and if this project was to go ahead it would consequentially result in significant decreases in property values for hundreds of local rural-residential properties.

The Visual Impact Assessment within the EIS acknowledges that the only available mitigation for the project's visual impact is vegetation screening. This was also confirmed by the chief visual impact consultant at the last Community Consultation Committee (CCC) meeting. The same consultant confirmed that the screening mitigation modelled in the EIS was the best possible scenario which in reality would not be achieved as not all residences would accept or take up the screening, and all vegetation was assumed to be at mature height - impossible as not all vegetation would survive or grow quick enough. The chief visual impact consultant also confirmed that the bush fire risk of this additional vegetation had not been taken into account or assessed. Such significant additional vegetation in close proximity to residences in a bush fire prone area would significantly increase bushfire risk. Proposing vegetation screening as visual impact mitigation also ignores the fact that properties in the local area were constructed or purchased for their existing views of the natural landscape. Vegetation screening would block these views and itself then constitute negative visual impact.

EIS Visual Impact Assessment itself notes that of the 42% of dwellings assessed to have moderate/high or high impact, even after best case scenario screening mitigation measures, 63% of these properties would still experience moderate up to high visual impact. Noting this is a "best case" scenario, a more realistic figure would be 75-90% of these properties continuing to experience moderate or higher visual impact. This demonstrates that there is no effective mitigation available, and that the impact on local residences is unacceptable. These figures only focus on properties located up to 3km from a turbine, whereas hundreds more would also experience significant negative visual impact beyond this distance with no mitigation whatsoever.

The EIS Visual Impact Assessment makes clear that this project would inflict an unacceptable level of visual impact on local residences, for which there is no effective mitigation. On this basis the Department and Planning Assessment Commission must reject this development proposal.

I am the sister of Ken Pitman and have visited and stayed at his property, Coriole, many time over the years. I visit to escape the hussle and bussle and noise of city life and to enjoy the peace and quiet of the country.The joy we get as we drive through the picturesque scenery of that country area and the peacefulness that we experience during our country stay is priceless.Rural noises, the birds, animals, are so different from city noises.
To have all this taken away from us as visitors,to see the hideous objects of a wind farm destroying the views with added noise from the turbines is one thing but there is also the value of my brother's property being downgraded, a property he loves and has worked so hard on for so many years, is beyond comprehension. Who wants to visit or live near a monstrous wind turbine!

I wish to submit my support for the above project.

Fossil fuel is a finite resource and has a questionable effect on the environment and climate. The quicker Australia and the world can transit from fossil fuels to clean renewable energies the better for all. Jupiter Wind Farm (and other such projects) is a step in this direction.

As with other wind farms it will mean more money coming into the area, a number of extra access roads in the area, more jobs and a community fund.

This project will have a positive effect for the vast majority of people in the area, as well as producing clean renewable energy.