Jupiter Wind Farm

Please delete any personal information before publication.
I wish to object to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm.
My objections are as follows;
The proposed wind farm will disrupt the natural views from my Dad's property and surrounding areas.
The proposed wind farm will have a negative effect on people visiting the area, as well as people wanting to reside in the area. Impacting on schools, businesses and amenities within the area.
There are already a number of wind farms (Woodlawn, Capital) within close proximity of the proposed windfarm, as well as Woodlawn Bioreactor and other recycle facilities, another wind farm would be a big ask of a relatively small rural community.
The high number of residents the proposed wind farm with impact upon.
I do not believe that any proposed beautification project would relieve the impact of the proposed turbines in the surrounding area of my property.
The increased safety risk to school children in the surrounding area and the disruption to their school bus services.
The likelihood of causing health issues such as sleeplessness, migraine headaches and epileptic episodes due to noise and the emission of light flashes from the proposed turbines.
Disruption to television, mobile phone, radio and internet services in the surrounding area of my Dad's property.
Increases risk of bush fire within the surrounding area of my property, therefore causing an increased risk to my property.
The risk of devaluing my Dad's property in the real estate market.
Possible impact on the animals on my Dad's property and surrounding properties.
Possible impact on the native animals residing within the proposed area and surrounding areas.
Research has shown that wind turbines on an average actually only create approximately half of their proposed power supply.

Please delete any personal information before publication.
I wish to object to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm.
My objections are as follows;
The proposed wind farm will disrupt the natural views from my Dad's property and surrounding areas.
The proposed wind farm will have a negative effect on people visiting the area, as well as people wanting to reside in the area. Impacting on schools, businesses and amenities within the area.
There are already a number of wind farms (Woodlawn, Capital) within close proximity of the proposed windfarm, as well as Woodlawn Bioreactor and other recycle facilities, another wind farm would be a big ask of a relatively small rural community.
The high number of residents the proposed wind farm with impact upon.
I do not believe that any proposed beautification project would relieve the impact of the proposed turbines in the surrounding area of my property.
The increased safety risk to school children in the surrounding area and the disruption to their school bus services.
The likelihood of causing health issues such as sleeplessness, migraine headaches and epileptic episodes due to noise and the emission of light flashes from the proposed turbines.
Disruption to television, mobile phone, radio and internet services in the surrounding area of my Dad's property.
Increases risk of bush fire within the surrounding area of my property, therefore causing an increased risk to my property.
The risk of devaluing my Dad's property in the real estate market.
Possible impact on the animals on my Dad's property and surrounding properties.
Possible impact on the native animals residing within the proposed area and surrounding areas.
Research has shown that wind turbines on an average actually only create approximately half of their proposed power supply.

I object to the proposed Jupiter Wind farm on several grounds.
1. The advertised turbine height is 173 metres at the tip of the blade, this is much higher than both Capital and Woodlawn turbines which are located 10 -15 kms to the east of this proposal. The visual pollution will be markedly increased. An industrial scale installation of this size has no place close to the residential areas around the village of Tarago.
2. The increased height of turbine blades will increase noise pollution; my understanding is that with inceased height of turbine blades comes a decrease in the frequency of turbine noise, the lower frequency ie infrasound can penetrate building structure to a greater degree. This is unacceptable as the disturbing feature of sound and associated vibration is accentuated.
3. Environmental concerns: Nadgigomar Nature Reserves lie 10 kms to the east of the proposed installation, these reserves are regionally significant for plant and animal communities and contain one of the best remaining grassy forest and woodland communities on the Southern Tablelands. The small size and isolation of these reserve sections renders them highly vulnerable to disturbance especially fire. Given that two grass fires have occurred under power lines associated with both Capital and Woodlawn wind turbines within the last month apparently caused by a bird interacting with high voltage wire, the risk to the environment as well as to the residential and farming communities is very high.
4. Increased large scale road traffic which will occur during the construction phase is a serious threat to all other road users. Increased noise pollution and dust pollution during construction will also contribute to health and safety concerns for the community.

I strongly object to the Jupiter Wind Farm on the following grounds:

-Health Impact
-Noise Impact
-Property Value
-Visual Impact
-Bush Fire Risk
-Effect on wild life

I attend on making a further submission at a later stage.

I object to the proposed Jupiter wind farm project. The impact on the local wildlife will be significant and cannot be offset by simply purchasing pockets of land elsewhere. The local area has a unique habitat footprint that includes endangered and threatened species. Bird species are subject to blade strike and loss of habitat to nest. Land disturbance will severely impact soil sensitive species such as orchids. There are dense Casuarina stands within the proposed area that I believe have not been correctly identified in the EIS.
As an area we already have two other windfarms that have severely impacted on the numbers of yellow tail and glossy black cockatoos which fly slowly and are subject to blade strike. In the 13 years I have lived here I have seen fewer and fewer flights of the yellow tail black cockatoo feeding in the nearby pines. How far will numbers have to dwindle before blade strike is acknowledged as a serious threat to certain species that fly in flocks to wide ranging feeding grounds?
Greening Australia has entered into a significant number of re-planting projects with local land owners, myself one of them. Each land owner sets aside land to plant 200 Casuarina trees and protect them to create stands of Casuarinas to encourage more Glossy Blacks into the area. This allows them feeding and resting grounds so they are able to breed. They feed through a broad corridor and are vulnerable to loss of feeding ground and habitat trees. These projects are government funded and account for thousands of man hours and dollars. We have two wind farms very close that are already affecting numbers. It is not conceivable surely to allow any more devastation to the local feeding grounds on the north/south ridge and the nature reserve situated in Mulloon both of which are within the Jupiter site. There are significant stands on other properties that are opposed to the project going ahead and unfortunately these will attract the birds to the area to be potentially struck down.
Most recently we have seen the catastrophic events of the Currandooly fire that was reported as being caused by a crow interacting with the high voltage power lines that exist to facilitate the Infigen Wind Farm. This must alert the NSW planning dept of the dangers not only to bird life but to residents, of which are many in a high risk bush fire area.

I object to the proposed Jupiter wind farm project. I would urge you to consider the catastrophic impact that the above project will have on the well populated rural residential area of Mt Fairy, Boro, Tarago, Barnet Drive, Duckfield, Manar, Mulloon, Jamaleopa, Mayfield Road, Lake View residents will face. In the recent fires which at one point had a front stretching 18kms into the proposed area, residents would not have survived and homes would certainly have been lost if the aerial support was prevented from getting close enough to contain lines and minimise spread with water and retardant. Please see this article. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-20/aerial-crews-instrumental-in-controlling-tarago,-sutton-fires/8198718 And understand that without these brave pilots the fire would not have been contained. Turbines of 173 metres, which are at the moment proposed, would prevent any close ground water bombing and reloading of water.

I object to the proposed Jupiter wind farm project. It is utterly incomprehensible how the department can consider that allowing a further development will allow our community to survive. The overarching NSW development forecast for this area is that it expects and needs to encourage more residential development in recognition of the proximity to Canberra and the opportunities that exist to sustain a rural lifestyle whilst having access to work opportunities in the city of Canberra and in some cases Sydney. This cannot be ignored. Our community cannot be ignored. We are already shouldering two wind farms and the Violea rubbish tip. Many residents also choose to live off grid with solar systems to power their homes. This is the way forward for this area to thrive.
A public meeting was recently held to meet with, hear and address concerns of the local community affected by this project.
Over 150 people attended the meeting. This of course did not in any way count for the many, many residents that were unable to attend due to time constraints or prior commitments. This is a clear and real example of the amount of local opposition to this development.

I would like to suggest that rather than assisting residents to put submissions forward, you have in actual fact failed all the impacted residents and the entire local community by insisting we have just 77 days to respond to a 2500 page document. We have only recently received the high resolution photomontages and further to that, the service agent's responses have not been included in the EIS and we have needed to request them. These are just two of many anomalies that we are left to sift through. We are not experts. And whilst the proponent has had 3 or so years to compile and put together the document, written and collated by experts, you allow the community 77 days.
I understand that the process needs to progress and cannot stand for an indefinite period, however I would suggest that you need to address the weight of influence and advantage that is given to the proponent.
I look forward to the department giving serious consideration to the objections lodged by the community and the gravity of feeling and devastation this is causing.

This a large industrial scale development in a rural/ rural residential with quite a high population density. The science of wind farms, particularly on this scale, relating to harmful impacts on residents is still developing and at this time is not strong. As such the development is an experiment with the potential to negatively impact too many people.

The development is divisive and as such will undermine the co-hesion of a number of rural communities at a time when the mental health and well being of rural Australians is being recognized as an area for improvement not state sanctioned additional pressures.

Information in the proposal documents is wrong. My home and the home's of two of my neighbours, all in close vicinity (within 5 km of a proposed turbine, don't even appear on the maps. Clearly this misrepresents the scale of impacts on residents.

I object to the proposed Jupiter wind farm.

I 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 particular property or surrounding areas and will not in any way, such as noise, harm our sleep or health or harm our amenity on this property or in other ways harm our lifestyle, including reception for TV, radio, mobile phone and internet, and that it will not increase the bushfire threat to my property or increase the difficulty of protecting my property from bushfires or devalue my property.

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

I have no reportable political donations in the previous two years.

As a landowner directly bordering some of the proposal I am adversely effected. The land has been accepted as a conservation area by OEH and one of the factors is the presence of Glossy Black Cockatoos, Gang-gang Cockatoos, Eastern Bentwing Bats and other birds . Gloooies rely almost exclusively on Casuarina species. One of the towers [No.45 on supplied map from proponents] is less than 500M from a stand of Casuarina that they utilize regularly. I have also obseved them and Gang-gangs flying directly across the area to be built on, to other patches of bush.The presence of such large industrial structures must perturb these populations but directly and indirectly due to an increase in environmental noise and activity.
This level of industrial activity does not seem to be in the interests of local landholders or what remains of the natural environment.

Please see my attached submission

We wish to object specifically to that portion of the project that is south of the Kings Highway . The visual impact and loss of amenity for a large number of landholders is huge relative to the cost and benefit to both jupiter and the community at large.
The southern section will require the most expensive infrastructure and landscape degradation for a relatively small amount of power.
The financial compensation offered by Jupiter is minute.
The increased fire risk as demonstrated by the recent fire at Tarago is considerable.

I wish to object to the Jupiter wind farm .
The towers are huge and will dominate the landscape to the detriment of all people for many kilometers.
Fire risk will be increased.
The risk to a family of wedge tail eagles that nest just off our boundary is unacceptably high.
Compensation offered by Jupiter to myself and the community is pathetically low.

I object to the Jupiter Wind Farm as it is pointless to waste money on these monstrosities. There would be more sense in establishing a solar farm than these eyesores that blight the landscape and disturb the ecosystem of our beautiful country.

I object to the proposed Jupiter wind farm.

I 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 particular property or surrounding areas and will not in any way, such as noise, harm our sleep or health or harm our amenity on this property or in other ways harm our lifestyle, including reception for TV, radio, mobile phone and internet, and affect the use of my property by native animal species, or disturb or harm domestic animals and pursuits involving those animal, and that it will not increase the bushfire threat to my property or increase the difficulty of protecting my property from bushfires or devalue my property.

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

Submissions concerning the Jupiter Wind Farm Proposal
(SSD 13_6277)

Team Leader
Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
320 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000


Background

I have an interest in property on Mayfield Road, Tarago purchased in 2011.

I am informed that this property (where there is an approved residential building site) is less than 2 kilometres from the proposed construction of industrial wind turbines forming part of the Jupiter Wind Farm Proposal ('Proposal').

I object to the Proposal.

Brief History

At the time of the above purchase, appropriate due diligence was undertaken, particularly at local council (Goulburn Mulwaree) and statutory levels.

It was then established that the subject property was zoned RU1 Primary Production under the Goulburn Mulwaree LEP 2009. Certain uses were permitted with or without consent but in particular, Industry was prohibited.

Environmental facility was then defined as a building or place that provides for the recreational use or scientific study of natural systems, and includes walking tracks, seating, shelters, board walks, observation decks, bird hides or the like, and associated display structures and Windmill was then noted NOT to include a facility used for renewable energy purposes.

There was no evidence provided by the relevant 149 certificate (nor subsequent 149 certificates) that the property was the subject of a State Significant Development '(SSD') nor any provision within the certificate for such information, unlike other local NSW councils.

Notwithstanding the due diligence undertaken and its associated cost, EPYC Pty Ltd ('Proponent') lodged a State Significant Development application (SSD) stating that the capital investment value of the development is $300 million. Accordingly all bets were off at local level and the SSD relevant to the change of use within the district, takes precedence.

Query how this is not discrimination against the bona fide purchaser without notice. It seems completely unfair that the everyday punter is by-passed and ignored and expected to defend itself, in preference for a party with the larger cheque book.


State Significance

Query the significance of the Proposal to the State of NSW given that the Proponent is an Australian registered company controlled by a majority of foreign interests who no doubt ultimately financially benefit.

Query why this Proposal in all the circumstances is any more significant to the State of NSW than the existing use, lifestyle, wellbeing and standards of living of the increasingly populated community, the subject of the Proposal

Proponent Capacity and Project Funding

The Proponent has tendered its capabilities and expertise, yet from its own Financial Statements and Reports ('FSR') for year ended 30/06/2016 lodged with ASIC the following observations are made:

* the Proponent's foreign based shareholding well exceeds 90% and three of its four directors are foreign residents;

* Operating Results of the Proponent disclose LOSSES for YE 30/06/2015 and 30/06/2016 of $1.7M and $1.4M+ respectively;

* Reference is made in the FSR to Future Developments with the commentary

" Likely developments in the operations of the company and the expected results of those operations in future financial years have not been included in this report, as the inclusion of such information is likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the company."

Query the consistency of these remarks with the Proponent's disclosed capability statements, together with its apparent commitment to 'transparency' relevant to this Proposal.

* The ASIC form 388 discloses an 'Emphasis of Matter' by the Auditor and makes reference in paragraph (m) 'Going Concern' as follows:

Notwithstanding the accumulated losses of $6.3M in the company, the financial statements of the company have been prepared on a going concern basis. This basis has been applied as the directors have received confirmed commitments from the shareholders to inject additional capital into the company. It is the directors' belief that such capital will be sufficient to discharge the company's financial obligations as and when they fall due and payable"

Query whether the Proponent has applied for the consent of the Minister to undertake an SSD, disclosing a capital development investment value of $300M on the sole basis that the directors of the Proponent have received confirmed commitments from the majority foreign shareholders to inject additional capital into the company as and when required.

Putting to one side any possible government funding, surely in the first instance, the DPE calls for more substantial evidence and guarantee of financial security and capacity other than the Proponent stating that it thinks and believes it can pay for it,

Unlike most developments, the Proponent does not own the land, but ties it up, together with surrounding lands by host and benefit sharing agreements which deters other development, including for example, that of subdivision.

Consequently, it is conceivable that the Proponent could progress part way through this process and the shareholders refuse for whatever reason to contribute any more money. At that time the Proponent may hope that they can get another investor to carry it through to approval or completion. In the meantime, host and benefit sharing agreements are likely to remain in force until the wind farms are decommissioned. .This means that large areas of land could be locked up, unable to be more usefully exploited, for decades because the Proponent with no resources has been allowed to proceed down this path.

The Department cannot ignore these issues.

Landscape and Visual

The visual impact of industrial wind turbines on both landscape and residences in both the private and public domain is completely unacceptable.

The height of Australia Square in Sydney is 170m. The very thought of 88 Australia Square high buildings within the precinct of the rural county lifestyle town of Tarago and its surrounding areas is simply offensive. The Proponent cannot be serious.

Noise and Vibration

Intolerable effects of audible noise, resulting in the loss of quiet enjoyment and everything associated with such loss. The construction of industrial wind turbines can only have an impact negative to the amenity and quiet enjoyment currently being experienced and enjoyed by the populated community within the project area and its surrounding areas.

Health Issues

Consideration must be given to the adverse health effects arising from the very presence of a wind turbine, its proposed low frequency noise and infrasound, together with blade flicker.

It is not for me to establish that there are heath issues or not. I repeat that our property is less than 2km's from proposed wind turbines some 170m in height.

A member of our immediate family carries an implantable defibrillator and pacemaker - a matter of survival. I simply want a warranty from the Proponent and the personal guarantees from each and every director that there will be absolutely no health impact nor causal effect to the health of any member of family or any person arising from a wind turbine the subject of the Proposal.

Other Impact Factors Include

* Community amenity dysfunction
* Restrictions to other types of development
* Hazard and risk management necessary with introducing an industrial use;
* Traffic, transport and construction disruption

Aviation

Would emergency landing fields and roads remain available to light aircraft arising from the presence of industrial wind turbines?

Bush & Grass Fires

It is an established fact that the district in question is bush and grass fire prone. It is suggested that the incidents of increased risk of bushfire arises from the presence of industrial wind turbines. In addition, the risk to aerial fire-fighting is surely compromissed. The Proponent cannot be serious in suggesting anything but an increase in fire-fighting risk arising from the very presence of 88 x 170m high wind turbines.

I am not sure whether members of the Proponent have ever experienced the loss of property or livestock arising from a bushfire. It is a pretty horrendous sight, particularly seeing burnt animals huddled in a corner of a fenced paddock unable to escape. Imagine that! Of more concern however, is that of a human life being burnt to death unable to escape the ravages of fire.

If the likelihood of fire is of little to no concern to the Proponent, which appears to be the case, then it would be reasonable to call upon the responsible directors of the Proponent (specialised in its field) to provide personal warranties that should fire occur, it will not be the cause either directly or indirectly from the presence of a wind turbine.

Property Values and Restrictions

One cannot dismiss the likely depreciation of property values and restrictions on sales to host and surrounding properties, arising from the restrictions provided by registered leases or share benefit agreements.

In addition, query the concept that with the likely depreciation of property value, then the security of a lender under an existing loan arrangement could well require renegotiation of the loan to the detriment of the landowner.

Decommissioning

There are no guarantees at all provided by the Proponent that an industrial wind turbine will be properly decommissioned as required, let alone that they will be properly constructed on an approved site in the first place. Surely the Proponent and its directors must personally guarantee and also provide mandatory financial security relevant to the construction and decommissioning of these wind turbines. After all they are 'specialised' experts in these matters.

Alternative Proposal Sites

Has the Proponent considered or made any submissions on this aspect. For example, the less populated areas of Lake George, Morton National Park, or the Tasman Sea. Each of these areas are within more than reasonable distance of the link/connection to the transmission poles and wires in situ - whoever owns them.

Alternative forms of Renewable energy

Has the Proponent considered or made any submissions on this aspect. For example, Tesla Inc appears to have made unbelievable documented progress in the solar power and energy storing industry, particularly over the last 5 years. The Proponent's Proposal is noted to date to have been 5 years in the making, at least.

Apart from the debate of the inefficiency and uneconomic nature of wind energy as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there does appear to be disclosed dangers that wind energy is an unreliable power supply, together with risks to the stability of the power grid.

Consequences of Breach

What guarantees are there in the event of a breach by the Proponent of any of the terms of an approval?

Biodiversity

The Proponent's application itself confirms that the Proposal is not biodiversity compliant. Accordingly on this issue alone, why is this Proposal even being considered?

Nonetheless, whatever the environmental impact, please allow me to make a submission on behalf of the wedge tailed eagles and black cockatoos that breed, nest or frequent our property.

Our property comprises isolated acres of established 'snow gums', the home of much wildlife and birdlife. The stand of snow gums is less than 2 kilometres from a proposed site of industrial wind turbines. Black cockatoos may venture to 170 metres in height, one never knows. However, wedge tail eagles and their off-spring do soar to the height of these proposed wind turbines. What does the Proponent intend to do about that and the associated risks to this very real and inspiring birdlife?

As there are currently no wind turbines in the district, the chance of bird strike, let alone black cockatoo or eagle strike is NIL.

On-going Issues

In the event of an approval of the Proposal, will the DPE or any NSW government body provide affected members of the community with any assistance, advice or direction relevant to their rights concerning compensation, land acquisition, acoustic suppression, landscaping and claims for associated costs?

Consultation

In the circumstances of our Mayfield Road property, there has been no consultation, nor communication from or with the Proponent. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

It is understood that the Proponent may have approached certain landowners in the district relevant to hosting and benefit sharing arrangements. This of course leads to the debate that the Proponent has hardly been transparent with those members of the community, not privy to any side deals.

It is noted that the DPE notification letter sent to our address for service clearly held by local Council, easily found its way to the addressee.

It is understood that a previous attempt by the Proponent to lodge with the DPE an application with an accompanying EIS was rejected (inter alia) for the failure by the Proponent to satisfactorily consult or communicate with the local community.

At last I have been pointed to the Proponent's website, so I guess this is their way of communicating. The website actively publishes itself as:

an Australian renewable energy company with specialist expertise in developing wind farms in strategic locations to produce clean energy for a better environment and that it is committed to working with landowners in regional areas of Australia with suitable wind resources to generate clean electricity into the National Electricity Grid bringing significant environmental, economic and social benefits to those local areas.

It is the Proponent (controlled by foreign interests) which is the stated specialist in this significant Proposal, not their consultants or lawyers. Accordingly, in the interests of transparency and collaboration why is it not possible that the foreign directors meet with the community at the Tarago Town Hall. Sydney is a mere 21 hour Qantas (Australian airline) flight from Madrid via Dubai.

The Proponent is the stated specialist, so for the avoidance of doubt may we the community please hear from the foreign director specialists as to how they think this Proposal might seriously work in bringing significant environmental, economic and social benefits to the local area.

Government Responsibility

It is noted that in 2011 the NSW Government published a 10 year plan titled "NSW 2021 - A Plan to make NSW Number One".(Plan) Barry O'Farrell and his team encouraged us all to work to achieve each of the 32 listed Goals which included:

'Restore Accountability to Government'

Goal 29 - Restore Confidence and Integrity in the Planning System;
Goal 30 - Restore Trust in State and Local Government as a Service Provider;
Goal 31 - Improve Government Transparency by Increasing Access to Government Information;
Goal 32 - Involve the Community in Decision Making on Government Policy, Services and Projects

This is the same team that also announced a 'decade of decentralisation' encouraging the public (even to the extent of offering financial assistance) to decentralise and move to regional and country NSW which offered all of the health, financial, wellbeing and lifestyle benefits and amenities one could possibly wish for and expect in the rural country of NSW.

I object to the Proposal.

13 February, 2017

Jupiter should not be approved given the large number of residents in the close vicinity who will suffer adverse
sleep, health, and lifestyle impacts as well as increased risk from bushfires and property devaluation.

This submission is in the form of an objection to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm on the grounds of the potential of the wind turbines to impact on the ability to undertake aerial firefighting activities in and around the project area.
Due to recent fires in the project study area and immediate surrounding properties, the "Detailed Bushfire Risk Assessment" on page 41, Table 6.5 of the EIS should be disregarded as the " low to medium risk of fire impacting on the surrounding environment", should be changed to a high risk of fire escaping the development site.
It states on page 42 that, "there is a relatively low density of residential farm houses and communities within and adjacent to the PA", this is a false and misleading statement, as the department well knows the density of properties and people living within a 2-5 km distance is of a high rate and therefore the unmitigated risk of loss of life, property and environment would be extreme.
It also states on page 41, that the aerial fire fighters, "must not fly lower than 500 feet ( 152 m ) above the highest point of the terrain or any object on it". This being the case then the recent Mount Fairy area fires would not have been accessible to aerial fire fighters and the fires would have therefore been uncontrollable.
With the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm Turbines being of a height of 173 m then that puts an even greater risk to aerial fire fighting and without the support of aerial fire fighting assistance the recent fires at Mount Fairy ( Currandooley Fire ) on the 17th January, 2017; the Lower Boro Fire on 10th December, 2016 and the fire on the 8th January, 2013 at the Sandhills/Mount Fairy Fire, would not have been controlled and a much larger loss to property would have been experienced.
All three of these fires were located in and around the proposed project site and approving another wind farm in this vicinity will be of great consequence and detrimental to the lives and property of surrounding residences.
The Department will be negligent by putting people at Mount Fairy in a highly dangerous situation as they will be placed in a NO FLY ZONE in having 3x wind farms, that is the Woodlawn wind farm, Capital 1 wind farm and the proposed Jupiter wind farm, surrounding them and putting them in a high risk tunnel.
Therefore on the grounds of unsuitability to wind turbines impacting on aerial fire fighting then the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm should be rejected as the lives of many residences will be at adversely affected.

My families home is referred to in the EIS as J272.

The pictures used to demonstrate mitigation are misleading and are taken from our driveway and not from the view from the house. The mitigation of trees used to reduce the visual impact is misleading as it does not show our view.

The picture leading the section on visual impact, the one taken with a dam in the forefront, is from my house and is actually looking across the landscape that would not include the turbines (outside the project area), I believe this is misleading as well.

To plant trees so close to our house would firstly ruin the panoramic view we currently have, secondly would pose a significant fire risk and thirdly risk our house if they fell as they would need to be so close they would damage the house.

I have two young children and I hold concerns for their health. We have been advised that there is currently no evidence that they have any ill effects on health but as we know the lack of credible research does not absolve the risk, it just proves such research is not supported financially for various reasons.

I am also concerned about the impact on the value of my property as the majority of value is in the unique view which would have 30 plus turbines introduced, scaring the natural landscape seen from my property.

I believe the state government is meant to protect its citizens and the fact that this is an unregulated industry which could change the proposal at any time prior to construction is very distressing.

I have been experiencing extreme stress over the whole process and find it difficult to maintain the concentration and effort that is required as a resident in NSW having to justify my rights regarding this project. I am concerned that without changes to legislation I will be required to submit many more objections until our rights are protected as this process appeals and becomes a drawn out affair over many years.

Renewable energy is important and I understand the requirement to invest in renewable alternatives, however there should be a legislated protection for affected landowners including buy out options. Not knowing what rights, if any, we might have is terribly distressing.

I have a property off Boro road at 3.3 km from the Braidwood Goulburn road turn-off, which is in the enclave excised out of the proposal (ie the poject proposes turbines north and south of this area).

My estimate is that three of the propsed turbines will be within the nominal 2kms of my property. Being surrounded by an industrial estate of turbines will completely annihilate the rural amenity value of the property. The NSW DPI publication "Living and Working in Rural areas" mentions that the "views that people enjoy from their property in rural areas are often key features in buying the property".

Contrary to what he proposal states, there are many small properties in and around the proposed industrial turbine estate. See for example the then Palerang Council's publication "Rural Living in Palerang" April 2016, for information on property sizes in the proposal area.

If the proposal; goes ahead a conditon of approval should be that the proponents buy out impacted property owners at pre project values.

On my reading of the main report part one and Figure 9.1- map of vegeation zones of the study area, they have either misidentifed or deliberately not included the veg type on the ridge (running north-south) east of proposed turbines (from north to south) 68, 24, 2 and 11 (the ridge is just outside the study area boundary shown on the map). The light blue area shown indicates veg type as "Silvertop ash - blue leaved stringybark shrubby open forest on ridges north east South Eastern Highlands Bioregion_Mod-Good_Good". I have walked over this ridge and it includes dense stands of she-oaks ( Allocasuariana littoralis, black she-oak?). The NSW gov environment web site mentions black she-oak is a favoured food of the glosssy black cockatoo. See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/landholderNotes02GlossyBlackCockatoo.pdf. The site also mentions that the the Glossy Black-cockatoo is listed as `Vulnerable' on Schedule 2 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

I would also refer you to the Queanbeyan Palerang Council's intention to appose the proposal on the following grounds "Council is supportive of renewable energy projects but there are a number of concerns with this project being in a rural residential setting and not on broad acreage. Council will make a submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment opposing the Jupiter Wind Farm. The reason for the opposition to the development is due to the visual impacts, loss of amenity, blade switch impacts, issues associated with access roads and the detriment to further residential development and infrastructure development in the area. In light of the recent fire in the Currandooley and Tarago region, the effect the turbines would have on aerial firefighting needs to be carefully considered."

I look forward to your considered response to my submission and rejection of the proposal on the grounds that industrial turbine estates are not compatable with rural residential living.