Mod 1

Submission re :07_0118 MOD1 Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.

I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.

NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.

VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.

PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.

LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.

LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.

MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.

As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)

PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
You will know that the Gullen Range development is the most offensive of its kind in its disregard for the NSW Govt's draft guidelines and the ULSC requirements in regard to setback.
To be allowed to apply for retrospective approval for the unauthorised and inappropriate placement of turbines should only be considered when matched with a retrospective application by the Gullen Range citizens to have those turbines removed that have been erected within the ULSC minimum setback.
The developer has demonstrated gross incompetence during the erection of these turbines and an astounding disregard for the authority of the Planning Department, behaviour which surely should not be rewarded.

May Hewitt
3281 Grabben Gullen Road
CROOKWELL NSW 2583

Adam Bush
595 Dry Creek Rd
Scone NSW 2337

To Whom It May Concern
I am writing a letter of support for alteration of the final layout of the Gullen Range Wind Farm Project. Support for the alterations is based on a number of factors including:
I. A review of the Landscape and Visual Assessment dated 31/3/2014 compiled by Environmental Resources Management Australia. This review investigated the proposed and final layout of the wind farm and any possible changes to visual impacts. The report concluded that there were no changes compared to the initial assessment to visual impacts with the relocation of 69 turbines.

As follows : For these reasons outlined above there are no triggers that have been brought about by both the relocation of sixty-nine wind turbine and the height reduction that would cause me to alter my opinion of the visual impacts of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

The visual impact of the as final design layout is consistent with the level of visual impact anticipated by initial assessment of the approved indicative layout.

II. Noise assessment impacts have been researched and documented in favour the relocation of 69 turbines. The report concluded that there will be no impacts on noise levels as detailed by Marshall Day Acoustics:

A detailed noise levels detailed noise impact assessment for the Final Design Layout, including a discussion of compliance, is documented in our report Rp002 r03 2012154SY Gullen Range Wind Farm Revised Noise Impact Assessment dated 25 September 2013 (RNA). The RNA considers predicted wind farm noise levels for the Final Design Layout1at 246 receivers neighbouring the wind farm. The RNA concludes that predicted noise from the wind farm achieves compliance with the relevant noise limits at all of the assessed receivers.
III. No conclusive aviation impacts as concluded by Aviation Projects Pty Ltd:

The changes to turbine locations and elevations from the approved indicative layout to the final design layout are minor and do not increase aviation impacts, specifically with respect to aircraft operations at Crookwell and Ashwell Aerodromes.

IV. The final turbine layout is consistent with the initial turbine layout which formed part of the Project Approval. This initial approval expressly permitted `minor relocation' of turbines. Minor relocation is a subjective term and relies upon a definition of being small or insignificant. I n the construction of a large scale 73 turbine wind farm, I would consider the changes to the final location of 69 turbines as being minor or insignificant.

V. The wind farm proponents Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd (GRWFPL) has demonstrated environmental and social impacts changes are minor or comparable to the original layout design.

VI. GRWFPL has comprehensively addressed all of the assessment requirements including environmental and social impacts which may be relevant to the Modification Application.

VII. GRWFPL has made a significant and substantial commitment to the implementation so far of this wind farm project. It has adhered and exceeded all environmental and social aspects (including local jobs) in the construction of the initial wind turbines.

In conclusion I am in favour and support the relocation of the nominated wind turbines. GRWFPL has provided independent and unbiased research to indicate that the final layout of the wind farm will have no adverse impacts on the environment and social aspects of this project. GRWFPL has already provided a substantial financial and social input into the local community and should be allowed to complete this project unhindered.

Regards

Adam Bush

Gaye & Ed Dryden
PO Box 6028
North Goulburn Post Office
GOULBURN 2580 NSW

1 May 2014

Mr Toby Philp
Major Project Planning
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001 NSW

Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1
Dear Mr Philp
We are writing to submit our views and concerns regarding the construction of and any future modifications to the GRWF Project. We own and live at 15 Walkoms Lane Bannister, and the view from our south facing boundary and our west facing boundary is now dominated by massive wind turbines. This change in the landscape has had a massive impact and has contributed to our decision to sell our property. We are currently in the process of making the necessary preparations to place it on the market in the hope of selling within the next twelve months.
We bought our property in the year 2000 as a place for our family to escape the pressures of city life in a location that offered everything we have come to expect from the country. When the GRWF development was first proposed my husband and I felt there was really nothing to worry about as we support the concept of green energy and both quite liked the majesty of the turbines. However over the past twelve months the reality of a 73 turbine wind farm on our back door has become crystal clear and we now feel as though our small farm is smack bang in the middle of an industrial area. The increase of heavy vehicles in the area as well as the high level of traffic past our front gate during construction has been horrendous; eventually locals had to erect a sign in an attempt to prevent work vehicles from using our small country lane as a thoroughfare to their worksite. This whole development has left an emotional and physical scar on the local area and its community and I fail to see how it can return to how it was prior to construction.

The chief concerns for us are:
1. That the GRWF development has had an impact on local property values and that this will in turn affect our ability to sell as well as the price we could realistically achieve. We are basing this opinion on conversations we have had with local people and visitors to the area.
2. That the local roads and environment will not be restored to the condition they were in prior to commencement of the GRWF development. The poor state of Range road together with increased wind farm traffic means that travelling to and from Goulburn is not only hazardous but increases overall vehicle wear and tear. I recently had to replace my new tyre and rim from damage received while passing a heavy vehicle.
3. That the area has lost a great deal of its charm as a quiet and peaceful country location, that is not too remote. This was the primary reason why we settled on this area and the GRWF development is one of the main reasons we are selling.
On these grounds we are opposed to any modifications to the current project and we also want to know how the GRWF developers intend to compensate the residents of the local community particularly those who live within the 5 kilometre zone. We feel that the Community Enhancement Program proposed by the developers does not come any where near making up for the potential and current losses incurred by residents in this community.

Yours Sincerely
Edward Dryden and Gaye Dryden

Submission re :07_0118 MOD1
Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification

I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.

I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.

NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.

VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.

PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.

LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.

LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.

MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.

As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated

OR

(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)


PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.

Whilst supporting the need for environmentally sustainable developments in our community such as wind and solar projects, too many times the 'planning rules' are pushed to the limit by the developers, to the point where we as the community are left with no choice to live with the outcome they have chosen.
The obvious reasons for choosing alternative locations, once contracts for construction have been selected, as indicated in the Goldwind documents, is time and cost savings in construction. The environmental assessments had already been done so any changes at this time are not related to this as it attempts to portray in the documents.
To shift 69 of the 73 means either the environmental assessment initially was wrong, or more likely, the developers and the subcontractors were looking to reduce construction costs.
We would therefore expect as a community to see some form of penalty (or contribution made by the Developer) to reflect this cost savings they have achieved, given we as the community have to retrospectively accept a project outcome different to what was originally approved.
If there was no reduction in construction cost or risk to them, then they would not have made the changes, simple as that.
Thanks to the Department of Planning for stepping in and protecting the process set up to ensure the outcomes presented are what Developers are obliged to present.

The application for modification to the Gullen Range Wind Farm should not be approved, and the entire project should undergo a complete and comprehensive review before being able to continue work on any part of the development.
In this day and age of outstanding surveying technology the sighting of the individual turbines should have been finalised at the time of submission of the original application.
The fact that sixty nine wind turbines have been relocated, ranging from 1m to 187m at the whim of the developers, without gaining consent from either NSW Department of Planning or those living within the proximity of the project, should not be accepted.
Non associated residences within 2 km now have turbines up to 155m closer to their homes than what they originally anticipated, with associated residences within 2km having turbines up to 166m closer to them.
Taking into consideration the fact that NSW Department of Planning considered living within 2km's of wind turbines a significant factor when putting together their NSW Draft Wind Farm Guidelines, I feel the entire project should be stopped immediately until a guarantee from the proponents can be given to these residents that their health and quality of life will not be impacted in any way, and that the entire project is compliant with all rules, regulations and permissions.
Photo Montages included in the application are not clear and, although they are probably an accurate representation of the view, do no give a true picture of being on the site and living in view of the turbines.
The concerns noted by the proponent on page 21 of the Modification Application - 'The alternative activities that would be required to reconstruct parts of the project that are not approved by the modification application involve significant time, work and expenditure. A refusal of this modification application will seriously impact the commercial viability of the project' - are minor compared with the impact to those people living in close proximity to these turbines for the next 25 years, and the probable inability to be able to sell their properties on the open market. Any other citizen or business in Australia pay the price of not complying to rules, regulations and permissions, so why should this company be exempt.
I feel an example needs to be made of this project to ensure that the companies planning and proposing further wind power development do not think they can also treat the people and environment within the footprint of their proposals with the same contempt and misinterpretation of the rules that Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd appear to have done.
It is also my concern that this may be only one of many non compliant issues. It is my understanding that the wrong placement of individual turbines was originally brought to the attention of the NSW Department of Planning by local residents and not compliance officers as one would expect.
One point of concern that may not have been complied with is the prevention of noxious weed spread. I have visited the Gullen Range site on an arranged tour and noticed one of the sites was a mass of serrated tussock. When asked what was being done to mitigate spread of the weed seed we were told by the employed tour guide that there are wash down sites for all vehicles at the boundary of all properties. However, our bus drove from one property to the next, was not washed down, and I could not see any equipment or facilities for this to be done.
In closing I again strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse this application on the grounds that there has been a breach of the approvals given to the developer, and there may also be many other non compliance issues. All work should cease on the project until both the original and current applications have been investigated to ensure what is said to have been done is actually done.

The impact of the failure of the Department to protect the community is further exacerbated by the fact that despite the community mounting a "David versus Goliath" battle in the L&E court to obtain reasonable conditions imposed on the Gullen Range development, we find that they have been flagrantly breeched.

The Planning Department has allowed the breaches to proceed and probably is now powerless to do anything specific about it. A case of déjà vu for the Department and it looks like its new Minister's electorate is going to suffer further (from the hundreds of turbines in the planning pipeline) unless the Department tightens conditions and its oversight requirements and systems.

We request as the developer has treated the Courts with disdain, that:
* the developer be required to move to a monthly reporting regime against the various conditions set out in the Court's orders until all developments and community works are complete;
* the reports be posted to their website within 7 days of the end of the month;
* the above reporting process exclude noise testing which now should be required to be carried out 6 monthly using actual measurements as specified by an independent external noise expert under contract to the Department. The testing regime could eventually move to longer intervals subject to the independent noise expert's advice. That all analysis and measurement details be made available to the expert who would then prepare a summary report to be posted within 7 days on the developer's website; and
* the Department retire the current auditor and contract an external independent auditor with the specific brief of ensuring that all the courts conditions are strictly adhered to.

The full cost of these recommendations should be paid for by the developer including the costs spent by the Department's contractors monitoring, advising and reporting on all of the above. This would amount to a minor cost to the developer when compared to the cost of abandoning existing turbine sites and establishing new sites.

These are all reasonable requests and if implemented would show that the Government's commitment to consider the NSW community is being genuinely addressed.

1. Seismic acoustic induced vibration impacts of health damaging low frequency noise and infrasound from multiple Industrial Wind Turbines weighing upwards of 200 ton each on neighboring residents which is already occurring with other Industrial Wind Developments in the area.

2. Seismic impacts from Industrial Wind Turbines on local and surrounding geology, especially layering, as may play an important part in determining vibration transmission. Energy may propagate via complex paths including directly through the ground or principally through the air and then coupling locally into the ground.

3. Seismic impacts from Industrial Wind Turbines on the Hydrology and Hydrogeology of the local area and surroundings. Serious risks to the contamination of groundwater resource within and surrounding the area that may in turn impact on downstream watercourses, wetlands, public and private water supplies. Negative issues arising from unassessed permanent long-term changes in the site hydrological regime with extremely adverse outcomes for residents.

4. The Developer has appeared to have shown a complete disregard of construction best practice guidelines and based on results clearly did not use a qualified Surveyor/GPS in the micrositing of the Industrial Wind Turbines. This will also present problems regarding the wind loading/turbulence on the turbines as the turbine to turbine separation distances have also been changed. A Structural Engineer would not have made this mistake so it is reasonable to assume that a Structural Engineer was not used in the micrositing of the turbines thus there may now be serious turbine structural adequacy issues arising from the Developer's 'misplacement' of the turbines in complex, turbulent terrain.

5. The negative health impact to residents from electrical grounding of multiple individual 3,000,000 watt Industrial Wind Turbines discharging into the ground and surroundings.

6. This Gullen Range DA amendment application appears to disregard the NSW Government draft guidelines and the Upper Lachlan Shire Council minimum setback distances from the homes of residents.

7. This Development in the present form appears to breach human rights.

8. Has the Occupational Health & Safety Act been applied to this Development with rigor?

I am astonished that this developer has the temerity to seek approval, "after the event", to regularise deliberate changes to the original approvals and those subsequently amended by the Land and Environment Court.
If they had wanted /needed to relocate turbines in order to obtain better wind outcomes,they should have sought approval to do so and then have been subjected to the prerequisites such as a new EIS and proper community consultation.
To me, the developer has treated the approval process and the impacted communities with contempt beyond belief. One wonders what would have happened to an individual if that individual had made such a significant change to their DA approved housing development, without approval.
The question arises that since there seems to be no argument by the developer that changes have been made which are in breach of the approvals, what remedies are appropriate. The developer argues that the breaches do not constitute a worse position and that approval should be given, post event, to regularise the breaches. A reasonable argument if all those host and non host landowners agree. If there is dissent, then presumably the "make good" principle must apply. Under this scenario, at the very least, the developer should be required rectify the breaches, with penalties.
From a layman's point of view, it would seem that the Dept of Planning and Infrastructure should have been more proactive in supervising the development, particularly as some members of the local community brought the breaches to the attention of the Dept officers much earlier.

To Whom It May Concern:

I object to the application to modify the development known as the Gullen Range Wind Farm for the following reasons.

I would also respectfully request an independent enquiry (perhaps by the NSW Ombudsman) outside of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure into the planning process which resulted in the current planning debacle that has taken place with reference to the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

The primary question that I have is why is a retrospective modification to the development application being considered? Should not a retrospective consideration be given to the Upper Lachlan Shire Council's two kilometre setback for wind turbines? The NSW State Government has draft legislation regarding a two kilometre setback as well. Cannot this be retrospectively applied to the Gullen Range Wind Farm?

The development has severely breached the conditions of consent in the original approval by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure as well as the conditions imposed by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The overwhelming majority of turbines (69 out of 73) have been relocated in defiance of the Court's decision regarding the Gullen Range Wind Farm. In any parlance, it would seem that this constitutes an illegal development.

Serious questions need to be addressed in either a public or judicial enquiry regarding the lack of oversight on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as to how the development was allowed to proceed from the planning phase to the actual construction phase without appropriate scrutiny of these major changes.

What is equally concerning is the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is permitting a number of these illegally constructed turbines to operate (and presumably earn Renewable Energy Certificates) under the guise of "testing" the turbines. This is a level of corporate chicanery that is stupefying in its sheer gall.

Turbine Pomeroy 1 is particularly obtrusive since it has been moved 123 metres. The loss of visual amenity, which would have been ameliorated by the landscape and topography if the turbine had been located as per the development, is particularly offensive.

Again, permit me to reiterate my objection to the developer's modification application. This particular developer has been unco-operative and insensitive to the point of being a corporate rogue without a shred of consideration for the neighbours to this inappropriately sited industrial installation.

And, again, I would ask that an independent enquiry be conducted so that the current fiasco besetting the residents affected by this installation is not repeated at another locale in New South Wales and that proper recompense is given to those affected by the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

Sincerely,


Cheryl A White

177 Prices Lane
Bannister NSW 2580

Postal Address:

PO Box 228
Crookwell NSW 2583

Mobile: 0416 141 837

To Whom It May Concern:

I object to the application to modify the development known as the Gullen Range Wind Farm for the following reasons.

I would also respectfully request an independent enquiry (perhaps by the NSW Ombudsman) outside of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure into the planning process which resulted in the current planning debacle that has taken place with reference to the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

The primary question that I have is why is a retrospective modification to the development application being considered? Should not a retrospective consideration be given to the Upper Lachlan Shire Council's two kilometre setback for wind turbines? The NSW State Government has draft legislation regarding a two kilometre setback as well. Cannot this be retrospectively applied to the Gullen Range Wind Farm?

The development has severely breached the conditions of consent in the original approval by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure as well as the conditions imposed by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The overwhelming majority of turbines (69 out of 73) have been relocated in defiance of the Court's decision regarding the Gullen Range Wind Farm. In any parlance, it would seem that this constitutes an illegal development.

Serious questions need to be addressed in either a public or judicial enquiry regarding the lack of oversight on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as to how the development was allowed to proceed from the planning phase to the actual construction phase without appropriate scrutiny of these major changes.

What is equally concerning is the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is permitting a number of these illegally constructed turbines to operate (and presumably earn Renewable Energy Certificates) under the guise of "testing" the turbines. This is a level of corporate chicanery that is stupefying in its sheer gall.

Turbine Pomeroy 1 is particularly obtrusive since it has been moved 123 metres. The loss of visual amenity, which would have been ameliorated by the landscape and topography if the turbine had been located as per the development, is particularly offensive.

Again, permit me to reiterate my objection to the developer's modification application. This particular developer has been unco-operative and insensitive to the point of being a corporate rogue without a shred of consideration for the neighbours to this inappropriately sited industrial installation.

And, again, I would ask that an independent enquiry be conducted so that the current fiasco besetting the residents affected by this installation is not repeated at another locale in New South Wales and that proper recompense is given to those affected by the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

Sincerely,


Rosemary Howe

Residential Address:

177 Prices Lane
Bannister NSW 2580

Postal Address:

PO Box 86
Goulburn NSW 2583

Mobile: 0431 524 037

Submission re :07_0118 MOD1 Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.

The Gullen Range project was initially proposed by Epuron Pty Ltd. Their application after considerable community objection, made its way to the Land and Environment Court, where after a prolonged and complex hearing, the project was 'approved' but with the recognition by the Court that it could impose a significant burden on non-consenting non-host, ie land owners who bordered on the project and who did not consent to its construction.

This determination was reached after the Court had taken into account a number of issues including the proposed placement of individual turbines and their impact on the above non-consenting non-hosts.

In recognising the severity of this impact the Court set out what could be regarded as a protocol for compulsory purchase of some properties.

It appears now that this Determination was made on a substantially incorrect basis. It is my understanding that many of the turbines are not now in the position indicated in evidence. Some, by comparatively insignificant margins, others, however, have been grossly relocated. The impact of this present proposal, if it had been known to the Court at the time of the hearing, is impossible to predict. However, in one inescapable view, it has made those procedings an absurdity. It may be argued that the protection the Court provided to some but did not deem relevant to others may have been further extended. This, the Department cannot ignore. It is submitted to argue that Gullen Range Pty Ltd is not bound by the conduct of the former proprietors would be a legal fiction. They are bound by the Court's ruling concerning the project they purchased.

To accept the proponent's submission that the effect of the misplacement of these turbines is of no signicant or relevant effect is simply not tenable. For reasons which defy explanantion, they have moved them contrary to the terms of consent and, as I understand, contrary to the ruling of the Land and Environment Court. Self-serving statements of exoneration cannot be accepted.

Regrettably, the 'windfarm industry' in the Southern Tablelands appears to have something of a cavalier attitude to the issues of 'Consent' and The Department of Planning in particular. Unfortunately, in doing so, the Department has been complicit. In particular, I refer to the circumstances of Crookwell Number 2 - a windfarm project close by the Gullen Range project, the subject of this present submission, insofar as in the face of strenuous objection, the Department absurdly allowed a construction site consisting of a gravel base, a cyclone wire fence and demountable sheds, to constitute commencement of a project to build wind turbines. This came about when an extension of approval had all but expired and, when faced with extinguishment of the approval, the developer erected the above fence and deposited a handful of demountable sheds. All that now remains of that commencement is a gravel pad, a demountable shed and a cyclone wire fence. (Albeit, some time later, two gateways were contsructed into host properties.)

All this the Department was made aware of but appears to have taken absolutely no action. It is little wonder then, that Gullen Range Pty Ltd has conducted itself in such a way as to arrive at this present situation.

Further matters of consideration follow.
VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.

PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.

LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.

LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.

MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.

As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)

PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.

Sean Egan
1216 Binda Road
Crookwell NSW 2583

Submission re :07_0118 MOD1 Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.

I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.

NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.

VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.

PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.

LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.

LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.

MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.

As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)

PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
You will know that the Gullen Range development is the most offensive of its kind in its disregard for the NSW Govt's draft guidelines and the ULSC requirements in regard to setback.
To be allowed to apply for retrospective approval for the unauthorised and inappropriate placement of turbines should only be considered when matched with a retrospective application by the Gullen Range citizens to have those turbines removed that have been erected within the ULSC minimum setback.
The developer has demonstrated gross incompetence during the erection of these turbines and an astounding disregard for the authority of the Planning Department, behaviour which surely should not be rewarded.

Ivan Hewitt
16302/177-219 Mitchell Rd
Erskineville NSW 2043

see attachment

see attachment

Submission attached

Submission re :07_0118 MOD1 Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in
this development without Department of Planning approval.
I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following
effects for local residents.
NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise
impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative
effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been
addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been
modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.
VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of
the turbines at many non host residences.
PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even
greater devaluation of the effected properties.
LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor
activities.
LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will
find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land
from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due
to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.
MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt
with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.
As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable
position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the
right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine
curtailment (especially at night)
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's
inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public
inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
Yours Sincerely
Grant Winberg
3077 Middle Arm Road
ROSLYN NSW 2580

hi , I have attached my submission as a pdf

see attachment

see attachment