Mod 1

Modification Application of Gullen Range Wind Farm (GRWF) Project Approval (MP:07_0118 MOD l)
I am opposed to the above application.
As a ratepayer in the Upper Lachlan Shire and having seen the devastating effect wind turbines are having on our local environment and community, I must request that before Goldwind are allowed to proceed with a modification application to amend their original application and taking into account that the developers have already moved 69 of the 73 turbines without notification, that the Department of Planning commission a truly independent survey of the distances of turbines from non-host residences and also the distances between turbines.
I also request that this independent study provide a comparison of these distances to those provided in the original EIS.
I also believe that Goldwind has not complied with reasonable community consultation processes by deliberately moving these turbines with no prior notification to either the Department or to those non-host residents most affected by any new developments.
It is incomprehensible that Goldwind could breach the Land & Environment Court judgement in such a blatant manner without being required to cease construction. No doubt the Department's compliance regime will ensure this never occurs again (with either this or any other such project).
Further, I believe the Department should require Goldwind to alter this application for amendment to remove those turbines which do not comply with the current draft guidelines (in particular those turbines within 2kms of non host residences).

Submission relating to the proposed Modification Application for the Gullen Range Windfarm - 07_0118MOD1.

From: Robert and Melissa POST of 266 (Lot 2) Bannister Lane, Bannister NSW.

Our Situation:

Our family resides at the above address and our property shares a boundary with the Gullen Range Windfarm project. Our residence is identified by the applicant as B20. Our property is located directly between the "Bannister" group of turbines and the "Pomeroy" group of turbines. The closest Windturbines are within 1.5km of our house. Several of the closer turbines of both the "Bannister"group and the "Pomeroy"group have been relocated closer to our house. These turbines are among those that are the subject of the Modification Application and impact upon our property.

It would appear that in the Modification Application to the DPI, the applicant has not included our residence for consideration, with it being omitted from tables and comment. We wish very much for our home to be considered as part of this application as it is one of the most affected homes.
We can indicate that at no time have we consented to the relocation of these turbines, expressed or implied and in fact we oppose it. We do not have any agreement with the applicant in relation to noise easement or visual amenity. We can see no reason why our home should not be considered as part of the assessment for this application. If the applicant indicates to the DPI otherwise, then we wish to be heard on that matter and take it further prior to any approval of the relocation of turbines. Our contact details are listed below.
The Application:
The applicant has indicated in the application that there was only a "minor adjustment" by relocating turbines. With many turbines being relocated over 100 metres it would be ludicrous to consider it a minor adjustment. The applicant was well aware that the DPI determined the provision for the applicant to relocate turbines by up to 250 metres be removed from the approval, in fact prohibiting it. The applicant previously argued against that point so was well aware of their obligations in that regard and consciously went against that determination.

The relocation of these turbines should be considered as a new development application with conditions that afford some protection to residents of this state residing nearby. This application should be treated as any other new application for Windfarm construction that now abide by a 2km set back condition imposed by the DPI. This condition obviously put in place for many reasons. Those reasons apply to these relocated turbines as much as any new application to construct a turbine. The impacts on nearby houses are the same.

Visual Amenity:

Our home and some close neighbours have Turbines impacting on them from the north and the south. To the north there are no less than 12 Turbines in close proximity that are in view located high upon the hills above our house. All of these have been relocated from their approved location, some significantly closer to our house.
Prior to their construction, we repeatedly requested to see Photomontages of the proposed view of the turbines from our house. This was requested from both the Gullen Range Windfarm Pty Ltd and also the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. These requests were ignored and at no time did we have the opportunity to view a representation of the proposed outlook. Now that construction is almost completed, we can see twice the number of turbines than had been indicated verbally to us by the applicant to the north. Possibly attributed to the relocation of the turbines.
Due to the elevated position of the relocated turbines to the north of our home, any proposed screening would not be effective unless positioned closely alongside our home which would then restrict access to the northern sun and obstruct views across our land. We have requested from various employees and contractors of the Gullen Range Windfarm to tell us how it is proposed this could be satisfactorily screened. To date no one has been willing to answer this question. Due to the relocation of these turbines it has increased the impact on our home not only because some have been moved closer, but they have also been placed higher than their approved locations.
To the south of our home, the closest turbine has been moved considerably closer. It is afforded some existing screening and we acknowledge this area may be effectively screened to our satisfaction with noise from this turbine and others to the south being our main concern.
The applicant has recently offered screening options to address visual amenity. Consideration of any screening options should take into account maturity of trees etc to be used. It is no use planting something that will take half the working lifetime of the turbine to go anywhere near screening it. Any screening option needs to be immediate, effective and demonstrable prior to implementing. The applicant has not previously satisfied us of landscaping options or their ability to screen turbines when requested repeatedly to do so. The relocation of turbines closer to our home further reduces the visual enjoyment of our property. We are concerned the applicant will not be able to adequately address this issue and if the modification is granted any screening option may not be adequate.

The issue of Visual Amenity should be addressed by the applicant with agreement from landholders on any screening or other option (or referred to the DPI for adjudication), prior to approval of any relocation of turbines.



Noise:

Our home is directly between the "Bannister"and "Pomeroy"groups of turbines. Several of the turbines have been relocated closer to our house from both directions and obviously this must increase noise levels from these turbines to our home. In original environmental assessments, our house (grouped with neighbours) was clumped into a single receptor for noise tests. The receptor for these tests was placed at a location significantly lower in altitude than our home and neighbours. The location of this receptor has exposure to less than 20% of the number of turbines that our home is exposed to now that some have relocated closer. There is a large amount of land mass and vegetation located between the location of that receptor and most of the turbines. We would contest that the noise tests that were applied to our home and now relied upon by the applicant for the relocated turbines are not accurate. This should be independently assessed by the DPI. If this is the case for our home we are confident it may have occurred elsewhere.

With many relocated turbines being placed closer to and higher above our home we are greatly concerned about the noise impacts on our home. We would request that the Director General conducts independent noise tests and monitoring directly (not generally) relevant to our home prior to approving any relocation of turbines.

Consultation:

We have received no direct, verbal consultation in relation to the relocation of these turbines from the Gullen Range Windfarm Pty Ltd (where others have). We did however have a visit from Chris HOUGHTON a consultant working for Goldwind who repeatedly stated that he was only visiting to confirm contact details of residents on behalf of Goldwind. He did not provide us with any information relating to the relocated turbines. We spoke with others in the district who spoke with Chris HOUGHTON about this time and were provided with information about relocated turbines.
On the 23 April 2014 we did receive correspondence by way of a flyer in the mail box relating to a "Project Update". Within this, mention is made of the Modification application.
We are aware that Neville Osborne of the DPI has conducted site visits to various landholders as a result of this Modification application. We welcome that move however some homes visited are over 3km from the closest turbine. To our knowledge no one has visited our close neighbours, or us, despite the fact we are within 1.5km of the closest turbine and among the most affected residents. We invite the DPI to visit our property to assess, first hand, the stated impacts.

There are only a relatively small number of residents within 1.5km of a turbine. It would not be unreasonable for ALL to have the opportunity to demonstrate to DPI how they are affected by the relocated turbines and voice their concerns prior to approving any relocation of turbines.
Thankyou for the opportunity to respond to this modification application.
Rob & Melissa POST
266 Bannister Lane, Bannister NSW 2580
Ph: (02) 48443259 Mob: 0407274115
Email: [email protected]

Original letter to be forwarded by Post.

Carl Banfield
Stain Springs
3434 Range Road
GRABBEN GULLEN NSW 2583

24 April, 2014

Attention: Toby Philp
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1

To whom it may concern

Together with my family we offer our total support for the project, the Gullen Range Wind Farm and associated management of it.

I am one of the farmers involved with the Gullen Range Wind Farm. I have twelve turbines in total which is three quarters of my property impacted by the construction of the wind farm. I am most concerned with the current delays that are impacting the Gullen Range Wind Farm as it is affecting the ongoing operation of not only my farm and my family, but also the other host farmers and families.

I have carefully examined the information made available about the movement of the turbines and I believe any turbines which have been moved were reasonably and justifiably done so. Any movement of the turbines was still within the project boundaries with cautious consideration given to the condition of the countryside and the environmental impact. Further relocation of turbines at this late stage could be considered as environmental vandalism.

All we have heard is nothing but negativity, false information and scaremongering about this project from those who are very much anti-wind farm. There are a lot of benefits related to the construction of this project; the environmental benefit being the production of clean energy, the employment and its related bonuses for the Goulburn and Crookwell community and the annual community fund which will inject much needed funds to local projects.

This project was originally given Department of Planning approval and is very close to being completed. Therefore I respectfully request that the Gullen Range Wind Farm be allowed to be completed as soon as possible, so that all associated host farmers can move forward with the operation of their farms.

Yours sincerely

Carl H Banfield

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.

Christopher Lee. 'Leura', Laggan. 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 object to 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.

Denis Hewitt
3281 Grabben Gullen Rd
Crookwell NSW
2583

Sue McIntosh
79 Brooklands Street
CROOKWELL NSW 2593

29 April, 2014

Attention: Toby Philp
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1
To whom it may concern
I am writing to offer my support for the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

I have viewed the map of the Gullen Range Wind Farm about the movement of the turbines and am aware of the countryside involved with the project, having lived in the area before moving to Crookwell.

To me it appears that the movement of the turbines were probably done so because of the lay of the land and possible impact on the environment, having to cut down trees to accommodate the turbine and surrounds.

I am perplexed that the project has from all appearances been nearly finished and at this late stage they have to undertake another DA.

All that is reported in the local paper is nothing but negativity about this project and a lot of misinformation from the local anti-wind farm group and even our local council. I see the local community has benefitted and will continue to benefit from this project with a large amount of employment provided, funds being made available for local projects and developments and the provision of a source of clean energy.

I think the project should be allowed to be finished with no further delays.

Yours sincerely

Sue McIntosh

This Windfarm development clearly demonstrates the cunning practices of the developers to purposely install turbines in unapproved site. These will continue to have a long lasting terrible impact on residents of the ULSC and provides no confidence in the NSW Government to control such developments. Because these turbine are over such a wide area, they can be seen from almost every direction from within a 10km radius.

All the evidence is that wind power is totally unsustainable economically while causing horrific visual pollution, detrimental health effects and loss of property values. The only one's who benefit is foreign private equity who on-sell their interest at the first opportunity!

The turbines that have been misplaced must be dismantled and re-erected on the originally permitted sites. The damage on the misplaced sites must be corrected.
Anything less makes the Department of Planning irrelevant and allows multi national companies to do what they feel like doing, irrespective of the damage to householders.
Householders haven't the money to fight multi nationals in court.
Correction of this series of misplacements is the responsibility of the Department of Planning. If they won't act they should be closed down.

I have viewed the photos and maps of the modifications to the turbine locations at the Crookwell library. I am convinced that the modifications will not significantly increase the impact on the surrounding properties. I live within 2 km of turbines and it appears that some turbines will be somewhat closer to my property, however I do not think the degree to which they are closer to us will significantly increase any impact of the turbines on this property, and hence have no objection to the modifications.

I do however strongly feel that from the outset of the project there should have been far greater consultation of the community with genuine potential for people to object to specific turbines. Compensation of neighbours of the turbines should also be significantly increased, from the proposed provision of landscaping and solar systems, to promote community acceptance of the project.

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.

Alison Hewitt
6/125 King Street,
Randwick NSW 2031

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.

Name: Tim Couttas
Address: 6/125 King Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031.

! wish to strongly object to the submission presented by the developer for alteration of the original approval 1 the approval should not have been given ion the first place no consideration was given to the residents of the area the proposal affect more residences than any other similar proposal in australia 2 the developer has shown utter contempt to both the local residents and the original development approval
3the land on which the development stands is good agricultural land over 30 inches rainfall and basalt soils to pit a wind farm on such good country is a gross mismanagement of our natural resources land as good as this is a very small proportion of our total land mass . 4 So far the development has split the community we now neighbours fighting with one another some of whom have been friends for many years we have had our roads destroyed particularly range road.We have had Kialla road resurfaced but it was such a cheap job the road is now in a worse state than it was.I trust that the non australian will development company will not get favourable treatment over local population.The area will become an industrial wasteland with an invasion of noxious weeds such as thistles,blackberries,serrated tussock which is o ne of the greatest threats to Australian agriculture

Submission re :07_0118 MOD1 Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
Whether the turbines go up in the new locations or in the old locations, GRWF will disturb many households with noise because it was a poorly planned project from the start. When all of the turbines are operating the noise problem will become apparent and reductions in property value are inevitable.
Following are some points we feel very strongly about:
1. If wind farms are considered to be critical infrastructure, it is therefore critical and only fair The Department release their guidelines to the benefit of all involved - the developer, the host land owner, the neighbouring land holders and the community in general. If there were guidelines, GRWF would not be the embarrassing mess that it is today.

2. If valuations are needed, please ensure one valuer is appointed to represent the Director General to maintain consistency and fairness throughout the acquisition process. There needs to be more accurate research on how disturbance is determined, this should become part of your guidelines. What we have experienced here with the GRWF is a great variation of the percentage of disturbance calculated.

3. If acquisition is to be granted over a neighbouring property it should be the land owner's decision as to whether it is to be a portion of the property or all of the property. Each situation is different.

4. In relation to our acquisition process our independent valuer considered our case to be Just Terms Compensation. The valuer acting for the Director General stated in his report that the GRWF is not for a public purpose and therefore is not Just Terms Compensation. This would appear to be a grey area, is it or is it not for a public purpose? One would assume based on the project being critical infrastructure it would therefore be for a public purpose.

5. Still in relation to our acquisition we would like to draw your attention to page 31 of the Valuation Assessment & Report by Colin Davies & Associates on behalf of the NSW Planning and infrastructure. "The acquisition by the proponent provides an advantage to the land owner in that the properties are acquired at market without deduction. The land owner's intention was to subdivide the land and sell or retain the blocks created. The purchase by the proponent satisfies the objects of the land owner who might otherwise have to wait for a sale on the open market." This paragraph clearly highlights the arrogance and lack of understanding of our situation. To suggest this is an advantage to us is outrageous. The statement by the author is an assumption made on our behalf. Our objective was based on succession planning and did not involve selling to a developer which would in turn have a negative impact on the rest of our holdings/ business. This alone would seem to be cause enough to revisit the acquisition process in relation to us.

6. Noise - currently there are three turbines operating, 1x 2.5MW and 2 x 1.5 MW approximately 1 - 1.5 km ENE from our bedroom window, which under normal circumstances we choose to leave slightly open. Those 3 turbines are clearly audible from our residence depending on certain wind speeds and direction. This is a real concern to us once all 30 turbines are operating in our location and particularly in the dead of night when we are used to blissful silence. There are two households on this property, Kimbe Homestead and Kimbe Cottage. At Kimbe Homestead there is a self contained unit which is used as a B&B. Currently there is a young man renting the unit. Last week when paying his rent he commented that the 3 turbines woke him during the night, he got up and went on the verandah to see what the noise was, he quickly realised it was the turbines. He is considering moving to Crookwell.

7. We would like to again bring to the Departments attention In the Consistency Review dated December 2013, Appendix F Revised Noise Assessment, Marshall day Acoustics, 2.3 Receiver Locations paragraph 2, with the exception of receivers B121a and B122a and paragraph 3, the reference to "the subdivision for these locations is incomplete" is incorrect as we have building entitlements for both these lots and we provided GRWF with a DA Consent Notice and Plan on three occasions, the third in a letter dated 8th October 2012 in which the department was cc in. We now feel that in view of the current situation, the proponent should be asked to re visit the noise monitoring in relation to B121a and B122a before the turbines begin operating, and in order to comply with the original Project Approval, along with SRS oC 139 Impact on Future Rural Subdivisions, page 65 (c-xxxii) Changes to Turbine Layout in the Consistency Review, December 2013.

8. When our neighbours made a decision for their families future and signed on to the GRWF project they also made a financial decision for our families' future. With the impact of a possible 60% devaluation of land (we refer to the Preliminary Report - Impact of wind turbine developments on surrounding rural land value in the Southern Tablelands NSW by Peter Reardon dated September 2013, who incidentally visited our property on two occasions as the valuer for Goldwind) and noise pollution near a wind farm would seem a gross imbalance for the neighbouring non host farmers. We feel that the Department should recognise this and should consider a fairer system in relation to their guidelines.

9. Wind farm developments should only be approved on large holdings, 2000 ha plus, this would limit the amount of non host neighbouring farms the project affects.

We are all looking to the Department for direction and clear cut guidelines on wind farms. As affected neighbouring landholders of the GRWF we feel the points we have made are valid - and we hope the Department is listening.

Scott & Terri Montgomery

please remove the turbines ASAP

If this amended DA is approved a precedent will be set that an approved DA is virtually meaningless and council will lose control, if it is good enough for Goldwind it is good enough for all. In other words there can not be one law for wealthy multinationals and one for the local residents

Secondly, if the incorrect placement is not rectified,they should forgo their huge subsidies.

Thirdly these huge multinationals have shown total disregard for the local residents during the construction phase and I see no reason why this should continue by allowing this amendment.

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.

The Governance and Code of Conduct requirements for local citizens have been eroded by the blatant disregard for compliance by the developer. To rectify the position the non compiling turbines should be relocated onto the correct site. If not resited, considerable compensation should be paid to any non hosting resident who is disadvantaged by the turbines located closer to their house, no matter how small the distance.

I wish to make a brief submission in favour of the modification to the project application for the Gullen Range windfarm. After reading the relevant documents lodged with the department I can't see anything in the process that Goldwind has followed to disallow the modification. All of the turbine relocations except for one are either very, very minor or are moving the turbines away from the perimeter of the windfarm site. The documentation states that Goldwind has followed all directions from the department through the relocation process and I have no reason to disbelieve their statements to the department.

Desma Horton
2 Leila Mayoh Clos
CROOKWELL NSW 2583

1 May, 2014

Attention: Toby Philp
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1

To whom it may concern

I offer my support of the project known as the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

The Gullen Range Wind Farm has offered a great number of advantages for the local community of Crookwell and Goulburn with a great number of people being employed to construct the wind farm, with the contractors and sub-contractors. The subsequent benefits for the local communities, the rental of dwellings, local business houses being used by the employees and so on.

With the completion of the Gullen Range Wind Farm more benefits will be gained by the local community for example, the provision of a source of clean, green energy, the ongoing employment of permanent staff to manage the wind farm and the provision of an annual Community Benefit Fund offered by Goldwind to fund local community projects.

Any movement of the turbines was, I believe, done so with the greatest respect to the project, its boundaries, the surrounding land and environment.

I am annoyed about the amount of negative publicity, misinformation and irresponsible scaremongering this project has received, when there is a lot of positivity which could be reported to the community,

I cannot believe this project is so close to being completed, so I think is should proceed ahead as planned with no further delays so the wind farm can do what is was built to do and that is to produce a clean form of energy.
Yours sincerely

Desma Horton

As Stud Stock cattle breeders, my husband live all the time on our farm, and have been in the thick of construction since the beginning. Yes it has caused some stress mainly by contractors not being aware that this is our lively hood. On the most part the team from Goldwind have always been a pleasure to deal with & very understanding of our needs.

Now the towers are up & functioning & traffic movements are less I honestly don't even notice them, yes we can hear them from our bedroom with the window open & also when outside, but this also depends on the direction of the wind.
I could be living in a busy city with continous traffic, honestly you don't notice them or the noise.
I work as a Registered nurse, fulltime & my prospective on this is there are worse thing than a wind tower, my view is move on & live your life stop focusing on negative points.