Mod 1 - Extend Approval Lapsing Date

Mieczyslaw Ciszewski
DALTON NSW 2581

Attention: Executive Director-Resource Assessments & Business Systems

GPO BOX 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001
Department of Planning and Environment
320 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000

13 April 2017


Dear Sir,

Re: REQUESTED TWO YEAR EXTENSION BY AGL FOR AGL DALTON POWER PROJECT

I O B J E C T to AGL being granted a two year extension of the 19 July 2017 lapse date of their approval to build a gas-fired power station 4km north of DALTON

Reason 1
AGL has claimed that this project is essential infrastructure, but during the last FIVE YEARS has done nothing on the site, has no go ahead for the project from the AGL Board, does not know what it wants to do, has not shown any desire to take into account the objections to this project from the local community and wants to use this extra time to consider a MOD 2 while not knowing what this MOD 2 would be.
Reason 2
It would be better for AGL to work out what it wants to do (MOD 2), consult with the local community, get approval from the AGL Board and then make a completely NEW application for development approval from the Department of Planning and Environment.
Reason 3
AGL has been very deceptive with the Dalton community. It has also produced a developmental plan which has not been thoroughly scrutinised. Models used in this plan are based on data which is not relevant to the Dalton area. It is not known how such a plan, with so many errors managed to be approved by the Planning Assessment Commission. It is suspected that this project was pushed through due to Ministerial Discretion trusting that AGL had done the planning work competently. This trust seems to have been misplaced, which is why the legislation known as Part 3a is in the process of being repealed due to the ease in which corruption can occur.
Reason 4
I moved to Dalton for the clean air, clean rain water and quiet country environment. The dark sky where the Milky Way and other astronomical objects can be seen with the naked eye is priceless. One dark sky observing site is close to the Loop Road on the causeway; this would be made useless with frequent road traffic and the accompanying lights.
The pollution from the proposed AGL Dalton power project would make Dalton an industrial area and no longer a sought after area for a clean, country lifestyle. This would kill the growth of this area and greatly decrease the value of our properties as stated by experienced local real estate agents.

Many of these reasons were recognised by the Upper Lachlan Shire Council who voted to make an objection submission.
I sincerely hope that the objections of the local Dalton and Gunning communities, the objections of the ULSC and the objections of the Hon Pru Gaward MP NSW State Member for Goulburn will be considered and that this extension will not be granted to AGL.
Yours faithfully
Mieczyslaw Ciszewski
DALTON NSW 2581
13 April 2017, 8:32 pm AEST

In relation to the above proposed extension of the lapsed date of the development approval, I wish to lodge my strong objection to a further two years being granted.

AGL have had more than enough time to assess the energy market and also to commence any development.

Both Gunning and Dalton, while originally strongly objecting to the initial proposal, have continued to grow despite of the approval largely because many in the area who were new had no idea that AGL had any interest in the area of Dalton.

Since my wife, children and I moved to the area in 2011, we have seen the area buoyed by lots of new young families, and also the children of older families of the area returning to purchase houses, invest in businesses and put down their roots for the future.

We have seen new organisations formed in the area and the replacement of older less able members by these new people in crucial organisations such as the Rural Fire Service, of which I am a member.

I am concerned about the extension of the approval for this gas fired power station as it has caused anxiety within my family. My wife has been unable to sleep. My two children are anxious about the perceived pollution that this development will release into the local environment.

I am concerned about how this development pollution will travel through the atmosphere and where it will land. Will it effect my sheep? my cattle? Will the produce of the vegetable garden that I have established with my son still be safe for my family to eat?

Will this deter new people from wanting to come and live in the area?

I work in commercial and residential plumbing supplies and in the last five years, I have seen many new homes built in the area, or people investing in improving their properties. Do these people deserve to lose the equity they have invested in their properties? Do they deserve to have their financial security ripped out from under them and their business and family dreams quashed.

It is my opinion that if this development approval is extended, people now aware of the AGL development will cease to improve their properties or to build in the area. This will affect the business that I work for. I have worked hard to establish the reputation of the company I work for in this area, and feel this may affect my employment and therefore my family income and security.

I am also concerned about the effects this will have on my friends in the Dalton area and the level of community emotional stability. I believe that if this development approval is further extended, it may make farmers in the area see no long term future and may even irreversibly affect their mental health.

The Upper Lachlan Shire area already provided a number of energy generation sites to the state of New South Wales. Enough is enough, unless it is renewable energy.

Please do not allow this development approval to be further extended.

The location postcode above is not right. It should be 2581.

I am 11 years old and live near Gunning.

I am very concerned about the Gas Fired Power Station which would like 2 more years to think about whether they build or not.

I do not want AGL to have an extension as I think that AGL should be only building a renewable clean energy plant, that will not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at all.

I am concerned about the Southern Pygmy Perch that was found in the area recently and what effect the power station will have on it and other native animals that are rare and endangered and live in that area.

I am also concerned for my friends that live in Dalton and how this will effect their views and lives.

I am concerned about what changes this large development will have to the night sky and the beautiful stars and my ability to see them clearly.

I am worried that vibrations that might come from the power station will make the windows in my room rattle, and make it hard for me to sleep at night.

If people want to run airconditioners in their homes, new houses should be required by law to have solar panels on their roofs.

We need to make the change now.

Please do not allow AGL to build a gas fired power station in Dalton.

I wish to lodge my objection to AGL's proposed extension of time for the commencement of work on the proposed gas fired power plant project at Dalton (DPP), NSW.

A little bit about me:
I am a retired software engineer who lives in Sydney. My connection to the Dalton area is through my brother who recently moved to Dalton to live there, he also has a share in a small parcel of land just out of Dalton which I have visited many times over the last three years for camping and other recreational pursuits in particular astonomy.

I'm opposed for the following reasons:
It is morally and ethically wrong. The flawed legislation under which AGL has been granted the development has been repealed. AGL received their original approval under highly questionable legislation that was repealed in 2011 after a corruption scandal that brought down the then NSW government. This loophole legislation affords our communities little say in how our towns and lives will be affected. By repealing it, the NSW Government has acknowledged the corrupt and unfair practices that had resulted from Part 3A. Corrupt and unfair practices such as AGL's undisclosed political donations during the assessment of the Dalton Power Project. The "transitional" provisions are also soon to be repealed. We need our elected representatives to not simply allow AGL to avail themselves of the processes under Part 3A, in order to be seen as doing something about energy security.
Dalton is not just a location where AGL could eventually decide to build a power station but a thriving and vibrant community that would be severely impacted due to the noise and chemical pollution arising from such a plant. No doubt people would leave the area as it would not be a desirable or healthy place to live and raise a family. This would have a flow on negative effect to the economy of the surrounding region as Dalton folk shop and conduct their. business in the surrounding towns
I also believe that this is not a suitable area for a power plant as Dalton has a history of earthquakes.
On a personal level, I am most concerned for my brother who has made a significant financial investment in his house at Dalton where he planned to retire with his family. If this plant was to go ahead it would result in a financial loss as the property values will be negatively impacted.
When I visit my brother's property, I have the opportunity to pursue my hobby of astronomy as Dalton has wonderful dark skies compared to the light polluted skies of greater Sydney. I believe that this pursuit could be impacted by the operations of a large scale power plant.

In Conclusion
Unfortunately I lack the talent and skills to succinctly and correctly elaborate the reasons that I object to this proposal but I beg the Department to see that this is a wonderful thriving little regional community that should not be subjected to any further torment by having this proposal hanging over them. Given the circumstances of the original development approval, there should be no further advantage or time granted to AGL.

I wish to lodge my objection to AGL's proposed extension of time for the commencement of work on the proposed gas fired power plant project at Dalton (DPP), NSW. AGL have not provided sufficient cause for extension. Their dishonest and illegal failure to declare Political donations, particularly in light of the call-in powers under which this project were approved, make this impossible at an ethical level to approve. It must not be extended. AGL's wish to `modify' the initial plan in an `open ended fashion' smacks of arrogance that we, the Australian people, should oppose. There is no reason AGL should not have their proposal scrutinised as per the normal process of approval. They are asking for an open ended "modification" option. AGL are not working with the community, are not fulfilling the conditions of the initial approval and must not be allowed to extend approval of this project.
This approval impacts me through the loss of product from my lamb supplier, if it were to proceed.

Thank you for referring the abovementioned application to the Department of Defence (Defence) for comment. Defence has reviewed the request to extend the lapse date for the Dalton Power Project, and has no concerns at this time.

Please find attached the EPA"s response to this matter.

Submission is attached.

Please see attached

File is uploaded in support of my objection.

I object to AGL's request to extend the lapse date for the Dalton Power Project.
My reading of AGL's request is that they are seeking additional time to:
1. Evaluate new technology and market conditions
2. Consult with the community about potential modifications to the DPP
3. If required, lodge a more substantive project approval modification

New technology and market conditions
I understand that technology and market conditions have changed, however this has not happened over night. This project was approved nearly 5 years ago. Had AGL had their fingers on the pulse they should have been evaluating changes as they were occurring and be in a position now to act, not delay and talk. If change was required they should have been consulting with the community already and not waiting till the last minute.
I know nothing about AGLs method of operations other than they were recently fined for not declaring political donations when they applied for approval for the DPP (and having googled to check that I had that right I note that claims were made that they engaged in other practices (eg waste disposal) that appear to show disregard for community and the law).
However, as an outsider it seems that AGL at a minimum has shown poor project management skills in letting the DPP sit on the back burner till the last minute (how on earth would they go in meeting their commitments once work started?), and at the worst is showing total disregard to the community of Dalton and surrounds, the Minister and Department of Planning and Environment, and the Shire and other stakeholders by apparently manipulating the system and leaving things to the last minute so that people have limited time to respond, and AGL can `buy' more time without having to compensate the Shire (which may or may not compensate the Dalton community) for the uncertainty residents continue to endure (and the impacts on families, health, business and property prices that ensue).
I also question how broad any evaluation of new technology would be. Would it for instance include renewable energy sources that may have less community and environmental impact, and require less financial investment? Or would it just look at how they can get more for less out of a gas plant? And if it's the latter, is extending the lapse date for a gas plant really in the best interests of the community, the environment and NSW, when there are other options that arguably should be considered too?
Technology has changed since the initial approval, but why allow time to review gas plant technology only? If a review is necessary to make this a viable operation, why not review whether a gas plant is the best alternative in the first place?
I also note that technology is not the only thing that has changed since this project was approved. For example, the environmental impact assessment was made over 5 years ago. It was before local projects sponsored by the NSW Department of Environment and Heritage to protect the yellow spotted bell frog and pygmy perch were commenced in the area. The world has changed and it is not appropriate to simply extend the lapse date beyond the time contemplated at the time of the project's approval.
Community consultation
I find it difficult to accept that AGL is concerned about community consultation, other than as a tick the box exercise to meet government requirements. If I am wrong I don't understand why they didn't start this process by letting the affected community know that they were lodging a request to extend the lapse date by two years. That is, they acknowledge poor practice in the past and talk about improved behaviour - but they're off to a pretty abysmal start. A cynic might suggest that community consultation buys more time during which they don't have to do substantive work and don't have to make significant payments under the project agreement to the Shire.
A more substantive approval modification
To me this is the crux of the matter. Having heard about AGLs prior behaviour, noted discussion reported in the media about the need for more power stations, and read the DPP MOD1 I believe that AGL has already decided that they want to make substantive or significant changes to the DPP and need time to do the necessary paperwork and `sell' the revamped project to the community (or at least be able to tick the boxes to say they've had the conversations and given people a chance to put their view). While this MOD1 will not change the scope of the project, MOD2 is clearly already contemplated. A statement about no change to scope while technically correct is disingenuous ... not surprising in the circumstances.
If AGL is considering substantive changes then this request for extension is about circumventing fair process. I understand that the legislation that the DPP is approved under is no longer in place, and that approval processes for a new project would be quite different. An extension therefore has the effect of avoiding the current processes (and associated checks, balances and transparency) that the government and the community consider to be appropriate for this type of project.
The legislation has been changed for a reason. No doubt a transition period exists so that entities that received planning approval and made genuine commitments and possibly commenced work are not disadvantaged. However, it is clear that that is not the case for AGL. No work has commenced and they are talking about delaying further to review, consult and in all likelihood apply for changes. An extension in these circumstances shows disregard for the reason the legislation was changed in the first place.
Further, if AGL is using an extension to bring a significant change to the table (what I imagine could effectively amount to a new project) it is denying other enterprises the opportunity to put a competing offer on the table (either in Dalton or elsewhere), and for any such competing offers to be evaluated. It is denying a level playing field, and it is denying NSW the opportunity to optimise investment decisions.
If AGL is satisfied that what they are contemplating is in the interests of NSW then they should apply under the new legislation and process.
Finally
I moved to Dalton a few years ago because I want to live in the country: away from heavy traffic, noise and pollution. I paid for that privilege. I am concerned about the impact the project will have on my enjoyment of home and surrounds, about the impact on my health and my stock, and on the value of my property. In their application AGL acknowledges that an extension creates extended uncertainty for people like me. But they do no more that put those words on paper. They do not care.
Their application refers to socio-economic benefits to the community. Words. The people of Dalton are to a large extent farm workers, business operators, and professionals who commute to cities to work. There will be minimal if any employment benefit to the community. And if facilities are provided on site for employees, there will be minimal if any benefit to local businesses.
The only beneficiary of an extension to the lapse date would be AGL and an extension would prolong a benefit under legislation that no longer exists, and prolong the uncertainty about their future being experienced by members of the Dalton community and surrounds. I implore the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to refuse AGLs application.
Thank you.

Please find attached my submission that strongly objects to the extension of two years to build a gas-fired power station at Dalton. This project must NOT be allowed to proceed.

I vigorously object to the AGL project. I have attached my submission below in PDF format also.

Regards

27 March 2017

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to object to company AGL's proposed extension of time for the commencement of work for the proposed gas fired power plant project at Dalton (DPP) New South Wales.
The project is totally inappropriate and not wanted by the family and farming communities of Dalton and Gunning. This last minute extension is not fair and has set our communities on edge yet again. AGL again has not considered the needs and wants of our community nor has it understood our message. It looms as a threat on our every-day living.
I'm vehemently opposed to an extension of time for the project following reasons:
1. AGL is seeking to modify the project approval to extend the lapse date for a further two years to enable them to `review the DPP in line with current technology and energy market circumstances'.
 Allowing AGL to review the DPP to assess `current/new technology' would be a shift away from the original approved proposal that clearly stated the technology to be used. An action to introduce different technology, including battery storage and more advanced turbines, could substantially change the impact on our community and the environment than was stated in AGL's original submission.

 Consideration of `current/new technology' should only be considered through a new DPP application process and under the legislation and rules with which new proposals are considered, not the legislation (now repealed) under which the original project proposal was approved.
2. In the AGL request to extend the lapse date it is stated that `In October 2012 AGL announced the suspension of construction of the DPP due to difficult market conditions - including lower demand for electricity'.
 AGL has had five years within which to make a decision to start building the power plant and it has opted not to do so in this time period. They have had 5 years to continually assess and consider changing market conditions.
 I suggest AGL is seeking an extension on the basis that things `could' change from this point on, rather than what changes have occurred in the last 5 years. AGL wants to hedge its bets on its future with this project. It is not considering the immense uncertainty and unrest this puts on our.
3. AGL seeks to modify the project approval to extend the lapse date for a further two years to enable consultation with the local community, landholders and other stakeholders. AGL claims it wants to be a `trusted and respected member of the communities in which it operates'. It claims it wants to engage beyond baseline regulatory requirements.
In response to this:
 AGL has shown no commitment to the community in the last five years. AGL is a landowner here yet it has contributed nothing to the Dalton community since becoming a landowner here.
 There are new environmental concerns. The area has recently been identified as an environmental hotspot with the recent finding of the southern pigmy perch and the yellow spotted southern bell frog in our water ways. The frog was thought gone for thirty years. A power plant will surely threaten these two endangered species. This must be addressed as a new factor.
 Noise generated by the proposed plant is a major issue.
 AGL has shown complete disregard for its obligation to care for the land it owns. AGL has failed to control noxious weeds on its lands. The invasion of native plant communities by exotic weeds threatens our native plants and animals and it threatens the livelihoods of our farmers (AGL's neighbours).
4. AGL state that extending the lapse date would not change the positive socio-economic benefits of the DPP. It talks of 5-10 long term jobs.
 There are no positive socio-economic benefits of the DPP. Since the AGL announcement to suspend the DPP project the village of Dalton and surrounding Gunning communities have grown. Families have moved here with no knowledge of the proposed plans by AGL. AGL does not participate in our community in anyway and there are no socio-economic benefits for someone living in our community.
 People have made financial decisions about buying property and building in our community since the AGL announcement in October 2012. An extension of time for AGL would only serve to return concerns and fear again for our new community members for the next two years. It potentially has significant financial economic and environmental impacts on them that they did not foresee or were warned about. If the DPP is built those families may end up with property that is worth less than what they paid for it and borrowed to buy it.
 Dalton and Gunning are farming and tourist communities. We are not technically qualified to work in a gas fired power plant. To the contrary, we understand that the plant will be operated remotely, not by locals. Five to ten long term jobs does not warrant a significant social-economic benefit. AGL should put a poll to the community as to whether they wanted 5-10 long term jobs as a benefit from the project. From anecdotal community feedback to date, it would be emphatically `no - we do not want the AGL project'. I have not met one local community member that wants this project to go ahead.
I first came to Gunning with my family in 2009. I am a health care professional and currently work as CEO for a community organisation; looking after the elderly and people with a disability in the Upper Lachlan Shire. I brought my ageing mother to live here in 2011, thinking her twilight years in a rural country environment would be good for her health and wellbeing. How wrong I was.
When the AGL project was first approved in 2012 I was Manager of Gunning District Community Health Service in 2012. I violently opposed the project then as did everyone else I knew. The stress on the community at that time was enormous. The stress has returned.
Has AGL considered the impact on the aged and those with a disability? Demographics show that the Upper Lachlan has a higher than average ageing population. For those who have lived here all their lives, having this monolithic poisonous project imposed on them at this stage of their lives would be just devastating. And what about people with a disability living in the area who may have decision-making impairment; how does AGL have the right to impose this on them? What about their fragile health and well-being?
We all live here to be a part of a quiet rural community. If this project was to go ahead people would not come here. It would be known as an area NOT to live in. Our villages would be forever changed. We would not trust the water we drink nor the air we breathe. Our land values would go down. Our homes will be overshadowed by a giant power plant emitting poisons and pollutants into our air, on our roofs, in our creeks and dams and our community in general. But AGL would continue to make money and spoil it for all.
Further, I understand if construction of the plant was to proceed it would be undertaken by Leighton's. I would also be concerned about AGL's claim that construction would provide local jobs. Construction companies such as these bring crews in from outside the area, and set up self-sufficient camps. Local business rarely benefits in these situations and if it does the gain is not long-term.
In summary, I urge you NOT to grant the extension of time for the commencement of the Dalton Power Plant.
Yours Sincerely

I object to an extension of time for AGL to consider a proposed power plant in Dalton. Submission attached.

Please see attached submission

Please find attached RMS response to MP10_0035 MOD1.

Attached is my submission.

As land owners and rate payers in the Dalton area, we strenuously object to AGL's application to extend the lapsing date of the approval for the Dalton Power Project by 2 years (MOD 1).

We have set out the reasons for our objection in the attached PDF.

See upload

see attached submission