Mod 1 - Extend Approval Lapsing Date

My name is John Edwards and I am a direct neighbour to the AGL Dalton Power Project site on Walshs Rd Dalton NSW. I have uploaded a PDF document outlining my strong objections to AGL's proposal to extend the Approval lapse date for a further two years. I would ask that this document be considered in assessing the application made by AGL.

Please see attached Submission Document below.

Please email a receipt of the Submission of our Objection Document.

Yours Sincerely,

Min & Terry Byrnes

Please see my PDF attachment, which is my objection letter.

My name is Maryanne Johnstone and I reside at Walshs Rd Dalton NSW. I object to the application made by AGL for an extension to the lapsing date of their Approval for the development of the Dalton Power Project. I have uploaded a PDF document outlining the reasons for my objection.

Our submission is attached.

Dear Mr Ko - please find the below submission also attached as a PDF.

OBJECTION



Dear Mr Ko,

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the extension you approved to the deadline for submissions as a result of the affected communities being taken by surprise by AGL Energy's modification proposal for its shelved plans for a power station in Dalton (DPP).

We write on behalf of the Burrinjuck Greens, a grassroots local political organization covering the villages of Dalton and Gunning, plus Upper Lachlan and Yass Valley shires.

This is an OBJECTION to the Application by AGL to extend the lapsing date of the approval for the Dalton Power Project by 2 years.

We consider that granting the proposed modification would run contrary to the following nine points as listed below:

1. The wishes of the Upper Lachlan shire Council

The Burrinjuck Greens notes that on 10 April the ULSC unanimously passed a motion to object to AGL's request to extend the DPP approval. This motion reflects the extreme anger and concern shared by resi-dents of Dalton and Gunning in particular, but extending well beyond the immediate vicinity of the Proposed DPP.

The Burrinjuck Greens endorses the submission of the ULSC.


2. Project Approval: Schedule B13. This project approval shall lapse five years after the date on which it is granted, unless the works subject of this approval have been commenced before that time.

The original approval for the DPP provided authorisation to build specific infrastructure subject to a specific set of conditions.

The condition in B13 already goes one step further than the transitional arrangements that would be ex-pected to apply to this project. These specify that the approval would lapse five years after October 2011, as below:
An approval for a transitional Part 3A project will lapse on the day that is 5 years after 1 October 2011 unless:

* the project is physically commenced on the land before that lapsing date, or
* the approval is subject to a condition that provides for the approval to lapse on an earlier or later day, or
* if the approval is for a use, that use actually commences before the day that the approval would oth-erwise lapse (Sched 6A, cl11) .

Therefore the intention behind the conditions of consent was to approve the DPP for five years only. The Burrinjuck Greens recommend that the requested time extension be disallowed on these grounds.


3. Project Approval: Schedule D1 (c) the establishment and operation of a Community Consulta-tive Committee generally in accordance with the Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Community Consultative Committees for Mining Projects (Department of Planning, 2007 or its latest version);

Forming a consultative committee was also one of the conditions of consent of approval for the DPP. Since October 2012 AGL has made no attempt to do so or to communicate with the local community in any way until 5th April, which is after the original deadline for submissions. For five years AGL made no attempt to satisfy the conditions of approval for the DPP and gave the community sound reason to conclude that it was not planning to proceed with the project. A request for a further two years of approval is not just a simple extension of an approval already received. The request represents a substantial change given the reasonable community expectation that the DPP was not proceeding.

Let me refer you at this point to the publicly available recording of AGL's one and only public address in the last 5 years , which clearly shows the extent of AGL's utter disregard for its neighbouring landowners in Dal-ton. From allowing the proliferation of noxious weeds on its land to the dismissal of evidence of local mar-ket problems presented by the local Real Estate agent, the arrogance with which AGL has conducted itself is staggering. This is a far cry from the impression AGL lawyers put forward of the company in the Land and Environment Court during AGL's prosecution for non-disclosure of political donations, where those lawyers successfully argued for a lenient sentence given AGL's status as a "good corporate citizen" which had "tak-en a number of actions to ensure that such failures do not occur again" .

The assertion by AGL in this modification request that
In the 7-8 years since the initial development activities at Dalton; AGL's approach to community consultation has improved in effectiveness and sophistication
is demonstrably false and has been made in bad faith.

The Burrinjuck Greens conclude that AGL did not satisfy the conditions of consent, that an extension of time for a shelved project is inconsistent as defined by s75w of the NSW Environmental and Assessment Act 1979 and that the modification should be disallowed on both counts.



4. The relevant Environmental and Socio-Economic assessments, which date from 2011

Important legal protections for our community and environment would be circumvented by allowing AGL free rein to operate in Dalton without a relevant Environmental Assessment (new species have been discov-ered) or relevant conditions of consent to be arrived at through a consultative process with stakeholders affected and the oversight of the PAC.

AGL is incorrect to claim that the extension of the lapse date would result in negligible environmental or so-cio-economic impacts. The environment relevant to an approval extending into 2018 and 2019 is substan-tially different to the environment pertaining to a much earlier submission. Substantial environmental and socio-economic impacts of an extension include:
* Extreme stress imposed on a community that had sound reasons to conclude that the project had been shelved in October 2012, and would not ever proceed.
* Incompatibility with the combined Regional Strategic Plan of Upper Lachlan, Yass Valley and Goulburn-Mulwaree shires for growth and development released in 2016. Extension of the DPP approval period would hinder the priority areas for development in the region selected by the Councils, and thus create substantial socio-economic damage
* Damage to property values in the region that have greatly increased since the project suspension, thus causing unjustified financial hardship to a large number of families
* Derailing of the tourism renaissance of Gunning and Dalton villages, due to the renewed threat that an AGL development may occur.

In addition, the original approval was expressly granted with the provision of a more reliable source of ener-gy in mind. This was determined by examining the prevailing socio-economic conditions and weighing them up against the findings of the EA of the time. This is not a calculation which can speak to current environ-mental and socio-economic conditions.

In the end, even that calculation was found wanting, as witness the fact that the plant was never built, which suggests that the need for more reliable electricity was not important enough for a private company to gen-erate actual expenditure on the DPP. The forecasts for peak demand which were considered to be increas-ing at the time never materialised. The reports on which the decision were made have since been widely dis-credited.

Making more gas generation capacity available is only a short-term fix and does not seriously address the changes needed to maintain, in the words of the National Electricity Objective, a secure, reliable and affordable supply of electricity.

Demand management is widely accepted as a far cheaper option than building peaking power stations, and is readily available technology with the advent of the "Internet of things", for example by remotely switching off industrial air conditioners.

Therefore the Burrinjuck Greens contend that the original socio-economic and environmental contexts no longer apply, and a new application needs to be made by AGL so that these can be properly assessed. The Burrinjuck Greens petition the Minister to exercise his power under the following Section 75w of the Act which states:
Division 5 Miscellaneous 75W Modification of Minister's approval (1) In this section: Minister's approval means an approval to carry out a project under this Part, and includes an approval of a concept plan. modification of approval means changing the terms of a Minister's approval, including:
(3) The request for the Minister's approval is to be lodged with the Director-General. The Director-General may notify the proponent of environmental assessment requirements with respect to the proposed modification that the proponent must comply with before the matter will be considered by the Minister.


5. The definition of Critical Infrastructure

Critical infrastructure has been defined by the NSW Government as:
Development for the purpose of a facility for the generation of electricity, being development that: (a) has capacity to generate at least 250 megawatts, and (b) is the subject of an application lodged pursuant to section 75E or section 75M of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to 1 January 2013 .
AGL has made it clear (see Objection 8, below), that the extension of the DPP approval would be an "insur-ance policy". An insurance policy is not critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure is an asset that contrib-utes to the public good. In this case there is no asset, as nothing has been built. No prepayment has been made, whether to the Upper Lachlan Shire or in bricks and mortar on the site where the DPP was approved. AGL has not disbursed a cent towards the public good.

In addition AGL is not seeking more time to build the approved infrastructure. It has applied for time to be used in another way, namely to review the project with respect to considerably changed economic and tech-nological conditions in Australia, and lodge an even more substantive modification. AGL is not seeking an extension of time in the sense that normally applies to development approvals. AGL has admitted that there is no justification for building the DPP as approved and is seeking approval for a completely different pro-ject.

However, AGL is imposing anxiety, real estate uncertainty, and a general paralysis on the inhabitants of the region with no skin in the game itself. Dalton is suffering a retrospective liability for an increased penalty, with no inkling this was coming, no communication from AGL in the long years since it publicly shelved plans to build the approved infrastructure, and no contribution to the public purse.

Therefore the Burrinjuck Greens consider it unreasonable to assess the modification of this project under the rules which apply to critical infrastructure, since the project has been shelved long-term by its own pro-ponent, a proponent who has no desire to resurrect it in anything resembling its current form.



6. The spirit of the judgement in Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL En-ergy Limited; Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL Upstream Infrastruc-ture investments Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 2

The original approval for the DPP was given under legislation now repealed due to the propensity for cor-ruption it created. This fear was borne out by AGL's subsequent conviction for non-disclosure of political donations relating to this specific project, amongst others .

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act deals with non-disclosure of political donations and gifts, with the express object being to ensure that political donations and gifts are not relevant to the determina-tion of planning applications. Since AGL entities were found guilty of making political donations relating to a number of approval processes, including that of the proposed Gas power station in Dalton, the Burrinjuck Greens consider that granting an extension to the original approval as AGL has requested would not be act-ing in the spirit of the sentence imposed or the laws which seek to protect communities and our natural envi-ronment from the influence of big corporations.

The Burrinjuck Greens conclude that the approval process was flawed, and that the approval should have been annulled when AGL was convicted for non-disclosure of relevant political donations in January. The Burrinjuck Greens note the intention in the judgement to punish AGL and mitigate the effects of the wrong-doing, and therefore recommends that any modifications to the approval should be disallowed, and a new approval sought by AGL.


7. AGL's policy which prohibits the making of any political donation by or on behalf of AGL En-ergy and its related bodies corporate

Seeking to have this extension approved is underhand and runs contrary to AGL's own policy U-turn after it was convicted in the Land and Environment Court in January 2017 , which is set out as follows:
In his affidavit of 21 July, Mr Fitzgerald deposed, under the heading "Remorse and contrition":
The AGL Entities have taken a number of actions to ensure that such failures do not occur again. In particular, AGL Energy has put in place a policy which prohibits the making of any political donation by or on behalf of AGL Energy and its related bodies corporate.
AGL should not be seeking to circumvent public protections brought in to guard against misuse of political donations, especially after giving a public commitment to this effect, a public commitment which contribut-ed to the leniency of the sentence eventually imposed.

The Judge stated that
"The change in [AGL's] policy is a matter for consideration as part of the sentencing process as it is clearly relevant to the question of whether or not there is any necessity for a requirement for specific deter-rence to ensure that AGL commits no further breaches of this nature in the future."
However seeking an extension to a project approved where due process was not followed undermines this seemingly commendable policy of AGL's. If AGL were committed to a sentiment of contrition and remorse, then that would preclude it from applying for an extension of the approval originally granted. It would in-stead apply for a new assessment, like a good corporate citizen.

The Burrinjuck Greens note that the Judge in this instance was also at pains to outline the purpose of the Act, being
punishment, deterrence, protecting the community, to promote the rehabilitation of the offender, to make the offender accountable, to denounce their conduct, and to recognise the harm done to victim and community
To allow an extension of the approval of the DPP would be to negate all of the above. AGL's cash for approvals policy would be validated, not punished. Others would be encouraged to apply for modifica-tions to approvals retrospectively found to be wanting. The communities affected would not be afforded the protections that the legislation intended, and nor would democracy itself. Rehabilitation of the offender would not be promoted, nor would their conduct be denounced. Certainly, there would be no recognition of the harm done to the political process or the community on the ground. The Burrinjuck Greens therefore recommend the modification be disallowed.



8. Free market economics and the public good

The role of the government is to enable private companies to react to the market, not to protect private companies from the market at the expense of the public. AGL made it very clear at the Internet streamed public meeting in Dalton on Wednesday 5 April (http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/4580479/power-company-faces-the-people/), by using the phrase "insurance policy" a number of times, that it wanted to hedge against uncertainty in the NEM by keeping its options open in Dalton.

AGL, Engie and Origin already monopolise the market for domestic gas. Monopolies are not good for re-ducing gas prices. Early last year, Adelaide's 478-megawatt gas-fired Pelican Point power station was taken offline, despite being one of the most efficient and lowest-emission thermal power stations in Australia. Its owner, Engie, said it was unable to trade profitably based on expected prices of gas and electricity.

Why should Dalton put up the collateral to give AGL a monopolistic advantage in relation to its competitors in the wholesale energy markets? Monopolistic practices keep prices high for the consumer and discourage innovation.

In addition, AGL is clearly confused about its position in relation to the NEM.
* One minute it publishes a submission stating "AGL does not consider that there is a material problem with the design of the wholesale electricity market " and the next writes an op-ed calling for reform of the NEM.
* AGL applies to build a peaking power station on the grounds of energy security, then never builds it.
* AGL refuses to testify at the SA Senate enquiry into energy reliability, then justifies the present modifica-tion proposal on the South Australian blackouts.

How can anyone possibly take AGL's policy positions seriously when they are so inconsistent? The Bur-rinjuck Greens recommends that AGL be made to actually respond to market conditions, so that it has some direction on how to go about its core business.



9. The Minister's worthy efforts at eliminating the loophole by which part 3a developments are not subject to the same rigour as other developments

The Burrinjuck Greens note the emphasis in the judgement against AGL in the Land and Environment Court on
"disclosure provisions giving rise to these charges were enacted ...as a transparency process de-signed to enhance and protect public confidence in the integrity of the development approval process both for projects (or modifications to approved projects) dealt with at a state level" .

The Burrinjuck Greens also note and commend the Minister's efforts to restore public confidence in the planning process as proposed in the Environmental planning and Assessment bill 2017.

Under current part 3a legislation, a modification of approved projects is permissible whether or not it is sub-stantially the same, in which case a pertinent question to consider would be why has no project, similar or otherwise, been proposed? AGL have had 5 years to think up a better project. (Incidentally, they have also had 5 years to consult the community and weed their paddock, but have not chosen to do so.)

The answer to this question is that AGL is aware that once the new Act is passed it will be impossible to make substantial changes to a project which has been approved under part 3a. So instead, it has submitted this vague and insubstantial proposal which, if passed, would allow AGL to claim that any further modifica-tion (Mod2 as cited in the request) is in fact what was outlined in the proposed Mod1 request all along.

It is very clear that AGL is trying to exploit the loophole that currently exists, into allowing it to build whatev-er project it wants under the old part 3a legislation without the need for any robust scrutiny. The Burrinjuck Greens are tempted to conclude that AGL's request has been prepared by lawyers keen to exploit a notori-ously unethical loophole, not AGL's engineering policy team.

AGL has admitted that what happens in Dalton will be substantially different from and inconsistent with the original approval. The Burrinjuck Greens conclude that such a modification should be disallowed, and that were AGL to be invited to reapply for the approval, transparency and public confidence would be much bet-ter served.




Conclusion:

The Burrinjuck Greens conclude that the modification request regarding the DPP does not meet the neces-sary criteria for approval, and runs contrary to:

1. The wishes of the Upper Lachlan shire Council
2. Project Approval: Schedule B13. This project approval shall lapse five years after the date on which it is granted, unless the works subject of this approval have been commenced before that time.
3. Project Approval: Schedule D1 (c) the establishment and operation of a Community Consulta-tive Committee generally in accordance with the Guidelines for Establishing and Operating Community Consultative Committees for Mining Projects (Department of Planning, 2007 or its latest version)
4. The relevant Environmental and Socio-Economic assessments, which date from 2011
5. The definition of Critical Infrastructure
6. The spirit of the judgement in Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL En-ergy Limited; Secretary, Department of Planning and Environment v AGL Upstream Infrastruc-ture investments Pty Limited [2017] NSWLEC 2
7. AGL's policy which prohibits the making of any political donation by or on behalf of AGL En-ergy and its related bodies corporate
8. Free market economics and the public good
9. The Minister's worthy efforts at eliminating the loophole by which part 3a developments are not subject to the same rigour as other developments

I endorse the submission from the Burrinjuck Greens which I have attached below

I endorse the submission from the Burrinjuck Greens which I have attached below

Please find attached my personal submission

Please see attached PDF

I am located on a rural property not far from the proposed DPP, and will be adversely affected if the extension to the approval is permitted. I endorse the submissions made by the Burrinjuck Greens and by Michelle Storey, both of which I attach.

Benjamin Huttner-Koros
Aranda, Canberra
ACT, 2614

13 April 2017

I oppose AGL's request to extend the lapse date of the approval for the Dalton Power Project.
Australia is currently facing the impacts on catastrophic climate change with sea level rise, more frequent heatwaves, drought and fire in some parts of the country and flooding in other parts. Greenhouse gas emissions must be dramatically reduced to prevent these impacts from getting worse in intensity and more frequent. There should be no new fossil fuel infrastructure at a time of catastrophic climate change. There are ways of solving the issue of providing electricity in periods of peak electricity demand using renewable sources (new batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage, smart appliances that turn on and off during high demand periods) that would achieve what this gas fired power station will achieve without causing the social harm.
The Dalton Power Project will emit particulate emissions that could harm the local residents and long term agricultural industry. The health of members of the local community health must be a priority. The power station will provide a small number of jobs (5 long term jobs stated in the AGL document submitted to the NSW planning and environment department) and a similar number of jobs could be created through new renewable energy infrastructure.
In summary, I oppose the Dalton Power Project due to its impacts on the global climate, the community's health and the lost opportunity of developing renewable energy that unlike gas will last many decades into the future. The government has a responsibility to only approve projects that will produce social good and the Dalton Power Project will lead to massive social harm.

SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION TO AGL MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE LAPSE DATE OF THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE DALTON POWER PROJECT

NSW Planning Assessment Commission


Project Proposal: AGL's Application to extend the consent period for its approved development of the Dalton Peaking Power Station for a further two years until 2019.


Submission from the Hon Pru Goward MLA, NSW Member for Goulburn.


Summary:
This submission opposes the extension of AGL's consent period for the Dalton gas-fired peaking power plant for a further two years. Under the extension application, Modification 1, AGL (the Company) seeks to modify the previously approved project, approved under transitional arrangements of a now repealed section of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This submission argues that the Company's Modification request cannot be construed to be either related to the originally approved proposal or a modification of it, but should instead be treated as a new proposal under current planning legislation instead of under Part 3A of the Act, now repealed. This will entail much greater consideration of residents' concerns and extend the timeframe for approval, but will strengthen public confidence in the NSW planning system and its integrity as well as produce a final decision which will be of overall community benefit.

Further, the Modification request has arisen in the final weeks of the original five-year consent period, giving local residents no warning and limited opportunity for engagement. This has distressed the local community and, if assented to, may reduce public confidence in the planning system itself. I am advised the Company has made no attempt to comply with the original consent conditions over the course of the last four years and nine months and its community re-engagement has been only very recent and limited.

In addition, extending the original consent period for a further two years would continue the assessment of this proposal under the now repealed Part 3A of the Planning Act. It is five years since that repeal occurred and in the community's view, allowing a proposal to be assessed and approved up to seven years later (under a section repealed 12 months prior to the original approval) is inconsistent with the LNP Government's declared commitment to provide New South Wales with an improved planning instrument.





Background:
The Company originally gained consent to build a gas-fired peaking power plant four kilometres from the village of Dalton in 2012, despite strong local opposition. The plant's location was the result of its proximity to the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline, which would provide feedstock for the plant, and the electricity grid into which the plant would feed.

Residents' concerns at the time included, but were not limited to, the noise from the plant on active days or at active times being highly disturbing and that the construction phase (two years) would involve significant numbers of trucks driving the narrow rural Gunning to Dalton road, thus endangering local road users and disrupting the peacefulness of the region.

Three months after receiving approval, the Company announced that market conditions were unfavourable to the project and that it would not proceed with the project. The Company did not advise whether the suspension was permanent or temporary but the local community drew its own conclusions when the company was not heard from again. Further population growth and land sales have occurred in the intervening period.

I was not the local Member of Parliament at the time of the original development application and was only recently advised by the Company that it was seeking a two year extension of its consent period. Subsequently, I have been approached by many residents with additional information.

Discussion:

I oppose the extension of the current consent period for this project on the following three grounds:

1. Project Features:

The original proposal included three significant features that now appear to have changed; the proposed technology for burning the gas, the source of the gas and the number of days/hours per year that the plant is most likely to operate.

* The Company's public advice is that it would like to explore developments in technology that would make the plant more efficient. While the proponent has pointed to upgrading its use of `F Class' turbines to `fast start' aero derivative turbines, emitting significantly greater noise than originally approved, it has not indicated what other new technology it is exploring, despite saying it is broadly doing so. This uncertainty is concerning for residents. Also, given the original proposal's noise levels were of great concern to residents and were closely considered by decision makers at the time, this current proposal requires a comprehensive noise assessment consistent with a new proposal. Since peaking plants operate intermittently, nighttime disturbance should also be considered. Many residents are concerned about suffering a noise impact similar to that arising from the (smaller) Uranquinty peaking power plant.

* The original source of gas for this project was the Moomba-Sydney pipeline, adjacent to the development site. It is widely understood that future gas extraction from Moomba and adjacent fields will be converted to LNG for export or domestic sale while current contracts to provide the Company with natural gas are due to expire in the near future. I understand from discussions with the proponent that instead of gas sourced from the pipeline, they are now planning to use LNG fuel at the Dalton plant. This must make the design of any future Dalton Peaking Power Station qualitatively different to the original proposal. In addition the use of trucked LNG not only obviates the need to locate the peaking power station at this particular site but would also require on-going truck haulage of LNG to the site. The impact of additional truck movements on local roads requires comprehensive assessment. All risks, including vehicle accident risks, on narrow rural roads require reassessment, particularly in light of local population growth over the past five years and increased local traffic.

* The original proposal anticipated the use of this plant would be 5-15% of the year, a maximum of 54 days. It was understood that the plant was unlikely to be required for an entire day and that those 54 days might in practice be greater in number, depending on the spread of operating hours. The Company's most recent advice appears to be that the increased unreliability of power supply arising from the use of solar and wind turbine generation may mean that the Dalton plant would operate for a greater percentage of the year. The Company does not identify a new operating percentage and without any attempt to model or otherwise estimate this, it would be reckless to grant approval under the existing proposal.

In these circumstances it is not reasonable for the Commission to extend the consent period for a further two years since the Company clearly intends to construct and operate a significantly different plant to that originally approved. In these circumstances this Modification request should be refused and the Company be invited to submit a new proposal and under NSW's current planning laws.



2. Community Engagement and Confidence in the Planning System:

The local community was not advised of the Company's intention to seek an extension of their consent period directly, only by way of public notice in local newspapers. I understand that no individual community member was contacted directly and it is possible that many residents still do not know that the project may be extended. Many residents are concerned that their opportunity to express their concerns and position has been intentionally compromised and this has not only heightened community fears but reduced confidence in the planning process.

3. Advantageous treatment using now repealed planning law:

Part 3 A
The Company's Dalton proposal was originally approved in 2012 under the Transitional Arrangements for Part 3 A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act because it had commenced under this section. In 2012, Part 3A was repealed by the NSW Parliament because the NSW Liberal Nationals had committed to doing so during the 2011 election campaign. Many in the community believed Part 3A deeply infringed upon their rights and failed to adequately consider and protect the wider public good. The incoming Government, including me, shared that belief. It was understood there would be a tail of projects such as the Dalton Power Project that would gradually work their way through the process but would be resolved in reasonable time.

The Company's application to now have the five year consent period extended a further two years makes this tail unacceptably long. While it is true that the Company did not declare that the original project, although approved, would never be built, the community inferred this from the Company's statement at the time the project was suspended and also from their on-going neglect of the site.

Subsequently, throughout the district, land has been bought and sold and the population of Dalton-Gunning has grown, again on the assumption that the Company's plant would not be built. Should the Commission give the Company approval to proceed to consider this project for a further two years under Part 3A, in my view the wider community would see this as an abuse of process that would undermine confidence in the Government's original determination on coming to office in 2011 to repeal this widely disliked section of the Act.

Finally, it should also be noted that the Dalton-Gunning population has grown significantly over the past five years and many more residents will be affected by the construction of this plant than originally anticipated. The district's changing demographics would best be considered as part of a new development application.


Summary:

In light of the Company's advice to date, there should be no Modification granted to the original approval. Instead, the Company should be required to apply for approval of a new project under the now reformed planning system.
It is important to maintain the integrity of the planning system and public confidence in that system. Extending an approval period for two years under Part 3A of the Planning Act threatens that integrity and public confidence. The continued use of a repealed section of the Planning Act (Part 3A) also undermines the Government's stated intention in 2011 of improving the rights of affected community members and better protecting the greater public good. If the Modification is approved, the PAC risks being seen as affirming unacceptable planning processes politically rejected eight years prior.

Further, the Company's poor community consultation and the compressed time frame for consideration of this current application at the very end of the current consent period of five years are viewed cynically by the community and threaten wider community confidence in the planning process.

A line in the sand must be drawn to protect the integrity of the planning system.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Yours sincerely,

The Hon. Pru Goward MLA
Member for Goulburn

I object to the proposal as follows.

This proposal does not offer a forward thinking or community supportive solution to power security and fails to take into account the areas existing contribution to energy infrastructure, community lifestyle and primary production in a way that is compatible with the environment, regional planning and community aspirations.

Please see attached the submission by Community for Accurate Impact Assessment of the Dalton Power Station.

I endorse the submission from the Burrinjuck Greens which I have attached below.

I endorse the submission made by Burrinjuk Greens.

I endorse the submission from the Burrinjuck Greens which I have attached below

Gunning District Association was not in operation during the previous period when submissions were made to the original AGL Dalton Power Project. Furthermore many of its members since its inception are young people and more recent arrivals to the Gunning/Dalton district.

GDA has canvassed/surveyed its members on what their priorities are but this was before the announcement that AGL was seeking an extension of time to put forward another proposal. Within the short time period for submissions and given the fact that not all members of the community were aware of the need for submission, we have not had time to return to our members and get their further views on the proposal.

However we can say with confidence that the proposal from AGL does not sit comfortably with the aspirations our members have for the district and its villages.

We will submit further details of our concerns in the near future once we have had comprehensive responses from our members through our participative consultation.