Mod 2 - Blade Length

"I object to the proposed modification - because the longer (6 to 12 metres) blades will lead to more noise affecting sleep and in other ways disturbing residents in the vicinity.

In addition the increased size of the moving blades will make the turbines more visible and adversely affect visual amenity and property prices.

The increased rotor size will inevitably kill more birds and bats in the area."

I object to the proposed modification mainly because the additional blade diameter will generate more noise and will affect even more residents in the area (including myself), and will further destroy the visual amenity and property prices in the area. The current turbines are an eye-sore. Travelling along Tarago Road or the Federal Highway is like entering an industrial area. I believe it is extremely unfair to subject the affected residents more harshly by agreeing to this modification. Also, it should be expected that even more birds will be killed by any increase to the allowable turbine blade diameter.

I object to the proposed modification because the longer blades will lead to more noise affecting sleep and in other ways disturbing residents in the vicinity. In addition the increased size of the moving blades will make the turbines more visible and adversely affect visual amenity and property prices. And the increased rotor size will inevitably kill more birds and bats.

The application for approval to in increase in blade size should not be approved. Blade materials are made from toxic substances which, when on fire and being dispersed by centrifigal force, require hazmat fire fighting procedures. An extra 12 m is an increase in the danger by 10% which is a significant increase.

I object to the proposed modification:
- the longer blades will lead to more noise affecting sleep and in other ways disturbing residents in the vicinity
- the increased size of the moving blades will make the turbines more visible and adversely affect visual amenity and property prices

I wish to object to the proposed modification as to the increase in Blade Length as this will adversely increase the noise of the turbines once in operation. This will affect residents in the vicinity by affecting sleep and many other health related issues associated with sleep deprivation.
This modification will also affect the visual amenity on surrounding properties which in turn also impacts property values.
Another concern would be the impact on the local road system during transportation of these blades and erection equipment needed, as the length of the smaller blades at Capital I wind farm was disruptive and wearing on this narrow secondary road. Therefore to increase the size of the blades would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding residents in this area.

I object to this application because:
1. I object to any wind farm being this close to residences in the first place.
2. I do not believe that increasing the blade length will not increase noise they produce which is potentially more irritating and stressful for residents.
3. Pre construction we were told "we probably wouldn't hear any noise from the turbines" and, unfortunately post construction, we have found that we hear them most of the time and at a level above what is allowable. Mysteriously, any sound monitoring data "went missing".
4. This modification does not improve the visual amenity for residents even if the tower height is lower - these things are massive.
5. Longer blades may have a larger flicker effect.

We are very worried that the increase in blade length will mean an increase in noise!

I read with interest that there is no guarantee that the increased length will not mean additional noise - in some caseS it may, in others it may not!

I also note that the report relating to noise was based on turbines other than those manufactured and used at Capital Windfarm - is that because they are known for being inferior and possibly noisier (including the cooling fans!) when compared to those the report was based on?

We were guaranteed to never hear the turbines in the first place - as told personally by David Griffin originally in the initial planning stage - to hear them as regularly as we do is very upsetting!

The idea of hearing them even more is even more unsettling!

I object to this application because:
1. As a resident who has been impacted by The Capital Wind Farm, I object to any wind farm being this close to residences. It is like living in an industrial area, not a natural environment at all.
2. Pre-construction we were told "we probably wouldn't hear any noise from the turbines" and, unfortunately post construction, we have found that we hear them most of the time and at a level above what is allowable. Mysteriously, any sound monitoring data "went missing".
3. I do not believe that increasing the blade length will not increase noise they produce which is potentially more irritating and stressful for residents. As this is increasing the area of the blades rotating through the air, (larger surface area).
4. This modification does not improve the visual amenity for residents even if the tower height is lower, but the diameter is larger - these things are massive.
5. Longer blades may have a larger flicker effect, which is a common impact at certain times of the year.

I object to the proposed modification because the longer blades will lead to more noise affecting sleep and in other ways disturbing residents in the vicinity. In addition the increased size of the moving blades will make the turbines more visible and adversely affect visual amenity and property prices. And the increased rotor size will inevitably kill more birds and bats

This is a closely settled rural community with those living here having chosen to do so for the beautiful natural surroundings. It wasn't expected to be forced to live in a semi industrial zone with wind turbines dominating the landscape.
With capital wind farms there is enough wind turbines for one district.Additional turbines will compound the environmental impact and further degrade the natural splendour of this district with corresponding impact on rural land values.
Why should the residents be further imposed upon for political and corporate gain.
You can bet that if these turbines were proposed for Sydney or Canberra there would be a massive outcry against the visual pollution.
Surely common sense and fairness would say enough is enough for one district.

I am opposing the application to increase the blade length of the Capital 2 windfarm on 3 grounds.
1. The greater blade length will increase the noise emanating from the turbines when operating. I live between Capital 1 and Woodlawn windfarms and am frequently woken at night by excessive noise from each of these operations. During the day depending on the wind direction noise is also clearly audible. Increasing the length of the blades must increase the noise levels. Modelling carried out by the proponent does not take into account the particular cumulative effect of the turbines or the particular conditions at each house.
2. The spurious claim that increased blade length will not lead to visual impact cannot be supported. The existing turbines dominate the whole skyline, if thicker towers and longer blades are allowed there can be no doubt that they will be more visible. At least one property close to the present windfarm has been valued at a greatly decreased rate by local estate agents.
3. Effects on avifauna will be considerable, especially as the rotor blades are so much longer and the turbines are to be located closer to the lake shoreline. Bird counts which I have participated in over the last 3 years have shown increasing numbers and diversity of water birds using Lake George which is a refuge for these birds when inland waters are dryer. Over the last two years large numbers of freckled ducks have been observed on the lake over many months, at times numbering over 500 birds. As well pink eared ducks (up to 1000) and wading birds such as red necked avocets (over 1000) have been present for lengthy times. These and other water bird species fly between Lake George and Lake Bathurst in the east, putting them at increased risk of blade strike, when they need to negotiate differing blade sizes. Little eagles are seen in the vicinity of the eastern side of Lake George and their range would not be limited to the area away from the turbines. Since capital 1 has been operating there has been to my knowledge no public information regarding bird or other fauna surveys undertaken by the proponent which means it is impossible for the local communtiy to gauge the effects of the installation on wildlife.

My objection is contained in the attached file.

Attention Ms Anna Timbrell
Please find attached my submission

I believe that the Capital Wind Farm II proposal is not appropriate or required for the following
reasons:
One of the key conclusions that has come out of the recent RET review is that electricity demand
over the past few years has been declining and future electricity demand to 2020 can be easily met
from current generating capacity.
Currently Wind Farms are supplying a large surplus of electricity to the grid and therefore there is
no justification for further generating capacity from new turbine construction.
If the justification for Capital II is to supply the ACT with electricity then I suggest the ACT can be
supplied from existing wind farms in South Australia rather than adding further surplus to the grid.
The modification is proposing an increase in turbine size and blade lengths. I believe that this will
seriously add to the destruction of visual amenity to the local residents around the wind farm, and
will further contribute to the already existing noise, health and sleep deprivation problems that some
of the locals are suffering.
Regards
Mark Tomlinson
Tarago NSW

Please find my submission attached

Please find attached objection to the modification 2 for Capital Wind Farm 2

See attached:

See attached:

See attached: