Mod 2 - Turbine height and infrastructure changes

Submission re Crookwell 11 modification and Crookwell 111 Amendment Applications.
John Carter.
Lake Edward
3546 Goulburn Rd.
Crookwell NSW 2683 Tel 0248321179; email [email protected]


Background.
Crookwell 11. I note that the first Developer achieved 2005 consent for 107 metre maximum blade tip turbines. They did not proceed. In 2008 another developer achieved further consent for an amended maximum 128 metres. They did not proceed. Now, in 2016 they are seeking a further amendment to 160 metres. This is a 50% increase on the original consent .
I believe that the NSW Government should treat Crookwell 11 as a new application with a full environmental study.
I live at Residence No 133 on the site map. I also own No 132 which is under 2kms from proposed Turbine No F10. We have been affected by the much smaller Crookwell 1 turbines.
Health Issues.
We don't hear any sound from Crookwell 1 but my wife has been seriously affected- severe headaches, ear tinnitus and even stroke like facial distortion when the wind blows from the South or South West from Crookwell 1. We believe that this is caused by infrasound. She is perfectly healthy at our Sydney flat. Our TV was rendered useless following the erection of Crookwell 1 and our radio reception was badly affected . We had to erect satellite dishes to get normal transmission.
The developers of Crookwell 11 and 111 have signed agreements with hosts and some neighbours which give money in return for a pledge not to go public with any health problems that may arise following the erection of the turbines and be linked to them.
I submit that they would not do this if they were not aware of the increasing problems being reported around the world.

Cattle and wildlife.
I ran a mob of beef calves on agistment beside Crookwell 1 for three months. Their siblings ran 2 kms to the north on lesser pasture but gained twice the weight in the time. Livestock can be severely affected. I have since learned that this is common in the USA and Europe.
My property has been a Wildlife Refuge since 1960. I had it proclaimed to stop people shooting swans on our lake. Since the Crookwell 1 Windfarm was built in 1998 the swans have gradually disappeared. The condition on the Crookwell 1 licence on recording dead swans at the foot of the turbines was never acted upon. Siting Crookwell 111 on Pejar Lake will continue the sad story. Trees were planted around the lake to give refuge to birds and shelter for fishermen and picnickers.
Upper Lachlan Shire Council is opposed to Crookwell 111 on the grounds that it doesn't meet Council's DCP.
I am totally opposed to the erection of Crookwell 111


Land Value-de-commissioning.

The host family of Crookwell 1 are trying to sell their farm for succession reasons but are having trouble finding a buyer. It is some of the richest land in the district and broke the district price per acre record when last sold in 1954.
There is a major problem--de-commissioning.
In 1997 I succeeded in having Condition 18 included in the Crookwell Council's assent to Great Southern Energy's Crookwell 1 project.
It reads "The applicant shall agree to demolish and remove all structures ( including wind turbines) on subject site and to rehabilitate such site to its original ( pre development condition) at such time as the windfarm is deemed by the applicant to have reached the end of its operating life."
Crookwell 1 will be 20 years old in 2018. Its technology is obsolete. Its ownership has already changed hands three times. I have heard demolition costs per turbine ranging from $350,000 to $ 1 million. The purchaser of the site will have to be facing a bill between $4 million and $8 million. The purchaser of the land will need a guarantee from the operator that they will foot the de-commissioning bill. It won't come. On current district prices the property is worth no more than $ 4 million. The current hosts are in a terrible position. As the oldest windfarm in NSW this is a test case that will illustrate that agriculture and wind turbines are incompatible in the medium to long term. It will illustrate that the NSW Legislative Councils' 2010 recommendations to the Minister for Planning on de-commissioning of Windfarms is still to be acted upon. It is now coming home to roost.
Bushfire.
Over 62 years I have planted 35,000 trees of over 100 species. Over half have survived. A minor fire in the 1990's saw 7 destroyed and an insurance "pay out" of over $7000. A major fire with no aerial water bombing defence, because of the presence of the turbines, and consequent refusal of ground tankers to enter, could see my life's work eliminated and a law suit running into $30 million.
Visual.
The siting of these 50% increased tower heights on top of The Monument and Pigman's Hill trig stations alters the horizon dramatically. Even the Chinese Gullen Range fiasco spared Mt.Fitton.
Crookwell 111 turbines will destroy Lake Pejar's serenity forever--we all know that they will never be de commissioned--it is too costly. Lake Pejar doesn't allow any powered water craft yet the NSW Government is allowing a Power station on its edges! Ridiculous vandalism.
One of the Crookwell 1 hosts spoke against approval of Crookwell 111 at the meeting in Crookwell on 26/10/2016 on the grounds that it would spoil the approach to Crookwell and damage tourism.

Turbine Spacing
Crookwell 11 turbines nos. F1,F2,F3 and F4 and Nos.F10,F11,F23,F22,,F21 and F19 are sited at distances well under the 1000 metre separation recommended by the NSW Energy Handbook and should have their number or size reduced.
Crookwell 11 and 111 Community Consultative Committee.
I believe that the selection of this committee is a farce and doesn't meet the guidelines. It's membership is almost exclusively developer friendly.

I object to this proposal. The increase in blade size will inevitably lead to an increase in visual and noise pollution in this rural area and is inappropriate. I also believe that micrositing of 50 metres is inappropriate. The developer should be able to definitively state where the turbines are to be sited at the point of asking for approvals to be able to give the locals effected some certainty.

We previously objected to the approval of this project to no avail. We objected to the continued approval with no construction to no avail. We objected to the Capital 2 application for five year renewal pre construction (why wasn't Crookwell 2 required to make such an application?).
We have been told by the DoPE (Mike Young) that there is no point in renewing objections to the Crookwell 2 approval - we can lodge submissions on the specifics of the proposed modifications only.
The following is an extract from an objecting submission from another community member on the modification application:-
"The developer of Crookwell 2 seeks to increase the tip-height of the turbines from 127m to 159m, or by 25%. This is not a minor change, but will result in a major increase in visual impact of the towers. The developer implies that the reduction in number of turbines will minimize the visual impact of the higher turbines, but this is not so. The 46 lower turbines with 47m blades had a total blade-sweep area of 319,229sq.m, but the proposed 33 turbines with 64m blades will have a blade sweep area of 424,643sq.m - or 33% more moving machinery in the view-scape, and 33% more bird-kill area. Where in the application is there any concern for the increased avian impact?"
Clearly, the only solution to be applied to this modification application is to reduce the number of turbines, with the applied for increase in size, to that number which provides no increase in the aggregate blade swept area. The resulting reduction in turbines should be applied to reduce impact on residences where clearly required. The DoPE should additionally require resulting residual turbines to be relocated to again reduce impact on residences.
We object to the increase in blade-swept area and to any increase in illumination of the night sky resulting from this modification.
We continue to object to the approval of the original application on grounds previously stated by all objectors to the development.
We continue to object to the continuance of the original approval past the original expiry date without first having an extension application lodged (as per Capital 2).

Respecfully submitted

Grant & Colleen Winberg
Highland Park
3077 Middle Arm Road
ROSLYN NSW 2580

The proximity of planned turbines so close to a major road and to the town of Crookwell is greatly opposed. Crookwell is well known for its picturesque rural landscape and attracts many tourists because of this. To create yet another wind farm so close to Crookwell will be detrimental to the growth of the township and the income of all those that rely on the tourist dollar to supplement their income.
Crookwell has enough turbines! Let them be built elsewhere.

Dear Commissioners,

I support this amendment. It is imperative that we develop wind energy as quickly as possible. Further delays will only worsen our carbon emissions. This amendment seems quite reasonable therefore I support it.
Yours sincerely

As a Canberra resident I support the ACT governments commitment to the increased use of renewable energy sources and think it is great that the Crookwell project has been selected as one of the suppliers.

As a farmer I believe wind farm projects like the Crookwell project provide significant benefits to both the landowners hosting turbines and the community a whole. The additional income will help farmers improve their farming systems and profitability (so they pay more tax for education and health and other essential services) and help them become less reliant on external sources of assistance in difficult times like drought. In my view it is likely that a large proportion of the income received will be reinvested into the farms via local businesses creating jobs and economic prosperity in the area.

Wind farms have no impact on farm business operations, significantly benefit the environment and are a sensible part of the electricity supply mix.

A large part of the property I grew up on is now an open cut coal mine and I have seen first hand the irreversible damage that mining to produce coal fired power can cause. The paddocks I roamed on as kid will never be rehabilitated or returned to their pre mining state and the ever decreasing pool of productive agricultural land is, in my view, going to have long term ramifications for Australian prosperity.

We need to promote and encourage activities like wind farms that can supply an essential product while having little or no "real" adverse impact on farms or the local community.

I object to this submission as almost every criteria used to evaluate it is flawed, biased toward the proponent at the expense of the local community, disregards peer reviewed data and evidence for convenience and continually mis represents NHMRC statements to the proponent's benefit. Further detailed evidence will be presented to the PAC.

I am a local resident and advocate of windfarms and wish to support the modification request to the Crookwell 2 Windfarm.
I enthusiastically support renewable technologies and particularly wind energy. Crookwell's strong and consistent wind makes this wind farm an efficient use of agricultural land without interfering with farming practices. It will also contribute to financial stability of local farms with payments to hosts and generous neighbor agreements. Increasing the financial resilience of farmers flows into our small town community ensuring its viability which is very important to me and my children. I see Crookwell 2 Windfarm as a win/win situation for us locally as well as globally.

My understanding is that the proposed modification for Crookwell 2 is about larger blades and more powerful turbines. In my mind this means that the health impacts in terms of infrasound and low frequency noise is greater. Until the developer and the Department of Planning can guarantee that these modifications will not damage any person's health, the modifications should not be approved.

This submission is in the form of an objection.
As a family that lives within a 5 km radius of an existing wind farm and now have a separate proposed wind farm sited on the other side of our property, this can not be allowed to continue to happen to other families.
After not having the chance to object to the first wind farm and now being subjected to noise and infra-sound problems this should not be allowed to continue to happen.
More and more research is showing that these industrial wind farms cause more problems than good and that if this proponent wants to modify their development, they should be forced to start again in order to comply with current regulations.

I am a farmer and one of the landholders under the Crookwell 2 Wind Farm. I support the proposed modification to the project for the reasons listed below: -
- the proponent has demonstrated a clear commitment to the project and to me as a host by engaging in a fully transparent partnership with me and the other hosts.
- the project has already been granted planning approval and the proposed modification allows them to utilise the latest and most efficient turbine technology available. This means less turbines which will have a much smaller environmental footprint, even though they will be larger machines.
- the larger, more modern turbines will be much more efficient and much quieter than the turbines that were originally proposed.
- the proponent has offered a very generous "neighbour agreement" to all neighbouring property owners who want to be partners in the project.
- even though the community consultation from the proponent has been patchy at times, the length of time that this project has been in the planning system has made the consistency of consulting very difficult.
- the proponent has negotiated a very generous community enhancement fund with the local council to spread the benefits of the wind farm even further into the local community.
- the proponent has committed to using local businesses as far as possible during the construction of the wind farm.
- I believe any of the supposed downsides of the wind farm are all addressed by the proponent, and the benefits of the wind farm by far outweigh any detriments.
- wind farms are a critical component of the NSW Government's move towards zero net carbon emissions by 2050. Crookwell 2 and 3 wind farms can significantly add to this target.
- the overwhelming majority of the local community are in favour of this and other wind farms in the region. This includes neighbours and near neighbours to our property. You may well only hear from those who oppose this project.
- The land where the turbines are proposed to be built is rural land and wind farms are an allowable development on this land. While some may complain about the turbines spoiling their view and impacting on the landscape, this landscape has been dramatically changed over the nearly 200 years of pastoral activity it has experienced.

Overall this rural community will only be strengthened by the construction of this and other wind farms in the region, and it deserves to be approved on it's merits.

I am only lodged one submission to this proposal, but the points addressed here also apply to the Crookwell 3 wind farm. Please consider this submission as a supportive submission to the Crookwell 3 wind farm as well.

As a health professional, I strongly support the wind farm on health grounds. Despite people's fears, there is no evidence for any harmful effects of wind turbines, but vast amounts of evidence on the harmful health effects of coal mining.

See PDF Downloaded document.

Please see attached.

Assessment does not Comply with the Regulations

Defective VI Assessment for Crookwell 2 Mod 2

Noise and Health Threats from Crookwell 2

Defective VI Assessment for Crookwell 2 Mod 2

I oppose the modification of Crookwell 2

Please see attached