Mod 4 - Extension of Lapse Date

This modification to the Capital 2 wind farm should be rejected because change has not been addressed, community attitudes, noise & health and the importance of the landscape including Lake George.

I am OPPOSED to any extension of time for the construction of the Capital 2 wind farm because Infigen has not addressed the visual impacts of a wind farm on the landscape built on the shores of a full Lake George.

I object to an extension of time for this project.

Five years was ample time for Infigen to commence this windfarm especially given that their other windfarm has been operational for several years now, presumably providing profit and support to expand.

The excuse that technology changes prevented the construction in this 5 year period is highly questionable - there are technology changes all the time, it's not going to stop. So will infigen be in the same position in another 5 years and again seek an ''extension'' because technology still doesn't suit them then?

Infigen has a demonstrated propensity to sit on its proverbial hands - take their non existant solar farm in the same area as an example - will infigen be asking for an extension on this too?
Additionally the lease area for Infigens solar farm bordering Tarago Road has been irresponsibly left to grow thousands of Noxious weed (serrated tussock) which will soon seed and infect neighbouring farms.

Land management aside, in the intervening 5 years many things beside technology have changed. For example Lake George is now well on its way to being full again - an event which attracts large numbers of migratory birds and other wildife. Given that this project puts turbines close to the edge of lake George and given a previous modification approval with potentially bigger blade area, what effect will increased numbers of wind turbine have on the increased numbers of wildlife.

Infigen appear to be corporate fence sitters, waiting for grants and government support to progress projects that they cant fund themselves. Thats fine if that's how they want to work but what if the situation remains unchanged for the next five years, do Infigen simply get another extension? How many extension will this then run to -3? 4? 10?

There is no good reason for Infigen to be granted an extension, if they seriously want to build (and that's not obvious from their submission) then Infigen should go through the full process again and address properly the current considerations rather than relying on historic and potentially outdated requirements and considerations.

The approval for the Capital 2 wind farm should be allowed to lapse because the Queanbeyan/Palerang LGA has contributed its fair share of wind renewables.

To NSW Department of Planning

I believe that the application, by Capital 2 wind farm, to have an extension of its approval period should be rejected.

If the proponent has failed to finance and build the project within the original time frame then they should lose their right the proceed with their project.

If the wind farm is not constructed in the time frame promised then it is not viable. Developers should not be able to reserve approval for later, just in case it proves profitable for them at some stage.


The principle behind approval for wind farm development should be that proponents are required to "use it or lose it". they should not be allowed to "sit on it and see what happens"


The current situation seems to be a system where proponents are able to gain endless extensions to their approvals without having started construction or made any real investment in the project, mean while the locals are subjected to endless uncertainty.

Buy granting a time extension local community and residents would be condemned to a further 5 years of uncertainty, wondering if the project will proceed or not.


I will provide further detail of my objection to this application at any subsequent PAC hearing.

Greg Faulkner

Boro, NSW

I absolutely object to any extension of time for this wind farm.

Local residents have already suffered enough uncertainty at the hands of unscrupulous wind farm developers.

I will provide more detail of my objection at any subsequent PAC hearing on the matter.

Jane Penny

Boro NSW

We oppose the modification to the Capital 2 Wind Farm because this is not just an administrative amendment to extend the lapsing date of the original project approval it has far greater consequences.
It would be wrong for this project to be granted an extension now while the Government is reviewing its wind farm guidelines. This modification request if approved would also set a precedent for other wind farms.
In Infigen's request for an extension to the lapse date, they indicate that Capital 2 Wind Farm is located approximately 17 kilometres NE of Bungendore township, where in fact the position of the turbines are somewhat closer than that and this inadequacy needs to be rectified.
Within the request conclusion, Infigen seeks approval of a five year extension due to time needed "to review the approval Capital 2 Wind Farm in line with changing turbine technology and market circumstances". This modification needs to be rejected and a new development application be requested by the development, as the original approval as they stated above is out of date.
The Department needs to request this modification be sent to a PAC so that it can be dealt with properly and in the best interests of the community.

I object to the proposed modification to extend the consent time allowed for Capital 2 wind farm to be built.
This modification proposal needs to be sent to a PAC (Project Assessment Committee) and should not be rubber stamped by the Department of Planning because it will set a precedent for other wind farms which have failed to comply with their construction approval.
The community surrounding the Capital 2 wind farm project have been on hold for five years and to allow an extension to this would be irresponsible. Much has changed in the five year period. Research into health effects from wind farms has increased and show negative effects on people living close to wind farms.
Also there is increased knowledge of wildlife and endangered species in the immediate area which research was not available five years ago.
Hence, a new development application is needed to address these issues as the original project EIS (environment impact statement) information is no longer valid nor up to date.

The approval of the Capital 2 Wind Farm project should be allowed to lapse because the information used in the Environmental Impact Statement is out of date and a new development application should be sort.
Within the five year period that Infigen has had to start construction, much has changed i.e. community attitudes, noise and health and the importance of the landscape including Lake George, which is now full of wildlife due to the recent amount of water that has been caught.
Infigen needs to submit a new development application and not be granted an extension of time as this will set a precedent to other Wind Farms that have failed to comply with their approval consents.
There are more than enough approved Wind Farms within NSW and to just rubber stamp this modification would be wrong.
This modification request needs to be sent to a PAC (Project Assessment Committee) so that it can be dealt with adequately.

I am opposed to any extension of time for the construction of the Capital 2 wind farm. Since it could not be built within 5 years of approval, it is clearly not an economic proposition and the Government was misled about its prospects at the time of approval. Consent time limits on any major project need to be adhered to and not changed because someone made a bad commercial decision.

I oppose any amount of extension time to the construction of the Capital 2 Wind Farm. A five year term is a substantial amount of time to gain approval for such a project and asking for an extension demonstrates a lack of planning and project management.

Regardless of the reasons Infigen provide to justify their extension; trying to integrate new technology in the turbines or preparing to better meet dynamic market requirements, a five year extension is ridiculous. The local community near the proposed site have been left in a state of limbo imposed by the uncertainty surrounding the project.

A new DA should be submitted as numerous qualities of the proposal have been reviewed and modifications implemented. A Project Assessment Committee should be assembled to review such a drawn out and incomplete project proposal. Granting another five years for the continuation of rushed modifications to keep the project alive would be irresponsible.

I object to any extension of time being given to the building of this wind farm. If an extension is given every time a project is varied then the original five years can extend forever with very little input or justification from the proposer. Improvements in technology should not be allowed to justify another 5 year extension. With wind turbines it is likely that technology will continue to be improved until a more sensible alternative method of producing renewable energy is developed. We should not allow the original approval to extend beyond its original 5 year period. More detailed grounds will be provided to a PAC hearing if required.

I object to Infigen's request for a modification for a number of reasons. I live at Mt Fairy near the project site for the proposed Jupiter wind farm. If Infigen's request is agreed by the NSW Planning Department and the PAC, it will set a precedent that may be used for the Jupiter wind farm or any other wind farm in the future.

Infigen has had 5 years to commence the project. During this period, those community members who will be directly affected by this development have suffered mentally and financially. With the prospect of a wind farm being in an area, the number of potential property buyers shrinks, and in many cases so does the value of properties in the area. Prior to Infigen's current modification request being lodged, affected property owners would have had some hope that their anguish would end in November 2016. They should not be subjected to a further 5 years of this uncertainty.

The area around Bungendore, Lake George and Taylors Creek should not be subjected to any further destruction of its visual amenity. Just because Capital 2 would be in close proximity to existing Capital and Woodlawn Wind Farms, this does not mean that Capital 2 would not cause further destruction to the area's visual amenity. Enough is enough!

The Draft South East Tablelands Regional Plan had as Goal 1 "Sustainably manage growth opportunities arising from the ACT". It stated that "Areas within commuting distance to the ACT provide a wide range of housing opportunities....." The NSW Government has wasted, and is continuing to waste, opportunities to develop housing and related infrastructure and services in the Bungendore and surrounding area by approving wind farms so close to rural communities and the ACT.

In their modification application, Infigen claims that Capital 2 "would deliver the equivalent of up to 120 full time jobs during construction and up to 6 full time ongoing local based jobs during operation". How many of the equivalent of 120 full-time jobs will be performed by people who are affected by Capital 2? Probably nil or close to it. In the July 2016 Tarago Times, Infigen proudly claimed that their team "is made up of 58 employees - three are placed at the wind farms in NSW, WA and SA, and the rest in the head office in Sydney". Is it fair to say that there will be "up to 6 full time ongoing local based jobs during operation" of Capital 2, when in reality there will only be one, as at present?

I appose this project as the developer has had ample time, its clearly unviable and should be abandoned.
I also appose this as the issue of electricity security needs to be considered, wind farms are intermittent supply and do nothing to help

I object to any extension of time for this wind farm. Since the original application, the lake is now teaming with bird life as the lake is nearly full for the first time since 1990. There have also been rare bats located and documented in the area since the original submission. A full and independent wildlife investigation should be conducted by a university over a twelve month period (ie not by a company employed by the wind farm). This study needs to be undertaken on existing wildlife to ensure wind turbines located so close to the lake don't decimate populations of wild life in addition to the rare species already listed in the area. Also, granting an extension via a modification may set a dangerous precedent for other businesses to follow suit. The legal ramifications as such should be considered prior to your making a determination. In summary, if the wind farm wishes to proceed with Capital 2, then they should be made to submit a new application which incorporates current information.

I believe the developers have had sufficient time to organsie the proposed delepment. Allowing a further five years will set a precedent that wind farm developments be allowed unfairly expanded time frames that does not meet the original application on which the first approval was made.
I strongly object to the department approving this modification.

I object to any extension of time for the Capital 2 wind farm. Five years is long enough - do not allow this company to hold the community to ransom for another 5 years or longer.

I object to any extension of time for this wind farm. More detailed grounds will be provided to a PAC hearing.

I object to the extension. Further details to be supplied to tha PAC meeting however, my family have waited in turmoil since moving here and finding out about this windfarm proposal three years ago. We would never have bought knowing our next door neighbour planned to host 15 turbines. Investing in our property has been placed on hold until we know either way what is happening. It has impacted us financially and emotionally. As direct neighbours to a host we deserve to know an answer. We have waited three years. We do not wish to wait another five so we can begin to plan or replan our lives.

The approval for the Capital 2 wind farm should be allowed to lapse because

- Infigen has shown an inability to attract investors and there is no indication that this will change.
- NSW has ample approved but yet to be developed wind farms
- change has not been addressed; community attitudes, noise and health and the importance of the landscape including Lake George.
- the Queanbeyan/Palerang LGA has contributed its fair share of wind renewables.
- wind farms should not be built so close to a capital city.
- wind farms should not be built so close to residential and rural residential areas
- the community is not being given the time to review the deficiencies of the original Environmental Impact Statement
- the wider community has not been advised of this far reaching modification
- Infigen has not addressed the visual impacts of a wind farm on the landscape built on the shores of a full lake George
- Infigen has not addressed the avi-fauna issues of a full Lake George
- we have no confidence that a "$2" company called Capital Wind Farm 2 Pty Ltd (the proponent) will be adequately funded to carry out its decommissioning responsibilities
- Infigen has submitted three pages of deception and worse. For example, the Capital 2 wind farm is not "approximately 17 km from the Bungendore township". More likely half of that to the town icon, the bakery and even less to the edge of the built up area.
- the Department has abrogated its responsibilities by releasing a case for an extension that is clearly not ready for community review
- the community has already suffered from five years of stifled investment. Bungendore and surrounds, as a dormitory suburb of the ACT, should be booming.
- Infigen presented only one side of the economic argument, ignoring the economic impacts of Capital 2; devalued properties, the property development losses that uncertainty causes and not the least, continually rising electricity prices.