Mod 4 - Extension of Lapse Date

I don't believe they don't deserve another 5yrs. This isn't fair on the people in the area and definitely not worth the stress on these people who are currently already opposed to the wind farms.
This project already had 5 years to submit everything and put things in place. I find it very insulting to grant another 5 years. As like any other project that has a time line. Once you reach the point of not be able to deliver, you shouldn't get another chance to prove you cannot handle time management.
This isn't about the out come of them being able to have more time, it's about the continuance of negative impact it's having on those surrounding the areas of this project.
Stop looking after those who destroy the greatness of communities. Start looking after those who are looking after you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I object to an extension of time for this wind farm. Infigen has shown an inability to attract investors and there is no indication that this will change.

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

I am opposed to any extension of time for the construction of the Capital 2 wind farm 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.

I object to any extension of time for this wind farm. New information on the Bent-wing bat's presence in the affected area raises questions about the thoroughness of the original EIS for this project. The environmental impact study may well be out of date and not incorporate the latest findings.
More detailed grounds will be provided to a PAC hearing

My family has 6 members and we are against the placement of a turbine farm within such a close vicinity to or property. We only recently purchased this property for the seclusion and the peacefulness and the views. All of which will be disrupted greatly if the turbines go in. The traffic will increase, the quality of the roads will decrease and need constant work/maintenance, the sound during construction and post construction will increase and our views will be damaged. I find it very difficult to understand why such a densely populated area was the choice location for new turbines going in?

We had some representatives from the turbine company visit us - once. They could not answer all of our questions and they said they would be in touch via email to give us the answers and send us information that we requested, which several months later we have not received or even heard back from them.

We also have vulnerable wildlife on our property that would likely be impacted should the turbines be installed. These include gang gang birds, frogs and bats.

We are against the turbine farm going in. For the reasons stated plus a multitude more.

I object very strongly to this proposed wind farm, and object to any extension of time for the lapsing date.

This project needs to be stopped now, and to subject a very large number of residents to another five years of having their properties and their lives and their families' lives effectively burdened while EPYC continues to try to find a way to make a seriously flawed proposal work is unacceptable and cruel.

Seven of the proposed towers (all right on the eastern boundary of our western neighbour's much larger property) are less than or little more than one kilometre from my house; the neighbour's main house is down and away from the proposed sites. They were displayed in a photo that was taken from the EPYC website before they took it down; it was described as "a typical wind farm view".

The human residents are not the only ones to suffer such blight and concern from the proposal. The wildlife refuge corridor which runs all the way from the Tarago end of the impacted area all the way to the coast will be so severely interrupted in many locations by the proposal that it will be effectively destroyed.

This project should be stopped now. It should not be granted another five years for the developers to wear down residents so that they don't care or can't care.

Again, I object to the proposal, and to any extension of time to the lapsing

Capital 2 Wind Farm Modification 4_extension of lapse of approval. The Infigen Group's 16 September 2016 request for an extension to the Capital 2 Wind Farm lapse date (1 November 2016) by another 5 years cannot be sustained based on the reasons put forth by Infigen to justify the modification. I object to any extension to the lapsing date for the Capital 2 Wind Farm. Detailed reasons will be provided to a PAC hearing.

I am opposed to an extension of time for the approval of the Capital Wind Farm 2. The approval should be allowed to lapse due to the fact that Infigen has presented only one side of the economic argument. They have ignored the economic impact to local property owners and our devalued properties as well as the visual impact with wind towers on our door steps.

Dear Sir,

I oppose the project, there should be no extension of time and further turbines should not go ahead until the recommendations of the Senate Inquiries into wind farms have been implemented.

I object from personal experience having lived near the CBWP for 8 years. The problems of noise, vibration and sensations caused by the wind farm have never been resolved despite a co-operative acoustic study being undertaken in my home by the generator, an independent expert acoustician, Steven Cooper. This study confirms problems do exist and that further investigation is required. I have closed the door on our mortgaged home and farm and now live elsewhere until a resolution is found.

I see no reason to continue building more turbines until the proper research into the health, social and economic impacts are heeded. South Australia is a prime example of the ineffectiveness of renewables as an energy source. The intermittency and expense of this system along with ruining local environments makes it unacceptable.

I am willing to provide further details if needed in support of my views above.

Yours Sincerely,

Melissa Ware

I would like to register my objection to the extension applied for by Infigen for the proposed
Capital 2 wind farm. Infigen has shown little regard for the local community and the issues raised by a vast majority of residence within the project and surrounding areas. Visual, health and noise issues have not been adequately addressed and an extension of a further 5 years only aggravates the uncertainties for local land owners who have seen substantial property devaluations. I believe if Infigen can not complete its project within the allotted time frame then Infigen must apply for a new development application or have the development completely rejected.

Dear Sir/Ms,


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

- it has been independently established by a registered valuer (Geoff McInerney) commissioned by Palerang Council, that this proposed development, if it proceeded, will, lower the value of adjacent real estate properties by a minimum of 20%. This has been ignored by the proponent and further demonstrates the unsuitabiity of this proposed development.

- Infigen has shown an inability to attract investors and there is no indication that this will change.
- on current projections by independent Government authorities, including the Federal Wind Farm Commissioner Andrew Dyer, NSW has 75% more approved wind farms than will be developed. This is mainly due to Federal Government RET limits and energy security policies combined with changing economic circumstances through the greatly improved - and now superior economic performance to wind - of other renewable energy alternatives (especially solar energy). Maintaining the currency of this obsolete development approval is thus wasting NSW taxpayers funds - the Department of planning should instead be investing in more viable renewable energy projects.

- the ecological impact of the development on the landscape including Lake George under changing conditions associated with high rainfall years has not been adequately addressed.

I object to any extension of time for this wind farm. Wind farms should not be built so close to residential and rural residential areas.

An application by Infigen energy for Capital windfarm II lapses on 1 November 2016. I understand Infigen has now lodged a "modification" request for a 5 year extension of time.
I strongly oppose any approval to extend the application process for Infigen, alternatively the issue should be returned to the PAC for determination immediately.
Bungendore, Tarago and surrounding areas are prime agricultural districts that need to be protected for primary food production.
1. There is no effective fire control plan when wind turbines catch fire.
2. Roads and infrastructure to support turbines are dotted across the landscape which add to the infestation of weeds into agricultural communities.
3. There is a visual impact .
4. Noise impact to local residents.
5. Flicker from trubines impact on local residents.
6. The effects of Infra sound has not been determined as safe for humans.
Please accept my objection to the extension sought by Infigen in the strongest possible terms. This issue needs to go the PAC committee.

I object to an extension of time being granted for this wind farm.

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

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) has reviewed the information provided.

RMS does not object to the extension of the project approval for an additional 5 years.

I object to the modification 4 application. Further details attached.

This project has, despite plenty of time, failed to demonstrate commercial viability. Its past forecasts were wrong and its current self-serving ones have no substance. It was approved when research on wind farm Visual Impact (VI) was limited and, apparently, unknown to the Department. Published wind farm VI research is now much more extensive. Based on that research a comprehensive assessment of the original proposal would reject it - and even more the wind farm the company is trying to surreptitiously get approved via an ongoing series of modifications. For these reasons, the lapse of approval needs to stand. In addition, the Department has compromised itself in the way it has dealt with the modification requirement and the matter must go to the PAC to determine. More details attached.

Attached