Mod 4 - Increase turbine height and rotor diameter

To whom it may concern.

Submission to the proposed changes to the Glen Innes wind farm project MOD 4

I am a supporter of alternative energy projects, but not at all cost.

My objection is based the fact that the main component of this development (the wind turbines) as originally approved has now been changed by a value of about 20%.
Surly there comes a point in the "continual updating/modifying " of a project where it no longer truly represents the project within the original determination and E.I.S and its my assertion that a 20 % change would be about the level where a full new EIS/DA should be required ?

my specific concern would be the increased visual impact of this amendment, on the rural views in and around the town of Glen Innes, as Its possible that the visual impacts of this project have been underestimated and even understated by the proponent.

As with my previous comment I'm concerned that the 20% increase in size could push the limit of the visual impact from being :tolerable background level too: a overtly highly visible component of the landscape that is visible from the town ship. this level of visibility may well be acceptable to most residents, but may come as a shock this needs to be given more publicity as its hard to gauge how much visual impact this will be going on the proponents environmental assessment ,i would like to see clear photographic representation of the projects impacts all the views and the time line for submissions extended.

I object to the increase in road width from 8m to 12m.

perhaps the proponent could be allowed to increase the width where they can demonstrate an need, but a blanket widening to 12m , is out of line with the projects "environmental" credentials.

I thank you for this opportunity.

Joe Sparks

See attached submission, as well as supplementary submission
information below.

John and I recently attended a Community Information Session on the
27th September 2017 concerning the Glen Innes Windfarm- (MP 07 0036
MOD 4) to learn more about the planning assessment project.this was
conducted by NSW Planning Services - Resource and Energy Assessments.

Following that meeting and now better informed, we would like to add

to our original submission (9th August 2017) concerning the latest and
substantial changes that Mod 4 of the Glen Innes Windfarm project is
proposing.

We would like to state the following serious concerns as neighbouring
landholders.

Although we have no redress concerning the original approval of this
Windfarm, we object strongly to the Mod 4 proposed changes.

Our homestead will be overshadowed and dominated if the proposed
additional increase of the turbine blade lengths to 68.5m and overall
rotor tip heights to 180m. Is approved.The cumulative impact of these
turbines with their increased height will be substantial and
completely unacceptable!

Directly impacting on us will be the location of 3 turbines
approximately less than 1.5km from our home (16B, 16C and G 15) and a
further 8 turbines less than 2 km from our home (20B, 21B, 22B, 12C,
12B, G13, 13B and G19). A total of 11 in all, spreading across our
south- western boundary, covering some 120 degrees of our skyline.
Whilst these turbines were originally approved, surely this proposed
increase in height, noise, visual impact etc with Mod 4 and all it
entails, warrants a resiting of these turbines if sadly, approval is
granted.

The original approval of the GI Windfarm was disappointing enough, if
Mod 4 is approved by the Planning Assessment Commission, then we will
see these massive turbines looming over us and the valley, causing
additional noise issues for both us and our neighbours, stock and
wildlife, further ruining the aesthetics of a rural scene, increasing
disruptive flicker patterns across the valley, further devaluing of
our property values due this disturbing proposal of extra height,
alone.

After retiring from a grazing property to a smaller rural block in
Furracabad, three and a half years ago, our quiet retirement lifestyle
will be severely compromised causing us unnecessary stress and
anxiety, if Mod 4 proceeds.

Sincerely,

John & Michelle Lynn

( concerned landholders)

Please see the attached submission where I maintain that the approval lapsed in January 2017 because construction had not commenced. Therefore this modification is invalid.

Please find attached my submission - The VIA must be genuinely assessed under the 2016 Wind Energy Guideline

Please find attached my submission - The VIA must be genuinely assessed under the 2016 Wind Energy Guideline

submission attached.

Dear Sir/Madam
The noise data, projections and modelling method, was accepted for the White Rock wind farm and is flawed. the noise levels are much higher than documented predictions. As a consequence there is now nothing to penalise the company for this miss-information. Why is the db data not taken from real live sites like Lake George or White Rock? What safe guards are in place to penalise, stop, repair or remove the farm if it dose not meet the modelling? The doc shows wishy washy renders of where the bigger fans will be. The images are deliberately vague, blurred and unclear. The doc is paid for and prepared for the applicant, this is a conflict of interest. Data, modelling and conclusions meet the companies objectives not the Glen Innes communitys'. Is the GIWF held responsible for meeting the noise levels or do they just blame the modelling and wash thier hand of it and thus we are stuck with a 30-40year mess as the White rock farm? Why is this data not compiled by the nsw gov independently? The authority should independently assess the current noise levels coming from White rock onto the GIWF site and those added to the site by GIWF before allowing the development. GIWFs' assessment is only based on the noise it estimates GIWF will make and not the combined noise. This cannot be assessed separately. We do not live in two bubbles nor should White rock and the GWIF be assessed as such. No further development should be continued by either project until the current db levels are addressed . You cannot look at one project next to another in isolation. GWIF and White rock stage approvals should be suspended until White rock can meet its approved noise levels. If White Rock cannot meet db levels, what confidence can we have that GIWF can meet its? GIWF is a for profit company, the modifications to go bigger and louder are to increase its revenue. It must be held to account by rigorous nsw government controls, financially through bonds if necessary. If noise levels are not met bonds are lost. We should learn from White Rock and impose cripplling penalties upon companies using data they cannot adhere to or hope to achieve. Becuase the result is that Glen Innes and surrounding community is left with no avenue of response after the fact.
Yours sincerely.

See attached

See attached.

See attached

See attached.

See attached PDF file.

This submission is to voice my strong opposition to Mod 4 - Glen Innes Wind Farm on the following grounds:

Need for the project:
The project has failed to commence construction despite being approved in October 2009. This demonstrates that there are glaring issues with the viability of the project. The proponents have made no substantial attempt to construct the project, and have sought extensions to the project approval through various modifications. The project approval has been significantly altered over the course of the modifications to suit the lack of commitment from the proponents to commence the project. The project has only achieved substantial commencement through conducting some geotechnical drilling - an activity which should be carried out as part of normal site investigations prior to the "commencement" of a project. Furthermore, in this latest modification, no substantial evidence has been supplied to justify the need for the project.

Environmental Assessment:
The Environmental Assessment has clear deficiencies in a number of areas. The most notable is the reported inclusion of the requirements of the Wind Energy Assessment - Visual Assessment Bulletin (December 2016). This assessment requirements have not been adequately addressed in a number of areas, including the requirements of the visual assessment, and heritage assessment. The visual assessment report written by Green Bean Design offers no strong mitigation measures to the visual impact despite an overall 27% increase in the scale of the project.

Furthermore, cumulative impacts have not been adequately addressed. Since the first approval of the project in October 2009, two significant wind farm developments have commenced construction in the area. This has not been addressed adequately in the Environmental Assessment. As the proponent has failed to start this project over the last 8 years, they should be required to carry out a review of cumulative impacts against the current developments in the area.

In summary, it is not conceivable that the NSW Government can further approve a 27% increase modification in the picturesque setting of Matheson for a project with very poor economic viability and significant environmental impact.

This submission is written to object to the proposed Modification 4 to Glen Innes Wind Farm.

The wind farm is proposed to be sighted in a scenic rural area of the New England Region of NSW. Modification 4 proposes a 27% increase in the scale of this project, yet no substantial mitigation measures are offered to offset this increase.

Furthermore, it is extremely questionable whether this project is economically viable, given the lack of any project construction activity in the 8 years since the project was first approved. There is no justification provided as to whether this project is required or economically viable. The proponent has offered no substantial evidence as to whether this project will progress following this Modification, given that this is now the fourth modification sought for the GIWF despite no substantial progress being made towards construction. It is therefore requested that the Department of Planning does not approve Modification 4 of the Glen Innes Wind Farm.

There is no substantial evidence to justify the need for the project, and the project should therefore be rejected.

As a regular visitor to the region, I strongly oppose the proposed Modification 4 of the Glen Innes Wind Farm. Waterloo Station will be significantly impacted by this proposal, as it will have direct views of the majority of the wind turbines. The Environmental Assessment offers very little justification for the project, which will have significant visual impacts on the local area. Noise, as well as visual impact, is now a significant issue in the local area with the construction of two other large wind farms. Both noise and visual impact are significant issues for residences in close proximity to wind farms and this will only get worse with the proposed Modification 4 of the Glen Innes Wind Farm.

This project has failed to commence in the 8 years since it was first approved, and the NSW government should not allow this ailing project to progress any further. The current Modification 4 Environmental Assessment offers no further justification as to why this project should progress and cause further significant environmental impacts on the Matheson area.

This submission is written to object to the proposed Modification 4 to Glen Innes Wind Farm.

The wind farm is proposed to be sited in a scenic rural area of the New England Region of NSW. Modification 4 proposes a 27% increase in the scale of this project, yet no substantial mitigation measures are offered to offset this increase.

Furthermore, it is extremely questionable whether this project is economically viable, given the lack of any project construction activity in the 8 years since the project was first approved. There is no justification provided as to whether this project is required or economically viable. The proponent has offered no substantial evidence as to whether this project will progress following this Modification, given that this is now the fourth modification sought for the GIWF despite no substantial progress being made towards construction. It is therefore requested that the Department of Planning does not approve Modification 4 of the Glen Innes Wind Farm.
There is no substantial evidence to justify the need for the project, and the project should therefore be rejected.

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached submission.