Mod 4 - Increase turbine height and rotor diameter

I am writing to object to the in crease in size of the GI windfarm proposed.
This increase in size of each turbine will make some turbines visible to me.
There is also the greatly increased noise issue that is still being felt by the current White rock project.

I am strongly opposed to the modification of the plan for the proposed Glen Innes Wind Farm.


We moved from Maules Creek near Boggabri approximately 2 years ago to take the position of Manager of Waterloo Station. We owned our own property which is in close proximity to the mining operation conducted by Whitehaven. A significant factor in the decision to move was the dust and noise from the open cut mining operation. In addition we were forced to confront the visual pollution from mining operations from this project approved by the Department of Planning.



Now we find that we are facing a problem of equal or greater magnitude than we experienced in the past. The Glen Innes Wind Farm Modification 4 will cause a significant environmental impact on the Waterloo Range and Matheson Valley - An area which has extremely high scenic value and productive farming land. The environmental assessment does not adequately address the immense visual impact that this project will have.


In addition, the Environmental Assessment has not adequately assessed the impact on our residence located at 104 Waterloo Road, Matheson. The visual assessment makes no mention of our house, and the significant impacts that the turbines will have on our direct view of the Waterloo Range.



The project has failed to start since it approval 8 years ago and the Department of Planning should reject Modification 4, and withdraw this project approval.

Response to Modification 4 - Glen Innes Wind Farm
31 August 2017
Don Anderson

The proposal to further modify the Glen Innes Wind Farm Proposal poses some very important questions that the Department of Planning must address:

1. Is the Department satisfied that the project approval has not lapsed, given that the project has not commenced construction and is relying on some geotechnical drilling to meet the requirements of physical commencement by 31 January 2017? Is the department confident that this decision would be upheld under legal challenge?

2. Has the Environmental Assessment adequately assessed the Modification to the project, in terms of cumulative environmental impacts as at 2017, and also in terms of assessing against the Wind Energy Assessment - Visual Assessment Bulletin (December 2016)?

3. Why is a project which has failed to be constructed since it approval in 2009 allowed to seek further modification, when two significant wind farms have commenced construction in the local area?

4. Is the Department satisfied that the continuing impact on local communities and rural industries can be justified against a project that has failed to commence and has made very limited progress in the past 8 years?

5. Is the Department satisfied that the impacts on the heritage values of the local area have been adequately assessed?

This submission strongly opposes the Glen Innes Wind Farm Modification 4 on the following grounds:
1. Need for the project
The Glen Innes Wind Farm project was first approved in October 2009. Construction has not commenced during the last 8 years since approval. The project only achieved "commencement" under Condition 1.5 of their Consolidated Development Consent by completing geotechnical investigations, which does not constitute construction. This was confirmed in an email from the Department of Planning 17th February 2017 (attached), where... the definition of "construction" under the project approval specifically excludes "geotechnical drilling". The project has therefore failed to start construction 8 years after first approval. Any demonstrated need for this windfarm of 25 turbines has diminished with the approval and commencement of construction of the White Rock windfarm (119 Turbines when completed) and the Sapphire wind farm (75 turbines when completed). In addition solar farms are planned for both the White Rock and Sapphire sites. The marginal contribution of the Glen Innes Wind Farm to this infrastructure is small and as is demonstrated below, comes with some serious problems.
The need for the project therefore may no longer be viable. Modification 4 proposes supplying 90 MW into the NSW grid and the environmental assessment completed by Environmental Property Services, does not adequately address the need for the project. The economics of additional expenditure on generation is doubtful with the operation of decentralised generation in the two wind farms currently under construction.
The electricity generated by the Glen Innes Wind Farm will have to be dispatched to customers on the Qld- NSW Interconnect or the 132 kV line which runs from Glen Innes to Inverell operated by TransGrid. No evidence has been provided which demonstrates that a Transmission Connection Agreement with TransGrid can be successfully negotiated. In the event a transmission connection agreement then there is no demonstrated need for the project, as there is no way of getting the electricity to customers - without additional expenditure on infrastructure.
The lack of any activity on this project has had knock on effects to the local area. At Waterloo Station, significant capital investments have been delayed pending the outcome of this proposal. The project is impacting on the primary land use of the local area, being primary production. If the project has failed to be constructed 8 years after approval, and is impacting other land uses in the area, the Department of Planning needs to act on withdrawing this approval entirely.

2. Visual impact
The study completed by Green Bean Design was detailed as a desktop study, with no site visit noted. The result is a visual assessment study which has clear deficiencies as outlined below. It is important to note that a 27% overall increase in the project scale is a significant change. The Environmental Assessment does not address this as a significant change, rather a minor amendment.
The Green Bean Design Report notes that "This VIA also included a visual assessment of an additional twelve residential dwellings identified between 3km and 3.6km from the approved GIWF Mod‐2 wind turbines". Visual impact assessment has not been accurately extended to 3.6 Km for the following reasons:
- Change does not appropriately account for Waterloo Station Homestead. The assessment does adequately assess the visual impacts on the homestead, which has a direct line of sight to the majority of wind turbines associated with the project. The mapping of visual impact in Figure 3 of the Green Bean Design report is inaccurate. The view from Waterloo Station Homestead will have view of greater than 6-10 turbines tips.
- Waterloo Station also has two other full time occupied residences, which are not mapped. Therefore Waterloo A, Waterloo B, and Waterloo C should be assessed, in accordance with other properties with multiple dwellings noted in the report.
- No wireframe model has been completed for the view from Waterloo Station despite being classified as a Level 1 viewer sensitivity rating. Waterloo Station Homestead will have views of both Glen Innes Wind Farm, and White Rock Wind Farm.
- Matheson Church: The views from this building has not been taken into account, despite having local significance to the community.
- Glen Innes Wind Farm Modification 2 listed visual impacts of the project as "Moderate to High". Despite a 27% increase in the scale of the project, the report lists the visual impact change as "Low". The project will have immense visual impacts, and combined with the impacts from White Rock Wind Farm and Sapphire Wind Farm, will have a significant impacts on the picturesque rural setting of the area.

3. Heritage
With reference to the Wind Energy Assessment - Visual Assessment Bulletin (December 2016). Table 5, (Page 30) of the Viewer Sensitivity Level Classification classes - Any buildings, historic rural homesteads/ residences on the State or local Government Heritage are classed as a Level 1 viewer sensitivity rating. While noting that the property has "Local Heritage Listing". the Green Bean Design report fails to detail that Waterloo Station has been recorded and approved on the National Trust of Australia Register since 11/2/1974, of which a copy of the register listing is attached.
The assessment provides the following inadequate assessment of the Waterloo Station Homestead, and mitigation measures.
The dwelling is located around 770 metres north of the Gwydir Highway corridor within a parkland type setting. Mature tree planting flanks the driveway access from Waterloo Road and is scattered to the west and north of the dwelling. Views south east toward the approved GIWF Mod‐2 (and proposed Mod‐4) wind turbines are generally open and extend to wind turbines around 7 kilometers from the dwelling. Whilst there is some potential for visual mitigation through tree planting, this would have a likely undesired effect of foreshortening views and indirectly impacting the heritage values associated with the property.
In reading the above, the report offers no conclusive mitigation measures for the high visual impact that the wind turbines will have on Waterloo Station. The wind turbines are in complete contrast to the historic character generated by the homestead, shearing shed, shearers quarters and the Matheson church.

4. Noise
The noise assessment does not account for any cumulative impacts from the other two wind farms which are currently under construction in the area. Two wind farms, Sapphire and White Rock have been approved in the area and are under construction. As Glen Innes Windfarm has failed to commence construction, the noise assessment must account for the cumulative impacts of other developments in the area.
Noise is a significant issue in the Matheson Valley with the construction and now operation of the White Rock Wind Farm. It is understood that the level of protests from residents has increased markedly since operations have commenced to the point that White Rock Wind Farm has now offered compensation to some residents for the noise. This shows above anything else that noise is a significant issue and will get worse with the compounded effect of Glen Innes Wind Farm.

See attached

For over a century, Waterloo Station, with the main homestead being built in 1908, has occupied a commanding position in the New England landscape. The importance of the Homestead, its capacious garden, and the shearing sheds, now being restored, has been recognised by The National Trust since 1974. Also sited on the property is the Matheson Uniting Church consecrated in 1925, built on one acre of land donated by the original owners of Waterloo, the Sinclair family. Such landscapes are increasingly rare in Australia, especially where the owners have demonstrated such a strong interest in preserving the curtilage of the homestead and the relationship of the farm buildings to the agricultural setting.
The proposed wind farm constitutes an aggressive modern intrusion into this landscape, detracting from the importance of Waterloo Station in the immediate area and its state and national importance as a notable agricultural landscape, reflecting well over a hundred years of farming and farm life. Today, the property remains a unique microcosm of rural endeavour, where the present owners have been respectful of that heritage, preserving it for future generations.
With rural landscapes increasingly under attack from the energy and resource industries, the importance of preserving those of significance is magnified. It is clear that with two wind farms in the proximate area, this part of New England has already seen some of its heritage compromised. Late 19th and 20th century heritage is vital to an understanding of the development and sustainability of farming, especially on sites with such a substantial history. We owe it to future generations to respect and maintain that heritage in its appropriate landscape setting.

Emeritus Professor Peter Spearritt,
School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, University of Queensland
Member International Council on Monuments and Sites
Consultant to the Getty Conservation Institute on World Heritage Listings.

I object to the development of the Glen Innes Wind Farm both respect of the current proposed development and the proposed modification 4.

The reasons for the objection are:

1. The development is a will result in significant loss of visual amenity tot he residents of nearby residences.

2. The development is likely to make noise above 30 Db within the curtilage of nearby residences.

3. The development will adversely affect farming operations on nearby properties, including:-
(a) creation of visual and physical barriers hindering aerial agriculture, in wet times air speeding of fertilisers seeds, etc cannot be done by wheeled vehicles because they can sink in sodden soils.
(b) shadows moving across the land caused by the rotating blades of are likely to startle horses causing them to shy, rear or even bolt causing a risk to the rider.
(c) the risk of restrictions placed on landowners hosting wind towers being extended to neighbours whose paddocks adjoin those paddocks with towers in them. (In particular the prohibition on calving or lambing in paddocks where wind towers are located in order to protect raptors which preen young stock and scavange afterbirth.) Valley flats are not suitable for calving or lambing. They are exposed lack tree shelter and are significantly colder than hills which are protected from the south west winds, this hills are the ideal place to calve and lamb livestock - they are much warmer than the exposed valley flats and do not become sodden quagmires which the valley flats can become in winter when lambing and calving takes place.

4. The development will adversely affect and limit reasonable future economic development of the Furracabad Valle, by reducing the likely attractiveness of future rural subdivision the farms within the Valley.


In the event that the development proceeds seperate compensation should be paid to affected neighbours for loss visual and aural amentiy.

We are writing to indicate our strong opposition to Modification 4 of the Glen Innes Wind Farm which will result in the construction of more wind towers in the Matheson valley. We are particularly opposed to the modification to the existing plan which will make the visual pollution of any proposed wind towers greater.

We are frequent visitors to the Matheson valley and we keep on returning because of the natural beauty of this rural environment.

You will be aware that White Rock Wind Farm has now constructed a large number of wind turbines in the Matheson valley. These were approved after the turbines proposed by Glen Innes Wind Farm. These towers are particularly unsightly and the fact that they are there reduces or eliminates the need for more. The proponents of Glen Innes Wind Farm had their chance to construct this project and could not complete. The visual amenity of the area should not be impacted by further wind turbines

This project should not be going ahead at all as approval lapsed on January 31 2017"if the proponent has not physically commenced the project "where is the evidence that construction has taken place by this date? On what basis did the department decide that approval had not lapsed?
The noise impact from larger turbines will be unacceptable, having experienced the noise made by smaller turbines 3.6km away on our western side we are deeply concerned that the modeling is inaccurate. The noise we hear is not only a loud rushing sound (like a jet engine) but has an embedded thumping acoustic sound that goes through our home causing disruption & lack of sleep. the proximity of the proposed turbines at only 1.2km, temperature inversion and the topography of the valley will amplify the sound at our home & may cause health issues getting no respite from the constant acoustic pounding .
Who will take responsibility when the cumulative affect of 2 wind farms exceeds the noise levels. more noise monitoring should be taken closer to our home before approval.
The visual pollution will be far greater blight on the landscape ,will aviation lighting be required more detrimental visual impact .
What effect will shadow flicker have on our livestock will it cause them distress and limit the area they will graze. Is shadow flicker modeling carried out by Senvion (also the proposed turbine supplier ) a conflict of interest.
how can the impact of blade strike on birds be assessed when there is limited data available & I would suggest none in areas such as this .There are often wedgetail eagles soaring around proposed turbine sights.
Consultation between the proponent & us seems only to happen after prompting from the department, and requests we make eg more information, sound monitoring are agreed to but not met. I cannot see any benefit in entering into any agreement with the wind farm as living in our home will become unbearable. A pristine highly valued agricultural area with an abundance of flora & fauna is being turned into an industrial monstrosity
The community consultative committee needs to be more proactive let people know when there meetings are and seek out input from the community especially those living in close proximity. Community fund could be used on a project that will be of benefit to close community such as feral animal control fencing
The Glen Ines Wind Farm is not a viable proposition in its current form & increasing the size of the turbines will only increase the angst of neighbours on a project that is still not fully funded & seems to be built on a lot of misinformation. Its just not worth the investment.

We are writing to indicate our strong opposition to Modification 4 of the Glen Innes Wind Farm which will result in the construction of more wind towers in the Matheson valley. We are particularly opposed to the modification to the existing plan which will make the visual pollution of any proposed wind towers greater.

We are frequent visitors to the Matheson valley and we keep on returning because of the natural beauty of this rural environment.

You will be aware that White Rock Wind Farm has now constructed a large number of wind turbines in the Matheson valley. These were approved after the turbines proposed by Glen Innes Wind Farm. These towers are particularly unsightly and the fact that they are there reduces or eliminates the need for more. The proponents of Glen Innes Wind Farm had their chance to construct this project and could not complete. The visual amenity of the area should not be impacted by further wind turbines

See attached

See attached

See attached

We propose to object to the proposed modifications in the following areas-

1- Lapse of approval on the 31/1/17 when no work (subject to initial definition) had commenced on the site. Please provide legal evidence.

2- Further loss of visual amenity due to significant increase in turbine size since original approval and increased track area by 50% as well the cumulative effects of multiple wind farms.

3- Environmental damage associated with track size increase, habitat fragmentation and risk to threatened species.

4-Noise impacts.The prior approved turbines were replaced with larger but "quieter turbines". Are the proposed turbines as quiet?
Turbines generating 95-100 dB will certainly change the soundscape of the Furracabad Valley.
Noise complaints from neighbours of the White Rock wind farm have increased and some have reportedly been offered compensation from the operators.

5-Adverse effect on property values.

The picturesque, peaceful Furracabad valley which we all love is being changed forever.

Shouldn't GIWF be offering annual financial compensation to all non-windfarm residence owners within 3 Km?

More information to be provided.

See attached

See attached

See attached

Please see attached Independent Airspace Study report.

Please see attachment.

Please see attached.