MOD 4 - Transmission Line & Turbine Dimensions

The proposal will:

increase turbine height from 150m to 160m
increase blade length from 56m to 70m
increase swept area by 56%
increase av turbine power from 3.0MW to 4.2MW (40%)
provide a connection to the grid

This is a major increase in impact, all which should have been dealt
with in the original proposal to which the community was forced to
respond. Now the community has 2 weeks to learn about this proposal
and respond. Bad faith.

DPE appears complicit in an attempt to mislead the community since
DPE's Mod4 description on website mentions only the increase in height
and the grid connection. It does not mention the increase in blade
length and 56% increase in swept area and it does not mention the 40%
increase in turbine power. Bad faith.

All of the information contained within this modification should have
been included in the original proposal, that being

* increasing turbine height from 150m to 160m
* increasing blade length from 56m to 70m
* increasing swept area by 56%
* increasing av turbine power from 3.0MW to 4.2MW (40%)
* providing a connection to the grid

As is now the norm, this proposal consists of an ambit claim by the
developer, engineered to draw the least opposition, which is then
subjected to scope creep to the extent that the original proposal is
invalid. All other aspects of the sibmission relating to turbine size
(VI, Noise, blade glint, shadow flicker) must be re-assessed in light
of this change.

An additional 10 metres in height is significant in the increased impact
it will have on visual amenity for non involved neighbours.

A detailed fire plan should be included so the community has certainty
over how a fire would be dealt with including the toxicity of burning
blades and the effects on citizens.

The increase blade length will considerably alter the physical
transportation of such large single component structures to the sites.

The project should provide a detailed plan on how the blades will be
dealt with during decommissioning as they can not be recycled.

Fire plans should also be upgraded for the increase in highly toxic,
flammable material the blades are constructed of.

Proponents should be declaring the end intended size and structure of
a project during public exhibition - ie future proof to include
maximum's based off potential turbine sizes and output. They should
not be allowed to seek approval on a smaller scale and slip through an
overall increase in the entire project when the review period for the
public is condensed down to 15 days.

I object to this expansion ( swept area by 56% and turbine power by 40%)
of the development by stealth.
This creates a vastly different development proposal which should be
treated as negating the content of the original proposal and should be
subjected to community appraisal and discussion before review and
recommendation by the DoPE.

I would like it known that I object to this windfarm.
Windfarms have no place in the Australian rural landscape . They are
industrial machines and therefore should be placed in an industrial
area close to Sydney where the power is needed.
Windpower is a poor source of renewable energy as it is intermittent
and unreliable.
Windfarms are not a 'light touch ' on the environment. they damage the
soil structure by digging out large areas of ground to host the
footings for the turbines and the cranes. The concrete used in these
footings is never removed resulting in lime being leached into the
soil. They carve unnecessary roads into the terrain, on sides of hills
destroying trees and the local environment.
Birds, bats and other flying creatures are killed and injured by the
blades of the turbines.
Noise levels are not adequately assessed by the NSW Government and
until proper studies of both audible and INFRASOUND noise is carried
out all windfarms should not be approved or built.
Do not allow this project to proceed.
It is not for the greater good rather for the good of a few hip
pockets.

I object to this modification proposal for the following reasons:
1. Wind power has been proved to be an unreliable and very costly
source of green energy contributing the hike in electricity prices to
residents and businesses.
2. Proven noise and health issues among people residing in the
vicinity of wind farm and devaluation of neighbouring homes and
property.
3. Destruction of old forest and habitat of wildlife and birds at the
construction site along with soil erosion both at the site and access
roads
4. Bird kill some of which are on the endangered list
5. Divisions between families and friends living in affected
communities especially when the majority of hosts do not even reside
on the host property.
6. Restriction of access by water bombing aircraft fighting a bushfire
within a wind farm site due to heavy smoke
7. Lack of State Government legislation enforcing proponentcompanies
to decommission wind towers once they have reached the end of their
productive life

I object to this modification application. What is being proposed is a
significant change to the project and components such as the 132kv
transmission line and switching station should have been disclosed and
included in the original application if the proponent was serious.

This modification proposes to significantly increase the size of
turbines (height and blade length) and consequentially increase the
swept area by a whopping 56%. This will have a significant impact on
the community with regard to all issues including visual impact,
noise, blade flicker and shadowing.

The local community and NSW public deserve to have this application
publicly scrutinised by the Independent Planning Commission.

I object to the proposed modifications as I believe these additions will
greatly effect the community and in particular the properties around
the wind farm project.
The increase in height of 10 metres, the blade length increase from 56
metres to 70 metres(an increase swept area of 56%) and the increase of
turbine power from 3.0mw to 4.2mw (an increase of 40%) is not
acceptable. The project was not approved under these conditions.
Modifications of this magnitude should be considered as a new
application not a modification.

Mark

This modification significantly increases the sweep distance of these
blades, and must significantly impact noise, VI, blade throw, avian
and bat strike.

How can a change of this magnitude NOT require re-visiting the EIS to
ensure that these changes do no harm?

Unless of course, doing no harm isn't a concern of the Department of
Planning and Environment, as it clearly isnt one of the developer.

Further, I note that I am required to declare that none of my
submission contains false or misleading information. Can I assume that
the Department will treat any FOM information I may have submitted
with the same indifference that it does the developer, irrespective of
the strength of argument to prove so?

I object to this modification because :
* The blade swept area is increased in excess of 50%, resulting in a
unacceptable increase in bird/bat strike

* a 40% increase in power output will increase noise levels, requiring
a full noise reassessment

With regard to the False and Misleading Statement that I am obliged to
sign below , it is to be hoped that the DPE and IPC abide by the same
principles in their assessment and determination

I object to this modication because :

the increased height and noise level to be generated is totally
inappropriate for the surrounding nearby residents. I have provided
this statement on the assumption that the proponent has not submitted
false and misleading information in the Modification Application
documents.

As a local resident, these appear to be necessary additions to this
exciting and long overdue project to deliver clean energy to the
Central West. Assuming they do not have any material impact on
landholders and residents, they appear worthy of our collective
support.

The DPE submission is dishonest!!
It does not include that cover increase in blade length plus 56%
increase in swept area nor does it refer to the 40% increase in
turbine power.
Once again, the DPE is shown to be in cahoots with the wind
developers!!

I object to the increases in blade tip height. Again, a poor effort to
make another windfarm less unviable at taxpayers expense.

Under the EP&A Act 1979, section 4.15, the determining body is required
to assess the social and economic impacts of the proposal in the
locality.
In the 7 years since the original EIS was submitted (and it, in
itself, did not address these issues) there is much more evidence of
the negative impacts of wind farms, and far less evidence of the
positive impacts claimed in 2011.
Until the proponent provides a complete and accurate analysis, the
determining body cannot do its job. Reject the modification.

The proponent states for residences R077 and R078, "a small exceedance of
less than 1dB is predicted based on the modelling between the hub
height wind speeds 8m/s to 10m/s.
Due to the small exceedances predicted, mitigation will be applied to
ensure
compliance with the Relevant Criteria at all times."
The then owner of the wind farm cannot be relied upon to apply the
mitigation required in a timely manner, if indeed at all.
The only solution is to move or remove the offending turbines so that
predicted noise levels remain within the regulations or to leave the
offending turbines as currently approved.

The 2016 Wind Energy Guidelines state that modifications, such as this
one, are to be assessed under the provisions of those guidelines. The
EIS, therefore, needs to be written to follow those guidelines. It
hasn't. The Department of Planning had no option but to reject this
EIS prior to exhibition. Since it didn't, and by its actions has
accepted the EIS as written, we see, once again, a decision in favour
of a wind farm developer and to the detriment of the community.

The proponent, in its introduction to the modification turbine changes,
fails to mention that the swept area will increase by 56%. Instead,
the proponent focuses on other factors that increase by 6.5% to 25%.
As our eyes are drawn towards the moving parts of the turbine, to hide
this key factor misleads the reader.
As this is followed by many other false or misleading statements, the
modification must be rejected.

Under the EP&A Act 1979, section 4.15, the determining body is required
to assess the social and economic impacts of the proposal in the
locality.
In the 7 years since the original EIS was submitted (and it, in
itself, did not address these issues) there is much more evidence of
the negative impacts of wind farms, and far less evidence of the
positive impacts claimed in 2011.
Until the proponent provides a complete and accurate analysis, the
determining body cannot do its job. Reject the modification.

The proponent fails to mention that the swept area will increase by 56%.
This means that the information provided is false and misleading and
for that reason this application for modification should be rejected.
How long must communities suffer under misinformation or deliberately
false information that prolongs the process almost indefinitely.
I would urge you to listen to the community.