Mod 6 - Stage 2 Turbine Changes

The developer is well known for its terrible performance with the Gullen
Range wind farm and its terrible treatment of, and apparent contempt
for, the non-participating members of that community. The Department
mishandled the Gullen Range wind farm and caved in to the developer
with no concern for the harm done to the local community. The
Department should have learned its lesson with Goldwind and this
ridiculous proposal for an enormous increase in the size of turbines
and their consequent impact should be summarily rejected.

I wish to strongly object to this plan. It is not in the best interests
of the community and as a resident that will be effected greatly I am
deeply concerned. The representatives of the wind farm project have
mislead, lies and been very unhelpful throughout this process and I am
concerned for the future impact that it will have to not only my
family but the greater community. I also suffer from migraines and
this will result in a big issue for me. Along with several other great
concerns such as visual impact, property value and the constant
disruption to our community.

I wish to object to modification 6 of the White Rock wind farm. I
understand the planned modification will increase the turbine height
from 150m to 200m. This will more than double the sweep area of the
blades. Despite moving the taller turbines, noise and visual impacts
will still be considerate. To say those impacts will be `acceptable'
begs the question acceptable to whom? The community needs an
opportunity to tell the PAC just how intrusive these expanded towers
will be. For this reason, the project should be referred to the PAC.
Regards Jane Keany

This wind farm now wants 200 metre turbines and this appears to be trend.
The 150 metre turbines already approved are offensive in this
situation. Increasing the height and doubling the size of the blade
area is ridiculous and sets a terrible precedent for further harm to
other rural communities. The much bigger size would also likely
increase telecommunications interference, of which there are prior
examples. Reject the proposal.

I object to MOD 6 for the White Rock Wind Farm on the ground of the
increased height of each turbine and the increase in the swept area of
the blades. The previous dimensions were already bad enough from the
point of view of neighbours (in terms of visual impact and noise
impact). The increased dimensions are even more unacceptable.

Stage 2 of White Rocks Wind Farm As the 'approved' precinct of the Wind
Farm has been constructed, the Dept. need to have an independent audit
prior to 'rubber stamping' this massive modification. It is time for
the Dept. to call a halt to this pattern for these projects. Epuron
are allowed to invade landowners properties, choose a site, ignore
adjoining neighbours objections and disregard any biophysical impacts
. The Dept. then recommend the project to PAC for 'approval', Goldwind
purchase the project, bribe the neighbours and Community groups and
then apply for massive modifications to the plan. It is time for the
Government to respect the concerns of impacted landowners and
aesthetic value of the landscape

I object to this blatant disregard of previous outcomes. The people whom
had just come to terms with these visually offensive constructions,
now have to readjust their lives all over again. Visual impact
mitigation strategies will have to be reassessed and the cost won't be
incurred by the ChinCom government sponsored firm. This company is
based in a country with a known environmental vandalism record, so
anything vaguely related to them doing "the right thing" must be
dismissed. If this alteration, so dramatic it is a new proposal, is
allowed to go ahead it will send a message to every dodgy entrepreneur
that you can propose projects with in guidelines, but have every
intention of making modifications that would not have been approved in
the first place.

Proposed Modification for Stage 2 of White Rock Wind Farm Goldwind is the
developer for this project and is infamous for what it did at the
Gullen Range wind farm and how it treated members of that community.
The Department is infamous for how it mishandled the Gullen Range wind
farm and surrendered to the developer. Both appear to be behaving in
the same way again with this ridiculous proposal for a massive
increase in the impact of the wind farm with complete disregard for
the local community. It needs to be rejected. According to Goldwind's
submission "The visual impact of the modification has been assessed as
acceptable" and "The noise impact of the modified project has been
assessed as acceptable." The question is "Acceptable" to whom?
Certainly, acceptable to the proponent and probably the Department who
just wants to rubber stamp wind farm developments. Certainly, the
renters will not object as they look only to the short term financial
handout but not to the longer term when the wind turbines have reached
their `use by' date. But what of the community - the community will
certainly not find these modified wind turbine generators
`acceptable'. The community will have to live with these monstrosities
polluting the visual amenity for the term of the wind farm's service
life and beyond. Goldwind will be long gone when decommissioning time
arrives (around 25 years) and the State government will have long
washed its hands of the Project and resort to blaming previous
governments for their ineptitude, which is standard practice. In the
meanwhile, the now silent wind turbines, no longer generating, will
continue to stand reminding us of stupid decisions made by a preceding
generation. This proposed modification to Stage 2 of the White Rock
Wind Farm needs to be rejected before any more damage can be done to
the community, the landscape and the environment.

I object to the modifications of the White Rock Wind farm due to the
impact it will have on those residents nearby, more consideration
needs to be given to the visual and noise impact, the department needs
to assess the already built wind farm, go back to those residents and
undertake an analysis of what already exists and the impact to those
residents and accurately and fairly determine the impact on any
further expansion and/or height of turbines.

The White Rocks windfarm proposal to increase the size of the turbine
height from 150m to 200m will have adverse effects on nearby residents
and therefore a new EIS is needed. The original specifications
contained in the original approval are now out of date and out of
context to the impacts that would be suffered by the local community.
This proposal must be rejected.

This objection is to the huge increase in turbine height and the massive
increase in rotor swept area. Due to the great increase in turbine
size it will have a huge increase in both visual and noise affects on
the surrounding area and will impact upon a greater number of
residents than the original approved wind farm. In addition, this
proposal will have detrimental impacts on the environment with an
increase in bird strike. This proposal must be rejected.

The White Rock wind farm should not be allowed to be modified to this
extent without some sort of bushfire fighting impact assessment
undertaken. The substantial increase in overall turbine height and
increase in blade swept area needs be taken into consideration when
discussing the impact on birds and bat populations. The old bird and
bat impact assessment (modification 5) has been included in the recent
submission and states larger turbine blades have an "...increase in
risk of collision by Wedge-tailed Eagles, other high flying raptors
and White-throated Needletails." The proposed turbine height and new
blade length will only decrease local bird populations either from
strikes with blades, forcing them to find a new home or a combination.
The increase in turbine height and blade length not only affects bird
and bats populations but reduces the ability of
firefighting/firebombing efforts in the case of a fire emergency,
placing a greater risk on the lives of those volunteers. Stating that
the wind farm operator can simply stop the "...rotation of the wind
turbine rotor blades..." does not eliminate the risk of operating
firebombing vehicles in the region, especially when obstructed by
smoke. Not only will the local properties experience a reduced impact
from firebombing efforts in the case of a fire, but the wind farm
itself (including substations) may share the same consequences. A
bushfire fighting impact assessment should have already been already
during the last five years of modifications and re-modifications. The
third round of modifications were proposed to reduce the environmental
impact and facilitate a more practical project. However, this sixth
round of modifications seems to operate in contrast, only leaving the
local and regional community in a potentially heightened risk during
fire emergencies with a greater detrimental impact on local bird
populations. This proposed modification (mod. 6) needs to be rejected.

To whom it may concern, Doubling the rotor area proposed and increasing
tip height by another 50 meters will increase bird strike, including
killing more wedge-tailed eagles. The EIS admits the main increase in
swept area will be at heights at which wedge-tailed eagles fly. The
developer states in the opinion of its consultant. "The Wedge-tailed
Eagles (WTE) and other high-flying raptors may be at increased in risk
of collision from the larger and higher turbines. However, overall the
risk to the WTE from collision with turbines was considered to be low
given the low population assessed as using the area, the low frequency
with which these flights occur and the non-threatened status of the
mainland Australian sub-species of the eagle" Killing wedge-tailed
eagles and other birds doesn't seem to matter to the developer. It
does to people who live in rural Australia.

I object this wind farm and especially to the iindustry principle of
upsizing turbines as standard practice. The Department and the PAC
should recognise the recent Federal AAT finding that annoyance from
wind turbine noise is an established pathway to adverse health
outcomes and that DPE's prescribed noise measurement methodology is
not fit for purpose Mod 6 increases turbine height from 150m
(previously approved) to 200m, and more than doubles the swept area of
the blades. This is completely objectionable and should not proceed as
previous consideration of the wind farm by the community did not
include these dimensions and associated impacts. All testing for
visual impact, audiometric testing etc, should be conducted again for
the bigger turbines and associated infrastructure.

This modification supposedly has to be assessed under the Wind Energy
Guideline, 2016. The EIS, gives the Guideline the occasional mention,
but reads as if the guideline was never published. The main report
only mentions it indirectly through a reference to the VIA. The VIA
uses the bits that suit it, such as the unsupportable contention that
viewer sensitivity from non-associated residences is "level 2" or
average. Even though there are eight non-associated residences within
2 kms of a 200 metre turbine, the mention of voluntary acquisition as
a mitigation strategy was missing. There is the standard nonsense of
tree planting. Turbine placement at this distance for turbines of that
height has to be justified. It was not because it can't be. The VIA is
unsubstantiated and the proposal should be rejected.

my wife and family live app 3kilometres east from the existing white rock
wind farm now in operation. we are now enduring periods of noise at
night that make it very difficult to sleep. We were told very little
noise would be produced but that is not the case, we saw soil erosion
and land slip happen during construction of stage 1.The topography of
the proposed stage 2,is very steep and as they are wishing to increase
the clearance of vegetation there is the real danger or serious
erosion, land slips and the potential of contaminate our pristine
permanent creek which one of very few that can carry trout. We
therefore object to the modification 6 on these grounds plus the
increase in visual pollution ,light pollution and noise levels. This
area is highly productive agricultural land with high rainfall and
excellent soils not industrial land. Thank you for your time.

my wife and family live app 3kilometres east from the existing white rock
wind farm now in operation. we are now enduring periods of noise at
night that make it very difficult to sleep. We were told very little
noise would be produced but that is not the case, we saw soil erosion
and land slip happen during construction of stage 1.The topography of
the proposed stage 2,is very steep and as they are wishing to increase
the clearance of vegetation there is the real danger or serious
erosion, land slips and the potential of contaminate our pristine
permanent creek which one of very few that can carry trout. We
therefore object to the modification 6 on these grounds plus the
increase in visual pollution ,light pollution and noise levels. This
area is highly productive agricultural land with high rainfall and
excellent soils not industrial land. Thank you for your time.

I object to the proposed Stage 2 Mod. for the White Rock Windfarm for the
following reasons : TRANSPORT *Increased tower/blade size (
weight/length ) will place additional stress on road surface condition
and roadside tree/ vegetation removal. NOISE *Increased blade sweep
area is likely to increase audible noise levels. HEALTH * Current low
frequency noise standards for windfarms are totally inadeqate. *
Credible recent research indicates LF Noise can impact on personal
well being. *The Australian Administrative Tribunal ( AAT - Dec 2017)
held that ` noise annoyance ` by wind turbine generated LFN and IFN is
a ` plausible pathway to disease' based on association between noise
annoyance and some diseases. The AAT also stated that wind turbine
noise standards ( LFN and IFN ) are currently irrelevant and unfit for
purpose. ENVIRONMENT * With rotor swept area increasing by up to 100 %
( 22,000 sq.m - 2.2 ha circular area ) and increased turbulence /
vortex suction , together with increased height, the potential for
bird / bat strike is enormous and poses an unacceptable risk. *
Research shows that soil evaporation downwind of turbines ( up to 10
km ) can be as much as 10 cm p.a. If there is a doubling of the rotor
area there will most likely be an increase in evaporation levels.
BUSHFIRE / AERIAL *A 33% increase in blade tip height and associated
rotor length increase ( 150 m to 200 m ) poses unacceptable risk for
aerial proximity ( fire control / agricultural spraying ) due to
excessive height and air turbulence. VISUAL The report by Green Bean
Design lacks robustness in numerous areas and falls short of best
practice standards , particularly with montaging and wireframes. The
following are a few instances which need full consideration in any
final assessment. * GBD indicates that there will be a reduction of 8
in visible turbines / blades and an increase of 11 in visible turbines
/blades. This would seem to indicate a nett disadvantage to visually
impacted residents. However, * 7.3 states some residents will have
increased visual impact but a greater number will have less impact.
Compare to the above. Is this a case of the greatest good for the the
greatest number - not exactly "non- discrimination" when compared to
the currently approved Stage 2! *7.4 Night Lighting : The impact of
night lighting needs full consideration should CASA condition night
lighting at a future date. *8.3 Landscape Character : The reference to
`low density settlement" may be asssisting in describing some of the
existing landscape characteristics but it is to be hoped that the
assessing parties do not take a small surrounding population size as a
criteria in their decision making as appears to have occurred with the
Crudine Ridge project. The reference to the nearby Sapphire and Glen
Innes windfarms helping to form a `renewable energy hub' and creating
a "windfarm / renewable" landscape character is appalling and seems to
imply that since the area is now `trashed' , well so what ? Did the
local residents ask for this landscape character change ?
Photomontages and Wireframe representations: The photomontages and
wireframe representation fall well below acceptable standards and are
misleading , giving little more than a general view of a typical
windfarm. They do not allow an impacted viewer any sense of the
magnitude and scale of what will result. Note the following . The
montage spread range extends up to 100 degrees . The wireframe spread
range extends up to 160 degrees The horizontal field of vision of the
human eye is about 60 degrees and cannot take in the scale of the
montages and wireframes without scanning horizontally .Current
international best practice for montages / wireframes can generate
reliable / verifiable images. This has not occurred in this report by
GBD. I reference the following for your information : David Watson (
Landscape architect ) www. davidwatson.info/via-exprience.php A
viewing of his profile / curriculum / verifiable montages will
demonstrate the standard that should have applied with regard to these
photomontages. A number of wireframe images ( eg.WF3,WF4,WF14, etc )
appear to indicate that some Stage 2 ( Mod ) turbines ( purple ) in
the foreground / middle ground appear to be smaller than the large
turbines shown in the back ground, resulting in confusion of size and
scale and generally giving rise to a wasted exercise. ENERGY The
present electrical energy supply chain is in an almost unworkable
situation with regard to stability / reliability and consumer pricing.
Much of this is due to renewable energy supplies. Increased turbine
size will likely result in increased output ( when the wind happens to
be blowing ) which will further tend to destabilise the grid and
supply system. The above information and arguments are some of the
reasons for a total rejection of the White Rock Stage 2 Modification
application.

5/3/2018 Dear Sir/ Madam, I am writing to OBJECT to the proposed
modifications for the stage 2 at White Rock Wind Farm. The proposed
modifications are a disgrace and this should NOT BE RUBBER STAMPED BY
THE DPE. The modifications * increase turbine height from 150m
(previously approved) to 200m * increase blade length from 55m to 85m
(i.e. more than double rotor swept area) * add 4 additional properties
(2,000 hectares) to the project area Surely the DPE can recognise that
these are significant increases/ changes and that they should be
brought back before a PAC meeting. I find in incredible disconcerting
that a major developer such as Goldwind can say in their submission
"The visual impact of the modification has been assessed as
acceptable" and "The noise impact of the modified project has been
assessed as acceptable." And the DPE pulls out its rubber stamp and
goes "OK"... Wind Turbines get approval by the Pac and then the
proppant's start their push for modifications. The previous approval
for white rock was for Epuron. Goldwind needs to be held to account
before a PAC. Take this back through the assessment process. These
changes WILL IMPACT significantly on this community and the DPE needs
to take these impacts seriously and not sweep this communities
concerns aside Regards Sue Lane 0448824722

Response to Modification 6 - White Rock Wind Farm 6 March 2018 Waterloo
Station Pastoral Company Pty. Ltd. as trustee for The Waterloo
Pastoral Trust ACN 079002396 ABN 19278426006 This submission strongly
opposes White Rock Wind Farm Modification 6, particularly in regard to
visual amenity and noise. The study completed by Green Bean Design is
clearly a desktop study, with no site visit noted. As a result the
visual assessment study which has clear deficiencies. It is unclear on
how a visual assessment, which proposes a 50 metre increase in turbine
height, can be assessed without visiting the area, particularly
following the commencement of construction of Stage 1 of the White
Rock Wind Farm. This casts serious doubt on the adequacy of the
assessment. It is important to note that a 33% overall increase in the
max tip height is a significant change. The Environmental Assessment
does not address this as a significant change, rather a low to medium
impact. The project proposes a significant increase in turbine size
across the project, in a rural setting. The wind farm will be highly
visible and will further spoil the natural beauty of an area dominated
by agricultural pursuits. The modification is proposed purely on
economic grounds with no actual regard for the significant
environmental impact that this project will have on the local area.
Noise is a significant issue in the Matheson Valley with the
construction and now operation of the White Rock Wind Farm Stage 1. 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 the proposed
modification.