Mod 6 - Stage 2 Turbine Changes

See attached advice.

See attached advice.

See attached advice

The only person who would be able to assess the VI and noise rating of
200m tall turbines with 170m diamater blades as "acceptable" would be
Helen Keller. This proposal os completely unsuitable for this area,
and any area where people reside for that matter.

Stop ruining our country with these terrible wind farms. Go solar. This
is devasting to know companies can get this far. Come on guys give
them a once and for all "NO"

The proposal involves a large increase in turbine height and a massive
increase in swept area of rotors. The idea that this will make no
material difference to the visual impact and noise characteristics of
this wind farm or the harm to avifauna is risible. It is another
instance of creeping expansion of a wind farm, trying to sneak through
massive changes rubber-stamped by the Department, with little
awareness in the community and little time to respond to what is
effectively a dramatically different wind farm to what was originally
proposed and approved. I note that this proposal comes from that
company Goldwind whom many people affected by wind farms elsewhere
consider wholly indifferent to the pain and suffering it inflicts on
people nearby and which company was central to the Gullen Range wind
farm disaster (for that community).

The modification submitted by the applicant is dramatic. This involves an
increase in turbine height of 33.3% from 150 to 200m, a significant
increase in blade length and significant increase in size of the
project. The Environmental Impact Assessment fails to adequately
articulate the actual impact caused by this modification, in
particular visual impact and noise impact on the local community
including properties both aligned and not with the project. To claim
"The visual impact of the modification has been assessed as
acceptable" and "The noise impact of the modification has been
assessed as acceptable" beggars belief! Acceptable to who? The
applicant obviously. This modification constitutes an unacceptable
impact on the local community that is not adequately detailed,
measured or assessed by the Environmental Assessment document. The
modification must be rejected as causing unacceptable additional
negative impact on the community due to both visual and noise impact.

The huge increase in rotor area proposed will increase bird strike,
including killing more wedge-tailed eagles. The EIS admits the main
increase in swept area will be at heights that wedge-tailed eagle fly.
The wedge-tailed eagle is an important part of the rural landscape,
though it doesn't seem to matter to the developer. The developer
summarises 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" The developer is as
little concerned with what its wind farm will do to bird life as it is
to the impact on people in the community.

This EIS should be rejected until the proponent considers the increased
risk of bushfire and provide a thorough analysis of the risks to the
community. How can adding 50 metres in height for 48 additional
turbines and doubling the rotor swept area and changing the approved
layout and infrastructure not have a considerable impact on
controlling a bushfire starting within or outside the wind farm? To
not even consider it and push it out post-approval is unacceptable.

To NSW Dept Planning- Re White Rock Wind farm I object to these
modifications.Mod 6 Endless application for modifications, after they
get their foot in the door with the initial approval, seems to be the
way wind farm developers operate now. It is a deceptive and dishonest
technique to get through developments that would never have been
approved otherwise. The initial approval was for 150,meter turbines
but now the proponent is asking for 200 meter turbines. This should be
rejected it is a truly massive change that will increase all of the
negative impacts of this development on local residents. The developer
for this project is well known for what it did at Gullen Range wind
farm and the outrage caused among the local community. A PAC refused
to approve all the mis-siting of turbines that had been done. Then
when Goldwind got the lawyers involved the Department backed down
because the Department's supervision of the development had been
culpable. The local community paid the price. This looks like another
Gullen Range in the making and should be totally rejected.

I object to the massive increase in turbine swept area (97%), one of the
many reasons being the impact it will have on the Wedge-tailed eagle.
As the proponent points out, the main increase in swept area will be
at the heights that the eagles fly. The WTE is an iconic part of the
rural landscape, both for residents and visitors and is protected in
NSW by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. The proponent
summarises the opinion of its consultant in the Main Report. "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" They may not have threatened status at the moment but are
protected under NSW legislation. Any impacts, whether considered minor
by the proponent, will further add to the decline of this magnificent
species.

I am tired and frustrated of wind farm companies efforts to what appears
to be the dictating of terms and conditions. No more changes. Its like
the community is on continual notice to expect changes. I and my
family are sick and very tired of this. Please, please put my family
and all affected communities at ease by setting a bench mark. Please
no more stress. Give us peace of mind. Give us a break!! Say NO to any
change! For Petes sake! Will it ever end?

This proposal should be rejected. It would increase turbine height by
another 50 metres and more than double the blade area. That means it
would kill more birds, including wedge-tailed eagles. It would have a
huge increase in visual impact on the community, extending much
further than already approved and affecting more people. This could
not be proposed by anyone with any care for the community.

Doubling the rotor swept area and raising the total height is likely to
increase the severity of interference with communication, including
TV, mobile phones and internet reception either now or when the NBN
roles out wireless internet to the area. And those 200 metre high
turbines are likely to be left standing there when the wind farm stops
because there is no means to ensure funds are securely provided in
advance for decommissioning. The proposal should be rejected.

I wish to lodge my objection to this project and strongly feel that it
should be rejected. The extension of the turbines will certainly lead
to the killing of more birds and other flying wildlife, including
wedge-tailed eagles, which the EIS admits fly at the height of the
larger turbines proposed. This will be inevitable from doubling the
rotor swept area and raising the turbines a further 50 metres in
height. Also, it would have a huge increase in visual impact and
probably increase interference with mobile phones, TV and other
wireless communications.

There are eight non-associated residences within 2 kms of a 200 metre
turbine and the VI assessment claims that can be justified with a few
cosmetic tree plantings. The principle that the proponents can change
their submission at this stage is just wrong under any test. This
proposal needs to be rejected.

The creeping expansion of wind farms after their initial approval by way
of modification is unacceptable. The locals who may not have been
affected by this industrial installation initially are now not able to
mount a fair argument against this medication - where is the PAC etc
for this to be fairly debated? This modication is a back door method
for the applicant to expand their project with significantly less
scrutiny. The increased area of the project, the increase in the
height of the turbines and the increase in rotor length is
unacceptable. If this was a professional developer that has the best
interests of the community at heart they should have known what the
final project should look like prior to making their original
application. The fact that in the application the developer states
that the visual and sound impact will be acceptable is genuinely
stomach turning - acceptable to the developer - sure, but acceptable
to anyone that lives within 10kms of the project - definitely not. I
believe REJECTING this modification application is the only just
course of action that respects the rights and lives of local
residents.

I see four Capital wind farm turbines from my residence every day. Even
though they are 11 kms away and are only 124 metres high, they are
offensive as they are one of only two structures out of place in my
rural residential environment (the other being one of the pylons
carrying power from the Capital wind farm to the Sydney desalination
plant) On past performance, the Department of Planning is about to
inflict a massive modification onto a community already suffering
substantial impacts from stage one of the development. Do you (DPE
planners and management) realise that the increase in swept area from
this modification alone is much greater than the swept area of all 71
turbines in the Capital wind farm? Do you realise that the increase in
swept area from this modification alone is 4 times the swept area of
all turbines in the Woodlawn wind farm, the other wind farm in my
immediate locality. For some years you have let wind farm developer's
paid VI consultants, particularly Green Bean Design, assess the VI of
new wind farms and major modifications involving larger turbines as
being moderate and acceptable. In this case it clearly isn't and to
continue without getting a second opinion would indicate to us that
you only pay lip service to the concept of merit assessment.

I strongly object to White Rock Wind Farm Modification 6 on the grounds
that it is a huge increase in turbine height and a massive increase in
rotor sweep area by about 240% as well as a massive increase of land
use. This wind farm will have a severe impact on residents living
adjacent to or within the vicinity of the wind farm. Any wind farm
development in Australia has been shown to divide a community. This
has certainly occurred in the Upper Lachlan Shire with neighbours
feeling betrayed by hosts who agreed to the development and a few
profiting at the expense of many. I live adjacent to the New Gullen
Range Wind Farm which has had, and continues to have, an enormously
negative impact upon our once beautiful district and our lifestyle. We
found Goldwind a difficult company with which to deal. They acted in a
most unprofessional and underhanded manner towards residents in the
district. Expediency rather than ethics underpinned their mode of
operation. The original development application submitted by Epuron,
and later purchased by Goldwind, was misleading in the extreme. The
photographic montages of the then proposed development were designed
to deliberately mislead the public. They were designed to give the
community the impression of a far less visually invasive project with
minimal impact on residents and neighbours. This proved to be
completely out of line with the array of turbines as well as the
substation. The sub/switch station which now covers 25 acres of land
was described by a photograph of the much smaller Coffs Harbour
facility set down in a hollow. The NGRWF sub/switch station required
the entire top of a hill and vegetation to be removed and can be seen
from many angles from our farm including our garden. Goldwind
surreptitiously altered the turbine placement in violation of a Land
and Environment Court Judgement resulting in a number of residents
being severely impacted by turbines our farm included. We now have
Pomeroy 1 looming all over the farm. This turbine is 1.8 km from the
home and horse facilities, including the horse work areas, arena and
breaking in yards. In certain weather conditions turbine noise
intrudes into our work day. The noise can be extremely annoying with a
high-pitched whining noise similar to a jet aircraft above the farm
but going nowhere. There is also an accompanying loud rumbling sound.
If the turbines of the New Gullen Range Wind Farm are troublesome I
can only imagine how much worse the huge turbines proposed for White
Rock might be. Such a dreadful eyesore together with the associated
noise will make the lives of residents living adjacent to or within
the vicinity of the wind farm unbearable. The proposed massive
increase in size will, of course, add to the devaluation of
surrounding farms/properties as has occurred elsewhere. Prior to a
formal assessment of this modification it is extremely important for
DP&E to ensure an opportunity for residents' views to be expressed
before a Planning and Assessment Commission.

I wish to make this submission opposing this proposed wind farm for the
following reasons: 1. The destruction of bush and grasslands being the
habitat of birds and wildlife, some of which are on the endangered
list by the clearing of sites and local roads. 2. The uncontrolled
growth of noxious weeds in such sites once cleared - this is already
happening at operating wind farms 3. The health issues, both physical
and mental which have been proven here and around the world. Many
people who were totally opposed to a wind farm being constructed in
the vincitity of their homes are now suffering and in several cases
have been forced to sell up and relocate. 4. Safety issues on the
local roads used by residents, school buses, mail contractors, stock
and fodder carriers and farmers moving stock with the increase of
large and heavy vehicles. 5. In the case of bushfires, the restriction
of water bombers being able to operate near a wind farm because of the
towers and their huge blades being hidden by smoke and also the air
turbulence caused by the rotation of these blades. This occurred
recently at an outbreak near Bannaby, (Southern Tablelands) when it
was sometime before the turbines were switched off. 6. The divisions
such developments bring about in an affected community between hosts
and those opposing the project, especially when in many cases the
hosts are actually "absentee landlords" who live many kms. away 7. The
high costs of maintaining and the relatively short lifespan of a
turbine. With no state government legislation in place enforcing the
proponent company to dismantle tower at the end of their life, what
guarantee is there that these proponent companies will stick to their
promises. None! So Australia could end up in a situation that has
already happened in the USA and Spain where there are hundreds of idle
and disintegrating towers. 8. I have noticed in my various travels
around south eastern NSW, the ongoing increase of solar panels being
installed on private homes and some commercial business houses. With
the rapid progress of developing solar batteries and solar farms, I
honestly feel than in a few years wind farms will be obsolete
especially when you consider their low and inconsistent production of
electricity. 9. The huge subsidy the government is paying to these
proponent companies when surely the money would be better spent on
developing solar energy which would lessen the burden of increasing
electricity costs on consumers. In short in my opinion wind farms are
an expensive destructive total waste of time with the only
beneficiaries being the proponent company who walk away with millions
of dollars.