Mod 6 - Stage 2 Turbine Changes

I am concerned about the visual impact the 200 metre turbines will have
on non-associated residences in the area. Although I do not live in
the area affected by this wind farm, I worry about unfair assessment
processes that occur. We will be severely impacted by the Jupiter wind
farm if approved, and do not want this modification application
assessment to become a precedent for possible future modifications to
Jupiter. This wind farm will be one of the first in Australia with an
operating group of 200 metre turbines. Is there any other wind farm in
NSW, planned or operating with a greater blade swept area? There are a
number of non-associated residences within 2 kms. Therefore it is
fundamentally important that the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) was
done fairly by an impartial party. Green Bean Design did the original
VIA and this one. We can only assume that when viewing the newly
installed turbines from the 19 non-associated residences the GBD
consultant was satisfied that the VI decisions made 6 years ago, by an
entirely different method, were entirely accurate. We are not told.
What is disappointing is that modern VI assessments are done from a
desk in suburban Sydney. The wireframes supplied come out of a
computer model. They are tiny and don't give anyone an accurate
impression of the actual visual impact from any of the residences.
They also appear to depict the 200 metre turbines with the wrong blade
swept area. It is imperative, given the characteristics of the turbine
layout and size and the adjoining residences, that DPE appoint a peer
reviewer independent of the developer and of the department with the
flexibility to ignore the 2016 Wind Energy Guidelines and insist that
photomontages (not wireframes) be produced. There is no way that DPE,
using that VIA, can do an assessment, merit or otherwise.

I would like to lodge an objection to the proposed modifications to the
White Rock Wind Farm. The proposed modifications of an increase in
height from 150 metres to 200 metres and an increase in blade length
from 55 metres to 85 metres and also an addition of 4 other properties
adding a further 2,000 hectares to the project area, cannot be seen as
a mere modification. This is a blatant misuse of the NSW planning
system. To achieve an approval of a project on vastly different
criteria to get your foot in the door, and then apply for a
modification that is far greater than the original proposal shows the
enormous flaws in the Department of Planning and Environments approval
policies. The local community will again be the ones that will suffer
from the huge increase of this project. If such a change is to be
proposed this should be seen as a new proposal and not a modification
and therefore the original approval should be revoked and a new
application should be applied for. Mark Tomlinson

I object to this modification (no6) to White Rock wind farm. It should be
rejected. The practice of making application for multiple
modifications after a wind farms original approval is just not
acceptable. It makes a farce of the approval process. Residents know
that the wind farm described in the original approval will likely bear
very little resemblance to the one they will end up living near in the
long run. It is to be expected that this approach would erode respect
for the department and its processes. The change in turbine height
from 150 meter to 200 meters is not just a subtle adjustment. It is a
very major fundamental change to the design that will have massive
consequences for locals in regard to visual impact, ultrasound, sleep
disturbance and property saleability. I also understand that some
important documents referred to in the EIS are not available for
public scrutiny, including reports on avi fauna, turbine
decommissioning and landscape plans. In the absence of these, how was
ever it considered possible for local residents to properly assess
this project? Surely it is only fair that the complete complement of
reference documents is made available for residents to consider. This
modification should be rejected and all reference documentation needs
to be provided for public scrutiny. Thank You Jane Penny

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.