Objection to the Jupiter Wind Farm Project by EPYC Pty Ltd

I object to the proposed Jupiter Wind Project proposal because it will create substantial disruption to a community and environment that I value and cherish. I visit the Tarago/Mt Fairy area frequently and have friends and family in the area that will be badly affected by the Jupiter proposal.

I am a supporter of renewable energy but I do not think the Jupiter proposal has been well considered. It is a very poor choice of location for a major industrial facility. It will have substantial environmental and community impacts that are not properly addressed and I do not think wind turbines are an appropriate choice for more populated areas. Jupiter will have a major impact on the 59 residences that are within 2km of a proposed wind turbine, including places where I like to stay and visit.

In addition, I understand that the Jupiter project creates major community impacts including:
* Visual impacts and destruction of views and rural ambience
* Bushfire dangers
* Noise impacts
* Health impacts
* Disruption to wireless reception
* Disruption to the local community and personal relationships
* Property devaluation
* Biodiversity destruction

Sincerely,
Nicola Fairfax

I believe that the Jupiter wind farm is a much better alternative then fossil fuels.
Great for the community and local employment.
Great for the environment while still being able to farm the land when you are a host property unlike a coal farm.
Green energy is the way of the future. We need this to happen.

Great project for the area
Green energy should be the only way to go
Great for town growth and employment

While I'm not against renewable energy. Wind of all of them is the worst. The infrastructure required, the materials involved in making the turbines themselves and the intermittent power they produce are just a couple of reasons. Relying on climatic power generation is foolhardy at best.

State Government I urge you to please look instead into nuclear energy and thorium. Please make an investment in our future, and not in some greens-pleasing, hipster-abating windfarm. Please consider nuclear.

I object to this windfarm.

As a host of the jupiter wind farm i see wind and solar as another alternate or competition to coal and gas which should give everyone cheaper power.For me very little effect on my farming operation with the benefit better access roads and income.For the area jobs during construction and ongoing maintenance with a large proportion of the income received will be reinvested into the farms creating jobs and economic prosperity for businesses in the area.

I support the Jupiter Wind Farm because I believe:
There will be significant benefits to host landowners and the community.
New jobs created to boost the local economy.
Minimise dependence on burning fossil fuels to create power.
Help Australia reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

RE: Jupiter Wind Farm SSD6277, OBJECTION TO DEVELOPMENT

By way of background, we purchased our property at XXXXXX, Boro, in August 2012 in order to develop a small-scale sheep diary farm and rare breed horse stud as well as a luxury Bed and Breakfast operation, all targeting the Canberra market. We specifically sought a property due to its fully off-grid nature and its isolation, where, due to the topography, there is no obvious sign of other human habitation in view of the our residence or the intended B&B site. At the time of considering the purchase, all required council and title checks etc were carried out, and there was no knowledge of a proposed wind farm. Our primary personal concerns are as follows:

- Due to the topography of the property and placement of existing residence, any turbine within 3km is unlikely to ever be screenable in any meaningful time frame. With 5 turbines, 3 to the north (44, 75, 87), 2 to the south (24 and 68), within 2km, and all resting on higher ground than the residence, we will feel as if we are sat directly under the turbines when looking to Northern or Southern aspect. Also, although further than 2km away, turbine 32 which sits on an adjacent hillside in our most favoured vista, will be particularly devastating. If the Jupiter proposal is to go ahead, we request removal of all turbines proposed within 2km of the residence as well as turbine 32. There are an additional 13 turbines still within 3km of our residence, meaning that even if the above were removed, our property would remain surrounded by a wind farm on all sides.
- In the EPYC development application for Jupiter Wind Farm, they indicated a non mitigated high visual amenity risk as High. They used a 4x4 risk matrix instead of a reasonably universally accepted 5x5 matrix. They then used language consistent with pathological corporate culture to suggest that the highest rate of risk is only `High', not `Very High' or `Extreme' as is typically the highest risk rating. Even by their own admission, our non mitigated visual amenity risk is High (Very High/Extreme). EPYC believe they have mitigated this risk to visual amenity to an `acceptable' Moderate risk by suggesting the planting of screening trees within 5 metres of our house on each side that has visibility of the turbines. We have several issues with this. On any normally acceptable risk matrix, even this mitigation result in a residual risk of High (they are calling moderate) which would not be accepted as a mitigation. Secondly, EPYC have obviously not considered the flow on effect of said mitigation, being a significant increase to the risk of property damage/loss in the event of bush fire by planting out with heavy foliage, what is currently an open and defendable grass garden. Finally, the resultant inability for us to continue to generate our own electricity from the existing solar panels which would also be screened from the sun. Said `mitigation' is also only attempting to screen the view of the wind farm from the existing residence. It does not take in to account any other aspects of the property and particularly given we spend the majority of our time outside, this impacts us greatly.

- A component of the appeal of off grid, isolated living was to combat my husbands' PTSD triggers, suffered as a result of 25 years of military service to Australia. There is a significant concern with the turbines, particularly as their constant blade movement is likely to catch peripheral vision, stimulating the fight or flight response exacerbated by PTSD, thus resulting in constantly elevated levels of alertness.
- An additional health concern, although at this stage only circumstantially evidenced, is the impact of infranoise. I have suffered with inner ear issues that have resulted in vertigo and hospitalisation. It is a very real concern that the turbines may cause the onset of inner ear issues/vertigo. I have learned the things I can and cannot do in order to avoid stimulating this issue however if it proves sensitive to the infranoise, this will, for all intense purposes, make our property unliveable to me.
- Again, there is limited circumstantial evidence that there may be a causational link between turbine generated infranoise and increased mortality and reduced fertility in livestock. As we are breeders of both classified rare breed heavy horses, and sheep, this possibility, however remote, is of considerable concern to us.
- As part of the development application, EPYC were required to have Noise monitoring carried out. We have significant concerns that the noise monitoring was not carried out legitimately and in fact would suggest the noise monitoring in our area is entirely invalid. This is due to the constant and unusually high volume of earth moving equipment noise on the property conducting the noise monitoring during the period of that monitoring (the high volume of earth moving noise ceased outside of the monitoring period). We noted the earthmoving operation at seemingly odd times of the day and night - in some cases for 24 hours or more. This raises significant concerns about the accuracy of the ambient noise levels during the monitoring period being a true representation of the actual ambient noise levels.
- Although EPYC language is vague on the matter, it seems to suggest that they are planning on red LED marking on the tops of every turbine in order to meet CASA and Defence requirements. The addition of a substation proposed within 2km of our residence, at the entry to our property off Boro Road that will be fitted with permanent night lighting will severely impact the appeal and combined, will result us in not being able to escape the visual impact of the turbines even at night-time. One of the wonderful things about our property is its ability to highlight the beautiful night sky full of stars. This is due to the absence of ambient light. We also invested thousands of dollars in telescopic star gazing equipment which will be essentially useless if the project were to go ahead.
- We had already entered in to discussions with Palerang Council with reference to the suitability of our property for a B&B operation. We have been working on a business case for the same, however this has been put on hold until the outcome of the wind farm is known. There is currently no luxury B&B operation within 60 minutes of Canberra that offers guests such a serene experience. Again, if the wind farm is to go ahead, we will not be able to proceed with this. The CBA has already advised us that they feel it is an unacceptable risk to secure against a property they will be unlikely to be able to sell if they were required to foreclose, due to the wind farm. Discussions held with CBA prior to their knowledge of the wind farm indicated they would be willing to providing funding in order for us to start the operation.
- Although the research provided by wind farm proponents would indicate there is only minor decline in the value of impacted properties, our analysis would suggest otherwise. Discussions with agents in our region also inform that local properties impacted by other wind farm developments remain on the market for significantly longer periods, and are subject to decreased value due to the impact of wind farms. Several agents have, off record, indicated to us, that a property positioned right in the centre of a wind farm (as ours will be) would be very difficult to sell as the demand for such a property would be practically non-existent.
- Access for aerial fire support - we contest EPYC alleged findings that aerial fire support will not be adversely affected by turbines. During both the December 2016 and January 2017 fires at Lower Boro, the DC10 Southern Belle (as well as several water bombing helicopters) was used on multiple occasions to suppress the fast moving front of these fires. Footage we took demonstrates that the suppressant delivery is made only metres above tree tops. This would clearly not be possible with a high volume of wind turbines in the area. If the wind farm is to go ahead we will be seeking assurances from NSW Government that the same suppressant delivery will be guaranteed if turbines are insitu.
- We also call in to question the trustworthiness of EPYC to stand by any of its agreed terms. This could be in relation to the height of the turbines, position of turbines, volume of noise or any number of other aspects of the project. The reason this concern exists is due to our experience up to now, with company representatives. We have caught them being deceptive on several occasions, of note at one time when they provided an early map of turbine placement locations to us, to specifically reply to a query in relation to distance of turbines from our residence, their `scale bar' on the map was `accidentally' incorrectly adjusted to show all turbines well outside of 2km from our residence. On another occasion, a representative told us that the substation placement was to be on Goulburn Road and not in any way near our property.

Should the project go ahead, we will seek further legal advice and consider taking action against the developer, operator and hosts of the wind farm as well as relevant approving Government bodies. This action will be taken in relation to loss of value, loss of amenity, and any other associated risks including but not limited to the concerns raised above.

I do not believe that the wind turbines being placed in the Mt Fairy vicinity is of the best interest of the residents surrounding the site. I think the wind turbine would be better placed in another area where it is not so heavily populated.

The site would be better suited to solar renewable energy that does not impost on nearby residents. Additionally, this is a profiteering maneuver by an non-Australian company which would not benefit local Australians.

I wish to voice my objection to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm (JWF) currently being considered for the Tarago area.

Please note a few facts regarding my property listed as "J76A" and "J76B" in the EIS submitted by the proponent (EPYC). My development application (DA) submitted back in 2011 allows for both a Primary and a Secondary residence. There are no temporary residences so measurements from either would (should) be considered valid. I shall be using J76A as my point of reference on this occasion. I would also note that I have used data from both Google Earth and EPYC's own supplied information as my source.

The JWF project places:

-3 wind turbine generators (WTG) within 1.5KM of the residence, the closest being just 1.2KM away.

8 WTG between 1.5 and 2KM ranging from 1.6KM to 2.0KM away

17 WTG between 2 and 3KM ranging from 2.1 to 3.0KM

This places 28 Turbines within 3KM of my residence on a site where, by their own EIS assessment:

"A large number of WTGs will be visible in the foreground in the West and South, stretching into the middle distance. A second more distant cluster of turbines will be visible to the South.

The closest turbines will appear prominent against the sky and are likely to dominate the field of view, appearing large in scale and visibly tall".

Within the JWF - "Landscape Character and Visual Impact Assessment (LCVIA)" contained in the EIS, our site was listed as:

"Little vegetation near dwelling. Elevation will afford panoramic and direct views of multiple WTGs". The effectiveness of mitigation strategies was rated as "Low" stating "screen planting unlikely to be effective due to elevated nature of dwelling, extensiveness of view frame and steepness of terrain surrounding property". This doesn't surprise me as these qualities define our reason for selecting this spot to live and build our residence! The LCVIA goes on to state "Trees would need to be in very close proximity to dwelling and 10m+ to fully screen turbines. Any screening would consequently diminish existing panoramic views." However, in addition to diminishing our views this would also be in breach of our obligations in respect to bushfire mitigation restriction imposed by our DA and our BAL rating.

On (at least) one point in the EIS I do disagree very much with their assessment. This is regarding Shadow Flicker. The EIS states that:

"The shadow flicker assessment determined that actual shadow flicker impacts in excess of the
recommended limit of 10 hours per year are predicted within 50 m of 11 dwellings (nine involved, and two non-involved landholders). The exceedances at 50 m from the dwelling
predicted at the non-involved landholders are small. According to the SEARs, the shadow flicker impact was assessed at the dwellings itself and it was predicted to be in excess of the recommended limit of 10 hours per year at only eight dwellings, all of which are involved landowners."

Within the tables it lists the impact on the dwellings nominated. J76 was not listed as being affected. Only 11 of the 28 WTG closely sited to our residence are further South than the Point of sunset on the summer solstice. At this point the sun sets at a bearing of (approximately) 225 deg from our residence. This means that 17 of the WTG's form a constant backdrop to sunset all year round. Considering the proximity of these turbines to the dwelling, their height would mean a very long and all year round exposure to shadows from these towers in the afternoons.

To add to the previous point on turbine placement in relation to the setting sun, I must add that one of the wonderful "panoramic" views as stated by EPYC when discussing the aspects of the residence is sitting on the deck watching extraordinary sunset vistas. This would be stripped away with this proposal.

Although concentrating the previous statements on residence designated J76A we have been able to get some idea of the visual impact for J76B as well from images contained in the LCVIA forming part of the EIS. Although no photo montage has been produced from either residence, a photo was taken from our front gate looking across to the site where the new residence is to be built. This shows an almost unbroken line of windfarms with no possible opportunity to take advantage of the views other than to also be facing multiple WTG's. (Reference. Page 96 of the EIS Photo 18)

We recently had a visit from EPYC representatives who, although they were very polite and helpful in providing further information, were unable to offer anything constructive or encouraging with regards to our situation. An opportunity to be part of a Voluntary Benefit Sharing Plan was offered but I will not be considering this option at this time. I believe that signing up to such an arrangement at this point would imply we are complicit with the proposal which is definitely not the case. The fact that the Planning and Environment would prefer such arrangements be made prior to final assessment is hardly surprising however we will not be a party to this.

In conclusion, I feel that should this proposal proceed our position here would be untenable. Our property would be so severely impacted by these towers that our chosen lifestyle would be destroyed. Any chance to recoup our investment would be next to nothing. Should this proposal proceed I would be seriously considering striving for a Voluntary Purchase Agreement. My understanding is that this may also be the recommendation of the Department of Planning in some instances.

I submit this for your consideration in good faith.

Regards,

Mark Burgess.

Sounds amazing. Great job! Fully in support