I have a property off Boro road at 3.3 km from the Braidwood Goulburn road turn-off, which is in the enclave excised out of the proposal (ie the poject proposes turbines north and south of this area).

My estimate is that three of the propsed turbines will be within the nominal 2kms of my property. Being surrounded by an industrial estate of turbines will completely annihilate the rural amenity value of the property. The NSW DPI publication "Living and Working in Rural areas" mentions that the "views that people enjoy from their property in rural areas are often key features in buying the property".

Contrary to what he proposal states, there are many small properties in and around the proposed industrial turbine estate. See for example the then Palerang Council's publication "Rural Living in Palerang" April 2016, for information on property sizes in the proposal area.

If the proposal; goes ahead a conditon of approval should be that the proponents buy out impacted property owners at pre project values.

On my reading of the main report part one and Figure 9.1- map of vegeation zones of the study area, they have either misidentifed or deliberately not included the veg type on the ridge (running north-south) east of proposed turbines (from north to south) 68, 24, 2 and 11 (the ridge is just outside the study area boundary shown on the map). The light blue area shown indicates veg type as "Silvertop ash - blue leaved stringybark shrubby open forest on ridges north east South Eastern Highlands Bioregion_Mod-Good_Good". I have walked over this ridge and it includes dense stands of she-oaks ( Allocasuariana littoralis, black she-oak?). The NSW gov environment web site mentions black she-oak is a favoured food of the glosssy black cockatoo. See http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/landholderNotes02GlossyBlackCockatoo.pdf. The site also mentions that the the Glossy Black-cockatoo is listed as `Vulnerable' on Schedule 2 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

I would also refer you to the Queanbeyan Palerang Council's intention to appose the proposal on the following grounds "Council is supportive of renewable energy projects but there are a number of concerns with this project being in a rural residential setting and not on broad acreage. Council will make a submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment opposing the Jupiter Wind Farm. The reason for the opposition to the development is due to the visual impacts, loss of amenity, blade switch impacts, issues associated with access roads and the detriment to further residential development and infrastructure development in the area. In light of the recent fire in the Currandooley and Tarago region, the effect the turbines would have on aerial firefighting needs to be carefully considered."

I look forward to your considered response to my submission and rejection of the proposal on the grounds that industrial turbine estates are not compatable with rural residential living.

My families home is referred to in the EIS as J272.

The pictures used to demonstrate mitigation are misleading and are taken from our driveway and not from the view from the house. The mitigation of trees used to reduce the visual impact is misleading as it does not show our view.

The picture leading the section on visual impact, the one taken with a dam in the forefront, is from my house and is actually looking across the landscape that would not include the turbines (outside the project area), I believe this is misleading as well.

To plant trees so close to our house would firstly ruin the panoramic view we currently have, secondly would pose a significant fire risk and thirdly risk our house if they fell as they would need to be so close they would damage the house.

I have two young children and I hold concerns for their health. We have been advised that there is currently no evidence that they have any ill effects on health but as we know the lack of credible research does not absolve the risk, it just proves such research is not supported financially for various reasons.

I am also concerned about the impact on the value of my property as the majority of value is in the unique view which would have 30 plus turbines introduced, scaring the natural landscape seen from my property.

I believe the state government is meant to protect its citizens and the fact that this is an unregulated industry which could change the proposal at any time prior to construction is very distressing.

I have been experiencing extreme stress over the whole process and find it difficult to maintain the concentration and effort that is required as a resident in NSW having to justify my rights regarding this project. I am concerned that without changes to legislation I will be required to submit many more objections until our rights are protected as this process appeals and becomes a drawn out affair over many years.

Renewable energy is important and I understand the requirement to invest in renewable alternatives, however there should be a legislated protection for affected landowners including buy out options. Not knowing what rights, if any, we might have is terribly distressing.

This submission is in the form of an objection to the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm on the grounds of the potential of the wind turbines to impact on the ability to undertake aerial firefighting activities in and around the project area.
Due to recent fires in the project study area and immediate surrounding properties, the "Detailed Bushfire Risk Assessment" on page 41, Table 6.5 of the EIS should be disregarded as the " low to medium risk of fire impacting on the surrounding environment", should be changed to a high risk of fire escaping the development site.
It states on page 42 that, "there is a relatively low density of residential farm houses and communities within and adjacent to the PA", this is a false and misleading statement, as the department well knows the density of properties and people living within a 2-5 km distance is of a high rate and therefore the unmitigated risk of loss of life, property and environment would be extreme.
It also states on page 41, that the aerial fire fighters, "must not fly lower than 500 feet ( 152 m ) above the highest point of the terrain or any object on it". This being the case then the recent Mount Fairy area fires would not have been accessible to aerial fire fighters and the fires would have therefore been uncontrollable.
With the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm Turbines being of a height of 173 m then that puts an even greater risk to aerial fire fighting and without the support of aerial fire fighting assistance the recent fires at Mount Fairy ( Currandooley Fire ) on the 17th January, 2017; the Lower Boro Fire on 10th December, 2016 and the fire on the 8th January, 2013 at the Sandhills/Mount Fairy Fire, would not have been controlled and a much larger loss to property would have been experienced.
All three of these fires were located in and around the proposed project site and approving another wind farm in this vicinity will be of great consequence and detrimental to the lives and property of surrounding residences.
The Department will be negligent by putting people at Mount Fairy in a highly dangerous situation as they will be placed in a NO FLY ZONE in having 3x wind farms, that is the Woodlawn wind farm, Capital 1 wind farm and the proposed Jupiter wind farm, surrounding them and putting them in a high risk tunnel.
Therefore on the grounds of unsuitability to wind turbines impacting on aerial fire fighting then the proposed Jupiter Wind Farm should be rejected as the lives of many residences will be at adversely affected.

Jupiter should not be approved given the large number of residents in the close vicinity who will suffer adverse
sleep, health, and lifestyle impacts as well as increased risk from bushfires and property devaluation.

Submissions concerning the Jupiter Wind Farm Proposal
(SSD 13_6277)

Team Leader
Resource Assessments
Department of Planning and Environment
320 Pitt Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000


Background

I have an interest in property on Mayfield Road, Tarago purchased in 2011.

I am informed that this property (where there is an approved residential building site) is less than 2 kilometres from the proposed construction of industrial wind turbines forming part of the Jupiter Wind Farm Proposal ('Proposal').

I object to the Proposal.

Brief History

At the time of the above purchase, appropriate due diligence was undertaken, particularly at local council (Goulburn Mulwaree) and statutory levels.

It was then established that the subject property was zoned RU1 Primary Production under the Goulburn Mulwaree LEP 2009. Certain uses were permitted with or without consent but in particular, Industry was prohibited.

Environmental facility was then defined as a building or place that provides for the recreational use or scientific study of natural systems, and includes walking tracks, seating, shelters, board walks, observation decks, bird hides or the like, and associated display structures and Windmill was then noted NOT to include a facility used for renewable energy purposes.

There was no evidence provided by the relevant 149 certificate (nor subsequent 149 certificates) that the property was the subject of a State Significant Development '(SSD') nor any provision within the certificate for such information, unlike other local NSW councils.

Notwithstanding the due diligence undertaken and its associated cost, EPYC Pty Ltd ('Proponent') lodged a State Significant Development application (SSD) stating that the capital investment value of the development is $300 million. Accordingly all bets were off at local level and the SSD relevant to the change of use within the district, takes precedence.

Query how this is not discrimination against the bona fide purchaser without notice. It seems completely unfair that the everyday punter is by-passed and ignored and expected to defend itself, in preference for a party with the larger cheque book.


State Significance

Query the significance of the Proposal to the State of NSW given that the Proponent is an Australian registered company controlled by a majority of foreign interests who no doubt ultimately financially benefit.

Query why this Proposal in all the circumstances is any more significant to the State of NSW than the existing use, lifestyle, wellbeing and standards of living of the increasingly populated community, the subject of the Proposal

Proponent Capacity and Project Funding

The Proponent has tendered its capabilities and expertise, yet from its own Financial Statements and Reports ('FSR') for year ended 30/06/2016 lodged with ASIC the following observations are made:

* the Proponent's foreign based shareholding well exceeds 90% and three of its four directors are foreign residents;

* Operating Results of the Proponent disclose LOSSES for YE 30/06/2015 and 30/06/2016 of $1.7M and $1.4M+ respectively;

* Reference is made in the FSR to Future Developments with the commentary

" Likely developments in the operations of the company and the expected results of those operations in future financial years have not been included in this report, as the inclusion of such information is likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the company."

Query the consistency of these remarks with the Proponent's disclosed capability statements, together with its apparent commitment to 'transparency' relevant to this Proposal.

* The ASIC form 388 discloses an 'Emphasis of Matter' by the Auditor and makes reference in paragraph (m) 'Going Concern' as follows:

Notwithstanding the accumulated losses of $6.3M in the company, the financial statements of the company have been prepared on a going concern basis. This basis has been applied as the directors have received confirmed commitments from the shareholders to inject additional capital into the company. It is the directors' belief that such capital will be sufficient to discharge the company's financial obligations as and when they fall due and payable"

Query whether the Proponent has applied for the consent of the Minister to undertake an SSD, disclosing a capital development investment value of $300M on the sole basis that the directors of the Proponent have received confirmed commitments from the majority foreign shareholders to inject additional capital into the company as and when required.

Putting to one side any possible government funding, surely in the first instance, the DPE calls for more substantial evidence and guarantee of financial security and capacity other than the Proponent stating that it thinks and believes it can pay for it,

Unlike most developments, the Proponent does not own the land, but ties it up, together with surrounding lands by host and benefit sharing agreements which deters other development, including for example, that of subdivision.

Consequently, it is conceivable that the Proponent could progress part way through this process and the shareholders refuse for whatever reason to contribute any more money. At that time the Proponent may hope that they can get another investor to carry it through to approval or completion. In the meantime, host and benefit sharing agreements are likely to remain in force until the wind farms are decommissioned. .This means that large areas of land could be locked up, unable to be more usefully exploited, for decades because the Proponent with no resources has been allowed to proceed down this path.

The Department cannot ignore these issues.

Landscape and Visual

The visual impact of industrial wind turbines on both landscape and residences in both the private and public domain is completely unacceptable.

The height of Australia Square in Sydney is 170m. The very thought of 88 Australia Square high buildings within the precinct of the rural county lifestyle town of Tarago and its surrounding areas is simply offensive. The Proponent cannot be serious.

Noise and Vibration

Intolerable effects of audible noise, resulting in the loss of quiet enjoyment and everything associated with such loss. The construction of industrial wind turbines can only have an impact negative to the amenity and quiet enjoyment currently being experienced and enjoyed by the populated community within the project area and its surrounding areas.

Health Issues

Consideration must be given to the adverse health effects arising from the very presence of a wind turbine, its proposed low frequency noise and infrasound, together with blade flicker.

It is not for me to establish that there are heath issues or not. I repeat that our property is less than 2km's from proposed wind turbines some 170m in height.

A member of our immediate family carries an implantable defibrillator and pacemaker - a matter of survival. I simply want a warranty from the Proponent and the personal guarantees from each and every director that there will be absolutely no health impact nor causal effect to the health of any member of family or any person arising from a wind turbine the subject of the Proposal.

Other Impact Factors Include

* Community amenity dysfunction
* Restrictions to other types of development
* Hazard and risk management necessary with introducing an industrial use;
* Traffic, transport and construction disruption

Aviation

Would emergency landing fields and roads remain available to light aircraft arising from the presence of industrial wind turbines?

Bush & Grass Fires

It is an established fact that the district in question is bush and grass fire prone. It is suggested that the incidents of increased risk of bushfire arises from the presence of industrial wind turbines. In addition, the risk to aerial fire-fighting is surely compromissed. The Proponent cannot be serious in suggesting anything but an increase in fire-fighting risk arising from the very presence of 88 x 170m high wind turbines.

I am not sure whether members of the Proponent have ever experienced the loss of property or livestock arising from a bushfire. It is a pretty horrendous sight, particularly seeing burnt animals huddled in a corner of a fenced paddock unable to escape. Imagine that! Of more concern however, is that of a human life being burnt to death unable to escape the ravages of fire.

If the likelihood of fire is of little to no concern to the Proponent, which appears to be the case, then it would be reasonable to call upon the responsible directors of the Proponent (specialised in its field) to provide personal warranties that should fire occur, it will not be the cause either directly or indirectly from the presence of a wind turbine.

Property Values and Restrictions

One cannot dismiss the likely depreciation of property values and restrictions on sales to host and surrounding properties, arising from the restrictions provided by registered leases or share benefit agreements.

In addition, query the concept that with the likely depreciation of property value, then the security of a lender under an existing loan arrangement could well require renegotiation of the loan to the detriment of the landowner.

Decommissioning

There are no guarantees at all provided by the Proponent that an industrial wind turbine will be properly decommissioned as required, let alone that they will be properly constructed on an approved site in the first place. Surely the Proponent and its directors must personally guarantee and also provide mandatory financial security relevant to the construction and decommissioning of these wind turbines. After all they are 'specialised' experts in these matters.

Alternative Proposal Sites

Has the Proponent considered or made any submissions on this aspect. For example, the less populated areas of Lake George, Morton National Park, or the Tasman Sea. Each of these areas are within more than reasonable distance of the link/connection to the transmission poles and wires in situ - whoever owns them.

Alternative forms of Renewable energy

Has the Proponent considered or made any submissions on this aspect. For example, Tesla Inc appears to have made unbelievable documented progress in the solar power and energy storing industry, particularly over the last 5 years. The Proponent's Proposal is noted to date to have been 5 years in the making, at least.

Apart from the debate of the inefficiency and uneconomic nature of wind energy as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there does appear to be disclosed dangers that wind energy is an unreliable power supply, together with risks to the stability of the power grid.

Consequences of Breach

What guarantees are there in the event of a breach by the Proponent of any of the terms of an approval?

Biodiversity

The Proponent's application itself confirms that the Proposal is not biodiversity compliant. Accordingly on this issue alone, why is this Proposal even being considered?

Nonetheless, whatever the environmental impact, please allow me to make a submission on behalf of the wedge tailed eagles and black cockatoos that breed, nest or frequent our property.

Our property comprises isolated acres of established 'snow gums', the home of much wildlife and birdlife. The stand of snow gums is less than 2 kilometres from a proposed site of industrial wind turbines. Black cockatoos may venture to 170 metres in height, one never knows. However, wedge tail eagles and their off-spring do soar to the height of these proposed wind turbines. What does the Proponent intend to do about that and the associated risks to this very real and inspiring birdlife?

As there are currently no wind turbines in the district, the chance of bird strike, let alone black cockatoo or eagle strike is NIL.

On-going Issues

In the event of an approval of the Proposal, will the DPE or any NSW government body provide affected members of the community with any assistance, advice or direction relevant to their rights concerning compensation, land acquisition, acoustic suppression, landscaping and claims for associated costs?

Consultation

In the circumstances of our Mayfield Road property, there has been no consultation, nor communication from or with the Proponent. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

It is understood that the Proponent may have approached certain landowners in the district relevant to hosting and benefit sharing arrangements. This of course leads to the debate that the Proponent has hardly been transparent with those members of the community, not privy to any side deals.

It is noted that the DPE notification letter sent to our address for service clearly held by local Council, easily found its way to the addressee.

It is understood that a previous attempt by the Proponent to lodge with the DPE an application with an accompanying EIS was rejected (inter alia) for the failure by the Proponent to satisfactorily consult or communicate with the local community.

At last I have been pointed to the Proponent's website, so I guess this is their way of communicating. The website actively publishes itself as:

an Australian renewable energy company with specialist expertise in developing wind farms in strategic locations to produce clean energy for a better environment and that it is committed to working with landowners in regional areas of Australia with suitable wind resources to generate clean electricity into the National Electricity Grid bringing significant environmental, economic and social benefits to those local areas.

It is the Proponent (controlled by foreign interests) which is the stated specialist in this significant Proposal, not their consultants or lawyers. Accordingly, in the interests of transparency and collaboration why is it not possible that the foreign directors meet with the community at the Tarago Town Hall. Sydney is a mere 21 hour Qantas (Australian airline) flight from Madrid via Dubai.

The Proponent is the stated specialist, so for the avoidance of doubt may we the community please hear from the foreign director specialists as to how they think this Proposal might seriously work in bringing significant environmental, economic and social benefits to the local area.

Government Responsibility

It is noted that in 2011 the NSW Government published a 10 year plan titled "NSW 2021 - A Plan to make NSW Number One".(Plan) Barry O'Farrell and his team encouraged us all to work to achieve each of the 32 listed Goals which included:

'Restore Accountability to Government'

Goal 29 - Restore Confidence and Integrity in the Planning System;
Goal 30 - Restore Trust in State and Local Government as a Service Provider;
Goal 31 - Improve Government Transparency by Increasing Access to Government Information;
Goal 32 - Involve the Community in Decision Making on Government Policy, Services and Projects

This is the same team that also announced a 'decade of decentralisation' encouraging the public (even to the extent of offering financial assistance) to decentralise and move to regional and country NSW which offered all of the health, financial, wellbeing and lifestyle benefits and amenities one could possibly wish for and expect in the rural country of NSW.

I object to the Proposal.

13 February, 2017

I object to the proposed Jupiter wind farm.

I object until such time as your department has provided evidence, which will stand up in court, that the wind farm will not blight the view from my particular property or surrounding areas and will not in any way, such as noise, harm our sleep or health or harm our amenity on this property or in other ways harm our lifestyle, including reception for TV, radio, mobile phone and internet, and affect the use of my property by native animal species, or disturb or harm domestic animals and pursuits involving those animal, and that it will not increase the bushfire threat to my property or increase the difficulty of protecting my property from bushfires or devalue my property.

I look forward to the provision by you of fully researched analysis independent of the developer, in relation to this particular property, to establish there will be no harm and, in the absence of such evidence, register my objection.

I object to the Jupiter Wind Farm as it is pointless to waste money on these monstrosities. There would be more sense in establishing a solar farm than these eyesores that blight the landscape and disturb the ecosystem of our beautiful country.

I wish to object to the Jupiter wind farm .
The towers are huge and will dominate the landscape to the detriment of all people for many kilometers.
Fire risk will be increased.
The risk to a family of wedge tail eagles that nest just off our boundary is unacceptably high.
Compensation offered by Jupiter to myself and the community is pathetically low.

We wish to object specifically to that portion of the project that is south of the Kings Highway . The visual impact and loss of amenity for a large number of landholders is huge relative to the cost and benefit to both jupiter and the community at large.
The southern section will require the most expensive infrastructure and landscape degradation for a relatively small amount of power.
The financial compensation offered by Jupiter is minute.
The increased fire risk as demonstrated by the recent fire at Tarago is considerable.

Please see my attached submission