As Per Attachment

To Whom It May Concern:

I object to the application to modify the development known as the Gullen Range Wind Farm for the following reasons.

I would also respectfully request an independent enquiry (perhaps by the NSW Ombudsman) outside of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure into the planning process which resulted in the current planning debacle that has taken place with reference to the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

The primary question that I have is why is a retrospective modification to the development application being considered? Should not a retrospective consideration be given to the Upper Lachlan Shire Council's two kilometre setback for wind turbines? The NSW State Government has draft legislation regarding a two kilometre setback as well. Can not this be retrospectively applied to the Gullen Range Wind Farm?

The development has severely breached the conditions of consent in the original approval by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure as well as the conditions imposed by the NSW Land and Environment Court.

The overwhelming majority of turbines (69 out of 73) have been relocated in defiance of the Court's decision regarding the Gullen Range Wind Farm. In any parlance, it would seem that this constitutes an illegal development.

Serious questions need to be addressed in either a public or judicial enquiry regarding the lack of oversight on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as to how the development was allowed to proceed from the planning phase to the actual construction phase without appropriate scrutiny of these major changes.

What is equally concerning is the Department of Planning and Infrastructure is permitting a number of these illegally constructed turbines to operate (and presumably earn Renewable Energy Certificates) under the guise of "testing" the turbines. This is a level of corporate chicanery that is stupefying in its sheer gall.

Turbine Pomeroy 1 is particularly obtrusive since it has been moved 123 metres. The loss of visual amenity, which would have been ameliorated by the landscape and topography if the turbine had been located as per the development, is particularly offensive.

In the same league is the scope of the switching/substation located within approximately 400 m of my back boundary. The size of the substation depicted photographically in the original development proposal is quite small compared with what has actually been constructed. My reality is that the substation is quite visible from many points on my property (including my garden) and the loss of visual amenity has rendered my property difficult, if not impossible to sell.

Whether or not I choose to sell my property or stay here in my retirement is really not the point. The option to sell (at a fair market price) has been removed; my freedom of choice has been removed. To confirm this I have consulted with a number of local real estate agents from both Crookwell and Goulburn who have confirmed that my proximity to the development devalues my property by hundreds of thousands of dollars and that to sell, I would have to accept a significantly discounted figure in the order of 40-50% of the worth of my house and landholding.

There really is no appropriate recompense that can be offered to me for the imposition of this development and the proposed modifications, considering the financial and personal investment I have made in this property. The only possible alternative is that my property is acquired at pre-development prices; although as I stated previously, that is not sufficient for what I have personally invested, not only in money, but in time, effort and sheer hard work. I have worked thousands of hours and invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve the landscape and establish an environmentally coherent environment on this property.

All that work and investment has been effectively and efficiently negated by this wind farm.

Again, permit me to reiterate my objection to the developer's modification application. This particular developer has been unco-operative and insensitive to the point of being a corporate rogue without a shred of consideration for the neighbours to this inappropriately sited industrial installation.

And, again, I would ask that an independent enquiry be conducted so that the current fiasco besetting the residents affected by this installation is not repeated at another locale in New South Wales and that proper recompense is given to those affected by the Gullen Range Wind Farm.

Sincerely,


Charles E Barber

177 Prices Lane
Bannister NSW 2580

I could be described in the reports as receiver B5.
In review of the documentation relation to the revised locations I note the following;
1. I note a reduction in shadow flicker to 0 hours per annum, which is pleasing to see.
2. In the document Gullen Range WF Mod_1 EA_01 April 2014 - Part 4 table 6.3, it notes an increase of 0.1DB. However this goes against their submitted table showing that a more realistic increase would be in the range of 2-5DB which is a significant change.
3. The document shows that instead of 2 towers within 2km of the property I now have one, this is clever writing as it is clearly taken from a point in my house paddock that just places this outside the 2km range by a small margin. I have attached a pdf file showing the relative changes.
4. No one ever consulted with our family about the change, which is what upsets us the most. We knew there were issues as works had stalled on that particular tower (it was skipped in the sequence prior to construction)
I see any increase in noise levels as unacceptable to previously approved locations therefore we oppose BAN15 to remain in its current position. This could have been prevented through positive community consultation and a more proactive approach by the proponent. It is very disappointing to see our new corporate citizen behave in such a manner.
Kind Regards,
John, Angela and Torah de Groote
345 Kialla Road
Crookwell.

see attachment

see attachment