Jayne Apps
Object
Jayne Apps
Object
Boorowa
,
New South Wales
Message
The application for modification to the Gullen Range Wind Farm should not be approved, and the entire project should undergo a complete and comprehensive review before being able to continue work on any part of the development.
In this day and age of outstanding surveying technology the sighting of the individual turbines should have been finalised at the time of submission of the original application.
The fact that sixty nine wind turbines have been relocated, ranging from 1m to 187m at the whim of the developers, without gaining consent from either NSW Department of Planning or those living within the proximity of the project, should not be accepted.
Non associated residences within 2 km now have turbines up to 155m closer to their homes than what they originally anticipated, with associated residences within 2km having turbines up to 166m closer to them.
Taking into consideration the fact that NSW Department of Planning considered living within 2km's of wind turbines a significant factor when putting together their NSW Draft Wind Farm Guidelines, I feel the entire project should be stopped immediately until a guarantee from the proponents can be given to these residents that their health and quality of life will not be impacted in any way, and that the entire project is compliant with all rules, regulations and permissions.
Photo Montages included in the application are not clear and, although they are probably an accurate representation of the view, do no give a true picture of being on the site and living in view of the turbines.
The concerns noted by the proponent on page 21 of the Modification Application - 'The alternative activities that would be required to reconstruct parts of the project that are not approved by the modification application involve significant time, work and expenditure. A refusal of this modification application will seriously impact the commercial viability of the project' - are minor compared with the impact to those people living in close proximity to these turbines for the next 25 years, and the probable inability to be able to sell their properties on the open market. Any other citizen or business in Australia pay the price of not complying to rules, regulations and permissions, so why should this company be exempt.
I feel an example needs to be made of this project to ensure that the companies planning and proposing further wind power development do not think they can also treat the people and environment within the footprint of their proposals with the same contempt and misinterpretation of the rules that Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd appear to have done.
It is also my concern that this may be only one of many non compliant issues. It is my understanding that the wrong placement of individual turbines was originally brought to the attention of the NSW Department of Planning by local residents and not compliance officers as one would expect.
One point of concern that may not have been complied with is the prevention of noxious weed spread. I have visited the Gullen Range site on an arranged tour and noticed one of the sites was a mass of serrated tussock. When asked what was being done to mitigate spread of the weed seed we were told by the employed tour guide that there are wash down sites for all vehicles at the boundary of all properties. However, our bus drove from one property to the next, was not washed down, and I could not see any equipment or facilities for this to be done.
In closing I again strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse this application on the grounds that there has been a breach of the approvals given to the developer, and there may also be many other non compliance issues. All work should cease on the project until both the original and current applications have been investigated to ensure what is said to have been done is actually done.
In this day and age of outstanding surveying technology the sighting of the individual turbines should have been finalised at the time of submission of the original application.
The fact that sixty nine wind turbines have been relocated, ranging from 1m to 187m at the whim of the developers, without gaining consent from either NSW Department of Planning or those living within the proximity of the project, should not be accepted.
Non associated residences within 2 km now have turbines up to 155m closer to their homes than what they originally anticipated, with associated residences within 2km having turbines up to 166m closer to them.
Taking into consideration the fact that NSW Department of Planning considered living within 2km's of wind turbines a significant factor when putting together their NSW Draft Wind Farm Guidelines, I feel the entire project should be stopped immediately until a guarantee from the proponents can be given to these residents that their health and quality of life will not be impacted in any way, and that the entire project is compliant with all rules, regulations and permissions.
Photo Montages included in the application are not clear and, although they are probably an accurate representation of the view, do no give a true picture of being on the site and living in view of the turbines.
The concerns noted by the proponent on page 21 of the Modification Application - 'The alternative activities that would be required to reconstruct parts of the project that are not approved by the modification application involve significant time, work and expenditure. A refusal of this modification application will seriously impact the commercial viability of the project' - are minor compared with the impact to those people living in close proximity to these turbines for the next 25 years, and the probable inability to be able to sell their properties on the open market. Any other citizen or business in Australia pay the price of not complying to rules, regulations and permissions, so why should this company be exempt.
I feel an example needs to be made of this project to ensure that the companies planning and proposing further wind power development do not think they can also treat the people and environment within the footprint of their proposals with the same contempt and misinterpretation of the rules that Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd appear to have done.
It is also my concern that this may be only one of many non compliant issues. It is my understanding that the wrong placement of individual turbines was originally brought to the attention of the NSW Department of Planning by local residents and not compliance officers as one would expect.
One point of concern that may not have been complied with is the prevention of noxious weed spread. I have visited the Gullen Range site on an arranged tour and noticed one of the sites was a mass of serrated tussock. When asked what was being done to mitigate spread of the weed seed we were told by the employed tour guide that there are wash down sites for all vehicles at the boundary of all properties. However, our bus drove from one property to the next, was not washed down, and I could not see any equipment or facilities for this to be done.
In closing I again strongly urge the NSW Department of Planning to refuse this application on the grounds that there has been a breach of the approvals given to the developer, and there may also be many other non compliance issues. All work should cease on the project until both the original and current applications have been investigated to ensure what is said to have been done is actually done.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Comment
South Turrumurra
,
New South Wales
Message
Whilst supporting the need for environmentally sustainable developments in our community such as wind and solar projects, too many times the 'planning rules' are pushed to the limit by the developers, to the point where we as the community are left with no choice to live with the outcome they have chosen.
The obvious reasons for choosing alternative locations, once contracts for construction have been selected, as indicated in the Goldwind documents, is time and cost savings in construction. The environmental assessments had already been done so any changes at this time are not related to this as it attempts to portray in the documents.
To shift 69 of the 73 means either the environmental assessment initially was wrong, or more likely, the developers and the subcontractors were looking to reduce construction costs.
We would therefore expect as a community to see some form of penalty (or contribution made by the Developer) to reflect this cost savings they have achieved, given we as the community have to retrospectively accept a project outcome different to what was originally approved.
If there was no reduction in construction cost or risk to them, then they would not have made the changes, simple as that.
Thanks to the Department of Planning for stepping in and protecting the process set up to ensure the outcomes presented are what Developers are obliged to present.
The obvious reasons for choosing alternative locations, once contracts for construction have been selected, as indicated in the Goldwind documents, is time and cost savings in construction. The environmental assessments had already been done so any changes at this time are not related to this as it attempts to portray in the documents.
To shift 69 of the 73 means either the environmental assessment initially was wrong, or more likely, the developers and the subcontractors were looking to reduce construction costs.
We would therefore expect as a community to see some form of penalty (or contribution made by the Developer) to reflect this cost savings they have achieved, given we as the community have to retrospectively accept a project outcome different to what was originally approved.
If there was no reduction in construction cost or risk to them, then they would not have made the changes, simple as that.
Thanks to the Department of Planning for stepping in and protecting the process set up to ensure the outcomes presented are what Developers are obliged to present.
Dennis Workman
Object
Dennis Workman
Object
Yalbraith
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission re :07_0118 MOD1
Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.
I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.
NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.
VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.
PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.
LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.
LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.
MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.
As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.
I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.
NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.
VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.
PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.
LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.
LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.
MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.
As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Bannister
,
New South Wales
Message
Gaye & Ed Dryden
PO Box 6028
North Goulburn Post Office
GOULBURN 2580 NSW
1 May 2014
Mr Toby Philp
Major Project Planning
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001 NSW
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1
Dear Mr Philp
We are writing to submit our views and concerns regarding the construction of and any future modifications to the GRWF Project. We own and live at 15 Walkoms Lane Bannister, and the view from our south facing boundary and our west facing boundary is now dominated by massive wind turbines. This change in the landscape has had a massive impact and has contributed to our decision to sell our property. We are currently in the process of making the necessary preparations to place it on the market in the hope of selling within the next twelve months.
We bought our property in the year 2000 as a place for our family to escape the pressures of city life in a location that offered everything we have come to expect from the country. When the GRWF development was first proposed my husband and I felt there was really nothing to worry about as we support the concept of green energy and both quite liked the majesty of the turbines. However over the past twelve months the reality of a 73 turbine wind farm on our back door has become crystal clear and we now feel as though our small farm is smack bang in the middle of an industrial area. The increase of heavy vehicles in the area as well as the high level of traffic past our front gate during construction has been horrendous; eventually locals had to erect a sign in an attempt to prevent work vehicles from using our small country lane as a thoroughfare to their worksite. This whole development has left an emotional and physical scar on the local area and its community and I fail to see how it can return to how it was prior to construction.
The chief concerns for us are:
1. That the GRWF development has had an impact on local property values and that this will in turn affect our ability to sell as well as the price we could realistically achieve. We are basing this opinion on conversations we have had with local people and visitors to the area.
2. That the local roads and environment will not be restored to the condition they were in prior to commencement of the GRWF development. The poor state of Range road together with increased wind farm traffic means that travelling to and from Goulburn is not only hazardous but increases overall vehicle wear and tear. I recently had to replace my new tyre and rim from damage received while passing a heavy vehicle.
3. That the area has lost a great deal of its charm as a quiet and peaceful country location, that is not too remote. This was the primary reason why we settled on this area and the GRWF development is one of the main reasons we are selling.
On these grounds we are opposed to any modifications to the current project and we also want to know how the GRWF developers intend to compensate the residents of the local community particularly those who live within the 5 kilometre zone. We feel that the Community Enhancement Program proposed by the developers does not come any where near making up for the potential and current losses incurred by residents in this community.
Yours Sincerely
Edward Dryden and Gaye Dryden
PO Box 6028
North Goulburn Post Office
GOULBURN 2580 NSW
1 May 2014
Mr Toby Philp
Major Project Planning
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY 2001 NSW
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1
Dear Mr Philp
We are writing to submit our views and concerns regarding the construction of and any future modifications to the GRWF Project. We own and live at 15 Walkoms Lane Bannister, and the view from our south facing boundary and our west facing boundary is now dominated by massive wind turbines. This change in the landscape has had a massive impact and has contributed to our decision to sell our property. We are currently in the process of making the necessary preparations to place it on the market in the hope of selling within the next twelve months.
We bought our property in the year 2000 as a place for our family to escape the pressures of city life in a location that offered everything we have come to expect from the country. When the GRWF development was first proposed my husband and I felt there was really nothing to worry about as we support the concept of green energy and both quite liked the majesty of the turbines. However over the past twelve months the reality of a 73 turbine wind farm on our back door has become crystal clear and we now feel as though our small farm is smack bang in the middle of an industrial area. The increase of heavy vehicles in the area as well as the high level of traffic past our front gate during construction has been horrendous; eventually locals had to erect a sign in an attempt to prevent work vehicles from using our small country lane as a thoroughfare to their worksite. This whole development has left an emotional and physical scar on the local area and its community and I fail to see how it can return to how it was prior to construction.
The chief concerns for us are:
1. That the GRWF development has had an impact on local property values and that this will in turn affect our ability to sell as well as the price we could realistically achieve. We are basing this opinion on conversations we have had with local people and visitors to the area.
2. That the local roads and environment will not be restored to the condition they were in prior to commencement of the GRWF development. The poor state of Range road together with increased wind farm traffic means that travelling to and from Goulburn is not only hazardous but increases overall vehicle wear and tear. I recently had to replace my new tyre and rim from damage received while passing a heavy vehicle.
3. That the area has lost a great deal of its charm as a quiet and peaceful country location, that is not too remote. This was the primary reason why we settled on this area and the GRWF development is one of the main reasons we are selling.
On these grounds we are opposed to any modifications to the current project and we also want to know how the GRWF developers intend to compensate the residents of the local community particularly those who live within the 5 kilometre zone. We feel that the Community Enhancement Program proposed by the developers does not come any where near making up for the potential and current losses incurred by residents in this community.
Yours Sincerely
Edward Dryden and Gaye Dryden
Adam Bush
Support
Adam Bush
Support
Scone
,
New South Wales
Message
Adam Bush
595 Dry Creek Rd
Scone NSW 2337
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing a letter of support for alteration of the final layout of the Gullen Range Wind Farm Project. Support for the alterations is based on a number of factors including:
I. A review of the Landscape and Visual Assessment dated 31/3/2014 compiled by Environmental Resources Management Australia. This review investigated the proposed and final layout of the wind farm and any possible changes to visual impacts. The report concluded that there were no changes compared to the initial assessment to visual impacts with the relocation of 69 turbines.
As follows : For these reasons outlined above there are no triggers that have been brought about by both the relocation of sixty-nine wind turbine and the height reduction that would cause me to alter my opinion of the visual impacts of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.
The visual impact of the as final design layout is consistent with the level of visual impact anticipated by initial assessment of the approved indicative layout.
II. Noise assessment impacts have been researched and documented in favour the relocation of 69 turbines. The report concluded that there will be no impacts on noise levels as detailed by Marshall Day Acoustics:
A detailed noise levels detailed noise impact assessment for the Final Design Layout, including a discussion of compliance, is documented in our report Rp002 r03 2012154SY Gullen Range Wind Farm Revised Noise Impact Assessment dated 25 September 2013 (RNA). The RNA considers predicted wind farm noise levels for the Final Design Layout1at 246 receivers neighbouring the wind farm. The RNA concludes that predicted noise from the wind farm achieves compliance with the relevant noise limits at all of the assessed receivers.
III. No conclusive aviation impacts as concluded by Aviation Projects Pty Ltd:
The changes to turbine locations and elevations from the approved indicative layout to the final design layout are minor and do not increase aviation impacts, specifically with respect to aircraft operations at Crookwell and Ashwell Aerodromes.
IV. The final turbine layout is consistent with the initial turbine layout which formed part of the Project Approval. This initial approval expressly permitted `minor relocation' of turbines. Minor relocation is a subjective term and relies upon a definition of being small or insignificant. I n the construction of a large scale 73 turbine wind farm, I would consider the changes to the final location of 69 turbines as being minor or insignificant.
V. The wind farm proponents Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd (GRWFPL) has demonstrated environmental and social impacts changes are minor or comparable to the original layout design.
VI. GRWFPL has comprehensively addressed all of the assessment requirements including environmental and social impacts which may be relevant to the Modification Application.
VII. GRWFPL has made a significant and substantial commitment to the implementation so far of this wind farm project. It has adhered and exceeded all environmental and social aspects (including local jobs) in the construction of the initial wind turbines.
In conclusion I am in favour and support the relocation of the nominated wind turbines. GRWFPL has provided independent and unbiased research to indicate that the final layout of the wind farm will have no adverse impacts on the environment and social aspects of this project. GRWFPL has already provided a substantial financial and social input into the local community and should be allowed to complete this project unhindered.
Regards
Adam Bush
595 Dry Creek Rd
Scone NSW 2337
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing a letter of support for alteration of the final layout of the Gullen Range Wind Farm Project. Support for the alterations is based on a number of factors including:
I. A review of the Landscape and Visual Assessment dated 31/3/2014 compiled by Environmental Resources Management Australia. This review investigated the proposed and final layout of the wind farm and any possible changes to visual impacts. The report concluded that there were no changes compared to the initial assessment to visual impacts with the relocation of 69 turbines.
As follows : For these reasons outlined above there are no triggers that have been brought about by both the relocation of sixty-nine wind turbine and the height reduction that would cause me to alter my opinion of the visual impacts of the Gullen Range Wind Farm.
The visual impact of the as final design layout is consistent with the level of visual impact anticipated by initial assessment of the approved indicative layout.
II. Noise assessment impacts have been researched and documented in favour the relocation of 69 turbines. The report concluded that there will be no impacts on noise levels as detailed by Marshall Day Acoustics:
A detailed noise levels detailed noise impact assessment for the Final Design Layout, including a discussion of compliance, is documented in our report Rp002 r03 2012154SY Gullen Range Wind Farm Revised Noise Impact Assessment dated 25 September 2013 (RNA). The RNA considers predicted wind farm noise levels for the Final Design Layout1at 246 receivers neighbouring the wind farm. The RNA concludes that predicted noise from the wind farm achieves compliance with the relevant noise limits at all of the assessed receivers.
III. No conclusive aviation impacts as concluded by Aviation Projects Pty Ltd:
The changes to turbine locations and elevations from the approved indicative layout to the final design layout are minor and do not increase aviation impacts, specifically with respect to aircraft operations at Crookwell and Ashwell Aerodromes.
IV. The final turbine layout is consistent with the initial turbine layout which formed part of the Project Approval. This initial approval expressly permitted `minor relocation' of turbines. Minor relocation is a subjective term and relies upon a definition of being small or insignificant. I n the construction of a large scale 73 turbine wind farm, I would consider the changes to the final location of 69 turbines as being minor or insignificant.
V. The wind farm proponents Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd (GRWFPL) has demonstrated environmental and social impacts changes are minor or comparable to the original layout design.
VI. GRWFPL has comprehensively addressed all of the assessment requirements including environmental and social impacts which may be relevant to the Modification Application.
VII. GRWFPL has made a significant and substantial commitment to the implementation so far of this wind farm project. It has adhered and exceeded all environmental and social aspects (including local jobs) in the construction of the initial wind turbines.
In conclusion I am in favour and support the relocation of the nominated wind turbines. GRWFPL has provided independent and unbiased research to indicate that the final layout of the wind farm will have no adverse impacts on the environment and social aspects of this project. GRWFPL has already provided a substantial financial and social input into the local community and should be allowed to complete this project unhindered.
Regards
Adam Bush
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
CROOKWELL NSW 2583
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission re :07_0118 MOD1 Gullen Range Wind Farm Modification
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.
I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.
NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.
VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.
PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.
LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.
LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.
MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.
As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
You will know that the Gullen Range development is the most offensive of its kind in its disregard for the NSW Govt's draft guidelines and the ULSC requirements in regard to setback.
To be allowed to apply for retrospective approval for the unauthorised and inappropriate placement of turbines should only be considered when matched with a retrospective application by the Gullen Range citizens to have those turbines removed that have been erected within the ULSC minimum setback.
The developer has demonstrated gross incompetence during the erection of these turbines and an astounding disregard for the authority of the Planning Department, behaviour which surely should not be rewarded.
May Hewitt
3281 Grabben Gullen Road
CROOKWELL NSW 2583
I make the following submission.
This developer should never have been allowed to relocate the vast majority of turbines in this development without Department of Planning approval.
I oppose the modification on these grounds - relocating turbines will have the following effects for local residents.
NOISE IMPACTS
Lack of rigour in noise assessment.
Due to moving turbines closer to homes, many residences will suffer from greater noise impacts not only from the individual turbine which has been moved but due to the cumulative effects of that turbine in relation to other turbines. Cumulative noise impacts have not been addressed in the modification documents. Only noise created by individual turbines has been modelled.
Increased Van der Berg effect from increased turbine elevation has not been assessed.
To impose this increased, constant noise nuisance is unjust.
VISUAL IMPACTS
To relocate turbines closer to homes and at higher elevation, increases the visual impact of the turbines at many non host residences.
PROPERTY DEVALUATION
Due to increase in proximity to turbines, the greater noise/visual pollution will result in even greater devaluation of the effected properties.
LOSS OF AMENITY
The increase in noise and visual pollution drastically reduces residents' enjoyment of outdoor activities.
LOSS OF INCOME
1.The increase in noise levels and shadow flicker effects can mean that some farmers will find it too dangerous to work in certain parts of their properties, reducing the amount of land from which income can be made.
2.For some farmers the ability to subdivide their property to gain additional income is lost due to the local Council's restrictions in regard to proximity to wind turbines.
MITIGATION
It may be considered that the relocation of turbines closer to dwellings could best be dealt with by the developer acquiring the effected properties.
As the effected property owners are NOT at fault here but have been put into an unenviable position by the developer, the Department of Planning should offer the property owner the right to decide if he/she wants to have their property bought by the developer OR
(a)have the most offensive turbines removed/relocated
OR
(b) gain other forms of compensation from the developer - financial or significant turbine curtailment (especially at night)
PUBLIC INQUIRY
Due to the developer's many breaches of compliance and the Department of Planning's inability to ensure that the developer complied with conditions of approval, I call for a public inquiry into the processes involved in approving / monitoring this development.
You will know that the Gullen Range development is the most offensive of its kind in its disregard for the NSW Govt's draft guidelines and the ULSC requirements in regard to setback.
To be allowed to apply for retrospective approval for the unauthorised and inappropriate placement of turbines should only be considered when matched with a retrospective application by the Gullen Range citizens to have those turbines removed that have been erected within the ULSC minimum setback.
The developer has demonstrated gross incompetence during the erection of these turbines and an astounding disregard for the authority of the Planning Department, behaviour which surely should not be rewarded.
May Hewitt
3281 Grabben Gullen Road
CROOKWELL NSW 2583
Elizabeth & Kenneth IKin
Comment
Elizabeth & Kenneth IKin
Comment
Bannister
,
New South Wales
Message
As Stud Stock cattle breeders, my husband live all the time on our farm, and have been in the thick of construction since the beginning. Yes it has caused some stress mainly by contractors not being aware that this is our lively hood. On the most part the team from Goldwind have always been a pleasure to deal with & very understanding of our needs.
Now the towers are up & functioning & traffic movements are less I honestly don't even notice them, yes we can hear them from our bedroom with the window open & also when outside, but this also depends on the direction of the wind.
I could be living in a busy city with continous traffic, honestly you don't notice them or the noise.
I work as a Registered nurse, fulltime & my prospective on this is there are worse thing than a wind tower, my view is move on & live your life stop focusing on negative points.
Now the towers are up & functioning & traffic movements are less I honestly don't even notice them, yes we can hear them from our bedroom with the window open & also when outside, but this also depends on the direction of the wind.
I could be living in a busy city with continous traffic, honestly you don't notice them or the noise.
I work as a Registered nurse, fulltime & my prospective on this is there are worse thing than a wind tower, my view is move on & live your life stop focusing on negative points.
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Support
CROOKWELL
,
New South Wales
Message
Desma Horton
2 Leila Mayoh Clos
CROOKWELL NSW 2583
1 May, 2014
Attention: Toby Philp
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1
To whom it may concern
I offer my support of the project known as the Gullen Range Wind Farm.
The Gullen Range Wind Farm has offered a great number of advantages for the local community of Crookwell and Goulburn with a great number of people being employed to construct the wind farm, with the contractors and sub-contractors. The subsequent benefits for the local communities, the rental of dwellings, local business houses being used by the employees and so on.
With the completion of the Gullen Range Wind Farm more benefits will be gained by the local community for example, the provision of a source of clean, green energy, the ongoing employment of permanent staff to manage the wind farm and the provision of an annual Community Benefit Fund offered by Goldwind to fund local community projects.
Any movement of the turbines was, I believe, done so with the greatest respect to the project, its boundaries, the surrounding land and environment.
I am annoyed about the amount of negative publicity, misinformation and irresponsible scaremongering this project has received, when there is a lot of positivity which could be reported to the community,
I cannot believe this project is so close to being completed, so I think is should proceed ahead as planned with no further delays so the wind farm can do what is was built to do and that is to produce a clean form of energy.
Yours sincerely
Desma Horton
2 Leila Mayoh Clos
CROOKWELL NSW 2583
1 May, 2014
Attention: Toby Philp
NSW Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001
Re: Submission - 07_0118MOD1
To whom it may concern
I offer my support of the project known as the Gullen Range Wind Farm.
The Gullen Range Wind Farm has offered a great number of advantages for the local community of Crookwell and Goulburn with a great number of people being employed to construct the wind farm, with the contractors and sub-contractors. The subsequent benefits for the local communities, the rental of dwellings, local business houses being used by the employees and so on.
With the completion of the Gullen Range Wind Farm more benefits will be gained by the local community for example, the provision of a source of clean, green energy, the ongoing employment of permanent staff to manage the wind farm and the provision of an annual Community Benefit Fund offered by Goldwind to fund local community projects.
Any movement of the turbines was, I believe, done so with the greatest respect to the project, its boundaries, the surrounding land and environment.
I am annoyed about the amount of negative publicity, misinformation and irresponsible scaremongering this project has received, when there is a lot of positivity which could be reported to the community,
I cannot believe this project is so close to being completed, so I think is should proceed ahead as planned with no further delays so the wind farm can do what is was built to do and that is to produce a clean form of energy.
Yours sincerely
Desma Horton
Charlie Prell
Support
Charlie Prell
Support
CROOKWELL
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish to make a brief submission in favour of the modification to the project application for the Gullen Range windfarm. After reading the relevant documents lodged with the department I can't see anything in the process that Goldwind has followed to disallow the modification. All of the turbine relocations except for one are either very, very minor or are moving the turbines away from the perimeter of the windfarm site. The documentation states that Goldwind has followed all directions from the department through the relocation process and I have no reason to disbelieve their statements to the department.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Bannister
,
New South Wales
Message
The Governance and Code of Conduct requirements for local citizens have been eroded by the blatant disregard for compliance by the developer. To rectify the position the non compiling turbines should be relocated onto the correct site. If not resited, considerable compensation should be paid to any non hosting resident who is disadvantaged by the turbines located closer to their house, no matter how small the distance.