Rob Post
Object
Rob Post
Object
Bannister
,
New South Wales
Message
Submission relating to the proposed Modification Application for the Gullen Range Windfarm - 07_0118MOD1.
From: Robert and Melissa POST of 266 (Lot 2) Bannister Lane, Bannister NSW.
Our Situation:
Our family resides at the above address and our property shares a boundary with the Gullen Range Windfarm project. Our residence is identified by the applicant as B20. Our property is located directly between the "Bannister" group of turbines and the "Pomeroy" group of turbines. The closest Windturbines are within 1.5km of our house. Several of the closer turbines of both the "Bannister"group and the "Pomeroy"group have been relocated closer to our house. These turbines are among those that are the subject of the Modification Application and impact upon our property.
It would appear that in the Modification Application to the DPI, the applicant has not included our residence for consideration, with it being omitted from tables and comment. We wish very much for our home to be considered as part of this application as it is one of the most affected homes.
We can indicate that at no time have we consented to the relocation of these turbines, expressed or implied and in fact we oppose it. We do not have any agreement with the applicant in relation to noise easement or visual amenity. We can see no reason why our home should not be considered as part of the assessment for this application. If the applicant indicates to the DPI otherwise, then we wish to be heard on that matter and take it further prior to any approval of the relocation of turbines. Our contact details are listed below.
The Application:
The applicant has indicated in the application that there was only a "minor adjustment" by relocating turbines. With many turbines being relocated over 100 metres it would be ludicrous to consider it a minor adjustment. The applicant was well aware that the DPI determined the provision for the applicant to relocate turbines by up to 250 metres be removed from the approval, in fact prohibiting it. The applicant previously argued against that point so was well aware of their obligations in that regard and consciously went against that determination.
The relocation of these turbines should be considered as a new development application with conditions that afford some protection to residents of this state residing nearby. This application should be treated as any other new application for Windfarm construction that now abide by a 2km set back condition imposed by the DPI. This condition obviously put in place for many reasons. Those reasons apply to these relocated turbines as much as any new application to construct a turbine. The impacts on nearby houses are the same.
Visual Amenity:
Our home and some close neighbours have Turbines impacting on them from the north and the south. To the north there are no less than 12 Turbines in close proximity that are in view located high upon the hills above our house. All of these have been relocated from their approved location, some significantly closer to our house.
Prior to their construction, we repeatedly requested to see Photomontages of the proposed view of the turbines from our house. This was requested from both the Gullen Range Windfarm Pty Ltd and also the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. These requests were ignored and at no time did we have the opportunity to view a representation of the proposed outlook. Now that construction is almost completed, we can see twice the number of turbines than had been indicated verbally to us by the applicant to the north. Possibly attributed to the relocation of the turbines.
Due to the elevated position of the relocated turbines to the north of our home, any proposed screening would not be effective unless positioned closely alongside our home which would then restrict access to the northern sun and obstruct views across our land. We have requested from various employees and contractors of the Gullen Range Windfarm to tell us how it is proposed this could be satisfactorily screened. To date no one has been willing to answer this question. Due to the relocation of these turbines it has increased the impact on our home not only because some have been moved closer, but they have also been placed higher than their approved locations.
To the south of our home, the closest turbine has been moved considerably closer. It is afforded some existing screening and we acknowledge this area may be effectively screened to our satisfaction with noise from this turbine and others to the south being our main concern.
The applicant has recently offered screening options to address visual amenity. Consideration of any screening options should take into account maturity of trees etc to be used. It is no use planting something that will take half the working lifetime of the turbine to go anywhere near screening it. Any screening option needs to be immediate, effective and demonstrable prior to implementing. The applicant has not previously satisfied us of landscaping options or their ability to screen turbines when requested repeatedly to do so. The relocation of turbines closer to our home further reduces the visual enjoyment of our property. We are concerned the applicant will not be able to adequately address this issue and if the modification is granted any screening option may not be adequate.
The issue of Visual Amenity should be addressed by the applicant with agreement from landholders on any screening or other option (or referred to the DPI for adjudication), prior to approval of any relocation of turbines.
Noise:
Our home is directly between the "Bannister"and "Pomeroy"groups of turbines. Several of the turbines have been relocated closer to our house from both directions and obviously this must increase noise levels from these turbines to our home. In original environmental assessments, our house (grouped with neighbours) was clumped into a single receptor for noise tests. The receptor for these tests was placed at a location significantly lower in altitude than our home and neighbours. The location of this receptor has exposure to less than 20% of the number of turbines that our home is exposed to now that some have relocated closer. There is a large amount of land mass and vegetation located between the location of that receptor and most of the turbines. We would contest that the noise tests that were applied to our home and now relied upon by the applicant for the relocated turbines are not accurate. This should be independently assessed by the DPI. If this is the case for our home we are confident it may have occurred elsewhere.
With many relocated turbines being placed closer to and higher above our home we are greatly concerned about the noise impacts on our home. We would request that the Director General conducts independent noise tests and monitoring directly (not generally) relevant to our home prior to approving any relocation of turbines.
Consultation:
We have received no direct, verbal consultation in relation to the relocation of these turbines from the Gullen Range Windfarm Pty Ltd (where others have). We did however have a visit from Chris HOUGHTON a consultant working for Goldwind who repeatedly stated that he was only visiting to confirm contact details of residents on behalf of Goldwind. He did not provide us with any information relating to the relocated turbines. We spoke with others in the district who spoke with Chris HOUGHTON about this time and were provided with information about relocated turbines.
On the 23 April 2014 we did receive correspondence by way of a flyer in the mail box relating to a "Project Update". Within this, mention is made of the Modification application.
We are aware that Neville Osborne of the DPI has conducted site visits to various landholders as a result of this Modification application. We welcome that move however some homes visited are over 3km from the closest turbine. To our knowledge no one has visited our close neighbours, or us, despite the fact we are within 1.5km of the closest turbine and among the most affected residents. We invite the DPI to visit our property to assess, first hand, the stated impacts.
There are only a relatively small number of residents within 1.5km of a turbine. It would not be unreasonable for ALL to have the opportunity to demonstrate to DPI how they are affected by the relocated turbines and voice their concerns prior to approving any relocation of turbines.
Thankyou for the opportunity to respond to this modification application.
Rob & Melissa POST
266 Bannister Lane, Bannister NSW 2580
Ph: (02) 48443259 Mob: 0407274115
Email: [email protected]
Original letter to be forwarded by Post.
From: Robert and Melissa POST of 266 (Lot 2) Bannister Lane, Bannister NSW.
Our Situation:
Our family resides at the above address and our property shares a boundary with the Gullen Range Windfarm project. Our residence is identified by the applicant as B20. Our property is located directly between the "Bannister" group of turbines and the "Pomeroy" group of turbines. The closest Windturbines are within 1.5km of our house. Several of the closer turbines of both the "Bannister"group and the "Pomeroy"group have been relocated closer to our house. These turbines are among those that are the subject of the Modification Application and impact upon our property.
It would appear that in the Modification Application to the DPI, the applicant has not included our residence for consideration, with it being omitted from tables and comment. We wish very much for our home to be considered as part of this application as it is one of the most affected homes.
We can indicate that at no time have we consented to the relocation of these turbines, expressed or implied and in fact we oppose it. We do not have any agreement with the applicant in relation to noise easement or visual amenity. We can see no reason why our home should not be considered as part of the assessment for this application. If the applicant indicates to the DPI otherwise, then we wish to be heard on that matter and take it further prior to any approval of the relocation of turbines. Our contact details are listed below.
The Application:
The applicant has indicated in the application that there was only a "minor adjustment" by relocating turbines. With many turbines being relocated over 100 metres it would be ludicrous to consider it a minor adjustment. The applicant was well aware that the DPI determined the provision for the applicant to relocate turbines by up to 250 metres be removed from the approval, in fact prohibiting it. The applicant previously argued against that point so was well aware of their obligations in that regard and consciously went against that determination.
The relocation of these turbines should be considered as a new development application with conditions that afford some protection to residents of this state residing nearby. This application should be treated as any other new application for Windfarm construction that now abide by a 2km set back condition imposed by the DPI. This condition obviously put in place for many reasons. Those reasons apply to these relocated turbines as much as any new application to construct a turbine. The impacts on nearby houses are the same.
Visual Amenity:
Our home and some close neighbours have Turbines impacting on them from the north and the south. To the north there are no less than 12 Turbines in close proximity that are in view located high upon the hills above our house. All of these have been relocated from their approved location, some significantly closer to our house.
Prior to their construction, we repeatedly requested to see Photomontages of the proposed view of the turbines from our house. This was requested from both the Gullen Range Windfarm Pty Ltd and also the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. These requests were ignored and at no time did we have the opportunity to view a representation of the proposed outlook. Now that construction is almost completed, we can see twice the number of turbines than had been indicated verbally to us by the applicant to the north. Possibly attributed to the relocation of the turbines.
Due to the elevated position of the relocated turbines to the north of our home, any proposed screening would not be effective unless positioned closely alongside our home which would then restrict access to the northern sun and obstruct views across our land. We have requested from various employees and contractors of the Gullen Range Windfarm to tell us how it is proposed this could be satisfactorily screened. To date no one has been willing to answer this question. Due to the relocation of these turbines it has increased the impact on our home not only because some have been moved closer, but they have also been placed higher than their approved locations.
To the south of our home, the closest turbine has been moved considerably closer. It is afforded some existing screening and we acknowledge this area may be effectively screened to our satisfaction with noise from this turbine and others to the south being our main concern.
The applicant has recently offered screening options to address visual amenity. Consideration of any screening options should take into account maturity of trees etc to be used. It is no use planting something that will take half the working lifetime of the turbine to go anywhere near screening it. Any screening option needs to be immediate, effective and demonstrable prior to implementing. The applicant has not previously satisfied us of landscaping options or their ability to screen turbines when requested repeatedly to do so. The relocation of turbines closer to our home further reduces the visual enjoyment of our property. We are concerned the applicant will not be able to adequately address this issue and if the modification is granted any screening option may not be adequate.
The issue of Visual Amenity should be addressed by the applicant with agreement from landholders on any screening or other option (or referred to the DPI for adjudication), prior to approval of any relocation of turbines.
Noise:
Our home is directly between the "Bannister"and "Pomeroy"groups of turbines. Several of the turbines have been relocated closer to our house from both directions and obviously this must increase noise levels from these turbines to our home. In original environmental assessments, our house (grouped with neighbours) was clumped into a single receptor for noise tests. The receptor for these tests was placed at a location significantly lower in altitude than our home and neighbours. The location of this receptor has exposure to less than 20% of the number of turbines that our home is exposed to now that some have relocated closer. There is a large amount of land mass and vegetation located between the location of that receptor and most of the turbines. We would contest that the noise tests that were applied to our home and now relied upon by the applicant for the relocated turbines are not accurate. This should be independently assessed by the DPI. If this is the case for our home we are confident it may have occurred elsewhere.
With many relocated turbines being placed closer to and higher above our home we are greatly concerned about the noise impacts on our home. We would request that the Director General conducts independent noise tests and monitoring directly (not generally) relevant to our home prior to approving any relocation of turbines.
Consultation:
We have received no direct, verbal consultation in relation to the relocation of these turbines from the Gullen Range Windfarm Pty Ltd (where others have). We did however have a visit from Chris HOUGHTON a consultant working for Goldwind who repeatedly stated that he was only visiting to confirm contact details of residents on behalf of Goldwind. He did not provide us with any information relating to the relocated turbines. We spoke with others in the district who spoke with Chris HOUGHTON about this time and were provided with information about relocated turbines.
On the 23 April 2014 we did receive correspondence by way of a flyer in the mail box relating to a "Project Update". Within this, mention is made of the Modification application.
We are aware that Neville Osborne of the DPI has conducted site visits to various landholders as a result of this Modification application. We welcome that move however some homes visited are over 3km from the closest turbine. To our knowledge no one has visited our close neighbours, or us, despite the fact we are within 1.5km of the closest turbine and among the most affected residents. We invite the DPI to visit our property to assess, first hand, the stated impacts.
There are only a relatively small number of residents within 1.5km of a turbine. It would not be unreasonable for ALL to have the opportunity to demonstrate to DPI how they are affected by the relocated turbines and voice their concerns prior to approving any relocation of turbines.
Thankyou for the opportunity to respond to this modification application.
Rob & Melissa POST
266 Bannister Lane, Bannister NSW 2580
Ph: (02) 48443259 Mob: 0407274115
Email: [email protected]
Original letter to be forwarded by Post.
Grant Winberg
Object
Grant Winberg
Object
ROSLYN
,
New South Wales
Message
Modification Application of Gullen Range Wind Farm (GRWF) Project Approval (MP:07_0118 MOD l)
I am opposed to the above application.
As a ratepayer in the Upper Lachlan Shire and having seen the devastating effect wind turbines are having on our local environment and community, I must request that before Goldwind are allowed to proceed with a modification application to amend their original application and taking into account that the developers have already moved 69 of the 73 turbines without notification, that the Department of Planning commission a truly independent survey of the distances of turbines from non-host residences and also the distances between turbines.
I also request that this independent study provide a comparison of these distances to those provided in the original EIS.
I also believe that Goldwind has not complied with reasonable community consultation processes by deliberately moving these turbines with no prior notification to either the Department or to those non-host residents most affected by any new developments.
It is incomprehensible that Goldwind could breach the Land & Environment Court judgement in such a blatant manner without being required to cease construction. No doubt the Department's compliance regime will ensure this never occurs again (with either this or any other such project).
Further, I believe the Department should require Goldwind to alter this application for amendment to remove those turbines which do not comply with the current draft guidelines (in particular those turbines within 2kms of non host residences).
I am opposed to the above application.
As a ratepayer in the Upper Lachlan Shire and having seen the devastating effect wind turbines are having on our local environment and community, I must request that before Goldwind are allowed to proceed with a modification application to amend their original application and taking into account that the developers have already moved 69 of the 73 turbines without notification, that the Department of Planning commission a truly independent survey of the distances of turbines from non-host residences and also the distances between turbines.
I also request that this independent study provide a comparison of these distances to those provided in the original EIS.
I also believe that Goldwind has not complied with reasonable community consultation processes by deliberately moving these turbines with no prior notification to either the Department or to those non-host residents most affected by any new developments.
It is incomprehensible that Goldwind could breach the Land & Environment Court judgement in such a blatant manner without being required to cease construction. No doubt the Department's compliance regime will ensure this never occurs again (with either this or any other such project).
Further, I believe the Department should require Goldwind to alter this application for amendment to remove those turbines which do not comply with the current draft guidelines (in particular those turbines within 2kms of non host residences).
Michael Conroy
Object
Michael Conroy
Object
Booker Bay
,
New South Wales
Message
PDF file attached
Attachments
Michael Conroy
Object
Michael Conroy
Object
Booker Bay
,
New South Wales
Message
See attached document.
Attachments
Object
Object
Ettalong
,
New South Wales
Message
The ALP Umina-Ettalong Branch has not made political donations of more than $1000 in the last two years. However, it is a branch of the NSW Australian Labor Party which would have received and/or given such donations which are disclosed to the Election Funding Authority.
Attachments
Object
Object
Ourimbah
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see attached submission