I object to this modification proposal for the following reasons:
1. Wind power has been proved to be an unreliable and very costly
source of green energy contributing the hike in electricity prices to
residents and businesses.
2. Proven noise and health issues among people residing in the
vicinity of wind farm and devaluation of neighbouring homes and
property.
3. Destruction of old forest and habitat of wildlife and birds at the
construction site along with soil erosion both at the site and access
roads
4. Bird kill some of which are on the endangered list
5. Divisions between families and friends living in affected
communities especially when the majority of hosts do not even reside
on the host property.
6. Restriction of access by water bombing aircraft fighting a bushfire
within a wind farm site due to heavy smoke
7. Lack of State Government legislation enforcing proponentcompanies
to decommission wind towers once they have reached the end of their
productive life

I would like it known that I object to this windfarm.
Windfarms have no place in the Australian rural landscape . They are
industrial machines and therefore should be placed in an industrial
area close to Sydney where the power is needed.
Windpower is a poor source of renewable energy as it is intermittent
and unreliable.
Windfarms are not a 'light touch ' on the environment. they damage the
soil structure by digging out large areas of ground to host the
footings for the turbines and the cranes. The concrete used in these
footings is never removed resulting in lime being leached into the
soil. They carve unnecessary roads into the terrain, on sides of hills
destroying trees and the local environment.
Birds, bats and other flying creatures are killed and injured by the
blades of the turbines.
Noise levels are not adequately assessed by the NSW Government and
until proper studies of both audible and INFRASOUND noise is carried
out all windfarms should not be approved or built.
Do not allow this project to proceed.
It is not for the greater good rather for the good of a few hip
pockets.

I object to this expansion ( swept area by 56% and turbine power by 40%)
of the development by stealth.
This creates a vastly different development proposal which should be
treated as negating the content of the original proposal and should be
subjected to community appraisal and discussion before review and
recommendation by the DoPE.

An additional 10 metres in height is significant in the increased impact
it will have on visual amenity for non involved neighbours.

A detailed fire plan should be included so the community has certainty
over how a fire would be dealt with including the toxicity of burning
blades and the effects on citizens.

The increase blade length will considerably alter the physical
transportation of such large single component structures to the sites.

The project should provide a detailed plan on how the blades will be
dealt with during decommissioning as they can not be recycled.

Fire plans should also be upgraded for the increase in highly toxic,
flammable material the blades are constructed of.

Proponents should be declaring the end intended size and structure of
a project during public exhibition - ie future proof to include
maximum's based off potential turbine sizes and output. They should
not be allowed to seek approval on a smaller scale and slip through an
overall increase in the entire project when the review period for the
public is condensed down to 15 days.

All of the information contained within this modification should have
been included in the original proposal, that being

* increasing turbine height from 150m to 160m
* increasing blade length from 56m to 70m
* increasing swept area by 56%
* increasing av turbine power from 3.0MW to 4.2MW (40%)
* providing a connection to the grid

As is now the norm, this proposal consists of an ambit claim by the
developer, engineered to draw the least opposition, which is then
subjected to scope creep to the extent that the original proposal is
invalid. All other aspects of the sibmission relating to turbine size
(VI, Noise, blade glint, shadow flicker) must be re-assessed in light
of this change.

The proposal will:

increase turbine height from 150m to 160m
increase blade length from 56m to 70m
increase swept area by 56%
increase av turbine power from 3.0MW to 4.2MW (40%)
provide a connection to the grid

This is a major increase in impact, all which should have been dealt
with in the original proposal to which the community was forced to
respond. Now the community has 2 weeks to learn about this proposal
and respond. Bad faith.

DPE appears complicit in an attempt to mislead the community since
DPE's Mod4 description on website mentions only the increase in height
and the grid connection. It does not mention the increase in blade
length and 56% increase in swept area and it does not mention the 40%
increase in turbine power. Bad faith.

See attached.

Blayney Shire Council has no specific comments regarding Flyers Creek Wind Farm Modification 3.

It is noted Council is in the process of undertaking significant capital upgrades to Errowanbang Road including realignment of the road.

Infigen Energy are aware and have been provided with design plans showing the realignment of Errownabang Road.

Council have previously advised Infigen in its letter of 9 June 2015 as to the requirements for installation of power lines within Councils Road Reserves. These requirements would still stand. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed for your reference.

Please note the VPA which has previously been agreed and entered into may require modification to remove those properties no longer part of the project. Council would expect no other terms of the agreement would be altered.