Skip to main content
Back to Main Project

SSD Modifications


MOD 1 - Removing Turbines & Increase Turbine Dimensions

Snowy Monaro Regional, Snowy Monaro Regional

Current Status: More Information Required

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. Prepare Mod Report
  2. Exhibition
  3. Collate Submissions
  4. Response to Submissions
  5. Assessment
  6. Recommendation
  7. Determination

Due to a recent amendment to State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 the consent authority for this project is now the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces. The Minister has delegated determination of the project to the Department.

Reducing the overall number of turbines, and increasing dimensions of the Yandra cluster turbines, including a tip height increase from 152 m to 200 m.

Attachments & Resources

Modification Application (1)

Boco Rock Wind MOD 1 - Environmental Assessment

Response to Submissions (1)

Submissions Report

Amendments (1)

Modification Amendment Report

Additional Information (5)

Additional Information - 7 Aug 2020
DPIE letter to CWP - 7 July 2021.
Request for Information - Biodiversity - 07 July 2021
DPIE letter to CWP - 3 Sept 2021.
Amendment Report July 2020


Showing 41 - 60 of 66 submissions
Name Withheld
Cooma , New South Wales
I support this proposal to further increase the amount of renewable
energy in the mix of sources supplying the National Electricity
Market, backed by the success of Boco Rock Stage I.

After reviewing the application documents, my only suggestion is
consideration of a small (satellite) service depot or the like to be
included in or around the Yandra cluster as otherwise all maintenance
support & spares storage etc. appears to be based out of the distant
(by road) Stage I facility adjacent to the switch yard. This should
help improve efficiency of the maintenance effort and reduce vehicle
traffic once the proposed cluster is operational.
Name Withheld
Jindabyne , New South Wales
I am totally in favour of the proposed improvements to the Boco wind farm
I feel it is a wise decision to increase the "wind mills " as It will
have a fantastic environmental impact on Australia moving forward ,
harnessing the wind for free!!!!!
Howard Charles
Cooma , New South Wales
We lived for 3 years, the closest house to any of the wind towers.
We were 900 metres from the nearest tower, on our western side, ie the
prevailing wind is west.
We could hardly ever hear any of the noise and it certainly NEVER
disturbed us at all.
I seriously believe that any feelings of health risks from the towers
are figments of imagination.
If, as we are told, the new towers, with improved technology, are
quieter, then there should be no problems.
There is no town on Monaro that can see these towers.
Alan Gillespie-Jones
Bombala , New South Wales
Please see uploaded attachment concerning my objection to this
Fiona Taylor
Nimmitabel , New South Wales
I object to the modification to the project. The modification brings no
benefits to our community, indeed if approved less money would flow
into the community fund than under the approved project. I think
having lived with turbines the community is now aware that the pot of
gold promised by wind developers doesn't exist and would prefer to
minimise the ongoing landscape impact of these machines and maximise
community contributions from the Wind Farm.
200 m high machines have a far greater visual impact than the existing
turbines. Most importantly, the developer CWP has gone to some lengths
to disguise this. Their initial pictorial representation of the new
turbine was not to scale, deliberately understating its relative size.
Attempts to redress this were repeatedly frustrated by the Developer.
He used a larger machine than those installed at Boco Rock in the next
diagram and then when asked to incorporate vegetation for scale, used
a tree 30m high, two or three times the height of our native trees.
The visual difference is very clear in a photomontage provided to us
but provided months after it was requested and right at the start of
the submission process. It was this montage that made it clear how
much the developer has tried to muddy the discussion about the
modification with his constant suggestion that the increased height of
the turbines would be offset by the reduction in number.
I don't believe the existing project would have the support it did at
its conception. The turbines haven't brought jobs or boosted commerce.
The workers travelled through our little town without stopping. The
Community fund had not been distruibuted for three years. The host
landholders sold up and left as we predicted. The net environmental
impact of the 20 turbines is the same as the 30 but the visual impact
is so much more profound and the benefit to the community reduced. I
strongly oppose the modification. I have a number of emails that
verify my assertions re the deliberate misrepresentation of the
turbine size by the proponent. I will be happy to forward all to the
Finally once again the Developer has timed the approval process to
coincide with the busiest time of year for everyone. Maximising the
prospect of this unnecessary modification slipping under the radar.
His attempt to disguise the increase in size by referring primarily to
the reduction in numbers (even in his application) as the objective of
the modification is deceptive, misleading and disingenuous. He has
approval to build 30 turbines and the community has come to terms with
this possibility. He doesn't have community support to impose on us
anything more and should be denied approval.
Anthony Gardner
Braidwood , New South Wales
Please see attached submission
Charlie Taylor
MANLY EAST , New South Wales
To the Mayor and Councillors,
I seek your support to oppose the proposed project modification by CWP
to Boco Rock Wind Farm Stage 2 ( namely an increase in height of the
turbines from 130m to 200m) and request Council and all Councillors
make a submission to the Department of Land and Environment to that
effect. As you would be aware, submissions to the Department are open
until December 13th.
I wish to draw your attention to the systematic misrepresentation by
the proponent of the impact of this size increase. With the benefit of
hindsight, this intention is clear from the outset of the consultation
process. The timeline below sets out his course of action, one
premeditated to disguise the visual impact the modification would
June 2018: Mark Branson appears before Council to present proposed
modification (32 turbines at 130m to become 20 turbines at 200m tall).
I understand his appearance was unannounced. Images of the project are
presented as a "wire frame" bearing no relation to landscape as humans
understand it
July 2018: Initial mail out to the community. Size increase
represented using a "not to scale" diagram, deliberately
misrepresenting the difference in height.
July 2018: We request photo montage showing the visual impact on our
August 2018: Following community protest, new "to scale" diagrams were
created but the approved, not installed, turbines were shown as the
comparison (which once again understated the increase in size as the
developer has approval for turbines to 150m). After protest from a
member of the Nimmitabel CCC, the images were amended to show
installed vs proposed turbine.
CWP was requested to include some depiction of vegetation to provide a
perspective, they misleadingly used a 30m tree, at least double the
size of our local trees.
November 26th: Last date for members of the public to request to
present to Council.
November 28: Modification application on Exhibition and submissions
open. Closing date December 13th , not coincidentally, at the busiest
time of year for most people.
November 30: We receive photomontage clearly showing the significantly
increased visual impact made by the larger turbines. 13 days left to
make a submission.
December 7th: Council meets
December 13th: Submissions close
In addition to his actions, the proponent has consistently, and
repeatedly, verbally suggested the reduction in number of turbines
compensates for the increased size in the context of visual impact. He
has been fully aware this is not the case. The timeline of his actions
demonstrates how he has deliberately obfuscated the landscape impacts
and has successfully lulled our community into acquiescence through
The proponent should not be allowed to modify the project to install
these super turbines on the Monaro. It is worth bearing in mind that
each generation of machine will be larger with machines over 300m in
development. The huge proposed 200m turbines bring nothing extra to
our region, no extra income, no additional employment, no greater
community fund contributions. The proponent has approval to erect its
135m turbines but it is our duty to say "no" to the super turbines and
deny developers open slather in this beautiful landscape.
Allan Walker
Nimmitabel , New South Wales
Boko Industrial Wind Utility Complex (Stage 2 maximising) aka Boco Rock
Wind Farm
Points favouring such development:
-increased profits for shareholders; less machines generating more
energy and less infrastructure to maintain and making full use of
existing transmission grid facitilies
-annual `royalties' for owners of rural holdings with industrial
sized, power mining machines placed on them
-as the agreed local communities funding is based on a per tower rate;
and there would be a 37% decrease in towers; such savings can be
channeled elsewhere by CWP.
-sustains the ongoing belief that `clean power' is being provided for
the power users in highly urbanized areas at no cost to the
-sustains the belief that the industrialisation and use of local
infrastructure, land and other community assets present before the
industrialisation of the landscape are now a benefit to all!
-a greater understanding of the flora, fauna and general ecological
structures present in the Boco locality has been gained, so too,
though to a lesser degree, has there been understanding of the
previous land use and habitation by the nations of the Indigenous
-potential for opportunities to work with the local community as the
third wave of major industrial complexes, after The Snowy Mountains
Engineering Scheme (SMEC) and the timber industry, to make use of the
Monaro region's land and resources.
Points negating such development:
-like the shareholder dividends which have little or no impact on this
economically struggling region, CWP desires to maximise its power
mining yet there is no increased benefit to the community as a whole
-there has already been an increase in `absentee' owners of farms with
power mining agreements with CWP; farms that were once owned and
managed by those who lived on site, now have managers installed, one
can rightly assume that as the funds pour in annually to those
`landlords' the incentive to productively farm the land will be
lessened yet the resale value of the `farm' is girded up by the power
industry that sits on it!
-It will be troubling for the surrounding community to see large
tracts of the Monaro become factory slums, devoid of active people who
own and seek to be primary producers rather than wait out their
investment portfolio's maturation! Since all complicit land holders
have had to sign a gag or confidentiality agreement with CWP, we are
left to guess just what industrial WHS reasons have stopped landowners
from residing on their properties.
-It is also worthwhile noting that in other recent power mining
ventures those willing to sign up to such gag agreements are often
either new landholders in the rural communities they inhabit, with
little connection to other locals and little shared history of place
and country, or approaching retirement with no family members to take
on the farm.
-it is disingenuous to not seek to compensate the local community on a
per kilowatt increase of the proposed changes (Stage 2 maximising),
rather than a tower decrease of 37% equating to a similar decrease in
community funding. I would suggest a considerable proportion of
savings made should be tagged (not gagged) for improving the acute and
chronic health morbidity outcomes for this region of NSW, which for 40
years at least have been the second worst in NSW as a whole!
-find a struggling rural community (economic, mental and physical
health challenges, rural isolation, etc) offer a cash cow to
landholders with a suitable mining site and hold them in thrall with a
gag agreement, all the while saying we are `clean'; perhaps the NIMBY
city folk will believe this but, you see, this is our backyard! Sure,
we don't own the view, but we chose to come here because of this and
other unique features the Monaro has to offer.
-to belittle us with fashionable rhetoric and ill-conceived promises
and then foist a swiveling, gyrating industrial complex that generates
infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) that even the NSW 2016
guidelines for wind tower noise have yet to catch up with is an
audacious piece of landscape and social engineering.
-the proposed machines will be 200m tall, base to topmost rotor tip,
just taller than Black Mountain's `Telestra Tower' in Canberra; or for
a closer, local example If you stand at the Nanny Goat Hill Lookout in
the midst of Cooma and gaze westward you will see the peak of Mt
Gladstone, some 4 km away, standing 204 meters higher; even then it is
difficult to imagine a 66 story building that moves! That's how tall
they are and that's what these machines are designed to do, to move
and extract a valuable power commodity for a consumer market
comfortable in the knowledge it is enjoying this `clean' energy,
willingly given from the Monaro and the country bumpkins that live
under these things!
-incidentally, just over 50 years ago there were concerted efforts by
the then Cooma Council/SMEC to totally remove the sandstone outcrop
known as Nanny Goat Hill and sell it as runway fill to Mascot Airport,
Sydney; seemed like a good idea at the time, luckily locals
protested!! Don't be fooled, they had the technology and perhaps the
best collection of engineering `can do' equipment and brains in the
world at the time, all trained and tested in developing the Snowy
Scheme, and yet, and yet.. sanity prevailed! Bigger ideas DON'T mean
better ideas, and riding roughshod over the local community will
generate no credible triple bottom line .. and that is something
investors are looking for!
And now to important issues:
-there had been little or no engagement with the Ngarigo people, the
traditional custodians of the Monaro lands during the implementation
of Stage 1 of the Boco industry. The Yuin and possibly other
Indiginious people from the coast were, in part, consulted, and this I
suppose is an historical backflip for the last encampment of Ngarigo
at Delegate in 1920 were moved down to `relatives' living on and
around the Wallaga lakes near coastal Bermagui. This `forced
`relocation fractured an already stressed though resilient Ngarigo
-there is now no excuse to bypass the Ngarigo people, they are here on
the Monaro, and they are active in finding and identifying important
sites and paths that criss-crossed the plains and mountains here. They
are proud of their ongoing heritage and keen to engage at all levels
of community involvement. Why have you so poorly sought after these
folk and not sat down with the first owners and managers of this fair
land? Why? Admittedly there has, on the Monaro been a belief, even
agreed to by such anthropologists as the late John Mulvaney, professor
of pre-history at ANU, that the Monaro plains were only habituated
during the calmer, warmer seasons, when food was aplenty, and tribes
gathered from 100's of km away to share the bounty; the Bogong Moth
gatherings are such events. Recently this `vacated country' myth has
been shattered, with the finding by archaeologists of unique tools at
mountain encampment sites that point to permanent habitation of the
Monaro. Do not allow your cavalier treatment of the local community to
be seen as something worse! You have left the important things undone
and have acted as industrialists often do; this power you seek may
well have gone to your head!
-the vigor and swiftness with which you established the Boco (Stage 1)
environmental surveys, needed to be continued; don't let the good
actions die in the water. My reflexive question to you is; What
provisions have you made to remedy the shortfalls with the ecological
fieldwork and environmental monitoring program you had with the Stage
1 project? Or to put it another way: Tell us how you will do it better
now?... and then do it! 30m trees reported on recent (Stage 2) tower
diagrams `for a size comparison' is laughable; do you really desire to
properly engage the community..the onus of proof falls down again and
again at your collective feet!
-in the last of the `Points favouring such development' I mentioned
three waves of industrialization that have swept the Monaro. The SMEC,
the timber industry and now the developing Industrial Wind Utility
Complexes you desire to continue to build; bigger and bigger it seems!
The most outstandingly successful was the SMEC, there will always be a
romantic element to forging a daring water harvesting scheme with the
long and generious help, of all those who participated. The WW2 had
left Europe in ashes, the Marshall Plan had made new life possible and
this country put on the best work scheme for the flood of skilled and
unskilled immigrants, that came to Cooma and beyond. It was hard,
cutting edge work and dangerious too, a man died for every million
pounds spent, unacceptable odds in today's Australia! For Cooma it was
a boom time, materially, culturally, intellectually and socially! The
town grew and absorbed many who only came to work but stayed on to
live in the cold part of Australia. Now as the decades have past those
glory days are gone, a vacuum is in its place as the region struggles
to find a new face, that face may well be tourism, not just of the
snow capped alps and engineering marvels, but broad horizons,
brilliant sunsets, misty still mornings, places where the mobile phone
won't download the lastest blingflick and `dare I say it' where every
hill is not covered in machinery; very large machinery!!
The second wave of industrialization began after WW2 with the
development of broad acre monoculture planting of Pinus radiata; the
twisted Monterey Pine from California, USA grew straight and big and
quickly too in our stubborn rocky soils. It was a versatile and easily
millable timber, safer to fell and easier to load than the larger
heavier `hardwood' natives. There are at least 4 industrial
incarnations of this softwood industry, plus one that logs hardwood
Kapunda was the first such large logging company I vaguely remember, a
major shareholder was the Filipino president Ferdinand Marcos, a cross
between Christopher Skase and Colonel Gadhafi; a swindler tyrant in
his own country but he knew a good feed trough when he saw one. The
timber industry was heavily subsidized then just as it is well
favoured now by get ahead politicians! Just what happened to Kapunda I
don't know, Marcos was deposed in 1981 and fled to Hawaii, dying there
in 1989.
The next Company to pop up is Harris Daishawa, a Japanese owned wood
chip exporter that favours hardwoods for paper making. The Eden based
wood chip mill is their monument, sitting just next to the navy's
rearmament wharf in SE Twofold Bay. We subsidized the removal of the
chips then bought it back as paper.... go figure! They are quite
successful in what they do, though their activities continue to draw
protests from the conservation movements. You may own shares in this
Limited Liability Company, good luck!
The next incarnation of industrial timber fun were those `managed
investment schemes' developed by changes in the tax laws which allowed
tax breaks to folk who invested in MIS's. Arable land from cash
strapped Monaro farmers was purchased, then first fences, stock
troughs and pastures were cleared and pine trees planted; fortunes
were promised over the 30 year growth of the product. Willmont (2013)
and TimberCorp (2017) are two noticeable casualities to go under when
their schemes 'blew up', many suffered loss, particularily those on
the ground, seeing once useful farmland poisoned by an allelopathic
monoculture then denuded, eroded and eventually infested with weeds
and ferals. In short it went bad! Bad for the investors, bad for the
preyed upon farm communities, bad for the physical and mental health
of all involved, both participants and onlookers.
In 1996 Dongwha Timbers, a private company started up outside Bombala,
milling pine and value adding it on site to be transported to major
building growth centres in SE Australia. They employ locals and seem
to be moving ahead, though they did attract a $15,000 fine for
breaching their approval conditions in 2016, the highest fine the Dept
of Planning & Environment could issue.... will it make it? Lots of
Bombala families hope so!
My family and I run a local business here in Nimmitabel, we have
catered for many workers servicing the Boco machinery and get on very
well with them. Recently, after a request from one of the CWP
sub-contractors we outlaid a considerable amount of time, energy,
travel and funds to honour that same request. It was the end of the
October long weekend and we were then contacted by the same folk who
had entered into the agreement with us, that they would have to
terminate our association as the workers had to be moved elsewhere.
These workers travel globally so we imagined exotic locations beyond
our shores. The workers too had been told to move their custom but
they were none too happy about it , there move was not overseas but TO
COOMA!!. For you see as the ski season was now officially over it was
cheaper for the sub-contractor to send them there. Of course the irony
of the situation was these workers had to now travel 75km more each
day and their heavy service vehicles chew a lot of diesel so I doubt
any savings (of the triple bottom line type) were made.
This has happened more than once and similar incidents have occurred
with other local businesses who, in goodwill, seek to engage and
benefit the visitors to our community. It seems the very trust you
seek is the very thing you destroy. What a clumsy and heavy-handed
industry you represent. To allow you to `play machines' in our
backyard, at the present time, would hint at an abusive relationship!
So; congratulations; here you are, you are not the first big private
organisation to turn up, say "rollover" and have us do your bidding
but we may possibly; just possibly have learnt a thing or two from the
history we have partaken in and endured.
It has been said it is better to light a candle than curse the
darkness!! Have you considered adding solar arrays around your already
existing Boco machinery? Monaro's high albedo and low maximum
temperatures are ideal for power generation. If planned well they
could provide shade and stock shelter for the stock that graze around
them, as well as water from the panel run off. Vegetable greenhouses
on the Monaro......Oh the things you could do; but that would be
outside the off-the-shelf installations you propose! That, like SMEC,
would require true leadership and genius, true community
involvement.... . . . . . .
You have probably been asked enough questions, my next ones will be
directed to our state politicians who are quite instrumental is
getting these `new' schemes off the ground. There is an election just
around the corner and people are looking at what is happening in our
Monaro region and asking themselves "what's going on?" and "who's
telling the truth?"
(Allan) Grant Walker,
Born at Bombala,
Grew up on my parents farm on the SE edge of these Monaro tablelands.
A keen listener who sat and heard much about the local communities
joys and sorrows, some of which I have related to you today.
Obtained my Bachelor of Environmental Science degree in 1986, and my
Grad Diploma of Education (Science) in 1987.
Taught secondary science in a disadvantaged state school in a regional
city for 15 years.
A parent (with my wife) to 8 wonderful children who seek to make a
difference in this `brave new world that has such people in it'!
I have returned to the `board horizons' of the Monaro; living, at
first on Brown Mountain for 10 years then investing in the Nimmitabel
area, just as you have begun to do!

Comments on attached photos.
As I could not find any photo montages of the Boco machines when
viewed from prominent Nimmitabel township views, I took it upon myself
to draft some up myself!
Lake Williams WSW view: Lake Williams in lower left @ 1080m. horizon
approx 4km @ 1100m, 200m higher turbines begin @ approx 6km & would
obscure 2x to 4x the horizon tree heights in gap between pines. The
position of the drawn curve approximates the blade position on the
Geldmacher Mill WSW view: a wider angle view of the WSW horizon, with
the Mill wall on the right. Elevation 1065m. the square, standalone
post is part of the tourist information guide that runs around the
town of Nmmitabel. Low cloud, possibly 1600 to 1800m ASL, covers the
southern NSW section of the Great Dividing Range that would be visable
on a clear day. Unfortunately with 200m tall machines whirring away in
the foreground not much will be seen of the 100km plus view! In winter
much of this alpine horizon is snow capped. The black lined rectangle
shows the approximate position of desired machine blades, the
horizontal line running through this rectangle marks the 1100m height
of the right side of "Square Range", the flat topped hill that
dominated the left part of the skyline. As the 200m tall machines are
to the right and also 2 to 5km behind "Square Range" on land from 1060
to 1100m it is reasonable to assume they will present a constant
signal to all who turn that direction !
StAndrews WSW view: taken from the front of the StJosephs Convent ,
across the oad from St Andrews Catholic Church. Elevation 1080m.
The white line marks the top of Bald Hill,elevation 1054m, on the far
right of the skyline, it is partially obscured by a pine. Bald Hill is
14.5 km away due west. The height of this hill is about the lowest
height for the machine placements at Yandra valley, which is half that
distance away behind the low (1100m) ridge of trees from centre to
centre left.
The red line marks the highest point 1173m on Square Range on the far
left. The trig point there is called Nimmitabel.
The black line marks the possible machine blade heights, a
considerable proportion of the skyline from centre to left soon may
well be industrial landscape!
The sign post in the foreground, behind the seating, is another
tourist information sign in Nimmitabel.
The conical rooftop of the Geldmacher Mill can be clearly be seen
centre right, just below the horizon. It is of interest to note in the
current discussion that Geldmacher, the mills builder, was ordered to
remove the sails as the shadows they threw onto the through road
frightened the horses! What do we now a century later hope to see in
this direction, will it be 25 years before these sordid sails are
removed, worn out and redundant?
Library van view: our regional mobile library, parked today, Dec 13th
2018, in the main street of Nimmitabel, the aptly named Bombala St.
The side of the van displays iconic Monaro and Namadgi* landscape
images of what is appreciated and valued. This, to my thinking, has to
be one of the more thoughtful civic works of art in the area. Just how
much power, steam, clean, mean or green, do we need to quest after
knowledge and gain perhaps wisdom?

*Namadgi is a Ngarago word for the highest snow covered peaks.
Margaret Haylock
Snowy Monaro Regional Council
Cooma , New South Wales
See attached
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Canberra , Australian Capital Territory
See attached
Division of Resources & Geoscience
Hunter Region , New South Wales
See attached
Heritage Division - Office of Environment and Heritage
PARRAMATTA , New South Wales
The Heritage Division has no issues or concerns in relation to State
Heritage matters.
Office of Environment and Hertiage
Queanbeyan , New South Wales
See attached
Roads and Maritime Services
Wollongong , New South Wales
See attached
Nimmitabel Chamber of Commerce
Nimmitabel , New South Wales
The Nimmitabel Chamber of Commerce (NCC) objects to the proposed changes to this development on the grounds that the impacts of the increased sized turbines will be extremely detrimental to the environment, to those living within sight and hearing distance of the turbines, and to the beauty of the local landscape and its value as a tourist attraction in this region. We feel the project managers have been misleading in their presentation of the proposed changes, which may have confused or even deceived some of the affected parties with regard to the true impacts these changes will have. The use of not to scale diagrams, comparisons against non-existent (within this
environment) benchmarks, and the withholding of information until very late in the process are all designed to confuse and obstruct affected residents and stakeholders from making decisions and comments about the impacts of these proposed changes. An increase in height of 65 metres is difficult to visualise and understand, but it is an enormous amount of machinery just on its own, let alone as an addition to something which is already enormous. The impacts to the environment of the extra height, and larger turbine head, must be different from the impacts that were detailed in Environmental Impact studies done based on the original proposal. Further to the environmental impacts, the extra size makes each turbine more visually impactful on the landscape - a landscape which has been a very large draw card for tourism in this area. Even further, the extra size must have an impact on light aircraft traffic in the area - air traffic that is crucial to bush fire management and to emergency medical responses, as well as for transport and recreation. The NCC feels that the increased size renders any impact studies done for the original proposal as meaningless. For these reasons we feel the proposed changes should not be allowed.
Department of Defence
CANBERRA , Australian Capital Territory
See attached advice
Division of Land and Water
Sydney , New South Wales
See attached
Rural Fire Service
Granville , New South Wales
See attached
Environment Protection Authority
Queanbeayan , New South Wales
See attached


Project Details

Application Number
Main Project
Assessment Type
SSD Modifications
Development Type
Electricity Generation - Wind
Local Government Areas
Snowy Monaro Regional, Snowy Monaro Regional

Contact Planner

Iwan Davies