MOD 1 - Turbine and infrastructure changes

Dear DPIE,
I strongly object to the turbine and infrastructure changes to SSD-6696-Mod-1.
*Why are they allowed to raised the height of the turbines from 165m to 250m? There should be made to start again with their DA as every other kind of development would have to for a significant change like that.
*Why are they allowed to re-site some turbines outside the previously approved development corridor? (Again, as would be prohibited with any other kind of development)
* Why are they allowed to increased the footprint of the development?
These three changes alone will result in increased flora and fauna destruction, and increased area of impact on the soils and hydrology through potential chemical leakage, herbicides and disturbance of topsoil. Increased headaches and mental heath problems for the community is another serious consideration, and only listed here after the environmental concerns, because this is the order of importance governments would usually consider these factors. Roads and council infrastructure will be negatively impacted also.
No level of government considers any of these problems that occur. There is no forsight or poroper planning being applied to these rushed developments, and in trying to help the environment in one narrow way, they are causing greater, and more lasting damage in a host of others. They are just go recklessly ahead without looking overseas or even here now, at the irreversible devastation renewable EG works are causing in rural Australia, our food bowl.
Why would you be allowing these wind plants to be built at the top of our food producing water sheds? Look below how damaging the man made compound 'Bisphenol A ' is, that holds these blades together. Would you like this contaminating your water supply? Do you know how much mineral oil is needed to maintain just one turbine, and how much of this leaks into surrounding soil?
Bisphenol A is a highly toxic synthetic organic compound used in the epoxy resins of turbine blades. Epoxy resins contain 30-40% bisphenol A and turbine blades are the largest global consumer of epoxy resins. The annual global production of bisphenol A is about 2 billion kilograms and is increasing because the spearing of the environment with wind turbines is today’s fad.
Bisphenol A is an endocrine disrupter and that has been linked to about 80 diseases including cancers and reproductive disorders. It is lethal for young children. In 2012, the World Health Organisation warned about the potentially carcinogenic properties of endocrine disrupters and concluded that they pose a global threat to public health. The European Food Safety Authority has massively reduced by 1,000 times the dietary intake of bisphenol-A to one hundred millionth of a gram per kilogram of body weight per day. All this is public record information which the wind industry must know and is keeping hidden, but it is government's responsibility to investigate all impacts, including those that profit driven companies choose not to reveal.
In addition, these blades kill many thousands of wildlife that happen to fly into the blades. Where is the public outcry about that? We are disgusted with the censorship of true facts about these renewables, and the lack of responsibility being taken to preserve our precious and finite food producing areas.

Dear DPE
I am writing to strongly object to wind plant turbine and infrastructure changes. These companies should have to start again with their development applications.
These towers are going to interfere with the bird life in the area and all other fauna and flora will be affected during construction and during the life of the project.
The locals will all be affected be the construction and on going workings of the project.
There are no long term jobs in RE, it will be the death of a lot of rural communities.
All levels of government are not providing any security or protection from the negative impacts of RE developments in rural locations for neighbouring land holders.
Most of the decision makers in federal parliament forcing this into rural areas live within 15km of the centre of the capital cities so have no idea of the worry and concerns facing us. Build them in in the cities where the power will be used. Then there is no need for more power lines to be built across our limited ( 6% of Australia) prime food producing land.
There has been no thought put in to the long term affects on rural communities.

The Tops
cluffs rd
Coolah

I have never donated to any political party
I acknowledge and accept the departments disclaimer and declaration

Liverpool Range Wind Farm Modification 1 (SSD-6696-Mod-1)

I have several objections:
Our house is G4-1
Our nearest tower is E51
I object to the towers modified height
I object to E51 tower moving closer to our house and becoming noisier in the modification- if a noise limit is breached- will there be any compensation provided?

I worry about the impact on each eagle family that lives on each creek. As we have lived here for 20 years, so have we seen the same eagles every day. I fear for their safety with the enlargement of the turbines in the modification.

I also object to the overhead powerlines on Arnott. (Neighbouring property) I thought powerlines were all underground until they got right down into Martins (other neighbouring property)

I object to the Liverpool Range Modification project based on potential adverse effects on biodiversity and environmental concerns, and the well-being of the Coolah district community.

Crucially, there has been no cumulative assessment on the planned and foreseeable future projects in the CWO REZ - Coolah District – that employs an explicit methodology to model plausible future scenarios, understand the pathways of interaction of cumulative impacts and determines and describes thresholds and limits for the environment and community of the Coolah district (source referenced in attachment).

Please see attachment for full details.

I am very opposed to the Liverpool Range Windfarm. As far as the community is concerned, the 220 turbines proposed is way too many. When added to the 150 planned for the Valley of the Winds wind farm, the total of 370 turbines for the Coolah district is absolutely frightening. This is especially so given that these turbines are 250m high! This is all far too much and will wreck this lovely rural district.

I object to the modification of this Development as the greater tubine height magnifies the visual effect of the project as a whole,and the modification does nothing to minimise enviromental and community impacts. The impacts to the enviroment were poorly concidered in the first approval as can be seen in the poor agency response from the department concerning enviroment.
The collateral damage to the endangered bio diversity is unacceptable. The permanent destruction of endangered grasslands, the fertile productive soils and the concrete left behind is unacceptable. The harm to the local community is too great in hosting such a large construction workforce with no long term positive impacts .I hope you are proud to be associated with the destruction of our planet and community.
This project does not have the overall support of our community as can be seen in the number of objections, compared to the initial development application.(asumption) The project should have never been approved,as the community is yet to fully understand the impacts of this project and the cummulative impact of other nearby projects.

From a big picture perspective it is very clear that renewable energy projects such as the Liverpool Range Windfarm are the most environmentally acceptable solution to Australia's energy needs into the future as well as being the most cost effective. Without these projects going ahead our future is simply not sustainable. Many communities I have visited in South Australia have adapted well to the changes they have experienced with a windfarm project nearby. This project should provide significant opportunities for businessess within the community generating welcome financial benefit and growth in the community. To ensure this occurs community consultation is paramount and no properties should be allowed to suffer financial disadvantage.

The company that is running this project has been changed how many times? Now you have changed the height, number of turbines etc ,etc that are to be installed. What else is to be changed? Seems to me that there is not one aspect of this project that hasn't changed. If your company goes ahead with the new changes what is to stop you from altering anything in the future?Whether it be The Liverpool Range or the Valley of the Winds Project it seems there are no goal-posts you won't move to get your own way. I have heard of people who have these turbines close to their homes whose lives are forever ruined by no sleep etc and we feel that this is the future for we who are to be forced to endure what you have in mind. I reserve the right to submit further comments.

I do not want to the turbines to be enlarged

So far you have changed the goal post so many times to your advantage its hard to keep up .You have done surveys that fall well below the truth for wildlife, fauna, historic sites ,and native vegetation, You haven't mention that the turbines cannot be recycled and that your going to use so many million litres of water for your concrete, and that the ground will be unusable after they are decommissioned and you call this progress well done .Why dont you build a nuclear power station we have abundant uranium we are the worlds supplier for the worlds nuclear reactors you can even build it next to the pit.

I object to the Liverpool Range wind farm modification for a number of reasons.

Given the increase in size of the turbines from 165m to 250m is nearly a 52% increase, such a large change is well beyond a modification and therefore this project should be considered a new project. With no built onshore wind farm developments consisting of 250m high turbines, there is little data to predict real world outcomes for our environment and our community. This is another reason the modification should be considered a new project.

On page 115 of the EIS, the developer claims it does not need to consider the combined effects of its project and the proposed Valley of the Winds wind farm nearby. The developer states it does not need to consider such cumulative impacts because it is already an approved project. Given the huge size of the proposed turbines, and the vast scale of the Tilt project (over 50,000 ha), the developer must be made to address cumulative impacts. The only way to achieve this is to redefine the modification as a new project to ensure all outcomes for the district, environment and community are fully considered.

Issues
1. Amenity
1:1 Coolah region scenic value loss
1.1.1 No recognised value of the visual scenic value for our region
1.1.2 Increased Loss of Visual scenic value with increased turbine height
1.1.3 Community has had No opportunity to declare ‘No Go Zones’.
1.1.4 Loss of attracting the target travellers who seek to experience 80% natural environment, isolation and connect to nature.
1.1.5 No Go. Area should be the scenic route towards the Coolah Tops National Park.
1.1.6 Removed proposed turbines Turbine Zone A and B (especially Turbines close to road views B1, B2, B3 and B4 and those impacting the vista from the Coolah Tops National Park.
1.1.7 Ugly giant Steel Electricity Towers needed across our hilltops and farms to carry the power to the coast.
1:2 Residents impacts
1.2.1 As an associated land holder does not mean or diminish the impacts on quality of life and loss of amenity to the resident. The fees paid for the land use should be separate to a compensation and mitigation strategies applied as an impacted resident with in a 2 Km radius for losses habitat, visual amenity and noise.
1.2.2 Homes within in two kilometre radius of the government prescribed safe zones was recommended at the old height and size of turbine 150m not 250m this should be revised to take into consideration the bigger turbine.
1.2.3 Photo montages used a misleading and deceptive. Most have clouds in background and a disproportion of foreground grass shown. These montage of proposed wind turbines is in the TILT Liverpool Range Modification Documents Composition ploys are used that trick the eye so you start to think they're not that big. But even these ploys can't hide the fact that these monster wind turbines will clutter our skyline, ruin our enjoyment of the landscape and likely devalue our property. As an exercise, some members community measured the height of the tallest point nearby to the viewing spot on Vinegaroy Road "Coolah Valley Lookout". It is about 800m above sea level. The Coolaburragundy River on the valley floor is about 500m above sea level. That makes the hill about 300m high from the valley floor. The wind turbines at 250m are going to be ALMOST AS HIGH AS THE HILL again! If you look at that hill from Coolah and imagine it doubled, that's close to how high these proposed turbines are going to be ! This is not portrayed at all.

2. Homes within in two kilometre radius should be relocated or turbines moved outside this safe zone.
2.2.1
2.2.2
1.3 Shadow flicker from turbines
G2 shadow flicker 3:1 and 3:3 table 3:2. Appear to only allow for summer sun and not the low lying winter sun conditions.

2. Bio diversity
2.1. Error and MOD submission
2.1.1 ITEM 7 MOD Biodiversity Credit Report see Appendix 1 - there is no appendix how can we evaluate this when no report on exhibition.
2.1.2 in a report include in the MOD state a assessment date 2035.

2.2. Habitat loss
2.2.1 Regent honey eater a threatened species has it habitat threatened with increased lands removed as a part of this MOD at the same time a notice from the Government department of Primary Industry and Environment to encourage farmers to conserve the habitat and put a Restriction around zone of agriculture land use.
2.3 Native Species categorised errors
2.3.1 Table 5:8 risk assessment summary. Why the low flying swift parrot risk rating ‘high’ risk when the wedge tail edge which is high flying species not consider high risk?
2.3.2 Why is the pardalote (peep wren). Not noted on the list of species when it been known to populate the area and is endangered. Photo evidence available.


3. Noise impacts
3:1 Sound assessment
3.1.1 Sound assessment requires a peer review. Eg:- the peer review of the noise assessment for The Valley of the Winds Farm Coolah was underestimated impacts 5 – 10 decibels lower in favour of the proponent.

3.1.2 Unique topography of a valley will impact noise assessment.
3.1.3 Sound base level for rural Coolah is not like urban with background noise of traffic etc. Coolah has a near zero decibel base sound so the impact of 35 – 45 decibels increase is significant and has not been adequately considered or factored into the negative impact on community amenity both associated land holders and associated land holders. A simple demonstration of a microwave switched on and operating sends a constant sound out at hum of approx. 30 decibels. The noise factor similar to a generator by the amount we are getting will that impact sleep as these things run 24/7.
3.1.4 Unknown Noise impact of these sized 250 meter high turbines.
3.1.5 Noise direction chart has not been included or considered.



4. Financial impacts
4.1 Negative financial benefit to the community and local government.
Originally over ten years ago the community was promised millions of community financial contributions, when in reality, less $200k pa/per local Government area.
Reduced financial benefit to the community and local government from the formula used to return benefit based upon the number of turbines with increased impacts and less funds. Original project engaged the community with inflated project of over 350 turbines and a price per turbine equating to $3k x 350 turbines equated to over $1m dollars. The revised calculation if all 220 turbines used $1.2m for the construction period and then reverts to $800k (if all turbines constructed) There the community is not aware that there will be little less than this when constructed and this divided by the local governments involved less there allocation towards road maintenance etc is very little per community per annum and not the perceived $millions for the community. Eg these funds won’t go far in 2016 it cost $280k / to Form 1 km road in Coolah.

4.2. Increase funds to community impacted
4.2.1.Opportunity to the government incentive for renewables to forwarded on to the community, rather than funds going into the hands of private companies.
4.2.2 For the ‘Voluntary planning agreement should be renegotiated to be based upon the megawatts of energy produced not per turbine.

4.3 False claim to say a ‘Less negative’ impacts in our rural region loss of flora, sauna, amenity, disruption and fluctuations of housing, jobs, changes to our rural regional culture, the cumulative impacts by our local community and disproportionate burden for rural areas to that of high density urban and industrial areas benefiting from the renewable power use.
The project in and around Coolah will be the biggest yet in the whole of Australia and could be the last put on land as new submissions technology is putting the Wind Turbines out at Sea.

5. Road widening for OSOM
5.1 the non connected routes for OSOM (Gundare Road Coolah) which indicates that there would have to considerable development through private property possible (Mount Mill ) to cross our Coolahburragundy River to access this area.

6. Community concerns
6.1 Public meeting
Nearly 200 concerned citizen attend a meeting in Coolah regarding this MOD to the Liverpool Range wind farm.
Local Government says “it is out of their hands and in the hands of the State Government”. We a rural citizen have only this process of an Objection submission to impact this project and lessen the negative effects on our culture, our community, our environment and our people.
6.2. One wind project does not open the gateway for more renewable projects nor does it give way to place transmission lines through out our beautiful region.
6.2.2 Community impacts from Energy Co transmission line study corridor and the Central West Orana Renewable Energy Zone (CWO REZ). Are State Significant Agricultural Lands not considered in the planning for Energy production/power connection? There a value proposition here: Rural community with productive agriculture / environments versus energy production / power connection?

6.3 Noted dangerous health, environmental and social issues for community concerns from meeting. Loss of human wellbeing.
- raised the height of the turbines from 165m to 250m.
- re-sited some turbines outside the previously approved development corridor
- increased the footprint of the development
- increased the impact on native vegetation by 1249ha
- increased the clearing around each turbine with bigger hardstand etc,
- increased the amount of land clearing for roads, cabling and transmission lines/towers,
-increased the number of concrete batching plants
-ignored the impact on the nearby Coolah Tops National Park's visual amenity (eg. they say visitors screened by the trees, position of lookouts face away from turbines).
-increased the amount of native flora to be removed, including 427ha of the critically endangered ecological community box gum woodland and habitat of the at-risk Regent Honeyeater.
- vegetation removal includes habitat for seven NSW listed species ( two plant, one mammal, one bird).
- at high risk from the development are the barking owl, large bent-winged bat, powerful owl, swift parrot, white throated needletail (as well as Regent Honeyeater mentioned above)
- at medium risk from the development are the black chinned honeyeater, Corben's long eared bat, Dusky woodswallow, Painted honeyeater, Superb Parrot, Wedge tailed eagle, Little eagle, Eastern Cave Bat, Yellow Bellied Sheathtail bat, Large eared pied bat·
- ignored the impact to light aviation activities (concentrating on standard commercial flight paths), and aerial fire fighting (which was used in the area in 2017's Sir Ivan Fire and the concerns raised by National Parks about visibility in fire situations and aerial fire fighting at night).
- don't want turbine lighting because it will be a nuisance to neighbours and may affect the Dark Sky Park, but is potentially deadly to aviators.
- increased visual impact with the higher turbines, impacting more non-associated residences (non-associated = those who haven't signed with the developer either as hosts or under neighbour agreem

I object to the Liverpool Range (Tilt) modification.

Tilt have declined to address cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts on our environment, community, visual amenity, land/house values, water, critically endangered flora and fauna, mental health, noise levels, roads, traffic all arise from the "modifications" proposed.

The "modifications" proposed involve substantial land clearing which will have serious and irreversible impacts on our environment. The "modifications" will impact on numerous non associated homes. This is not a modification, this is a new project.

Likely the only supporters of this project will be land hosts or those that do not live here.

(refer attached)

Below are the reasons I do not consent to the proposed changes gor this project.

- the height of the turbines has been hugely increased from 165m to 250m this alone makes the new proposals unacceptable.

- turbines have been recited to areas outside the previously approved development corridor. This is also a complete game changer.

- the area of the development has been increased

- increased the impact on native vegetation by 1249ha

- increased the amount of land clearing for roads, cabling and transmission lines/towers,

-increased the number of concrete batching plants

-ignored the impact on the nearby Coolah Tops National Park's visual amenity (visitors will be able to see turbines from Pinnacle lookout and through breaks in forest canopy, clearings etc).

-increased the amount of native flora to be removed, including 427ha of the critically endangered ecological community box gum woodland and habitat of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater (only 350-400 individuals left).

- vegetation removal includes habitat for seven NSW listed species - two plant, one mammal, one bird.

- at high risk from the development are the barking owl, large bent-winged bat, powerful owl, swift parrot, white throated needletail (as well as Regent Honeyeater mentioned above)

- at medium risk from the development are the black chinned honeyeater, Corben's long eared bat, Dusky woodswallow, Painted honeyeater, Superb Parrot, Wedge tailed eagle, Little eagle, Eastern Cave Bat, Yellow Bellied Sheathtail bat, Large eared pied bat·

- ignored the impact to light aviation activities (only mentioning standard commercial flight paths), and aerial fire fighting (which was used in the area in 2017's Sir Ivan Fire and the concerns raised by National Parks about visibility in fire situations and aerial fire fighting at night).

- don't want turbine lighting because it will be a nuisance to neighbours (but potentially deadly to aviators) and may affect the Dark Sky Park we are about 80km from.

- increased visual impact with higher turbines, impacting more non-associated residences

- increased traffic of around 300+ vehicle movements per day (one way), so 600+ on local roads PER DAY

-increase in operational noise levels as several non-associated residences

- ignored the cumulative effect that may occur with the combined wind farms of 370 turbines 250m tall placed on ridges all around the township of Coolah (5-6km from both projects) on wildlife, visual amenity, noise, EMI, property values which will also impact the villages of Uarbry, Leadville and the town of Cassilis

I am writing to object to the proposed changes to the Liverpool Range wind farm project.

The size of the proposed structures are way too big for the landscape in which they are proposed. Together with other proposed projects in the area and along with the increased support transmission infrastructure, it will cause severe visual assault. They are far too big.

It is evident that the proposed increase in size and the associated transmission infrastructure is now causing fracture in the local community. No doubt just the beginning of what is to come.

The footings for these structures will never be removed resulting in a permanent degradation of the integrity of the land. There seems to be no satisfactory facility in place to ensure decommissioning of these structures at the end of life.

It is a poor legacy to be passing to our future generations when there are other ways. Micro renewables are an alternative. There is no need for new transmission infrastructure and the power is generated close to where it is consumed. This proposed generation of power is way too far from it’s point of consumption.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

To Whom it May Concern
I would also like to add that our organisation does support the project in principal however we have a number of concerns around some of the impacts of this project on local services. We were unable to tick the supporting box and the comment box together so please bear this in mind.
Please see the written submission form Cassilis District Development Group (CDDG) attached.
Kind regards
Jane Hegarty
Chair CDDG
Ph 0408761052

I object to the proposed turbine modifications.

These turbines are going to be huge if the height is allowed to be increased.
They are going to destroy the landscape forever. Tourists are going to have their scenic drive ruined and the view from the Pinnacle lookout at the Coolah Tops National Park will be greatly affected.
I believe the businesses in Coolah are going to suffer greatly in the long run as tourism will decline due to the sheer volume and size of these turbines. What tourist visits and camps at a National Park to view and hear wind turbines?!

The Indicative Development Footprints for the modified project are x2.4 greater than the Indicative Development Footprint assessed as part of the original biodiversity assessments. That is a substantial increase from the Approved Project, I believe it should mean a whole new application is submitted rather than a ‘Modified Project’ application.

Due to our location and the changes to the Northeast cluster of turbines, I have serious concerns about the potential noise we are going to be faced with. I do not believe the noise assessment provided by Sonus Pty Ltd (Appendix G.3 – Noise Impact Assessment) is in any way accurate due to the location of the noise loggers.

We are also faced with turbines closer to our residence if this modification is approved. This has the potential to ruin our views, the scenery and our family days out exploring our property which borders the Coolah Tops National Park and the Northeast Turbine Cluster.

Pandoras Pass Road is in no condition (even if repaired and re-opened) to be subjected to oversized/heavy vehicles travelling the steep blind bends day in and day out.
My family will be travelling Pandoras Pass Road and Coolah Creek Road to catch the bus to school/pre-school 5 days a week during school terms. Their safety travelling on the small school bus on these roads during the construction phase is of great concern to me due to the significant increase in vehicles (including heavy and oversized) expected to be on the roads.



Please note - I reserve the right to add to my objection at any stage.

To whom it may concern,

My family home is one of the properties planned to have several towers installed. According to the map our house is G4-1 and our nearest tower is E51. Whilst I study conservation biology and work as a community organiser in the climate change space - I cannot support this project as the consultation process with local landowners, Traditional Custodians and the broader Coolah community has not been adequate or ethical.

My family has raised valid concerns to TILT about Visual Impact and the threat of wind turbines upon endemic species like the Wedge Tailed Eagle - and have been met with little consideration or support to investigate these concerns. TILT refused to provide a Visual Impact Assessment, stating it would be too expensive. These towers will be close to our family's home, and the long term home of several resident eagle families. If TILT were to engage in proper consultation and scale back the size and proximity of the towers, I could reconsider my objection.

We are in a climate crisis and urgently need renewable solutions to support the continent. However, renewable projects not performed with thorough community and Traditional Custodian consultation just replicate the injustices echoed by coal projects in the Hunter and across states. The way forward is proper consultation on locals terms and local timelines, to reach a consensus that prioritises Aboriginal land rights, community voice and a safer, cleaner renewable future.

Kindly radical,
Rosie Brodie

To whom it may concern,

I have several objections:
Our house is G4-1, our nearest tower is E51.
I object to the towers modified height.
I object to E51 tower moving closer to our house and becoming noisier in the modification.

I worry about the impact on each eagle family that lives on each creek. As we have lived here for 20 years, so have we seen the same eagles every day. I fear for their safety with the enlargement of the turbines in the modification.

I have been disappointed with the liaison process with TILT, I requested a visual impact statement and they denied my request. The towers have been moved very close to our house and I am concerned about their impact on our sound and visual experience.

I also object to the additional planned overhead powerlines on the Arnott's property, we were informed the powerlines would be underground but this has also changed.

Broadly, I am supportive of wind farms and wind technology and I wish to see a renewable future HOWEVER - the consultation process and adjustments made to the plan over the past decade have not been made ethically and have caused myself and other participants in the scheme uncertain about the plan and its impacts on our lives.

Regards,
Judy Allan

Having attended the windfarm meeting in Coolah two weeks ago i came away from the night feeling the projects are being rushed to satisfy populism within government ranks despite the fact that more efficient wind turbines are able to be built, offshore and closer to the grid. Establishments of such projects have a complete disregard for the destabilising effect on the social fabric of a small country town especially when in my opinion the town really stands to gain little financially out of the project. I also feel the goalposts continue to change ie height of turbines number of turbines decommissioning of turbines. We are not told the full story.
In 2017 our district was devastated by the Sir Ivan bushfire I watched local farms man local bushfire units or their own fire-fighting unit to try to stop the fire all to little avail. It was not until the Hercules fire planes where used that the fire was able to be controlled if a windfarm was present in that area the scale of damage would have been far greater as the planes are unable to be used.
Local faming practices require use of aerial assistance for certain management practices that are otherwise impossible upon the mountain range and surrounding hills such as aerial weed control, vermin control and fertilser application. These are severe limitations to productivity and biosecurity risks for farms in our district.
We choose to live in a picturesque part of the country and require a lower level of power than our city counterparts why must our views, production systems, social fabric and way of live be compromised for the energy excessive demands of people living in the cities.