/Volumes/Company Share/Mersonn/Projects/2019 Projects/219061 Crookwell Windfarm (appeal)/Planning

Review/Crookwell3Planning review.doc.docx

Crookwel l 3 Wind Farm

Planning Review

June 2019

Mersonn Pty Ltd

6/20 Wylde Street

Potts Point NSW 2011

2

Contents

1.0 Introduct ion 3

2.0 Response to DPE assert ion that the Wind Farm would resul t in

unacceptable impacts on the landscape character and signi f icant

landscape features. 9

3.0 Response to DPE assert ion that the Wind Farm would resul t in

unacceptable direct and cumulat ive visual impacts on residences,

publ ic viewpoints and the surrounding landscape.

17

4.0 Response to DPE assert ion that the Wind Farm is not consistent with the current land use zoning provisions.

22

5.0 Response to DPE assert ion that the major i ty of submissions from

residences in the local area object to the project and Upper Lachlan

Shire Counci l maintains residual concerns about the impacts of the of

the Wind Farm. 28

6.0 Conclusion 30

3

1.0 Introduction

Andrew Darroch, Consultant Planner, has been retained by Crookwel l Developments Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Global Power Generat ion

Austral ia Pty Ltd (GPG), to review the development appl icat ion for the

Crookwel l 3 Wind Farm current ly before the Independent Planning

Commission ( IPC) with a recommendation by the Department of

Environment and Planning (DPE) for refusal .

My br ief f rom Herbert Smith Freehi l ls Lawyers is to prepare an

independent town planning expert report addressing any town planning issues in connect ion with the proposed Wind Farm for considerat ion.

This report has been prepared in accordance with Division 2 of Pt 31 of

the Uniform Civi l Procedure Rules (UCPR) and the Expert Witness Code

of Conduct in Schedule 7 of the UCPR. I have read the Court ’s

Conference of Expert Witness Pol icy and Joint Expert Report Pol icy

(both commencing on 12 June 2015) and agree to be bound by them. This report has been carr ied out in accordance with the Code of

Conduct and the requirements of Divis ion 2 of Part 31 of the UCPR.

The Expert declares that he has made al l the inquir ies which he

bel ieves are desirable and appropriate (save for any matters ident i f ied

expl ic i t ly in this report) , and that no matters of signi f icance which the

Expert regard as relevant have, to the knowledge of the Expert , been

withheld. The plans and documents rel ied on in the preparat ion of this report are those ident i f ied below:

• Environmental Impact Statement (Mecone) dated July 2012;

• Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Green Bean Design)

dated July 2012;

• Visual Amenity Review (O’Hanlon Design) dated August 2013;

• Response to Submissions (Crookwel l Developments) dated

March 2014;

• Recommended Instrument of Consent dated 2015

• Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Report dated February

2015;

4

• Addendum Environmental Impact Statement (Mecone) dated September 2016;

• Addendum Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Green

Bean Design) dated June 2016;

• Addendum Response to Submissions (Crookwel l Developments)

dated February 2018;

• Department of Planning and Environment Assessment Report

Apri l 2019;

• Addendum Visual Amenity Review (O’Hanlon Design) dated July

2018;

The proposed Wind Farm is located approximately 17 ki lometres south-

east of Crookwel l and 25 ki lometres north-west of Goulburn, in the

Upper Lachlan Shire Local Government Area.

The Wind Farm would cover approximately 1,500 hectares adjacent to

Global Power Generat ion Austral ia Pty Ltd’s (of which Crookwel l is a

whol ly owned subsidiary) Crookwel l 2 Wind Farm (32 turbines, up to 160m in height) , which is completed and operat ional. The operat ional

Crookwel l 1 Wind Farm (8 turbines, up to 45m in height) and Gul len

Range Wind Farm (73 turbines, up to 135 m in height) are located

approximately 5 ki lometres north-west and 10 ki lometres west

respect ively.

On 17 March 2010, Crookwel l lodged major project appl icat ion 10_0034,

seeking approval under the former Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to construct and operate

the Wind Farm . A prel iminary environmental assessment dated 12

February 2010 was prepared in connect ion with the Appl icat ion. An

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dated July 2012 was also lodged

with the DPE. A visual amenity review was conducted in August 2013.

The Appl icat ion was exhibi ted from November 2012 to February 2013.

Fol lowing exhibi t ion, Crookwel l submit ted i ts response to submissions dated March 2014 which reduced the number of turbines from 30 to 29.

5

The DPE completed i ts assessment of the Appl icat ion in February 2015

and referred the appl icat ion to the then Planning Assessment

Commission (PAC). Fol lowing i ts review of the appl icat ion and a publ ic meet ing on 17 March 2015, the PAC referred the Appl icat ion back to the

DPE for further assessment. The PAC raised a number of issues in

relat ion to the Appl icat ion including visual and noise impacts and lack

of certainty regarding proposed agreements with affected landowners

amongst other things.

The DPE then requested Crookwel l to provide a response to the issues

raised by the PAC, which resul ted in Crookwel l submit t ing an Addendum Environmental Impact Statement (Addendum EIS) dated September

2016. The Addendum EIS reduced the number of turbines from 29 to 23,

increased the maximum turbine envelope and increased the maximum

t ip height f rom 152 metres to 157 metres.

The DPE exhibi ted the Addendum EIS from October to November 2016.

Crookwel l submit ted an addendum response to submissions in February 2018.

On 18 Apri l 2019, the DPE recommended to the Independent Planning

Commission ( IPC) that i t refuse the Appl icat ion. The key reasons for

DPE’s recommendation are summarised below.

(a) The Wind Farm would resul t in unacceptable impacts on the

landscape character and signi f icant landscape features.

The DPE considers that the project would have an unacceptable

impact on the broader landscape due to cumulat ive impacts with

other wind farms and impacts on key landscape features in the

immediate vic ini ty of the Wind Farm. In part icular, the

Appl icat ion involves instal lat ion of turbines in two clusters on

elevated r idges on both sides of the Crookwel l 2 Wind Farm and the main road in Crookwel l f rom Goulburn. Combined with

Crookwel l 2, this would resul t in turbines covering an arc

extending more than 10km along the main r idgel ine on

6

the approaches to Crookwel l . Overal l , the DPE considers the

local landscape has l imited capaci ty to absorb further change

from wind farm projects, and the part icular locat ion and layout of the project would resul t in mater ial impacts on the local

landscape values and features.

(b) The Wind Farm would resul t in unacceptable direct and

cumulat ive visual impacts on residences, publ ic viewpoints and

the surrounding landscape.

The proposed Wind Farm turbines are located in close proximity to resident ial dwel l ings with 17 of the 23 proposed turbines

(represent ing 74%) located within 2.1km of non-associated

residences. The local topography and the proximity of the project

to the Crookwel l 2 Wind Farm also contr ibutes to visual

dominance and cumulat ive visual impacts on nearby residences.

The DPE considers that there would be at least 27 non-associated residences that would experience moderate/high or

high visual impacts as a resul t of the project.

The relat ively short setback of residences from project turbines

(1.1km to 3.4km) is a signi f icant contr ibut ing factor to the

moderate-high and high impact rat ings for 19 of these

residences. Whi le the other 8 residences are further from the

proposed turbines they would be subject to a signi f icant cumulat ive impact, wi th turbines affect ing up to 180 degrees of

the viewshed of these residences.

(c) The Wind Farm is not consistent with the current land use

zoning provisions.

The DPE noted that 70% of the turbines (al l of the eastern cluster) are prohibi ted under the current Local Environmental

Plan as they are located in an E3 Environmental Management

Zone. Whi le i t is st i l l open to the Commission to grant consent,

the Department does not consider that the project is consistent

7

wi th the object ives of the E3- Environmental Management zone

or that the bef i ts of the project are so signi f icant or essent ial to

the State that the consent author i ty should overr ide the current strategic planning intent ions for this port ion of the state.

The DPE also noted that the State Environmental Planning Pol icy

( Infrastructure) 2007 only makes electr ic i ty generat ing works

permissible with consent in prescr ibed rural , industr ial or special

use zones, and does not overr ide local planning controls within

environmental zones.

(d) The major i ty of submissions from residences in the local area

object to the project and Upper Lachlan Shire Counci l maintains

residual concerns about the impacts of the of the Wind Farm.

In addit ion to the above matters, the DPE considered the ful l

range of potent ial impacts associated with the Appl icat ion. The

DPE considers that the major i ty of these matters could be managed or condit ioned should the Appl icat ion be approved.

I inspected the si te on 24 May 2019 with part icular at tent ion to

Crookwel l – Goulburn Road, Woodhouselee Road, St Stephens Road,

Pejar Road, Elmgrove Road, Dawsons Creek Road, Middle Arm Road

and the associated and non-associated dwel l ings. I inspected the State

Heri tage l isted St Stephens Church and Pejar Dam, with part icular

at tent ion to the boat launching ramp and publ ic recreat ion area of the lat ter.

On 4 June 2019, the proponent wrote to the IPC offer ing to delete the

southern cluster of 6 turbines from the proposal in the interest of

addressing the concerns raised by the DPE in i ts report 18 Apri l

2019.(Attachment A) The proponent conf i rmed in i ts correspondence

that whi le reducing the total number of turbines from 23 to 17, i t would not make any “corresponding reduct ion in our commitment to the

community and funding better community outcomes through the

Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) already agreed with the Counci l . ”

The proponent wrote to Upper Lachlan Shire Counci l on 27 May 2019

8

out l in ing the delet ion of the southern cluster of 6 turbines and

conf i rming their commitment to the community and funding better

community outcomes through the VPA.(Attachment B)

I t is noted that the delet ion of the southern cluster comprising proposed

turbines A28, A29, A30, A31, A32 and A33 would reduce the visual

extent of the proposed wind farm; el iminate the second cable crossing

of Crookwel l Road; reduce TV and radio interference as this cluster is

in between Crookwel l and Goulburn; el iminate the visual impact to Pejar

Creek Dam recreat ional area and el iminate the visual impact for non-

associated dwel l ings at Narangl (n8) and Wombat Hol low (n19).

The proponent also undertook to cont inue engagements with the

remaining 3 non-associated dwel l ings within 2km of the proposed

turbines; to establ ish neighbour agreements or where they cannot be

entered into, of fer acquisi t ion for fair market value.

The proponent has also conf i rmed through correspondence from energy retai ler that negot iat ions for an off- take agreement are f inal ized. The

remaining eastern cluster of seventeen turbines is cr i t ical to the

economic viabi l i ty of the project. The commercial terms of that

agreement mandate approval of the eastern cluster of turbines. The

qual i ty of the wind resource of the eastern turbines in comparison to the

6 southern turbines, together with the proximity to the exist ing gr id

connect ion infrastructure (33/330kV electr ical substat ion) make them

cr i t ical to the agreement and to del iver ing a renewable energy resource to contr ibute to meet ing the Renewable Energy Target (RET).

9

2.0 Response to DPE assertion that the Wind Farm would result in unacceptable impacts on the landscape character and significant landscape features

2.1 The locality has been identif ied as a desirable area for wind energy generation

The NSW Wind At las incorporated into the Upper Lachlan Val ley

Strategy Vision 2020 at p174 denotes Crookwel l 1 with a “B” and clear ly shows from the colour contours why this local i ty is desirable for wind

farms.

I t is important to consider that the Upper Lachlan Val ley Strategy Vision

2020 states i ts purpose as:

The Upper Lachlan Strategy wi l l be used as the basis for preparat ion of

a comprehensive local environmental plan for Upper Lachlan. The

Strategy wi l l also provide the necessary strategic framework to guide

planning and land use decisions and outcomes to the year 2020. The

future Upper Lachlan Local Environmental Plan wi l l replace the three

current local environmental plans that apply to the Counci l area.1

The Upper Lachlan Val ley Strategy Vision 2020 was adopted by Upper Lachlan Shire Counci l and informed the making of Upper Lachlan Local

Environmental Plan 2010 and Upper Lachlan Development Control Plan

2010.

The Upper Lachlan Val ley Strategy Vision 2020 p174 goes on to note

Few areas across NSW that are located away from the sensitive coastal areas generate similar wind capacity to areas within Upper Lachlan.2

1 Parsons Brinckerhof op. cit. p1 2 Parsons Brinckerhof op. cit. p174

10

NSW Wind At las

Source: Upper Lachlan Val ley Strategy Vision 2009

2.2 Wind turbines have a l imited l i fespan and do not impact permanently on the landscape

The local i ty accommodates Austral ia’s f i rst gr id-connected wind farm,

Crookwel l 1, which commenced operat ion in 1998, over 20 years ago.3

I t is commonly accepted within the Wind Generat ion Industry that the l i fe expectancy of a wind farm is 20 – 25 years.4 Consequent ly, one

must consider that the longevi ty of Crookwel l 1 is l imited. Furthermore,

that wind farms in this landscape are not a stat ic or permanent element

but have a l imited l i fe span and on complet ion of their commercial l i fe

the wi l l be removed and the land rehabi l i tated.

The Upper Lachlan Val ley Strategy Vision 2009 p175 notes,

3 Parsons Brinckerhof Upper Lachlan Valley Strategy Vision 2009 p174 4 Pers. Comm. G. Alonso Crookwell Developments 2019

11

The Crookwel l I I Wind Farm is one of the largest wind farms approved

in NSW to date and is reported to be worth $175 mi l l ion. The proposal

was for 46 wind turbines which would create a total generat ion capaci ty

of 92 MW of clean green power. This would generate enough electr ic i ty

for 40,000 households and would avoid emit t ing 228,000 tonnes of

harmful green house gases. 5

Simi lar ly, whi le Gul len Range is vis ible within the local i ty, at a distance

of approximately 10 ki lometers, i t became ful ly operat ional on 23

December 20146 and is l ikely to have a 20 - 25 year l i fe. The Director-

General ’s Environmental Assessment Report dated March 2009 states

(p 5): “The turbines have an expected economic l i fe of 20-30 years after

which they would be removed from the si te, or recommissioned.”

2.3 The full complement of the approval is often not realised We are now aware that Crookwel l 2 was in fact approved with 32

turbines (a 33% reduct ion) and is operat ional wi th 28 turbines and is

unl ikely to real ize the remaining 4 turbines because of i ts commercial

of f- take agreement. The operator est imates the commercial l i fe of

Crookwel l 2 as 20 – 25 years.

2.4 The technology improvements in newer turbines means they have less visual impact than in older turbines While Crookwel l 2, Gul len Range and the proposal for Crookwel l 3 have

turbine t ip heights in the 135m – 160m range; Crookwel l 1 has a turbine

t ip height of 67m. This di f ference is apparent in viewing the landscape,

part icular ly f rom the Crookwel l Wind Farm Viewing Point just north of Elmgrove Road, where the shorter rotors on the Crookwel l 1 turbines

are perceived as turning much faster and are more l ikely to draw the

eye than the apparent ly slower turning rotors of Crookwel l 2 and Gul len

Range instal lat ions. I t is considered, in my opinion, that these more

recent instal lat ions in Crookwel l 2 and Gul len Range have a more

5 Parsons Brinckerhof op. cit. p175 6 Gullen Range Wind Farm website, https://gullenrangewindfarm.com/the-project/about-the-project/.

12

calming and compatible presentat ion in the landscape.

2.5 Impact on the broader character and the test in Taralga

I t is considered that each of these three considerat ions set out above,

namely:

1. the l imited l i fespan of the windfarms;

2. that the ful l complement of the approval is of ten not real ised;

3. and that the tal ler rotors are perceived as having a slower

motion;

al l require considerat ion and weight in any assessment of the impact

upon the broader landscape and the cumulat ive impacts with other wind

farms in the vicini ty and the capaci ty of the local landscape to absorb

further change. I t must be acknowledged that change must occur in the

short to medium term with Crookwel l 1 reaching the end of i ts l i fe.

Furthermore, considerat ion should be afforded the character of the

local i ty, which must undeniably be character ized as an attract ive rural

landscape with wind turbines fol lowing the r idgel ines. This is apparent

as one travels on the Crookwel l -Goulburn Road and Woodhouselee

Road. The quest ion can no longer be whether the insert ion of

windfarms into a rural landscape involves interrupt ing the rural and

natural cohesion of that landscape or whether or not a f i rst “breach” in

the present general landscape should be permit ted, as considered by the Chief Judge in Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc v Minister for

Planning and RES Southern Cross Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 59

(Taralga).7

Preston CJ cont inues that, once such a breach is permit ted, i t is then

relevant to turn to whether or not the extent of i t should be l imited, as a

general quest ion, and also to turn to the quest ion of the impacts on

individual propert ies.8

7 Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc v Minister for Planning and RES Southern Cross Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 59 para 124 8 Ibid. para 124

13

In making this further assessment Preston CJ observes;

140 Moreover, I do not consider that the presence of turbines on only

one side of Bannaby Road but not the other is just i f iable on visual

impact grounds. There is nothing about their presence on one side of

the road which demands their absence on the other.

141 As earl ier noted, the Minister 's cone of viewing approach lacked

any rat ional just i f icat ion apart f rom having the effect of el iminat ing the

outer edges of the rows of turbines. There would remain, on this

approach, a broad sweep of turbines in the landscape only punctuated

by a minor break to the north of Row 10.

142 Nothing that was said in the visual assessment experts’ evidence

leads me to conclude that such marginal outer edge adjustment to the

proposal achieves any part icular benef i t for the vi l lage and i ts out look.

Whether or not the turbines at the northern or southern end of the

proposal should be deleted because of the impact on speci f ic propert ies

is a separate quest ion dealt wi th elsewhere.9

2.6 Applying the test in Taralga

Whi le the context considered in Taralga was somewhat di f ferent f rom

the current proposal , given the relat ionship of the proposed turbines to

the vi l lage of Taralga and that these were the f i rst insert ions into that landscape, his Honour’s observat ions are none-the- less considered

relevant.

The current proposal (as offered on 4 June 2019) is for the insert ion of

17 addit ional turbines, for a per iod of around 25 years, into a landscape

character ized as an attract ive rural landscape with wind turbines

fol lowing the r idgel ines, where al l of the exist ing turbines in that landscape have a short to medium l i fespan before each of the si tes wi l l

be rehabi l i tated as per their approvals and condit ions of consent.

9 Ibid. para 140-142

14

This considerat ion must then be balanced against the signi f icant publ ic

interest, in general terms, in adopt ion of al ternat ive, more environmental ly f r iendly, energy generat ion sources.

The Federal Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) of

33,000GWh by 2020 is ci ted in the Department of Planning and

Environment Assessment (DPE) Report Apri l 2019, where i t is est imated

that 5,400MW of new renewable energy capaci ty wi l l need to be bui l t by

2020 to achieve the RET.10 (The source for this stat ist ic is not

referenced in the report) . However, what the report fai ls to ment ion is that the RET has operated since 2001 and was reviewed by the

government in June 2015 and reduced from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh

(a reduct ion of almost 20%) and that in 2017 less than hal f the reduced

target had been met.11 The proposal which is able to provide 96MW

would contr ibute 1.8% of the 5,400MW of renewable energy ci ted in

DPE Report as being required to be constructed before 2020 to meet

the RET.12 This must be seen as a substant ial contr ibut ion, part icular ly where the proposal ef f ic ient ly ut i l izes the Crookwel l 2 substat ion and

infrastructure and an off- take arrangement has been made (pending

development consent).13

The DPE Report notes at p17, that there are 15 other wind farms

operat ional and approved within the region (and nominates the region

as extending up to 85km from the si te). I t further notes that 8 are

within 30km, but provides no just i f icat ion for why a 30km radius is used. I t is hard to understand how wind farms at Gunning, Taralaga, Cul ler in

and Col lector have a bearing on those within the local i ty of the subject

proposal. The report goes on to note that 7,000MW of wind energy has

been approved in NSW (but provides no source for this stat ist ic)

The DPE Report acknowledges that there is a competi t ive market for

of f- take agreements into the Nat ional Electr ic i ty Market and there are

10 Depar tmen t o f P lann ing and Env i ronmen t Assessmen t Repor t Ap r i l 2019 p16 11 Clean Energy Council RET Newsletter 2018. 12 Ibid. DEP 2019 p16 13 Pers. Comm. G. Alonso Crookwell Developments 2019

15

emerging constraints on the electr ic i ty t ransmission network and that

many of these projects ( together with approved large scale solar

projects) may not proceed.14 The NSW Renewable Energy Act ion Plan 2013 is referenced and the DPE report suggests that i f al l large-scale

projects ( i t is not clar i f ied whether this is approved and proposed) are

developed there would be up to 16,600MW (7,000MW wind energy and

9,600MW solar) of addi t ional renewable energy generat ion in the NSW

energy system in the next 5 to 10 years.15 However, the DPE report

makes no mention of progress in achieving the 2020 target set in the

NSW Renewable Energy Act ion Plan.

On the basis of this level of demand in the effort to meet the adopted

Targets at State and Commonwealth level , the considerat ion of the

abi l i ty for the exist ing landscape which is already character ized by

windfarms, must be given appropriate weight.

This weight ing should also then be tempered by the three

considerat ions previously raised, namely:

1. the l imited l i fespan of the windfarms;

2. that the ful l complement of the approval is of ten not real ised;

3. and that the tal ler rotors are perceived as having a slower

motion;

This would provide a more dynamic frame of reference from which to

evaluate the acceptabi l i ty of the impacts on the landscape character and signi f icant landscape features of the proposed windfarm, rather

than the very stat ic approach which has been assumed by the DPE

assessment.

14 Ibid. DEP 2019 p17 15 Ibid. DEP 2019 p17

16

2.7 Conclusion as to why Crookwell 3 would not result in unacceptable impacts on the landscape character and significant landscape features

In essence, as one travels through the local i ty or one experiences i t

f rom signi f icant vantage points, the exist ing landscape character is of

at tract ive rural , pr imari ly grazing lands with the elevated r idges

accommodating extensive wind farms.

The Appl icat ion or iginal ly involved instal lat ion of turbines in two

clusters on elevated r idges on both sides of the Crookwel l 2 Wind Farm and the main road in Crookwel l f rom Goulburn and that combined with

Crookwel l 2, this would have resul ted in turbines covering an arc

extending more than 10km along the main r idgel ine on the approaches

to Crookwel l , this was consistent with the exist ing character of the

local i ty .

Whi le i t is acknowledged that to some persons this would be visual ly unattract ive, to others i t is an attract ive and reassuring landscape.

This is addressed by Preston CJ:

1 The insert ion of wind turbines into a non-industr ial landscape is

perceived by many as a radical change which confronts their present

real i ty. However, those percept ions come in di f fer ing hues. To

residents, such as members of Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc ( the

Guardians), the change is stark and negat ive. I t would represent a

bl ight and the confrontat ion is with their enjoyment of their rural sett ing.

2 To others, however, the change is posi t ive. I t would represent an

opportuni ty to shi f t f rom societal dependence on high emission fossi l

fuels to renewable energy sources. For them, the confrontat ion is

benef ic ial – being one much needed step in pol icy sett ings confront ing

carbon emissions and global warming.

3 Resolving this conundrum - the conf l ict between the geographical ly

narrower concerns of the Guardians and the broader publ ic good of

increasing the supply of renewable energy - has not been easy.

17

However, I have concluded that, on balance, the broader publ ic good

must prevai l . The reasons for doing so are set out in the body of this

judgment.16

Clear ly, the quest ion is rel ieved by the existence of wind farms in the

local i ty and their s igni f icant contr ibut ion to the exist ing landscape

character and signi f icant landscape features. I t is di f f icul t to

understand, given the dynamic frame of reference, how the project

would mater ial ly impact the local landscape values and features, when

they are already a signi f icant feature or the character and that their

numbers wax and wane over t ime and have a l imited l i fespan.

Furthermore, the arrangement of the turbines and the fact that views to

the turbines are relat ively contained to a (approximately) 10km sect ion

of the 40km journey between Goulburn and Crookwel l ensures that the

change to character ( t ransformation of pastoral to windfarm pastoral) is

a relat ively br ief experience and does l i t t le to diminish the overal l

character of the region.17

Furthermore, the delet ion of the southern cluster signi f icant ly reduces

the visual experience from Crookwel l Road.

I t is considered that the proposed Wind Farm would not resul t in

unacceptable impacts on the landscape character and signi f icant

landscape features for the reasons out l ined above .

16Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc v Minister for Planning and RES Southern Cross Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 59 para 1-3 17 Pers. Comm. D. Moir, Moir Landscape Architecture 2019

18

3.0 Response to DPE assertion that the Wind Farm would result in unacceptable direct and cumulative visual impacts on residences, public viewpoints and the surrounding landscape.

3.1 Application of LEPs The appl icat ion for the proposed wind farm was lodged in March

2010. The Project is classi f ied as State Signi f icant

Development. As acknowledged in the DPE Report , at the t ime

of lodgment the land was zoned 1(a) General Rural under Crookwel l LEP 1994 and Mulwaree LEP 1995, the proposal is

permissible with development consent under both of these

instruments. Whi le the Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 has since

replaced these instruments, Clause 1.8A of Upper Lachlan LEP

2010 requires:

1.8A Savings provision relat ing to development appl icat ions

I f a development appl icat ion has been made before the

commencement of this Plan in relat ion to land to which

this Plan appl ies and the appl icat ion has not been f inal ly

determined before that commencement, the appl icat ion

must be determined as i f this Plan had not commenced.

Consequent ly, Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 is considered and given

weight as a draft and Crookwel l LEP 1994 and Mulwaree LEP 1995 are the prevai l ing instruments.

Simi lar ly, Upper Lachlan DCP 2010 was not in force at the t ime

of lodgment and as acknowledged by the DPE Report the Upper

Lachlan LEP 2010 does not apply to the development.18

18 Ibid. DEP 2019 p50

19

3.2 Distance from and impact on non-associated residences

I f the Upper Lachlan DCP 2010 were to apply, the DPE Report states that i t would “ include a requirement that no turbine is

located closer than 2km from a non-associated residence.”19 The

DCP requires:

f . Turbines shal l not be located within 2.0 ki lometres of any

dwel l ing not associated with the development or f rom any lot

upon which a dwel l ing may be constructed. The 2.0 ki lometre

setback proposes ut i l is ing a precaut ionary pr inciple in

addressing perceived visual and health concerns;

While this is acknowledged as not applying to the development

appl icat ion, i t is a signi f icant submission by Upper Lachlan

Counci l .

I t is noted that under the Secretary of the Environment Assessment Report 2015, 6 non-associated dwel l ings within 2

ki lometres of the si te where no agreement on mit igat ion could be

agreed the opt ion of land acquisi t ion by the proponent was

required.20

With the reconf igured turbine layout removing the southern

cluster of turbines (proposed 4 June 2019) there are current ly 5 non-associated dwel l ings within 2 ki lometres of a proposed

turbine. One of these dwel l ings (Meadowvale 1135

Woodhouselee Road) is current ly a host landowner for Crookwel l

2 and has been offered an addit ional neighbour agreement for

Crookwel l 3. A second dwel l ing, (Rosedale 3199 Middle Arm

Road) is located between 1.89km and 1.93km from the closest

proposed turbine, but the proponent is prepared to micro si te the

turbines to achieve the 2km separat ion.

19 Ibid. DEP 2019 p50 20 Sec re ta ry o f t he Env i ronmen t Assessmen t Repor t 2015 p46

20

This means that there are only three non-associated dwel l ings

with 2km of a proposed turbine.

Each of these dwel l ings have been offered neighbour agreements,

which have not as yet been accepted, and negot iat ions cont inue. The

proponent has committed to establ ishing neighbour agreements or

where they cannot be entered into, to of fer ing acquisi t ion of the

property for fair market value.

I t was and remains the proponent ’s posi t ion, that on fai lure to reach a

neighbour agreement with any owner of a dwel l ing within 2km of a proposed turbine, the opt ion of land acquisi t ion by the proponent at fair

market value is an acceptable outcome.

Simi lar ly, The Wind Energy: Visual Assessment Bul let in which was

released in 2016 is acknowledged as not apply to the subject

appl icat ion given that the Environmental Assessment requirements for

the project were issued some 5 – 6 years before i ts release. However, i t is noted that the Wind Energy: Visual Assessment Bul let in is relevant

because i t , s imi lar to the DCP also recommends a 2km separat ion

between non-associated dwel lngs and turbines.

However, i f the appl icants posi t ion that on fai lure to reach agreement

with any owner of a dwel l ing within 2km of a proposed turbine the

opt ion of land acquisi t ion by the proponent is an acceptable outcome is

adopted then the high impact rat ings under the Wind Energy: Visual Assessment Bul let in ci ted in the DPE report wi l l be signi f icant ly

reduced.

The DPE considers that there would be at least 27 non-associated

residences that would experience moderate/high or high visual impacts

as a resul t of the project.

The relat ively short setback of residences from project turbines (1.1km

to 3.4km) is a signi f icant contr ibut ing factor to the moderate-high and

high impact rat ings for 19 of these residences. Whi le the other 8

residences are further f rom the proposed turbines they would be subject

21

to a signi f icant cumulat ive impacts, wi th turbines affect ing up to 180

degrees of the viewshed of these residences.

The delet ion of the southern cluster and resolut ion of the non-

associated dwel l ings within 2km signi f icant ly reduces the number of

non-associated dwel l ings and the degree of impact on the dwel l ings.

This is covered in detai l in the Visual Impact Assessment by David Moir

of Moir Landscape Archi tecture.

Moir advises that the direct and cumulat ive impact upon nearby

residences is pr imari ly subject ive outside of the 2km range and to be direct ly discussed with “nearby” residences. The impact is largely

determined by the aspect and arrangement of individual residences,

their arr ival /departure points and key views and mit igat ion measures

and landscaping solut ions can be provided on a case by case basis.21

3.3 Impact on public viewpoints, significant features and the surrounding landscape

I t should be noted that proponent ’s of fer to remove the southern cluster

negates views impacts from Pajar Dam and the St Stephens Church

ent i rely, despi te the level of those impacts being considered

unacceptable.

Mr Moir further advises that whi le the Pejar Dam is a key landscape

feature within the Crookwel l Wind Farm viewshed, i t is a man-made dam commissioned in 1979 as part of Goulburn’s water supply infrastructure.

I t is one of three water storage faci l i t ies servicing the ci ty. The DPE

assessment, on the advice of OHD, refer to the Dam as being of high

scenic qual i ty. This is in contrast to the character assessment by GBD

which determined a “medium sensit iv i ty” rat ing to the Pejar Dam

character uni t . I t is noted that GBD appl ied an accepted methodology of

assessment of landscape character whereas OHD’s rat ing of the Pejar Dam appears to be based pr imari ly on opinion. I t is my opinion that the

assessment by GBD is accurate. Landscape character rat ings, whether

21 Pers. Comm. D. Moir, Moir Landscape Architecture 2019

22

they be based on “qual i ty” or “sensi t iv i ty” , must be appl ied consistent ly

across the country. A landscape feature such as Pejar Dam would be

descr ibed as moderate as, al though large bodies of water are general ly considered to be visual ly appeal ing, i t is not a natural feature, i ts

sett ing is amongst a highly modif ied, though attract ive, landscape, i t is

not part icular ly unique and i t is without signi f icant topographic or

geological features. In contrast, for example, the not too distant

Bungonia Gorge would be considered a High Qual i ty or Highly Sensi t ive

Landscape as i t is natural , unmodif ied, rare and r ich with signi f icant

topographic and geological features. In short , just because Pejar Dam

may be the most visual ly appeal ing element within this visual catchment does not make i t of High Qual i ty or Highly Sensi t ive.22

Furthermore, St Stephens Church is a State Listed Heri tage bui lding. I t

is not part icular ly vis ible as i t is a smal l stone church surrounded by a

very tal l hedge. I t may be a sensi t ive viewpoint considering the her i tage

aspects of the bui lding, i ts history and cul tural value however i t is not a

key landscape feature.23

Furthermore, the E3 Zone is not a landscape feature. The E3 Zone is

not def ined by any visual ly ident i f iable vegetat ion pattern, geological

formation, sett lement pattern or landform. As i t is not vis ibly

discernable the E3 Zone cannot be considered a landscape feature. 24

3.4 Cumulative impacts I refer back to my comments in sect ion 2.0 above, part icular ly,

how the visual impact of the proposed wind farm is rel ieved by the

existence of wind farms in the local i ty and their s igni f icant contr ibut ion

to the exist ing landscape character and signi f icant landscape features

and that their numbers wax and wane over t ime and have a l imited

l i fespan. Furthermore, the arrangement of the turbines and the fact

that views to the turbines are relat ively contained to a (approximately) 10km sect ion of the 40km journey between Goulburn and Crookwel l

22 Pers. Comm. D. Moir, Moir Landscape Architecture 2019 23 Pers. Comm. D. Moir, Moir Landscape Architecture 2019 24 Pers. Comm. D. Moir, Moir Landscape Architecture 2019

23

ensures that the change to character ( t ransformation of pastoral to

windfarm pastoral) is a relat ively br ief experience and does l i t t le to

diminish the overal l character of the region. I t is considered that the proposed Wind Farm would not resul t in unacceptable cumulat ive

impacts on the landscape character and signi f icant landscape features

for the reasons out l ined previously .

3.5 Conclusion as to why Crookwell 3 would not result in unacceptable direct and cumulative visual impacts on residences, public viewpoints and the surrounding landscape I t is considered, for these reasons, that the modif ied 17 turbine wind

farm would not resul t in unacceptable direct and cumulat ive visual

impacts on residences, publ ic viewpoints and the surrounding

landscape.

24

4.0 Response to DPE assertion that the Wind Farm is not consistent with the current land use zoning provisions. 4.1 Application of LEPs

At the t ime of lodgment the land was zoned 1(a) General Rural

under Crookwel l LEP 1994 and Mulwaree LEP 1995, the proposal

is permissible with development consent under both of these

instruments.

Whi le the Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 has since replaced these instruments, i t is considered and given weight as a draft and

Crookwel l LEP 1994 and Mulwaree LEP 1995 are the prevai l ing

instruments.

4.2 E3 Environmental Management Zoning relates only to water catchment and not to any special ecological, scientif ic, cultural or aesthetic values

I t is acknowledged in the DPE report that the zoning of a port ion

of the land as E3 Environmental Management Zone by Upper

Lachlan Counci l as i t relates to i ts locat ion within the catchment

of the Pejar Dam which is a dr inking water catchment dam for the

town of Goulburn.25 This can be seen from the photo below of

the information sign at the recreat ion area of the dam.

25 Ibid. DEP 2019 p50

25

Under the standard instrument, there are l imited opt ions when

deal ing with an exist ing rural area which is developed as grazing

land and exist ing windfarms on which zone to choose to manage

water qual i ty within a dr inking water catchment.

The land zoned E3 Environmental Management Zone closely co-

ordinates with the extent of the dr inking water catchment. This

can be seen from the Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 Zoning Map 5

inserted below. The E3 land is coloured orange and surrounded

26

by the l ighter RU1 land. I t is of s igni f icance that al l of the land

east of Crookwel l - Goulburn Road and extending beyond

Woodhouselee Road is zoned E3 Environmental Management Zone which means that 80% of the exist ing turbines in Crookwel l

2 are located on E3 Environmental Management zoned land.

I f this land were zoned RU1 Primary Product ion i t would permit

Industr ies, Open Cut Mining and other intensive land uses which

would not be compatible with the dr inking water catchment.

Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 Zoning Map 5

The object ives of the E3 Environmental Management Zone are:

1 Object ives of zone

• To protect, manage and restore areas with special ecological ,

scient i f ic, cul tural or aesthet ic values.

• To provide for a l imited range of development that does not

have an adverse effect on those values.

27

• To faci l i tate the management of environmental ly sensi t ive land

and areas of high environmental value to the local

government area.

An examinat ion of the Upper Lachlan Val ley Strategy Vision 2020

which we know informed the Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 makes no

mention and does not ident i fy any special ecological , scient i f ic,

cul tural or aesthet ic values in this land and we are only sure that

i t has been zoned in this way to protect the dr inking water

catchment of the town of Goulburn.

4.3 Wind farms are already accommodated within the E3 zone and water catchment. Potential impacts can be managed through appropriate conditions.

The E3 zone current ly accommodates Crookwel l 2 with 28

operat ional turbines which not only descr ibe the landscape

character in the E3 Environmental Management Zone in this local i ty but demonstrate that they can clear ly exist wi th no

signi f icant impact of the dr inking water catchment but also

contr ibut ing to the character of the local i ty rather than adversely

af fect ing those values.

I t is clear f rom the DPE report that the proposal can manage the

environmental ly sensi t ive land and the areas of high

environmental value to the local government area with a relat ively benign sui te of condit ions when one understands that

the sensi t iv i ty and values ar ise from the sensi t iv i ty and value of

the dr inking water catchment.

4.4 Applying the LEP considering its aims and objectives

In order to best understand an instrument i t needs to be read as a whole. In order to assess the weight to be given to the

object ives of the E3 zone one needs to consider the Aims of the

Plan and the object ives of comparable zones.

28

1.2 Aims of Plan

(1) This Plan aims to make local environmental planning

provisions for land in Upper Lachlan in accordance with the

relevant standard environmental planning instrument under

sect ion 33A of the Act.

(2) The part icular aims of this Plan are as fol lows:

(a) to provide planning controls for Upper Lachlan and to update

and consol idate into one instrument the var ious planning

controls that current ly apply to Upper Lachlan,

(b) to encourage the sustainable management, development and

conservat ion of natural resources,

(c) to promote the use of rural resources for agr icul ture and

pr imary product ion including f ishing, forestry, mining and

related processing, service and value adding industr ies,

(d) to protect and conserve the environmental and cul tural

her i tage of Upper Lachlan,

(e) to encourage new residents to Upper Lachlan by providing a

range of housing opportuni t ies in the main towns and vi l lages,

( f ) to al low development only i f i t occurs in a manner that

minimises r isks due to environmental hazards, and minimises

r isks to important elements of the physical environment,

including water qual i ty,

(g) to promote and coordinate the orderly and economic use and

development of land in Upper Lachlan,

(h) to protect and enhance watercourses, r ipar ian habitats,

wet lands and water qual i ty within Upper Lachlan’s dr inking

water catchments so as to enable the achievement of the

water qual i ty object ives.

The opening aim of the Upper Lachlan LEP 2010 Plan is to

encourage the sustainable management, development and

conservat ion of natural resources. This is the cornerstone of the

project in moving our energy economy from fossi l fuels to renewables.

The second aim is to promote the use of rural resources for

agr icul ture and pr imary product ion including f ishing, forestry,

29

mining and related processing, service and value adding

industr ies. Where we have one of New South Wales most

signi f icant wind resources and establ ished infrastructure this must be considered the most fundamental promotion of pr imary

product ion.

4.5 Conclusion as to why Crookwell 3 is consistent with the current land use zoning provisions (to the extent that they should be given weight as a draft instrument)

Li t t le needs to be said about the benef i ts of renewable energy sources in protect ing and conserving the environment of the

Upper Lachlan.

Simi lar ly, the proposal and the DPE report raises no signi f icant

concerns over the need to minimises r isks due to environmental

hazards, and minimises r isks to important elements of the

physical environment, including water qual i ty.

Where the exist ing wind farms, wind resources and infrastructure

are in place the proposal must be said to promote and

coordinate the orderly and economic use and development of

land in Upper Lachlan.

The DPE reports conf i rms that with a sui table sui te of operat ing

condit ions the proposal wi l l protect and enhance watercourses, r ipar ian habitats, wet lands and water qual i ty within Upper

Lachlan’s dr inking water catchments so as to enable the

achievement of the water qual i ty object ives.

Consequent ly, one must be sat isf ied that the proposal is

consistent with the aims of the Plan and that the aims and

object ives behind the zoning would be met in ful l wi th an appropriate publ ic benef i t and better planning outcome than the

do nothing opt ion.

30

Whi le the eastern turbines would be prohibi ted under the current

Local Environmental Plan as they are located in an E3

Environmental Management Zone i t is considered that the project is consistent with the Aims of the Plan and the object ives of the

E3- Environmental Management zone and that the benef i ts of the

project are so signi f icant and essent ial to the State that the

consent author i ty should support the proposal.

31

5.0 Response to DPE assertion that the majority of submissions from residences in the local area object to the project and Upper Lachlan Shire Council maintains residual concerns about the impacts of the of the Wind Farm.

5.1 Statistics demonstrate that a majority of submissions support Crookwell 3

The DPE report actual ly demonstrates qui te a di f ferent prof i le in

the submissions received. The DPE report states that of the 81

submissions from the general publ ic received, 32 objected to the project and 49 supported the project.26 This means in real terms

that in excess of 60% of the submissions supported the project.

I t cannot be disputed that this is a major i ty in favour of the

project.

Furthermore, in my 30 years of experience, i t is common that

submit ters are more often dr iven to respond when they are adversely af fected rather than when they perceive a more

general greater publ ic benef i t . Concerns over cl imate change

and fossi l fuel consumption within the community are wel l

understood.

I t is of interest that of the 81 submissions only 15 objectors l ived

within a 5km radius of the project. 27 This accounts for a l i t t le

over 18% of the submissions and could qui te l ikely be signi f icant ly reduced through the offer to acquire the propert ies

within 2km of the si te.

5.2 Council ’s residual concerns

The Upper Lachlan Shire Counci l ’s residual concerns about the

impacts of the of the Wind Farm are detai led in the DPE Report as:

26 Ibid. DEP 2019 p27 27 Ibid. DEP 2019 p27

32

· impacts of turbines within 2 km of a non-associated

residence and recommended those turbines be deleted;

· potent ial impacts on the local road network dur ing

construct ion of the project including the need for

signi f icant road upgrades pr ior to commencement of any

heavy vehicle haulage, part icular ly on

Woodhouselee Road;

· number of access points proposed for the eastern cluster

and recommendation that there should be only one

access point;

· number of cable crossings for Crookwel l Road and

recommendation that there should be only one cable

crossing; and

· potent ial for the proposed turbines to interfere with

television services in Crookwel l , impact ing up to 850

residences.28

However, the DPE acknowledges that in terms of the ful l range of potent ial impacts associated with the Appl icat ion, the major i ty of

these matters could be managed or condit ioned should the

Appl icat ion be approved and the appl icant accepts the necessary

condit ions to address each of these matters.

Further, i t is noted that the proponent has addressed these

residual concerns in discussions with the Counci l and resolved

them. (See let ter Attachment B)

28 Ibid. DEP 2019 p27

33

6.0 Conclusion

On 17 March 2010, the proponent lodged major project appl icat ion

10_0034, seeking approval under the former Part 3A of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) to

construct and operate the Wind Farm comprising 30 turbines.

The matter was considered by the PAC, which resul ted in Crookwel l

submit t ing an (Addendum EIS dated September 2016 which reduced the number of turbines from 29 to 23.

On 18 Apri l 2019, the DPE recommended to the IPC that i t refuse the

Appl icat ion. The key reasons for DPE’s recommendat ion are

summarised below.

(a) The Wind Farm would resul t in unacceptable impacts on the

landscape character and signi f icant landscape features.

(b) The Wind Farm would resul t in unacceptable direct and

cumulat ive visual impacts on residences, publ ic viewpoints and

the surrounding landscape.

(c) The Wind Farm is not consistent with the current land use

zoning provisions.

(d) The major i ty of submissions from residences in the local area

object to the project and Upper Lachlan Shire Counci l maintains

residual concerns about the impacts of the of the Wind Farm.

On 4 June 2019, the proponent wrote to the IPC offer ing to delete the

southern of addressing the concerns raised by the cluster of 6 turbines from the proposal in the interest of addressing the concerns raised by

the DPE in i ts report 18 Apri l 2019. The proponent conf i rmed in i ts

correspondence that whi le reducing the total number of turbines from

23 to 17, i t would not make any “corresponding reduct ion in our

34

commitment to the community and funding better community outcomes

through the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) already agreed with

the Counci l . ” The proponent wrote to Upper Lachlan Shire Counci l on 27 May 2019 out l ining the delet ion of the southern cluster of 6 turbines

and conf i rming their commitment to the community and funding better

community outcomes through the VPA and resolving Counci l ’s residual

concerns.

I t is noted that the delet ion of the southern cluster comprising proposed

turbines A28, A29, A30, A31, A32 and A33 would reduce the visual

extent of the proposed wind farm; el iminate the second cable crossing of Crookwel l Road; reduce TV and radio interference as this cluster is

in between Crookwel l and Goulburn; el iminate the visual impact to Pejar

Creek Dam recreat ional area and el iminate the visual impact for non-

associated dwel l ings at Narangl (n8) and Wombat Hol low (n19).

The proponent also undertook to cont inue engagements with the

remaining 3 non-associated dwel l ings within 2km of the proposed turbines; to establ ish neighbour agreements or where they cannot be

entered into, of fer acquisi t ion for fair market value.

The proponent has also conf i rmed through correspondence from the

energy retai ler that negot iat ions for an off- take agreement are f inal ized.

The remaining eastern cluster of seventeen turbines are cr i t ical to the

economic viabi l i ty of the project. The commercial terms of that

agreement mandate approval of the 17 eastern turbines. The qual i ty of the wind resource of the eastern cluster of turbines in comparison to

the 6 southern turbines, together with the proximity to the exist ing gr id

connect ion infrastructure (33/330kV electr ical substat ion) make them

cr i t ical to the agreement and to del iver ing a renewable energy resource

to contr ibute to meet ing the Renewable Energy Target (RET).

The visual impact of the proposed wind farm is rel ieved by the existence of wind farms in the local i ty and their s igni f icant contr ibut ion

to the exist ing landscape character and signi f icant landscape features

and that their numbers wax and wane over t ime and have a l imited

l i fespan. Furthermore, the arrangement of the turbines and the fact

35

that views to the turbines are relat ively contained to a (approximately)

10km sect ion of the 40km journey between Goulburn and Crookwel l

ensures that the change to character ( t ransformation of pastoral to windfarm pastoral) is a relat ively br ief experience and does l i t t le to

diminish the overal l character of the region. I t is considered that the

proposed Wind Farm would not resul t in unacceptable impacts on the

landscape character and signi f icant landscape features for the reasons

out l ined above .

I t is considered, that the modif ied 17 turbine wind farm would not resul t

in unacceptable direct and cumulat ive visual impacts on residences, publ ic viewpoints and the surrounding landscape.

Whi le the eastern turbines would be prohibi ted under the current Local

Environmental Plan as they are located in an E3 Environmental

Management Zone, i t should be noted that the 2010 LEP only appl ies to

the assessment of the development appl icat ion as a draft . Al l of the

turbines were permissible with consent under the zoning that appl ied in the instruments that were current at the t ime the appl icat ion was

submit ted. However, even to the extent that the 2010 LEP appl ies, i t is

considered that the project is consistent with the Aims of the Plan and

the object ives of the E3- Environmental Management zone and that the

benef i ts of the project are so signi f icant and essent ial to the State that

the consent author i ty should support the proposal.

The DPE acknowledges that in terms of the ful l range of potent ial impacts associated with the Appl icat ion, the major i ty of these matters

could be managed or condit ioned should the Appl icat ion be approved

and the appl icant accepts the necessary condit ions to address each of

these matters.

For these reasons i t is considered that the proposal should be

supported.

36

Signature: Name: Andrew Darroch

Date: June 2019

37

Attachment A

Global Power Generation Australia

Suite 4, Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke St.

Canberra ACT 2600

ABN 74 130 542 031

Canberra, 27th May 2019

Upper Lachlan Shire Council

CODE: 20190527-CR3-CDP-ULS-001

SUBJECT: Confirmation of GPG commitment related to Crookwell 3 Wind Farm

Dear Tina Dodson

Firstly, we would like to thank the ULSC for the meeting we held on the 22nd May. After internal discussion

related the ULSC concerns related the construction of Crookwell 3 Wind Farm, GPG is pleased to propose

to the ULSC the following mitigation measures and new commitments with the confidence of your positive

support during this final stage of Planning Permit process.

1) GPG will eliminate the southern cluster of Crookwell 3 Wind Farm

The elimination of this cluster will involve the removal of 6 turbines and will implicate also the elimination

or mitigation of some of the ULSC concerns. GPG also confirms that Voluntary Planning Agreement current

total contribution (23 turbines) will be maintained the same even if there is any reduction in the number of

turbines (a new agreement is being drafted to reflect this, and will be provided shortly).

The elimination of this cluster implicates also the elimination of some of the ULSC concerns;

a) Reduction in the global visual impact of the Wind farm

b) Elimination of second cable crossing across Crookwell Road (section 1 of ULSC letter dated on the

26th April 2016)

c) Removal of the cluster and that mainly could cause TV and Radio interferences, as this cluster is in

the line between Goulburn and Crookwell

Global Power Generation Australia

Suite 4, Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke St.

Canberra ACT 2600

ABN 74 130 542 031

d) Elimination of visual impact in the Pejar Creek Dam Area, considered as a recreation area

e) Elimination of important visual impact to non-associated Neighbours, specially Narangl (n8) and

Wombat Hollow (n19)

2) GPG will accept the option 1 for the access track to the wind Farm

GPG will use this access during construction and operation for all the transport of material and

staff. GPG cannot assure at this stage the utilization of this access for the transport of the Turbines

components due to the special orography of this access and the necessity of further studies. The

upgrade of Graywood Siding Road, estimated at $800.000, should also be considered as a

Community benefit as the Road is a Public Road.

3) GPG commits a Community engagement for a total amount of the $800.000 AUD during

construction stage;

Our proposal for the expenditure of this amount is, pending of further discussion with the ULSC:

3.1) Mobile Black Spot Program

GPG will contribute with 200.000 AUD to this Government program to improve mobile

phone coverage in rural areas. Alternatively, a targeted local approach could be developed

with consultation.

https://www.communications.gov.au/what-we-do/phone/mobile-services-and-

coverage/mobile-black-spot-program

Global Power Generation Australia

Suite 4, Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke St.

Canberra ACT 2600

ABN 74 130 542 031

3.2) TV reception Improvement

GPG will conduct an exhaustive Interference Communication Study (once the southern cluster

has been removed) and will implement and improve the signal with a re-transmitter if

required. (estimated value of $350.000 AUD).

This installation should be conditioned to an exhaustive study to be done for GPG in

collaboration with the ULSC. In case there is no need of this new re-transmitter, the allocated

amount for commitment would be allocated in another project in agreement with the ULSC.

3.3) Domestic Solar Program

GPG will contribute with an amount of $200.000 AUD for the installation of photovoltaic

solar panels for in designated buildings in accordance with the ULSC.

3.4) Satellite reception Program

GPG will contribute with $50.000 AUD for the installation of satellite dishes and decoders in

the dwellings where the TV reception is poorest.

4) GPG commits a Community engagement for a total amount of the AUD per year during Wind

Farm Operation (excluded VPA and neighbours Deed)

Besides the committed amount with the Voluntary Planning Agreement for Crookwell 2 and 3 wind

Farms, signed on the 27/7/2017 with the ULSC and the Neighbours Deed Agreements, GPG is

committed to a contribution of $50.000 AUD/year to support the maintenance of re-transmitter

installations or any other funding duly agreed with the ULSC.

5) Exclusion area of 2 Km from any not associated neighbours

GPG is committed to continue to engage with residents within the 2 Km zone to establish

neighbours’ agreements. We will keep you informed of any improvement in the upcoming days.

All these commitments are subject to a positive support and a final IPC approval of the Planning Permit for

Crookwell 3 Wind Farm.

Hoping that these actions and commitments will be allow the ULSC to support Crookwell 3 Wind Farm in

the upcoming weeks.

DAVID SANTO TOMAS

Projects Director

38

Attachment B

David Way Senior Planning Officer Independent Planning Commission of NSW

Peter Duncan AM Panel Chair Independent Planning Commission of NSW

4 June 2019

By email

Dear Mr Way and Mr Duncan

Crookwell 3 Wind Farm (SSD 6695): Further reduction of Project impacts

We refer to the Crookwell 3 Wind Farm (SSD 6695) development application currently before the Independent Planning Commission of NSW (IPC) for final determination (Project).

The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) Assessment Report and referral letter to the IPC dated 23 April 2019 recommend refusal of the Project on the basis that, in DPE’s assessment, the environmental impacts of the Project outweigh the Project’s benefits.

The proponent does not share the outcomes of the assessment of the Project undertaken by DPE and DPE’s conclusion with regard to the impacts of the Project.

GPG Australia Pty Ltd and its SPV Crookwell Development Pty Ltd are long term participants in the community. Over the long history of the Crookwell 3 application, we have reduced the impacts of the Project in response to community submissions, Upper Lachlan Shire Council (Council) concerns and new guidance material from DPE as it has been introduced. The Project will utilise existing infrastructure (including substation, grid connection and road upgrades) from the Crookwell 2 project and so will have far fewer impacts that a project of a similar scale built in any other location. Further, the Project has the benefit of a fully negotiated off-take agreement with a major Australian energy retailer. The agreement is ready to go, pending development consent for the Project.

Further reduction in the perceived impacts of the Project

Notwithstanding that we disagree with the assessment undertaken and recommendation reached by DPE, in the interests of addressing the concerns raised by DPE in its Report, we would be willing to:

(a) remove the southern cluster of turbines from the Project. That change will involve the removal of six (6) turbines (A28, A29, A30, A31, A32 and A33) (Southern Turbines); and

(b) without making any corresponding reduction in our commitment to the community and funding better community outcomes through the Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) already agreed with the Council.

The proponent is prepared to make this change to the Project on the basis that there are no changes to or reduction in the number of the remaining eastern cluster of seventeen (17) turbines (Eastern Turbines), which are critical to the economic viability of the Project.

Enclosed is a letter dated 27 May 2019 which we sent to the Council outlining the proposed change to the Project and our commitment to addressing concerns raised by the Council.

The importance of the Eastern Turbines to the economic viability of the Project

The Eastern Turbines are critical to the economic viability of the Project for the following reasons:

(a) the proponent has finalised the negotiation of an off-take agreement with a tier 1 energy retailer. The commercial terms of that agreement mandate approval of the Eastern Turbines.

(b) the quality of the wind resource in comparison to the Southern Turbines, together with the proximity to the existing grid connection infrastructure (33/330kV electrical substation).

Statement of Project commitments

In the event that the IPC is minded to approve the Project with the removal of the Southern Turbines, the proponent is committed to providing the same community benefits as if the Project were approved with the Southern Turbines (i.e. all 23 turbines within the Eastern and Southern Turbine clusters).

Those commitments include:

(a) existing agreements with host landowners and neighbouring properties to the Project;

78733050 Crookwell 3 page 2

(b) a VPA with the Council. This agreement will involve a yearly contribution of $2,500 per turbineover the lifetime of the project, to be used by Council in community projects, improvement of localinfrastructure, etc. The Proponent confirms its commitment under this VPA to contribute basedon a total of 23 wind turbines, irrespective of 17 of them being finally approved (which isaddressed in the enclosed letter to Council);

(c) community engagement in the amount of $800,000 for mobile black spot program, TV receptionimprovement, domestic solar program and satellite reception program;

(d) a contribution of $50,000 per annum to support the maintenance of re-transmitter installations;

(e) the upgrade of Graywood Siding Road estimated at $800,000;

(f) continued engagements with residents within 2km of the Project (Eastern Turbines) to establishneighbour agreements where possible, or to offer acquisition for fair market value whereneighbour agreements cannot be entered into;

Reduction of issues

The removal of the Southern Turbines addresses the following concerns of DPE and Council:

(a) removal of any visual impacts to the public domain, including the Pejar Creek Dam Area Stateheritage listed St Stephens Church;

(b) removal of visual impact to non-associated neighbours;

(c) elimination of second cable crossing across Crookwell Road;

(d) removal of the turbines that could potentially cause TV and Radio interferences;

No delay to IPC’s final determination

Importantly, given that the proposed change to the Project reduces the overall number of turbines and reduces the impacts of the Project in response to matters raised by DPE and the Council, but does not reduce the benefits of the Project to the community, we do not consider that there is any reason to delay the current process before the IPC and the IPC’s final determination of the Project as a result of the proposed change.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further with the IPC and to address any concerns you may have. We look forward to providing you with further details prior to our meeting. Do not hesitate to contact me on 0400 403 251.

Yours sincerely

Guillermo Alonso

Crookwell Development Pty Ltd