The NSW Department of Planning and Environment advised yesterday that the proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not suitable for public exhibition.

The Department reviewed the EIS and found that the proponent, EPYC has:

* Not adequately assessed the visual and noise impacts of the project, as required by government guidelines;

* Not undertaken sufficient consultation with local residents about measures to reduce impacts of the wind farm, particularly in regard to visual impacts; and

* Has not fully considered the compatibility of the project with local planning controls and the emerging rural-residential nature of the area.

Australian/Spanish company EPYC plan to construct up to 88 turbines, stretching across 5,200 hectares from the southern edge of Lake Bathurst in the north down past the Kings Highway at Mulloon.

Dr Michael Crawford from the Residents Against Jupiter wind turbines (RAJwt) group has welcomed the finding, saying the group knew the EIS had many flaws, which the department had picked up on.

He said EPYC had not delivered adequate photo montages of the proposed wind turbines to the department.

“They have to produce a lot more photo montages within 2km of the proposed wind turbines - all 173 of them,” he said.

“Their noise monitoring has also been found to be inadequate. It takes a lot of time to do these things correctly.

“And, on community consultation, EPYC need to realise it is a two-way street. They need to listen as well. This is why we held a recent independent community information day.”

Dr Crawford congratulated the department on the decision.

“I think it reflects on the new management that it is finally taking the impacts of these developments on communities seriously. The department is holding Jupiter (and EPYC) to account on this,” he said.

Dr Crawford believed the rejection of the EIS would not necessarily mean the wind farm would not go ahead.

“While we are absolutely happy about this, it does not stop the development entirely,” he said.

“We are confident that if they (EPYC) actually did what the department asked them to do in their EIS they would find they could not establish a wind farm here. This is not an ideal place and I doubt that even the wind resource is here.”

Dr Crawford attributed the Department’s increased rigour in examining Environmental Impacts Statements to a change of management under former Minister for Planning Pru Goward, following the Gullen Range “fiasco.”

The proponents of the Gullen Range Wind Farm, Goldwind secured retrospective planning approval for 69 turbines (out of a total of 73) that were built outside of the originally approved locations.

“Gullen Range was a fiasco because the department, through its own ineptitude, got itself into a legally compromised position and they had to agree in retrospect to the development,” Dr Crawford said.

“So they gave into the developers but sold out the community in the process. They don’t want to end up in the same situation again.

“The Department gives an extensive set of requirements to these companies at the outset and in the past some companies have got away without addressing the requirements seriously. Now the department is saying firmly - ‘no, you have to comply with the regulations with what we have asked of you or you can go away’.”

A spokesperson for the department said that information presented to the community regarding impacts of state significant developments like wind farms needed to be of the highest quality.

“The community has a legitimate interest in major development in their area. That is why the company was required to consult with the community, especially its nearest neighbours, about the impacts of its proposal,” the spokesperson said.

“The department has informed the company that it has not met its requirements and that more work needs to be done on these issues before any application could go on public exhibition.”