Paling Yards Wind Farm

I’m concerned that the transportation of infrastructure through ‘O’Connell ANZAC Memorial Avenue ‘ of trees has not been taken into serious consideration.
This is a First World War Memorial. Listed by the National Trust, The Returned Servicemen's League, within Oberon Council’s LEP as a heritage site and Consecrated by the Anglican Church of O’Connell. The Avenue was planted by the community in 1925 as a living Memorial to those from our community who fought in The Great War. The cathedral effect of the trees acts as a church like structure in the centre of our village. This is holy ground. Memorial services are held in the Avenue on each ANZAC and Armistice Day. Pruning of this Avenue to accomodate the wind farm infrastructure is tantamount to desecration and by all aborist reports will destroy the Cathedral effect of the Avenue which is central to its Memorial aesthetic. As well, it puts the trees in jeopardy of further damage and possible destruction by lopsided pruning.
I have no argument with wind farms and I support the progress of alternative energy sources in our community, but not at the expense of O’Connell ANZAC Memorial Avenue.
I would want you to find an alternative route to Paling Yards, that does not include transport through O’Connell ANZAC Memorial Avenue.
Yours most sincerely,
Brenda Doney.

Paling Yards Wind Farm Submission
My name is Kent Watson, and I am an administrator of the Monument Australia website. The Monument Australia website is a historical and educational research site which records the public monuments and memorials in all Australian States and Territories. These public monuments and memorials were erected by a public desire to commemorate people or events. We wish to lodge an objection against the construction of the project known as “Paling Yards Wind Farm” based on the following
• The damage that the transportation of the wind turbine components may do to the O`Connell ANZAC Memorial Avenue.

This avenue of 120 Desert Ash trees were planted between 1925 to 1927 as a World War One Memorial to local residents. The existing avenue was established with trees raised from seed imported from the Middle East. The link between the Desert Ash and the Middle-East theatre of war in which many O’Connell volunteers served during World War One is the primary reason why this Memorial Avenue should be protected from damage.

There is also a historical association with General Sir Edmund Allenby, who was the British commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, which included Australian and soldiers from O`Connell. Allenby visited Australia in 1926 and personally opened the first stages of the avenue in March 1925 and then officially opened by Allenby in January 1926.

From our understanding this is a very unique historical event as we do not believe that any other memorial avenue was opened by General Sir Edmund Allenby during his Australian visit.

This memorial avenue may cause irreparable damage during the Desert Ash trees by the vehicles that will be transporting components to the wind farm project, and the integrity of the avenue may be lost. The memorial avenue, like other monuments in other towns, have an intrinsic cultural link and significance to the local O`Connell community,

If there was some way to bypass this part of O`Connell Road, we think this would be the best outcome for the community and the avenue itself.

Regards,
Kent Watson
Monument Australia

I've looked at the documentation and seem comfortable that owners have taken sufficient steps to minimize harm to the environment. I am happy with the level of detail provided in the documentation.

Ongoing health and environmental issue to surrounding properties. Also depreciation of farming lands

I am very concerned about the proposed project to install 47 wind towers in the Paling Yards area and then to install another 300 odd towers in the greater Oberon area. This is a very beautiful area noted for it's peace and tranquility and pristine landscape. It is popular for tourism amongst people who value such things and is close enough to large population areas to make it a thriving area for this type of tourism. Covering it with wind towers would effectively wipe out the tourism industry in this area and take away many much need jobs in the community.
For those of us who already live here it would destroy the reason we have chosen to reside in this type of area. I have re-located to this area permanently in the last few years and have built a residence where I had hoped to retire peacefully. I don't want to have to move again because it has been destroyed. Sadly, no-one wants to live near the noise of wind turbines nor to look out on a view of them.
The roads in this area are narrow, windy and poorly paved in general. Transporting the materials for wind towers to these remote locations would not be possible without major road works and I fear the residents would be left with roads that are in even worse repair due to the ravages of all the large heavy vehicles using them. Added to this is the risk of fire in this region with so much coverage by native forest. High wind towers would preclude or restrict the use of aerial water bombing and put us all at risk.
Please re-consider this project.

I would like to express my objection against the construction of the project known as “Paling Yards Wind Farm” on the following grounds:
The damage that the transportation of the wind turbine components will do to the O’Connell Avenue of Trees. From 1925-1927 residents of O’Connell planted 120 Desert Ash trees as a WW1 Memorial. These trees not just a definitive and well known identity in O'Connell but are a living WWI memorial - one of very few in Australia - and evidence of the O’Connell community’s gratitude and appreciation for the men and women who served our country in time of war. These trees are treasured and iconic to residents and visitors who love and frequent the area often. They are cared for by our local residents with occasional assistance by way of grants from the state Government. (A brief history of the Avenue of Trees, sometimes called the O’Connell ANZAC Memorial Avenue of Trees can be found at www.monumentaustralia.org.au) The EIS for this project states “there are trees on either side of the road and some trimming may be required”. Passionate and dedicated locals have inspected the site of the Avenue of Trees and have calculated that for vehicles 5.7m in height and 6m in width, some trees would require more than “some trimming”. Trimming is a very ambiguous term and anything more than a “trim” would be grossly detrimental to the trees and the Avenue and would be considered DESECRATION OF A MEMORIAL.
The adverse impact of additional traffic, particularly the over-size – over-mass vehicles. There has been no consultation with residents and business owners along the O’Connell Rd route about the enormous disruptions they will face for almost two years and nearly 600 movements of the over-size over-mass vehicles. With O’Connell Rd being the only road directly linking Bathurst and Oberon and only one lane each way for most of the distance, any locals, businesses and tourists will face immeasurable delays. Alternative routes would mean going a long way out of their way, distrusting daily schedules with additional travel time and expense, with the high price of fuel. It seems that in the quest for profit by foreign businesses and the Government’s panic for renewable energy at any cost the basic rights and needs of individuals and communities are ignored.

Submission regarding the proposed “Paling Yards Wind Farm”
State Significant Development application number: SSD-29064077

Please see below my submission opposing the above application in point form:

1) On page 39 of the “Paling Yards Wind Farm” Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) it is stated: “Four wetlands of international importance occur within 10km of the site”, however on page 38 it states “no wetlands of international importance within 10km of the site”. Which is it? How can we rely on a document that contradicts itself on such an important point? This EIS is not fit for exhibition in its current state. At the very least, it requires a comprehensive review and re-submission.

2) On page 38 the EIS states that the proposed site is surrounded by three national parks – Abercrombie River National Park to the west and north, Kanangara Boyd National park to the south and the world heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park to the east. Given the proximity of these huge tracts of national park, which are obviously of very high conservation value, and the known fire risk that wind turbines represent, how can approval of the proposed wind industrial estate (not a farm) be justified?

Other risks to the flora and fauna in the nearby national parks, as listed in the EIS (page 38) include:
a) “Reduced viability of adjacent habitat due to edge effects and also noise, dust or light spill”, and;
b) “Transport of weeds and pathogens from the site to adjacent vegetation.”

Again, how can approval of the proposed wind industrial estate be justified with the full knowledge of these risks to wildlife?

3) Regarding wind turbine blade transport, on page 40 of the EIS there is a statement: “In its current condition the selected route option will require a moderate number of upgrades before it could be deemed suitable for transporting the proposed components.” The route in question, from Newcastle Port to Paling Yards, is described as being 654km in length. Please advise who will be funding the required “moderate number of upgrades”? If they are not being fully funded by the wind turbine operator then I propose that this is another reason to withhold approval of this project.

4) It remains unclear from the information provided in this EIS as to where the 40 megalitres of water required for the construction phase of this project will be sourced from. The proposal of extracting this water from the Abercrombie River is totally unacceptable to me, and I believe would be very damaging to the river ecosystem. Please refer to page 46 of the EIS.

5) The following statement appears on page 50 of the EIS: “The EIS found that the Project is compatible with the existing land uses of the area and complies with relevant planning and environmental controls applicable to the site.” I disagree with this statement. Firstly, a wind industrial estate is not compatible with farming and national parks for the some of the reasons I have touched on above and many others. Secondly, it does not comply with the rural zoning of the area at all, but instead utilises the “State Significant Development” exemption to avoid compliance.

6) Also on page 50 of the EIS, the following statement is made regarding what the project will do: “Deliver an investment of approximately $600 million to the local economy”. This appears misleading to me. Are we to understand that the wind turbine operator will be handing our community a $600 million asset? Is that what they mean by “$600 million to the local economy”? I would imagine that a significant proportion of the capital investment in this project comprises the actual wind turbines, which since it is stated in this EIS that their components are coming from Newcastle Port, I assume they will have been manufactured overseas. Obviously our community will not be receiving that part of the $600 million. Nor do I imagine the wind estate asset will be given to us either, as mentioned.

7) In summary, I believe that the “Paling Yards Wind Farm” project application should not be approved, neither now nor in the future. It is an inappropriate development project for this location. As to the quality of this EIS, in my opinion it is inadequate.

FIRE

Wind turbines can catch fire.

Wind turbines via lightning strikes and/or mechanical failures can be the source of fire ignition. (e.g. Goulburn NSW January 2023 & numerous more examples reported in the media over the years, including in Ohio USA last week, October 2023).


Refer PDF attachment

Fig 1. Wind Turbine Fire Goulburn January 2023

Link to Ohio wind turbine fire: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-67147288

Wind turbines can suffer from “blade throw”.

The EIS Appendix J tells us that blade throw is “an incident in which a structural failure occurring in the blade of a wind turbine during operation results in parts of the blade detaching and being thrown into the surrounding area” and also reports an incident of a “blade fragment reaching an estimated distance of almost 1000m”.

A brief review of available news stories shows that fire and “blade throw” events often occur together (both resulting from failures of some sort and one often causing the other). This means that not only are wind turbines on occasions the source of fire ignition, but that they can then spread the resulting fire up to 1000m via thrown burning blade fragments.

The EIS does not seem to mention this likely co-incidence of fire and “blade throw” or the fact that wind turbines have on many occasions been the source of fire ignition.

The EIS is therefore fundamentally flawed.

Mitigation Strategy: Do not approve the “Paling Yards Wind Farm” and do not allow existing wind turbines to operate under total fire ban conditions.



PROJECT CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES & ETHICS

The EIS claims that the project “will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 900,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent annually”. This claim forms the fundamental basis used to justify the project. The proponent therefore must fully and transparently justify this claim. This necessarily must not only involve an accounting of the energy produced by the wind turbine during its life, but also all of the embodied energy and carbon footprint from all aspects of the project. This, at a minimum, should include an accounting of the embodied energy /carbon footprint from all consultants & scoping works, construction materials, fabrication, transport, site works and construction, transmission and other associated infrastructure, maintenance and operation, and back up battery and/or gas plants. This has not been published in the EIS and therefore no rigorous justification for the project has been presented. On this basis the EIS is fundamentally flawed.

I have written and spoken with a number of politicians regarding my concern that the current process for the mass rollout of renewable energy infrastructure in NSW is not ethical. The principle of environmental equity states that the harms and costs should be carried to the extent reasonably possible by those demanding and consuming the end product. This is not happening with the wind industry in NSW and regional areas are consequently the victim of disproportionate harms. The EIS makes no mention of the principle of environmental equity.

Secret contracts with “non disclosure agreements” seem to be the norm in the wind industry. This allows cynical negotiating tactics that are often divisive in formerly harmonious communities. Furthermore, while some land owners may perceive that they have been generously compensated , compensation for other affected land owners may be inadequate or non existent.

The wind industry is operating in a legislative and political environment that seems to me to be unfairly weighted in its favour. The proponent has spent years preparing, scoping the project and preparing the EIS, yet the Oberon community has only been given a few weeks to respond. Local planning has been removed via “State Significant Infrastructure Pathway” - how is that democratic? The proponent has pictures on their website of politicians opening their projects. How can the fundamental purpose of government, to administer justice, be carried out if government seems to be favouring one party at the expense of another?

Mitigation Strategy:

The proponent must submit comprehensive, rigorous and transparent accounting of their greenhouse gas emission reduction claims.
All non disclosure agreements should be removed from all contracts involving “Paling Yards Wind Farm”. Contracts and correspondence between the proponent, government and authorities must be fully disclosed to the public.
All landowners in the “visual catchment” of the wind industrial estate must be fairly compensated.
Requirement for local planning approval by Oberon Council should be reinstated.
Resubmit the EIS to concisely and clearly describe and quantify the multiple environmental and social harms that will likely result from this project. The thousands of pages of the current EIS and Appendices for the most part dismiss, justify or ignore obvious environmental and social harms and therefore make it completely inadequate.
The proponent should cease using the term “farm” for the cluster of industrial structures they are proposing.



LANDSCAPE

The Oberon District farmlands, forests, villages and world heritage national parks are, together, a unique and diverse area of outstanding natural beauty that is the bedrock of flourishing and growing tourism, arts and crafts, vibrant local commerce and a daily inspiration to all who live here and come to visit us. One 240m high industrial structure with flashing red lights on top would ruin that. 47 industrial structures would ruin it more. The 104 pages of the EIS Appendix G will not change that fact. Self serving sophistry and using terms like “Landscape Character Units” will not change that fact. Insulting past and present custodians by assigning a “Scenic Quality Rating” of “Moderate” or “Low/Moderate” to our rural landscapes will not change that fact. Taking away local planning using “State Significant Infrastructure Pathway” will not change that fact. The Oberon Plateau is our home, we love it and we don't want it ruined by wind towers.

Mitigation Strategy: Do not approve the “Paling Yards Wind Farm”

I object to the Paling Yards project for a number of reasons.

Not only are they ugly, a threat to wildlife and emit low level noise but they are only 20-40% efficient. In fact ongoing maintenance will be needed and often the amount of electricity needed to start the turbines is under reported.

No wind ... no turbine movement. There are two wind towers in Hampton which rarely move! So how confident can anyone be that the placement of the proposed towers at the Paling Yards will be successful?

The turbines will all need replacing in about 20 years, so the environmental impact of this current two year construction will be duplicated again in the 2040’s.

Please reconsider placing any wind towers at the Paling Yards ... they look awful around Taralga, a blight on the countryside!

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Paling Yards wind towers objection.

I object to the construction of the Paling Yards wind towers. Such development would be severely detrimental to wildlife; the operational towers ignite and extend the area of bushfires and prevent water-bombing on fires; and the carbon-saving benefits are, at best, doubtful.

We often drive through the Paling Yards area to Goulburn and beyond for business. I have often seen emus grazing along the top of the range and last week I spotted a pair of large wedge-tailed eag.es lumbering around in a paddock just in from the road. Lyrebirds are also frequently seen in the vicinity of Abercrombie Road by those travelling in the early morning. Some years ago, a neighbour discovered the body of a spotted quoll on his property. The Abercrombie River area may well harbor these hidden gems, as it does a particular rare Australian frog (of which I have forgotten the name) and the Macquarie Perch.

Wind turbines are known to have caused fires. This beautiful area, surrounded by national parks and other native bush areas, is vulnerable. Once the fire starts, the blades are likely to launch sparks and fan the flames. Alas, only aerial fire-fighting is likely to be truly effective in quelling such blazes, particularly in the steep, inaccessible areas around the Abercrombie River, and aerial fire-fighting around wind turbines is an absolute no-no. This puts more responsibility on ground crews and may well exacerbate the likelihood of loss of life.

The efficacy of wind-towers is highly questionable. The carbon-saving benefits are fiercely debated, especially in view of the amount of power needed to construct the towers in the first place. The amount of energy needed to restart the turbines after a lull in the wind is massive and must come from the grid.

Who are we kidding in this populous rush for "clean energy"? The whole process is "unclean"! Save our district from devastating wreckage and degradation when the turbines pass their use-by date. Save our wildlife, our landscape, our fire-fighters and our environment. Stop the Paling Yards wind towers.

This area is observed to support a healthy bird poputation, including the Wedge Tail Eagle. Additionally , the project will be within 1Km of the Abercrombie River known to support the endangered Murray Crayfish. Notable, the projects own Environment Impact Statement notes heightened risk of bushfire events, biodiversity decline and excessive noise. Further,
this part of NSW, along with the broader plateau, is renowned for its natural beauty and as such, nearly fifty 240 meter high wind towers are not compatible with preservation of the natural world. Additionally, damage to the built world such as transport infrastructure and a lack of feasibility and funding for decommissioning and recycling of fibreglass blades in particular is lacking.

For these reasons and others too numerous to list, I object to the proposal.

My wife and I live on the Abercrombie Road and are concerned about the significant increase in truck movements to build the wind farm. When we turn out of our driveway we have a significant blind spot to our right. With more truck movements, lots from out of town, we concerned about safety.
As a general comment, we are concerned the tourism and farming employers will be unduly negatively affected by this development.

wind turbine towers will be a waste of tax payers money, as they do not reduce carbon emissions beyond what it produces to construct them. IE a wind turbine will produce more carbon than it will save.

I am very concerned about the impact these towers will have on the timber industry, tourism and visual amenity as well as the disruption they will cause during construction.
As a regular traveller to Goulburn, I am very concerned about the truck movements on the Abercrombie Road. The road is a nightmare at the best of times. It will be worse if the already not fit for purpose road is clogged with up to 40000 truck movements over the next few years. A lot of money and a lot of time would need to be spent to get the road to the level it would need to be to support the intended traffic.
Other roads in the area will also be impacted. The avenue of tress at O’Connell appears to be under threat. Surely these trees will not be pruned or removed in order to transport the wind towers!
Travelling from Bathurst to the Abercrombie River will be a nightmare should this proposal be approved. The roads are already under considerable stress from the truck movements associated with the timber industry. Frustrated drivers are already being subjected to the consequences of too many trucks on poorly maintained roads. Adding more truck movements would only exacerbate an already dangerous situation.
Our area is already heavily industrialised. We do not need or want further destruction of our rural ambience. The Oberon community will not benefit in any way from the wind towers. Yet we will pay the price for them via the inconvenience we will be subjected to during the construction phase, the loss of the beauty of our countryside, the loss of tourism and the impact on our environment by these towers
I am also very concerned about fire fighting should these towers be approved. The towers will be located in a very heavily timbered area. National parks and State Forests are very close by. When a fire starts there will be no way to fight it. Air attack will be severely compromised due to the height of the towers. In the early 2000s State Forests reduced their workforce in the Oberon area, from over 100 employees to a handful, so they no longer have the boots on the ground to fight a fire. The Rural fire service is made up of members who do not want these towers and they will be very reluctant to assist with any fires. So, who is going to fight the fires? They can’t be fought by air and there is no one on the ground to fight them. Do you really want to jeopardize the timber industry that supports the Oberon area? Do you really want to threaten the pristine Abercrombie National Park and all areas to the East of Paling Yards? That is exactly what will happen should these towers be approved.

This proposal could be devasting for our community. Renewable energy is certainly something that needs to be considered. However, this proposal appears to be more about exploiting an electorate that doesn’t have the numbers to impact elections. A knee jerk reaction to the need for renewables and greenwashing the destruction of the environment. There is no economic benefit to the community. There is no environmental benefit to the community. There is no social benefit to the community. There is no benefit to the community.
Please do the right thing by the Oberon Community and reject this proposal.

I object to this proposal for the following reasons:
The impact the initial stages of the development will have on our roads and traffic. I travel from Oberon to Goulburn on a regular basis. The road is already in a terrible state. Trying to negotiate travel in a timely manner when we are confronted with a constant flow of large slow-moving trucks along the route will have a very negative impact on those using the Abercrombie Road.
How are the trucks going to negotiate the avenue of trees at O’Connell?
These trees are of great significance to the community and any attempt to remove or prune them should be prevented. They were planted as a memorial to the WW1 veterans and should not be disturbed.

I understand that major roadworks will need to be made to various roads along the route. Once again this will severely impact the community.

The impact the road issues will likely have on the community includes day to day travel issues, and economic issues based on the potential to reduce tourism to the area. I note the EIS indicates that the wind towers will be benefit tourism. It is not explained how a wind farm miles from Oberon will be good for tourism. I would argue the opposite. Our beautiful rural landscape will be ruined by the construction of these monstrosities.

Some of the proposed towers are located within a kilometre of the Abercrombie River. The negative impact this could have on the river is concerning. I am sure if the Abercrombie flowed to the East and into Sydney waterways this proposal would not even be considered.
The proposed towers are located near the Abercrombie, Kanangra-Boyd and Blue Mountains national parks as well as Gurnang and Vulcan State Forests. At the moment any bushfire fighting is done mostly via aerial attack in these heavily timbered and often steep areas. The capacity to fight a fire via air will be severely compromised should these towers be built. The economic stability of timber region will be threatened. I refer you to the devastating impact the 2019 fires had on the Tumut timber industry.
Oberon is already a heavily industrialised town. Why should our area be constantly subjected to further industrial development merely because of its closeness to Sydney? Our location should not be exploited by big corporations using the climate crisis to greenwash renewables and profit from the lack of action taken by various governments to address climate change for decades.
As stated, the towers will be built close to Abercrombie National Park. Just last week as I travelled to Goulburn I spotted 6 wedge tail eagles (2 adult and 4 smaller) feasting on a carcass in a paddock at Paling Yards. To see 6 together was fabulous. How will these magnificent birds and indeed all other birds fare once the wind towers are up and chopping them to bits!
The EIS acknowledges the ongoing impact these towers will have on visual amenity, way of life, health and well-being. It also alludes to an economic benefit to the community. It should be noted that the only economic benefit will be to land holders on whose land these towers are built and to Union Fenosa a Spanish company.
There is also a very worrying concern that should these towers go ahead it will open the door for further wind tower development in our area. This has the potential to have devastating consequences for our environment, our health, our social amenity, the economic stability of the area, property prices, fauna and flora.

The Oberon area is a timber and grazing area. Both of these industries will be impacted by the wind towers. In order for the economic stability of the area to grow it is imperative that the rural ambience be maintained and preserved. Our current economic stability should not be put under threat by this development.
I urge the State Government to consider the devasting consequences these towers will have on our area and do the right thing and reject this proposal.

Up until the second World War the Oberon Region was a major farming area for the growing of peas. Potatoes and similar crops. Grazing of sheep did not occur until drench was developed for Liver Fluck. During this period and subsequent large areas of forests were planted, a Sawmill established to provide mining props for Broken Hill mines. This mill is now one of the largest processors of housing materials if not the largest. In Australia. Currently the local and world demand is short of approximately. twenty percent of available Log. Rumours of reducing this availability in future proposals installing super Towers in existing forest areas which have been preserved to grow trees is also ridiculous.
As it currently stands around fifty percent of land is covered by National Parks and Forestry and is unratable placing great economic pressure on rural communities to pick up the shortfall. It is understood that the Rural Roads Maintenace budget is currently short One Million Dollars.
Also within the shire are the Jenolan Caves and other assets with National Tourism interest.
Added to this is the Oberon Dam, Abercrombie River ,Blue Mountains and Kanangra Boyd National Park. At O'Connel there is the Historic village and the oldest licensed inland hotel in Australia. It should not be overlooked that the oldest natural War Memorial Being the Avenue of Ash trees Grown from seeds brought back from the campaign area are contained also in the area close to the village and on the Corner of the main Road is the oldest Mud barn in Australia. As in the past any attempt to interfere with this area will receive, as in the past, be resisted with assistance from the wider NSW Population.
The problem is that the only study applied to these proposals only looks only at the grant and gives no consideration of local history or Historical Value. The additional problem is that this may not be a consideration of those approving the project.
The prosed installation of wind towers is not consistent with the local community plan which is based on four platforms. One of which is Tourism plus Rural activity Forestry and wood and Fiber processing.
Perhaps the first things done should be to measure how this project can be integrated into existing community objectives and processes without damage to the existing local assets and infrastructure, where it will be easily shown that it cannot.
This current wind Tower development being driven by a political desire to cover a previous rushed decision taken in error or consideration that this type of ad hoc planning motivated by the access to grants Is not the solution.

This and other projects should be halted to allow time for proper planning to confirm this is the best solution and a proper user network that would provide access with minimum impact and the best method after all considerations to generate power. This may or may not be the current proposed site.

It is understood for example that the Oberon area on average has a high level of daily sunlight, with solar energy being a better alternative to these ugly towers.

I have lived in Sodwalls for 25 years. I am very concerned that our beautiful environment will be changed forever if the proposed Paling Yard Wind Tower Project goes ahead. If this proposal goes ahead it will open the door to the Forestry Commission’s proposed 350 to 645 towers at a height of 285 Metres. We chose our farm to buy as it is surrounded by forest on three sides giving us privacy and a beautiful natural environment. Whilst we are surrounded by forests we have an active fire plan to which should protect us if a fire was to sweep through our area as we do not want to be a burden to the RFS as they try to save other properties. We respect local resources but we believe our rights as landowners have not been considered in view of the Paling Yards Wind Tower Project and the biodiversity effect of this project particularly in relation to flora, fauna and nearby waterways and the terrible visual effect on our natural environment. It has been acknowledged in the Environmental Impact Statement that the noise generated by the proposed wind towers will at times exceed regulated levels so how could such a proposal even be considered in such a heritage landscape.
I totally object to the Paling Wind Tower Project installing 47 x 240mm high wind towers which will require a constant flow of slow moving trucks carrying massive wind blades and towers to Oberon from the Port of Newcastle which will mean trucks hauling 65m long loads on roads leading to Oberon this is totally unacceptable as we are constant road users buying and selling our farm products.
The potential damage/pruning/chopping to beautiful trees including the Desert Ash trees that line the ANZAC Memorial Drive in O’Connell should be respected. Furthermore this proposed project will have major roadwork required beforehand and these transport implications will have an immediate effect on our way of life and a significant economic impact on local business and our vital tourism sector.
The proposed towers are being built near the Abercrombie River Blue Mountains and Kanangra Boyd National Parks and it is appalling to think that this proposed project should ever be considered in the National Parks which are the parks for the people.

Again i totally object Against Wind Towers in our area.

There are many other alternatives for Wind Towers ~ perhaps offshore and coastal wind farms.

Please listen to the voices of the residents in the Oberon area and do not proceed with the Paling Wind Tower Project.

The proposed site is distant from heavily populated parts of theOberon LGA so will not interfere with the community or tourism within the community.
The broader community is calling out for coal and gas to be phased out for power generation so we have to be looking elsewhere. Paling Yards seems to be a most suitable site.
Whilst there will be some disruption to some during the building phase, the improvement to the local road network in particular will be ongoing and welcomed.

The wind farm is in an ideal location, distant from population centres and popular tourist attractions. The site is also close to major power lines, so it makes sense to build the turbines in the proposed location.
If the land holder is happy to host the turbines, then I have no objections to the project.
I don't find wind turbines visually offensive and if wind turbines are the way forward, then this would appear to be an appropriate location.
I do not believe the project will negatively impact the town of Oberon, as it is around 50 kms from Paling Yards in a straight line and further by road.
I trust the transport of the turbine blades will take place at night, so local road users will not be overly inconvenienced.

I object to this project. The EIS seems flawed in a number of aspects.
- The Paling Yards Wind Farm project is outside of the State Government"s Renewable Energy Zone (REZ)
- The components of the EIS seem to have differing statements. For instance one one assessment it says the trucks to transport turbine / blade components says they need a 5.2 metre height clearance for transportation, and on another assessment report it says 5.7 metres.
- The transport route specified in the EIS indicates it would go through a heritage conservation area of O'Connell, NSW. It says trimming of trees would be needed. How can a living and protected war memorial in a heritage conservation area be damaged, just to transport wind turbines?
- It seems out of date Census data was used.
- The traffic assessment relates only to Abercrombie Road access to the site. Yet the whole route from Bathurst to Oberon will be severely impacted.
I object to the Paling Yards Wind Farm project for all of the above reasons and more. The EIS should never have been accepted by the Department, and all renewable energy projects should occur within the designated REZ zones.