Skip to main content

State Significant Development

Response to Submissions

Valley of the Winds Wind Farm

Warrumbungle Shire

Current Status: Response to Submissions

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

Construction and operation of a wind farm with up to 148 wind turbines, energy storage and associated infrastructure.

EPBC

This project is a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and will be assessed under the bilateral agreement between the NSW and Commonwealth Governments, or an accredited assessment process. For more information, refer to the Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment's website.

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Notice of Exhibition

Request for SEARs (6)

Scoping Report
Appendix 1 - Scoping Worksheet
Appendix 2 - Visual
Appendix 3 - Biodiversity
Appendix 4 - Noise
Appendix 5 - Social

SEARs (2)

Issued SEARs
Issued Supplementary SEARs

EIS (23)

EIS Main Report
Appendix A - SEARs and Supplementary SEARs
Appendix B - Agency Response to Scoping Report
Appendix C - Statutory Planning and Approval
Appendix D - Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix D - LVIA Appendix A, B
Appendix D - LVIA Appendix C
Appendix D - LVIA Appendix D
Appendix D - LVIA Appendix E
Appendix E - Background Noise Assessment
Appendix F - Noise Assessment
Appendix G - Biodiversity Development Assessment Report
Appendix H - Traffic Assessment
Appendix I - Aviation Impact Assessment
Appendix J - EMI EMF
Appendix K - Bushfire Risk Assessment
Appendix L - Blade Throw
Appendix M - Preliminary Hazard Analysis
Appendix N - Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Appendix O - Heritage Impact Statement
Appendix P - Social Impact Assessment
Appendix Q - Economic Assessment
Appendix R - Air Quality

Response to Submissions (1)

Request RTS

Agency Advice (10)

Airservice Australia - Advice on EIS
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Advice on EIS
Commonwealth Department of Defence - Advice on EIS
Crown Lands - Advice on EIS
DPE Water - Advice on EIS
DPI Agriculture - Advice on EIS
DPI Fisheries - Advice on EIS
Fire & Rescue NSW - Advice on EIS
Heritage NSW ACH - Advice on EIS
MEG - Advice on EIS

Submissions

Filters
Showing 1 - 20 of 114 submissions
Carol Richard
Object
Coolah , New South Wales
Message
Natasha Homsey
Dept Planning
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The attached report was received this afternoon and as I read through it, I just applauded right through.
Page 59
Neighbours may only learn of these visits by word of mouth or chance observation. They are the second order of ‘non-involved’ or ‘associated’ landholders, in developer parlance, destined to receive lesser amounts or possibly no direct benefit from projects.

Windfarms talk has been all around us at least since 2009; in 2012, first public information local session Liverpool Range WF that I reported on for local paper.
We opted out as we have a relatively small property and could not afford to be the jump off point to the main road of transmission lines – nor have our Biosecurity compromised by open access to planners. Presumably our neighbours have been paid $1,000 per annum for that time. We thought we would test out the wind prospects – with the proposed Liverpool Range Wind Farm situated right around our property boundary, we took the local wind test results as an incentive to invest $63,640 + installation costs in a 10KW wind turbine which was installed on 3/11/2010. The turbine had to be sited near power lines so was not put on a ridge but has a clear wind path directly up the Talbragar Valley. At the time, we experienced the windiest month we can recall in 36 years here.
On 30/11/10 had produced 478 kWh max of 43.62 amps
On 10/12/10 had produced 659 kWh max of 43.62 amps.
At 60c per kWh equals $395.40.
Rewind Energy in extensive advertising promoted the Wind Prospecting Report budget showing $82,800 Income over 6 years, which extrapolates to $1150 per month.
On 15/2/11 had produced 2046 KWH max of 45.26 amps, which equates to approx $400 per month, a long way short of budget showing a monthly average over $1100. This had been the windiest time of the year.
Over 2014, the 60c/kWh credits from the wind turbine were $1066.80 (6Dec– Mar 1778kWh); $313.80 (Mar– June 523kWh); $399.60 (Jun-8Sep 666kWh). Total $1780.20 ave 9 months $197.80 per month; total 2967kWh ave $329.66 per month.
We had an independent assessment on an average day of 5.1 m/s (metres per second velocity.)

These are the consistent figures since installation in 2010 which are far from the claims made by Rewind Energy, which fell into receivership in 2014 leaving everyone abandoned as regards service agreements. A wind shear event which wrecked the turbine allowed us to claim a percentage of our initial cost with insurance.
In 2014/2015 we installed two 10KW solar systems for $39,000 - half the capital expenditure of the wind turbine and erected by two men in a few days on shed roof.
Origin Energy statement 30 August 2016 to 23 November 2016 (86 days) Total Solar Feed-In Credit 5894 kWh @ 60.00 c/kWh $3,536.40CR [Gross Input] and 2095 @ 6.00c/kWh $125.70CR [Nett metering input].
Origin Energy statement Solar Feed-in 24Feb 2017 to 19 March (24 days) 1151kWh @ 6c $69.06.
Origin Energy statement Solar Feed-in 20Mar 2017 to 30May (72 days) 3456 kWh @ 6c $207.36.
These results show us that we totally reject the economics of wind power and believe the government should not approve the Valley of the Winds Project on economic viability.

The Sir Ivan Fire of 2017 was devastating for the entire district – many homes were saved by aerial water/retardant bombing. With the proliferation of wind towers, there would be added fire risk from the towers themselves, and with the risk to aircraft, only very restricted aerial fire fighting would be available for saving property and lives. Detailed submissions have been made regarding this aspect of the EIS. Appendix K, I think.

The siting of batching plants is of primary concern to us with the local roads in poor condition – really only one vehicle wide on most roads. I was told that 55 traffic movements were allowable in one day – on a one way road, that makes 110 per day.

A matter of extreme significance to us is the water requirement of the batching plant. Local creeks and the misnamed Talbragar River are not flowing on the surface in times of low rainfall. Our house bore is down 18 metres and has been at low pumping level at those times leaving us dependent on tank water.
We are currently sinking an additional bore on “Cooinda” Cooinda Road and have had to jump many hoops with NSW Water even though we have held a licence for this water for many years. The bore was renamed and lost in the system – we had to engage a water specialist to investigate our case with Water NSW and it took almost a year for Water NSW to remediate their error.
It is a source of amazement to us that there is no mention of how the batching plants will source their water under licence.
One suggestion was to truck in the water from Burrendong Dam – how many more truck movements would that make on our poorly constructed roads?

The host farmers are now pariahs – double transmission towers going through their neighbours’ Strategic Agricultural Land.

Submission to [email protected] Agricultural Land Use Planning Policy
Submitted 27 February, 2021
Carol Richard

I have attached submissions that I have made about Strategic Land Use – Commissioner Quinlivan has apparently disappeared – no acknowledgement, no follow up, MIA. Just paper talk.
Do city people want to eat in a few years’ time or just sit in front of their air conditioners and pat themselves on the back for using renewables?

Yes, we are cynical out here because we have to carry the heavy stuff while city centric people have all the voting power.

One question that I ask at the Public Information sessions is “how many years does a wind tower have to produce to neutralise its carbon footprint – manufactured overseas (China with fossil fuel), shipped to Australia (fossil fuel); trucked out to the Black Stump (fossil fuel); 40t cement base (Manufacture and using of Ordinary Portland cement used in concrete produces 0.81 tons of CO2 per 1 ton of cement), access roads, (erosion on hillsides), etc. etc.?

Regards
Carol Richard
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
HAVILAH , New South Wales
Message
Valley of the Winds Wind Farm Proposal – SSD 10461
Objection to the proposed Valley Of The Winds Wind Farm – SSD 10461

I am writing to object to the proposed Valley OF The Winds (VOTW) Wind Farm
I wish to register my objection to the proposed Valley of the Winds Wind Farm

• I am very familiar with the district within the proposed project boundary. My family have lived in the region for more than 100 years. I have visited the region on many occasions and worked there, attended community events, social events and fought bushfires there with the community in the Turee Creek Valley.
• Coolah is one of the most attractive districts in NSW. The installation of 350 wind turbines which are over 250M high would significantly destroy the visual amenity of the region.
• The wind turbines pose a risk to wildlife including the endangered Swift Parrot and the protected Wedge Tail Eagle.
• The proposed turbines will also negatively impact the Tongy airstrip which is a strategic asset in the district for events like aerial bushfire fighting. Wind turbines would make this asset potentially unsuitable for fixed wing aircraft which are used in bushfire fighting.
• As mentioned, I am particularly familiar with the Turee Creek Valley, which is immediately east of the proposed Girragulang Cluster of turbines in the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm. The location of turbines appears too close to dwellings, that is less than 5km to the towers. Objections include.
o Visual impact: The high visual impact the proposed turbines. For example the proposed Girragulang cluster of turbines which will stand over 350 meters in elevation from the Turee Creek valley and from Tongy Lane dominating the western skyline as viewed from the Tongy residences and from Tongy Lane which is not acceptable location for such significant amount of turbine infrastructure.
o Noise impact: The potential noise that will be created solely by the turbines – very little ambient noise currently
• Transmission lines: there is no detail provided as to how the VOTW wind farm will connect into the transmission grid. This will cause concern for local land owners including those who are not associated with the proposed wind farm. I have recently visited wind farm developments in Victoria west of Ballarat and surprised to see how much the wind farm development had changed the region. In Victorian Western Districts region it was very disappointing to see the poor design of supply network passing across agricultural land, sometimes duplicating the network and even supply lines crossing each other. It is not acceptable for the VOTW Wind Farm proponent to present a development application that does not properly consider the supply infrastructure and impact it might have on the landscape, land holders, community and environment.

I believe that the proposed project for a wind farm in the Coolah region is not suitable for this region and should be rejected if concerns about design and scale cannot be met.
Les Williams
Object
Coolah , New South Wales
Message
20 June 2022
Objection to Valley of The Winds Wind Farm Project – SSD 10461
I am writing to lodge my objection to the Valley of the Winds wind farm project.
I live on my property “Roseamba” (referred to in the EIS as dwelling 285), as do my direct family. We all place a great deal of value on the scenic qualities of our land and on the Turee Creek Valley where we live.
Establishment of any wind farm, such as that contemplated by the Girragulang cluster with 250m high turbines directly west of Roseamba, would destroy our western outlook - from our house, from our primary living spaces within our house and particularly from all parts of our property on which we work each day. The turbines are proposed to be up to 250 metres in height, but the base of these turbines are approximately 100 -120 metres above our house. This means the turbines will in fact be over 350 metres in height as measured from our house and the main working parts of my
property. Given our house is within 4950m buffer zone, the visual impact on my property is likely to be well in excess of the determination provided in the EIS. I do not accept the subjective nature used in the EIS for determining the visual impact to my property and therefore request this re- assessed. The proposed turbines, which I understand are the largest for on-shore use, will effectively destroy the western aspect of my property, and for generations to come. The Girragulang cluster of turbines will dominate my western outlook and the skyline. The high scenic value of this outlook will effectively be destroyed. A photo montage should be conducted for every non-associated dwelling and by an independent party to the Project, allowing property owners and the local community, to assess the visual impacts these huge turbines will create.
Another point for my objection is due to the noise the proposed Girragulang turbines will make. The noise generated by the proposed turbines will carry across the Turee Creek valley that sits between my property. My property is well within the 25dB contour. Currently I do not hear any ambient noise other than perhaps a passing car on Tongy Lane. I do not agree with the EIS that I will not materially hear the turbines when operating – as explained in the EIS, it is likely the only noise I will hear given my close proximity to the Girragulang cluster of turbines. I am particularly concerned during the evenings and when sound carries much further and particularly across a valley such as ours. I think the EIS assessment of potential noise is materially inadequate and has not convinced me that such noise creation will be tolerable.
My objection is also based on:
 The increased bush fire risk to my property and locality due to the Girragulang cluster of turbines preventing aerial fire bombing, which was such an important part for fighting the Sir Ivan fire in 2017.
 The inadequacies of the bio diversity study properly considering impact to flora and fauna outside the wind farm project boundary, particularly for aerial fauna such as the Swift Parrot and Wedge Tail Eagle.
 Lack of photo montages for all non-associated properties as well for public viewing areas such as along Tongy Lane.
Yours sincerely, Les Williams
Jamie Inglis
Object
HAVILAH , New South Wales
Message
I regularly visit my family at Tongy Lane Cassilis and i am aware of the proposed cluster of wind turbines that are proposed to be built on the ridge line on the western side of Turee Creek Valley. I strongly object to this development as this valley is one of the states most productive and picturesque valleys. the turbines are planned to be 250 metres high and they will overshadow neighbouring Tongy and other landowners along Tongy Lane. I am aware these turbines are part of a wind turbine development around Coolah Properties close to theses turbines will be badly effected by their noise and overshadowing. properties values will be impacted. Landowners have not been told where the transmission lines will run and this is causing much angst amongst landowners.

landowners have not been told where the transmission lines will run and they are very concerned.
Varshini Dasoji
Comment
HARRISTOWN , Queensland
Message
test
Name Withheld
Object
Cassillis , New South Wales
Message
I’m concerned about the impact the 250 meter high wind turbines will have on our property if a bushfire was to happen as aircraft will not be able to fly in the area. I’m worried about the impact the wind turbines will have on the land value in the area
Name Withheld
Object
BURRUNDULLA , New South Wales
Message
Australia does not need more intermittent power generating sources. reliable base load generation is what is required.
Ralph Kuhn
Support
Coolah , New South Wales
Message
Obviously as a participating landholder we will definitely benefit from hosting turbines on our properties.
From our perspective a development such as this will substantially improve our level of resilience with regard to droughts and market variability for our produce. Given that this applies to all of the participating landholders it means there will be money coming into the district during adverse periods for agriculture. As is the case with most engaged agriculturalists we will continue to invest in our enterprises no matter what the conditions are if we have available capital.As a result all the local businesses that we rely on will benefit from the trickle down effect of this income . This injection of substantial amounts of capital into the community in very trying times will also improve community resilience.
That aside the development of the Windfarm will potentially provide many and varied job opportunities for local service providers.This will potentially flow through to training positions for many of our youth alleviating the situation where many of them have had to leave the district to access such opportunities.
UPC/AC have also been very mindful of supporting community projects with the annual contributions to a community fund.
As a family we are heavily invested in agriculture and are extremely dependant on the weather. We are of the opinion that global warming is a clear and present danger to our productive capability. As such we would support the development of renewable energy developments even if we were not directly involved.
I understand how some people may question why they are burdened with impacts when they are not getting any direct benefit but there is the issue of the common good.Many people often express support for such developments as long as it’s not in their backyard.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission
The Kuhn Family
Name Withheld
Object
COOLAH , New South Wales
Message
This project will reduce the value of my property.
I find it hard to believe the impact of a failure can be so limited in distance given the rotating speed and length of blade. Especially when the team say they don't fail.
The effect of trying to stop a bushfire if aerial bombing can't be used due to the towers is of great concern after been involved in the sir Ivan fire a few years back.
Are all the jobs associated with the running / maintenance of the farm garrenteed to be local I don't think so.
During construction if I need a job will I get one. Statement says it will employ locals.
After the lifetime of the farm how exactly will it be returned to the same , it can't be done.
Also if a failure occurs and creates an environment impact how will this be repaired.
Having worked for a company supporting the construction of 2 windfarms arrows pass and Rye Park stage 1 & 2 I believe the town of coolah and surrounds will not benefit greatly in local employment as the contractors used are generally interstate based snd bring their own crew.
I truly believe that this project could be located in a different area that would impact the local community less,such as in the dessert. Or maybe north head in Sydney plenty of wind off the ocean. Sorry silly suggestion that's were all the do gooders that come up with these ideas come from and they wouldn't want their views ruin like mine will be.
Richard Inglis
Object
HAVILAH , New South Wales
Message
I am writing to object to the proposed Valley of the Winds Wind Farm as proposed by UPC Renewables Australia.
I have not had time to fully review the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), so wish to reserve my ability to provide additional comments.
I am very familiar with the project area, having visited often and worked previously in the area. I am also very familiar with many of the local properties surrounding the proposed project area.
I am currently working at one of these properties, Tongy, and living in dwelling 11 as referenced in the EIS.
Key reasons for my objection are:
- The visual impact the turbines located in the Girragulang cluster will have on dwelling 11 and associated dwelling 7-12 inclusive and dwelling 283 in addition to a large portion of the property. The proposed turbines will be viewable from all the primary living spaces of dwelling 11. All these views look to the north and to the west, straight into the line of sight for the proposed turbines to Given the proposed Girragulang turbines will sit on a ridge and well above in elevation to the dwellings, a further negative visual impact. In total, the turbines will be over 350m higher than the dwellings, which the EIS does not speak too, but should.
- The noise impacts the turbines in the Girragulang cluster will have on the property and particularly during the evenings. As is typical for this area, there is currently very little noise at Tongy, particularly at night, so the thought of hearing any noise from the turbines at night or during the day is totally unacceptable.
- No information as to how the project will connect into the transmission grid and where high voltage transmission towers will be located.
- Given the proximity to the Liverpool Range wind farm, there will be up to 371 turbines each 250 metres in height across the Coolah district. This will change the scenic outlook and ambience for this spectacular district for the worse. No community should be put up to the suffering of such high concentration of wind turbines.
regards,

Richard Inglis
Sarah Inglis
Object
HAVILAH , New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the proposed Valley of the Winds Windfarm surrounding the Turee Creek Valley. I am very familiar with the area and have visited there many times as I have family and friends with properties in the Coolah district, one of which is Tongy, a property which would be very badly overshadowed to the west by these enormous wind turbines.
The Turee Creek Valley is one of the most scenic and productive valleys in the state. These wind turbines are 250 metres high and sit along a ridge line 100 metres above the valley floor. The turbines would destroy the beauty and amenity of this valley and also lower the valley of the surrounding farms. Residences on Tongy and along the Tongy Lane will hear these turbines as the ambient noise level in the valley is extremely low.
Landowners are also really concerned as to date, no information has been given as to how the turbines will connect to the grid. Many landowners are worried about the possibility of transmission lines running through their property.
Name Withheld
Object
COOLAH , New South Wales
Message
Visual Impact
- Coolah surrounds are well known for the beautiful untouched natural landscape, including Coolah Tops National Park, and also the productive farmland.
- The visual impact of the Valley of the Winds (VoW) is adding to the impacts already proposed by the Liverpool Range Wind Farm (LRWF).
- In total, around 370 turbines in close proximity to the village of Coolah. LRWF alone will make enough negative visual impact to the area, without adding VoW.
- This property is in close proximity to both the LRWF and VoW. From here, there will be a visual impact of hundreds of turbines, some less than 5km away. The serenity and feeling of being ‘away from it all’ will be ripped out from under our feet.

Noise Impact
- Coolah is a very peaceful and quiet town.
- I value immensely the peace and tranquillity of my home. Only on a still night can any noise of ‘the outside world’ be heard and this is the occasional truck travelling along the Black Stump Way. Family and friends who visit from more built-up areas marvel every time at the quietness and they come here to rest and relax.
- What impact will hundreds of turbines have on the peace and quietness of my home? What other town has this many turbines in such close proximity? What are their noise levels like? I’ve heard they can be quite loud at times.

Economic Impact
- I believe that property values will be negatively impacted.
- The town of Coolah receives a lot of economic boost from tourists each year who often come to visit nature via the Coolah Tops. I believe these types of tourists will be ‘turned off’ by these monstrous man-made constructions.
- We already have LRWF approved. Another large scale development of VoW is likely to have a detrimental affect on the Coolah community. The town is most likely to undergo the ‘boom’ and ‘crash’ effect over the next decade or so.
- The involved property owners will receive financial gain from their involvement whilst the rest of the community will be left to battle on. How fair is that on the community? What effect will that have on the social economics of the town?

Environmental Impact
- Coolah is also well known for the many wedge-tailed eagles living in the area. It has been found that such birdlife suffer from crashing into the blades.
- Vegetation needs to be cleared to construct the turbines and high voltage power lines. This means more loss of natural habitats for many native animals and plant life.
- It is known that the turbines do pose a fire hazard risk. Coolah area has already recently endured a destructive fire so this is a big concern.
- What impact will the wind turbines have on aerial access for fire fighting and other agriculture purposes?

General
- I don’t believe it is fair to expect a small town of Coolah’s size to have 2 large wind farms constructed in such close proximity. What ongoing compensation will residents receive directly? Reduced power bills???
- The life span of these is relatively short in the scheme of things. Huge costs to construct and then decommission and basically 'dump'.
- Looking at the cost (economic, social, environmental etc) and life span of wind turbines as ‘renewable energy’ seems a little short sighted. Why not put the same efforts into getting farmers and property owners onboard with increasing carbon storage on their land. Unlike wind turbines, this actually has a very positive impact on the environment.
Name Withheld
Object
LEADVILLE , New South Wales
Message
I am objecting to this project for several reasons:
1. Position - Australia has a very small portion of it's country suitable for agriculture. It is extremely short sighted to place these developments on our scarce agricultural land. Many countries are placing their turbines out at sea. Australia's population is 85% on the coast therefore offshore wind is a much more effective way of providing power to the main consumers.
2. Position - there is no need for all these ENORMOUS wind turbines to be placed in such large numbers in this area. This is not the area of great use so not only are we subjected to the turbines everywhere but also the to the powerlines
3. Everybody is subjected to the visual impact of these towers, whether they are close or many miles away. Most people are uncompensated for this, despite the fact that they did not necessarily want them. They are not after compensation as such, they just don't want them.
4. Beautiful country should be left as such. This is a beautiful valley and the proposal is to place towers that are taller than the hills themselves. This is turning the area into a city of wind turbines and enormous power lines cutting right through the countryside.
5. Coolah Tops National Park will have its stunning views turned into vistas of turbines. This is a travesty.
6. There is a significant risk caused by the restriction of water bombing around the turbines.
7. Aerial agriculture will be curtailed significantly by these turbines and power lines.
8. The value of the land will be very detrimentally affected and no one will be compensated for that unless they have turbines.
9. Local infrastructure is not going to be able to cope with the great influx of vehicles and people during construction in particular, but also with maintenance. The volume of traffic will have a significant impact on the roads which are struggling already.
10. The compensation to be paid to people is already causing significant problems with in the community. It is extremely divisive and is going to polarise the communities. There are already many people disagreeing very strongly and creating ructions in what have previously been perfectly harmonious relationships.
11. I feel many people do not realise the impact these turbines will have as many people just do not realise how big they are. I feel there should have been many montages in the towns and villages for people to be able to try and visualise the differences.
12. Montages should be in obvious parts of town like outside supermarkets, pharmacies and local halls.
13. There should be maps of NSW with all new proposals on them at once so we can see what is happening everywhere - then we can make much more informed decisions. It feels as though we are only seeing little bits and not the whole picture.
14. Most farmers (including myself) agree with bringing in more renewables - they live the weather! It's just the method.
I think this project is not suitable for the area and would definitely support offshore generation of wind.
Perry Fulton
Object
UARBRY , New South Wales
Message
My wife and I brought here to retire because it is such a beautiful quite unique village, plenty of bird life now we have familys of birds living in our trees also with Swift parrots, lorikeets, Honey eaters just to name a few, the village gathers at our community hall weekly to check on each other and catch up over a cuppa in our serene country setting, we are all agaist the route for the wind farm coming through our village, there will be around 500 vehicle movements daily through our village from trucks to small vehicles moving tower parts and assets, this is insane our health and life style will suffer daily oner the project with will be several years we are told. I live about 35mtrs from my front gate with my neighbour about 15mtrs, apart from the constant noise, the heavy vehicle vibrations will be unbearable. The tranquil sounds of the bird life and peacefulness of our village will be destoyed we all would be happy if you found another route not through our village, Graham and his wife down the road are all for the project and are happy for the oower lines also to go through their property, maybe that could be an alternate route with very little inpact on our village,flora and fauna, much less environmental damage to the gums on the plan nnoe, much less clearing of trees and wild life impact, picture provided with alternate route.
Attachments
Angela Copeland
Object
Dunedoo , New South Wales
Message
I and my husband, David Copeland object to the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm for the following reasons;

1. The visual impact on our property will be significant. We are located on the western side of the Mt Hope cluster of the Valley of the Winds Wind Farm.
Our property is along a valley of the Mumbedah Creek and is of 6000 acres and we will see the wind towers of 250m tall. This will change our property from being a secluded rural valley to eastern view of Industrial Wind Towers. This will decrease the capital value of our property. We question the application of the 8kms as the limit of the visual impact within the Wind Energy: Visual Assessment Bulletin guidelines issued by the Department of Planning to the Valley of the Winds Wind project. Wind Energy: Visual Assessment Bulletin guidelines p. 31 (see attachment) uses Source Sullivan et. al (2012) to determine the visual zones for EIS assessment. This study is based on wind towers being 90 to 130m tall to set the visual zone boundaries. On page 42 of Sullivan et. al (2012) (see attachment), it is stated that if the towers are larger than 90 to 130m the Visual Zones should be increased. This has not happened in the EIS assessment Appendix D - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment by UPC, it is not in their interests to do so as it would cost them more money for the project because more people and rural land are impacted by the 250m towers than is presented by this report. Our property is an example of this. It is not the fault of the neighbours and communities of Coolah, Leadville and Dunedoo that the visual impacts of the project have been underestimated due to the assessment. The visual zones need to be made larger and the study redone to properly assess the impact of the 250m tall towers which are nearly as tall as the One Barangaroo at 271.3m tall in the centre of Sydney. UPC is proposing 147 towers of 250m and not taking into account the full visual impact of this because they have set their visual zones based on towers of 90 to 130m tall, half the size of the towers they propose.

2. Clearing for the wind turbines on the Western side of the Mt Hope Cluster will impact the run off rainfall during large rain events. It will increase the risk of flooding and flash flooding on our property via Mumbedah Creek. We have had several flash flooding events due to large rainfall up in the Mt Hope property and the consequence has been flooding of our farming land. UPC have not stated in the EIS how they will mitigate the extra run off due to the clearing of land for the towers and substation.

We believe this Project needs to re evaluated and stopped because the size of the wind towers of 250m has not been properly assessed due to faulty visual zones and the impacts of land clearing for rainfall run off will increase flooding along Mumbedah Creek.
Attachments
Simon Reynolds
Object
GRIFFITH , Australian Capital Territory
Message
I object to this project based on the following points:
CONCERNS:
*Aesthetic impact on either side of a busy road, in what is one of the state's most scenic valleys.
*Noise and visual pollution.
*Threat to wildlife, destruction of habitat, fragmentation of habitat, and loss of feeding and breeding grounds. (See example in attached link)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wind-energy-company-pleads-guilty-least-150-eagles-killed-us-rcna23360
*Impact on aerial agriculture & fire-fighting capabilities with clear evidence during the 2017 Sir Ivan fire, with 55,000 acres burnt. (This would have been much worse without aerial support)
*Poor public and neighbour consultation resulting in community/neighbouring fracturing. Historically there is often a disregard for those arguing that alternative uses for the land are more highly valued than electricity generation.
*Property values detrimentally affected.
*The efficiency of wind turbines is debatable due to peaks and troughs (or "intermittency") of wind
* Currently it's not possible to recycle turbine blades.
* Mineral resources needed to build wind turbines.
Name Withheld
Object
Cassilis , New South Wales
Message
See attached letter and objection
Attachments
John O'Brien
Object
WOODVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached document.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Cassilis , New South Wales
Message
Please see attached documents
Attachments
Name Withheld
Support
COOLAH , New South Wales
Message
I feel this would be a fantastic for Coolah and surrounding towns to make a tourism opportunity with bringing travellers into our small towns and in turn will help small businesses.
Clean Energy for our environment is important for our future.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSD-10461
EPBC ID Number
2020/8668
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Electricity Generation - Wind
Local Government Areas
Warrumbungle Shire

Contact Planner

Name
Natasha Homsey