Hills of Gold Wind Farm

I am against the windfarm. My objections are listed below.
The landowners (my parents) have not been spoken to, informed or consulted in any form.
No sound assessment has been done on the property. If they have accessed our property, then is it trespass? Do we need to then charge the proponent?
No visual assessment has been done on my parents’ property.
They can’t make up their minds whether it will be 220m or now 151m (sonos report)
No proper assessment or indication of what will happen to the fauna and flora once they destroy the habitat as they will need up to widen roads and dig at least 6 metres to try and stabilise the turbines.
Many birds and bats die because of wind turbines. For example, birds often crash into the wind turbines. Some bats die this way, too.
Other bats die from barotrauma. Barotrauma happens when a change in air pressure damages body tissues. When a wind turbine’s blades move, they cause a drop in nearby air pressure. If a bat flies too close to a turbine, this drop in air pressure can damage its lungs.
Wind turbines can also change these animals’ habitats, behaviours and populations.
Habitat changes can happen when animals lose their sources of food, hiding spots or breeding places. These animals need to find somewhere else to live.
Behaviour changes can happen when animals must find new ways to get around. For example, birds might have to fly across roads leading up to the turbines. Migrating birds might have to find a new route.
Water assessment hasn’t been done properly. There is ground water that feeds into the local creeks and water ways. The surrounding people need this water to survive! The area is still in drought, but the proponent wants to use the water is this to make the other farmers in the area to lose their livelihood.
No mention of the cost to build these turbines or the CO2 created making them. The output of energy to create these turbines does not get made equalise the amount of energy they will eventually output. Even before the blades start spinning, the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions: “embedded” in thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete. So, every wind farm starts with its CO2 abatement ledger in the negative. Its carbon footprint is massive, 241.85 tons of CO2.
The breakdown of the CO2 numbers.
To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C.
The pig iron is then transferred to the basic oxygen furnace to make steel.
1,350 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg pig iron produced.
A further 1,460 Kg CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Steel produced so all up 2,810 Kg CO2 is emitted.
45 tons of rebar (steel) are required so that equals 126.45 tons of CO2 are emitted.
To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.
An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.
481m3 of concrete is required so that equals 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted.
Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.
Extra stats about wind turbines you may not know about:
The average towering wind turbine being installed around beautiful Australia right now is over 80 metres in height (nearly the same height as the pylons on the Sydney Harbour Bridge). The rotor assembly for one turbine that is the blades and hub weighs over 22,000 Kg and the nacelle, which contains the generator components, weighs over 52,000 Kg.
All this stands on a concrete base constructed from 45,000 Kg of reinforcing rebar which also contains over 481 cubic metres of concrete (that is over 481,000 litres of concrete – about 20% of the volume of an Olympic swimming pool).
Each turbine blade is made of glass fibre reinforced plastics, (GRP), i.e. glass fibre reinforced polyester or epoxy and on average each turbine blade weighs around 7,000 Kg each.
Each turbine has three blades so there is 21,000 Kgs of GRP and each blade can be as long as 50 metres. The proponent has stated they will be probably more than this.
A typical wind farm of 20 turbines can extend over 101 hectares of land (1.01 Km2).
Each wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2,500 Kg of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia.
The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic – involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product – that only one country does it – China.
All this for an intermittent highly unreliable energy source.
And I have not even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid. And what about the land space needed to house thousands of these bird chomping death machines?
You see, renewables like wind turbines will incur far more carbon dioxide emissions in their manufacture and installation than what their operational life will ever save. I feel that the proponent has not been forthcoming with information as above about the impact on resources and the outlay of emissions just to create these monstrosities.
Decommissioning is still not decided, unfortunately wind turbines can leak if not manage. So, will it be another failed project left there after so many years that the poor locals need to clean up after?
Another reason to object against this project is we have a large number of lightning strikes in the area. Once lightning hits one of these turbines that have a huge amount of oil to help them run, it will be catastrophic. It is already a fire prone area, is the proponent trying to destroy the area even more? If you check the RFS site it is designated as a bush fire prone area.

The proposal for the windfarm at Nundle comes with many disadvantages and concerns for those who live within the area, or as in our case, who visit the area on a regular occasion. The township is a very quaint and quite region which relies heavily upon its past history to attract visitors to the area, these visitors bring with them considerable income to the community economy.
The project proposes to make extensive "improvements" to the road system in order to gain access for their construction equipment and wind farm components, such components being so large that major widening of roads and bridges is required. One part of the project proposal calls for the complete destruction of the street scape through the village in order to widen this section of road and such work should not be undertaken in any town. This area provides a respite for all persons during those extreme heat conditions experienced as well as being a centre piece of the village. It has been suggested that some residents will have sections of their property resumed in order to provide suitable turning circles for the heavy transport, a process that must not be allowed to proceed.
This proposal includes for a total of 72 wind turbines, each turbine consists of three extremely long blades along with the generation house. The generator house structure is of a size and weight which require very large heavy transport, multi wheeled trailers and multiple prime movers to complete the road movement. The topography of the region does not lend itself to this form of transport ie extremely long and extremely heavy loads without having major impact on the region.
This country, Australia is in need of alternative sources of energy, wind may be one of these alternatives, however the construction of such wind farms must not be allowed to degrade the regions within their chosen locations, in this instance an access route to the site which does not, and I will repeat that statement, MUST NOT be allowed to change forever such small towns as Nundle.

Please find attached a submission on the Hills of Gold Wind Farm
Brian Tomalin

Having grown up in the Nundle/Hanging Rock area it holds a special place in my heart. I know the proposed area to be an incredibly beautiful and biodiverse area rich in unique flora and fauna.
I have concerns that the proposed project will have a devastating effect in this location. Having researched renewable energy options for many years now, I wholly support renewables, however am equally certain that this is not the right location for wind turbines. Please - you must not allow this project to proceed.

I object to the wind farm that is proposed to be built in hanging rock because it will affect my
quality of life due to noise and light pollution. I fear it will interfere with my sleep and mental
health whilst I am staying on my grandfather's property. I'm afraid it will affect my sleep at night
because of the constant flickering lights, this will affect me mentally and cause sleep
deprivation. We go up there as a family to my grandfather's property. To enjoy the serenity and
untouched beauty we do not have in sydney. My grandfather has owned this property for nearly
40 years and it makes me sad to see this proposal that will destroy the landscape and the
beauty that surrounds us, i do not want to see the loss of fauna and flora that i am lucky to see
everytime i go up there, i hope this proposal does not go through.

There are many reasons why a wind farm would be detrimental to the land at Hanging Rock. In order to construct these wind farms you need a considerable amount of land since you have to dig deep enough to pour the concrete base for a wind turbine. The forests and fields at Hanging Rock are too precious to be violated by constructing a wind farm. Groundwater will be in jeopardy if they have to dig too deep for a wind turbine. Wind farms also generate too much noise which would disturb the peace and quiet in the area let alone affecting animals too in a negative way. There is too much to lose and very little to gain by this wind farm project and I am definitely against it.

The topography for the proposed project location is extremely unique. I once asked an employee of the Proponent if there are any other wind farm projects located in a similar environment to this one; he could not answer my question. There are no other wind farms constructed in an area similar to Nundle and Hanging Rock.

The development corridor and footprint includes conservation areas, heritage items and a unique ecological system. Any land clearing will have a great affect to this area. There are endangered and threatened flora and fauna located in the area that should not be disturbed; not even through mitigation. I love the uniqueness of this environment and believe that this place would never recover from the destruction that will be caused from the development of this project.

The proposed new bypass to Devil’s Elbow raises concerns with extensive land clearing issues. This is a high risk in destroying the existing threatened flora and fauna in the area and to the Heritage listed Black Snake Gold Mine. Assessments prepared in the EIS based on desktop studies are negligent and undermines the potential impact to such an important area.

Wind farms are invasive and more so on top of a ridge with an elevation between 1,200m - 1,400m surrounding a village tucked in the beautiful green valley just below it. This project is intrusive to an excessive amount of residents. Wind farms should be sensitively sited and place in an area with no objections from the local community. This is not the right location for this project.

I moved to Nundle for its unique scenic beauty, breathtaking views of the range and the sense of historic culture.

If this development is approved, I will have full view of the wind turbines from my home and other aspects from my property. The high altitude at which these turbines are proposed will be clearly visible with maximum impact. These turbines will be at eye line view and there is no avoiding the sight of them. In addition to this, I will also be living with the red flicker aviation lighting, which is required by CASA for turbines over 150m in height, clearly visible from my home during the evening. I will no longer be able to enjoy the magnificent view of the Great Dividing Range. No mitigations proposed from tree screening as suggested by the proponent will cover the sight of the turbines due to its elevation. It is not an acceptable compensation. I would like the proponent to provide me with evidence that the proposed mitigation would be effective in screening out the sight of turbines completely from my home and from other visual aspects from my property.

I moved to Nundle from a major city because I was tired of the stress caused from restricted traffic movements. I enjoy driving on quiet country roads. I like the feeling of being able to reach my destinations without experiencing unexpected delays. I also do not wish to have parking removed in our main streets as everything in Nundle is so convenient. Nor do I wish for any of the beautiful trees to be removed that lines our streets to accommodate for trafficking turbine blades and components. I do not wish to live with any inconvenience from the excessive traffic movements caused during the proposed 2 year construction period. With 33.1% of Nundle’s population aged over 65 (2016 Census), the proponent should have taken a more sincere and serious approach towards the Traffic assessment in the EIS. There has been no impact study on safety issues for the elderly and children in our community. Furthermore, no extensive studies provided on noise impact to the town from the heavy traffic movements.

The atmosphere of a community that happily worked together to make Nundle thrive while providing a strong social basis for community interaction is another reason why I chose to move here. I have made valuable friendships through this fabric of social cohesion. Since the project announcement in March 2018, the local community have been sadly divided. In an attempt to gain social acceptance for the project, the major land host published several newsletters making ridiculous promises to the community for impossible projects. Lies told that there will be no electricity available if this projects does not go ahead. The proponent has failed to acknowledge the opposition to the project and for bringing division into our community.

I love Nundle for its history, the stories told from the past to present, the reconnection to nature through the wilderness. I want my children to experience what I have enjoyed from this beautiful and pristine environment. Wind farms have a limited life span - our surrounding landscape will continue to thrive for centuries to come if left untouched. Areas with high conservation value and a community that values it should be respected and left alone. It is our right to continue to live in an environment that we have chosen to live in. Nundle and Hanging Rock should be preserved for its uniqueness to be enjoyed by our future generation.

Re: Hills of Gold Wind Farm Application Number SSD.9679

I hereby declare that I object to the Hills of Gold Wind Farm Proposal ID no. SSD9679
I would like my personal details withheld.
I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous 2 years.

Please see my submission below.

I have returned to Nundle from Sydney, after living and working overseas for more than a decade, to start a small artistic business operating out of an historic building in the heart of Nundle. I have a long association with Nundle – some of my earliest memories are of summer days camping at the Fossickers Park, panning for gold, blackberry picking and swimming at the Nundle pool. My family moved here when I was 10 years old and I went to Nundle Primary School and on to high school in Tamworth, commuting the long distance by school bus. I clearly remember on a number of occasions my Mum asking my sister and I if we wished to move into town (Tamworth) so we didn’t have to travel the 3 hour round trip on the school bus any longer – to which we both replied with an emphatic “No” – we loved Nundle, we still love Nundle. To have this pristine, beautiful range and valley threatened with the prospect of 70, 230m high wind turbines towering on the landscape (along with the associated infrastructure of access roads, lay downs, concrete batching plants and land clearing) is devastating. I do not want to see them, I do not want to hear them, I do not want the land cleared for them, I do not want monetary compensation for what we will lose, I wholly object to this industrial development in this location.

I returned to Nundle to escape an industrial environment, to feed my creative life and actively choose to be connected to environment, an environment that inspires my art and my sense of belonging and place.

There is poetry here, it is evident in the way the clouds form as mountains rising above and cloaking the ridge-line, sweeping around the valley and creating majestic temples in the sky. It is in the way the golden sun illuminates the hills as you are returning home at dusk. It is in the laughter of children as they play on their bikes in the middle of the main street...it is anywhere you care to look. If your so inclined.

How do you measure the value of a poem? An artwork? A song? A sense of community? A sense of belonging? A sense of wonder and discovery? A sense of pride in witnessing the earth do what it does best, exist and flourish without the trespass of the industrial?

You simply cannot. This place is the source of my creative life: Nundle, Hanging Rock, Crawney and Timor. It is my Australian heartland. Art, writing, poetry and song are all integral to how we find meaning and tell our story. Places like Nundle and Hanging Rock are unique in telling the great Australian story, this story needs to be preserved for our own lifetimes but more significantly for the future. Nundle, Hanging Rock and surrounds are a place of national cultural significance due to our aesthetic, historic, scientific and social value to past, present and future generations of Australians.

I quote Luke Sciberras, a well-known artist who lives at Hill End and has visited Nundle:
“I find the prospect of Nundle being surrounded by wind turbines as preposterous as a Maccas at Uluru or an international airport on the shores of Sydney harbour. Nundle is a town held dearly in the hearts of a great many in the wider community because it has a beauty and culture all its own. Wind farms have their place but must be placed discreetly and intelligently, you can’t just move them around the landscape like chess pieces. The approach and surrounds of nundle are known and celebrated by artists and visitors of all kinds and wind farms on the doorstep would not only destroy the natural and agricultural beauty of the place but render it a mere curiosity as tourists pass through, and keep driving.”

I am not naïve in thinking this EIS should account for my poetry, my art or my creative life, I would expect however, that it attempt to accurately depict the cultural significance Nundle and Hanging Rock holds regionally and nationally. We are not a tiny speck on the map of Australia that no one has heard of, we are a much-visited, much-loved destination that holds significant meaning to those people who have chosen to call it home and has been for many, many decades. The largest incorporated group in Nundle was formed in response to this proposal, Hills of Gold Preservation Inc (HOGPI) have worked tirelessly to represent its members in opposing this proposed development. HOGPI has produced a petition, verified by a Justice of the Peace and presented to Parliament showing irrefutable evidence that the majority of the local community opposes this development.

This proposal is supposed to be a scientific and thorough justification for this proposed wind farm, however in reading the EIS, it is barely scientific and does not provide adequate justification. The EIS certainly waxes lyrical about the benefits in reducing carbon emissions etc. but it obfuscates and omits important information, it downplays (and completely ignores) community objection, seeks to negate the impacts on environment, visual amenity, hydrology, night lighting, community impact, heritage, biodiversity, bushfire risks, roads et.al.

There is no argument “for renewables” that could convince me of the need for this project to “do our bit” and “save the planet”. The fear of carbon has trumped all other issues, it is the basis of all arguments for renewables, neglecting any nuance or acknowledging the reality that an industrial development will actually enact on the environment. In this particular instance, The Hills of Gold Wind Farm will be destroying the environment in the name of saving the environment. We will lose significant and irreplaceable wild and semi-wild spaces that already serve a fundamental role in reducing carbon emissions.

I am alarmed the proposed project area immediately neighbours Ben Halls Gap Nature Reserve, which is a IUCN Category la - Strict nature reserve. Before Wind Energy Partners (WEP) proposed project I was unaware of Ben Halls Gap Nature Reserve, it is (very rightly) inaccessible to the general public. In learning and researching the special features of our town and landscape (in relation to the proposed wind farm), I am very proud our small towns of Nundle and Hanging Rock are home to such a special scientific reference point for Australia. Ben Halls Gap Nature Reserve is a strict nature reserve and an area that is set aside to protect biodiversity and geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values.

How can WEP ensure the protection of this Reserve when the proposed project area abuts the Reserve? There are no off-sets, mitigation strategies or monetary reparation that could compensate for the loss or damage, of this protected wilderness. WEP keep referring to Ben Halls Gap Nature Reserve as a National Park, this is misleading and minimises the significance of the Reserve and the ecosystems it houses and protects.

Nundle and Hanging Rock are proud to be home to a host of endangered species of flora and fauna that would be irrevocably threatened, if not destroyed, if this project goes ahead. I can attest to having seen glossy black cockatoos, spotted-tail quolls, wedge-tailed eagles and snow-gum on bush walks that I have taken around Nundle and Hanging Rock.

No other wind farm in Australia has been proposed on a ridge-line which is the watershed between eastern and western sides of the Great Dividing Range. WEP fails to recognise the significance of the project’s impact on the headwaters of three river catchment systems, the Peel River (part of the Murray Darling River Basin) to the west, Barnard/Manning to the East, and Pages/Hunter to the south. Industrial development on the ridgeline at Hanging Rock, Head of Peel and Crawney, surely has the potential to have a negative impact on communities downstream. Even a minimal risk it too high. Head of Peel is the source of Chaffey Dam, which supplies water to Tamworth and beyond. In such precarious times, shouldn’t we be striving to protect our water sources? Our ridgeline has been described by some locals as a “giant-sponge” absorbing water in times of good rainfall and slowly releasing it via springs into the three catchments. The preservation of the ridgeline is of great significance in future water-planning and water security.

In touting the benefits of a wind farm, WEP have suggested our local economy will be stimulated…and yet, I have not welcomed one member of WEP into my shop in the three years they’ve been visiting our community.

WEP’s community consultation has been lacklustre and at times, I believe, misleading. They have not sought to correct misinformation within the community, leading to false expectations and anxiety. They also ignore/downplay the level of community opposition and have persisted in calling the opposition the “vocal minority”. Much of their consultation seemed to consist of “box-ticking”.

I fully endorse the Hills of Gold Preservation Inc.’s submission objecting to this proposal. They represent my views and objections more fully and include, but are not limited to: Soil, Environment, Heritage, Visual Amenity, Traffic/Transport, Water, Employment, Tourism, Community Consultation etc.

In opposing this project I am seeking to preserve our native flora and fauna habitats, our close-knit community, the tranquility that’s afforded in such a landscape, the livelihoods of many, our future water security, our unique heritage features and the beautiful, unpolluted dark night skies. Our landscape is not an inanimate backdrop to important human activity, it is a living, breathing entity much larger than this EIS can ever attempt to fathom.

Clearly this is more detrimental to the land/ wildlife/ water table/ soil erosion than the power it is chasing. This land is category 8, not 5 as they would have you believe. Plus a low wind zone compared to more consistent coastal choices. The project is fraught with mis-information.

Don't save the Environment at the expense of our Environment

My submission is attached as PDF file.

To whom it may concern,

My daughter, her two sons and husband have lived at the Crawney pass near Nundle for over 20 years. I have myself lived with them off and on for the last 6 years. I’m an Canadian grandmother of 5 and it is as such that I am coming to offer you my observations in regards to this venture.

While living at my daughter’s farm I just can’t begin to understand how those beautiful hills, the wild life surrounding our home, the diversity of birds…which would suffer a devastating impact…can even be considered.

When I hear that young merchant couples are considering leaving the area if such a project took place, it just breaks my heart knowing all the love, care and attention which these young entrepreneurs devoted into their businesses.

Where my home is in the East coast of Canada we do have a windmill farm which is located at about an hour drive from my home. It is situated in a huge marsh area where the television and radio antennas are mounted. There are no people living in that area at all, being more or less a desert area with no trees, wild animals…mostly marsh land.

It's not about renewables or not, it's about finding the right location for a wind farm; this isn't it.


Thank you,
Adeline Thomas

I am a mother of a young child living in nearby Tamworth NSW. I support the project because I am concerned about my child's future if we do not make an urgent transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. I am aware there are other environmental concerns but understand that the project proponents have satisfactory addressed these. I support renewable energy initiatives in our region and disagree with the "not in my backyard" stance which operates to stall essential projects and contributes to putting all of our children's future health and wellbeing at risk.

I believe that wind power is a great thing when deployed at the right place, However putting a wind farm would completly destroy the beautiful scenery as it would not fit in att all.

I have always enjoyed visiting Nundle & Hanging Rock for the tranquility & peacefulness. The views of the unspoilt countryside are spectacular.
Green energy at the price of destruction of the beautiful green environment should not be allowed
Nundle/ Hanging Rock is not the place for a wind farm.
Preservation of the environment should be paramount.
I OBJECT to the proposed wind farm.

Submission to NSW Government Planning, Industry and Environment in response to Hill of Gold (SSD-9679) Notice of Exhibition.

I submit this response both on behalf of myself and our Family Farming operations trading as CJ and MC Eagles.

We object to the planning submission due the land category of the development site being unsuitable to support a Project of this size and scale.

The EIS Appendix O Soils and Water Assessment, would indicate that almost the Entire Project Area Land is assessed as Very Low to Extremely Low Capability Land (F4-2).  Very Low and Extremely Low Capability Land is highly susceptible to severe erosion and degradation.  This category Land should be left “undisturbed” and there should be no (extreme) or minimal (very low) disturbance of native vegetation.  Why is an area with such Low Land capability even being considered for a Project of this scale and impact? This is extremely serious.

Disturbance of this Category of Land will make the area highly susceptible to Erosion, Mudslides and Landslides. There are residents living on the Creeks below the steep escarpment leading up to the proposed development site.

Worse still, each Turbine is 230M tall. These will most likely be the tallest Wind Farm Turbines in Australia.

For comparison, there are only 5 buildings in Sydney CBD greater in height than each Turbine. The Crown Tower (271M), Chifley Tower (244M), Citigroup Centre (243M), Deutsche Bank (240M) and Greenland Centre (237M) are higher.  These buildings are largely at Sea Level. In NSW the Mt Piper (Elevation 946M) and Bayswater (Elevation 210M) Power station Chimneys are 250M and so higher.  Essentially these Turbines will be the 8th Tallest structures in NSW. Well, technically, they will be the 8th through to the 78th Tallest structures in NSW, given there are 70 of these Turbines.

In very simple terms, this Project is planning to build 70 of the 8th Tallest Man made structure in NSW on land that is categorised as Land that should be left “undisturbed” and there should be no (extreme) or minimal (very low) disturbance of native vegetation

As a former Senior Engineer and having Directed many major constructions in my former career, I am horrified that any organization would even consider a construction of this scale, on Lands that can in no way support the scale and enormity of this development. Their own Soils EIS is damning for this Project.

As background:

In Appendix O, P 312, of the Soils and Water Assessment, the Table 16-3 Land and Soil Capability (LSC) Scheme Classification (OEH, 2012) shows ratings used to understand the capability of land uses with LSC Class ratings 1-8, with 8 being extremely low capability land.

The EIS catalogues the following:

• north and west facing slopes of the Project ridgeline as the LSC rating of 8 – 8 being extremely low capability land with “limitations so severe that the land is incapable of sustaining any land use apart from nature conservation. There should be no disturbance of native vegetation”.
• western portion of the Project is a mixture of LSC 8 and 7 – 7 being very low capability land, with “severe limitations that restrict most land uses and generally cannot be overcome. On-site and off-site impacts of land management practices can be extremely severe if limitations are not managed. There should be minimal disturbance of native vegetation”.
• South eastern corner of Project is predominantly rated at LSC 6 and 7 – 6 being low capability land with “very high limitations for high impact land uses. Land use restricted to low impact land uses such as grazing, forestry and nature conservation. Careful management of limitations is required to prevent severe land and environmental degradation”.
• eastern ridgeline of the Project has a mixture of LSC ratings of 3,4 & 6- having moderate to severe limitations. The Figure of this section is believed to align to the area of Morrisons Gap Rd and Shearers Road. The Figure clearly shows only a LSC 6 rating for that area with no pockets of 3&4 (moderate and high) at all. This is an inaccurate statement in the EIS according to their own data as seen in Figure 16-2.

The Figure 16-2 in Appendix O shows the entire classification scheme of LSC capability of land to be developed under this Project. The data in the map shows that the entire Transmission line will be built on land rated at an LSC 8 - “limitations so severe that the land is incapable of sustaining any land use apart from nature conservation. There should be no disturbance of native vegetation”.


THE DATA WITHIN THE EIS, AS SHOWN IN THE LAND AND SOIL CAPABILITY TABLE CONFIRMS THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA – DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT AND TRANSMISSION ROUTES – CANNOT PROCEED.

EVERY CATEGORY OF LSC FOR ALL PARTS OF THE PROJECT CLASSIFIES THE SOIL AND LAND AS HAVING “SEVERE – VERY HIGH LIMITATIONS” TO NATIVE VEGETATION AND SOIL DISTURBANCE.

THE LAND USE IS RESTRICTED TO GRAZING AND NATURE CONSERVATION ONLY.
THESE CLASSES OF LAND HAVE EXTREME ERODIBILITY AND LAND SUBJECT TO SEVERE WIND EROSION WHEN CULTIVATED OR LEFT EXPOSED.

If the soil and land as seen in the LSC assessment cannot take cultivation by a plough, it most certainly cannot be subject to major construction, road building, heavy vehicle and machinery impact, deep digging and extraction to name just a few of the impact on the soils and land. Please note that each turbine requires a “Gravity Foundation in which an area is excavated suitable to support the burying of a “pedestal”design of concrete and reinforced steel….these are typically 3-5 m deep and 25 m in diameter” (EIS P 42).

The risks of erosion leading to landslides is extremely high and given the topography of the Development Footprint area, with cliff faces and slopes from the ridgeline, the outcomes of any landslide could be catastrophic. ON THIS BASIS A WIND FARM CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED AT THIS SITE.

In the EIS P 320 under Mitigation Measures has as its first point, to address potential impacts to soils and water, the following:

“Preparation of a detailed Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP) prior to construction commencing. The SWMP should be prepared by a suitably qualified person, such as a soil conservationist.”

What sort of a Project could be approved when the EIS itself proclaims it has not undertaken any sort of assessment by a suitably qualified expert on the impacts on the soil and water and their management. Given what its desktop data on the Land and Soil Capability alone is telling it, it is an abrogation of responsibility to not have conducted any proper expert assessment.

We object to this Project on the basis that the land use classification assessed under the Land and Soil Capability (LSC) Scheme Classification (OEH, 2012) shows the site to be totally unsuitable for construction of a wind farm, being suitable for grazing and nature conservation only.

This is the last place on Earth that you should clear and build 70 of the 8th tallest man made towers in NSW. Doing so is complete folly and will place the entire local community at risk.

This Project should be rejected and a more suitable site found.

I strongly object to the proposed Hills of Gold wind development for the following reasons:

• The project has been “sold” to Engie long before the completion of the approval process. This brings into question the validity of the approval process and the Department of Planning, Industry and Development (DPIE). It appears, as with other wind developments, that the project is a done deal and is merely ticking boxes to satisfy requirements.
• Nundle is one of the most beautiful landscapes in NSW and it is an historic town. This development will destroy this landscape for decades. We should be preserving the country that is left undeveloped.
• I have had anecdotal discussions with a group of caravan travellers. They have said that if this project is approved they will remove Nundle from their annual list of places that they visit.
• It appears that the only support for this project is with the property owner who will benefit financially through payments for the turbines located on his property.
• One must only read the headings of the EIS to see the multitude of potential areas of impact. This indicates that there is too much potential for damage to the environment and for the people living in the area to allow this project to be approved. Even if only some of these areas are impacted it adds up very quickly to an unacceptable level.
• I have read the list of complaints that have been made by the community concerning the Crudine Ridge wind development. These complaints concern road use during the construction phase and consistently report contractors behaving badly (speeding) and heavy vehicles damaging property and fencing on access roads. Hills of Gold is a much larger development and will have a bigger impact.

Also, traffic impacts along the proposed transport route through Muswellbrook LGA along Wybong, Kayuga and Dartbrook Roads. These roads are not suitable for oversize and long loads. These roads are also very busy during shift change with mine workers using these roads when oversize loads are expected to be using these minor roads. Even with significant modifications the roads are not suitable. A condition should be imposed that the ENGIE contribute to road network upgrades within the Muswellbrook Shire LGA transport route. From my review of the ENGIE engagement register no consultation has occurred with Muswellbrook Shire Council and this is a concern.

This community has been outspoken and very clear. They do not want this development. The approval process and the DPIE should listen and NOT approve the Hills of Gold development. I find it deeply concerning that this project has been progressed and those who will be affected are being ignored.

Overall, there is absolutely nothing that can be said about this project that is positive. Turbines cannot be hidden. They are too large. We don’t know enough about the impact of the sound of the turbines on the health and wellbeing of people or animals. The payments that are being offered to compensate neighbouring landowners are laughable. Property values will and do decrease by a significant amount.

Key objections

While currently not a full-time resident of Nundle township, I am a landholder and ratepayer, and therefore a key community stakeholder and interested party in the proposed Hills Of Gold Windfarm.

I object to the proposed development, though I wish it to be noted that I am an active supporter of and for, renewal clean energy production and believe that we must rapidly move to suitable energy sources, including solar and wind, if we are to protect and ensure the longevity of our planet and ecosystem for the future.

There are five key areas of impact to which my objections relate – biodiversity, Aboriginal cultural heritage, social and economic considerations and traffic and transport. I have outlined my key points of feedback under each point below.

In addition I have made some comments on stakeholder consultation.

Biodiversity impact
- Key areas of concern relate to potential impact on the 18 bird species and 33 animal candidate species, specifically the wedge-tailed eagle, nankeen kestrel and multiple species of bats.
- I do not believe adequate consideration of impacts to bird and animal habitat, either during construction or operation phases has been fully considered, in particular impact risk. Of the research that has been conducted the outcomes are not acceptable. Few, or in some instances no, mitigating actions been put in place to ameliorate or lessen these impacts.
- In particular the eagle and kestrel are synonymous with the region’s visual landscape and a key asset. 0.98 impacts for kestrels and 5.86 impacts for eagles every year are simply unacceptable. Over the lifespan of the project this will decimate these vital and majestic bird populations.

Aboriginal cultural heritage impact
- As per the research conducted and consultation with indigenous community members, there are multiple sites of cultural heritage within the area of the project
- The project should not progress unless it has the full support of relevant elders and indigenous community groups, in particular those who have moral and cultural links to, and therefore ownership of, the land

Social and economic impact
- Key areas of concern relate to the lack of full consideration of potential impact to the natural beauty and historic significance of the region
- While case studies of previous wind farm projects have been utilized as mechanism to outline positives of like projects, Nundle is unique
- Specifically, it has a significant and proven reputation as a town that is able to attract and retain tourism and temporary and permanent residents (including a growing arts and culture community), creating a rich and vibrant socially viable and sustaining community
- People are primarily drawn to the area for reasons that relate to its natural environment, visual beauty (in particular the hills) and its uniquely regional attributes. These aspects that make it unique will be impacted by the project both during construction and operation phases. These are attributes that cannot be mitigated for, nor can be compensated for

Traffic and transport impact
- While there are general concerns on the impact to the town on the chosen transport route, I wish to specifically address my comments to impacts that relate to the proposed alternative transport route through Nundle
- This route potentially impacts the current vacant land, which I own, which is under planning phase for development
- In particular there are two major concerns:
(1) Firstly, the proposed removal of two ornamental flowering trees adjacent to the property (corner of Innes and Gill streets) – this stand of trees are a unique flora asset to the town and feature on many promotional images. They are subject to a protection caveat that ensures their longevity. They are a key reason why the land was purchased and are a key feature of the proposed future development for the land
(2) Secondly, the route will impact the land itself and future potential residents / visitors (a) visually, especially during 18 -24 months of construction phase (b) physically, through the proposed use of the land (corner of Innes and Gill streets) by the project for a permanent easement to allow for transport and blade overhang.
- Both of these impacts significantly limit the development options and timing of development for this land, having an adverse impact on both the attractiveness of the land and its surrounds and therefore diluting the rationale for and value of, the proposed dwellings and land usage and flow on benefits to the community

Stakeholder consultation
- While project documentation summarizes key aspects of community and stakeholder consultation for the project and a consultation hub has been established for a period in Nundle township, no, or limited efforts were proactively made to consult with me.
- As a ratepayer and non-residential community member, more effort should have been made to ensure that proactive consultation was extended to all parties.
- That said, I do acknowledge the subsequent advice and information provided to me, upon request, from both the Tamworth Regional Council and Someva Renewals Community Development Manager.

A wind farm will be a scar on the face of the earth of this beautiful area. The developer has lied saying that it will not proceed if there was community objection, but it wants to go ahead anyway regardless of community objection. The land in the area is sensitive.
Wind farms generally kill the birdlife and the noise they make is dangerous to humans.

1. From the outset, I am not an opponent of renewable energy but believe such proposals should be located in appropriate locations. In relation to the site proposed for this project I have grave concerns for strategically important biodiversity of the region, the environment, endangered species, water catchment area, heritage and visual amenity.

2. Old growth trees which are habitat for a number of endangered species including Koalas will be impacted by this project. The main property owner and proponent preempting an approval by the NSW Government, has already cleared many trees along sites proposed for turbines harming the precious biodiversity. When the project is expired there has been no proposals by the proponent for subsurface remediation or bond retained to remediate the area, so the large concrete and steel pads and indeed redundant turbines are retained in the earth and the precious native vegetation and wildlife habitat gone forever. This needs to be addressed now, not in 30 years time and several owners/operators later.

3. There are impacts on tributaries that flow into either the Peel or Barnard rivers such as contamination and erosion, impacts on heritage - Black Snake Mine and impacts on visual amenity. There should be sensible sighting of large-scale renewable projects, not large expanses of renewables on ridge lines, particularly as beautiful as those at Hanging Rock and Nundle.

4. The project is unlikely to realise the economic bounty promised to the Hanging Rock and Nundle communities, construction workers and contractors are likely to be FIFO, not sighted locally and the projects annual Community Enhancement Fund of $2,500 x 70 turbines will be shared between at least three local government areas.

5. In summary I believe the applicant has not addressed the impacts on the Nundle and Hanging Rock communities during construction and operation; biodiversity considerations; native flora and fauna; the environment generally; the need for removal of large quantities of native vegetation; the large quantity of water for construction of the concrete turbine pads given the relative scarcity of the resource; bird and bat strike by the turbine blades during operation; visual amenity; heritage - destruction of the Black Snake Gold Mine; safety of proposed roads in the vicinity of the Devils elbow; access of vehicles through private properties; impacts on water catchments - Peel and Barnard rivers and McDivitts creek; the paltry figure proposed for the Community Enhancement Fund per turbine over three local government areas; the number of jobs promised during construction and operation; community support for the project. I believe the project has adverse impacts on the land of high biodiversity significance, heritage and tourism that ultimately requires the protection of aesthetic values and includes land identified as critical habitat under the Biodiversity Conservation Act, 2016 and the project should be rejected.