Skip to main content

State Significant Development


Hills of Gold Wind Farm

Tamworth Regional, Liverpool Plains Shire, Upper Hunter Shire

Current Status: More Information Required

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

A wind farm and associated infrastructure located 50 km south-east of Tamworth and 8 km south of Nundle, comprising up to 70 wind turbines, battery storage and grid connection.


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 (2)

Notice of Exhibition (Nov 2022)
Notice of Exhibition

Request for SEARs (7)

Scoping Report
Appendix A - Site Photos
Appendix B - Preliminary Constraints Mapping
Appendix C - Indicative Layout
Appendix D & E - Community Consultation
Appendix F - Visual
Appendix G - Noise

SEARs (2)

Supplementary SEARs

EIS (41)

Environmental Impact Statement
Appendix A SEARs
Appendix B CIV Report
Appendix C.1 Engagement Strategy
Appendix C.2 Engagement Register
Appendix C.3 Engagement Supporting Material
Appendix C.4 Community Enhancement Fund Charter
Appendix C.5 Neighbour Benefit Sharing Program
Appendix D BDAR
Appendix E.1 Noise and Vibration Assessment
Appendix E.2 Background Noise Monitoring
Appendix F Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix F LVIA - App A
Appendix F LVIA - App B
Appendix F LVIA - App C
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 01
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 02-03
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 04-05-06
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 07-08
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 09-10
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 11-12-13
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 14-15-16
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 17-18-19
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 20-21-22
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 23-24-25-26
Appendix F LVIA App D PM 27-28
Appendix F LVIA App E Dwelling
Appendix F LVIA App F LCUOverviews
Appendix G Traffic and Transport Assessment
Appendix H Aviation Assessment
Appendix I EMI Assessment
Appendix K Blade Throw Assessment
Appendix L SEPP 33 Assessment
Appendix M Aboriginal Heritage Assessment
Appendix N.1 Historic Heritage Assessment
Appendix N.2 SoHI
Appendix O Soils and Water
Appendix P Socio Economic Assessment
Appendix Q Env Assessment Approach
Letter of Designation
Appendix J Bushfire Assessment

Response to Submissions (17)

Request for RTS letter (Feb 2021).pdf
Submissions Report (Dec 2021)
Submissions Report Appendices (Dec 2021)
Request RTS Letter (Dec 2022)
Submissions Report (March 2023)
Submissions Report (March 2023) APP A Updated Project Description
Submissions Report (March 2023) APP B Mitigation and Measures
Submissions Report (March 2023) APP C Traffic and Transport
Submissions Report (March 2023) APP D ARDG Response to DPE Water
Submissions Report (March 2023) APP E Biosis Technical Note
Submissions Report (March 2023) Appendix F.1 Updated BDAR
Submissions Report (March 2023) Appendix F.2 Updated BDAR
Submissions Report (March 2023) Appendix F.3 Updated BDAR
Submissions Report (March 2023) Appendix F.4 Updated BDAR
Submissions Report (March 2023) Appendix F.5 Updated BDAR
Submissions Report (March 2023) Appendix F.6 Updated BDAR
Submissions Report (March 2023) APP G Submissions Register

Amendments (51)

Amendment Acceptance Letter (Nov 2022)
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) Main Volume
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP A Updated Project Description
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP B Updated Land Title
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP C Updated Mitigation Measures
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP D Updated Statutory Compliance
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP E.1 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP E.2 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP E.3 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP E.4 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP E.5 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP E.6 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP F Noise and Vibration Assessment
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP G LVIA Addendum
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP H Traffic and Transport Assessment
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP I Route Study
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP J Aviation Addendum
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP K Flame Length Calculations
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP L Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP M SoHI - Peel Inn
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP N Historic Heritage Assessment
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP O Historic Heritage Assessment
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP P Air Quality and GHG
Amendment Report (Nov 2022) APP Q Optional Verden Rd Quarry Exp
Amended Instrument of Designation (Nov 2022)
Request to Amend a DA(Jan 2022)
Amendment Acceptance Letter (Jan 2022)
Amendment Report (Jan 2022)
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App A Updated Project
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App B Updated Land Title
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App C Updated Mitigation & Mgt
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App D.1 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App D.2 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App D.3 Updated BDAR
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App E Bio Offset Strategy
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App F Noise Advice Letter
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App H Traffic Impact Addendum
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App I Transport Route Assessment
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App J Aviation Advice
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App K Updated Bushfire
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App L PHA
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App M Indigenous Heritage Advice
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App N Soil & Water Addendum
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App O Preliminary Geophysics
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App P.1 Devils Elbow Engineering
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App P.2 Devils Elbow 3D Visuals
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App P.3 MGR Designs
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App P.4 Intersection Designs
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App Q SoHI Addendum
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App R Updated Socio-Economic
Amendment Report (Jan 2022) App S Statutory Compliance Table

Additional Information (6)

Request for Information (March 2023)
Request for Information (October 2021)
Request for Information (February 2022)
Response to RFI
Response to RFI - Appendix D Updated BDAR
Request for Information (March 2022)


Showing 161 - 180 of 1122 submissions
Sharn Ogden
Bungendore , New South Wales
Please see attached
Alisa Perks
ARMIDALE , New South Wales
The Hills Of Gold windfarm will be an important step towards a cleaner energy future for Eastern Australia. The New England is becoming a renewable energy hub, and I see this project as part of that positive regional move to renewables. The project's proximity to main power lines and the high wind properties of the area make this a viable and potentially massive source of energy, for a future where people are placing increasing demands on the electricity grid to power their lives and businesses.
Helen Rainger
GOULBURN , New South Wales
I support the Hills of Gold Wind Farm Project. The 70 turbines with accompanying battery will be a significant addition to the renewable energy sources for NSW energy needs. The NSW Government is taking important steps to reducing greenhouse emissions, far ahead of the Australian Government, and this project is in line with the trajectory being followed in NSW.
I believe that local supporters outnumber detractors of the project and the benefits to the community, as well as to the nation and the planet, will be many. Benefits include job creation, lease payments to farmers and payments to community projects including road upgrades.
That The Honorable Barnaby Joyce is against the wind farm does not, in my view, 'count' as a valid objection. There are many ideologues in the present Coalition Australian Government and may I say, Barnaby Joyce is one of them. International leaders are calling on the Australian Government to do more to mitigate the effects of climate change but it seems that it is up to State Governments to carry the flag. Thus the role of the NSW Government, in particular here, that the Planning Department looks squarely at the evidence and approves this Hills of Gold Wind Farm Project. Thank you.
Laura Brown
MARRICKVILLE , New South Wales
I believe that wind projects, including this one, are important steps to create clean energy, support local jobs and move away from current systems of electricity generation which rely on fossil fuels and contribute to the destruction of local environments and global environmental degradation. I also believe that the team behind this project will ensure they are following appropriate guidelines, including those established by the EPBC, in order to protect the integrity of the project and the safety of local humans and non-humans. The NSW government should invest in this project, and similar projects, to move our communities towards systems of electricity generation which respect our NSW residents and our local environments, which are precious.
Name Withheld
CARLTON , New South Wales
I support this project as i understand that renewable energy projects help lower electricity prices for consumers and they help create a world without fossil fuels, which will mean a cleaner more sustainable environment for everyone to live in.
Name Withheld
Nundle , New South Wales
1. - I strongly object on environmental grounds.
The proposed site for the Wind Farm lies on a high ridgeline that forms the headwaters for the at present pristine waters for 3 river catchments.
- the Isis River flowing south into the Hunter Valley
- the Barnard River flowing east to the Manning Valley
- the Peel River flowing West into the Murray Darling System
This area has a special status in that is the high point of connection of these 3 water catchments.
Already over many years development including clearing and road building has taken place in preparation for this project prior to any Development consent. A quick look at historical Google Map images can confirm this.
2. - I strongly object on the impact on Visual Aesthetics.
When we came to this area one of the main reasons was our incredible view of the mountains. Now we are fearful of losing this value. What was a view of high timbered rangeland will become a ringfenced border of ugly spinning towers.
3. - I strongly object on the damage to Community Cohesion.
From the first meeting our Community has been damaged. The few supporters of the scheme are well and truly outnumbered by those who oppose. There is one main landholder beneficiary of the scheme who obviously will be a big winner if the scheme goes ahead. This will guarantee Community angst for years to come.
4.- I strongly object as I believe the correct Process has not occurred.
I made several attempts to make contact via email with no reply, until telephoning directly with regards to the impact of the Project on us. I specifically asked that when the Wind Tower Group was next in the area to arrange a meeting. I have not received any further communications regarding this.
5. - I strongly object to the incomplete nature of the Development Application.
The proposed transmission route is just that, and leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to its route and impact.

Sonia Andari
I support this project and strongly believe that this project will benefit the whole state by providing clean, cheap renewable energy. The project will have a long term benefit the local communities as well as the country.
Wassef Taleb
BEVERLEY PARK , New South Wales
Climate change is destroying the environment and changing weather patterns to be more extreme and unsustainable for human civilisation. This wind farm will be a great project for the state and the local communities by providing cheap, clean renewable energy.
Nick Bradford
NUNDLE , New South Wales
To Whom it may concern:
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission in regard to the Wind Farm at Hanging Rock / Nundle.

The name: The Hills of Gold Wind Farm
I object to the name of this wind farm referencing Hills of Gold. I find the use of this name offensive. When this project was first raised to Nundle & Hanging Rock residents, the proposed project was called the Nundle Renewable Energy Park. After the first meeting with residents attended by Someva (Jamie Chivers) in March 2018, a number of community members mentioned the beauty of the Hills of Gold, of what could be destroyed by the wind turbines. A short time later, the project was renamed 'Hills of Gold Wind Farm'. It was like the proponents felt that the best way to get the community on side was to humiliate them. The Hills of Gold has an important historical reference since white man first made their way to the Nundle gold fields. The Hills also turn a beautiful shade of gold in the afternoon sun, the view is stunning, visitors and residents love "OUR" Hills of Gold. The wind farm should not use this reference to name an industrial structure.

Consultation with Community:
Someva & Wind Energy Partners have obviously ticked all the boxes in regard to consultation of residents and businesses to satisfy Department of Planning approval. The project would not have got this far without these boxes being ticked. However, their ability to consult with the community has been appalling, if you have made it clear you are not in favour of the project, answers to questions are vague or without substance. It is clear that have been through this process before (other wind farm proposals), they know how to manage people's concerns in way that attrcts least amount of interaction. I am sure they see "less communication is more".

Visual aspect of the proposal:
I object to visual aspect of this proposal. Nundle sits at about 660m ASL, the proposed wind farm is at 1200 to 1400m ASL but is only a short 4-9 klms from farming communities and the residents of Nundle. To have the wind towers sit so high (230m AGL = total of 1646m see EIS) on the ridge-line will change the look of the mountain range forever. Nundle, Hanging Rock and surrounding areas have welcomed visitors for many hundreds of years, possibly thousands of years, we do not want the hills destroyed forever by this offensive view.

View from Golf Club / Bowling Club:
I am a member of the Nundle Golf Club and enjoy our beautiful course and welcome golfers from all over the state. Nundle is one of the most scenic course one could play.
Golf courses trade on their scenic surroundings and Nundle Golf Club golfers would have their enjoyment of the current highly scenic mountain range, impaired by highly visible 230m wind turbines on a 1200-1400m range. As mentioned above, the highest tip is at 1646m ASL. From Appendix F LVIA Appendix C from the Bowling Club entrance suggests "An assessment based on topography alone identifies around 60-70 WTG’s associated with project may be visible along the ridgeline from this location". Even if only half the towers could be seen from this location, it would be a disaster.

Community Division:
It is so sad to see the division this project has caused in our little communities. It is clear almost 70% of the community oppose this proposal (a signed document has been presented to Kevin Anderson MP, Local state member). Of the balance, possibly 20% of the community are fence sitters, with the balance (possibly 10%) being supportive of the project. Of those supportive of the proposal, many are family or employees of those families who are receiving a financial benefit.
We were once friendly and cooperative communities, now there are people, neighbors , community groups who are unable to speak with each other. This proposal has been devastating to community cohesion and the ability to work together. Regretfully, whether this proposal goes ahead or not, the community division is here to stay. There are no community winners out of projects like these, if the majority of a community does not support projects like these (coal, solar, CSG, wind), they should be stopped. A solar project was recently approved near Tamworth, because the community was onboard. This project at Hanging Rock should not be approved because it is the community that must live with the project, not the developer or the decision maker at the Department of Planning.

Clearing of natural habitat.
Although the host land holder has made it clear that no flora or fauna has been displaced as a result of this proposed development, google maps tell a very different story. The land clearing that has occurred (both legally and illegally) coincidentally marries nicely with the proposed location of the turbines. A further 500 hectares is proposed to be removed to make way for the wind farm, this area is extremely sensitive, stop the clearing of this area now, please do not approve this project.

Entry to ridge line via Devils Elbow by-pass (northern end of project).
A road has been proposed in the EIS that will by-pass Devils Elbow, the only access from Nundle to Hanging Rock. The road that is proposed is via and extremely steep rise up the mountain range that will have a devastating impact on the local flora and fauna. The devils elbow was built alternative access was considered too steep. Please make sure Department of Planning engineers walk this proposed access before the project is approved, the proposed road way is fanciful.
Name Withheld
I believe this project is important for Australia’s future in renewable energy.
Name Withheld
CRONULLA , New South Wales
I support this project as it will support the local economy in construction, maintenance and operational roles, as well as provide efficient clean energy for the nation.
Stella Babidge
REDFERN , New South Wales
I support this project wind farms r great. clean energy rules da roost.
Name Withheld
ALFREDTON , Victoria
I object to the project because air pressure change caused by the operating turbines is not being investigated when sound pressure complaints are being made ,and that the National Wind Farm Commissioner could not care less about the health and wellbeing of the complainants ,because he has closed complaints without resolution ,and without knowing the levels of noise pollution that people are complaining .

I have removed the names of people in my previous submission who have been responsible for the past failures so as the problems can be fixed by those authorities who are responsible so as my complaint can be registered.
Name Withheld
PYRMONT , New South Wales
As a NSW citizen I 100% support this project. It's a well thought out proposal and I hope it becomes a reality. Australia needs more initiatives like this one.
Name Withheld
SCONE , New South Wales
I would like to object to the construction of a wind farm at Nundle. Nundle is a very unique wilderness with a history dating back to the gold rush days. It should be left in it pristine state.
At the moment wind farms are becoming an increasingly burden on the states electricity grid causing it to become unstable. AEMO are now having to turn these winds farms of to maintain the grids integrity. This therefore makes the already unreliable generators even less valuable to the country.
The only persons that receive return from a windfarm is the energy company and the landowners. They also affect previous business operations which may have been occurring before the wind farm which cannot continue post construction, in this case gold recovery.
Roads suffer hugely from transportation of the wind turbines to their location. An example of this is The NewEngland highway. It has not been completely maintained since the last wind farm construction and sections of it are in a very poor condition. As a result people loose there lives on these roads and of course they are not attributed to the project.
I feel these wind turbines do not fit into atmosphere of Nundle and hence my objection.
Corinne Annetts
Salisbury Plains , New South Wales
I object to the proposed project going ahead. The Nundle community and environment will be impacted dramatically by this project. The benefits to the community are little in outweighing the overall environmental cost.
This project falls into again the wrong location in respect to the community and should not go ahead.
Timor Community
Timor , New South Wales
Submission to NSW Government Planning, Industry and Environment in response to Hill of Gold (SSD-9679) Notice of Exhibition.

I submit this response on behalf of the Timor Community.

The concerned citizens of Timor object to the planning submission

The Proponents of the Program, failed to consult at all with the local Timor Community on any potential impacts of the Program to the residents of the community. Timor was completely overlooked in this process.
The first time that the residents of Timor became aware of the considerable impacts the Project will have on the Timor community, was after public release of the Public Submission of Project Plans. Up until this point, the community had assumed the Hills of Gold Project would only impact the Nundle side of the Liverpool range, and indeed not the Range ridgeline itself. The community was never consulted in relation to the Project, despite the considerable adverse impacts the Project is likely to have on the community/landholdings/ residences/families/livelihood.
Examples of such adverse impacts include (but are not limited to):
• high risk of irreparable and devastating impacts on threatened species and flora habitats in the affected region,
• unacceptable risks and threats to local natural water sources (in a community that is still suffering and has been utterly devastated by drought conditions over the past few years),
• high potential for wind turbine nightlights/disruption,
• noise and vibrations impacts,
• significant visual impact,
• threat of erosion and landslides,
• reduction of fire fighting capability in escarpments due to aerial support restrictions,
• and risks and diminution in land values.
The Project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) states that the Upper Hunter Council (the Council) has been consulted on the project, with a member of Council, Christine Robinson, having been on this Project’s Community Consultative Committee (the CCC), for several years. The Council appear to have provisionally signed off on the Project, and yet as stated above, the local community as a whole (being key stakeholders to the Project) has had no prior notice regarding the potential impacts that the Project could have on our region and community, which will directly impact all of us.
The Timor region in which we live are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of this Project – the 70 wind turbines are proposed to sit on the Crawney ridge line. Yet the Timor community has been completely shut out of any community consultation process whatsoever and utterly ignored – in complete and fundamental breach of important environmental and development/planning laws. This lack of requisite community engagement with key stakeholders to the Project constitutes a fundamental breach of process. Approval of this Project, without proper consultation with key stakeholders, including our community, is improper and would constitute a fundamental breach of process.
We call on the NSW Government to reject the development application for the Project with immediate effect, based on this fundamental breach of process/laws which goes right to the heart of the process.
As an example of the complete lack of analysis of impacts to the Timor area, no noise and vibrations testing was enacted on the Timor side of the Project area. There has been no public visual impact assessment for the Timor community of this Project. The water and soil impact assessments conducted by the Proponent are woefully inadequate for a community for which the Isis River and any and all available natural watercourses that flow into it are our life blood - at a time when our community is still suffering terrible economic, physical and mental hardship from the devastating effects of the past few years of drought. The EIS has failed to address many required assessments, including a decommissioning plan (DEMP) as required for all other wind farm projects in NSW. It is unacceptable that the NSW Government, or the Upper Hunter Shire Council, can support this Project without correct assessment procedures.

The EIS further shows a contumelious disregard by NSW Government and Upper Hunter Shire Council agencies to the high likelihood (the EIS itself calculates this risk as “high”) of irreparable devastation to endangered flora and fauna habitats and species that would be destroyed by construction of the Project, including adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species including the koala, the Booroolong frog (now with an endangered status under both NSW and National Governments) and various species of bats, gliders and quolls and risk of collision of the Nankeen Kestrel and Wedge-tailed Eagle – 13 threatened species identified.

Considering the impacts which recent drought and bushfire events have had on our nation, but in particular our region and communities, it is incredulous that this Project, which so clearly represents a “clearly unacceptable” risk to our community and biodiversity, is even being contemplated by Council and other government departments/agencies at this time.

Noise and Vibration Monitoring
The Impact assessment for this project has been very inadequate. Consequently, the community have no understanding of how our businesses, or our families, will be impacted.

The Timor side of the range was not included in the noise and vibration monitoring, so presumably there was no assessment.

The monitoring is here Appendix E.2 Background Noise Monitoring

The assessment is here: Appendix E.1 Noise and Vibration Assessment

Looking at the turbine layout, the majority of the turbines are in the Southern portion of the project, which must impact the Timor Community and hence us, and yet all the monitoring stations (circled) are in the North.

Figure 1 image attached (as an attachment) is from the monitoring report.

The Timor Community was completely overlooked during the consultation process for this Project. Whilst Nundle received all the attention, Timor received none, and yet the Timor area is equidistant from the proposed Project area. This is totally unacceptable.

This Project should be rejected.
Name Withheld
Nundle , New South Wales
Growing up in the Nundle community, I have seen the huge implications this project has had and will have on the area and the people that live in it. Working and living in the Nundle area on my family property that will be all but surrounded by the project has put huge amount of stress on the way we work and future of our family business. Initially when the project was first proposed my family was contacted and we listened with open ears to see what benefits could have been brought to the local area from a project of this scale. However, very quickly we realised there wasn't a-lot of truth and transparency from the information that was being provided. From their the project developer all but ignored the huge implications that this project will have on our business, with one of the most contributing factors being that the road we live on will be one of the main access routes that could have up to 200 heavy vehicle movements a day compared to the 1-2 cars that go up and down our road currently. This not only will affect the way we work, however will pose a huge safety risk to the people we employee and livestock we own as most of the road is not fenced off. All these factors, make for great concern for the future of our family business in this area. Not only tho will it affect the way we work, however this project has already had a massive affect on the wildlife and pristine country that the project is proposed to be built on. With a lot of clearing that has already taken place and vast amount more needed. This destruction of habitat will never recover and the affects of the fires and the droughts has already has such a massive affect on the native Australian wildlife already in this area that i fear with the added affects of this project, Nundle will never be the same. Nundle is known for its scenic views and beautiful forest covered hills, that have been untouched. The affects of this project will have a massive affect on the tourist attraction this little town possesses. It is undoubted that this projected for the time being while it is being built will provide a boost in the towns economy. However, after the construction period it will return back to relying on tourism as only a few highly skilled people will be needed to maintain and look after the tours. What concerns me most of all about this project is the decommission stage after the towers have served their time. Which i might add is a substantially short amount of time for a renewable source of power. We have all seen the tours falling down in America after the companies that built them have fallen in on themselves, leaving the land holders responsible for pulling down the towers. As neighbouring land holders to the project this is extremely worrying. The hard accessibility of this project also makes me believe that a project of this scale would be far off better placed in an area of easier access and in a place where the materials that are needed are in closer distance. There are many projects currently proposed similar to this that have far better placement and would have a lot less impact on the surrounding environment. For me the energy required to constructions this project could not possibly be enough to be covered by the out put this project will create.
Christopher Eagles
Timor , New South Wales
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 my wife and I.

My wife (Maureen Carmel Eagles) and I object to the planning submission due to the restrictions to aerial operations on our Farms and worse still the unacceptable increase in Fire Risk, that these Towers will create in this area

Impacts to our Farming Aerial operations
Our Farming business relies on Aerial operations including Weeding, Seeding, Fertilising, and most importantly Fire Fighting.
Our “Glen Dhu” Landing strip is identified in the EIS Aviation report as ALA4 (Appendix H Page 54). Because our Landing strip is just outside the 3nm bounds that the Aviation assessment has chosen for further assessment, our landing strip is therefore not further assessed. Yet, the report goes on to indicate that “Wake Turbulence” will be up to 2,720m around these Turbines (Appendix H Page 61), and additionally this impact will be further magnified by “mountain waves” or “oscillations caused by high ground” (Appendix H Page 63). Given that our Landing strip is only marginally outside the 3nm boundary, it is totally unclear what the extent of the “Wake Turbulence” and “Mountain Waves” will be to the operations of our Landing strip. It is though very certain, that we will be losing the ability to operate over 360 degrees as we do today. What proportion of our Farm will no longer be able to serviced by aerial operations? One could reasonably assume that up to half of the surface area of our Farm will no longer be able to serviced by aerial operations.
Our Landing strip is also used by our neighbours for their Farming operations (Weeding, Seeding, Fertilising, and most importantly Fire Fighting). Our neighbours will also be impacted by the reduction in Aerial operations from our Landing strip.
We have had no consultation on these impacts.

Catastrophic Bush Fire Risk
Whilst we acknowledge that the Turbines themselves are unlikely to cause Bush fires, their location on the Top of the escarpment will severely impact future Bushfire fighting activities on the slopes leading up to the escarpment.
As background, for several weeks in the Summer of 2019/20 (Pages River Fire) and previously in 2010/11 the Heavily Wooded Southern and Western Facing Slopes of the Liverpool ranges, directly below the area of the proposed Wind Farm, were on Fire. These Fires started as a result of Lightning strikes, and were only contained, over several weeks, as a result of both Ground and Aerial Fire Fighting. There are a number of residences in that area (including ours) and they were only able to be protected because of these fire fighting efforts.

Aerial Fire fighting support to the ground crews is critical on these, otherwise, often inaccessible slopes.
The EIS report indicates that “Wake Turbulence” will be up to 2,720m around these Turbines (Appendix H Page 61), and additionally this impact will be further magnified by “mountain waves” or “oscillations caused by high ground” (Appendix H Page 63). This will effectively mean that ground fire fighting on those heavily wooded slopes, will not be able to be supported by aerial activities.
Whilst in the EIS the subject of Bushfires is included, the solution seems to be that the Wind Farms will be switched off to prevent Wake Turbulence in the event of Fires in the slopes below the Turbines. This is ridiculous. These Fires occur in the height of Summer, when Power generation needs are at their greatest. Will they really be switched off for the several weeks that it may take to contain Fires on those slopes.

Even if they can be turned off for a number of weeks, which I doubt, thus preventing the “Wake Turbulence” and “Mountain Waves”, out to 2,720m, impacting aircraft, just the physical presence of these towers within such close proximity to the heavily wooded slopes, will mean that aircraft movements will certainly be restricted, and aircraft will be unable to fully support Fire Fighting efforts on those slopes. This will be catastrophic for this community.

If this Project goes ahead, Fires in those areas will not be able to be contained, as they are today, and will place many local residences, including our own, at substantially increased risk of being destroyed by Bush Fire.
Residences will most certainly be destroyed, and potentially human lives will be lost, by future fires in this area. This is totally unacceptable.

We are fortunate to have a wonderful group of volunteers from the community, who step up and fight the many fires that we experience every summer. We should not expect that they put their own lives at risk by asking them to fight Fires without aerial support.

This real issue, like so much of the rest of the EIS, is dealt with in subterfuge. The EIS pages are filled with meaningless detail such as ensuring that pilots are well trained to fly aircraft, rather than directly dealing with the very real world issues of increased Bushfire risk that will be faced by the residents in the slopes under these Turbines. Rather than develop an actual practical solution to this issue, the EIS obfuscates. Cleverly, The Proponent will never be able to be held to account. Meanwhile the local community will be expected to fight Fires on those slopes unsupported

The location of these proposed Wind Turbines could not be in a worse position, atop these heavily wooded slopes, and is totally inappropriate and puts this community at extreme risk.

We have had no consultation on these impacts. The EIS provides no real solution.

This Project should be rejected or lives may well be lost.
Sandra Agudelo
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Project will support NSW and AU renewable energy targets meanwhile minimizing negative environmental impacts and ,maximizing social social economical outcomes.


Project Details

Application Number
EPBC ID Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Development
Development Type
Electricity Generation - Wind
Local Government Areas
Tamworth Regional, Liverpool Plains Shire, Upper Hunter Shire

Contact Planner

Anthony Ko