Keri Keri Wind Farm

To the Planners,

As a young farmer in the area I am concerned about this installation. My concerns are for my health, my families, the people who live in my community and future generations of food producing farmers.

I have been reading about BPA and that it was banned in Australia in 2012.

The turbine blades spread Bisphenol A all over the countryside, washing into our waterways, then will be consumed by livestock entering our food chain. Resulting in human consumption.

I am unsure of the true implications of Bisphenol A.

I am considering obtaining Legal advice as to the health implications upon myself, my family, and my community.

I do not consent to being exposed to Bisphenol A.

Sincerely,

Ella-Rose Hare

This project will benefit generations to come along with local business jobs and community growth

Please see letter attached.

This project must be a controlled action. It is on prime food producing land and the risk is too high for potential of irreversible toxic contamination.

I object to the proposed cluster of industrial structures proposed in submission (sub-72169456).

My reasons for objecting are as follows:

- Wind turbines are a significant fire risk being a source of fire ignition and also the source of fire spread via "blade throw" occuring in the event of a structural failure in the blade. Any other machine that suffered from the historical rates of fire as Australian wind turbines in recent times would be immediately withdrawn from the market.

- Cummulative effect of landscape impacts . Australia landscapes are having their natural character and beauty ruined.

- Lack of due consideration of environmental equity. The harms and costs should to the extent reasonably possible be carried by those people demanding and consuming the end product. Rural Australia is being disproproportionately harmed.

- Secret contracts with non-disclosure agreements. Wind turbine development should not continue while corporations are using cynical and exploitive negotiating practices that divide communities with winner and losers. It is unjust that some persons are benefiting at the expense of others.

- All people harmed by the development of this project must be fully and fairly compensated. Without full transparency and independent scrutiny this is simply not possible.

Michael Hill
ph 0451 156 025
512 Chatham Valley Rd
Chatham Valley
NSW 2787

I don't believe that ALL of the science is in, the unbiased and the complete unadulterated science to support these turbines. Why should our "back yard" be littered with these towers to benefit those in the cities. Move them closer to the cities! The toxic debris from deteriorating towers and blades will cover our lands for many kilometers and for generations to come. They won't withstand the heat that we get out here. I believe that the generators in them take enormous amounts of oil and need replacing in as little as two years. The fossil fuels needed to transport, let alone run these huge, ugly, unsightly stains on our natural lands is enormous and I also question whether this has been taken into the consideration of the risk/cost benefits analysis, along with the natural resources needed, and the CO2 emissions for the magnitude of concrete and steel required to stand these turbines up. This will be the biggest stuff up if it is to go ahead that our country has ever seen.

These enormous monstrosities called turbines only aid in increasing the environmental problem with the amount of concrete used, the area of land needed, and the natural resources needed to manufacture, transport and operate. The destruction and disruption to flora and fauna in the processes is completely unacceptable. They are the furthest thing from renewable as their lifespan is as little as 30yrs and then a turbine does NOT generate a NEW replacement turbine. It borders on ridiculous to call them renewable. I'd rather go off grid than stuff up our country for our children and their children.

Refer to Attachment

I Object.
Ugly wind turbines which can be seen for many km in every direction.
Destruction of native wildlife and their habitat for an unreliable energy resource that isn't recyclable and is reliant on high voltage transmission lines that will result in more environmental destruction throughout Australia.

Objection.
This construction will not be in any way environmentally friendly.
Removal of native wildlife and habitat for roads and contruction if these ugly wind turbines which will be seen from many km.

i object to this Wind farm.It will be an ugly sight on our beautiful countries landscape.
They are an unreliable energy resource that is an environmental disaster which has already been proven in other countries around the world.
Endangered wild life and habitat is being detroyed and local communities blighted.

I object to these ineffective, ugly monstrosities destroying our native flora, fauna, the environment and local communities.

- Strongly against project
- Not viable for this area. We are a long way from where the energy needs to be.
- Affecting our livelihoods and our rights as land holders

Wind "farms" do not provide a reliable source of Energy Security. They are weather dependant with a limited lifespan.
There is no plan for environmentally responsible disposal at end of life, often with the cost of the disposal borne by the land owner.
The visual impact of these wind turbines will be unthinkable - this is not what we want in Country NSW, in our backyard.
Regional NSW should not have to bear the burden of supporting metropolitan cities and their power usage.
It is due to these so-called renewable energy projects that rural NSW farmers are being expected to host these repulsive 500Kv Transmission Lines that restrict the land owners ability to farm around them.
Components for this renewable energy project would likely be sourced from China and their slave labour supply chains, not supporting Australian Industries.
The renewable energy project is not viable in their own right - it is heavy subsided by Government.
It has been suggested that to obtain 100% Green Energy up to 70% of productive farm land would be required and taken out of production to achieve this target. This project is using irreplaceable agricultural land, land that is used for food and fibre production, threating our future food security.

I object to the wind farm.
Ugly unviable energy resource that is destroying the environment, native animals and our rural communities.

Another taxpayer funded abomination that the end result is much expense for no gain! Destruction of food producing land, visual destruction of landscape and a liability of an impossible land reclamation after a very short term of subsidised energy production and an ever-growing pile of non recyclable rubbish that we have forever. Not counting the millions of litres of used turbine oil and the possible contamination to mention just a few of the negatives of this misguided warm and fuzzy to be seen to be doing effort of saving the planet!

I object to the Keri Keri Wind Factory.
Agricultural land should not be used for these projects. We cannot afford to lose any of our our food land.
There are many environmental impacts. Some which are:
Yanga State Conservation Area to the west of the Project area, which is zoned C1 – National Parks and Nature Reserves.
Nitre Goosefoot shrubland wetland
Freshwater Wetlands
PCT 160 is associated with
Artesian Springs Ecological Community in the Great Artesian Basin - Critically Endangered
EXTREMELY RARE Australian Painted Snipe in Balranald Wetland areas.

I support the project. The renawable transition is critical to the state and east coast.
NSW must change the requirements of 50 objections to be refered to the IPC for renewable projects. This is causing unnecessary delays for projects that are low impact.