Lake Victoria Wind Farm

I object to the Lake Victoria Wind Farm proposal, SSD-71630724, and request refusal. The application presents substantial residual habitat loss, documented bird and bat collision risks, and water and battery hazards whose acceptability depends on safeguards still to be finalised. The applicant’s own evidence warrants a more demanding assessment before any approval is considered.

This is a potent objection to the poisonous and pernicious Lake Victoria Wind proposal and its associated Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) northwest of Wentworth.

This toxic disaster is not a progressive energy solution; it is a highly subsidised, ecologically destructive, and geopolitically dangerous industrial land grab that poses an immediate threat to regional New South Wales and our broader national security.

The push to fast-track the South West REZ at the expense of local communities is a regulatory failure.
Predatory TransGrid is being sued by the Regulator, the Energy Ministers keep lying and the RenewaBULL Rort is imploding!

This ecocidal scam represents an unstable, fragile, intermittent, short-term infrastructure failure that sacrifices Australia's environment and energy independence for corporate profit.

1. Ecological Destruction and EPBC Act Failures
The proposal to erect 147 massive wind turbines across Pine Camp, Rufus, and Anabranch South creates a deadly kinetic barrier directly inside sensitive migratory bird and bat corridors.
The developer's environmental assessments downplay the true impact on threatened species protected under the federal EPBC Act.
Beyond direct collisions, the constant mechanical rotation over decades will cause turbine blades to shed microplastics, toxic epoxy resins, and fiberglass particles into our fragile semi-arid topsoils.
This introduces a chronic, bioaccumulative poisoning hazard to local flora and fauna that cannot be mitigated.

Furthermore, clearing thousands of hectares for access roads and heavy concrete foundations permanently fragments contiguous native habitats and alters natural floodplain drainage patterns, risking irreversible damage to local ecosystems.

2. The BESS Toxic Threat to the Lake Victoria Watershed
The inclusion of a utility-scale lithium-ion Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) introduces an unacceptable chemical hazard adjacent to a vital water system.
Thermal runaway events in large-scale battery facilities are incredibly difficult to control and release highly lethal gases, including hydrogen fluoride.
An uncontained battery fire or structural failure risks leaching heavy metals—such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel—directly into the ground, threatening the Lake Victoria watershed.
This watershed is a crucial resource for regional primary producers and domestic water security.

Cooling these uncontrollable chemical blazes requires millions of litres of water mixed with toxic suppression foams. The resulting runoff will permanently pollute agricultural aquifers, ruining the livelihoods of local landholders.

Local volunteer emergency services in the Wentworth Shire are completely unequipped to safely handle an industrial chemical disaster of this scale.

3. Surrendering National Security and Supply Chain Integrity
This project relies on supply chains heavily controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
From turbine kill switches, rare-earth magnets to battery cells and automated Battery Management Systems (BMS), this infrastructure creates a dangerous strategic dependence on a foreign adversary.
Sourcing these critical components presents significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities, including potential digital backdoors that will allow hostile actors to remotely disrupt or disable our electricity network.

The international supply chains for these components are deeply connected to documented forced labour practices and unregulated, exploitative mining operations overseas.
This completely undermines any claims that this project is ethically or environmentally sustainable.

4. Economic Costs and the Need for Reliable Baseload Power
The Lake Victoria Swindle Factory is an unreliable energy source that will sit idle during weather lulls, functioning as a parasitic load on the grid to run its own cooling and diagnostic systems.
To manage this wind drought intermittency, consumers are unjustly being forced to fund duplicate, dispatchable generation just to keep the lights on.
The multi-billion dollar cost of building extensive, CCP CONtrolling transmission lines to connect this remote site to urban centers will be passed directly to everyday households through soaring network charges, worsening energy poverty across regional communities.

Australia should not replace its reliable energy grid with short-lived assets that degrade rapidly and soon require full replacement, creating a continuous cycle of debt and waste.

Instead, our long-term security requires safe, reliable, and high-density 24/7 baseload power.
Investing in High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions (HELE) Coal and establishing a sovereign Nuclear Energy industry provides a stable energy supply for 60 to 80 years.
This approach delivers reliable, affordable power on a fraction of the land footprint, without the severe environmental damage, human exploitation, and national security risks associated with this illogical and harmful development.

For these reasons, I completely reject the Lake Victoria Wind and BESS proposal and urge the incompetent Department and IPCN zealots to do the essential risk research for once and refuse this destructive project.

Save Our Surroundings Riverina absolutely objects to the toxic contaminating, pathetically intermittent, economically unviable, CCP reliant, unregulated and insecure Lake Victoria Wind Electricity Generating Works and accompanying BESS hazard (SSD-71630724).

We completely reject this proposal as an ecologically reckless, financially predatory, and strategically compromised industrial deployment that offers nothing to regional NSW but environmental degradation and grid vulnerability.

The aggressive attempt by the Department and the IPCN to fast-track poisonous projects like this through the South West REZ framework bypasses genuine community consent and ignores severe, unmitigated long-term liabilities.
This development is a textbook example of a green-washed corporate subsidy trap.

Geopolitical Hazards and Compromised Supply Chains
The total dependency of this project on supply chains dominated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) represents a direct surrender of Australian energy sovereignty to a foreign adversary.

From the automated Battery Management Systems to the rare-earth magnets packed into each turbine nacelle, this infrastructure introduces severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
By embedding foreign-coded software and hardware into the western NSW grid, we are effectively installing digital backdoors that hostile state actors like the CCP will exploit to disable our power supply at will for coercive purposes.

Furthermore, the international supply chains backing these components are explicitly tied to egregious forced labour practices and devastating, unregulated overseas mining.
Relying on such unethical exploitation completely dismantles the hypocritical narrative that this development is a sustainable or "environmentally friendly" venture.

Economic Sabotage and the Destruction of Baseload Power
Replacing dependable, 24/7 Australian coal generation with short-lived, weather-dependent infrastructure is an economic disaster that will plunge regional families into further energy poverty.
Because the proposed Lake Victoria SWINDLE FACTORY is an inherently intermittent asset, it will inevitably experience prolonged wind droughts. During these periods, it transforms into a parasitic drain on the grid, consuming electricity just to operate its own internal climate controls and diagnostics.

To compensate for this unreliable power, everyday consumers are being fleeced to fund duplicate, dispatchable generation just to keep the lights on.
Worse still, everyday households will be forced to shoulder the multi-billion-dollar network costs of building unnecessary, intrusive interconnectors designed solely to transport this remote, low-quality energy.

True national stability requires a rejection of this rapidly degrading equipment in favour of long-term investments in new HELE coal power stations and a sovereign Nuclear Energy industry.
Utilising Australia's own abundant natural resources provides genuine energy security on a fraction of the land footprint, without the continuous debt cycles and insurmountable toxic waste dumps inherent to this fake green fools' errand.

Battery Rupture, Chemical Hazards, and Watershed Contamination
Positioning a utility-scale Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) immediately adjacent to the vital Lake Victoria watershed creates a catastrophic risk to regional water security.
Massive lithium-ion battery banks are notoriously prone to thermal runaway events—intense chemical fires that are impossible to control and spew lethal off-gases, such as hydrogen fluoride and cyanide, into the atmosphere.
BESS FIRES would require millions of litres of water mixed with hazardous chemical suppression foams resulting in uncontained, highly toxic runoff which will inevitably leach into the ground, permanently poisoning the shallow agricultural aquifers that local primary producers rely on for livestock and crop irrigation.

Compounding this danger, nearby farming properties and local lives would be put at extreme risk as the volunteer emergency services in the Wentworth Shire are entirely unequipped and untrained to handle a large-scale industrial chemical disaster.

Ecological Destruction and Avian Threat Corridors
We utterly reject the deeply flawed and inadequate ecological baseline data used to greenlight this 147 Turbine monstrosity and filthy BESS intrusion.
The development site directly violates the habitats and the flight paths of highly sensitive, migratory birds protected under the federal EPBC Act, most notably the critically rare Australian Painted Snipe.
Beyond the immediate, violent threat of high-velocity blade strikes, these structures pose a long-term environmental hazard.

Wind Turbine pylons muddy the groundwater & extensively destructive clearance of the landscape leads to severe erosion & contaminated water/sediment run-off.

Leading edge blades are only guaranteed for 5 years as they soon deteriorate from relentless weathering - causing erosion of the massive blades, shedding microplastics, toxic bisphenol-epoxy resins, and composite fiberglass shards which would end up in the delicate topsoils of Pine Camp, Rufus, and Anabranch South—introducing a permanent, bioaccumulative poison into the local ecosystem.

Where’s the essential risk research required from the irresponsible and incompetent NSW Government?

On the 22nd July 2025 the NSW Premier told us:->
“The Government could not risk delaying its renewable energy transition, EVEN IF REGIONAL COMMUNITIES PAID THE SACRIFICE.”

Why is the NSW Premier and his authoritarian Government clearly failing their primary duty to protect the citizens of NSW from the CCP’s RenewaBULL CURSE and Interconnector Nightmare?

All wind and solar projects are objectionable in principle because the transition to wind and solar energy is impossible due to the phenomenon of windless nights.
Trillions of dollars have been wasted around the world in pursuit of net zero, and the result has been to generate more expensive and less reliable energy, with catastrophic environmental impacts.
There are also local objections to these works, which interfere with normal farming operations and the appropriate use of the countryside.

1. Given the Lake Victoria wind turbine industrial facility will take up some 416 square kilometers of land, this is a potential large scale contamination risk from wind turbine blades shedding PFAs, toxic and carcinogenic compounds from fires when the turbines catch fire, along with fires from inverters and grid scale Lithium ion batteries.
2. Given this proposal is a "Controlled Action", this should be sufficient for the project not to proceed.

The information on the LVWF shows 2 different figures for the number of Turbines, up to 147 and up to 200 - which is it? The difference is substantial. All the flowery speech cannot justify such a blight on our environment or economy. The statement of reducing CO2 by 2.2 million tonnes per year I find ludicrous. CO2 is essential for LIFE. Given that CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and that if it falls below .02% life starts to deteriorate, totally negates mans attempt to reduce it. Australia's contribution to that .04% is between 1% and 1.3% - not even a blip on the world scale. I notice that nowhere has the CO2 output in the mining, manufacturing and construction of the Wind Farm and Batteries been taken into account. I would tend to think that would negate any reductions being advocated. The numerous arguments that have been put forward by many that renewables will lower Power Costs HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE. One just has to check their Power Bill. The adverse effects on the environment are many. Death to birds by impact with Turbines and the effect they may have on migratory routes. Turbines are renowned for flaking off particles which are spread far and wide. They contaminate the soil . The LPA (Livestock Production Assurance) already demands the Livestock Producers declare their proximity to Wind and Solar Farms due to contamination concerns. Their is no assurance that contamination cannot/will not occur. In fact any such assurance would be meaningless and unbelievable. Once the soil is contaminated their is NO WAY TO FIX IT - NOR WOULD ANY COMPANY BE PREPARED TO DO SO. The Wellington Solar Farm stands (or burns) as a prime example. The LVWF is located close to a very major Water Resource. There is NO WAY that any sane person can guarantee that contamination will not occur. That alone should be sufficient reason for this project NOT TO PROCEED. NATIONAL SECURITY. The vast majority of components in these Wind Farms are supplied from overseas. Many components are mined/built using Slave Labour (even children) this is abhorrent. The components often contain computer chips making them susceptible to hacking by Foreign Powers thereby impacting our National Security. I am TOTALLY OPPOSED to this development. There are NO discernable benefits to the Wentworth Shire or the Country as a whole, only DETRIMENTS.

Blade strike and collision for Raptors and Bats is unacceptable.

Wedge Tail Eagles (protected species) were recorded 136 times with 62 flights at rotor height. The white striped free-tailed bat is also rated high risk. Black Falcon, a conservation significant species, was recorded flying in the rotor zone and 17 species were moderate risk.

The EIS calls the collision impacts "difficult to quantify" and leaves offsets for turbine strike to be agreed later! None of this is acceptable.

The proponent is a foreign company. All profits, from Australian taxpayers and Australian energy consumers, will flow back to the foreign company. No benefit to Australians. Without significant funding from Australians, via subsidies from our State and Federal Governments, this project won't even get built.

This project will produce intermittent, unreliable energy and likely have to be fully replace in under 20 years. We want 24/7 reliable, affordable, abundant electricity.

This project is not in the public interest.

Where is Lake Victoria in relation to the turbines? The EIS gives inconsistent distances.

The EIS states the lake is about 4.4 to 5 km from the Project area, claims a 9 km buffer to infrastructure, and cites 18 km to the southern shores.

Lake Victoria is zoned for environmental conservation and is identified as a key fish habitat.

If the EIS cannot state a consistent distance to a major sensitive feature, the EIS conclusion that no impacts are expected on the lake cannot be trusted.

The turbines and tracks intrude on watercourses over a shallow water table.

Fourteen turbines intersect first-order watercourses and four intersect second-order watercourses.

Groundwater near Lake Victoria and the Anabranch is only 3 - 4 m down. Turbine foundations are expected to be 3.5 to 6 m deep. Thus turbines foundations will intercept and contaminate ground water at these locations.

The Anabranch's flooding reaches part of the project area in a 1 in a 100 year event.

This project sits in the Murray Darling Basin. This project should be rejected on the basis of likely contamination of the water table and watercourses plus interference with the water table and watercourses.

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Attention: Luke Thorburn, Contact Planner
Re: Lake Victoria Wind Farm and BESS – SSD-71630724
EPBC: 2024/09965

Dear Mr Thorburn,

I wish to formally object to the proposed Lake Victoria Wind Farm and BESS (SSD-71630724), proposed by Lake Victoria Wind Farm Pty Ltd / WestWind Energy.

This is an extremely large industrial development involving up to 147 wind turbines, battery storage and extensive associated infrastructure approximately 24 kilometres northwest of Wentworth.

Of particular concern is that the Commonwealth has determined the project to be a Controlled Action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The controlling provisions include:

• Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A); and
• Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A).

This determination means potential impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance require assessment and Commonwealth approval before the project can proceed.

I am particularly concerned about the potential impacts on biodiversity, threatened and migratory species, habitat and waterways.

These concerns extend to aquatic environments. NSW DPI Fisheries specifically required the environmental assessment to address potential impacts on aquatic ecology and Key Fish Habitat, including the Great Darling Anabranch. It also required consideration of waterways that may be affected directly or indirectly and the extent of aquatic habitat removal or modification.

Given the environmental significance of the wider Murray Darling system, potential impacts on waterways and aquatic ecosystems must be subject to the highest level of precaution and scrutiny. Claims that these risks can be adequately avoided, minimised or mitigated should be supported by robust scientific evidence.

The cumulative footprint must also be considered. Assessment should not be limited to individual turbines. The environmental consequences of the entire development including turbines, access roads, transmission infrastructure, battery storage, construction areas and other associated works need to be considered together, including their direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.

Where threatened species, migratory species, ecological communities and important aquatic environments may be affected, uncertainty should not be treated as evidence of an absence of risk.

A development of this scale should not be fast tracked at the expense of comprehensive environmental assessment and proper public scrutiny.

I therefore formally object to SSD-71630724 and request that the project not be approved unless and until its direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts have been comprehensively assessed and it can be demonstrated that unacceptable environmental harm will not occur.

Kind regards,
Emma

The following provides a high-level review of the exhibited documents to identify elements for consideration in a submission.

Background details of the project
It is understood that preliminary stakeholder engagement was undertaken in March 2024 and that Council provided the following high level comments at the time:
“ -Importance of tangible community benefits and minimal impact on public infrastructure, mainly roads
-Secure Energy’s contribution to Wentworth’s financial wellbeing”.

Council hereby wishes to provide the below as a preliminary submission.
There are a few items that remain outstanding and which Council is still needing to work through internally and with the proponent and understand that it is able to provide an updated submission response in the coming weeks.

Land use and property
Land use and property – the Project area is zoned RU1 – Primary Production under the Wentworth LEP and is currently used for agricultural purposes by multiple landholders. The EIS assessed the potential interactions of the Project with other nearby land uses as well as with the current land use of the Project area. Other assessments carried out as part of the EIS and include impacts to visual amenity, noise, biodiversity and hazards.
For the purposes of this submission the following items were reviewed as it relates to the services Council is responsible for:
• Road impacts and traffic planning:
• Waste planning and disposal:
• Aerodrome safety and emergency access
• Water supply and wastewater

Road impacts and traffic planning:
Transporting wind turbine components is expected to affect the local road network. Unsealed roads would experience additional construction traffic. Council will be looking for the proponent to enter into an appropriate agreement with Council to maintain the road quality of Council roads. The EIS provided limited detail on how the impact on local roads, local traffic and haulage routes will be minimised. Any road maintenance strategy prepared needs to carefully assess and mitigate any conflicts given the high volume of traffic that will be introduced into these areas.
Page 21 of The Traffic and Transport Assessment (Aurecon:2026-7-21) identified further investigation needing to be undertaken on five ‘pinch points’ and road quality along Wentworth-Renmark Road. It is therefore expected that a condition report/assessment will still be prepared and that Wentworth Shire Council will be consulted accordingly. The developer must fund all road upgrades, related works and legal agreement required by the development to the satisfaction of Council.

Waste planning and disposal:
Council considers the management and disposal of waste from construction, operation and decommissioning to be a key issue particularly where waste (including recycling/replacement of wind turbine components), is to be disposed of within the Wentworth Shire Council area. Council should be consulted when the Waste Management Plan is prepared. It is suggested for the Waste Management Plan to be undertaken early in the process as opposed to later when the structures are to be decommissioned and disposed of/recycled.
With respect to the management of waste from the construction works and proposed Accommodation facilities is not clear in the EIS. This includes the types and volume of waste products that will be generated and the limited options for local disposal may cause impacts on the surrounding environment. Conditions are recommended to address adequate waste management arrangements on general.

Aerodrome safety and emergency access:
Because of their height, the proposed turbines may affect operations at Wentworth Aerodrome. Council has undertaken an internal assessment in terms of risk to its infrastructure and potential mitigation measures to protect the aerodrome’s safe and effective operation.
Based on Council’s conversations with WestWind Energy in January 2026 the following requests were made:
1. Council would require 6 months’ notice prior to commencement of construction of any wind turbine, to accommodate the redesign and publication of the Wentworth Flight Plans.
2. In addition, Council will require an Agreement that the West Wind Lake Victoria Wind Farm will cover all costs associated with the required changes, which is estimated at approximately $30,000.00 plus additional costs should CASA require flight validation of the changes (to be confirmed).
3. Council will also request that West Wind Lake Victoria Wind Farm agrees that no further movement in an easterly direction of any infrastructure, as further changes will be opposed by the aerodrome operator.
• It is understood that the Aviation Impact Assessment will be updated to implement the intent of requests# 1 and 2 above.
• With respect to request #3, this item relates only to any future construction of wind turbines and/or any high “mast type” structures such as radio towers etc. that are likely to further impact entry and missed approach altitudes of the RNP RWY 08 at the Wentworth Aerodrome. It does not relate to other infrastructure inclusive of access roads, fences building etc that have no effect on the Wentworth Aerodrome operation.
• It is understood that the Project team will consult with Wentworth Aerodrome and Wentworth Shire Council if any WTGs move easterly. Where unacceptable impacts are identified, the Project will reasonably manage impacts in consultation with both parties, where feasible and subject to reasonable requests only.

Water supply and wastewater requirements:
Council has no comment to offer with respect to water and wastewater requirements relating to the proposal. Should the extraction of water from existing or new groundwater bores or water from other sources be required, the developer will need to apply for a Water Access License (WAL) from the appropriate water authorities. Should water be required through Council infrastructure an agreement will need to be entered into with Council.

Council will be providing an updated response in the coming weeks.

I object to the proposed wind energy development and ask that it be refused. My objection covers the entire industrial footprint: turbines, roads, cabling, transmission lines, substations, battery storage, construction compounds, data centres and any other connected works.

I support reliable electricity from all suitable sources, including nuclear power. However, no project should be approved unless the evidence shows that its benefits outweigh its local and cumulative costs. That case has not been made here.

Reasons for objection
Whole-project impacts. The application must assess all connected works together. Roads, trenches, transmission, compounds, batteries and data centres add clearing, traffic, noise, lighting, fire risk, water demand and a permanent industrial character. Treating them as minor or separate works would understate the real impact.

Poor siting and cumulative harm. NSW guidance requires proper assessment of landscape, visual, noise, transmission and decommissioning issues. The proposal must also be assessed with other approved and planned energy and transmission projects. Conditions imposed later cannot restore rural amenity, productive land, established habitat or local roads once damage has occurred.

Farming and future food security. Productive agricultural land is a finite asset. Turbine pads, access roads, cable corridors, substations, batteries, data centres and transmission works can remove land from production, divide paddocks, restrict stock and machinery movements, spread weeds, alter drainage and increase operating costs. Even where grazing continues between turbines, the full infrastructure footprint can reduce farm efficiency and future options. NSW recognises that agriculture is integral to food security and that renewable-energy development can create land-use conflict. With population growth and increasing pressure on food systems, high-quality farmland should not be permanently industrialised unless the proponent proves there is no practical lower-impact site and no material loss of productive capacity.

Data-centre demand. Data centres are not a small add-on. They require large, continuous electricity supplies, cooling systems, water, backup generation, substations and network upgrades. The NSW Government says they should fund the extra energy and water infrastructure they require and impose no net cost on consumers or communities. In July 2026, NSW data-centre connection requests totalled up to 28 GW, with about 13 GW in advanced discussions—more than the State’s average daily electricity demand. Overseas authorities likewise identify rapidly growing electricity and cooling-water demand as a material planning issue.

Safety, roads and local costs. Heavy turbine, transformer and battery transport will burden local roads and bridges. Battery installations require credible fire, smoke, contaminated run-off and emergency-response plans. Ratepayers must not be left paying for road repairs, network upgrades, water infrastructure, emergency capability or eventual clean-up.

Ecology and amenity. Turbines may affect birds and bats, while roads, cables and compounds fragment habitat and alter drainage. Noise, shadow flicker, aviation lighting and industrial buildings will change the character of the district. Baseline studies should be independent, seasonal and publicly available, not deferred until after approval.

Decision requested
I ask the consent authority to refuse the proposal. If it is not refused, it should be deferred until the proponent provides a genuine alternatives assessment, independent peer review, full cumulative-impact modelling, binding operating limits, and funded guarantees for roads, emergency response and decommissioning.

This objection is not opposition to electricity generation or digital services. It is a request for sound planning. The proponent has not shown that this project is suitable for this location or that local people will be protected from its costs and risks.

I object to the proposed wind development because it places industrial infrastructure and avoidable contamination risks within a working agricultural landscape. Turbine pads, access roads, cable corridors, substations and compounds would remove or divide productive land, restrict stock and machinery movements, alter drainage, spread weeds and increase farm costs. These effects can reduce output even where grazing technically remains possible between turbines.

Blade debris and livestock
Blade wear is a documented engineering problem. Overseas research from Denmark estimates that onshore blade erosion can release approximately 8–50 grams of plastic material per blade each year. Research from the United Kingdom has also demonstrated rain-driven erosion, delamination and loss of adhesion in glass-fibre reinforced epoxy blade material. Blade damage can range from surface erosion to structural failure, creating larger debris.

The direct health effect of turbine-blade particles on cattle and sheep has not been adequately established. That uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the risk on grazing land. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that livestock can ingest plastics from contaminated pasture and forage, with possible inflammation, oxidative stress and hormonal effects. It also warns that plastic contamination can affect soil structure, water retention, soil organisms and plant growth.

Food security and decision sought
Food security depends on keeping productive land, soils, water and livestock healthy. International evidence shows that plastic pollution in agricultural soils can disrupt soil function and enter food chains. It does not yet prove that normal turbine operation will harm livestock at a particular site, but it establishes a credible issue requiring site-specific evidence rather than assumption.

Consent should be refused unless the proponent independently demonstrates that blade wear and blade failure will not contaminate pasture, water, fodder or livestock. Any approval should require routine blade inspections, published erosion data, immediate shutdown following damage, defined debris-exclusion areas, soil and water monitoring, complete clean-up, livestock testing, and compensation for lost production.

Productive farmland should not carry an unresolved contamination risk for an industrial project. Protecting agricultural capacity now is a practical safeguard for future food supply.

I am opposed to the construction of this wind turbine project of 147- turbines with a disturbance footprint of covering 42,173 hectares (ha), 24 kilometers (km) north-west of Wentworth, within the Wentworth local government area (LGA) that will leave a legacy of irrevocable environmental land & soil pollution including the loss of habitat and death to native birds and animals during construction and operation. Wind turbine strikes, for two species (white-striped free-tailed bat (Austronomus australis) and wedge-tailed eagle (Aquila audax)) assessed as being at high risk of WTG strike. It is unacceptable to propose these developments knowing that they have the potential to cause death and destruction native flora and fauna. These Government subsidized Wind projects are not reducing the cost of electricity to consumers in NSW. As it stands householders in NSW are already paying $350 per householder over a three-year period in levies to cover the monstrous blowout of 1.5 billion building the Buronga transmission line. It is estimated that the cost of transforming the electricity grid is set to add at least another $600 a year to household energy bills, according to new research from Policy Institute Australia, prompting calls for major changes to the way governments approach the development of energy transmission infrastructure. Transgrid is now seeking $1.2 billion ($2022–23) in additional capex for delivering the New South Wales (NSW) component of PEC. This is in addition to the $2.1 billion ($2022–23) already approved for PEC in our April 2023 final decision. Transgrid estimates this amendment to the 2023–28 determination would raise the maximum allowed revenue by $173 million ($, nominal) over the final year of the regulatory period. Transgrid states that this equates to an $18 bill increase for residential customers in 2027–28. This is a further increase of $72 PA. No amount of community benefits from these Wind project proposals will assist consumers and householders to cover these estimated price increases on our energy bills. The factor that garners the most interest and support from regional communities is the promotion of community benefit funding with almost all stakeholders noting a desire and enthusiasm for the potential benefits the project may bring to the area. Of course, the promises of money falling like confetti is going to excite every town council and local organization, relieving many from the obligation to fundraise in a traditional manner and community benefit fund allocation will alleviate pressure in Council budgets to exercise due caution, instead they can be rewarded by diving into the trough with proclamations of support and excitement. The only people to really benefit from these developments will be the developers themselves (and their offshore suppliers) and hosts & neighbours with in the REZ. There is no drought proofing or resilience building for the rest of our agricultural community or industry despite the promised claims of ongoing employment, agrivoltaics and future trade training.

I am writing to formally lodge my objection to this proposed wind farm development and its associated infrastructure. My opposition is based on documented, real-world impacts regarding environmental damage and the erosion of primary industry, drawn from clear evidence both locally and internationally.

Environmental Impact
Biodiversity Loss and Habitat Fragmentation
Constructing industrial-scale turbines, heavy access roads, and high-voltage transmission lines requires extensive clearing of native vegetation. Evidence from overseas shows that large-scale wind developments disrupt local ecosystems, destroying critical wildlife corridors and fragmenting natural habitats.

Impact on Avifauna and Bat Populations
Studies across Europe and North America consistently demonstrate that wind turbines pose a major risk to avian species and bats. Beyond direct blade strikes on birds of prey, forced barotrauma (rapid air pressure drops near rotating blades) causes high mortality rates in local bat populations, which are vital for natural insect control.

Microclimate and Soil Alteration
European research into large wind arrays shows they alter local microclimates by mixing heat and moisture in the lower atmosphere, raising night-time land surface temperatures and accelerating soil drying. Furthermore, the massive concrete foundations required for each turbine permanently destroy soil profiles and disrupt natural hydrological runoff.

Impact on Primary Industry and Agriculture
Loss of Productive Agricultural Land
Primary production relies on uninterrupted, contiguous land. Industrial developments break up prime farming and grazing land with concrete footings, wide access tracks, and security fencing. Overseas experience in agricultural hubs demonstrates that removing land from active production reduces regional yield and overall food security.

Obstruction of Aerial and Modern Farming Operations
The height and span of modern turbines, along with overhead high-voltage cabling, create severe hazards for aerial agricultural operations, including crop dusting, top-dressing, and aerial firefighting. Furthermore, large infrastructure interferes with precision GPS-guided farming equipment, making efficient, modern cultivation practices increasingly difficult.

Biosecurity Risks and Land Degradation
The heavy construction phase introduces significant biosecurity risks through the transport of soil-borne pathogens and invasive weed seeds via heavy machinery. Long-term soil compaction from heavy transport vehicles compromises soil drainage and arable quality for decades.

Decommissioning and Long-term Liability
International experience reveals a growing legacy of abandoned infrastructure. Turbine blades, composed of non-recyclable composite materials, regularly end up in landfills. Landholders and local councils are frequently left bearing the financial and environmental burden of cleanup once projects reach the end of their operational lifespan.

Conclusion
This proposal replaces productive, sustainable primary production land with high-impact industrial infrastructure. The irreversible damage to local wildlife, soil integrity, and agricultural viability far outweighs the temporary benefits of this development. I urge the Department to reject this application in its entirety.

I am writing to formally record my objection to the proposed development. This project poses severe risks to agricultural productivity, livestock welfare, and local wildlife, while replacing viable farming land with industrial infrastructure. Overseas data and environmental studies consistently show that industrial wind installations disrupt rural landscapes and cause documented ecological harm.1. Impact on Farming and Agricultural InfrastructureLoss of Arable Land and Fragmentation: The construction of high-voltage transmission lines, concrete substations, wide access roads, and deep turbine foundations sterilises productive soil and fragments working paddocks.Operational Hazards: Heavy machinery movement and widespread trenching alter natural land drainage, accelerate soil erosion, and introduce persistent weed vector threats. Overhead cables and large structural setbacks also restrict aerial spraying, cropping efficiency, and tractor operations near lines.2. Livestock and Wildlife HarmAnimal Stress and Behavioural Alterations: European field research—including European mammal studies documenting elevated cortisol (stress hormone) levels in species living near wind turbines—highlights the unseen physiological impact of low-frequency noise, vibration, and shadow flicker. Farm livestock subjected to persistent noise often exhibit altered grazing patterns and heightened stress.Avian and Bat Mortality: Overseas studies on wind farms demonstrate severe indirect and direct harm to wildlife. Research on bat populations, such as multi-site acoustic tracking published in international conservation literature, shows up to a twenty-fold reduction in bat foraging activity around turbines due to habitat displacement and barotrauma. Raptors and migratory birds face well-documented collision risks, destabilising localized ecosystems. 3. Long-Term Decommissioning and Land IntegrityThe installation of thousands of tonnes of reinforced concrete and composite plastics creates an irreversible legacy. Experience from international sites shows that decommissioning frequently leaves substantial subsurface concrete infrastructure buried in the soil, impairing land reinstatement for future generations of primary production.ConclusionRural land should remain dedicated to primary production and nature conservation, rather than large-scale industrial processing. I urge the decision-making authority to reject this proposal to protect the regional agricultural economy and local biodiversity.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the farmers of the land within our great nation of Australia today. I pay my respects to Australia’s past, present and future farmers who have and will continue to battle setbacks such as renewable energy destruction, drought, floods, vermin plagues, diseases, and government policy, all so they can provide Australia with food and fibre. I acknowledge that these setbacks come at a high price of mental health, and many have taken their lives as a result due to such pressures. I extend this respect and am thankful for the sacrifices those within the agricultural industry make in order to provide Australia with the essentials; I acknowledge the agricultural industry as the backbone of our nation.

I strongly object to the proposed Lake Victoria Wind Farm because of the unprecedented scale of this development and its impact on productive agricultural land. The project area extends across approximately 41,700 hectares of agricultural grazing and cropping land, representing a vast rural landscape that has long contributed to primary production and regional economic activity. While proponents may argue that farming can continue in some capacity, the reality is that the introduction of hundreds of wind turbines, access roads, transmission infrastructure, battery storage facilities and associated industrial development will permanently alter the character and use of this land. Agricultural landscapes are among Australia's most valuable assets, and they should not be transformed into industrial energy precincts on such a massive scale.

I am deeply concerned about the long-term consequences this project will have for the future of rural communities and agriculture in the region. Developments of this magnitude fragment farming operations, change established land-use patterns and place increasing pressure on industries that are vital to Australia's food and fibre production. Once large-scale industrial infrastructure is embedded within a farming district, the impacts on the landscape, community identity and agricultural productivity can endure for generations. Rural communities should not be expected to sacrifice productive land and their agricultural heritage to accommodate developments of this scale.

For these reasons, I firmly oppose the Lake Victoria Wind Farm and urge the Department to reject the proposal. The protection of productive agricultural land, rural livelihoods and the long-term sustainability of farming communities must be given greater weight than the expansion of industrial energy infrastructure. The permanent transformation of approximately 41,700 hectares of grazing and cropping country is too high a price to pay, and once this landscape is altered it can never truly be returned to its original agricultural character.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the farmers of the land within our great nation of Australia today. I pay my respects to Australia’s past, present and future farmers who have and will continue to battle setbacks such as renewable energy destruction, drought, floods, vermin plagues, diseases, and government policy, all so they can provide Australia with food and fibre. I acknowledge that these setbacks come at a high price of mental health, and many have taken their lives as a result due to such pressures. I extend this respect and am thankful for the sacrifices those within the agricultural industry make in order to provide Australia with the essentials; I acknowledge the agricultural industry as the backbone of our nation.

I strongly object to this proposal because of the negative environmental risks associated with the large-scale electrical and battery infrastructure required to support the project. The development introduces equipment containing hazardous materials, fuels, lubricants and battery components that, in the event of malfunction, damage, leakage or fire, would result in the release of contaminants into surrounding soils, nearby neighbouring farms, and ecosystems. Rural communities rely on healthy land, clean water and productive agricultural environments, and it is unreasonable to expose these valuable resources to additional industrial risks. The long-term consequences of any contamination event would be significant for local landholders, livestock, wildlife and the broader natural environment, and this alone should be enough to reject the destructive project.

I am also concerned about the concentration of electrical infrastructure across the project area and the resulting electromagnetic fields (EMFs) associated with turbines, substations, transmission assets and battery storage facilities. Long-term impacts of living near such infrastructure are a great risk and many residents remain concerned about the prospect of living and working in close proximity to large-scale energy infrastructure for decades. Local communities should not be expected to accept uncertainty regarding potential health and wellbeing effects, particularly when the project offers them little direct benefit while imposing permanent changes on their environment and way of life. For these reasons, I firmly oppose this proposal and urge decision-makers to prioritise the protection of rural communities, agricultural land and the natural environment by rejecting the development.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the farmers of the land within our great nation of Australia today. I pay my respects to Australia’s past, present and future farmers who have and will continue to battle setbacks such as renewable energy destruction, drought, floods, vermin plagues, diseases, and government policy, all so they can provide Australia with food and fibre. I acknowledge that these setbacks come at a high price of mental health, and many have taken their lives as a result due to such pressures. I extend this respect and am thankful for the sacrifices those within the agricultural industry make in order to provide Australia with the essentials; I acknowledge the agricultural industry as the backbone of our nation.

I wish to lodge a strong objection to the proposed Lake Victoria Wind Farm due to the significant fire risks associated with a development of this scale. The project proposes up to 147 wind turbines, battery storage systems and extensive electrical infrastructure spread across a vast rural area that is already exposed to extreme heat, dry conditions and bushfire danger. In the event of a turbine, battery or electrical fire, the consequences would be catastrophic for surrounding farms, grazing land, native vegetation and neighbouring properties. Local volunteer fire brigades and emergency services are already tasked with protecting large rural areas and should not be burdened with the additional risks and resource demands created by a major industrial energy development. The potential for prolonged and complex fire incidents is a serious concern and should weigh heavily against approval of this proposal.

A further concern is the limitation that wind turbines can place on aerial firefighting operations. With turbines proposed across an extensive area and with structures reaching substantial heights, aerial firefighting aircraft will face operational constraints when attempting to suppress fires within or around the development. It simply cannot happen! Residents will NOT get needed aerial fire fighting support. In a region where rapid aerial response is critical to containing bushfires before they escalate, any reduction in firefighting effectiveness could place surrounding landholders, communities and emergency personnel at greater risk. It is unacceptable to introduce infrastructure that will complicate fire suppression efforts while simultaneously increasing the potential consequences of a major fire event. For these reasons, I firmly oppose the Lake Victoria Wind Farm and urge decision-makers to place the safety of rural communities and the protection of agricultural land ahead of this proposal.