Mallee Wind Farm

It is too close to Mallee Cliffs National Park and the road to Mungo. I am concerned about the additional road traffic when the Chaffey Bridge is already congested. They produce unsightly aesthetics and noise which is not in keeping with the area. I don't believe they are an efficient or reliable form of energy generation and produce too much waste.

Grand Junction objects to the project given the procedural irregularities with the EIS detailed inn the attached letter.
Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Director

I object to this project for the following reasons.
1. The use of wind turbines encroaches onto usable farm land.
2. They are a threat to bird life.
3. They distabilize the power grid and put undue strain on our main power stations.
4. The massive blades cannot/are not recycled at their end of life. What are they going to do with them.
5. They create a biohazard.
6. The statement that they are green energy is FALSE. They use around 2,000 litres of oil and many tonnes of concrete plus the blades and steel. How can they be green.
7. Like all of these projects they are subsidised with public monies which is hidden from the public. It should be spent where it is really needed NOT propping up a false green dream.
I could go on but I believe the points I have raised are sufficient grounds for a major rethink.

I OBJECT TO THE PROJECT. IT WILL BE A PROMINENT EYE SORE UPON OUR FLAT LANDSCAPE. IT WILL CREATE UNWANTED NOISE IN OTHERWISE REMNANT VEGATION AREAS. IF POLITICIANS WANT SO CALLED GREEN POWER GENERATION THEN THEY SHOULD PUT IT IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD.

The proposed location is too close to existing users. If the wind farm could be moved slightly farther away it would have greater support

I object against the proposed construction of the wind farm so close to town. It will be an eyesore, a danger to wildlife, could lead to health issues for nearby residents. Wind farms in general appear to have questionable economic benefits in generating power at a high cost. Why build a windfarm in sunny Sunraysia? Perhaps pick an area that has many more windy days ... perhaps Sydney Harbour?

It should be set back further away from Buronga Gol Gol

The Mallee Wind "Farm" proposal runs the likely risk of contaminating the countryside with BPA, a forever compound and which is unlikely to be remediated as there is no requirement for the developer to provide the decommissioning/remediation cost upfront. These wind factories change hands regularly and the last owner will be an Australian shelf company with no assets and so they will just walk away.

I object to the Mallee Wind Farm for a number of reasons:

WINDFARMS BEING BUILT WITHOUT PLANNING/STRATEGY

Multiple wind farms are proposed for Wentworth District with the same level of planning as the Victorian Gold Rush of the 1800s. Assessments of Cumulative Impacts on noise, views, services and community are simplistic. NSW Planning requires a strategic approach before they allow urban development and the same principle should apply here. There should be a freeze in all wind farm development in Wentworth until such a strategy has been completed.

TOO CLOSE TO BURONGA GOL GOL

Mallee Wind Farm is too close to Buronga Gol Gol and the Mallee Cliffs National Park. The Project area is huge and there is ample room in the Project Area to position the wind turbines a further 10-15km further from Buronga Gol Gol. I don't support the project at any level but at the minimum it should be moved away from Buronga Gol Gol and Mallee Cliffs National Park. The visual impacts on BGG will blunt the growth in this community.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS UNMANAGEABLE WITHOUT NEW BRIDGE

The Project Traffic will require the main entry from NSW to Victorian Sunraysia to be exclusively used for wind turbine and construction traffic for some time and there is no viable alternative route. The EIS provides no detail on how this will be managed and simply identifies the need for consultation. Similarly the road network, and particularly the existing congested Chaffey Bridge, is inadequate to cope with the addition of 400 construction staff who will regularly travel to Mildura.

SERVICES IMPACTS

The Project has provided no plan for how Wentworth Shire can deal with an additional 400 construction workers without impacts on health care, housing, water and sewer. Indeed no detail at all is provided on a proposed 400 person camp.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon

ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Agexpo objects to the Project because the cumulative impacts of the Project and surrounding projects and the fact that there are alternate locations available, even within the Project Area itself.

There are three other major wind farms and two major solar farms planned nearby to Mallee Cliffs. They will dominate the local vistas and overwhelm local service provision in health, housing and roads.

There is ample area within the Project Area to move all the wind turbines north by 10/15km to greatly reduce the impacts on Buronga Gol Gol and the Mallee Cliffs National Park.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Director

Mallee Wind Farm...I do support wind farms but this proposal is way to close to town. Pls consider this carefully.

Reckless renewables will not only harm the environment but never deliver consistent cheap base load power for either residents or industry. In the meantime the government is throwing hard earned tax payers dollars at a "green dream" that is turning into a financial nightmare.
Australians has been sold a lemon and will suffer the financial burden as well as intermittent/unreliable expensive electricity for generations to come.
Wake up Australia before its too late

Objection submission attached

VISUAL IMPACTS / SHADOW FLICKER/ BLADE GLINT

UHI Pty Ltd objects to the Mallee Wind Farm because of the visual impact it will have on the Mallee Cliffs National Park, Buronga Gol Gol and surrounding landholders.

Paragraph 6.5.3.5 states that there will be shadow flicker impacts to 11 kilometres of Arumpo Road and the western edge of Mallee Cliffs National Park. There is no analysis of these impacts. There will also be shadow flicker impacts on neighbouring properties.

Given the flat landscape around Buronga Gol Gol and the cumulative effect of the Gol Gol Wind Farm, wind towers will become the dominant visual impact on the horizon from viewpoints all around Buronga Gol Gol. Views of wind towers will dominate the route to Mungo National Park via the Arumpo Road. Views of wind towers will dominate the vistas within and near Mallee Cliffs National Park.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Director

RestofNSW/Defence Neighbours Assoc Inc object to the proposal for the following reasons:

EIS INADEQUATELY CONSIDERS VULNERABLE SPECIES

The EIS does not adequately consider the proposals impacts on a number of vulnerable species including:

• Mallee Fowl;
• Regent Parrot;
• Numbats;
• Bilbies; and
• Greater stick nest rats.

Habitat that will be removed by the Malle Wind Farm provides:

• A habitat for the Mallee Fowl;
• A feeding area for the Regent Parrot; and
• Potential habitat for the numbats, bilbies and greater stick next rats in Mallee Cliffs National Park that are intended to be released outside the protected area of the National Park in the coming years.

The EIS notes Mallee Fowl mounds and there is no evidence as to the adequacy of the bird surveys.

EIS FAILS TO CONSIDER IMPACTS ON MALLEE CLIFFS NATIONAL PARK AND PRIVATE CONSERVATION AREAS

Mallee Cliffs National Park is being established as a protected area for endangered species under the NSW Government Saving our Species Programme but this is not properly analysed in the EIS.

The project threatens the park through:
• broad scale clearing adjacent to it;
• overshadowing and blade flicker within the park;
• sound impacts on fauna within the park; and
• fire risk.

Many private conservation reserves were created as part of the Mallee Sustainable Farming initiative with the intention of improving connection with the National Park. The project undercuts this through impacts on the reserves and the Park. There is inadequate consideration of these Private Conservation Areas in the EIS.

POTENTIAL FOR BUSHFIRE TO DESTROY MALLE CLIFFS NATIONAL PARK AND NEARBY PRIVATE CONSERVATION AREAS

Given the prevailing westerly wind any fires ignited by construction or operation of the Mallee Wind Farm are likely to directly impact Mallee Cliffs National Park.

Indeed given the absence of buffers between the Project and Mallee Cliffs National Park there is a significant likelihood the National Park could be completely destroyed by such a bushfire. The consequence of this would be significant with loss of the endangered species introduced to the National Park and the species such as Mallee Fowl located in and around the National Park.

The EIS Riskcon Report states in paragraph 4.7 and 4.8 that the transformer can cause fires and explosions but that:

“4.7 “…this incident [fire] has not been carried forward for further analysis”

“4.8 “…this incident [explosion] has not been carried forward for further analysis”

The distribution of electricity via high voltage transmission lines and associated equipment also has the potential to cause ignition of bushfire fuels, either within or adjoining the transmission line area.

Yours sincerely

Bob Wheeldon
Chair

CWO REZist opposes the industrial wind project "Mallee".

Industrial wind turbines will never provide the baseload power that our country needs, therefore the "project need" is redundant. The proponent, Spark, a subsidiary of a Malaysian company Tenaga Nasional is not proposing this project for the public good of the residents of NSW, they are proposing this project for PROFIT. To state under project need to meet the ill-informed government climate targets is disingenuous, meaningless and proves this section is a box ticking exercise that is used by every wind developer.

Wind turbines are not ‘ecologically sustainable’. Consideration needs to be given to mining for metal and materials, manufacturing, shipping and transport, clearing of land, blasting, underground cabling, cement, high voltage transmission infrastructure, maintenance, decommissioning and recycling. If this is done honestly, it is apparent that industrial turbines are far from “sustainable”.

The residents of the SW REZ were not properly consulted regarding being placed in a renewable energy zone which will result in their whole district being substantially changed from rural to industrial, as has been admitted by the NSW Government for the CWO REZ.

Social licence is based heavily on on minimal interactions and their EIS states “community interest and involvement in the Social Impact Assessment was limited” - The SIA states only 37 people were contacted (including hosts) during the scoping stage and during the EIS stage only 237. Note that this figure is an estimate and likely highly inflated, as the majority of this number (202) were passing by at a field day and show. Having seen proponents and their interactions at such events, it is likely that such “interactions” were a hello as the people walked past. The SIA does not state in detail the interaction with each of these people at the field day/show, therefore their social interaction is more likely based on the 5 people who came to the single 3 hour drop in session and the 6 people who completed their survey (likely the same people).

We believe the proponent has not made sufficient efforts regarding consulting with the local community and DPHI should request the community be engaged with in more meaningful ways, with more effort exerted by the proponent, before this project be considered for approval.

The location of this project is adjacent to Mallee Cliffs National Park with turbines within 800m of the park boundary. Fauna does not respect boundaries and will likely result in high numbers of avian fauna deaths by blade strike. The cumulative effect from multiple wind projects in the district also must be considered. Offsets will not cure the destruction from this and the cumulative projects in the SW REZ.

The proponent has identified 21 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites including one Potential Archaeological Deposit and aims to address these through refinement of design and a vague “will develop and implement a comprehensive Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan (ACHMP) in consultation with Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs)”. Such a plan should be robustly examined BEFORE the project is approved otherwise, this is no more than words on paper with no consequences - and is insufficient to protect our aboriginal heritage.

The lengthy construction period of 3 years will heavily impact residents and their daily lives will be confronted by this extended period of negative impacts from increased workers, increased traffic, OSOM trucks etc.

The proponent lists multiple projects nearby. DPE needs to consider the cumulative effects for the whole REZ including future (not approved) projects and the negative effects that will impact residents living amongst these power generators, many of whom have never agreed to having their landscape changed so drastically.

The proponent’s aviation consultant, Aviation Projects, has recently implemented a reduced consideration in all wind projects they have been contracted for, for wake/turbulence from turbines to be only 10 rotor diameters. There is a lack of recent real-world studies in regard to wake and turbulence on aircraft from large turbines and the studies the proponent is basing their estimates on, are heavily weighted for wake/turbulence on other turbines only, not, for example, light aircraft, with an exception of a 2018 study quoted which was for dramatically smaller turbines and rotor diameters which do not apply to the current size of the WTGs being utilised now. The published standard calculation in Australia is for 16 rotor diameters (see https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/4.1.3_Guideline_D_Wind_Turbines.pdf “ Consideration also needs to be given to the 16 rotor diameters in the CIRCUIT area, not just the landing area. Whilst there are no airfields or circuit areas within the standard 16 rotor diameters and therefore unlikely to impact aviation, DPHI should not accept the proponent’s consultant’s repetitive wish to alter the standards.

The Aviation report, whilst it considers VFR flight in stress of weather conditions when low flying is permitted, also states “In VMC, the WTGs will likely be sufficiently conspicuous to allow adequate time for pilots to avoid the obstacles”. Is LIKELY safe? No it is not. The poor weather case is when most terrain collision accidents occur. This risk assessment is deceptive and negligent. The off-white colour of the turbines will not contrast with rain, cloud or smoke especially in low-light conditions. Obstacle lighting and high-visibility markings would be of benefit in these conditions and should be a requirement if the project is approved.

The Aviation report states the high safety of wind turbine generators (WTG) on aircraft operations, by stating no aircraft has collided with a turbine in Australia in the last 14 years. However collisions HAVE occurred around the world with fatalities the result. Ignoring the wider results (i.e. worldwide rather than localised) is not honest, particularly considering WTGs are currently few in Australia and none are currently 280m high as planned for this project. This reasoning should therefore be ignored by DPHI in their assessment.

The proponent has stated “Most aerial firefighting organisations have formal risk management programs to assess the risks associated with their operations and implement applicable treatments to ensure an acceptable level of safety can be maintained.” However, stating that routine aviation risk management strategies are used does not address the fundamental problem. Routine risk management will dictate that Large Air Tankers, and probably Small Air Tankers as well, stay clear of turbine areas when visibility is obscured by smoke. Aerial firefighting will be restricted in and adjacent to the project area. In smoke and with turbulence, air tankers will have to stay outside of, or well above turbine areas, thus making them ineffective.

The report also states “The Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Council (AFAC) has developed a national position on wind farms”, this position is based on an outdated and not fit for purpose case study in the light of the current size of WTGs and the cumulative impact from multiple projects in a concentrated area.

The Aviation report identifies an uncertified aerodrome (Trentham Cliffs) within 3nm of the project area, but does not detail any contact was made with this stakeholder (the owner and operator of this aerodrome). We request DPHI to ensure that the owner/operator of this aerodrome be consulted and their views detailed and considered before any assessment for this project is undertaken.

With regard to decommissioning, merely removing above ground infrastructure is insufficient and will not return land to its pre-development condition. Removal of below ground infrastructure should also be included.

Whilst the proponent states that they, or the project owner at the time will be responsible for the cost of decommissioning, the NSW State Government has recently detailed that the landowner is ultimately responsible for decommissioning should the project owner become insolvent. Therefore, monetary guarantees should be put in place within a short timeframe from completion of the project to ensure the proponent is held fully accountable for the damage they are inflicting on agricultural land. This should be a condition of consent if the project gains approval.

CWO REZist Inc.
5 December 2024

LACK OF STRATEGIC PLANNNING RELATED TO WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT IN WENTWORTH SHIRE AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CWO Pty Ltd objects to the Mallee Wind Farm as there is no strategy for the rollout of wind farms in the Wentworth Shire and the cumulative impacts have not been adequately considered.

There are a number of wind and solar projects located close to the Mallee Wind Farm, most notably the Mallee Solar Farm and the Gol Gol Wind and Solar Farms. It is possible that all these projects will not get access to the grid.

The Department requires Wentworth Shire to rollout residential and commercial development in a sequence to ensure the impacts on roads, community services and other servicing requirements are minimised. While the sequencing with wind farms would be different, the same principle of considering priority should be strategically considered by the Department.

Specifically, the Department should consider the impacts of all wind farm projects and give priority to those Projects with the lowest impacts. The Department should be encouraging a strategic plan for all the renewable projects in Wentworth Shire before considering the Mallee Wind Farm. The Mallee Wind Farm has the highest impacts on the Buronga Gol Gol community of all the renewable projects proposed for Wentworth Shire.

The cumulative impact of the various wind projects will dominate the general landscape character of Wentworth Shire and negatively impact residential and tourism development.

Yours sincerely
Bob Wheeldon
Director

I normally would be in support of a wind farm, because I want climate action. However, in this instance, this project is located too close to Mallee Cliffs National Park and this could pose risks to the native fauna and aesthetics of the park.

I believe the local BGG landscape and tourism industry may be impacted as it will take away from our natural environment.

I like wind farms, but set it back further away from Buronga Gol Gol. Putting it so close to towns is stupid when there are alerate sites nearby in the middle of nowehere.

The wind farm should be setback further away from Buronga Gol Gol or there should be no wind farm at all. Buronga Gol Gol is a major growing area and its growth should not be compromised by reduced amenity when the wind farm could be located further away.