Thunderbolt Wind Farm

Please find several attachments outlining our objection.

This area is to heavily populated for the turbines and also lack of communication from neoen. Property value will decrease and neoen lacks the ability to acknowledge this and shaking koalas out of trees with a macadamia shaker is not on. Bells turtles are Also endangered and in direct path of all road and infrastructure that will be built by neoen for the turbines.
Regards, Ben Rhodes

Concerns
This project will affect visual amenity. The landscape will be changed for a long time. People do not choose to live in the country to be looking at turbines all day. The endangered species do not want their habitat cleared. How many tourists want to visit a scenic area to be confronted by turbines.

Threatened species will be affected by removal of habitat this cannot be negated by “credits”- once you lose the habitat it won’t be put back as the construction sites and road networks involve tonnes of gravel and considerable compacting.


The amount of area being cleared of vegetation is “substantial” and cannot be rehabilitated. The amount of gravel brought in for roads, assembly, etc which is then compacted does not allow for the area going back to the original state. Not even the coal mines have been able to rehabilitate their sites back to what they were originally.

I have purposely used the word substantial in my previous point. What is substantial -2ha or 50ha or 1000ha? I use “substantial” for the same effect that the proponent uses the words “unlikely”, ”likely” or “potential” frequently when referring to the impacts on the environment and nearby residents, especially pages 70-74.
Either it will or it won’t!
If there is likely, unlikely, or potentially going to be an impact then it is an impact. Only after construction is finished can it be proved otherwise.

The proponent uses the word “will” frequently throughout the EIS, eg “scenic quality of the LCU will remain unchanged” page 74, so why not use the word “will” in all sentences.
Thus, they should state that the turbines "will be discernible" page 74, not “likely”.
Also, instead of “unlikely to result in any alterations to the scenic integrity” this should read “will result in any alterations to the scenic integrity” page 74, and “the potential project issues” page 70, should read “ the project issues”.
The proponent is making out the impact is minimal. This influences how the reader perceives that statement. If the proponent changed the words -unlikely, likely, potential, to “will” then the assessments in this EIS sound like substantial impacts on environment and people, which they are!

THERE “WILL” BE IMPACTS!
And there are very real consequences for the landscape, fauna and flora and people who live in the area surrounding this project.

This 'wind farm' is being pro-ported to be a for sustainable energy and environmentally friendly. But how can that be? Habitat and wildlife will be damaged in the construction phase. And at the conclusion of the turbines life... how are you going to dispose of the non-recyclable blades? Added to that - the cost in construction/upkeep verses the life span of the turbines is not financial viable. I would prefer to see money go to projects that are truly sustainable and fully recyclable from beginning to end.

As a local resident I have various concerns in regards to this development. I have lived in Salisbury Plains, neighbouring Kentucky, for 17 years and have raised my family in this pristine part of the New England.
Firstly providing an EIS with 1000's of pages for the average Joe to get their head around is unbelievable. 28 days to scrutinise every detail of this proposal and to be able to make sense of what will occur to our unique environment is staggering. I object to a 28 day exhibition for the public to respond.
I am extremely concerned for my friends and neighbours who will be neighbouring and in view of this development and the lack of communication in regards to this. My concern is there has not been enough upfront information provided to neighbours in regards to the traffic, ongoing noise, construction disruptions, road use, damage to local roads, clearing of vegetation, fire hazards, koala habitats, foreign developers, neighbour agreements, decommissioning and the list goes on.
I would like to see Steven Johnson property have the 6 closest turbines removed from the project development and I would like to see improved communication with this property owner in regards to the impact, aesthetics, income loss, property damage, road disruptions, construction fatigue, environmental impacts, fire hazards and other concerns by the owners in a timely manner.
As a rate payer I am concerned with the impact to roads and infrastructure to the Uralla Shire and how this may impact on my rates. I have seen how the current New England Solar Farm construction has impacted on the road infrastructure and properties who are impacted by this with heavy traffic , noise and damage. As a rate payer there must be mitigation to ensure we are not paying from our pockets to fix the significant impact to our daily requirements provided by council.
The toll on our community for these large scale renewable developments is huge and mitigation for all neighbours, residents, community groups, businesses should be priority by N eonen and any other developers who take on this project.
We see these projects bought and sold among various overseas companies, how does this help our shire and what do we get out of it. Our landscape and lifestyles are being compromised for the better energy and climate targets, therefore we must see benefits that are significant to our community and businesses.
The Uralla Shire is not ready for the waste and impacts that will occur due to this development and federal/state government must support in funding or changing the developers overall obligation to the shire so that residents do not suffer.
My objection to this development is that the New England is not ready for these large scale projects and the planning department needs to be aware of the impact which will be caused significantly to the area.
Our koala population has been overlooked and this is a concern to all residents, we have one of the most healthiest populations in Australia and we wish to maintain this at all levels. The EIS does not covered this need greatly enough and should be pressured in making significant changes to their proposed site.
I have made the New England my home and I wish to continue for many years seeing my family grow and friends families grow in a fair and transparent society where all parties needs are met fairly and responsibly and for the future of the New England to grow and develop in a positive forward thinking sustainable way.

This project cannot be supported as a sustainable energy project for many reasons
1. There has been insufficient community involvement. Projects need to be designed with the community it impacts; the tick a box exercises that have been carried out purporting to be community consultation are insufficient and insulting
2.How can the plan to "shake" wildlife, including Koalas from their habitat trees "encouraging them to move" , have even been accepted by any stage of the planning process - Unbelievable, and indicates the level of contempt held by the developer for our natural ecosystem and a complete lack of care by the planning department
3.The scale of the turbines will impact in many ways - and importantly inhibit the ability for aerial firefighting

Its time to look at the WHOLE picture of building "sustainable" energy projects . This is an example of applying the same old industrial mindset , but wrapping it up as a environmentally friendly green alternative , which in the process will destroy significant native habit and ecosystems, and destroy and divide communities. Surely we can do better.

I strongly object to the project location - the area proposed is home to known koala populations - these animals have now been officially listed as endangered. The proposed methodology of removing the koalas is barbaric and contravenes the OEH guidelines and practices for rescue and capture. There are numerous places the wind turbines can be placed and not result in damage flora or fauna - this project must NOT go ahead in its proposed site. The koala populations are only just returning and rebuilding after many successive years of drought and bushfires - to go ahead with this project will destroy a fragile ENDANGERED population.

I strongly object to this project. It is Koala habitat, of which Koalas have just been declared extinct. The trees growing there also prevent wind tunnels on the eastern side of Kentucky, where most of the trees are no longer. This wind tunnel effects all the way towards Port Macquarie without the trees. Many animals live in that section of the bush, not just Koalas. The stability of the Earth also needs a review, as we are having more Earth Quakes very close to this area, this would add to the instability, and without trees the erosion of the soil left. I totally disagree with the Environmental Impact Statement or study being acceptable, Koalas, vibration, other animals, wind break protection, seismic activity, erosion, creek cleanliness, (we had arsenic in the water for nearly a year). There are already solar, wind in the area, we do not want this. They could also effect blossoms of the orchards and bee population fertilizing the trees, this is an orchard area, effecting incomes without it. The roads are already bad in that area, there is black ice, with any more trucks you would have to renew the road between Uralla and Tamworth regularly, check the accidents very near recently, without the added trucks. I sincerely hope you will reconsider this EIS, how can anyone approve an EIS with these environmental effects possible? What do the Elders of the area say? Thank you please reject the position of both Stage 1 and 2 of the Thunderbolt submission.

I am a neighbouring landholder to the Thunderbolt Wind Farm Stage 1 and am in support of the Project. Although I expect that it will cause a degree of disruption within the local area during the construction period, and will change the environment visually, I anticipate the long-term benefits to out-weight those disadvantages. That is, provided that the Project is implemented and conducted in the manner described in the EIS. I regard that the key benefits of this Project will be a) enhancement of energy production in the state of NSW with reduced reliance on fossil fuels and security of renewable energy supply through complementarity of wind energy with solar, and b) social and economic benefit to the local community through business development, infrastructure improvement, employment, and social/economic advantage to the local residents via the proposed Community Fund.
The Project described in the EIS (Stage 1, involving 1 major (foreign-owned corporate), and 1 small private landholder) has limited benefit to local agricultural production and the local economy. However, assuming Stage 2 comes to fruition, there is considerable potential benefit to those directly involved and the local community. Benefit to local family-based farming businesses via an alternate income stream arising from either direct involvement (host property) or neighbour agreements will be considerable. Such income has flow-on effects which will enable risk abatement (such as in periods of drought) directly for those landholders, and will more generally aid the local/regional economy as those family businesses will spend their additional income in the local community (for example in further development of their farming businesses).
Overall, I regard that we must be progressive in terms of energy security, yet socially and environmentally respectful and responsible. I anticipate and expect this Project can be both, and therefore should proceed.

I object to the development of the proposed wind farm, located close to my residence, as I don't wish to be greeted with the sound and the sight which they will create, I don't like the idea of the chance that' wildlife could be jepidiced. It is my belief that no wind turbine will ever replaced the energy used to get it to operation status.

Thunderbolt Energy Hub

This project will provide the Kentucky community with the following benefits

• Produce renewable energy
This will help enhance the Kentucky region as a progressive forward thinking and responsible community that cares about the local environment. The project will reducing green house gases and providing renewable energy to the local and regional power grid.

• Provide local employment and income stream
This is provided in the following ways
Employment in the construction phase 190 jobs that will provide local accommodation at Uralla, Armidale, Bendemeer and Tamworth.
Ongoing jobs will provide further employment in the local area
Community Fund of$100,000pa will benefit the local community

The Neighbour Benefit Sharing Program will help share the benefits of the Thunderbolt Energy Hub to the immediate neighbours.

• Improve local environment
The biodiversity surveys that have been conducted provide a current and independent audit of the local flora and fauna. This will help others (local landholders) in the region to implement programs on their properties to provide habitat and protection for species of specific concerns. For example, if a local landholder wishes to improve Barking Owl habitat they can proactively undertake remediation work on their own properties.

• Safe environment access roads, fire fighter
Improving internal roads on Kaybra will enhance access to a vast area to quickly contain any potential fire threat posed in the surrounding native bushland (e.g. from lighting strikes). The 50km of improved well maintained internal road network will provide better all weather access for firefighting across the Kyabra property.

Community fund
The Community Fund ($100,000pa) will benefit the local community. These funds will enhance the local environment as funds could be directed by the local Kentucky community to protect and enhance the local floral and fauna. This could include native tree corridors, riparian areas, improving water quality in Kentucky Creek, plant native plants, improving and protecting birds habits, etc.
This fund will be directed by the local community representatives and spent in the local community for the local community benefit.

• Improve property values
When the whole Project proposed for the Thunderbolt Energy hub is in operation the project will significantly increase property values as participating landholders and those involved in the Neighbour Benefit Sharing Program will have guaranteed supply off farm income. Local community members will have additional income stream to re-invest in the local community and increase local holdings.

Overall, The Thunderbolt Energy Hub Project will significantly benefit the Kentucky Community

As a small landholder in Kentucky South I am very concerned about the negative impact of this windfarm project on:
Rural lifestyle and natural landscape beauty upon which our future ecotourism income relies.
Koala Habitat and protection of Koalas as an endangered species.
Land values (as has occurred in Victoria) leaving us trapped in an industrial landscape and unable to afford to relocate to a similar lifestyle.
Firefighting capability as we have relied on aerial support in the past to protect our farms and lives.
Personal health and happiness with the worry of how low level noise issues will impact my wellbeing .
Community Spirit with the windfarm causing division within our close community

My main concerns are in relation to the size and scale of this development and its impact on a small rural community.
Neon is an international company and its has demonstrated little respect for the Australian Environment in its activities in Northern Queensland.
I am disappointed that the NSW Government would place so little value on our environment to allow environmental vandals to repeat this behavior in our state.
It has been demonstrated overseas that Wind Turbines have a short lifespan (30 years). Dealing with their decommissioning and eventual removal and storage of the huge turbines will be an unacceptable burden for our local community.
Neon has already demonstrated its lack of care for our community as they have not conducted a proper consultation process. As a landholder I have raised concerns but have not received any response.

While my submission is short - it is heart felt.
I am not against green energy, and feel that it can coexist with rural communities when done sensitively and with respect to the environment.
The Thunderbolt Wind Farm does not meet this criteria. It is too large and it should not be approved.
The damage caused to our environment and lifestyle cannot be undone once this project is underway.

It will be good to see a new non rain reliant industry start in the local area. The location is very suitable for a first stage of a project to prove itself to the local community as it is only across one property and is not near any towns. As the power supply for Australia transitions to renewables the generation of power is going to spread across non traditional energy generation areas. Everyone will need to do their part so everyone can continue to use an ample power supply as the people who live in places like the hunter have done for decades. To now see the most valuable commodities in a local area can be their wind and sunlight and not what is in the ground is amazing. We can now have power without digging a bigger and bigger hole in the ground which can only be a good thing. On top of that the benefit sharing for landholders, near neighbors and local community groups will be a positive for the local economy for the next 30 years.

As a New England resident and an avid bushwalker and camper I am passionate about caring for our environment and believe we should be sourcing and using energy in a way that minimally impacts our environment and the plants, animals, waterways and landscapes.
The desire to move towards green energy is a worthy one, however I feel there is a tendency towards blindly accepting all "green" energy as unequivocally "good" and ticking boxes. It seems many objections are rapidly dismissed out of hand or not addressed.
Reading the EIS I find no mention of how vegetation to be removed will be chosen, or how wildlife residing in this vegetation will be protected during removal and how they will be rehomed. I have heard talk that the trees will be shaken before felling and if anything "falls out" they will taken to a vet, or if they remain in the tree when it is felled and they are injured they will be collected then. If true this is not satisfactory. Many animals with all the noise will hide in burrows in the trees or cling to it rather than jumping off. As someone who regularly tends to injured and ill wildlife and has seen the populations locally only just recovering after severe drought and secondary poisoning from last years mouse plague I am horrified.

What specifically will be done to prevent erosion and degradation in the places where vegetation is cleared? The soils in this region are very poor and prone to erode severely.

These wind towers are very large structures and I imagine alot of fossil fuel energy has gone into creating them, transporting them to sites and putting them in place. Is the energy used in making and putting them in place offset by the green energy they will produce?

What happens when these turbines reach the end of their useful life? Are they able to be completely recycled? What happens to the materials that can't be recycled, the on property infrastructure such as concrete blocks, fences, poles etc? Who us responsible for that and what is the plan?

Having a huge project that like this should not be happening so close to where people live, what happens to the people that live in the centre of stage 1 and 2 do they get compensated for noise and sight damages, not to mention mental and physical health problems

I object to the thunderbolt wind farm because it will be highly damaging to the New England environment in construction, maintenance and eventual destruction of the spent turbines which will eventually end up in landfill. This is not in any way sustainable.
This is only about profit for foreign owned companies. Profits go to a French company, not Australian.
Stage 1 at Kyabra so not even an Australian owned farm.
Negative impact on the environment. Effect on bird life.
Enormous amount of fossil fuel cost in construction, shipping the parts to Australia, then transport to site. Will only last 30 years.
This is not the answer !!!!!!

Large scale wind farms on productive, highly populated rural land in the New England is extremely inappropriate. This is NOT the appropriate choice for efficient renewables. The New England landscape will be irreversibly changed. There will be wildlife habitat destruction with endangered species and critically endangered species already identified at the site.
This proposal is absurd, profits directed to foreign landholders and companies and MUST not go ahead.

OBJECTION TO THUNDERBOLT WIND FARM SSD-10807896

This is my objection to SSD-10807896 Thunderbolt Wind Farm.

Firstly, I support renewable energy as an additional source of energy to support our present use of power.

The building of an industrial wind farm in the beautiful New England region will be detrimental to the natural and human community in so many regards. With the recent catastrophic fires across the eastern side of New South Wales, every effort must now be made to protect and grow the remaining koalas left in our region. To disrupt and destroy their habitat in this region is another stress that may be the last straw for this now endangered species. Building these wind towers will necessitate the destruction of mature eucalypts, the high value habitat species that koalas rely on. Please think of the future generations of Australians and allow the koalas to regenerate in the New England and hopefully save them from extinction.

Louise Streeting from the University of New England in Armidale, has undertaken her PhD in the protection of the endangered Bells Turtle and the Looanga Creek sub-catchment is their home. (Huggett, 2019). No unnecessary human development can be sanctioned in this area at the demise of this small turtle, when these wind towers can be built elsewhere.

If Neoen had undertaken courteous community consultation as part of their project planning, they would have been aware of these critical details from the beginning and could have planned accordingly. Instead they have treated the local community with disdain, ignoring legislation that states it as a necessary and essential component of the project development. None of their attempts at community engagement could be considered satisfactory but instead would be considered a dismal failure. Local Councils and government representatives should be overseeing these projects and taking a far more proactive approach to ensure their communities are respected and acknowledged.

Yours faithfully,
Louise Forsythe

My husband and I have serious concerns re Neoen's Environment Impact Statement.
CUMULATIVE IMPACT....... Appendix 20
This is an incomplete and misleading appendix.
Firstly, it includes projects for all of New England and beyond.( Gunnedah is not in New England. Tamworth is not in New England!!!).
Secondly, it does not include major adjoining projects - Topdale Wind, Ruby Hills Wind (Walcha Energy) and Salisbury Wind (Cubico).
We understand that there have been some 32 GW of expression of interest for RE in New England.
We also understand that 8GW have been allocated.
There are some 660 wind towers and 11 million solar panels in advanced planning in a 70 km radius of Walcha alone that we know of including this project.
This represents massive overdevelopment and cumulative impact.
LACK OF A MASTERPLAN FOR THE REZ ....... Why can't all projects be put on the table to be assessed on their merits at the same time. We need a moratorium until this is done.
BUSHFIRE FIGHTING.........This is a HIGH RISK BUSHFIRE AREA
Each summer a number of fires start in this area mainly due to lightning strike. Due to the heavily timbered, relatively inaccessible nature of the country, we are very dependent on aerial support, both fixed wing and helicopter units. This aerial support would not be possible if wind towers were present. Also, the main source of helicopter and ground unit refill is the large dam on Banalasta. This would be lost.
DECOMMISSIONING ......There is no upfront bond for decommissioning as required by the mining industry. Theses projects usually change ownership a number of times. It would be impossible to enforce decommissioning in many foreign legal jurisdictions.
LANDFILL ....... . There is no plan for disposal at end of life. It is simply impossible for local councils to cope with the waste of these projects on the scale proposed.
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP....... .Kyabra is Chinese owned. Neoen is a French company. All profits go offshore. It is amoral to allow a Chinese owned company to host a project like this with their current embargo on our produce (INCLUDING BEEF WHICH IS ONE OF OUR MAIN LOCAL SOURCES OF INCOME).
LAND CLEARING AND NEW ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE ......... New England, particularly in the area of the new project has a very delicate ecological balance. In the 1960's and 70's, we suffered dieback of much of our native trees. This continues today in overcleared areas. It is imperative that native forest areas such as exist in the Kentucky and other New England areas are not cleared to try and arrest the dieback. As well, this unique ecological community which harbours many endangered species of native flora and fauna needs to be protected.

To whom it may concern,
I am write this email out of concern for the potential windfarm project Thunderbolt energy hub to be located at Kentucky.
This potential eyesore will be my families farm direct neighbour , with little consultation to the community this thing is being steamrolled though government agencies with little thought about the people and the small community it will impact !! Our local Friends of Kentucky have supplied more information to this community regarding progression than that of the windfarm company Neoen , but then again their track record isn`t very good at all . This company speaks of community consultation which doesn`t exist , we have had 1 community meeting & 2 drop in sessions all in and around covid which hardly seems fair when people cannot or are afraid to attend.
The community has repeatedly asked for more community meeting`s which they refuse and will only meet one on one . Isn`t his part of the application process community
consultation ? This process needs to seriously looked at if not for us but future projects.
I work for parks and wildlife in Queensland , and after discovering in the EIS report from Neoen an exert:
" we will shake trees with heavy machinery to discourage wildlife"
any injured with be addressed by local vets !! are you serious ? This company is being left to deal with native wildlife which include KOALAS ,EAGLES ,QUALL , BELLS TURTLES WHICH ARE ON THE ENDANGERED LIST AS ARE KOALA`S . this is completely off the planet and goes against all that I work for .
"after this they will fell the trees "!! So remove native vegetation from the area that support wildlife .
I won`t go on about visual amenity, noise , shadow flicker , as the list goes on and on, because ultimately it will come down to someone in an office making a decision for the rest of us on how my family farm will operate , be valued or the future economic losses this will create, we are to suffer this possible industrial neighbour .
Both companies are foreign owned so they don`t care if it effects anyone as either live in the area , you don`t know the gut wrenching heartache you have caused my family over the last few years , the absolute stress you have placed on already hard working parents that both have other jobs to keep this farm , have worked their guts out to keep things going through the drought all the while in the back ground is this lingering knowledge of this project !!
This project doesn`t have community support and they don`t deserve it as they have had no consideration of locals or the landscape in which we live ,to them it is all about money , while we consider ourselves custodians of this beautiful place in which we live forever to be changed by a windfarm !!