Wallaby Creek Wind Farm

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a concerned local to formally object to the proposed Wallaby Creek Wind Farm. While I understand the push toward renewable energy, this project raises serious concerns around cost, practicality, and long term impact on the local area.
The biggest issue is the financial side of it. Projects like this are constantly sold to the public as cost effective solutions, yet time and time again they run well over budget. Initial figures rarely reflect the final cost once construction delays, grid connections, and ongoing maintenance are factored in. These blowouts do not just disappear, they are passed on to taxpayers and energy users who are already dealing with rising power prices.
There is also a lack of honesty when comparing wind energy to existing energy sources. Wind farms are not reliable on their own. They depend entirely on weather conditions, which means they cannot provide consistent base load power. Because of this, they still rely on backup systems such as coal, gas, or large scale battery storage, all of which add even more cost. When you look at the full picture, it becomes clear that wind is not replacing existing energy sources, it is duplicating them.
The impact on the local environment and community should not be overlooked either. Large scale wind developments change the character of rural areas. They affect wildlife, especially bird and bat populations, and they introduce constant noise and visual impact that many residents did not sign up for. These are real concerns that are often brushed aside in favour of meeting energy targets.
There is also the question of infrastructure. Building transmission lines to connect remote wind farms to the grid adds another layer of expense and land disruption. These costs are rarely highlighted upfront but play a major role in the overall price of the project.
At a time when Australians are struggling with the cost of living, it is hard to justify pouring billions into projects that are not proven to deliver stable or affordable energy. There needs to be a more balanced approach that considers reliability, cost, and long term outcomes rather than rushing into large scale developments that look good on paper but fail to deliver in reality.
For these reasons, I strongly oppose the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm and urge decision makers to reconsider whether this project is truly in the best interest of the community and the broader public.

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Wallaby Creek Wind Farm development within State Forest land in New South Wales.
While renewable energy is essential for Australia’s future, the location andenvironmental trade-offs of this proposal raise serious concerns. Destroying intact State Forest to generate “green energy” is contradictory and environmentally counter-productive.
1. Destruction of Native Forest is Not Environmentally Responsible
State Forests provide significant environmental value:
Carbon storage in mature trees and soil
Wildlife habitat and biodiversity corridors
Erosion control and water catchment protection
Bushfire buffering and climate resilience
Clearing or fragmenting native forest for industrial infrastructure — roads, turbine pads, transmission lines and substations — results in permanent ecological damage.
This creates a paradox:
We would be removing established carbon sinks in order to build infrastructure intended to reduce emissions.
Carbon stored in mature forests has taken decades or centuries to accumulate. Once cleared, it cannot be replaced within the lifespan of the project.
2. Industrialisation of Public Forest Land
State Forests are public assets intended for:
Recreation
Sustainable forestry
Biodiversity conservation
Community enjoyment
A large-scale wind farm introduces:
Hundreds of hectares of clearing
Wide access roads for heavy machinery
Ongoing industrial traffic and maintenance
Transmission corridors cutting through forest landscapes
This represents a permanent change in land use from public forest to industrial energy precinct.
3. Significant Biodiversity Risks
State Forests often support:
Threatened species
Forest-dependent birds and bats
Endangered ecological communities
Wind farms in forested ridgelines are widely known to pose risks including:
Bird and bat strike mortality
Habitat fragmentation
Disturbance from noise, lighting and construction
Increased predator access via new road networks
These impacts are especially concerning in intact forest environments, where biodiversity values are highest.
4. Better Locations Exist for Renewable Energy
Opposing this project does not mean opposing renewable energy.
Renewables should be prioritised in areas that minimise environmental harm, such as:
Cleared agricultural land
Brownfield or previously disturbed sites
Rooftop and urban solar expansion
Offshore wind zones
Existing energy corridors
Destroying forest to build renewable energy infrastructure should be a last resort, not a preferred option.
5. Social Licence and Public Trust
Many members of the community strongly support renewable energy. However, public support depends on projects being:
Sensibly located
Environmentally responsible
Transparent and justified
Projects that clear public forest risk undermining trust in the renewable transition and creating unnecessary community division.
Conclusion
The transition to renewable energy is vital. However, the location of infrastructure matters.
Clearing State Forest for wind turbines:
Removes valuable carbon sinks
Damages biodiversity
Industrialises public land
Contradicts the core environmental goals of renewable energy
For these reasons, I respectfully request that this proposal be rejected or relocated to more appropriate, previously cleared land.

Narromine Shire Council submission with residents' concerns (resolution 2026/093)

Submission: Objection to Wallaby Creek Wind Farm — SSD-60247211 / EPBC 2023/09676

I object to the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm and request that the Department refuse consent.

The proposal is not a small rural energy project. It is an industrial-scale development involving up to 38 wind turbines, battery storage and associated infrastructure across rural land in Narromine Shire.

My objection is based on the following concerns.

1. Unacceptable visual and landscape impact

The scale of the turbines is extreme for this rural landscape. Turbines up to 271.5 m high would dominate views, alter the rural character of the area and industrialise the landscape.

Mitigation such as landscaping or screening cannot reasonably reduce the impact of structures of this height.

2. Cumulative industrialisation of the region

The project cannot be assessed in isolation.

The Central West is being asked to absorb a concentration of renewable infrastructure: turbines, transmission lines, substations, road upgrades, battery systems and construction traffic. This cumulative burden falls on local residents, road users, farmers and rural communities, while many benefits flow elsewhere.

3. Biodiversity concerns

The project has already triggered assessment under the EPBC Act for impacts on threatened species and ecological communities.

The proposal has the potential to affect birds, bats, fauna corridors, waterways and surrounding habitat areas. A project requiring this level of biodiversity scrutiny should not be approved unless impacts are clearly avoided, not merely offset later.

4. Bird and bat strike risk

Large turbines create an ongoing operational risk to birds and bats for the life of the project.

This is not a short-term construction impact. It would continue for decades, and “adaptive management” after approval is not an adequate substitute for avoiding harm in the first place.

5. Noise, vibration and amenity

The project introduces multiple industrial noise sources including turbines, battery infrastructure, substations, construction activity and heavy vehicle traffic.

Rural residents should not have to accept long-term industrial noise impacts in an area currently characterised by rural amenity and low background noise.

6. Traffic, road safety and road damage

The project would require large volumes of heavy vehicles, oversized turbine components, construction traffic and road upgrades.

This would create disruption and safety concerns on local and State roads, including impacts on school bus routes, rail crossings and rural traffic. Roads not designed for sustained industrial transport would be placed under significant pressure.

7. Bushfire, battery and emergency risk

The proposal includes a large-scale battery energy storage system.

Battery systems introduce serious fire and hazard risks, particularly in rural areas where emergency response times may be limited. Concerns also exist regarding grass fires, turbine-related fire risks, blade throw and impacts on aerial firefighting operations.

8. Aviation and agricultural operations

The turbines and associated infrastructure may interfere with aerial agricultural operations, emergency helicopters and aviation safety.

This creates land-use conflicts in an active rural farming area where aerial spraying and emergency access are practical necessities.

9. Agricultural land-use conflict

The project would permanently alter the character and use of productive rural land.

Even where grazing or cropping continues between turbines, the area effectively becomes an industrial energy precinct containing roads, cabling, hardstands, substations and operational restrictions.

10. Water, soil and erosion risks

Construction of roads, hardstands, foundations and drainage works has the potential to alter runoff patterns, increase erosion, affect waterways and disturb farm dams.

These risks are significant in an agricultural landscape and may create long-term environmental impacts.

11. Telecommunications and interference

The project may interfere with telecommunications systems and services relied upon by local residents, farms, businesses and emergency services.

Reliable communications are essential in rural areas and should not be compromised by industrial infrastructure.

12. Social impact and community division

Large wind farm developments divide rural communities.

Host landholders may receive financial benefit while neighbouring residents and the wider community carry the visual, noise, traffic and lifestyle impacts. Construction activity may also place pressure on local accommodation and services.

13. Community benefit payments do not remove impacts

Financial contributions to councils or community programs do not remove the real planning impacts associated with the development.

Payments cannot compensate for visual intrusion, biodiversity risk, road impacts, noise concerns, bushfire risk or loss of rural amenity.

14. Decommissioning and long-term accountability

The project should not be approved without a fully funded and legally enforceable decommissioning and rehabilitation plan.

Local communities and councils should not be left responsible for obsolete infrastructure, degraded roads, concrete foundations or rehabilitation costs in the future.

Requested outcome

For the reasons above, I request that the Department:

1. Refuse SSD-60247211.


2. Find that the project is unsuitable for the site due to unacceptable cumulative visual, biodiversity, social, traffic, agricultural, aviation, bushfire, battery, water and land-use impacts.


3. Give significant weight to objections from non-associated residents and the broader local community.


4. Not rely on offsets, later management plans or community benefit payments as substitutes for avoiding unacceptable impacts.


5. Require any future proposal to demonstrate genuine avoidance of impacts, not merely mitigation after approval.



In my view, Wallaby Creek Wind Farm would impose an unacceptable industrial development on rural land, nearby residents, local roads, wildlife, farming operations and the broader Narromine district. The application should be refused.

Submission Objecting to the Wallaby Creek Application
Project: Wallaby Creek Wind Farm
Application: SSD-60247211
Objection to the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm
As a member, and committee member, of the Narromine Gliding Club (NGC), I object to the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm project proceeding in its current form, as described in the Environmental Impact Statement EIS).
My objection to the current application in its current form, is that it would have a severely negative impact on:
• The Aviation Safety and ongoing viability of gliding operations at the Narromine airport (YNRM).
• The Aviation Safety of Sports aviation at YNRM.
• The ability of NGC to host inter-club, national and international gliding events at YNRM.
• The ability of NGC to host international glider pilots to participate in cross country flying at YNRM.
• The ability of NGC and the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) to conduct state and national sports flying events at YNRM.
• The ability of Recreational Aviation Australia (Raus) training organisations to operate at YNRM.
• The continuing economic viability of the NGC and gliding at YNRM.
Our objection covers 5 main areas where the application is seriously deficient. These are:
• EIS Stakeholder Engagement Omissions and Aviation Impact Assessment (AIA) Flaws
• Aviation Safety Impact
• Public Interest Considerations
• History and economic benefit of NGC to Narromine
• Future of NGC and Gliding at Narromine

EIS Stakeholder Engagement Omissions and Aviation Impact Assessment (AIA) Flaws
As shown in Section 5- Community and Stakeholder Engagement of the EIS, there was no consultation with any of the YNRM aviation stakeholders.
The AIA, Appendix Q of the EIS, is completely flawed as it does not address the impact on YNRM aviation operations and the YNRM community and is solely based on Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Air Services (AS) requirements and procedures for Regular Public Transport (RPT), general aviation (GA), instrument flight rules (IFR), and aerial work activities.
YNRM has no RPT or IFR activity and when compared to the gliding activity, minimal GA or aerial work.
In not engaging with GA, NGC or SAA, it would appear that Aviation Projects (AP) was either unaware of, or disregarded the fact that, CASA has delegated authority for the governance, regulation, safety and operations of gliding and sports flying to Gliding Australia (GA) and SAAA, with NGC having responsibility for gliding operations at YNRM..
In terms of number of take-offs & landings, hours flown and number of aircraft involved, about 90% of flying operations at YNRM would be gliding and sports flying.
As shown in Section 5 of the AIA, AP only engaged with aviation stakeholders associated with Dubbo Regional Airport, such as Dubbo City Regional Airport Management, Royal Flying Doctor Service, Rex Regional and Link Airway.
At no time did AP engage with GA, NGC or SAA - the real stakeholders at YNRM.
Conclusion
As a result of this flawed process, and absence of any relevant stakeholder engagement, the EIS does not address any of the significantly negative impacts of the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm project on aviation and aviation organisations at YNRM.



Aviation Safety Impact
Introduction
Narromine is not simply another regional aerodrome. It is widely regarded as one of Australia’s premier gliding locations and has long been recognised nationally and internationally for its unique combination of airspace, terrain, and meteorological conditions. The area supports regular recreational flying, pilot training, cross-country operations, and competitive events that attract participants from across Australia and overseas and brings significant income to the Narromine township.
Gliding is fundamentally different from powered aviation. Aircraft operate without engines, are dependent on naturally occurring lift, and routinely fly at low altitudes across broad areas of rural land. Safe operation relies on the pilot’s ability to maintain situational awareness, preserve energy, and retain access to unobstructed airspace and suitable landing areas at all times. It is within this context that the proposed development must be assessed.
While the Aviation Impact Assessment (AIA) concludes that risks are manageable, it is our considered view that the assessment does not adequately reflect the realities of gliding operations, nor does it demonstrate that the risks introduced by the development have been reduced to an acceptable level in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the National Airports Safeguarding Framework, and CASA guidance material.

Impact on Aviation Safety
The introduction of wind turbine generators, wind monitoring towers, and associated infrastructure represents a substantial increase in obstacles within navigable airspace. CASA guidance makes clear that tall structures—even outside the immediate vicinity of aerodromes—pose a risk to aircraft operating at low altitude, particularly those operating down to 500 feet above ground level.
For gliding operations, this is not a marginal concern; it is central to flight safety. Gliders routinely operate within this altitude band during launch, circuit operations, and while searching for lift in weak conditions. Unlike powered aircraft, gliders cannot simply climb away from hazards. Their ability to manoeuvre is constrained by available lift and airspeed, and avoidance options are often limited, particularly in the latter stages of flight.
The presence of tall structures across a wide geographic area therefore introduces a persistent and unavoidable hazard. The risk is heightened by the nature of some of the infrastructure proposed. Wind monitoring towers and their associated guy wires are widely acknowledged as being difficult to detect visually, even in good conditions, and present a known hazard to low-level aviation. For a glider pilot operating at low altitude with limited manoeuvring options, such hazards are of particular concern.

Wake Turbulence and Flight Performance
Beyond the physical presence of obstacles, the aerodynamic effects of wind turbines must also be considered. National Airports Safeguarding Framework guidance identifies that wind turbines generate wake turbulence that may extend for considerable distances downwind.
For powered aircraft, such turbulence may be an inconvenience. For gliders, it can materially affect safety. Gliders operate at lower speeds and rely on smooth, predictable airflow to maintain lift. Turbulence generated by turbines has the potential to disrupt thermals, degrade climb performance, and introduce instability during approach and landing. These are not theoretical concerns; they go directly to the core of how gliders remain airborne and how pilots manage risk.

 

Loss of Usable Airspace
Gliding operations depend on access to large areas of usable airspace. Pilots must be free to deviate from planned routes in response to changing weather conditions and the location of lift. The introduction of a wind farm of the proposed scale effectively creates a zone that must be avoided, not because it is legally restricted, but because it becomes operationally unsafe.
This has a cascading effect. Avoidance of turbine arrays reduces access to thermals and lift lines, increases pilot workload, and limits cross-country flying options. Over time, this reduces the viability of gliding operations in the area and undermines the value of Narromine as a nationally significant gliding location.
The National Airports Safeguarding Framework is explicit in its objective of protecting the ongoing viability and safety of aviation operations through appropriate land-use planning. The effective sterilisation of usable airspace is inconsistent with that objective.

Impact on Emergency Landing Safety
A defining feature of gliding is the need to always maintain a safe landing option. Unlike powered aircraft, gliders cannot rely on engine power to reach an aerodrome. Instead, pilots must continuously identify and preserve access to suitable landing areas throughout the flight.
The proposed development materially reduces the availability of such areas. The introduction of turbines, transmission lines, and associated infrastructure increases hazard density across otherwise suitable paddocks and agricultural land. In the event of a forced landing, the presence of these obstacles increases both the likelihood of an incident and the severity of its consequences.
This represents a fundamental erosion of the safety margins that glider pilots rely upon and is not adequately addressed in the AIA.

Proximity to Narromine Gliding Operations
Narromine Airport includes dedicated gliding runways and supports extensive gliding activity. The surrounding airspace is routinely used for launch, circuit operations, and transition to cross-country flight.
The proximity of the proposed wind farm to this established aviation environment raises serious concerns. The introduction of tall structures within the broader operational area has the potential to interfere with circuit patterns, reduce manoeuvring space, and complicate both launch and recovery operations.
Under the Narromine Local Environmental Plan 2011, development must not compromise the effective and ongoing operation of the aerodrome or expose the community to undue risk from aviation activities. It is difficult to reconcile the scale and location of the proposed development with these requirements.

Deficiencies in the Aviation Impact Assessment
While the AIA has been prepared in accordance with relevant guidelines, it does not contain a dedicated assessment of gliding operations. Instead, it focuses on general aviation, instrument flight procedures, and aerial work activities.
This represents a significant omission. CASA Advisory Circular AC 139.E-05 makes clear that all developments of this nature must be assessed in terms of their impact on aviation safety, part

I strongly object to the production off this project. I have been working in this regionals area as farm hand on my inlaws farm witch is with in 2km of the intended area off this project. If this project goes ahead it would enviromently effect the farmland around it and the land it is inteaded to be build on. It would effect livestock in some ways as stress the animals out with the instalation off the turbines and when are operational also changes the behavior of the animals. It also effect the working dog that have to move all the livestock around.it can also startel animals when the shadow off the blades rotate around witch can cause more stress. It also effects the ecosystem for all the birds in the area and would also put them in danger. It can also harm any animals or people when the turbines fail, fall apart or catch fire form any major or minior failures.

I strongly object to the proposed wind farm development at Wallaby Creek.
For those living in cities or behind screens who think this is a great idea, I ask one honest question: would you want large wind turbines built in your own backyard, only 1–2km from your home and family?
I’m a 22-year-old, fourth-generation farmer, and I plan to take over our family farm and raise my future family here. The proposed wind farm is planned to be built within 2km from where I hope to build my future home.
If this project goes ahead, my family and I would seriously consider moving away, and I know many other local farmers and community members who feel the same.
The first time I visited my partner’s family farm near the Crudine Ridge Wind Farm (between Sofala and Hill End), I immediately noticed the constant noise. I asked what the sound was, and he explained it was the wind farm — and that it can be even louder depending on conditions. It made me question why communities are expected to accept this lifestyle so close to their homes and farms.
Another key concern is the risk posed to biosecurity from potential weeds being spread during both construction and maintenance of the wind farm by the increase in road traffic from vehicles accessing the wind farm.
Before decisions are made, I encourage people to visit affected farming communities, not just for a quick daytime inspection, but to spend real time speaking with the families who live and work there every day.
People also need to remember where their food comes from. Farming communities are the backbone of Australia, and these decisions directly affect the people producing our food and caring for the land.
Our community has already had to fight against proposals like the incinerator project, which many locals felt was pushed for financial reasons rather than community wellbeing.
I’m also concerned about the project’s proximity to the school where I work in Narromine. Many children already face developmental and learning challenges, and I worry about the long-term impacts these industrial-scale developments may have on future generations.
This is not just about “renewables versus non-renewables.” It’s about protecting rural communities, farming families, and the future of the places we call home.

To:NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
From: Graham Brown, Glider Pilot and Recreational Aircraft Pilot
Subject: Wallaby Creek Wind Farm significant development proposal, Narromine Shire
Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm significant development proposal. I see an aviation impact assessment has been done, appendix Q, however it has omitted the impacts and risks to Gliding in the Narromine area which are significant. Gliding is a Major aeronautical activity at the Narromine aerodrome and a significant contributor to the Narromine economy.
My major concern with the proposal is that the wind farm is too close to the Narromine Aerodrome and would be a hazard to Operating Gliders safely. Gliding has different operating parameters than Powered Aircraft and typically operate at variable altitudes which are not entirely under the pilots control. The current Aviation Impact Statement, appendix Q, even admits the proposal does not meet the 10nm Minimum Safe Altitude required for powered aircraft.
Gliders, being unpowered, do not always get back to their home destination and sometimes have to land in the paddocks. Currently this is done safely in the Narromine area as there are not many dangers. A glider, low on approach to Narromine Aerodrome, may conclude he cannot safely glide to the aerodrome so elects to safely land in one of the large paddocks. The proposed wind farm will make that option dangerous.
None of the Narromine Aerodrome users have been included in the consultation leading to the Aviation Impact Statement and therefore there are likely other issues, other than Gliding, that need to be addressed. It is suggested that the Aviation Impact Statement be extended to the actual Aerodrome users via the Aerodrome Manager.
Narromine is not simply another regional aerodrome. It is widely regarded as one of Australia’s premier gliding locations and has long been recognised nationally and internationally for its unique combination of airspace, terrain, and meteorological conditions. The area supports regular recreational flying, pilot training, cross-country operations, and competitive events that attract participants from across Australia and overseas and brings significant income to the Narromine township. The World Gliding Competitions have been held at Narromine many times and with this great prestige and economic value to Narromine.
I am opposed to the current proposal for the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm on safety and economic grounds mentioned above and suggest the Airport users be consulted on the flaws and omissions in the Aviation Impact Statement.
Regards
Graham Brown. I also represent Gliding Australia as the Airfields and Airspace Officer and ASAC, Air Sports Australia Confederation as the Airspace Officer. The latter organisation represents Gliding and Aerobatic pilots among others.

I’m objecting to this project because proper stakeholder consultation has not been carried out and this could result in serious aviation accidents. 90% of flights from Narromine airfield are gliding and the Narromine gliding club has not been included as a stakeholder. During competitions gliders come in fast and low and the nearby wind turbines will be in the potential flight path. Competitions with 50 gliders are common. The world championships at Narromine in 2023 had 78 competitors. This must not be ignored. The consultation group need to do their homework!

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed Wallaby Creek Wind Farm in the Narromine Shire. The project includes up to 38 wind turbines, a large scale battery energy storage system (BESS), and associated infrastructure, located approximately 3.5 kilometres from my town and nearby residences. I have serious concerns about the project’s scale, proximity, and potential impacts on residential amenity, public safety, the environment, and local infrastructure.

I am a glider pilot and I use the gliding facilities at Narromine airport. Narromine gliding club organises many gliding events including training, cross country and competitions, including World Championships. The Wallaby Creek Wind Farm proposal has not consulted with the gliding community about the impacts of their proposal. The Wallaby Creek Wind Farm is located in the immediate vicinity of Naromine Airport and poses a risk to gliding activities from that airport.

Dear Sirs,
Narromine aerodrome has been host to state, national and international gliding events, including numerous world championships in the past.
A windfarm in the proximity of the airfield will increase the danger of serious or even fatal accidents for the gliding fraternity.
This windfarm would have a serious impact for Narromine aerodrome as a host for gliding events.
I can not estimate the financial impact but I assume it would be serious.

Kind regards

Stefan Kremer

I am writing to formally object to the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm proposal in its current form.

As an active sport aircraft user, I have serious concerns about the impact this development would have on aviation safety, the ongoing viability of gliding and recreational aviation at Narromine Airport (YNRM), and the broader economic and community benefits that aviation brings to the Narromine region.

Narromine is internationally recognised as one of Australia’s premier gliding destinations. The proposed location and scale of this wind farm creates significant risks and operational limitations that, in my view, have not been adequately considered or addressed within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), particularly in relation to gliding and sport aviation activities.

My objection is based on five key concerns:

1-Insufficient stakeholder consultation and shortcomings in the Aviation Impact Assessment
2-Unacceptable aviation safety risks
3-Conflict with the public interest and long-term regional planning objectives
4-Potential economic harm to Narromine and its aviation tourism sector
5-Threat to the future viability of the Narromine Gliding Club and associated aviation operations

1. Inadequate Consultation and Deficiencies in the Aviation Assessment

A major concern is the apparent failure to meaningfully engage with the aviation organisations most directly affected by this proposal.

Based on the EIS documentation, consultation appears to have focused primarily on conventional aviation stakeholders associated with Dubbo Regional Airport, such as commercial and general aviation operators. There is no evidence of genuine consultation with the Narromine Gliding Club, Gliding Australia, the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia, or Recreational Aviation Australia training organisations operating from Narromine Airport.

This omission is significant.

Narromine Airport is not primarily a commercial or instrument-flight aerodrome. It is a highly active centre for gliding and sport aviation, with these activities representing the majority of aircraft movements and flying hours conducted at the airport.

Gliding and recreational flying operate under different safety requirements and operational constraints than powered aviation. Any aviation impact assessment that fails to properly consider these operations cannot be regarded as complete or representative.

Without meaningful consultation with the aviation community most affected, the assessment cannot accurately evaluate the true consequences of this development.

2. Aviation Safety Concerns

The proposed wind farm introduces a range of safety risks that are particularly serious for glider operations.

Unlike powered aircraft, gliders cannot rely on engine power to avoid hazards. They operate by using natural lift and often fly at low altitude while searching for thermals, transitioning between lift sources, and preparing for landing.

Tall structures such as wind turbines and meteorological towers create permanent obstacles within critical flight areas. This increases the risk of collision and reduces pilots’ flexibility when making essential in-flight decisions.

Particularly concerning are:

Obstacle hazards created by turbine towers and associated infrastructure
Guy wires on monitoring towers, which are especially difficult to detect visually
Wake turbulence generated by turbine blades, which can disrupt airflow and affect glider performance
Reduced emergency landing options due to obstacles across otherwise suitable paddocks
Loss of usable airspace, forcing pilots to avoid large areas traditionally relied upon for safe flight

For glider pilots, these are not minor inconveniences. They directly affect safety margins and increase operational risk.

The Aviation Impact Assessment does not appear to sufficiently address these glider-specific realities.

3. Public Interest and Planning Considerations

The public interest must include protecting established community assets, preserving aviation safety, and ensuring responsible land-use planning.

Narromine has built a long-standing reputation as one of Australia’s most important aviation centres. Gliding and recreational aviation are deeply embedded in the town’s identity and contribute significantly to tourism, education, and regional economic activity.

Approving a development that compromises the safety and viability of these operations would undermine an established and highly valuable regional asset.

Where a proposal introduces ongoing risks that cannot be fully mitigated, redesign or refusal should be seriously considered.

4. Economic Importance of Gliding to Narromine

The Narromine Gliding Club has operated continuously since 1974 and has helped establish Narromine as an internationally recognised destination for soaring aviation.

Over many decades, the club has hosted:

World and national gliding championships
State and youth competitions
Instructor training programs
Junior and women’s flying initiatives
Visiting club camps and cross-country training events
International pilot participation

These events attract competitors, support crews, families, and aviation enthusiasts from across Australia and overseas, generating important economic benefits for local accommodation providers, cafes, retailers, and service businesses.

Beyond direct spending, Narromine’s aviation reputation enhances broader tourism and community visibility.

Any development that threatens the sustainability of gliding operations also threatens these ongoing economic contributions.

5. Long-Term Viability of Gliding at Narromine

Gliding operations depend heavily on weather patterns, thermal activity, and access to large areas of surrounding airspace.

A significant portion of current flying activity takes place over areas that would be directly affected by the proposed Wallaby Creek Wind Farm.

If the project proceeds in its current form, operational restrictions are likely to include:

Reduced access to essential runway options
Constraints on existing circuit and launch areas
Limitations on task start zones
Reduced ability to conduct cross-country flights, particularly to the south
Fewer suitable flying days depending on wind and soaring conditions

These limitations would severely reduce Narromine’s attractiveness as a destination for competitions, visiting pilots, and aviation training activities.

Without the ability to host major events and attract national and international participation, the Narromine Gliding Club may struggle to remain economically viable.

If that occurs, Narromine risks losing one of its most significant aviation institutions and the substantial value it contributes to the region.

Conclusion

The Wallaby Creek Wind Farm proposal, as currently presented, does not adequately address the unique operational realities of gliding and recreational aviation at Narromine.

It introduces significant and ongoing aviation safety concerns, threatens the viability of long-established flying operations, and places an important regional economic and community asset at risk.

For these reasons, I respectfully object to the application in its current form and urge the consent authority to require a more comprehensive aviation assessment, meaningful consultation with affected aviation stakeholders, and substantial redesign before any approval is considered.

Wallaby Creek Wind Farm - OBJECTION by Sport Aircraft Association of Australia

The Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) is an active member of the Narromine (YNRM) aerodrome group of flying associations and holds regular fly-ins and workshops at our premises on Narromine aerodrome.

SAAA has been an active part of the General Aviation community in Australia for over 70 years and we celebrated our 70 year anniversary in 2025, in conjunction with our AGM, at Narromine aerodrome.

We are headquartered in our hangar at Narromine aerodrome. Our members are distributed across all the States of Australia and fly in to Narromine regularly, to participate in SAAA training, workshops, meetings and social events

SAAA is a member of the Narromine Business Collective

SAAA members participate in all forms of flying,
- Training
- Touring
- Aerobatics
- Formation Flying
- Low Level Flying
- Seaplane and Water operations
- Instructional operations
- Agricultural operations


Wind Farm Structures create hazards to all forms of aircraft during low level operations, such as:
Emergencies
Emergency Training
Agricultural operations
General training


Proximity of the Project
The proposed WTG project is just over 4 minutes, from the aerodrome, for an aircraft travelling at 100kts.
The vicinity of an aerodrome is a time of high workload for every pilot, during Departure, Arrival and Circuit operations.
Mixed aircraft types operate in the YNRM circuit – GA aircraft, gliders, aerial agriculture, aero medical, Light Sport Aircraft and training operators.

The project covers a large area of land.
WTG projects are not single isolated obstacles and have an extensive footprint.
The proposed project is in close proximity to the Narromine aerodrome.




Distances to the YNRM aerodrome reference point
NB: Runway thresholds may be up to 0.6 nm less than stated below

7 nm (12 km) at 149 degM from YNRM to the Northern Project boundary
9 nm (16.6 km) at 145 degM from YNRM to the Northernmost WTG tower
12 nm (22.2 km) at 253 degM from Wings Out West to the Northernmost WTG tower
16 nm (29.6 km) at 228 degM from YSDU to the Northernmost WTG tower

Hazards created by the -
Downwind turbulence – turbine wake
“the turbulent eddies and localised wake vortices can pose hazards to low-flying, small light aircraft”
“can stretch several kilometres”
(AI google search)


Our Objection

Reduction of Forced Landing Fields on Approach and Departure on Southerly headings
The Wallaby Creek Windfarm Project covers a large swathe of land, very close, and to the South-East of Narromine Aerodrome (YNRM).
This land area for a large percentage, is generally flat or undulating open country, under various forms of agriculture.
Land of this nature, offers opportunity for emergency landings in the case of Engine Failure After Take-Off (EFATO) and is situated in a corridor, in close proximity to the approaches for YNRM.

Straight in approach will be affected on 5nm finals to -
Runway 29
Runway 36
Runway 22

Creation of High Level Obstructions on Approach and Departure on Southerly Headings
These runway approaches are from the south and at 5 nautical miles, the altitude of aircraft will be 1,500 feet AGL, dangerously close at a time of high workload for any aircraft pilot. Combined with bad weather, reduced visibility and turbulence, risks to aircraft are multiplied.

Southerly Departures from the reciprocal runways lead over the WTG Proposed Project.
Opportunities for forced landings due to EFATO are reduced by introducing obstacles into the departure splay.
Hazards to aircraft during EFATO will be increased by the presence of the WTG project and the obstructions placed below the flight path of departing aircraft.


WTG Downwind Turbulence in Prevailing Winds, flows toward YNRM and the circuit areas
Prevailing Weather at Narromine region is SE to SW/W winds for 64% of the year.
This places YNRM directly down wind of the wind farm for much of the year.
Downwind turbulence from the proposed project will be directed toward the circuit area at YNRM.
Light aircraft are affected by turbulence of many kinds. Wake turbulence from heavier aircraft during take-off and landing is a dangerous and well-known hazard to light aircraft. So too, rotor turbulence produced by wind over mountain ranges.
WTG Downwind Turbulence will be another aeronautical hazard introduced by this proposed project.

1. The Windfarm Social Impact Statement initially had wrong mapping photos. It appears that the report was full of many 'cut and paste' phrases from the New England Report. How can we determine if Wallaby Creek received independent advice
2. There is no Waste Management Plan. How can an EIS be approved when there is no plan for where waste will be put within Narromine and Trangie during construction and completion.
3. Acciona did not individually notify all neighbours. I am 1km from the substation in project. ACCIONA sent me no letters. My first letter was 3 weeks ago from Dpt Planning. Our community has barely had 1 month ro raise concerns and even today your planning portal states 20 days left to make submissions when today 19th is the last day. Why this error?
3. The access road to the Windfarm Tantitha road in particular is lined with thousands of established trees .. this is a wildlife and reptile corridor to the State Forest at the southern rear of the project. Why have Acciona not looked at moving the access road 50 metres to left or right of the access road to keep this corridor protected.
4. There is no wildlife displacement plan or funding. Thousands of wildlife will lose their home stretching for kms!! Why?
5. The EIS states water is from bores, dams and other external areas outside of this project. What affect will this proposal have on Narromine bores and water. Narromine water is,already at maximum capacity.
6. We have an aerodrome within 15 km of the windfsrm this,will affect our Communities hang guiding programmes and light plane training programmes.
7. AC C IONA have verbally stated to residents hat the transmission lines may move away from the mapping on the current EIS onto the General Manager of Narromine's property. ACCIONA stated this in Sept 2025, yet they refuse to write this into the EIS as a highly potential change. Acciona refuse to clearly state a,sensible and full reason as to Why. Why the secrecy?
8. I don't believe that the EIS has stated clear testing of infrasonic sound or clear accurate mapping. I do not believe that all residents affected by pulse sound and infrasonic sound have been notified. This is serious breech by Acciona.
9. I do not believe all residents affected by visual transmission linetowers or windtowers have been approached, consulted or notified by Acciona.
10. The topic of damage to council roads, and who pays for that damage is not clear.
11. The life of the project is unclear. Who pays for decommissioning of the project is unclear.
12. The EIS is vague, lacks detail with Acciona giving the Community less than one month to comment. Their pop up store in Narromine only just opened on 29th April.

I am formally objecting to the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm proposal in its current form.

My concern is the impact this development could have on Narromine Airport and the aviation activity that has long been an important part of our community.

Narromine is widely recognised as a significant location for gliding and recreational aviation, attracting pilots, visitors, and aviation events from across Australia and overseas. This contributes not only to the local economy, but also to the identity and reputation of Narromine as an aviation destination.

I am concerned that the current proposal does not adequately consider the effect the wind farm may have on these existing activities.

When assessing the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm Aviation Impact Assessment (AIA) against CASA’s regulatory framework for objects and structures that affect aviation safety (historically governed under AC 139.E-05), there is a direct collision between the document's baseline recommendations and CASA's formal position.

The document fundamentally attempts to utilise a qualitative risk assessment to bypass obstacle lighting, which directly contradicts CASA's standard safety expectations for a project of this scale.

1. Obstacle Lighting & Mitigation (The Critical Disconnect)
The AIA’s Position (Pages 12 & 13): The report concludes that wind turbine generators (WTGs) and wind monitoring towers (WMTs) "would not require obstacle lighting to maintain an acceptable level of safety to aircraft." It relies on historical statistics showing zero wind farm collisions in Australia between 2010 and 2026.

CASA’s Stance & Guidance (Page 5 & Regulatory Framework): CASA explicitly rejects this aspect of the AIA. Because the WTGs reach a maximum height of 271.5 m AGL (well over the standard 110 m/150 m thresholds detailed in the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guideline D), CASA has formally recommended that:

The wind farm must be obstacle lit with steady, medium-low intensity red obstacle lighting.

A minimum of 200 candela intensity is required on the nacelles due to the lack of ambient background lighting in the Narromine region.

The AIA's recommendation to omit night lighting is non-compliant with CASA’s formal feedback. The proponent is forced by the NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure (DPHI) to draft an Aviation Lighting Plan overriding the report’s initial "no lighting" conclusion.

Even if flying can technically continue, restrictions on airspace, operational flexibility, and access to traditional flying areas may make Narromine less practical and less attractive for gliding, training, and aviation events over time.
These gradual impacts could reduce visitor numbers, affect local businesses, and weaken the long-term viability of aviation organisations based at Narromine Airport.

I am also concerned that there appears to have been limited consultation with the aviation groups and operators most directly affected by the proposal. It is important that the experience and concerns of these established stakeholders are properly considered before decisions are made.
Renewable energy projects are important, but they should be planned in a way that does not compromise valuable regional assets that have taken decades to build.

Narromine’s aviation community is one of those assets.

For these reasons, I respectfully object to the Wallaby Creek Wind Farm application in its current form and ask that greater consideration be given to protecting the future of aviation at Narromine.

This project will industrialise the landscape, contribute to the cumulative impacts in the area that are already having a negative impact on rents, access to services, fuel supplies, road congestion with OSOM and heavy vehicles, lack of access to quarry materials for any project other than the so called Renewable Energy Projects, increase road damage, increase aerial risks, create a hostile environment for all native fauna and livestock.

This project will ruin the environment and wreck the community.

We absolutely object to the proposed Wallaby Creek Swindle Factory with 38 toxic contaminating turbines and filthy BESS BOMB as well as associated infrastructure located approximately 3.5 km south of Narromine and 15 km north of Tomingley.

This project represents another example of industrial-scale energy infrastructure being fast-tracked into productive rural landscapes without any risk research and any regard for long-term environmental contamination risks, agricultural impacts, public safety, grid reliability, biodiversity protection, or genuine community consent.
This junk proposal must not proceed as it’s all pain and no gain and NOT in Australia’s best interests.

Failure of the Precautionary Principle
The Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately address the cumulative and long-term risks associated with industrial wind turbines and lithium-ion battery infrastructure, particularly regarding:
PFAS and other persistent chemicals;
Bisphenol A contamination;
banned Asbestos;
heavy metal leaching;
microplastics shedding from turbine blade erosion;
lethal battery fire plume;
groundwater and soil contamination;
disposal and end-of-life toxic waste liabilities.
The precautionary principle exists precisely for situations where scientific uncertainty surrounds potentially irreversible harm. Yet governments and developers continue to approve large-scale Wind/Solar/BESS infrastructure despite major unresolved questions about contamination pathways, toxicology, fire behaviour, and waste management.

The burden of proof should rest with the developer to demonstrate safety beyond reasonable doubt — not with rural communities forced to live beside this infrastructure.

Agricultural and Water Risks
The Wallaby Creek site is located on productive pastoral and cropping land intersected by numerous waterways and tributaries connected to the broader Macquarie catchment.
These include:
Wallaby Creek
Blackwater Hole Creek
Yellow Creek
Fiddlers Creek
Bundara Creek
Jacks Creek
Hawkes Creek
Ugumjil Creek
Bradys Cowal
Momo Creek
Hyandra Creek
Rays Creek
Thirteen Mile Creek
Drill Creek
Brummagan Creek
Scrubby Creek
Macquarie River

The EIS does not convincingly demonstrate how contamination risks from turbine erosion, transformer oils, battery failures, fire runoff, sediment movement, or hazardous materials will be prevented over decades of operation.
Nor does it provide credible assurance regarding decommissioning liabilities or future land rehabilitation.

The site has also been identified as involving listed threatened species and ecological communities under the EPBC Act.
Industrialising this landscape with turbines, substations, roads, transmission infrastructure and battery compounds will permanently alter habitat connectivity and landscape character.

Lithium-Ion Battery Fire Risks
Large-scale lithium-ion battery systems are not benign infrastructure.
International incidents have demonstrated the serious consequences of thermal runaway events, including prolonged fires, toxic smoke plumes, contaminated runoff, and release of hazardous compounds.
The scientific literature now documents concerns regarding PFAS compounds associated with lithium-ion battery systems, including so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in ecosystems and bioaccumulate.
The Moss Landing battery fire research and emerging international studies raise legitimate concerns about deposition of toxic materials following battery incidents.

The Wallaby Creek proposal does not adequately address:
evacuation scenarios,
airborne contamination modelling,
agricultural contamination pathways,
firefighter exposure risks,
long-term soil monitoring,
or contamination liabilities.

Communities should not be expected to accept these risks on the basis of incomplete science and optimistic assumptions.

Wind Turbine Structural and Safety Failures
Recent incidents across Australia demonstrate that turbine failures are not hypothetical.
Some examples of incidents include:
the Berrybank turbine collapse (2025),
turbine fires at Bulgana and Portland,
reports of structural failures and blade incidents, and asbestos detections in imported turbine brake components.

The discovery of asbestos-containing components in imported wind turbine systems is especially alarming given Australia’s longstanding asbestos BAN.
This raises serious questions regarding:
supply chain oversight,
import compliance,
quality assurance,
and regulatory enforcement.
The public is repeatedly assured these systems are “safe” and “best practice,” yet failures continue to occur.

Noise, Infrasound and Community Impacts
Many rural residents living near existing wind developments report sleep disturbance, chronic stress, turbine sickness, reduced amenity, and ongoing noise nuisance.
The existence of widespread complaints across multiple wind developments warrants far greater caution than is currently being applied by regulators.
Communities should not be treated as unwilling test subjects in a decades-long experiment involving industrial-scale infrastructure placed close to homes and farming districts.

Grid Reliability and Economic Concerns
The claim that large-scale intermittent renewable infrastructure automatically lowers power prices or improves grid stability has been well proven false by independent experts.

Wind and solar generation are weather-dependent and require extensive transmission expansion, backup systems, storage integration and grid balancing infrastructure.
These additional costs are frequently, unjustly externalised onto consumers and taxpayers due to the rotten, complicit Regulator who is not acting independently.

The Wallaby Creek project must therefore be assessed not only on generation capacity, but on:
whole-of-system costs,
transmission impacts,
reliability consequences,
land-use conflicts,
toxic contamination,
Public health and safety,
and long-term decommissioning and remediation obligations.

Lack of Social Licence
There is a growing divide between government rollout targets and the lived reality of rural communities expected to host this infrastructure.
Rural communities have not provided informed consent for:
industrialisation of agricultural land,
visual degradation,
increased fire risk,
noise impacts,
contamination risks,
detrimental health impacts,
compulsory transmission corridors,
ever escalating electricity prices,
and lack of sovereignty with CCP control.

Community opposition should not be dismissed as irrational or anti-environmental when RenewaBULL JUNK is NOT CLEAN or SUSTAINABLE AT ALL.
RenewaBULLs ARE THE ASBESTOS OF THE FUTURE - ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THE GREATER GOOD!!

Regulatory Failure
The current regulatory framework is basically non-existent - fragmented, reactive and heavily reliant on industry self-reporting.
There remains:
no comprehensive lifecycle regulation for ‘renewable’ infrastructure;
inadequate end-of-life disposal planning;
no chemical disclosure requirements;
Asbestos and PFAS Ban is ignored;
limited transparency regarding imported components;
and insufficient independent monitoring.

Rapid ruin-a-bull rollout is unjustly and dangerously prioritised ahead of environmental protection and public health and safety.

Conclusion
The Wallaby Creek Wind + BESS proposal presents unresolved risks to:
public health,
agriculture,
food safety and security,
biodiversity,
water systems,
landscape values,
rural amenity,
long-term environmental safety,
our energy security,
and national security.

The EIS does not satisfactorily address these concerns, nor does it demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the precautionary principle or ecologically sustainable development.

Independent Risk Research is required as well as cumulative impact studies of industrial wind,solar and BESS infrastructure in regional Australia;
Comprehensive independent toxicological and fire-risk studies are essential as well as full lifecycle contamination, waste and decommissioning liabilities to be publicly disclosed and independently funded;

Due Diligence is required with stronger protections for agricultural land, water resources and rural communities before further projects are even planned.

Rural Australia should not become a testing ground for poorly planned experiments with toxic contaminating industrial infrastructure that has dire, life-threatening consequences.

The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens, its environment, its food and water security, and the long-term integrity of the nation’s infrastructure.
Yet the NSW Government’s Renewable Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap, alongside the Federal Government’s “Future Made in Australia” agenda, appears to do the exact opposite.
This project is being advanced despite profound unresolved concerns regarding:
• Grid stability and energy security
• Public health and safety
• Toxic contamination risks
• Agricultural productivity
• Biodiversity impacts
• Water security
• Economic consequences
• National sovereignty and supply chain dependence
The Wallaby Creek Wind + Battery Energy Storage System proposal represents another example of large-scale industrialisation of productive rural land under the banner of “clean energy”, despite mounting evidence of environmental, technical, economic and social harms associated with weather-dependent energy systems and lithium-ion battery infrastructure.
The proposal involves 38 industrial wind turbines and associated battery infrastructure approximately 3.5 km south of Narromine and 15 km north of Tomingley — within a landscape containing productive agricultural land, waterways, threatened species habitat and interconnected ecosystems.
This development has already been declared a Controlled Action under the EPBC Act due to recognised environmental significance.
The claim that ever-increasing renewable penetration lowers power prices has become increasingly questionable as Australians experience escalating electricity costs, worsening grid instability and growing dependence on backup generation, transmission expansion and imported infrastructure.
Weather-dependent generation cannot provide dispatchable baseload power on demand.
It is intermittent.
It is vulnerable to weather conditions.
It requires extensive transmission duplication and backup systems.
And critically, it does not inherently provide the synchronous inertia essential for maintaining grid stability.
At the same time, Australia is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign-controlled manufacturing supply chains for turbines, solar panels, batteries, rare earths and associated infrastructure — much of it linked directly or indirectly to the Chinese Communist Party-dominated industrial system.
This raises serious national security and economic sovereignty concerns.
There are also major unanswered questions regarding contamination risks associated with industrial wind turbine materials and lithium-ion battery systems.
Where is the comprehensive scientific assessment of:
• PFAS contamination risks?
• Bisphenol A shedding from turbine blade erosion?
• Heavy metal leaching?
• Asbestos contamination in imported components?
• Hydrogen fluoride gas risks from lithium-ion battery fires?
• Long-term groundwater and soil contamination?
• End-of-life disposal impacts?
The public is repeatedly told these technologies are “clean”, yet the lifecycle impacts are routinely excluded, minimised or ignored.
These systems do not simply “appear” on the landscape emissions-free.
Their true footprint includes:
• Mining
• Processing
• Manufacturing
• International shipping
• Concrete and steel production
• Transmission construction
• Land clearing
• Hazardous waste disposal
• Decommissioning liabilities
The Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately account for these cumulative impacts.
Nor does it properly address sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), an extremely potent greenhouse gas used extensively in switchgear, substations and electrical infrastructure associated with wind and transmission projects.
This proposal also raises significant public health concerns.
Lithium-ion battery fires have repeatedly demonstrated the potential to release toxic and persistent chemicals into surrounding environments.
Recent incidents — including Moss Landing in California, the Cheltenham battery warehouse fire in Melbourne, and multiple Australian battery transport and turbine fire events — highlight the reality that these systems are not risk-free.
Independent experts have raised concerns regarding the release of PFAS compounds, toxic smoke plumes, heavy metals and hydrogen fluoride gases during thermal runaway events.
The precautionary principle demands that these risks be fully investigated before approval — not after contamination occurs.
Instead, governments and regulators appear to be prioritising rollout speed over due diligence.
Recent revelations involving asbestos-containing components in imported wind turbine systems are particularly alarming.
Despite asbestos being banned in Australia since 2003, reports emerged in 2025 confirming asbestos-containing brake pads in imported wind turbine equipment associated with multiple renewable energy companies operating across Australia.
This demonstrates systemic regulatory failures in supply chain oversight.
Likewise, correspondence from the Australian Border Force and associated agencies regarding PFAS and hazardous chemical imports suggests Australia currently lacks robust enforceable controls preventing high-risk chemicals entering renewable infrastructure supply chains.
This is unacceptable.
The project also threatens waterways and ecological systems connected to the Wallaby Creek region, including tributaries and catchments feeding into the broader Macquarie River system.
Potential contamination pathways through erosion, sediment runoff, turbine blade degradation, fire events and infrastructure failures have not been adequately addressed.
The Four Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development appear fundamentally compromised by projects of this nature:
• The Precautionary Principle
• Intergenerational Equity
• Conservation of Biological Diversity
• Polluter Pays Principles
Instead, future generations risk inheriting vast quantities of industrial waste, degraded landscapes and expensive infrastructure liabilities.
There is also a growing social divide between urban policy-makers promoting these projects and rural communities forced to live beside them.
Claims of “social licence” are increasingly disputed by affected landholders and residents experiencing noise impacts, visual industrialisation, transmission corridor expansion, fire risks and declining trust in institutions.
This is not a “just transition” for many regional Australians.
It is experienced as forced industrialisation imposed without genuine consent.
The Wallaby Creek proposal should not proceed unless and until there is:
• A comprehensive independent scientific assessment of contamination risks
• Full lifecycle environmental accounting
• Independent public health investigations
• Transparent disclosure of all hazardous materials
• Proven end-of-life disposal solutions
• Genuine community consent
• Independent national security assessment of supply chain dependencies
• Comprehensive emergency response capability for battery and turbine fires
An immediate moratorium on further large-scale wind, solar and lithium-ion battery approvals should be seriously considered until these unresolved issues are independently investigated.
Australia’s food security, water security, biodiversity, energy reliability and public health should not be sacrificed for politically-driven energy targets and speculative industrial transition schemes whose long-term consequences remain deeply uncertain.
The burden of proof must rest with proponents and governments — not with rural communities expected to absorb the risks.
References:
Patricia Adams — China’s Energy Dream
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/12/Adams-Chinas-Energy-Dream.pdf
Tim Smith — Bisphenol A Pollution from Wind Turbines
https://docs.wind-watch.org/Bisphenol-A-Pollution-Wind-Turbines.pdf
Will Bisphenol A be the PFOS of Wind Energy?
https://www.zeeland.nl/sites/default/files/digitaalarchief/IB23_b50318e9.pdf
Bisphenol A in Wind Turbines Damages Human Fertility
https://bergensia.com/bisphenol-a-in-wind-turbines-damages-human-fertility/es-human-fertility/
The Guardian — “Forever Chemicals” used in Lithium-Ion Batteries Threaten Environment
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/14/forever-chemicals-lithium-ion-batteries-environment
Nature — Coastal Wetland Deposition of Cathode Metals from the World’s Largest Lithium-ion Battery Fire
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25972-8
ETU Safety Alert — Asbestos Detected in Wind Tower Lift Brakes
https://www.ohsrep.org.au/etu_issues_safety_alert_asbestos_detected_in_wind_tower_lift_brakes_sn_787

This toxic contaminating development seriously threatens waterways and downstream ecosystems.
Construction disturbance, sediment runoff, chemical contamination - including Toxic Bisphenol A, PFAS, Asbestos shedding from Turbines and Hydrofluoric Acid, Bis-FASI PFAS and other hazardous chemicals from FIRE HAZARDOUS Lithium-ion BESS - as well as damaging erosion risks - all threatening creeks and tributaries connected to the broader Macquarie River system - resulting in a poisonous public health and safety disaster!