Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
Barham
,
New South Wales
Message
I wish I could share the confidence that these projects are being properly scrutinised, but the pattern suggests otherwise The NSW Independent Planning Commission appears to approve the vast majority of applications and rarely, if ever, refuses one outright, which raises serious concerns about the integrity of the process
Even more concerning is what happens after approval Developers routinely return with modification requests, and these too are almost always approved regardless of the objections raised by local communities It creates the impression that the initial approval is only the beginning of a rolling process where projects can expand or change with little real accountability
Evidence presented through parliamentary inquiries and recorded in Hansard shows this is not an isolated concern but a widespread one There have been more than 150 documented instances of community opposition across Australia, along with hundreds of formal submissions and letters objecting to the industrialisation of productive agricultural land and the imposition of high voltage transmission infrastructure, including land acquisition across farming regions
Voices from within regional communities are also raising alarm Gary Stroll has described the situation as absolutely diabolical for rural areas, arguing that no one in these communities truly benefits from the developments
The use of large workers camps further undermines claims of regional benefit These camps are largely self contained, with accommodation, catering and even licensed facilities such as bars provided on site, meaning workers have little reason to spend in local towns Instead, they place additional strain on local resources such as water and diesel while contributing very little to the surrounding economy There are also growing concerns within rural communities about the social impacts of large temporary workforces, including increased pressure on local policing and reports of antisocial behaviour, concerns which are often raised by residents but dismissed without thorough investigation or transparent reporting
Meanwhile, it is local residents and ratepayers who are left to deal with the consequences, including damaged roads, increased traffic and long term impacts on agricultural land and community wellbeing It is not reasonable that the cost of this infrastructure is effectively shifted onto rural communities while the benefits flow elsewhere
This process needs genuine reform, with stricter assessment, greater transparency and real consideration given to the people who live and work in these regions rather than treating their concerns as an afterthought
Even more concerning is what happens after approval Developers routinely return with modification requests, and these too are almost always approved regardless of the objections raised by local communities It creates the impression that the initial approval is only the beginning of a rolling process where projects can expand or change with little real accountability
Evidence presented through parliamentary inquiries and recorded in Hansard shows this is not an isolated concern but a widespread one There have been more than 150 documented instances of community opposition across Australia, along with hundreds of formal submissions and letters objecting to the industrialisation of productive agricultural land and the imposition of high voltage transmission infrastructure, including land acquisition across farming regions
Voices from within regional communities are also raising alarm Gary Stroll has described the situation as absolutely diabolical for rural areas, arguing that no one in these communities truly benefits from the developments
The use of large workers camps further undermines claims of regional benefit These camps are largely self contained, with accommodation, catering and even licensed facilities such as bars provided on site, meaning workers have little reason to spend in local towns Instead, they place additional strain on local resources such as water and diesel while contributing very little to the surrounding economy There are also growing concerns within rural communities about the social impacts of large temporary workforces, including increased pressure on local policing and reports of antisocial behaviour, concerns which are often raised by residents but dismissed without thorough investigation or transparent reporting
Meanwhile, it is local residents and ratepayers who are left to deal with the consequences, including damaged roads, increased traffic and long term impacts on agricultural land and community wellbeing It is not reasonable that the cost of this infrastructure is effectively shifted onto rural communities while the benefits flow elsewhere
This process needs genuine reform, with stricter assessment, greater transparency and real consideration given to the people who live and work in these regions rather than treating their concerns as an afterthought
Ian Cameron
Object
Ian Cameron
Object
JERILDERIE
,
New South Wales
Message
The 280 page document of Modifications to the Yanco Delta Wind Farm Project as submitted by Origin
Energy are extensive and significant and although the “approved Project is substantially the same”, we
argue that the cumulative modifications of worker’s accommodation, increased disturbance footprint,
removal of vegetation for road widening and transmission line access to the Dinawan Hub amounts to
an huge overall change to the original Project EIS that was granted Development Consent in December
2023.
In particular we are concerned with the following:
Access and Transport Routes
It would be preferable to confine the use of the local road network for all the pending developments in
our area.
This would be to have ONE access point off Kidman Way for all developers . Cadell Road provides the
ideal entry point off the Kidman Way opposite the Dinawan Substation, it would then mean all traffic
would access their developments via McLennons Bore Rd ( western portion ) to Mabins Well exchange
and south onto Wilson’s Rd in the case of Origin.
This proposal would concentrate the traffic to a route that will have less impact on local residences,
reduce excessive capital expense on multiple road upgrades to accommodate the wishes of developers,
reduce the unnecessary removal of multiple areas of roadside vegetation, reduce the need for multiple
turning lanes off Kidman Way and ultimately reduce the maintenance costs to Murrumbigee Council
post construction.
The original EIS suggested “The road network currently operates well within its capacity and have a
satisfactory Level of Service (LoS). During Project construction, all the roads in the network would
continue to operate at LoS A, with the exception of a section of Liddles Lane, and a section of the
Jerilderie Street, which would experience a decrease in LoS from A to B during peak hours. All roads
would continue to see a stable flow of traffic and no significant road performance impacts are
anticipated”
“4,388 one way OSOM movements” listed to gain access via Jerrys Lane and Liddles will require
significant road widening, vegetation removal and upgrading. In addition, there will be light vehicle
access of ?? vehicles. This creates a huge burden to landowners along these roads for movement of
stock, staff to and from work and day to day access.
Disturbance Footprint
The modifications include the addition of Worker Accommodation for 850 people, two extra OSOM
route options, WTG relocations with increased disturbance footprint for foundations excavation and
hardstand, increased disturbance for cable routes not on tracks, a 750mt 330kv line on Kidman Way to
Dinawan and expansion of Dinawan substation, this has increased the disturbance footprint by 700%
from 238ha to 1,625ha – as stated in the modifications. The inclusion of 30 wind towers south of The
Yanco Creek which was originally outside the SWREZ and many kilometres from the rest of the Project is
questioned. The impact of further transmission lines to link this portion to the main Project area is
highly destructive to vegetation along roadsides and the impact of spanning The Yanco Creek requiring
easements to a landowner with NSW Biodiversity Conservation Management Plans on their property is
causing great angst.
Transmission Routes
Due to the NSW Energy Company’s consistent failure to coordinate projects and reduce the impact they
will have in the SWREZ, we will be dealing with a spaghetti bowl of wires leading into the Dinawan
Substation. The construction of the Dinawan Substation was outside of the initial SWREZ and this
allowed for the landlocking of the substation by one developer. They utilised this to their advantage,
preventing competing projects from gaining access via private land.
The proposed route from YDWF to the Dinawan Substation along McLennon’s Bore Rd will destroy a
significant stand of Weeping Myall forest. The protection of native vegetation on our public roadsides
provides a valued corridor for native vegetation and protected species.
In the initial EIS, the impact to this native vegetation was completely overlooked while the project was
still given approval. Now the reality that large amounts of vegetation will need to be cleared shows the
need for a better route. A neighbouring landholder who is hosting a competing project has offered land
within their project boundary to reduce the impact to the native vegetation. It is our understanding that
conversations between YDWF and the competing developer have stalled and so YDWF will push ahead
with the clearing of land on public roads for transmission lines. It is now that NSW Department of
Planning and Energy Co need to get all developers into the room together and orchestrate how the
transmission into the substation will be completed. Competing projects are not constructing the most
cost effective and efficient layouts for the energy grid as a whole. Ultimately the consumer will pay for
this as power costs will be higher, and construction times longer.
Water
Due to the inclusion of Worker Accommodation for 850 persons in the Modification, the water
requirements will be vastly increased. The Yanco region is key part of Murray-Darling Basin and
construction of this size must consider the inter-catchment water dynamics and salinity thresholds.
Regular soil and water monitoring of impact on groundwater and groundwater eco systems should be
provided.
The project area includes flat, low-lying terrain prone to stormwater accumulation and surface runoff,
particularly during flood events associated with the Murrumbidgee catchment system. There is risk of
pollutants being transported into drainage channels, livestock water sources, and nearby cropland.
Telecommunications
The telecommunications in the region around the YDWF have been majorly affected by the
implementation of the SWREZ. During the construction of the Project Energy Connect transmission line,
the local community has dealt with major disruptions to telecommunications. There has been no
solution to this and when the construction commences of 2 developments the local population will deal
with even more disruption. While the YDWF has stated they will advocate with the Energy Corporation
of NSW to develop a co-ordinated approach, we expect at a minimum that the local network receives an
upgrade before early works are commenced.
Once works commence the local community will be dealing with constant phone call drop outs and
internet service that does not provide any download or upload during the day while workers are out of
camp and utilising the local telecommunications.
Many family farming businesses in the near vicinity to the project are dealing with major financial
impacts while receiving little to no financial compensation. The funding of high quality
telecommunications is required to lesson the impact to the local community. It will have immediate
impact on the running of our businesses
Insurance and liability – a huge issue for landholders near wind/solar farms, particularly with fast
moving grass fires which can be started inadvertently and escalate causing damage to renewable energy
infrastructure, resulting in potential liabilities that may not be covered by standard farm public liability
insurance.
We understand that the AEIC released a hold-harmless model in December 2025 intended to address
concerns relating to farm public liability insurance. We would appreciate clarification as to whether this
model is expected to become a mandated requirement for renewable energy developers constructing
infrastructure that could potentially be affected by incidents originating on neighbouring farmland.
Security and Social Impacts
Incidences of break in, damage to private property and theft have been experienced to local landowners
with the construction of Transgrid line and this is an ongoing concern with the increase in workers in the
district. Noise, fire risk and visual impacts will carry a heavy toll on farming families used to the quiet,
undisturbed landscape which is already impacting the mental health of those closely affected.
In finishing, it is unbelievable that a Major Project of this importance could be submitted in a rushed
and incomplete manner with so many crucial issues lacking – worker’s camp for 850 – where were
workers expected to come from??? Additional biodiversity and cultural heritage surveys required
which are crucial to protect the native flora and fauna to the area. Increase in footprint disturbance
of 700%. Roads not requiring any upgrades when 4,388 one way OSOM movements are now in the
Modifications. Advice given by Energy Co representatives at a “drop in information sessions” was that
each Project given access to the grid was scrutinised carefully. These Modifications do not reflect this.
Energy are extensive and significant and although the “approved Project is substantially the same”, we
argue that the cumulative modifications of worker’s accommodation, increased disturbance footprint,
removal of vegetation for road widening and transmission line access to the Dinawan Hub amounts to
an huge overall change to the original Project EIS that was granted Development Consent in December
2023.
In particular we are concerned with the following:
Access and Transport Routes
It would be preferable to confine the use of the local road network for all the pending developments in
our area.
This would be to have ONE access point off Kidman Way for all developers . Cadell Road provides the
ideal entry point off the Kidman Way opposite the Dinawan Substation, it would then mean all traffic
would access their developments via McLennons Bore Rd ( western portion ) to Mabins Well exchange
and south onto Wilson’s Rd in the case of Origin.
This proposal would concentrate the traffic to a route that will have less impact on local residences,
reduce excessive capital expense on multiple road upgrades to accommodate the wishes of developers,
reduce the unnecessary removal of multiple areas of roadside vegetation, reduce the need for multiple
turning lanes off Kidman Way and ultimately reduce the maintenance costs to Murrumbigee Council
post construction.
The original EIS suggested “The road network currently operates well within its capacity and have a
satisfactory Level of Service (LoS). During Project construction, all the roads in the network would
continue to operate at LoS A, with the exception of a section of Liddles Lane, and a section of the
Jerilderie Street, which would experience a decrease in LoS from A to B during peak hours. All roads
would continue to see a stable flow of traffic and no significant road performance impacts are
anticipated”
“4,388 one way OSOM movements” listed to gain access via Jerrys Lane and Liddles will require
significant road widening, vegetation removal and upgrading. In addition, there will be light vehicle
access of ?? vehicles. This creates a huge burden to landowners along these roads for movement of
stock, staff to and from work and day to day access.
Disturbance Footprint
The modifications include the addition of Worker Accommodation for 850 people, two extra OSOM
route options, WTG relocations with increased disturbance footprint for foundations excavation and
hardstand, increased disturbance for cable routes not on tracks, a 750mt 330kv line on Kidman Way to
Dinawan and expansion of Dinawan substation, this has increased the disturbance footprint by 700%
from 238ha to 1,625ha – as stated in the modifications. The inclusion of 30 wind towers south of The
Yanco Creek which was originally outside the SWREZ and many kilometres from the rest of the Project is
questioned. The impact of further transmission lines to link this portion to the main Project area is
highly destructive to vegetation along roadsides and the impact of spanning The Yanco Creek requiring
easements to a landowner with NSW Biodiversity Conservation Management Plans on their property is
causing great angst.
Transmission Routes
Due to the NSW Energy Company’s consistent failure to coordinate projects and reduce the impact they
will have in the SWREZ, we will be dealing with a spaghetti bowl of wires leading into the Dinawan
Substation. The construction of the Dinawan Substation was outside of the initial SWREZ and this
allowed for the landlocking of the substation by one developer. They utilised this to their advantage,
preventing competing projects from gaining access via private land.
The proposed route from YDWF to the Dinawan Substation along McLennon’s Bore Rd will destroy a
significant stand of Weeping Myall forest. The protection of native vegetation on our public roadsides
provides a valued corridor for native vegetation and protected species.
In the initial EIS, the impact to this native vegetation was completely overlooked while the project was
still given approval. Now the reality that large amounts of vegetation will need to be cleared shows the
need for a better route. A neighbouring landholder who is hosting a competing project has offered land
within their project boundary to reduce the impact to the native vegetation. It is our understanding that
conversations between YDWF and the competing developer have stalled and so YDWF will push ahead
with the clearing of land on public roads for transmission lines. It is now that NSW Department of
Planning and Energy Co need to get all developers into the room together and orchestrate how the
transmission into the substation will be completed. Competing projects are not constructing the most
cost effective and efficient layouts for the energy grid as a whole. Ultimately the consumer will pay for
this as power costs will be higher, and construction times longer.
Water
Due to the inclusion of Worker Accommodation for 850 persons in the Modification, the water
requirements will be vastly increased. The Yanco region is key part of Murray-Darling Basin and
construction of this size must consider the inter-catchment water dynamics and salinity thresholds.
Regular soil and water monitoring of impact on groundwater and groundwater eco systems should be
provided.
The project area includes flat, low-lying terrain prone to stormwater accumulation and surface runoff,
particularly during flood events associated with the Murrumbidgee catchment system. There is risk of
pollutants being transported into drainage channels, livestock water sources, and nearby cropland.
Telecommunications
The telecommunications in the region around the YDWF have been majorly affected by the
implementation of the SWREZ. During the construction of the Project Energy Connect transmission line,
the local community has dealt with major disruptions to telecommunications. There has been no
solution to this and when the construction commences of 2 developments the local population will deal
with even more disruption. While the YDWF has stated they will advocate with the Energy Corporation
of NSW to develop a co-ordinated approach, we expect at a minimum that the local network receives an
upgrade before early works are commenced.
Once works commence the local community will be dealing with constant phone call drop outs and
internet service that does not provide any download or upload during the day while workers are out of
camp and utilising the local telecommunications.
Many family farming businesses in the near vicinity to the project are dealing with major financial
impacts while receiving little to no financial compensation. The funding of high quality
telecommunications is required to lesson the impact to the local community. It will have immediate
impact on the running of our businesses
Insurance and liability – a huge issue for landholders near wind/solar farms, particularly with fast
moving grass fires which can be started inadvertently and escalate causing damage to renewable energy
infrastructure, resulting in potential liabilities that may not be covered by standard farm public liability
insurance.
We understand that the AEIC released a hold-harmless model in December 2025 intended to address
concerns relating to farm public liability insurance. We would appreciate clarification as to whether this
model is expected to become a mandated requirement for renewable energy developers constructing
infrastructure that could potentially be affected by incidents originating on neighbouring farmland.
Security and Social Impacts
Incidences of break in, damage to private property and theft have been experienced to local landowners
with the construction of Transgrid line and this is an ongoing concern with the increase in workers in the
district. Noise, fire risk and visual impacts will carry a heavy toll on farming families used to the quiet,
undisturbed landscape which is already impacting the mental health of those closely affected.
In finishing, it is unbelievable that a Major Project of this importance could be submitted in a rushed
and incomplete manner with so many crucial issues lacking – worker’s camp for 850 – where were
workers expected to come from??? Additional biodiversity and cultural heritage surveys required
which are crucial to protect the native flora and fauna to the area. Increase in footprint disturbance
of 700%. Roads not requiring any upgrades when 4,388 one way OSOM movements are now in the
Modifications. Advice given by Energy Co representatives at a “drop in information sessions” was that
each Project given access to the grid was scrutinised carefully. These Modifications do not reflect this.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
JERILDERIE
,
New South Wales
Message
The 280 page document of Modifications to the Yanco Delta Wind Farm Project as submitted by Origin Energy are extensive and significant and although the “approved Project is substantially the same”, we argue that the cumulative modifications of worker’s accommodation, increased disturbance footprint, removal of vegetation for road widening and transmission line access to the Dinawan Hub amounts to an huge overall change to the original Project EIS that was granted Development Consent in December 2023.
In particular we are concerned with the following:
Access and Transport Routes
It would be preferable to confine the use of the local road network for all the pending developments in our area.
This would be to have ONE access point off Kidman Way for all developers . Cadell Road provides the ideal entry point off the Kidman Way opposite the Dinawan Substation, it would then mean all traffic would access their developments via McLennons Bore Rd ( western portion ) to Mabins Well exchange and south onto Wilson’s Rd in the case of Origin.
This proposal would concentrate the traffic to a route that will have less impact on local residences, reduce excessive capital expense on multiple road upgrades to accommodate the wishes of developers, reduce the unnecessary removal of multiple areas of roadside vegetation, reduce the need for multiple turning lanes off Kidman Way and ultimately reduce the maintenance costs to Murrumbigee Council post construction.
The original EIS suggested “The road network currently operates well within its capacity and have a satisfactory Level of Service (LoS). During Project construction, all the roads in the network would continue to operate at LoS A, with the exception of a section of Liddles Lane, and a section of the Jerilderie Street, which would experience a decrease in LoS from A to B during peak hours. All roads would continue to see a stable flow of traffic and no significant road performance impacts are anticipated”
“4,388 one way OSOM movements” listed to gain access via Jerrys Lane and Liddles will require significant road widening, vegetation removal and upgrading. In addition, there will be light vehicle access of ?? vehicles. This creates a huge burden to landowners along these roads for movement of stock, staff to and from work and day to day access.
Disturbance Footprint
The modifications include the addition of Worker Accommodation for 850 people, two extra OSOM route options, WTG relocations with increased disturbance footprint for foundations excavation and hardstand, increased disturbance for cable routes not on tracks, a 750mt 330kv line on Kidman Way to Dinawan and expansion of Dinawan substation, this has increased the disturbance footprint by 700% from 238ha to 1,625ha – as stated in the modifications. The inclusion of 30 wind towers south of The Yanco Creek which was originally outside the SWREZ and many kilometres from the rest of the Project is questioned. The impact of further transmission lines to link this portion to the main Project area is highly destructive to vegetation along roadsides and the impact of spanning The Yanco Creek requiring easements to a landowner with NSW Biodiversity Conservation Management Plans on their property is causing great angst.
Transmission Routes
Due to the NSW Energy Company’s consistent failure to coordinate projects and reduce the impact they will have in the SWREZ, we will be dealing with a spaghetti bowl of wires leading into the Dinawan Substation. The construction of the Dinawan Substation was outside of the initial SWREZ and this allowed for the landlocking of the substation by one developer. They utilised this to their advantage, preventing competing projects from gaining access via private land.
The proposed route from YDWF to the Dinawan Substation along McLennon’s Bore Rd will destroy a significant stand of Weeping Myall forest. The protection of native vegetation on our public roadsides provides a valued corridor for native vegetation and protected species.
In the initial EIS, the impact to this native vegetation was completely overlooked while the project was still given approval. Now the reality that large amounts of vegetation will need to be cleared shows the need for a better route. A neighbouring landholder who is hosting a competing project has offered land within their project boundary to reduce the impact to the native vegetation. It is our understanding that conversations between YDWF and the competing developer have stalled and so YDWF will push ahead with the clearing of land on public roads for transmission lines. It is now that NSW Department of Planning and Energy Co need to get all developers into the room together and orchestrate how the transmission into the substation will be completed. Competing projects are not constructing the most cost effective and efficient layouts for the energy grid as a whole. Ultimately the consumer will pay for this as power costs will be higher, and construction times longer.
Water
Due to the inclusion of Worker Accommodation for 850 persons in the Modification, the water requirements will be vastly increased. The Yanco region is key part of Murray-Darling Basin and construction of this size must consider the inter-catchment water dynamics and salinity thresholds. Regular soil and water monitoring of impact on groundwater and groundwater eco systems should be provided.
The project area includes flat, low-lying terrain prone to stormwater accumulation and surface runoff, particularly during flood events associated with the Murrumbidgee catchment system. There is risk of pollutants being transported into drainage channels, livestock water sources, and nearby cropland.
Telecommunications
The telecommunications in the region around the YDWF have been majorly affected by the implementation of the SWREZ. During the construction of the Project Energy Connect transmission line, the local community has dealt with major disruptions to telecommunications. There has been no solution to this and when the construction commences of 2 developments the local population will deal with even more disruption. While the YDWF has stated they will advocate with the Energy Corporation of NSW to develop a co-ordinated approach, we expect at a minimum that the local network receives an upgrade before early works are commenced.
Once works commence the local community will be dealing with constant phone call drop outs and internet service that does not provide any download or upload during the day while workers are out of camp and utilising the local telecommunications.
Many family farming businesses in the near vicinity to the project are dealing with major financial impacts while receiving little to no financial compensation. The funding of high quality telecommunications is required to lesson the impact to the local community. It will have immediate impact on the running of our businesses
Insurance and liability – a huge issue for landholders near wind/solar farms, particularly with fast moving grass fires which can be started inadvertently and escalate causing damage to renewable energy infrastructure, resulting in potential liabilities that may not be covered by standard farm public liability insurance.
We understand that the AEIC released a hold-harmless model in December 2025 intended to address concerns relating to farm public liability insurance. We would appreciate clarification as to whether this model is expected to become a mandated requirement for renewable energy developers constructing infrastructure that could potentially be affected by incidents originating on neighbouring farmland.
Security and Social Impacts
Incidences of break in, damage to private property and theft have been experienced to local landowners with the construction of Transgrid line and this is an ongoing concern with the increase in workers in the district. Noise, fire risk and visual impacts will carry a heavy toll on farming families used to the quiet, undisturbed landscape which is already impacting the mental health of those closely affected.
In finishing, it is unbelievable that a Major Project of this importance could be submitted in a rushed and incomplete manner with so many crucial issues lacking – worker’s camp for 850 – where were workers expected to come from??? Additional biodiversity and cultural heritage surveys required which are crucial to protect the native flora and fauna to the area. Increase in footprint disturbance of 700%. Roads not requiring any upgrades when 4,388 one way OSOM movements are now in the Modifications. Advice given by Energy Co representatives at a “drop in information sessions” was that each Project given access to the grid was scrutinised carefully. These Modifications do not reflect this.
In particular we are concerned with the following:
Access and Transport Routes
It would be preferable to confine the use of the local road network for all the pending developments in our area.
This would be to have ONE access point off Kidman Way for all developers . Cadell Road provides the ideal entry point off the Kidman Way opposite the Dinawan Substation, it would then mean all traffic would access their developments via McLennons Bore Rd ( western portion ) to Mabins Well exchange and south onto Wilson’s Rd in the case of Origin.
This proposal would concentrate the traffic to a route that will have less impact on local residences, reduce excessive capital expense on multiple road upgrades to accommodate the wishes of developers, reduce the unnecessary removal of multiple areas of roadside vegetation, reduce the need for multiple turning lanes off Kidman Way and ultimately reduce the maintenance costs to Murrumbigee Council post construction.
The original EIS suggested “The road network currently operates well within its capacity and have a satisfactory Level of Service (LoS). During Project construction, all the roads in the network would continue to operate at LoS A, with the exception of a section of Liddles Lane, and a section of the Jerilderie Street, which would experience a decrease in LoS from A to B during peak hours. All roads would continue to see a stable flow of traffic and no significant road performance impacts are anticipated”
“4,388 one way OSOM movements” listed to gain access via Jerrys Lane and Liddles will require significant road widening, vegetation removal and upgrading. In addition, there will be light vehicle access of ?? vehicles. This creates a huge burden to landowners along these roads for movement of stock, staff to and from work and day to day access.
Disturbance Footprint
The modifications include the addition of Worker Accommodation for 850 people, two extra OSOM route options, WTG relocations with increased disturbance footprint for foundations excavation and hardstand, increased disturbance for cable routes not on tracks, a 750mt 330kv line on Kidman Way to Dinawan and expansion of Dinawan substation, this has increased the disturbance footprint by 700% from 238ha to 1,625ha – as stated in the modifications. The inclusion of 30 wind towers south of The Yanco Creek which was originally outside the SWREZ and many kilometres from the rest of the Project is questioned. The impact of further transmission lines to link this portion to the main Project area is highly destructive to vegetation along roadsides and the impact of spanning The Yanco Creek requiring easements to a landowner with NSW Biodiversity Conservation Management Plans on their property is causing great angst.
Transmission Routes
Due to the NSW Energy Company’s consistent failure to coordinate projects and reduce the impact they will have in the SWREZ, we will be dealing with a spaghetti bowl of wires leading into the Dinawan Substation. The construction of the Dinawan Substation was outside of the initial SWREZ and this allowed for the landlocking of the substation by one developer. They utilised this to their advantage, preventing competing projects from gaining access via private land.
The proposed route from YDWF to the Dinawan Substation along McLennon’s Bore Rd will destroy a significant stand of Weeping Myall forest. The protection of native vegetation on our public roadsides provides a valued corridor for native vegetation and protected species.
In the initial EIS, the impact to this native vegetation was completely overlooked while the project was still given approval. Now the reality that large amounts of vegetation will need to be cleared shows the need for a better route. A neighbouring landholder who is hosting a competing project has offered land within their project boundary to reduce the impact to the native vegetation. It is our understanding that conversations between YDWF and the competing developer have stalled and so YDWF will push ahead with the clearing of land on public roads for transmission lines. It is now that NSW Department of Planning and Energy Co need to get all developers into the room together and orchestrate how the transmission into the substation will be completed. Competing projects are not constructing the most cost effective and efficient layouts for the energy grid as a whole. Ultimately the consumer will pay for this as power costs will be higher, and construction times longer.
Water
Due to the inclusion of Worker Accommodation for 850 persons in the Modification, the water requirements will be vastly increased. The Yanco region is key part of Murray-Darling Basin and construction of this size must consider the inter-catchment water dynamics and salinity thresholds. Regular soil and water monitoring of impact on groundwater and groundwater eco systems should be provided.
The project area includes flat, low-lying terrain prone to stormwater accumulation and surface runoff, particularly during flood events associated with the Murrumbidgee catchment system. There is risk of pollutants being transported into drainage channels, livestock water sources, and nearby cropland.
Telecommunications
The telecommunications in the region around the YDWF have been majorly affected by the implementation of the SWREZ. During the construction of the Project Energy Connect transmission line, the local community has dealt with major disruptions to telecommunications. There has been no solution to this and when the construction commences of 2 developments the local population will deal with even more disruption. While the YDWF has stated they will advocate with the Energy Corporation of NSW to develop a co-ordinated approach, we expect at a minimum that the local network receives an upgrade before early works are commenced.
Once works commence the local community will be dealing with constant phone call drop outs and internet service that does not provide any download or upload during the day while workers are out of camp and utilising the local telecommunications.
Many family farming businesses in the near vicinity to the project are dealing with major financial impacts while receiving little to no financial compensation. The funding of high quality telecommunications is required to lesson the impact to the local community. It will have immediate impact on the running of our businesses
Insurance and liability – a huge issue for landholders near wind/solar farms, particularly with fast moving grass fires which can be started inadvertently and escalate causing damage to renewable energy infrastructure, resulting in potential liabilities that may not be covered by standard farm public liability insurance.
We understand that the AEIC released a hold-harmless model in December 2025 intended to address concerns relating to farm public liability insurance. We would appreciate clarification as to whether this model is expected to become a mandated requirement for renewable energy developers constructing infrastructure that could potentially be affected by incidents originating on neighbouring farmland.
Security and Social Impacts
Incidences of break in, damage to private property and theft have been experienced to local landowners with the construction of Transgrid line and this is an ongoing concern with the increase in workers in the district. Noise, fire risk and visual impacts will carry a heavy toll on farming families used to the quiet, undisturbed landscape which is already impacting the mental health of those closely affected.
In finishing, it is unbelievable that a Major Project of this importance could be submitted in a rushed and incomplete manner with so many crucial issues lacking – worker’s camp for 850 – where were workers expected to come from??? Additional biodiversity and cultural heritage surveys required which are crucial to protect the native flora and fauna to the area. Increase in footprint disturbance of 700%. Roads not requiring any upgrades when 4,388 one way OSOM movements are now in the Modifications. Advice given by Energy Co representatives at a “drop in information sessions” was that each Project given access to the grid was scrutinised carefully. These Modifications do not reflect this.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
GALA VALE
,
New South Wales
Message
Please see the attachment for full response
When using acronyms it is best practice to spell it out in the first instance, and the first time used in each chapter. It makes the document easier for the general public to read.
You should include an acronym table at the front of the document if you are going to use acronyms without description in the executive summary.
Check your work, there are often double ups of words e.g. Table E-1 last paragraph has Significant. Significant progress….
Grammer is terrible throughout the whole document.
Mapping is inadequate, quite small, should be full page and scalable.
In the Appendix I there is reference to appendices, however, this document contains no appendices, if referring to appendices in another document, then this should point to the appropriate document.
Show the community some respect and at the very least spell road names correctly, e.g. Caddell Road pg 60 of the TTIA final is actually Cadell Road…
Policy and guidelines
The magnitude of increased biodiversity impact (including a greater than sevenfold increase in impacts to Myall Woodland EEC and over 700 ha of additional clearing) is inconsistent with the legal test for modification under section 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act. The proposal represents a materially different development and should be subject to a new development application and full reassessment.
Issues SEARs including supplementary SEARS for the Modified Project
The Project has failed to adequately address the specific risks as listed below (Appendix A protected matters relevant to the Yanco Delta Wind Farm)
• Lack of detail on the decommissioning stage of the proposed action, including waste removal and management.
• Further detail (with supporting evidence) of proposed measures to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities, including the use of enforceable language (‘will’, ‘must’, etc.) and consideration of the S.M.A.R.T Principle.
• Assessment of the proposed action against the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)
The modification report did not identify assess and mitigate impacts in relation to potential contamination as specified below (Supplementary SEARs).
• Identify, assess and mitigate social and economic impacts (both positive and negative) of the proposed action, including in relation to potential contamination (e.g. PFAS, PFOS and microplastics), impacts on agricultural land (including fire risk), sediment and erosion, impact of workers accommodation camp on roads/traffic, and impacts on the local community
BDAR and BAM-C
The BDAR explicitly acknowledges that the approved project did not assess a realistic disturbance footprint. This is inconsistent with the BAM requirement to assess the full extent of likely impacts and raises serious concerns regarding the validity of both the approved and modified biodiversity assessments.
The application of partial loss does not demonstrate a robust, evidence-based prediction of future vegetation integrity as required under the BAM. The proposed ongoing disturbance regime is likely to result in progressive degradation rather than maintenance of biodiversity values.
The BDAR adopts an inconsistent approach whereby species are assumed present for credit calculations but simultaneously described as unlikely to occur. This undermines the precautionary basis of the assessment and reduces confidence in both impact and offset calculations.
The conclusion that impacts to Plains-wanderer habitat have been avoided is not supported by a robust habitat assessment. The dismissal of mapped habitat based on land use classification is inconsistent with BAM requirements and risks underestimating impacts to this critically endangered species.
The turbine strike risk assessment is not supported by quantitative modelling or population-level analysis and therefore does not meet the requirements for assessing prescribed impacts under the BAM.
The BDAR does not demonstrate that impacts have been avoided and minimised to the greatest extent practicable as required under Chapter 2 of the BAM. The substantial increase in biodiversity impacts indicates that avoidance has not been a primary determinant of project design
The vegetation integrity assessment may not provide a sufficiently representative or robust dataset to support the assigned condition classes across the disturbance footprint, introducing uncertainty into ecosystem credit calculations under Chapter 4 of the BAM
The BDAR adopts inconsistent logic in applying assumed presence while asserting low likelihood of occurrence. This approach is not aligned with the precautionary framework underpinning species assessment in Chapter 5 of the BAM.
The assessment of prescribed impacts associated with turbine strike does not provide sufficient quantitative or population-level analysis to meet the intent of Chapter 6 of the BAM.
NSW EPA
There is no reference to the NSW EPA Waste classification
No clear compliance pathway demonstrated
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
No clear compliance with
waste avoidance and resource recovery act 2001 (NSW)
Battery stewardship schemes
Key concerns
The justification indicating that is is substantially the same development is weak, while it is still a wind energy generating project,
its impacts are excessively much larger than the approved EIS, they have to be when you are moving from a 253 ha project to one over 1100 ha.
There are significant increase in biodiversity impacts without a strong alternatives analysis
Alternatives presented for the connecting transmission line were superficial at best.
The traffic assessment underplays OSOM movements and safety risks.
Cumulative impacts are under analysed.
The BDAR appears superficial at best.
Background summary
Indicates that the Mod 2 was initiated due to constraints imposed by other transmission projects and existing transmission infrastructure.
Where in fact, personal comms between myself and the project lead at the time (insert comms date here) indicated that the changes were required because they had “inherited a non constructable project” Wednesday 14 May 2025.
This is also highlighted pg 23 of the “Engagement Outcomes Report”
“The increase in the project footprint is required for constructability and safe, efficient delivery of the Project.”
At no stage did they indicate that the reason for the modification was for any other reason.
To enable construction, they had to substantially increase the access roads, trenching for cables, areas for construction, inclusion of water treatment and concrete batching plants and connecting transmission line. This led to an excessive expansion of the disturbance footprint.
Engagement
The first inkling of engagement I was notified by concerned near neighbours that Origin was undertaking engagement activities in Coleambally and Jerilderie. As a near neighbour, I have never been approached or consulted by the Proponent, even after requesting information when I have attended the community session (run primarly by EnergyCo) I have been brushed off and not consulted with. I have initiated follow up phone calls on four separate occasions and have not received responses to my requests for information.
Recently I have reached out to a new comms and engagement person and have had less than satisfactory responses.
This is in contradiction to the statement
“Origin will maintain timely, accessible and appropriate communication of project information to enhance community understanding of project activities, outcomes and opportunities for involvement throughout all stages of the Modification Application and over the life of the Project” pg iii
Community engagement
Not well advertised
Not advertised with lead up time to organise availability
Project engagement team refused to engage meaningfully with near neighbours who are within 4 km of transmission line
Project refused to supply information on soil survey after repeated requests both in person, on the phone and online via email
Refused to engage in discussions surrounding safety and security from building a small town of 845 people but have not shown engagement with local law enforcement to help manage this influx of people especially in regard to rural crime where there has already been a spike in theft and trespass associated with the Dinawan substation build (while it is acknowledged that some of this has not been reported).
Consultation – the supplementary SEARS issued with the Modification 2 request indicates that
“The Department emphasises the importance of consultation during the preparation of the modification report and refers you to the Undertaking Engagement Guidelines for State Significant Projects. The Department’s expectation is that Applicants genuinely consider stakeholder views in project design and in identification of appropriate mitigation and management measures.”
From personal experience, it is my firm belief that the engagement to date has been disingenuous. There has been very little response from the Project team to near neighbours when very reasonable requests have been made.
Attachment A – Consultation “Provide evidence of consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including detail of how any issues raised have been addressed by the modification” – this can not be fully completed by the Project as they have not at any stage addressed any issues raised by myself. Engagement Outcomes Report states that non associated receivers within 8km of the project have been identified. I can clearly confirm that we had been missed, and we attended the engagement session in 2025 to highlight our concerns. The engagement activities include a “mail out” we did not receive any communication via email, mail or in person, ever. Agricultural livestock movements LLS legislation regulation requires traffic to give way to livestock, not the other way around. The project should not be burdened with additional
When using acronyms it is best practice to spell it out in the first instance, and the first time used in each chapter. It makes the document easier for the general public to read.
You should include an acronym table at the front of the document if you are going to use acronyms without description in the executive summary.
Check your work, there are often double ups of words e.g. Table E-1 last paragraph has Significant. Significant progress….
Grammer is terrible throughout the whole document.
Mapping is inadequate, quite small, should be full page and scalable.
In the Appendix I there is reference to appendices, however, this document contains no appendices, if referring to appendices in another document, then this should point to the appropriate document.
Show the community some respect and at the very least spell road names correctly, e.g. Caddell Road pg 60 of the TTIA final is actually Cadell Road…
Policy and guidelines
The magnitude of increased biodiversity impact (including a greater than sevenfold increase in impacts to Myall Woodland EEC and over 700 ha of additional clearing) is inconsistent with the legal test for modification under section 4.55(2) of the EP&A Act. The proposal represents a materially different development and should be subject to a new development application and full reassessment.
Issues SEARs including supplementary SEARS for the Modified Project
The Project has failed to adequately address the specific risks as listed below (Appendix A protected matters relevant to the Yanco Delta Wind Farm)
• Lack of detail on the decommissioning stage of the proposed action, including waste removal and management.
• Further detail (with supporting evidence) of proposed measures to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities, including the use of enforceable language (‘will’, ‘must’, etc.) and consideration of the S.M.A.R.T Principle.
• Assessment of the proposed action against the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)
The modification report did not identify assess and mitigate impacts in relation to potential contamination as specified below (Supplementary SEARs).
• Identify, assess and mitigate social and economic impacts (both positive and negative) of the proposed action, including in relation to potential contamination (e.g. PFAS, PFOS and microplastics), impacts on agricultural land (including fire risk), sediment and erosion, impact of workers accommodation camp on roads/traffic, and impacts on the local community
BDAR and BAM-C
The BDAR explicitly acknowledges that the approved project did not assess a realistic disturbance footprint. This is inconsistent with the BAM requirement to assess the full extent of likely impacts and raises serious concerns regarding the validity of both the approved and modified biodiversity assessments.
The application of partial loss does not demonstrate a robust, evidence-based prediction of future vegetation integrity as required under the BAM. The proposed ongoing disturbance regime is likely to result in progressive degradation rather than maintenance of biodiversity values.
The BDAR adopts an inconsistent approach whereby species are assumed present for credit calculations but simultaneously described as unlikely to occur. This undermines the precautionary basis of the assessment and reduces confidence in both impact and offset calculations.
The conclusion that impacts to Plains-wanderer habitat have been avoided is not supported by a robust habitat assessment. The dismissal of mapped habitat based on land use classification is inconsistent with BAM requirements and risks underestimating impacts to this critically endangered species.
The turbine strike risk assessment is not supported by quantitative modelling or population-level analysis and therefore does not meet the requirements for assessing prescribed impacts under the BAM.
The BDAR does not demonstrate that impacts have been avoided and minimised to the greatest extent practicable as required under Chapter 2 of the BAM. The substantial increase in biodiversity impacts indicates that avoidance has not been a primary determinant of project design
The vegetation integrity assessment may not provide a sufficiently representative or robust dataset to support the assigned condition classes across the disturbance footprint, introducing uncertainty into ecosystem credit calculations under Chapter 4 of the BAM
The BDAR adopts inconsistent logic in applying assumed presence while asserting low likelihood of occurrence. This approach is not aligned with the precautionary framework underpinning species assessment in Chapter 5 of the BAM.
The assessment of prescribed impacts associated with turbine strike does not provide sufficient quantitative or population-level analysis to meet the intent of Chapter 6 of the BAM.
NSW EPA
There is no reference to the NSW EPA Waste classification
No clear compliance pathway demonstrated
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997
No clear compliance with
waste avoidance and resource recovery act 2001 (NSW)
Battery stewardship schemes
Key concerns
The justification indicating that is is substantially the same development is weak, while it is still a wind energy generating project,
its impacts are excessively much larger than the approved EIS, they have to be when you are moving from a 253 ha project to one over 1100 ha.
There are significant increase in biodiversity impacts without a strong alternatives analysis
Alternatives presented for the connecting transmission line were superficial at best.
The traffic assessment underplays OSOM movements and safety risks.
Cumulative impacts are under analysed.
The BDAR appears superficial at best.
Background summary
Indicates that the Mod 2 was initiated due to constraints imposed by other transmission projects and existing transmission infrastructure.
Where in fact, personal comms between myself and the project lead at the time (insert comms date here) indicated that the changes were required because they had “inherited a non constructable project” Wednesday 14 May 2025.
This is also highlighted pg 23 of the “Engagement Outcomes Report”
“The increase in the project footprint is required for constructability and safe, efficient delivery of the Project.”
At no stage did they indicate that the reason for the modification was for any other reason.
To enable construction, they had to substantially increase the access roads, trenching for cables, areas for construction, inclusion of water treatment and concrete batching plants and connecting transmission line. This led to an excessive expansion of the disturbance footprint.
Engagement
The first inkling of engagement I was notified by concerned near neighbours that Origin was undertaking engagement activities in Coleambally and Jerilderie. As a near neighbour, I have never been approached or consulted by the Proponent, even after requesting information when I have attended the community session (run primarly by EnergyCo) I have been brushed off and not consulted with. I have initiated follow up phone calls on four separate occasions and have not received responses to my requests for information.
Recently I have reached out to a new comms and engagement person and have had less than satisfactory responses.
This is in contradiction to the statement
“Origin will maintain timely, accessible and appropriate communication of project information to enhance community understanding of project activities, outcomes and opportunities for involvement throughout all stages of the Modification Application and over the life of the Project” pg iii
Community engagement
Not well advertised
Not advertised with lead up time to organise availability
Project engagement team refused to engage meaningfully with near neighbours who are within 4 km of transmission line
Project refused to supply information on soil survey after repeated requests both in person, on the phone and online via email
Refused to engage in discussions surrounding safety and security from building a small town of 845 people but have not shown engagement with local law enforcement to help manage this influx of people especially in regard to rural crime where there has already been a spike in theft and trespass associated with the Dinawan substation build (while it is acknowledged that some of this has not been reported).
Consultation – the supplementary SEARS issued with the Modification 2 request indicates that
“The Department emphasises the importance of consultation during the preparation of the modification report and refers you to the Undertaking Engagement Guidelines for State Significant Projects. The Department’s expectation is that Applicants genuinely consider stakeholder views in project design and in identification of appropriate mitigation and management measures.”
From personal experience, it is my firm belief that the engagement to date has been disingenuous. There has been very little response from the Project team to near neighbours when very reasonable requests have been made.
Attachment A – Consultation “Provide evidence of consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including detail of how any issues raised have been addressed by the modification” – this can not be fully completed by the Project as they have not at any stage addressed any issues raised by myself. Engagement Outcomes Report states that non associated receivers within 8km of the project have been identified. I can clearly confirm that we had been missed, and we attended the engagement session in 2025 to highlight our concerns. The engagement activities include a “mail out” we did not receive any communication via email, mail or in person, ever. Agricultural livestock movements LLS legislation regulation requires traffic to give way to livestock, not the other way around. The project should not be burdened with additional
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
BUNDURE
,
New South Wales
Message
Issues we are facing
1. The enormous social and economic costs and lack of compensation to near neighbours of Renewable Energy infrastructure and transmission lines is grossly underestimated by all forms of Government and Renewable Energy developers. The cumulative impacts of multiple developments in our local area amplifies this disruption.
Examples are:
Telecommunication connectivity is an ongoing issue since Dinawan HUB construction began in 2023. The 463 bed camp has reduced our telecommunications to near zero.
No Road maintenance combined with hugely increased volume of traffic on single lane raw clay roads has left our roads in ruin.
Security issues – incidences of trespass and damage to properties
Insurance and liability – a huge issue for landholders neighbouring developments which is not being addressed by Project Developers or Government depts or insurance companies. Landholders need legislated protection from claims of damages to renewable infrastructure.
Fire Control – we rely heavily on fixed wing air support to contain fast running grassfires and are extremely concerned that aerial suppression will be compromised with wind turbines.
Social and environmental disruption, mental health, noise and visual disruption, potential decreased land values and the negative impacts on biodiversity are all major issues for our community.
2. Energy Companies are not only failing to acknowledge the hidden costs, stress, and concern about the unknown issues associated with neighbouring their developments, Little respect is shown in the negotiation of individual neighbour agreements by including unacceptable demands. Compensation varies greatly from one Project to another and in one case a large Project developer does not see it necessary to offer much in compensation for their project to go ahead.
Burden is placed on landholders to navigate these agreements with NO support.
Landholders are being pressured to sign agreements, to then lose any right to object to unforeseen detrimental effects that may occur at a later time.
NSW Planning guidelines are too one sided to the developers favour and in some cases being used by developers to minimise their commitment to a negotiated agreement.
3. The transmission lines and issuing of access rights in the SWREZ lacked detailed planning and Departmental scrutiny that Projects of this size and importance to the National Energy transition would in normal circumstances be required.
Example :
The granting of planning consent by NSW Planning to YDWF prematurely in December 2023 has resulted in many and extremely consequential modifications to the project through the EPBC.
There was No detail in original EIS of construction camp (for 890 employees), or camp location, no transmission route to access the Substation, incomplete surveys and gross understatement of disruption to native grasslands, Myall Woodlands and groundwater.
Statistical change in environmental impact from original EIS for YDWF to the amendments sort by the developer:
Natural Grasslands original impact 130 hectares - New Impact 418 hectares - 223% increase in impact
Weeping Myall Woodlands original impact 5 hectares - New impact 159 hectares - 2967% increase in impact
Superb Parrot original impact 31 hectares - new impact 319 hectares - 919% increase in impact
Total project impact on native vegetation originally approved by EPBC 130 hectares - new impact 1269 hectares for a total 978% increase in environmental impact.
4. The coordination of The Energy companies to minimise the environmental footprint in our unique landscape has been nothing short of a disgrace.
Examples: One Developer has the Dinawan Substation Hub landlocked and are not allowing other energy companies access to the substation, resulting in transmission lines along McLennons Bore Road and the unnecessary removal of protected Weeping Myall.
Transmission lines need coordinating with ALL stakeholders. We question the role of Energy Co in co-ordinating transmission lines to the Substation.
5. There doesn’t appear to be a NSW government department willing to make energy companies accountable for their actions.
Local government is not well enough resourced to manage compliance issues.
Under what circumstances would AMEO revoke an energy companies access licence?
6.Community consultation and engagement has been inadequate as town ‘drop-in’ sessions are not attended by many towns people and they have little comprehension of the impacts of the development of REZ’s. We have suggested an open Q&A session with Energy Co and Project developers to increase transparency.
Where is the Cumulative Impacts Report that Energy Co has committed to (Too late )?
Energy Co committed to putting together a report on Cumulative Impacts. Was to be middle of last year, but nothing has been forthcoming?
Where is the NSW Governments review of the Just Terms Act which enables CGT ruling on Transmission Line compensation ?( Too late )
1. The enormous social and economic costs and lack of compensation to near neighbours of Renewable Energy infrastructure and transmission lines is grossly underestimated by all forms of Government and Renewable Energy developers. The cumulative impacts of multiple developments in our local area amplifies this disruption.
Examples are:
Telecommunication connectivity is an ongoing issue since Dinawan HUB construction began in 2023. The 463 bed camp has reduced our telecommunications to near zero.
No Road maintenance combined with hugely increased volume of traffic on single lane raw clay roads has left our roads in ruin.
Security issues – incidences of trespass and damage to properties
Insurance and liability – a huge issue for landholders neighbouring developments which is not being addressed by Project Developers or Government depts or insurance companies. Landholders need legislated protection from claims of damages to renewable infrastructure.
Fire Control – we rely heavily on fixed wing air support to contain fast running grassfires and are extremely concerned that aerial suppression will be compromised with wind turbines.
Social and environmental disruption, mental health, noise and visual disruption, potential decreased land values and the negative impacts on biodiversity are all major issues for our community.
2. Energy Companies are not only failing to acknowledge the hidden costs, stress, and concern about the unknown issues associated with neighbouring their developments, Little respect is shown in the negotiation of individual neighbour agreements by including unacceptable demands. Compensation varies greatly from one Project to another and in one case a large Project developer does not see it necessary to offer much in compensation for their project to go ahead.
Burden is placed on landholders to navigate these agreements with NO support.
Landholders are being pressured to sign agreements, to then lose any right to object to unforeseen detrimental effects that may occur at a later time.
NSW Planning guidelines are too one sided to the developers favour and in some cases being used by developers to minimise their commitment to a negotiated agreement.
3. The transmission lines and issuing of access rights in the SWREZ lacked detailed planning and Departmental scrutiny that Projects of this size and importance to the National Energy transition would in normal circumstances be required.
Example :
The granting of planning consent by NSW Planning to YDWF prematurely in December 2023 has resulted in many and extremely consequential modifications to the project through the EPBC.
There was No detail in original EIS of construction camp (for 890 employees), or camp location, no transmission route to access the Substation, incomplete surveys and gross understatement of disruption to native grasslands, Myall Woodlands and groundwater.
Statistical change in environmental impact from original EIS for YDWF to the amendments sort by the developer:
Natural Grasslands original impact 130 hectares - New Impact 418 hectares - 223% increase in impact
Weeping Myall Woodlands original impact 5 hectares - New impact 159 hectares - 2967% increase in impact
Superb Parrot original impact 31 hectares - new impact 319 hectares - 919% increase in impact
Total project impact on native vegetation originally approved by EPBC 130 hectares - new impact 1269 hectares for a total 978% increase in environmental impact.
4. The coordination of The Energy companies to minimise the environmental footprint in our unique landscape has been nothing short of a disgrace.
Examples: One Developer has the Dinawan Substation Hub landlocked and are not allowing other energy companies access to the substation, resulting in transmission lines along McLennons Bore Road and the unnecessary removal of protected Weeping Myall.
Transmission lines need coordinating with ALL stakeholders. We question the role of Energy Co in co-ordinating transmission lines to the Substation.
5. There doesn’t appear to be a NSW government department willing to make energy companies accountable for their actions.
Local government is not well enough resourced to manage compliance issues.
Under what circumstances would AMEO revoke an energy companies access licence?
6.Community consultation and engagement has been inadequate as town ‘drop-in’ sessions are not attended by many towns people and they have little comprehension of the impacts of the development of REZ’s. We have suggested an open Q&A session with Energy Co and Project developers to increase transparency.
Where is the Cumulative Impacts Report that Energy Co has committed to (Too late )?
Energy Co committed to putting together a report on Cumulative Impacts. Was to be middle of last year, but nothing has been forthcoming?
Where is the NSW Governments review of the Just Terms Act which enables CGT ruling on Transmission Line compensation ?( Too late )
Name Withheld
Support
Name Withheld
Support
ST IVES
,
New South Wales
Message
I firmly believe that the Montefiore Seniors Housing St Ives is sorely needed because although there are a number of aged care homes in St Ives these days , this will be the only independent living units in an area where the community is ageing
I note that there are plans for a residential care facility which makes sense for people who need care once they age even further and need care .
They will simply move across to a care facility
The people who will be attracted to the independent living units will have their independence, pride at what I believe will be modern units with the added extras of a "club lounge, cafe, gym , swimming pools and allied health services" as stated in the proposal .
I recent years College Crescent has seen an expansion of townhouses and/or apartments and the increase in traffic has been well catered for to the point where eg I go for walks in College Crescent ( which I often do) I don't notice or find any problems
The area already has the apartments up a few levels and 5-8 levels will fit in well
I note that the proposal allows for 260 basement parking spaces as well as a private access road from 9-15 Link Road
I believe that this will be more than enough to cover any fear of extra traffic
Visually I think and believe the structures will blend in well to the area and I'm sure noise will be minimal considering the age of people who will be attracted to the proposal
I addition I expect construction noise to be limited to business hours ie no different to the buildings there already or being constructed right now
Reading the proposal I think Montefiore have an excellent plan and it deserves your full support and approval
I look forward to seeing construction getting under way soon
I note that there are plans for a residential care facility which makes sense for people who need care once they age even further and need care .
They will simply move across to a care facility
The people who will be attracted to the independent living units will have their independence, pride at what I believe will be modern units with the added extras of a "club lounge, cafe, gym , swimming pools and allied health services" as stated in the proposal .
I recent years College Crescent has seen an expansion of townhouses and/or apartments and the increase in traffic has been well catered for to the point where eg I go for walks in College Crescent ( which I often do) I don't notice or find any problems
The area already has the apartments up a few levels and 5-8 levels will fit in well
I note that the proposal allows for 260 basement parking spaces as well as a private access road from 9-15 Link Road
I believe that this will be more than enough to cover any fear of extra traffic
Visually I think and believe the structures will blend in well to the area and I'm sure noise will be minimal considering the age of people who will be attracted to the proposal
I addition I expect construction noise to be limited to business hours ie no different to the buildings there already or being constructed right now
Reading the proposal I think Montefiore have an excellent plan and it deserves your full support and approval
I look forward to seeing construction getting under way soon
Tony Moody
Object
Tony Moody
Object
MANLY
,
New South Wales
Message
Dear Liz,
Please find attached my Submission in Objection to SSD-98363228.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind Regards,
Tony Moody
Please find attached my Submission in Objection to SSD-98363228.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind Regards,
Tony Moody
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Object
ST IVES
,
New South Wales
Message
Please refer to the attached document.