I srongly oppose this submission.

Multiple authoritative sources, including the NHMRC, researchers and well respected acousticians, have provided overwhelming evidence and arguments why wind farm noise
levels and character are unpredictable and why wind farm noise modelling is inherently unreliable.

Consequently no reliability can be placed on the noise modelling submitted in this case and therefore the project should not be approved unless:
* there is permanent 24/7, full spectrum sound monitoring;
* at sufficient locations around the wind farm to provide a comprehensive history of noise impact at all residences within at least 10 kms; and
* with the complete data permanently available to the Department AND to all residents who believe they may be noise affected, and to their advisors.

Further, given NHMRC advice and actions indicates the possibility of adverse health effects (including recurrent sleep deprivation) it is essential that any consent conditions:
* draw explicit attention to the developer's obligations under the NSW Work Health and Safety Act 2011 No 10 (WH&S Act);
* explicitly impose health protection obligations and conditions (including for sleep) such that Investor State Dispute Resolution (ISDS) provisions under any Australian trade agreement cannot be used to block or penalise the NSW Government for any
subsequent actions it may take in relation to the wind farm to protect the health of NSW citizens or their animals.

There is no economic case for building Bango wind farm, which would be strategically damaging to NSW. The proposed wind farm threatens electricity security and prices for the people of NSW and would increase the likelihood of future blackouts.

The EIS does not comply with the requirements of the DGRS for the proposal nor with the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, s 7(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Regulation 2000.

The proposal should be summarily rejected as contrary to the economic and security interests of NSW, its citizens and its industry.

I strongly opposed this development.

Contrary to the explicit requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, s 6(f) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the EIS submitted for Bango wind farm does not provide an unequivocal certification that "the information contained in the statement is neither false nor misleading" nor that "the statement contains all available information that is relevant to the environmental assessment of the development, activity or infrastructure to which the statement relates".

In addition it includes a disclaimer which further reduces the extent to which any party, including the NSW Government, can rely on the content of the document.

The EIS submitted does not comply with the Regulations and must be rejected until covered by a statement that wholly complies with the Regulations. Acceptance of the EIS in its
current form would involve the Department in a deliberate breach of the regulations, and a breach whose sole purpose is to benefit the developer.