Last Wednesday (30/8/23) Voice for Walcha gave a presentation to Walcha Council regarding what can only be called disturbing impacts by the Ruby Hills and Winterbourne projects upon the Oxley highway between Bendemeer and Walcha. The presentation covered four main areas: (1) the impact of Over Size Over Mass (OSOM) trucks used to deliver turbine components; (2) the impact of other Heavy Vehicles during wind farm construction; (3) the transport of cement and steel for tower footings; and (4) the upgrades required for the Oxley Highway to cope with this increased usage. Delivered by Damian Timbs, the presentation was impeccably researched, all claims thoroughly checked. So what Council received were straight-forward verified facts, not opinions. Facts. And these facts are an absolute eye-opener. Even though already aware of them myself, I was still left stunned at the presentation, and felt sure the councillors had to be as well. For that reason alone I just have to briefly summarise those facts here, so you can judge for yourself their significance to Walcha. Start with the OSOM trucks, those long vehicles that will bring wind tower components from Newcastle for the 283 turbines mooted for the Winterbourne and Ruby Hills projects. We’ll need 3,679 such truck movements for that little show, plus 16,555 pilot vehicles. It means the Oxley Highway will be crowded by 30 such truck events per week for at least 104 weeks. Two years. And those trucks will have to return empty to Newcastle as well. Then there’s the tsunami of trucks required during wind farm construction. (If this doesn’t knock you for six, nothing will.) The Winterbourne construction phase will last about 30 months, add say 40 months for Ruby Hills. The combined truck movements for that will come to: 235,400 B-Doubles, 116,600 semis and 368,500 light vehicles. Pause for a mo to absorb those figures if you’re feeling wobbly. Once you’ve done so, consider the truck movements required to build the cement and steel footings for the 283 wind towers. The concrete alone will require 41,000 concrete trucks, while the 42,450 tonnes of steel will need an army of trucks as well. It’s head-aching stuff, and that’s only the footing we’re talking about! But there’s a nasty catch to all this that makes it truly horrific. Access. The above mind-numbing multitude of trucks and other vehicles will all have to use the Oxley Highway for access. And that access is not only seriously unsuitable for the task, but would need a great deal of work to ever be made so. What’s more, NSW Roads & Traffic have very little interest in prioritising that highway for such difficult upgrading. You have to slam on the brakes when you hear that, and ask: Who is gunna pay for this to be done? As my mate Rupert says: “It’d be a joke if it wasn’t so scary.” All of this is why Voice for Walcha concluded its presentation by asking Council to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of the impact of such a massive wind project, using Oxley Highway access, upon Walcha’s existing well established industries. But more than that, it is also why Voice for Walcha made it known that they would themselves engage a consultant to look at the economic impact of project traffic on the Oxley Highway and to identify pinch points on the road. John Heffernan and Voice for Walcha

Oversize Over Mass Traffic All OSOM traffic will be using the Oxley highway to get onsite from the Port of Newcastle with the tower components. This is a total of 3,679 oversize Over mass truck movements with an accompanying 16,555 pilot vehicles using the Oxley highway. Vestas has quoted that there will be 4-5 OSOM truck movements per day, six days per week during peak construction of Winterbourne Wind project, for up to 12 months. Source, email from Doug Landfear. So, extrapolating this information provided by the developer we can assume that for the construction of the Winterbourne Wind project and The Ruby Hills wind project, the Oxley highway will be congested with 30 OSOM truck movements per week for at least 104 weeks. These trucks also have to return to port empty, from each trip. Add these trips to the table. We heard from all current transport operators that they feel that the Oxley highway in its current state is unsuitable for OSOM vehicle movements in quantity. The only transport business in town to welcome such a large number of vehicle movements was John Stuart, heavy crane hire and accident recovery services. Mick Papadopoulos made reference to the unique nature of the Oxley Highway. It is in steep country, that makes every meter of construction far more expensive than standard roads. Pull off areas are required more often, and the trucks travel at slower speeds, yet there are physically fewer spaces where a pull off area is able to be built. He expressed that there is very little interest in prioritising the Oxley highway for upgrade work. Oxley highway is a low volume road and has very little priority when being considered for upgrades by the NSW government. Who will pay for this work to be carried out? https://voiceforwalcha.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ChalTurbine.mp4 From the video documentary – “Nick Cater’s Special Report – Battleground”, showing the size and length of a single Vestas blade on an OSOM delivery in far north Queensland. Heavy Vehicle Movements (other than OSOM) Winterbourne Wind EIS has provided us with an insight into the construction period. Lets add Ruby Hills. Construction for Winterbourne is 30 months, Ruby Hills longer, with a peak period of 10 months for Winterbourne, presumably longer for Ruby Hills. During peak construction, truck movements required for Winterbourne during peak period, is 288 semi-trailer loads or B-double loads per day. Note: current number of heavy vehicles on Oxley highway is 115/day. For the remainder of the project, this number is 176 semi-trailer loads or B-double loads per day. During this construction period, operation will be 6 days a week, 7am till 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 6pm Saturdays. Reference: Winterbourne EIS p223 Summary of total Vehicle Movements for Winterbourne and Ruby Hills Wind Farm projects, entering the Walcha LGA Reference: Winterbourne EIS p223 The cost-benefit analysis should include the impact to our valuable landscape and biodiversity. Imagine this … The 950 cubic meters of concrete and the 150 tonnes of steel required for 1 footing. So multiply this number by 283 and we have coming into Walcha 42,450 tonnes of steel and 268,850 cubic meters of concrete that will be buried in our landscape. One’s mind must boggle at the scale of how our landscape is being changed. This is just the footing, and does not include any construction of sub-stations, transmission towers, roads etc. To put this in perspective the footings for 283 Wind turbines proposed in Winterbourne and Ruby Hills will require more than 41,000 concrete trucks alone. Photo from Golden Plains Wind Farm Source and verification of information … The numbers we are providing for Winterbourne, have been sourced directly from Vestas EIS, or Project Director Doug Landfear in written correspondence. With regard to numbers of OSOM movements per turbine, we have validated this number with the Golden Plains Wind farm project. For the transport numbers for the proposed Ruby Hills projects, which will also be using the Oxley Highway as access route to site, we have made the assumption of the same number of vehicle movements per turbine as given for Winterbourne through their EIS. We have attempted to verify these assumptions with Walcha Energy. We have received a response from Walcha Energy’s Gold Coast based consultants who were not interested in clarification these numbers, and informed us to wait until the EIS and Traffic Impact Statement is completed. This could be years down the track. We welcome scrutiny of these numbers. While the numbers are scary, they are not scaremongering. The reality is that these projects are unprecedented in size and place, and both of these projects have been initiated by a developer with intent to sell the project before approval. Ruby Hills has recently reported to Council their intention to sell, and Winterbourne Wind has been sold to Vestas, and then again to CIP (Copenhagen), pending project approval.

by John Heffernan Last Thursday (June 22) I went to the Walcha Bowling Club for EnergyCo’s two information sessions about the Grid infrastructure, transmission lines and energy hubs proposed for our Renewable Energy Zone. It was as dry as drought and pretty well filled the whole day, but I was really glad I went because those sessions drove home to me a few things that I reckon Walcha community sorely needs to take on board. First off, the sessions were a whacking wake-up call to what massive nightmares could well be heading our way through a bevy of turbines, solar panels, grid giants, power lines  and hub grubs, a horde of mechanical monster that will smother Walcha in decades of horror (environmental, social, economic and more) obliterating any claim we might have once had to being an agricultural wonderland. Secondly I soon realised that I wasn’t the only person in that room who was concerned about these approaching nightmares. Far from it. Indeed, I soon became aware that most people attending the sessions were against the Grid expansion proposed by EnergyCo. I reckon a majority at both sessions saw what they considered an unacceptably grim situation in this proposed grid invasion of our community. And I am not fabricating one bit when I say that many people at both sessions asked me almost the same identical question: How on Earth do we stop this thing? Our mighty little community has made a truly valiant efforts in fighting the tsunami of turbine attacks hurled at us over the years, along with misinformation and shameless double dealing behind our backs. But this Grid Thing is something else entirely – a government-based attack that many feel can’t be stopped, some even consider a kind of fait accompli. Well let me tell you, Walcha, that this is not the case. This does not have to be a done deal, not if we’re prepared to stand up and make it patently clear to the government that we definitely do not want this monster in our midst. After badgering the team of young EnergyCo officials at those two meeting, the unmistakable message I left with was that we must make our objections clearly understood, and drive them home hard. One sure way to do this is to make EnergyCo aware that the massive renewable energy claims of Walcha Energy (with Winterbourne Wind and Ruby Hills et al and their threatened 560 turbines) are barely more than the machinations of misinformation and myth. They certainly do not possess social licence nor indeed any rightful place in Walcha, and therefore cannot be claimed to justify any re-routing of transmission lines through our district.  OBJECT OR BE WRECKED We encourage everyone to complete the Energy Co survey Click this link : https://www.research.net/r/nerez-communityfeedback or scan this with your phone/tablet    

Voice for Walcha · GRID LOCK GLOOM John Heffernan What I’m going to tell you is not an exercise in fabricated scare mongering. It’s a simple, honest attempt to place some straight-forward facts in front of you. That’s not to say they aren’t scary facts; they most certainly are. I’d even call them them potentially terrifying facts that only the most hard-core card-carrying fool would disregard. And they have everything to do with the ridiculous transmission line behemoth that is said to be looming our way. Australia’s National Electricity Market (NEM) Grid is a big beast which threatens to grow even more tentacles to cope with our ever burgeoning renewable energy sources of wind and solar. Trouble is, according to a growing number of our experienced engineers and power system experts, “future reliable electricity supply via the NEM grid is at extreme risk” if we insist on building “dominant wind and solar generation”. It all has to do with inescapable electrical engineering principles that must be followed for any grid to function effectively and efficiently. The first thing that must be grasped here is that: “An electricity grid can only function if its multiple parts are interconnected precisely, enabling it to operate as a completely integrated system. When the number of generators feeding into a grid increases (especially with wind and solar generators which are intermittent) whole-system interconnecting requirements become more complex, exponentially so as the number of feed-in points increases. The grid then becomes far more difficult to manage, can become unstable, and ultimately, cannot function at all.” “That wind and solar generated electricity can flow into the NEM grid at all is because there is a stable grid frequency set by coal-fired power stations providing the bulk of electricity in the first place. At present, wind and solar generators feeding into the grid are doing so “on the coat tails” of coal-fired power generation. If all those coal-fired power stations were to cease, on present settings, it could become impossible for the grid to function at all.” That is the sort of energy nightmare we will ultimately face if we continue swamping the NEM grid with these intermittent sources of energy. You see, “deep penetration of intermittent sources is fatal to predictable power system operations.” The simple fact is that we “risk destabilising the grid as more and more wind turbine and solar panels push DC electrons through inverters onto the AC grid”, driving up system costs and driving down service quality. “Market suspensions, brown outs and black outs  are already present and will become the norm if we pursue current policy settings.” Moreover,  do not think that growing our grid, adding transition lines and towers will help one bit; that’s just an exercise in blatant futility. Make no mistake, swelling our NEM grid with more and more transmission lines could well be a massive white elephant, especially if we also swamp our region with evermore turbines and solar panels, effectively increasing the risk of grid failure. Surely it is time we recognised what a parlous state of affairs we are creating with our ever widening wind farm debacle, and actually did something to avert almost certain disaster. The facts quoted here come from Queensland University Electrical Engineering experts Dick White and Stephen Wilson.  Voice For Walcha

While a shock to many it is no surprise to Walcha Energy. Walcha Energy have been lobbying the government for years to bring powerlines to the Walcha district. Make no mistake – these powerlines are following the Walcha Energy projects based on advice from Walcha Energy. And this is just stage one. We understand there are likely to be more powerlines coming through the Walcha LGA in later stages of development. Download PDF Version Why is the Walcha district becoming the powerline capital of the state? Because Walcha Energy have told EnergyCo that … “It would be realistic to provide for the development of 10,000MW of renewable energy and pumped hydro generation in this area alone.” * * Source files This is the equivalent of over 14 Winterbourne Wind Projects around Walcha. It is because Walcha Energy are touting the … “Walcha Energy Project” as a “a mini-REZ within the recently declared New England REZ.” ** The map (below) defines Walcha Energy’s … “ultimate development concept”, from a submission made to AEMO in 2022. ** ** Source files Note … this is a recommendationfrom Walcha Energy, not EnergyCo. If EnergyCo follow recommendations by Walcha Energy, we are likely to see 2 double 500kV lines and a double 330kV line traversing our LGA. This is what 330kV and 500kV towers look like, up to 80m high (right). We have real concerns that Walcha Energy are facilitating the construction of the main Queensland NSW Interconnector Line through the Walcha Plateau. Rather than following the existing path from Queensland via Armidale and Tamworth down to the Hunter, the double 330kV Line would go via Inverell, through the Uralla Hub and down through the Walcha LGA. Did Walcha Energy consult with the Walcha community about this? Walcha Energy have suggested changing the route “due to its sensitive terrain and impacts on threatened species, forested land, small rural communities, and rural residential areas near Armidale.” *** What about the impact on Walcha?? *** Source files This is a plan submitted in 2019, and another example of Walcha Energy lobbying for powerlines to be brought through the Walcha LGA. The map of this plan, submitted by Walcha Energy, is shown right. Is this what we want for Walcha? The only reason these lines are coming to Walcha is because Walcha Energy have been promoting overly ambitious unrealistic levels of renewable development in our LGA and lobbying the government to divert powerlines through the Walcha LGA. Walcha Energy claim that these decisions have been made by EnergyCo and are out of our hands. This is not true. These powerlines are following the projects being proposed by Walcha Energy. Is there a choice? Because transmission lines are critical infrastructure, landholders can not refuse to host the lines. However, if landholders refuse to host renewable projects, there will be no need for the lines to follow these projects. No projects – no powerlines. If you do not want to host powerlines, do not agree to host wind turbines or solar projects. If there are no new projects in Walcha, the new transmission infrastructure will follow the existing lines well west of Walcha. Surely this is the sensible option for Walcha – and for taxpayers. Why have Walcha Energy not spoken to the Walcha Community before lobbying for this transmission plan? Why has Walcha Energy claimed that they are simply placing projects where Energy Co are likely to run transmission lines? when this is simply not the case. Why are Walcha Energy devising such major disruptions to the Walcha landscape, affecting everyone, behind closed doors? What can we do? Importantly, attend the EnergyCo meeting Thursday 11-2 or 3-6pm Walcha Bowling Club, to demonstrate that Walcha does not want this invasive infrastructure built here. Also talk to your neighbours, have the necessary conversations. Without community input into the conversation, the red carpet will be rolled out for the developer. Secrecy erodes community, and it is not our style.

Walcha Energy – Ruby Hills Survey We would encourage everyone who can to participate in this survey – this survey will be used to measure support for the project. No doubt,  Ruby Hills will be circulating it to supporters of the project to try and demonstrate community support.  We need our objections to be heard as well. Please take the time to fill it in and encourage anyone else who has concerns to fill it in.  It takes about 5-10 minutes and you have to fill in your name etc. This is really important. This is a survey commissioned and run by Walcha Energy. RUBY HILLS SURVEY LINK : https://your-say.questionpro.com/t/ARK8NZyHNU PLEASE NOTE THIS SURVEY CLOSED ON 31/7/2023 Disappointed But Delighted by John Heffernan “A trap, mate.” That’s how a friend described the info gig promoting the Ruby Hills Wind Farm project at Walcha Show Ground on Thursday May 11th. “They saw you Voice For Walcha clowns coming and dumped on you big time.” I had to laugh; it was kind of true. But then old mate added: “Don’t feel too bad, though. They did the same to all of us: said one thing then promptly did the opposite. Typical snakes in the grass,” Frankly I didn’t feel too bad. Indeed, none of us from Voice For Walcha did, except for the fact that it was our encouragement and promotion that drew so many people – unquestionably the majority – to the Thursday event. (The night before, at Woolbrook Hall, was a total fizzer, hardly more than ten people I’ve been told.) We unreservedly apologise to all those who came on Thursday at our recommendation, because the about-face by Walcha Energy was to be expected, and we had been warned. Of course, we could’ve turned the evening into a real barney if we’d wanted to, and in fact quite a few people did actually urge us to do so on the night. But that’s never been our approach. Informed discussion, polite yet firm, is our way, as difficult as it can be on occasions. So we agreed not to steal their thunder – or was it chunder? – and do things their way, even if that was clearly not what most people who were there that night wanted. It really is about time that Walcha Energy accepted the fact that evermore people have had enough of avoiding open and transparent public discussion of matters pertinent to this whole wind farm issue, enough of swallowing the same old turdbine half-truths and nodding dutifully. That evening at the Show Ground pressed it home like never before, in no uncertain terms, that our community wants real answers to real questions. Of course Walcha Energy will use that meeting to claim a resounding victory, even though at least 70% of the people were there because Voice For Walcha had widely advertised the event as a real chance to actually ask those real questions and hear those real answers. Oh yeah, they’ll claim crowing rights, even though the public disappointment that night was palpable. I know because I was bombarded, not only at the meeting itself, but with a plethora of phone calls the next day, and the next. Here’s a sample of comments. There are many more, but we’ve edited for the sake of brevity and economy, and to avoid repetition, but they all come from genuinely concerned Walcharites, part of a narrative that needs to be listened to. (1) “Heaps of people left that meeting in disgust. It was a joke if you ask me.” (2) “Badly organised. Consultants were hard to find and seemed to think they were above us. What happened to the forum we were supposed to get? It was like they were hiding stuff from us.” (3) “Consultants? Don’t make laugh. At least two of them seemed to know very little about their area, and one was downright rude; treated my questions like they were a nuisance. The Social Impact girl was great, knew her stuff and was easy to talk to. But the others? Forget it.” (4) “I fronted the head honcho and told him what upset me about the project. ‘This is my farm’, I said, ‘my life, my livelihood, a thing I’m proud of and want to hand on to my kids and grandkids, but you fellas are gunna stuff it all up.’ He turned nasty, so he did, and said I was a troublemaker. I burred up at that. ‘If you fellas talked straight and told us the truth,” I said, ‘we’d all be much better off.” He just turned around and walked off. (5) “I can’t bear thinking about the destruction this project will unleash, but the consultant I spoke to wasn’t even interested. The landscape destruction, the road system, the ridge running from Kentucky down to about the Morgans, the planned grid work, it’s so frightening. They’ll wipe out the trees and accelerate fauna and flora destruction in an area where Landcare groups have worked relentlessly over the years to salvage a piece of truly classic New England landscape, beautiful but brittle.” (6) “The last thing the proponents want is for us to get talking. They want it all quiet and muffled so they sneak it all past us. But we’ve got to talk about these monsters that will spread all over our countryside like noxious weeds if we do nothing. Projects of this type, on this scale, are just plain wrong.” (7) “I came away with an overwhelming sense of frustration. Most of my questions were met with: we don’t know this yet or it’s what the Government wants or we’re not answering questions tonight. This is not good enough. Walcha Energy is proposing a huge project, and we need to know now how it is going to work, how we’ll deal with a long construction process, with the lasting effects of the finished project and with decommissioning. All simple questions. As a community we can not wait for information to be drip fed; we need to know

With John Heffernan A couple of weeks back we suggested that Walcha should decide its own renewable energy future by adopting the concept known as Community Owned Renewable Energy. CORE projects are really catching on big time in Australia. The Community Power Agency (CPA), working with Melbourne and Sydney Universities, has identified at least 120 CORE projects across Australia, targeting community-based renewable energy approaches that seriously question corporate-based works such as big wind farms. Walcha should take a good look at these, and with that in mind – Hey Presto – this article highlights six such CORE projects. In actual fact, most of those 120 CPA projects are  worth inspecting. But Advocate space is scarce,  so all we can offer is a brief paragraph on each example, along with links so that you can check out details for yourself. Hepburn Energy, Australia’s first real CORE project, started as a two turbine wind farm in 2009, recently adding solar and battery storage. it’s a  classic co-operative with over 2000 shareholders, making 42% of Hepburn Shire’s energy needs. https://www.hepburnenergy.coop/ Yackandanda is a fabulous example of CORE principles, with a 100% volunteer-run community group. Completed in May 2022, the town is already producing almost 70% of its energy, and says it will reach 100% by 2027. https://totallyrenewableyack.org.au/ Manilla’s solar farm has the support of over 100 local residents and businesses in a system that turns electricity into a local business instead of an economic leakage. This is a dynamic community really enjoying the fruits of its energy. http://www.manillarenewableenergy.com.au/ Goulburn’s 4000-panel solar farm grew from a local association determined to establish a CORE project. It’s a shareholder-based cooperative, with one vote per member no matter how many shares they own, keeping vested interests at bay. https://goulburnsolarfarm.com.au/ Lismore’s floating solar farm is just a small  part of collaboration between many local councils. Mayor Smith said local councils can “make a huge difference” in how communities use energy. https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewablenews/largest-floating-solar-farm-lismore-nsw/ Indigo Power has partnered with 15 community  energy groups across NE Victoria and Southern NSW to create local renewable energy solutions.  This is a very community-oriented company really worth looking at. https://indigopower.com.au/ CORE projects are arguably the best way for regional communities to build strong energy futures. That way it’s in all our hands, not just with a few. We don’t have to start big if our energy future is community based. “Out of little things…” they say. Or as Saul Griffith maintains: “It’s a story of community economic abundance, and a once in a lifetime opportunity for Australia.” To find out more on CORE projects follow this link to the CPA website: https://cpagency.org.au/ It could be the start of a journey that will change not just your life, but those of many others. Think about it. Voice for Walcha

From John Heffernan More than twenty years. That’s how long Walcha has been huffed and puffed and stuffed around by those wind farm Vikings and their OZ off-siders. And what have we got to show? Basically bugger all. Don’t take our word for that, though. Take the facts; all the many government agency reports delivered to the DPE about Winterbourne Wind’s unspeakably shoddy EIS. And if Ruby Hills et al are any indication it looks like we might expect more of the same, a lot more. Yep, more than twenty years. That’s a long time to keep doing the same silly things in the hope of getting somewhere. You’d have to call it flogging a dead horse, wouldn’t you? At the very least it shows what total mugs we are – Walcha Community – because there really are far better ways to build a town’s renewable energy future. Surely it’s time we opened our eyes and minds to at least some of those better ways. Probably the best way to do that is to consider the concept of community energy. At its core, community energy is based on the belief that everyday people should have power over how their energy is generated – including its environmental and social impacts – rather than allowing big corporations to take control and pocket the profits. The notions of community involvement, consensus and ownership in energy creation have really taken hold in Europe over the last decade, and increasingly so in North America. Community-Owned Renewable Energy (CORE) projects are now commonplace in Scotland, growing in Germany and the Netherlands, and Denmark has even mandated that future wind farm projects must involve at least 20% community ownership. Hear that? Denmark! Home of Vestas! Australia has been slower to take up community-based projects, but we’re getting there. Our first such project, Hepburn Wind, began generating power in June 2011. Since then, many more communities across Australia have banded together to develop their own solar, wind, biomass, micro-grid and other efficiency projects. Now, with well over 100 community-driven energy outlets, the movement is really ramping up. Projects come in all shapes and sizes: household solar bulk buys, small-scale community solar farms (<100kW), or community wind farms like Hepburn Wind, and are managed by social enterprises, cooperatives, not-for-profit organisations. or a mix of various approaches, the bottom line being to establish what works for a given “community”. Here are just three examples. The small WA town of Katanning, southeast of Perth, became its own power station in 2021 with a project launched by a local cocky. “If we generate energy from a community base,” says Katanning Shire Executive Officer, Julian Murphy, “we’re in control of our own destiny.” The Katanning project is based on a model pioneered by Indigo Power, an energy company in northeast Victoria that grew out of a local community-energy group called Totally Renewable Yackandandah (TRY). That company is now being contacted big time by community-energy groups around Australia who want to go the same way. Then there’s the NSW regional centre of Goulburn which joined the energy revolution by coming together to build its own 4,000-panel solar farm, where everyday citizens can buy shares in the venture. And the economics of community energy are worth considering. At Yackandandah, for instance, $160m could leave the region every year in paying electricity bills. But once the community produces and owns that electricity the economics are very different. Also, a town owning the electricity is suddenly able to capture new businesses with attractive power discounts. Community Energy is definitely “a strong movement for everyday people who want to see the true benefits from what is an inevitable renewable energy boom,” says Helen Haines, the independent federal MP for Indi, which includes Yackandandah. It’s about “ensuring everyone benefits from a local renewables project, rather than just the farmers whose land is used for the solar panels or the wind turbines. Just about every renewables project that’s going to be created in Australia is going to be in regional Australia.” Thus it’s a no-brainer that regional Australia should be benefiting from that. So is Community-Owned Renewable Energy for Walcha? It is certainly something worth considering. Of course it would involve serious researching and soul-searching. It would mean the whole community getting together and behaving as adults. It would mean our council consulting at street level, establishing what the community wants, and acting accordingly. And it would require following facts rather than fiction. But surely it is worth considering, certainly better than the raft of large scale ad-hoc projects which now dominate our approach, and definitely a million times better than flogging a dead horse ad nauseam. Want to know more about CORE facts? Start by checking out these links below: Community-owned renewable energy: a how-to guide Zero Carbon Communities. University of Queensland https://stories.uq.edu.au/policy-futures/2021/zero-carbon-communities/index.html https://totallyrenewableyack.org.au/ Goulburn Community Energy Cooperative https://goulburnsolarfarm.com.au/info/

Listen to an audio version of this story > LISTEN ON SPOTIFY LISTEN ON SOUNDCLOUD Voice for Walcha · The Facts Speak For Themselves Listen to an audio version of this story … LISTEN ON SPOTIFY LISTEN ON SOUNDCLOUD Voice for Walcha · The Facts Speak For Themselves Links to key government stakeholder agencies as referenced in this story As part of the Exhibition of Winterbourne Wind’s EIS in November 2022, the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) asked a number of Government agencies to report their findings about that document. Those findings also available for all to read, many pages of them, but not a positive word for Vestas and Winterbourne Wind to hide their perfidy behind. You’re welcome to read all those reports; there are links below. But to cut to the chase, here are direct quotes from those agencies dealing with six main areas of major deficiency in that EIS, as well as two truly damning assessments by our own Council and Uralla’s. Be aware that what follows is not what some would happily call rumour-mongering and fact-fiddling by a bunch of divisive radicals. THESE ARE FACTS – cold hard undeniable facts from thorough reports by experts in their various fields – verbatim, word-for-word, straight from the (many) horses’ mouths! So if it’s the facts you want, read on. Advice on EIS from Dept of Planning & Environment – Water Insufficient information has been provided to confirm operational water take for the project. Insufficient information has been provided to understand the ability to obtain relevant entitlements in the required water source. Clear demonstration is requested as obtaining these entitlements can be a risk to the project. Advice on EIS from Heritage NSW – Aboriginal Based on the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR), provided in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), there is insufficient information provided for Heritage NSW to advise the Department on whether the management recommendations are adequate and if the ACHAR substantially complies with the SEARs. In any event we believe the Dunghatti have rejected the ACHAR as a flawed process. Advice on EIS from Transport for NSW TfNSW has reviewed the development application and supporting documentation submitted and is not satisfied that the proposed development has adequately addressed the anticipated construction traffic impacts on the NSW state road and rail networks. Advice on EIS from Dept of Primary Industries We note the extension of the EIS submission timeframe to January 2023. Effort should be made to mitigate the issues arising in Walcha, for example workforce housing arrangements, community benefit fund distribution, local procurement, visual impacts, use of water resources, disruption to transport routes, decommissioning and rehabilitation. Walcha Council Council has reviewed the documents and appendices to the EIS and for reasons outlined in further detail below, considers that it is substantially devoid of critical information and data required to enable a thorough and informed assessment of the environment impacts associated with the Project. The information provided in the EIS in respect of the Project is inadequate, inaccurate and inconsistent. Uralla Council Council lodge an objection to the development of Winterbourne Wind Farm on the grounds that the following issues, that may impact substantially on residents of Uralla Shire, are inadequately addressed by the Environmental Impact Statement: Failure to adequately address quantities, sources and transport routes associated with road base, aggregate and sand associated with road, hardstand and tower foundation construction. Definition of mitigating measures in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner. Failure to adequately address disposal of general waste and solid non-recyclable waste management issues or to address the impact of their transport on Council roads. Failure to adequately address the cost and responsibility for decommissioning. Failure to identify the source of water, nor take into account the potential impact on Council roads and road users of water cartage for concrete production and dust suppression. Negative impact on visual amenity. Failure to adequately address significant heritage items. Advice on EIS from NSW Biodiversity Conservation Division For biodiversity, the land category assessment is incomplete and has not considered critically endangered ecological communities and flora, avoidance and minimisation of impacts on biodiversity values is insufficient, vegetation mapping and vegetation zones are inaccurate, vegetation integrity scores may have been reduced by surveys undertaken during inappropriate seasonal conditions, the extent of impacts on serious and irreversible impact (SAII) entities is unacceptable, bird and bat utilisation data are insufficient to inform the assessment of impacts on these species, threatened fauna and flora surveys for some threatened species do not accord with the Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) 2020, fauna species polygons for some threatened species are incorrect, the assessments for koala and greater glider have not considered the current listing status of these threatened species, prescribed and indirect impacts have not been offset, and impacts arising from the haul route have not been assessed or offset. For NPWS estate, the assessment of the impacts on aerial firefighting and park operations has not addressed the issues raised by NPWS during consultation with the proponent, in its current form the proposal will impede NPWS firefighting capabilities and operations, the bushfire assessment has not sufficiently addressed the impacts on NPWS estate, the landscape and visual assessment is incorrect and does not sufficiently identify or avoid visual impacts on the declared wilderness, the noise assessment does not consider noise impacts on camping in the wilderness and does not sufficiently identify or avoid noise impacts on the declared wilderness, the impacts on habitat connectivity with NPWS estate have not been sufficiently mitigated, and electromagnetic interference with NPWS communications has not been sufficiently mitigated. It is impossible to imagine that the above issues can be satisfactorily addressed by Winterbourne Wind. These professional evidence-based reports make it clear that this is a poorly delivered EIS for a poorly designed project. In the words of these professionals … Insufficient, inadequate, inaccurate, inconsistent, inappropriate, incomplete, unacceptable, a failure. We believe this ‘failure’ continues to waste community time and money. Read in full … All links are

The first thing to concede is, the Voice for Walcha (VfW), doesn’t have a enough answers to the complex question of turbine noise and how it will impact on your life. Not at this point in time, but  rest assured we are working towards clarity.  We have justifiably challenged Vestas’s EIS regarding their noise assessment and potential impacts. We feel that their noise assessments methodologies and conclusions are inaccurate and are to the detriment of community members in the development footprint.  We do so, mindful that non-compliant noise from wind turbines remains of paramount health concern for the community. The history of wind farm development confirms it is pervasive in terms of its unfortunate ability to drive residents out of their comfort of their homes and their communities of choice. We of course acknowledge that Vestas has legitimately a right of reply to our submissions and so the onus is on them to refute our submitted concerns.   We do say this, there is little point in  building the project, installing the 119 wind turbines to find out the project and/or at least the existing turbine configuration is non-compliant in regards to noise pollution. We say  the Community needs to be further informed about this crucial issue. So, whilst we await Vestas’s response, we urge the Community to continue their inquiry as to what the accuracy of the EIS predictions might mean for their impacted residences. We outline some conclusions hereunder.  Background  The Voice for Walcha – has made a detailed submission to the Project EIS outlining its concerns on the excessive environmental impacts of the Winterbourne Wind Project. This submission can be viewed online at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov. au/major-projects-Winterbourne Wind (DPIE Portal). Vestas’s Noise Assessment was undertaken by Sonus – this Assessment Report is also included in the Winterbourne EIS at the DPIE Portal. This Assessment references as Noise Sensitive locations 170 Non Associated Dwellings locations and 51 Involved Dwelling locations. The latter, Involved Dwellings being those which have a commercial or pecuniary arrangements with the Developer. The Winterbourne EIS confidently concluded that based on predictions from the Sonus Assessment the noise criteria for non-associated dwellings will be compliant. The VfW doesn’t buy this conclusion. We believe that a more robust application of the Noise Guidelines will reveal non-compliance across the Project footprint. Secondly, we also don’t buy the conclusion that Host, or Associated Landowners, are excluded from the Bulletin’s compliance. We look forward to Vestas’s response to this VfW conclusion and to the findings of the commissioned Peer Review.  The EIS Assessment  As to compliance, the EIS Assessment is conducted against the NSW Government’s – Wind Energy: Noise Assessment Bulletin  (Bulletin). It provides for the full adoption for the SA Environment Protection Authority Environmental Noise Guidelines (SA 2009). These Guidelines specify that predicted equivalent noise level should not exceed 35dB(A) or the background noise by more than 5dB(A) – whichever is the greater, at all relevant receivers for wind speeds from cut – in to rated power of wind. Receivers being dwellings in the Project footprint.  The Vestas EIS’s Appendix H includes the full Sonus Assessment Report. On behalf of the Community, VfW took the prudent opportunity to secure a Peer Review of the Vestas/Sonus assessment report. This Peer Review is at Annexure A -Part G Response to Health Impact of the VfW Submission. Acoustic Engineering is complex in its technicality however it is important that we detail the main conclusions and how this might assist the Community shine a little more light on the EIS’s accuracy – whilst we await Vestas’s considered response. So, what makes VfW sleep with one eye open on Vestas/Sonus Noise Assessment some key points are as follows: If the Peer Review’s analysis is validated then Vestas/Sonus’s noise assessment has significantly underestimated the noise impact in the community by at least 14dB. Given the predictions on offer in the EIS, including a number of dwellings already with marginal predictions, it is highly likely that many dwellings will be non-compliant ie experiencing noise levels greater than 35dB or background noise plus 5dB. This presents Vestas and many Hosts landowners with a problem which can only be addressed by a significant reconfiguration of the turbine layout.  The crux of the VfW’s concern is Vestas/Sonus has seemingly created EIS convenient data interpretation which increases the ceiling limitation for background noise, and which conversely induces lower noise prediction for respective residences.  As we have found in reviewing Vestas’s EIS approach is it’s unfortunately short on sufficient detail enough to make full sense on impacts.  The Noise Assessment is consistent with other reports in the Winterbourne EIS, that is, the noise assessment presents as a scoping study. The Developer has presented an unfinished EIS. This makes assessment challenging and is procedurally unfair to the Community. By way of example as alluded to the Sonus Assessment at section 11 there is little point in putting the Community through an EIS if pre-construction noise assessment results in further contemplation of turbine selection. The EIS must include technical studies and accurate noise assessment for relevant dwellings – turbine layouts etc. In this regard the EIS is deficient as it did not consider different turbine layouts as required by the Guidelines. These are all critical issues that can’t be considered by the Community after the EIS.  Essentially Vestas were required to follow the Bulletin to its key requisites of accuracy and conservationism in their assessments and these were in short supply in the Noise Assessment. VfW relies on all the conclusions offered in the Peer Review. Some examples are: Vestas/Sonus conducted background noise motoring at 7 dwellings across the project site. These were conducted from 28 November 2021 to 1 February 2022. This assessment was undertaken in summer months when background noise is elevated and should have been conducted in winter months when there is minimal background noise. Vestas/Sonus offered no consideration of the proximity of ‘side effects’ in their assessments. Side effects being topography and other turbines etc.  Vestas/Sonus avoided strict application of