You must have heard Vestas crowing lately, claiming to have totally squashed those divisive devils at Voice For Walcha. And you’d be forgiven for thinking they had a point, what with the EIS Support/Objection ratio touted at 52 to 46 percent. Hardly a landslide, but enough to make one sit up and take stock. And they’ve been crowing louder every day, no fear, even though that alone is a bit of a give-away. Empty vessels aside, it’s o en the case that the more someone shouts, the less secure they are in what they’re saying. And although Vestas are telling a story they desperately want to believe (and want everyone else to believe), more holes in their boat are appearing all the time. Let’s consider just one major source of holes in this increasingly leaky vessel: the origins of the Supporting Submissions for the Winterbourne project. Most people would agree that the main impact of this wind project will be upon members of the New England communities within the designated area of the Project, Walcha in particular. A er all it’s their turf and they have to live with that burgeoning tribe of towering turbines. So they have more right than anyone to comment on what a project of this immensity will mean. But in fact about 70% of the Support Submissions come from well beyond the New England area – what might be called “Outsiders”. We’re talking country towns, coastal to inland, and cities like Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Perth, and even Ontario, Canada! (It’s true, no fear; though who dug up that one is anybody’s guess.) Someone suggested that the bulk of these Support submissions were drummed up by Vestas itself, through social media. But surely that wouldn’t be the case. We’re talking 346 submissions. Surely to goodness they couldn’t be that desperate. Then again, maybe they could be. After all, remove those 346 ring-ins from the equation and the submission ratio changes radically: Supports 29% – Objections 70%. Now that really is very different story, and one that’s riding high on the waves. However, if it is the case that something as tawdry as a kind of RentaMob was involved here, then you have to pity those involved in the gig because they sure didn’t get good value for their effort. Most of the support submissions were pitifully weak; brief, banal and jokingly generic. Many were of the Wind is Great calibre, or Love Renewables, or Jobs for a Dying Community, etc. What’s more, almost none of them made any significant comment whatsoever addressing the main reason for this entire submission process – the Environmental Impact Statement, the big Vestas EIS. The most that these submissions could claim is that they boosted the numbers. Big deal. That’s just more passengers on a sinking ship. But don’t panic, you’re on the Titanic. Of course the poor quality of ‘outside’ submissions will be taken into account by the Independent Planning Commission. The Planning Department has made it clear that submissions of support from outside the region, and that do not relate to the project or the community of Walcha, will be considered as less relevant than those that do. While we’re on the subject of EIS submissions, though, this is a good point to flag the incredibly high quality of the Objections made to the wind farm project. It’s also worth noting here that those Objections came almost entirely from the New England area, predominately from Walcha, so there has certainly not been any fatuous inflating of numbers – pretty well all honest home-grown stuff. And as it has been said before, this little community can be really proud of itself. In a David and Goliath conflict they have punched so far above their weight that it’s beyond words. So what does it all mean? It means that despite the megaphoned fabricated narrative from Vestas about silencing a community’s objection to a truly dodgy project, the absolute opposite is in fact the case. It means that the 438 Objections to the wind farm project amount to over 8 times the 50 submissions required to trigger an Independent Planning Commission (IPC) into the project. Add a local council objection to the DA, and that IPCinvestigation becomes a dead-set certainty. No fear, Vestas will definitely have its work cut out answering the tsunami of searching question coming their way over the next year or so. And, on a brighter note, maybe (just maybe) it also means that the Walcha community can at last come together and really start thinking seriously about ways of creating proper, realistic renewable energy solutions. We can do it if we row together. > Download Advert PDF
The EIS results are in – but what do they (really) mean?
On Wednesday the 25th of Jan 2023 the Department of Planning and Environment released the results of the EIS for Winterbourne Wind, on the 31st of Jan 2023 a number of postal submissions were added to the portal. As at the 31st of Jan there are now a total of 947 submissions. The EIS results have the position as Support, Object or Comment as well as the Name of the person or organisation making the submission. Those making a submission can also choose to withhold their name from publication, and their location. The initial and casual reading of these numbers land as follows… Submissions by Everyone Number % Total submissions supporting the project 497 52% Total submissions objecting to the project 438 46% Total submission commenting on the project 12 1% Total 947 We decided to look a little deeper into where the submissions were coming from and found that 526 came from the New England Region, and there were 419 from outside the New England. When we looked at these stats, the numbers start to turn. Submissions by those in New England Number % Submissions supporting the project 151 29% Submissions objecting to the project 368 70% Submission commenting on the project 8 2% Total 526 Submissions by those outside New England Number % Submissions supporting the project 346 83% Submissions objecting to the project 69 16% Submissions commenting on the project 4 1% Total 419 We start to see that within the New England there is substantially more opposition than support. Next, we also removed submissions where a name was withheld. This is likely to filter out any fake submissions, although obviously there were many genuine submissions of support or objection that may also get disregarded. We also decided to include some analysis of supporters who had a financial interest in the project, based on our understanding of the involved landowners and Walcha Wind Pty Ltd shareholders and their families. Submissions by those in New England Number % Named Support 81 23% Named support with family pecuniary interest 46 13% Named support with no family pecuniary interest 35 10% Named Object 271 75% Named Comment 7 2% TOTAL 359 One again we land back at around the infamous 75% of locals who oppose the project, this is supported by the Voice for Walcha October 2022 Survey, and the last Vestas survey from the 2022 Walcha Show published in the EIS. We are planning on looking into the submissions in more detail, but many of the supporting responses make no reference to any of the specifics of the Winterbourne project, or the EIS, but are of a very general nature and are more in support of renewables and the transition away from fossil fuels than anything specific to the Winterbourne project. Many also referred to the benefits to the town that may be associated with the project, and a some acknowledged that the income for landowners will help with family succession.There were also some supporting submissions that raised issues regarding code of conduct, traffic movements, decommissioning and lighting. In general the supporting submissions were several sentences to paragraphs. On the other hand the opposing submission by Voice for Walcha contained 125 pages of mostly text, referencing issues found in the Winterbourne EIS, and the many of the public opposing submissions show a good understanding of the EIS and the project. They highlight the impacts on biodiversity and the $64million offsets the developer is happy to pay for the destruction of trees and the damage to flora and fauna adjacent to the National park. They highlight the communities concerns to the impacts on roads, the lack of research and care in details around the projects demand for water and gravel. They question where the 400 jobs will come from and where they will live. The also question if the community benefit fund will create an economic lifeline to an already prosperous community. They question the impacts to health with noise, bisphenol in blades and toxic gases in the gearboxes. They question the cumulative impacts of up to 660 turbines or 5 additional projects in the small community of Walcha. We encourage you to have a read of the submissions on the NSW planning portal and if you would like to read the community submission it can be found on the Voice for Walcha’s web site or on page 5 of the EIS submissions on the Planning Portal. We are very proud of the Walcha community for the effort and time that has been put into the submissions to the Planning Department. There has been a great effort made to understand the project, and to relate their submission to the EIS, as well as identifying the many shortcomings of the project. The sheer number of objections, combined with the quality of the comments made within each of them, appears to be unprecedented on the Planning Portal. The community of Walcha should be very proud of the quality of this response. We certainly are. It is important for everyone to understand, following recent feedback from the Panning Department, that the quality of the submission, as well as the address of the person making the submission, is very important when measuring the relevance of the submission. When considering the attached analysis, this is very encouraging, and points to a high level of scrutiny on the project.
Group Submission
We have submitted our group submission to the NSW Planning Department for consideration. Download the Full Submission Download the Executuve Summary Below is an extract from the executive summary. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Submission tables on behalf of the Community the Voice for Walcha’s (VfW) Group Objection to the Winterbourne Wind Farm Project (WWF). The full reasons for the Community Objection are set out in the eleven (11) sub-submissions attached hereunder. The objective of this Executive Summary is to provide important context supporting the Objection rationale to; Provide a short overview as to the grounds for objection set out in the Sub-Submissions; and Convey on behalf of the Community their expectations as to what presents as just and equitable outcomes in the ongoing assessment process. Context of course is everything – in the Project at hand it attempts to draw together analysis – often complex and introducing serious issues facing a community. Issues which will test the fabric, the understanding and ultimately the resilience of the Community. It shouldn’t be underestimated that the prevailing psychology in the Walcha Community is that this Project and those that follow – could present as the turning points, between either Walcha continuing to grow as a progressive agricultural economy contributing to Australia’s national and export objectives or an industrial waste land – a ‘host-baby sitter’ for concrete and carbon fibre’ purely for profit objectives. Threshold Objections The Sub-Submissions hereunder promote detailed consideration in each of its 11 assessments outlining 2 shortcomings – firstly, failure to achieve compliance and/or secondly, excessive and unacceptable impacts. Some of which are critical. Each attempt is to substantiate why consent should be withheld for the Project. Much of the basis for this conclusion is derived from the following threshold technical conclusions reached by VfW; The considerable project Impacts and the mitigation offered don’t confirm as ecologically sustainable development in accordance with the Objectives of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Project impacts on the UNESCO Gondwana Rainforest and Wilderness Area and the rich biodiversity do not justify approval by the Federal Minister of the Environment pursuant to the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Proponents presentation of the EIS is unacceptably deficient in project detail -it presents with numerous errors and misleading information. It’s content and technical detail is clearly not in compliance with the EPA Act 1979 and Schedule 2 of the EPA Regulations. Nor does it reflect the standards espoused by the State Significant Development Guidelines July 2021 and the Preparing an Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines -July 2021. VfW maintain four considerations arise in respect to this deficiency; Obvious questions as to procedural fairness arise for the Community and others who were severely impaired in their opportunity to assess the merits of the Project through this EIS. The Proponents obvious failure to give serious consideration to analysis ‘of any feasible alternatives ‘to carrying out the proposed WWF development activity…’ in accordance with the SEAR and Schedule 2 of the EPA Regulations. The failure in preparing the EIS to ensure the requisite high standards, including the potential proffering of misleading information, as specified by the Clause 3 of the EPA Regulation and the July 2021 Guidelines. This questions the integrity of REAP Certification as to ‘completeness, accuracy, quality and clarity ‘of the information, submitted with the EIS and signed off by the Developer’s REAP; and The failure in preparing the EIS to ensure the requisite high standards, including the potential proffering of misleading information, as specified by the Clause 3 of the EPA Regulation and the July 2021 Guidelines. This questions the integrity of REAP Certification as to ‘completeness, accuracy, quality and clarity ‘of the information, submitted with the EIS and signed off by the Developer’s REAP; and … To continue reading, download the full Executive Summary below. Download the Executive Summary Download our Full Submission
Sound Advice
IMPORTANT UPDATE!! Voice for Walcha commissioned an acoustical engineering company to execute a Technical Review of the noise report done by Vestas, which forms part of the EIS. The review identifies significant errors in how the Developer mismanaged compliance with standards, regulation, assumptions and general scientific skill on assessments. The report is highly technical. Winterbourne the Developer says, that no property owner other than those who have agreed to have turbines installed on their land, will experience sound levels higher than what is allowed by NSW Planning and therefore the project can proceed. This is incorrect. We believe that because of the mistakes made by the Developer the actual sound levels may be as much as 14 decibels (dB) higher than predicted. From a scientific view point every 10dB increase in sound level is heard as a doubling in “loudness”. There is a very high likelihood that hundreds of properties, currently considered as unaffected by sound, will fall outside the allowable legislated limits and a new turbine layout will need to be proposed. The EIS is intended to describe as accurately as possible, the before and after effects of these turbines, so all those affected can understand exactly what to expect. The current EIS fails to do this, with respect to sound. There is no doubt that the sound study must be done again without mistakes. Please join us by submitting an objection to the EIS with this being at least one of the reasons. We need to get these objections in by Jan 23rd. L Husson and Associates – Winterbourne Wind Farm Noise Assessment Report
Winterbourne Wind EIS – Facts and Concerns
EIS Submissions due before 23rd January 2023 Wrong place. Wrong size. Wrong developer. Poor Consultation Processes Both the Non-Indigenous and Indigenous Communities have been very poorly consulted with by the Developer. The Community has not been afforded sufficient information flow for what could be a game changing development for Walcha. A development that has potentially a 62 years project life. Poor Site Selection The Developer has failed with statutory obligations to consider feasible alternatives to the site. The site selection and the proposed sizing of the site at 700MW unfairly intensifies impact on a small rural community like Walcha .It is totally inconsistent with any strategic land use planning and against the interests maintaining high quality agricultural land. High Ecological Impact Due to construction against the unique and beautiful Oxley Wild Rivers National park, part of the World Heritage Gondwana Rain Forests. Concerns with this proximity relate to construction run-off directly impacting the Park and the Macleay Catchment and River itself. Diminished capacity to deploy aerial support to fight fires, Destruction of wildlife corridors into and out of the Park. High Health Impact From noise and vibration, blade flicker and (during construction) dust inhalation. Increased Cumulative Impact The size of the Project in the context of the other wind and solar projects which developers intend to be co-located in and around Walcha induce a significant cumulative or compounding effect on the Community including visual impact, noise, road congestion and road destruction. Road works prior to, during and after construction Leading to extensive road user delays and stoppages. Our roads are simply not made for these vehicle weights, and this heavy traffic intensity. Roads will be heavily damaged, have shortened life and will need to be rebuilt on a large scale. Traffic congestion impact Of trucks on the Oxley Highway during the 3-year construction period, with 288 trucks per day during the 11 months of peak construction. Unknown additional traffic carting gravel and water, as the developer does not yet know where this is coming from. This additional resource traffic is likely to dwarf the traffic noted in the current traffic report. Add to this outlook the cumulative impacts of tsunami. Negative tourism impact With gigantic installed turbines sited against iconic visitor destinations and wilderness areas Significant Water Impact EIS suggests the requirement for 150 Megalitres. EIS also states 6ML for concrete foundations, but simple arithmetic of 20% of 750cu.m per foundation x 119 turbines gives 17.8ML. Similarly, dust suppression has been grossly understated using industry estimates. Vestas Project Director had earlier stated that 220ML of water will be required. This would a considerable underestimate – realistic calculation would suggest a conservative 675ML is required. Where is the water source? EIS suggests it will come from harvestable rights, bores in the area, farm dams or from Walcha council supply. The scale of this requirement is staggering – it will empty the Walcha storage dam, currently under construction, more than 2 times over. Put another way, it is 56,000 x 12,000L truck loads travelling on our roads. Massive impact on the existing gravel resource Construction of 113km of road plus hardstands is estimated to require 850,000 Tonnes of road building gravel. For perspective, our only registered gravel pit has a current annual license of 29,000 cu.m. (<10% of this total requirement). Assuming 38T truck and dog configuration, this is over 22,000 truck loads in total, with an unknown portion of this gravel coming into the project area. The EIS does not include the majority of these gravel and water truck movements in their assessment, as they do not know where this water and gravel is coming from. If the traffic movements estimated above are carried out over a 11-month period – this amounts to an additional 800 truck movements (allowing for both directions of travel) per day! Reckless Biodiversity risk assessment The Developer has tabled an inaccurate, incomplete and somewhat erroneous report on the potential impacts to biodiversity values. This is particularly concerning given the immediate proximity to the UNESCO Gondwana Rainforests and the Wilderness associated with the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park. There are many examples of the paucity of their assessment response. Some of these include … Wedgetail Eagles and Raptors – being present and threatened by the Wind Turbines as they soar from the gorges into the Wind Turbine area. There is a high concentration of Eagles that exist on the edge of the gorge, where a large number of turbines are located. These birds are particularly prone to bird strike with Wind Turbines. Loss of connectivity habitat – impacting wildlife corridors to the National Park. Most of the retained vegetation on farmland is on ridgelines that will be cleared to make way for 113km of roads, underground cabling and turbines, that are targeting those same ridgelines. Loss of habitat for threatened species – loss of 207Ha of Koala and Greater Glider habitat. Turbine strikes with Endangered Birds (Little Eagle, Glossy Black Cockatoo and White Throated Needle Tail) and Bats, losing an important insect pest control in the ecosystem. Loss of the threatened Narrow leaved black peppermint and other threatened ecological communities. Biodiversity Offset Scheme Project construction and operation is resulting in assessed destruction of native habitat, that is carrying a penalty and Ecosystem Credit payment of $50,887,024 and Species Credits payment of $13,431,558. Over $64 Million in total. This is a destructive project by industry standards.The health of our natural ecology should not be for sale. You simply cannot re-create the 207 Ha of habitat that is being destroyed. This project is in the wrong place. Economic Analysis With an estimated $200/MWhr pricing, this project is likely to generate $420Million annually in energy sales. Lease agreements with Wind Farm hosts is likely to be around $3.6M in total per year, and community fund $0.75 Million per year. For damage to the environment, they will get the chequebook out and fix that for $64 Million, once off, through Biodiversity Offset costs, (because threatened and endangered species will appreciate
A quick response to criticisms directed at Voice for Walcha
A quick response to criticisms directed at Voice for Walcha The Voice for Walcha would like to respond to some comments and criticisms that have been raised in the community recently, from named and anonymous sources. Regarding the accusation of NIMBY’ism, we would like to remind our accusers that what we have objected to is large scale industrial developments that impact negatively on our community and our landscape. We are taking the position we have taken because we value our community, our landscape, and our town, for the qualities that it has. We make no apology for defending Walcha and its unique and beautiful strengths. We have argued that this project is; in the Wrong Place, (against the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, part of the Gondwana Rainforest Wilderness area. Requiring that project traffic travel through the LGA using Oxley Highway and Thunderbolts Way affecting traffic to Tamworth and Armidale, as well as affecting local traffic and residents North and East of Walcha. is the Wrong Size, (placing massive burdens on resources, housing, health services, childcare and other trade services) is being promoted by the Wrong Developer (inexperienced developer who is really a seller of turbine components, wanting to bolster dwindling European sales by entering the race as a learner developer) Given that there are multiple projects being planned, it is not necessary for our community, or the NSW planning department, to open the floodgates for the first application – particularly if it is a poor-quality project. Let’s demand a good project from a good developer, for it to be successful. Regarding the accusation of being anti-renewable, we have repeatedly stated our support of renewable technology, and the responsible transition to it. We are prolific users and investors of renewables ourselves, so to label us as anti-renewable is naive and off-target. This uneducated cheap shot is a sign of desperation and lacks knowledge in the argument. Regarding the comment about Voice for Walcha objecting “for their own selfish reasons, and not for the greater good of the community or the environment”, we are not sure whether the irony of this comment requires us to even respond. We are not gaining anything financially from our actions. Regarding accusations of errors and mistruths, we have had vague comments about “spreading mistruths”, “scaremongering” etc, but not once has anyone had the ability (or decency) to point out specific points that need correcting. We go to extensive lengths to fact check and are careful with information that is not verified. We welcome this effort by anyone who has bothered to describe any of our information as inaccurate, to point to specific examples, so that we can address them. That would be fair. By contrast, we have been able to point to a number of specific mistruths, inaccuracies, omissions, and misleading comments that Vestas have had to correct, or clarify. For example, the planning portal now includes a letter of corrections that Vestas has been instructed by the planning department to publish. This is, we are told, unprecedented, and points to the poor quality of the EIS documents that Vestas has provided. Further inaccuracies are yet to be dealt with. Regarding the criticism of our lack of contribution to the debate of alternatives for energy supply, it was not a priority of ours to develop new ideas – but there are plenty of other ideas, and BETTER ideas. For example; Investment in off-grid generation. The ground footprint is already being used by structures, therefore no loss of agricultural land, no loss of biodiverse habitat, no change to infrastructure, no drain on water or gravel, no negatives to community. A team of smart and capable locals who can travel in a Pantech with a few ladders and tools are capable of doing this. The $1.9billion (recently quoted by Doug Landfear as the cost of the Winterbourne project to buy parts from Vestas and install), could build well over 50,000 stand-alone residential solar systems with back up diesel generators. Never have a blackout or a power bill again. This could provide investment options locally, as a locally driven project. For example, development in areas of non-prime agricultural land, where property sizes are much larger, implying fewer disaffected neighbours, in addition to a much more attractive return to host landholders, who could host a larger number of turbines on a larger parcel of (lower value) land. Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s), that are becoming mainstream research and investment options for leading nations around the world. If located at existing coal fired power stations, there would be nil requirement for transmission upgrades, resulting in a more simple and a faster solution. The options are endless and are not limited by our lack of contribution to the conversation. We want to restate our motivation for our activity, that we want the best outcome for Walcha, and we want everyone to be informed and have an opportunity to participate in the conversation while there is an opportunity to do so. To ignore this process, only to find ourselves in an industrial landscape that we were not aware was coming, would be a shame. Let’s participate, not be the plaything of an offshore developers profit driven desire, but drive the agenda ourselves, to suit our community. If it were not for the massive amount of support our office and group receives daily, we would not be motivated to continue. We are determined to avoid any personal vilification, and to prevent any division. That does not preclude us from having a Voice for Walcha. We thank the Walcha community for their continued interest and involvement during this critical time in our towns future. We wish you and your families a Merry Christmas and safe and happy New Year. Cameron Greig Damien Timbs Jim Young Simone Timbs Kate Durack Michael Luchich Rachel Greig Voice for Walcha https://voiceforwalcha.com
The results are in! Community Survey – Oct 22
Download Powerpoint Presentation to Walcha Council Oct 2022
Powerpoint Presentation to Council Oct 22
Download Powerpoint Presentation to Walcha Council Oct 2022
Bio Diversity Map vs REZ Map
Download the Cumulative Effect Map as at October 2022
Letters to the Editor
Various Letters to the Editor