Scott River
Wind Farm.
Approved.
Not yet proven.

Australia needs renewables. It needs them urgently. That is exactly why this process has to be done properly.

All three regulatory approvals have now been granted. The WA EPA decided not to formally assess the project in December 2025. The federal government issued its EPBC approval with binding conditions in February 2026. And on 30 April 2026, the Regional Development Assessment Panel unanimously approved the development application — subject to environmental and planning conditions — at a meeting in Margaret River that drew a large crowd of supporters and opponents.

Synergy says it is now analysing the decision and requirements to determine the project's commercial viability. A final investment decision has not been made.

The question is no longer whether this can be approved. It is whether the conditions that came with those approvals are strong enough, and public enough, to protect what they were designed to protect. Getting that right matters — for this project, and for every renewable project that follows.

In the space of five months — December 2025 to April 2026 — all three regulatory decisions were handed down. Each came with conditions. The accountability test starts now.

The Scott River Plain has acid sulphate soils at shallow depth. Every regulatory approval recognised this. The federal Annexure A conditions address it directly. The question is whether those conditions will be enforced in real time.

Acid sulphate soils contain iron sulphides that are stable when waterlogged and undisturbed. When excavated or drained — as turbine foundations, access roads, and cable trenches require — they oxidise and produce sulphuric acid. That acid kills aquatic life, releases heavy metals, and can sterilise waterways for years. The Scott River, Blackwood River, and Flinders Bay estuary are downstream.

The WA EPA's Chair Determination also identified this: "potential impacts on terrestrial environmental quality from disturbance of acid sulfate soils" and "inland waters from dewatering and disturbance of acid sulfate soils" were listed as key environmental factors in the referral information.

The WA EPA's decision not to formally assess is not a clean bill of health. It is a finding that the impacts are regulable through other processes — provided those processes work.

The EPA's Chair Determination identified four preliminary key environmental factors: terrestrial environmental quality, terrestrial fauna, inland waters, and social surroundings. It found the impacts can be regulated by other decision-making processes — including the EPBC Annexure A conditions, a clearing permit under Part V of the EP Act, and the Preliminary Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan (Preliminary BBAMP), which was peer-reviewed and amended before the decision.

In a separate submission in June 2024, while assessing the project, the EPA told the federal government that the national wind farm assessment standards are not adequate — six deficiencies, signed by Deputy Chair Lee McIntosh. Those six findings remain on the public record.

Three species of Black Cockatoo are present at Scott River. All three are EPBC-listed. The federal Annexure A conditions set a minimum blade height of 59 metres above ground level when turbines are operating.

The EPA's decision not to assess was made on the basis of Synergy implementing the amended Preliminary Bird and Bat Adaptive Management Plan. That plan — peer-reviewed at the EPA's request — defines trigger and threshold actions for ongoing risks to terrestrial fauna, including collision risk. The EPBC Annexure A blade height condition (C11) adds an additional federal layer.

The RDAP meeting on 30 April 2026 drew a large crowd of both supporters and opponents. 405 objections and 155 letters of support were lodged during public consultation. The RDAP approved it — but the community is not done.

Save the Scott River coordinator Scott Baxter said the panel had failed to address concerns over the project's size, noise and environmental impact. He described being "in shock" after the decision. Synergy has said it is still determining commercial viability — no final investment decision has been made.

Three approvals have been granted. A final investment decision has not been made. Before construction begins, there are five things the public should be able to see. Not because the approvals were wrong — but because accountability requires it.

This is not an argument against renewable energy. Wind is part of the answer. All three regulatory processes have now run their course and delivered approvals. Synergy is still determining whether the project is commercially viable.

The question that remains — the one the community at Scott River has been asking — is whether the conditions that came with those approvals are real safeguards or paperwork. Whether they will be monitored, enforced, and publicly verifiable. Whether the acid sulphate soils will be managed. Whether the Black Cockatoos will be protected. Whether the Scott River Ironstone Association — which exists nowhere else on Earth — will remain intact.

If the answer is yes: show the work. Publish the ASSDS Management Plan. Publish the full RDAP conditions. Make the BBAMP public. Define the monitoring framework. Release the pre-clearing survey results.

If the conditions are being met, transparency costs nothing. If they are not being met, the public has a right to know before construction begins. The people of Scott River asked for a proper process. They deserve to know whether they got one.