Glanmire Solar Farm

Please refer to the attached submission document.

Please refer to the attached Submission and 11 appendixes.

I do not support the proposed Solar Farm in Glanmire NSW

I live within one kilometre of the proposed site. This area is part of the scenic Bathurst Plains, consisting of productive farms and stunning views. Should the development be approved, the farm I live on will no longer be able to operate an agricultural business due to the lack of available adequate Public Liability Insurance (as confirmed by insurance broker) to cover a large-scale industrial site located 10 metres from its boundary fence.
In addition to the solar array the project proposes Battery storage infrastructure. This infrastructure has not been adequately addressed in the EIS. No acoustic report has been completed despite the proximity of residences. No proper hazard assessment has been prepared addressing the substantial and known fire risk the batteries represent. The project should not be approved without properly addressing these risks to neighbours.
The proposal would create substantial construction traffic on Brewongle Lane, an unsealed road which is not designed or capable of carrying more than the current level of rural traffic. In its current form Brewongle Lane requires regrading with every rainfall event. It is not suitable for heavy traffic that the construction would bring.
The EIS does not consider the visual impact of the development from Mt Panorama. No consideration is given to the glint and glare impacts on Bathurst Airport now, or for the next 40 years of the proposed project as the airport expands, or the effect on the flying school or Bathurst Soaring Club.
The Visual Impact Assessment dismissed any impact of the project from my residence based on the height of the proposed panels. It did not take into consideration the other infrastructure, including the transformers and substation that will be considerably higher than the panels.
I do not believe the EIS has shown why the development should be located where it is. It is within a few hundred metres of the closest homes and only 4.1km from the residential area of Bathurst. The changes to the infrastructure SEPP are designed to protect Regional Cities like Bathurst and allow for future planning and growth, much of which is yet to be formulated. Given that the site lies within the DPIE’s own mapped Bathurst Regional City Area it is inappropriate to restrict the future use of the proposed and surrounding land for more than 40 years into the future. I believe this project is a test case for the SEPP amendments relating to Solar Projects adjacent to regional cities and the approval of this development will be a precedent for other developments around, both Bathurst and the other regional cities that the SEPP amendments were designed to protect.
Allowing the development to be built here will restrict the future growth of Bathurst. It will restrict the expansion of the Bathurst Airport and, potentially the location of the proposed high-speed rail and upgrades to the Great Western Highway. State and Federal governments have committed to spending billions of dollars on infrastructure in our area, it is inappropriate to restrict the development of the district by approving a project which potentially restricts the progress of the area.

I strongly object to the project.
I have attached my initial submission. I reserve the right to amend and make additions to my submission as further information becomes available to me after the closure date of exhibition.

I am strongly against the proposal which will instantly industrialize productive agricultural country, a finite resource.

Dear Director,

I live at 462 Brewongle Lane with my wife and four children.

We moved to the family farm from the city (London) nearly 20 years ago - because in my view - it is one of the best locations to live around the world.

The ability to farm cattle and sheep on prime cultivation land just west of the Great Dividing Range - and within 2 and a half hours from a harbour city - can not be beaten.

We have invested all of our money into the farm and its expansion. Clearly our only asset will be devalued if this project proceeds.

I grew up in south west NSW and attended many farms of differing size, type and quality.

This area - including the proposed site - is clearly prime cultivation land and the wrong site for a solar farm.

I am not against green - and believe that solar is the future, however I suggest that the future solar projects are put in the correct location with the correct infrastructure - not some half assed project by a company originated from overseas - with limited liability - and therefore responsibility.

The site is 5km from a residential area - and will obviously have a negative visual impact.

Please do not let this proceed - let NSW plan and built solar properly and for the next generation....

I object to this proposed project for the following reasons:
1. Primarily I object on the basis that this proposed development is an abuse of increasingly rare cultivation land. The details within the EIS are misleading on so many occasions, but it is particularly at fault in describing the land at 4823 Great Western Highway as being of Land and Soil Classification category 4 and 5, and hence conveniently for them of a category that NSW DPE would consider for large renewable projects such as the proposed project. This assessment by Elgin Energy deliberately ignores a major determinant of land and soil capability which is the successful management of the land (this is clearly stated in the Land and Soil Capability Assessment Scheme 2012). This land has been managed in such a way as to evidence highly productive agricultural capacity for decades. In the absence of any evidence of poor management of the land and soil at this site, this Proponent should not be believed.
2. In addition, I object to this project because it sits within 5kms of Raglan residential area, which is an issue raised by the State Planning Authority for consideration in its SEPP amendment - where Bathurst is specifically mentioned, as it is a growing regional city. If the Planning Authority sees issue with large scale utility projects being placed within this radius, for reasons of city growth or rural landscape or other reasons, it must actually act not just 'consider', it should actually stop these development applications from progressing, not merely raise the 5km radius for consideration, an act which seems completely pointless except to raise stress levels of farmers and their communities.
3. Further, I object on the basis that this entire 'planning approval process' for State Significant Developments rides roughshod over farming communities - it allows proponent's claims to go untested for far too long, it creates devastating divisions in rural communities, it decimates the mental and emotional health of men and women who work damn hard to improve pastures and land and who carry the burden of producing food for our growing population and our export markets. The SSD approval process is causing a mental health crisis in our rural communities and the NSW Government decision makers and politicians chasing targets, do not appear to care.
4. In addition I object because the SSD approval process is weighted towards the developers. There is no support for communities in this whole process - they are left to fund expert reports that can be used to contest proponents claims, they have to wait up to 2 years through several steps of the SSD application process, to receive enormous documents (EIS) to review, but are given just 28 days to respond, all this while working full-time at their jobs and on their farms. The entire process is weighted toward developers and against farmers and regional/rural communities.
5. Food security - Surely if COVID supply chain impacts taught us anything it was that we need to do more to protect our food security in a domestic setting. Recent floods have seen prime cultivation land devastated, but for all Elgin Energy's talk of the 'poor drainage' of the land at 4823 Great Western Highway, this land continues to look fantastic and to keep producing. It is an obscene dismissal of productive cultivation land and an obtuse demonstration of ignorance by bureaucrats of how food is produced to allow large scale solar infrastructure to cruel land that is a key cog in food production.
6. Further, the proposed project at Glanmire will see approximately eight eucalyptus trees of significant age removed from the site. I object to their removal for this project. With only eighteen trees of similar age on the property this is a disgraceful depletion of ancient tree stock that cannot be replaced with saplings or seedlings.
7. I object because it will have a negative visual impact on the landscape. The visual impact management that the Proponent notes it will undertake, are laughable. Their modelling/photo montage places images of young trees next to a tree that is of at least 80yrs old, and shows them of similar height. There is no way a sapling or seeding or even 3yr old mature planting will reach anywhere near a height high enough or breadth wide enough to block neighbouring or highway travellers' views of this intensive glass and metal infrastructure for at least 40 years, if ever.
8. I object to this project because the impact of water run off from the masses of glass-faced panels has not been adequately addressed. NSW DPE should do proper research on farmland adjoining solar plants around the state to document the real impact of erosion caused by rapid, increased volume water run off. Farmers at Wellington, adjacent to the solar farm there are left with devastated farmland, flooded and eroded, and a solar plant operator that is not addressing the impact of their infrastructure.
9. I object to scar this project infrastructure will leave on the landscape for an expected lifetime of 25-40 years. What research has been done on the actual lifespan of solar plants and solar energy technology in Australia? WIth technology improving rapidly, there is a real likelihood that this infrastructure will be obsolete in 5 years time and the developer /operator will abandon the site.
10. I object to the conflict with existing land use arising from this project; not just for the proposed site, but also for adjacent farms that will be impacted by the insurance issue, with high fire risk from farming operations impacting on farmers and contractor's ability to secure necessary public liability insurance.
11. I object to this project because I have seen the large renewable energy projects that have been approved on the Planning Portal, and many of them have progressed from approval on to multiple modifications. The original scope being increased and the initial impact being expanded, all at the cost of farmers and rural communities.
12. I object on the grounds that if this clearly stunning landscape and incredibly productive land with optimal rainfall and proven output, noted for consideration given its proximity within 5kms of a residential area, can be dismissed in favour of meeting carbon emission targets and shifting the costs to do so to private developers, then a precedent is set and there is end to the incursions that developers will make on productive cultivation farmland.

There are so many reasons to object to this project going ahead in this local region, but none more important than the impact that this project will have on our food security. The planned site is proven cultivation land, classified by NSW Planning as category 2 -3 by independent agronomist, D. Harbison. This land has a history of over 100 years of demonstrated productive capacity as prime cultivation land and should not be used for a large solar development. Our state government needs to take more ownership on having a better plan for our renewable energy zones. Whilst it has designated renewable energy zones, have we already decreased our food security just from where those zones have been placed? Should we be enforcining energy producers looking to make a fast dollar to invest in the infrastructure for a better planned, more workable and sustainable approach to reaching our renewable energy targets. Not taking away prime cultivation farmland. We are not creating more land and certainly not creating more prime agricultural land like this. Our agricultural land is already under threat from overseas ownership and this is a major concern moving forward. If we reduce our production capacity even just by a little, we are placing more pressure on our farming communities. Added to this we are an ageing population and a growing population, particularly in this local region.
There are several of these types of applications on the table just in this region alone, how much land are we going to trade out before we have reached our renewable target? Make these enthusiastic developers contribute to developing our renewable energy zones as designated by the government and we will see exactly how enthusiastic and committed they really are.
The misuse of this land for a solar plant development threatens food security by removing valuable cultivation land from food production. After years of drought, fire and floods, Australia needs to protect all food producing land, our farmers resilient as they are have had enough, let's not throw another issue to make life difficult for them. It is not just the existing site that will go under as food producing but potentially also neighbouring farms may choose not to crop for insurance purposes, for example if they choose not to crop because of possible fire outbreak whilst harvesting, this will be another hit to our food production.
This is not a comment about being anti solar, this is a comment to be PRO food security and encouraging the government to look at it's own planning of appropriate renewable energy zones, and not reducing our food producing capability.

THE PROPOSED SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE WRONG LOCATION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED ON PRIME CULTIVATION FARM LAND. THE THREAT TO FOOD SECURITY IS A MAJOR CONCERN OF MINE, AS ALL PEOPLE NEED FOOD.
THE INSURANCE ISSUE IS SOMETHING FARMERS DO NOT NEED.
IN A DISTRICT LIKE BATHURST 128,000 SOLAR PANELS WOULD HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE VISUAL IMPACT AND PLANTING TREE BUFFERS WOULD NOT WORK ESPECIALLY FORM MY PROPERTY

I oppose to the proposed solar development at Glanmire due to its close proximity to the residential area of Raglan/Bathurst.
I believe that the land should remain as prime cultivation land and am concerned that the adjacent property owners will have to cease opportunities shattering their livelihoods.

I am STRONGLY objecting to the proposed Glanmire Solar PLANT for the following reasons:-
* Significant de-valuation of our property which will be drastically impacted with a major visual impact
* I am a resident of the Glanmire/Brewongle village & will have to drive approx 2km past the proposed site from my front door on a daily basis, several times
*No compensation has ever been mentioned and/or offered by Elgin or NGH in relation to the de-valuation of our property
* The proposed site is within 5km of the residential area of Raglan
* The proposed site is within 5km of the Bathurst airport, creating major glare issues for aircraft
*Elgin energy's EIS submission shows trees around the boundary of the side. In the photos submitted the trees appear to block out the solar plant but the trees in their submission are large than the gum tree (also in their submission) on Sam & Polly Bonano's property which we believe to be approx 60-80 years old. Trees to block out the solar plant would take decades to get to a size that would "block out" and lesson the visual impact of this industrial development
* We purchased & built our beautiful property to live in a rural environment & not adjoining or overlooking a major industrial solar plant
*We have recently read in the EIS (never mentioned to us by Elgin or NGH) that there will also be approx 48 very large shipping container like units containing battery storage over the block.
* We have also just read in the EIS(again not mentioned prior by Elgin or NGH) that there are 24/7 security camera's and flood lights over the property. Again, we love where we live because of the rural atmosphere, no street lights & peace and quite.
* We are farmers. On a daily basis we use generators, welders, tractors, slashers, motor bikes, grinders etc. You cant always take the "repair job" to the shed, these machinery items are often used in the paddocks to repair fences etc. We will have to cease using items & farming operations due to the inability to secure insurance covering for our general farming activities. What happens if catch on fire and a fire starts on the solar plant and travels across our property, who is responsible, they are a $2 shelf company with no money??
*The proposed site has been classified by NSW planning as category 2-3 by independent LOCAL agronomist, D Harbison. The mis-use of this land as a solar plant threatens food security by removing valuable cultivation land from food production.
* Brewongle Lane runs along side the proposed site for approximately 2km. This is a dirt road which gets VERY dusty. No doubt the dust from the road traffic will settle on the solar panels affecting their efficency. Do the solar panels get cleaned and if so who by? I can only assume this would be very costly to clean some 128,000 solar panels on a regular basis.
* Elgin Energy have NOT been upfront and honest with the information regarding this Solar plant
* We have had approx 2 years of stress and anxiety from this development. Unless we do our own research and find out for ourselves we are often told nothing by Elgin, they have been very sneaky, dont tell the truth and/or dont answer our questions.
* Our group/community have spent thousands of dollars to object this development which I believe is completely unfair and again no compensation has ever been mentioned.

The proposed Solar Farm for Glanmire needs more consideration. Please see the attached document for my submission.

Regards,
Paul Ryan.

The proposed solar farm at Glanmire is not in the right location.
Not only is the location within 5kms of a residential area (Raglan), which contradicts the 2021 NSW Planning laws to avoid large renewables in such areas, it is also on prime agricultural land. Farmers have cultivated this land for over 100 years. A respected agronomist has classified this land as category 2-3, meaning it is capable of prime cultivation. Why would the government allow a huge solar farm on such land. I do understand the need to reduce our emissions and to implement renewable energy sources, however at what cost to rural communities and to the food security of our growing population? Surely in a country as big as Australia, we have more suitable locations for solar farms which are not on prime agricultural land or within 5kms of residential areas.
Please do not allow such a development to take place. Please implement a sensible law with a long term view that prevents such developments from getting to this point. The damage and stress that these proposals have on rural communities is not OK. Such developments should be built in areas where the land not able to be cultivated and residential areas are not within 5kms.
This is not the right location.

Food security is tantamount, hence I strongly object to the positioning of the Glanmire Solar Farm on its current location on prime agricultural land. The Glanmire area is one of our most highly productive agricultural areas in the Bathurst region. Already we have lost a significant amount of grain producing and farming land around Bathurst and the Sydney basin, due to suburbia encroaching on farm land. With grain supplies from the Ukraine area grossly diminished and thereby impacting heavily on supplies around the world, we need to think to the future in maintaining our prime agricultural land and food supplies to a growing population., not only from a social conscience perspective but also in building our own export capability.
Whilst I support the value and benefits of solar farming, I firmly believe they should be placed on less arable land. Further, Councils should be responsible for zoning which areas should be suitable for solar farming in their LGA's, so that it is not a case of dividing our communities

Glanmire Solar Farm, Bathurst


"FARM" is such a nice smooth gentle word, reminiscent of Olde McDonald . . . and bringing forth images of fluffy white lambs gambolling around on a velvet field of luxuriant green.

"INDUSTRIAL" is what this thing is, a vast mechanical works taking up good agricultural land, full of toxic materials. And self destructing in high winds and hail.

There is considerable community push back to renewable projects. In the US over 102 solar farms and 371 wind farms have been rejected up to October 2022. Source robertbryce.com. The US communities do not want them, and nor do the Australian communities.




I object to paying subsidies. If it is so good, let it stand on its own merits. I note that Andrew Forrest's Squadron Energy has paid $4.1BLN for the Swiss CWP Renewables Australian portfolio. Two conclusions can be drawn from that:


1.That the subsidies paid and preferences granted to renewables are EXCESSIVE.

2.That Australia is buying back the enterprises we licensed out at ENORMOUS cost.



I especially object to providing subsidies from the Government, as money is better spent directly on the environment, and the contingent liabilities will reduce our credit standing.




As each new solar works and wind construction come online it makes the grid less and less reliable. Up to 50% renewables is just about manageable with 33% spare capacity in fast response coal and gas. No country has successfully gone beyond that. Doubling down with more renewables makes it less reliable. No judicial area in the world has achieved 100% renewables, even with 100% spare capacity.



I ask the proponent to itemise:

1. Public monies. Detail the description and dollar amount of each subsidy, and other benefit, both direct and indirect, to be received from the public purse in a time line. Indirect benefits, including the value of a government guarantee, need to include an actuarial calculation.


2. Itemise the amount of materials needed to manufacture and construct all parts of this project. Including rare earths, where they are going to be sourced from and disposed to.


3.Itemise the amount of CO2 released in all aspects of creating this project, and compare it with the anticipated CO2 to be saved. with timeline, including from the loss of vegetation from the site and connecting roads and transmission lines.


4. Detail the change to global carbon dioxide levels and temperature to be achieved by this project both in gross terms and net after 3. above.


5. A calculation of energy in to energy out of this project.


6. Detail how the panels and BESS will be recycled or not, frequency and amount of material to be disposed of and where.


7.Detail the number and skill level of the jobs to be created and to be exported.




I request the Planning Department:

1.That the project receives NO subsidy and NO preferences.

2. To require a bond or irrevocable third party AAA guarantee for damage repair, removal, rehabilitation, and toxicity to third parties.


3. To ensure that NO SLAVERY or CHILD LABOUR is used in the manufacture of any of its components.


4. To require the proponent to publicly provide annual reports for the project, including itemisation of each government support, and where those are indirect, an actuarial calculation of their value to the proponent and cost to the economy, and detail their 5 min generation and supply.

5. To provide annual ESG reports.

6. To make the project, and its owner, and its ultimate owner non transferrable.


7.That adequate environmental safeguards be required for fire and toxicity.


8.The fire and toxicity of BESS, especially, have adequate safequards.

9.Require the proponent to provide and pay for their own connection costs to the grid upfront.

10.Require the proponent to pay the costs of transmission upgrades based
on their proportionate capacity, upfront.
11.Require strict limits on the frequency and voltage of acceptable supply.

12.Impose severe penalties on supply contracted for but not delivered.

13.Require effective discontinuation to enable supply to be cut when not wanted.

14.I further ask the Planning Department to apply the Precautionary Principle in relation to the uncertainty of the net benefits, and the known and likely risks to the environment, to reject the proposal.

15.If granted consent, that it be subject to the some 60 conditions which the NSW Independent Planning Commission have designed to:

prevent, minimise and/or offset adverse environmental impacts;
set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance;
outline how the land can be returned to its current use following decommissioning and rehabilitation of the site;
require regular monitoring and reporting; and
provide for the ongoing environmental management of the development.”

REJECT THE PROPOSAL.

Mr Karl Okorn 10/12/2022
Planning & Assessment
Department of Planning and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124

Dear Sir,

Proposed Glanmire Solar Farm - Project SSD-21208499
I would like to register my objection to the proposed Glanmire Solar farm (Project SSD-21208499).
The issue causing me most concern is the proposed location of the development being considered and in particular the potential loss of food production capabilities should the development go ahead.
Recent worldwide events have highlighted the vulnerabilities we can be exposed to in relation to food supply. I believe it is critical that farming/agricultural land be protected everywhere. The benefits of protecting our food supply capabilities extend well beyond just our local communities.
Over the last few years there has been well publicised reactions to food supply shortages in our supermarkets (including in our cities where population density is higher) with extreme anxiety surrounding food supply. The planned site for the above proposal is prime agricultural land and is located in an area that I have often heard referred to as “Our food bowl”.
The removal of this productive land from farming activity and productivity affects many more people than just the land owner and the local community. This has been demonstrated to great effect by the empty supermarket shelves and consequent inflation of prices due to scarcity surrounding food that were witnessed all around our country over the last few years.
For the above reasons I am critical of the chosen location for the proposed development and believe that more suitable locations should be investigated with a view towards protecting food production options via cropping and or grazing.

I appreciate you taking the time to consider my objection.

I vehemently oppose the project and attach my submissions for consideration.

This is prime agricultural land which is being destroyed. The overwhelming community response is that this project is not welcomed. Listen to the community and help conserve our agricultural land. Our regional and rural communities are always forgotten and expected to bear the burden for the rest of the nation. There are more appropriate sites for developments of this nature, for example, the 5 renewable energy zones established by the NSW Government. What is the point in having these REZs if these developments are not placed there.

I believe this proposal is in the wrong location and will have a negative impact on the neighbouring and surrounding properties. The development of this land into a solar farm will create issues for farming properties in the area as they face issues obtaining insurance to cover their general farming practices. The proposed planting of trees to obstruct the visual impact will take years to develop, meaning the panels will be in clear view of neighbouring properties and visitors travelling to the Central West. This proposal contradicts the protections put in place for rural landscapes as noted by the Bathurst Regional Council in their Local Environmental Plan 2014 and the Rural Strategy 2010. The existing site has demonstrated proven capacity to be prime cultivation land and the proposed development would conflict with this site being used as agricultural production land.