Brewongle Solar Farm

This is a Catastrophic Betrayal of the Land – iconic Australian landscapes are being permanently mutilated by industrial-scale, toxic solar fields, filthy BESS, Turbine Monstrosities & sabotaging Transmission corridors — all in the name of a sham “green” future.

This project should not be approved because of the impact on the loss of productive land with the likely contamination of this land and the BESS is too close to the regional city of Bathurst and therefore the risk of toxic and carcinogenic compounds being spread over the city should a fire occur and which is a distinct possibility.
My deceased uncle will be turning in his grave as he farmed in this area and would also object should he be alive.

This is a waste of money - taxpayers money and electricity consumers money.
There is no ability to recycle solar panels or batteries on the scale that is planned in this so called transition.
This is not an energy transition but a transition of funds to developers.
There will be no benefit to the community, the impacts will be loss of land value and loss of agricultural land.
We don't want intermittent unreliable electricity.
We want affordable, abundant electricty.

This project is NOT in the public interest.

This project is NOT in the interest of the electricty consumer or the environment. There is no benefit for anyone for the project except the developer. There is no method of recycling the solar panels or the batteries, there is already enough solar power in the system from roof top solar. Stop destroying rural communities.

Stop wrecking the environment and covering agricultural land with solar panels. We already produce enough solar energy during the day from roof top solar. Stop spending taxpayers funds on projects such as this that will pollute the environment and profit only the developer.

I have attached my submission.
I would like to highlight that the proponents have not done a proper consultation with affected neighbours. The only direct correspondence we have had was a letter advising of the EIS exhibition period. This is despite requesting to be updated ahead of their public meeting in November last year which we were unable to attend due to overseas commitments.
Nobody at our property, us or our tenants has been contacted about the visual impact study and the Receiver information on their Visual impact study is incorrect. There are 3 houses on the property each with a dual impact of the proposed Glanmire Solar plant and the Brewongle Solar plant.

Community Submission Regarding the Proposed Solar Farm on Tarana Road, Brewongle
To: Department of Planning
Subject: Objection to Proposal for Solar Farm on Tarana Road, Brewongle
Dear Sir/Madam,
We, the residents and landowners of Brewongle and surrounding communities, submit this formal objection to the proposed solar farm on Tarana Road, Brewongle, currently being considered by Edify Energy.
Background and Community History
Photon Energy initially proposed a solar farm on this site in 2017. The proposal was strongly opposed by our community, supported by local State Representative Paul Toole and the Bathurst Regional Council. Concerns raised at that time included the proximity of the site to residential homes, potential adverse impacts on property values, and the site’s classification as prime agricultural land. These concerns were substantiated by reports from soil microbiology and real estate experts, leading to Photon Energy withdrawing their proposal.
In 2024, Edify Energy has submitted a new proposal for the same site, asserting that the land is not classified as prime agricultural land and claiming there is no evidence of negative impact on property values. We dispute these claims and request the Department to review the land classification and the supporting evidence provided by Edify Energy.
Land Classification and Agricultural Value
In 2017, agronomist Kieran Knight provided a report describing the land in Brewongle as some of the most productive cropping and livestock land within the region. The community has significant concerns that Edify’s assertion that this land is of lower agricultural quality is inaccurate. We urge the Department to scrutinize and challenge Edify’s claims based on existing expert reports and local evidence.
Impact on Property Values and Community Wellbeing
Our community members have personally experienced a decline in property interest and market value due to the proposed solar farm. For instance, our home, valued at $3–3.3 million in February 2024, has seen its sale interest diminish significantly since the proposal was announced, with prospective buyers deterred by the project’s impacts. This situation is not isolated; other nearby property owners are facing similar challenges. Three real estate agents have provided evidence that neighbouring properties will have a reduction in value if the project proceeds. Edify have conviently overlooked all the evidence of the local agents who are experts in the local market.

Landowner’s Site Selection and Alternative Options
The landowner owns approximately 7,000 acres and has intentionally chosen the site farthest from his residence. Historically, the community, with professional guidance, proposed an alternative site that would minimize impacts on neighbours and land of lower agricultural value. The owner declined this option citing additional costs, estimated at around $1 million—an expense that, in the broader scope of the project, appears minimal compared to the potential economic and social costs to the community.
Recommendations for Community-Driven Mitigation
We have proposed practical measures such as planting pine trees along the boundary on Tarana Road and creating contour banks with native grasses to lessen visual impacts. These measures were not incorporated into Edify’s current design.
Conclusion
While recognizing the importance of renewable energy projects, we believe they should be developed responsibly, prioritizing the protection of prime agricultural land, community wellbeing, and property values. We implore the Department of Planning to:
Challenge Edify Energy’s assertion regarding land classification.
Ensure neighbours are compensated for the proven loss of property value.
Consider alternative sites that minimize impact on the community.
We thank you for your attention to this matter and seek your support in protecting our community’s interests.

I believe that the development approval for this project should be refused as this proposal is fundamentally flawed, given that the site is inappropriate, and all impacts / risks have not been properly assessed or mitigated. A site further west will produce electricity more efficiently, and be capable of self-mitigating its impacts within the same landholding (rather than imposing impacts onto neighbours, eg insurance, change in land use, etc)

I live on a property adjacent to the proposed Brewongle Solar Farm. Our property is prime agricultural land where we graze livestock. We love this spot due to the quality of the land, proximity to town and the beautiful views. The proposed solar farm interferes with our beautiful country views and our quiet enjoyment of our property.
I have not been contacted by Edify Energy Pty Ltd to provide our views on the proposed solar farm. Neither has my husband, the tenants who also live on our property or our neighbours. I have my doubts that Edify have followed the proper planning process and are rather attempting to appear as if they have.
I also hold concerns about the increased bush fire risk the Brewongle Solar Farm places on both our property and the local Raglan township. Our property is located on Bushfire Prone Land with the biggest fire risk being grass fires. The local RFS have previously been called to our property to extinguish a grass fire. The Raglan township is approximately 4kms away and has a school, petfood factory and residential housing. A grassfire could quickly travel the 4kms and cause significant damage to the township.
I note that FRNSW have provided their reply and noted that Battery Energy Storage Systems present special problems for firefighting. However, the property is located within a Rural Fire Service rather than a FRNSW area and RFS have not provided a response.
The nearest RFS brigade (Raglan) is a volunteer brigade with an estimated turn out time of 15 minutes. Local RFS brigades are not equipped for firefighting fires of this nature. The nearest FRNSW station (Kelso) is a retained station, that would have a similar turn out time as firefighters would first need to leave their home or workplace and drive to the station to collect the fire truck before attending any calls. Current firefighting resources are not equipped for the additional risk the Brewongle Solar Farm places on the local area.

I object as there is no social licence, we are being deprived of our food producing land & essential food security, as well as having our energy sovereignty & national security trashed.

The Brewongle and surrounding communities have been opposing a proposed solar farm on Tarana Road at Brewongle for almost eight years. This has taken a significant mental, physical and economic toll on members of our community.

Photon Energy first proposed a solar farm on this site in 2017. This proposal was opposed with the support of our local State Representative Paul Toole and the Councillors of the Bathurst Regional Council. The Councillors wrote a letter to Photon Energy that in summary stated that whilst they supported renewable projects in the area, they did not think that Brewongle was an appropriate location due to its proximity to homes (and the potential loss in value to these homes and that the site was prime agricultural land. Photon Energy were provided with reports from an agronomist specialising in soil microbiology and local real estate agents to support these concerns. Photon Energy did not pursue their proposal. Edify Energy are now proposing a solar farm on the same site.

Edify have suggested and have provided evidence that this site is not considered to be prime agricultural land. We implore the Department of Planning to scrutinise this suggestion. In 2017, Kieran Knight, an agronomist and soil microbiology specialist provided a report stating that he considered the land in the Brewongle area to be some of the best cropping and high stock carrying capacity land that he had been associated with.

Edify have also claimed that there is no evidence that there would be negative impact on the value of neighbouring agricultural properties. This is NOT accurate, and we have experienced this firsthand. Edify fail to mention that many of the neighbouring properties, like ours on Tarana Road are not agricultural properties. Our home is a lifestyle block across the road from the proposed site, NOT an agricultural property. We had it valued at between $3 and $3.3 million in February 2024 by several local agents. We placed our home on the market to sell in October 2024, 9 months ago. To date, the interest in our property has been at well below the valuation due to the proposed solar farm and we are not the only neighbours in this position. If we were to be able to sell our property at all, it would be at significantly less than the 2024 valuation. The proposed solar farm has already had a significant negative impact on the property value of homes in what was once a highly sought after area.

The landowner of the proposed solar farm site owns approximately significant amount of land and has chosen this site because it is as far away as possible from his house. In 2017/18, the Brewongle Community worked with a local planner Anthony Daintith to identify a viable alternative site on the owner’s land which would minimise the impact on neighbours and on land considered to of lower agricultural quality. This suggestion was submitted to the owner who refused to consider the alternate site because it was too close to his house. Edify have said this alternate site was not suitable due to the additional costs associated with running power the approximately 2 kilometres back to the transmission lines. Enacon Group (Level 2 and 3 electrical construction and design contractors) estimated that this additional cost would have been approximately $1million in 2017. This is such minimal expense in the scheme of the predicted overall cost of the project, an expense that would prevent the loss of value to neighbouring properties. Why should the proponent and landowner profit at the expense of neighbours?

We have suggested that the proponent incorporate rows of pine trees along the fence line on Tarana Road and that they create grassed contour banks closer to the proposed site to protect the vista of neighbouring properties. The proponent has also not included this in their design.

We understand the need for renewable energy projects. However, these projects should not be built on prime agricultural land or in locations that cause significant economic detriment to surrounding property owners, especially when there is a more suitable alternative site. At the proposed site in Brewongle, the proponent and landowner will benefit economically at our and our neighbour’s expense.

I am a near neighbour with my residence being approximately 4.2km from the project and the rest of my property being closer to the project and a direct neighbour to the host landholder. My residence is mapped high visual impact as per modelling done by the proponent in their scoping and EIS reports but as it is 200m outside the required radius I am not classified as a neighbour under the planning rules. I requested more information from the proponent at the scoping report phase via email, the proponent has not gotten back to me at all with regards these enquires. I have not been notified at any stage of this project by the proponent and only learned about it by reading a scoping report for another renewable project at work which mentioned this project.
Talking to other members of the community and neighbours they have also not had any consultation or outline of potential benefits or controls put in place by the proponent despite being exposed to visual impacts, traffic during construction, fire risk and potential exposure to contaminants from the site in the longer term.
As far as outlined by the EIS there is not benefits to locals who will be most impacted by this project other than the host landholder. This is in direct contrast to the wind farm projects nearby that are offering benefits to community prior to even formalising the planning process despite this raising their profile for public anger.
It is unacceptable that a project such as this can come into a rural area and dramatically change the land use and the character of the landscape as well as introducing risks around traffic, fire and toxic materials with no consultation with neighbours of the project and the wider community and no provision of benefits outside the host of the project.
The way this project has got to this point in the planning process is why renewable energy does not have public support from those that live in regional NSW and have to live near these projects and should be benefiting from them.
Prior to this project proceeding any further the proponent should be made to come back and revisit all near neighbours as well as hold information sessions within the community where this project is located as well as provide some sort of meaningful benefit to local residents.

Please see attached document detailing my submission

Please refer to the attached.

Adrian and Ansia Klavins
380 Tarana Rd 
Brewongle, NSW 2795


Date: 16 June 2025

To:
The Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure 


Re: Concerns Regarding Proposed Brewongle Solar Farm 315 Tarana Road, Brewongle

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing as a neighbouring landowner to express my objection to and concerns regarding the proposed development of a solar farm on the property adjacent to ours.

While I recognise the importance of renewable energy development, I wish to raise several concerns about the potential impact this project may have on our property, community, and local infrastructure.

1. Visual Impact
:
The proposed site is highly visible from our property, and the installation of large-scale solar infrastructure will significantly alter the rural landscape that defines the character and enjoyment of our home. We made the decision to relocate our family to Brewongle for the offer of a quiet life away from the hustle of town and for the rural aspects and open country views. We therefore do not support the commencement of this project.

If the development is, however, approved, I strongly urge that sufficient visual buffers—such as natural vegetation or screening—be required to preserve the outlook for neighbouring properties.

2. Impact on Property Value:

We are very concerned that the proximity of this industrial-scale development will negatively affect the value of our property. This is our family home and our biggest asset. The loss of outlook, change in landscape, and associated noise or construction activity may reduce interest from future buyers and impact the investment we made for our family's future.

To protect landowners from financial loss, we respectfully request:
That an independent property valuation be completed prior to the commencement of the project; and
That a binding agreement be established to ensure compensation for any proven decrease in property value as a direct result of the development.

3. Road Safety and Traffic Concerns
:
The road leading to the proposed development is narrow and already poses safety challenges. In particular, the section of road directly in front of our property is difficult to navigate due to potholes, poor surface condition, and obstructed visibility as vehicles come over the rise. This is a known hazard, especially for the many young and inexperienced drivers who regularly use the road.
Additionally, the road includes a long straight section where vehicles often travel at high speeds. The proposed turnoff into the solar farm site is located on this straight stretch, which significantly increases the risk of collisions with slowing or turning vehicles—particularly large trucks and machinery. The anticipated increase in construction traffic and heavy vehicles will place further strain on this infrastructure and significantly increase the risk of accidents.

Given these risks, we request that the project not go ahead but if it does that:
A full and independent traffic impact assessment be conducted;
Road widening and resurfacing be undertaken before construction begins; and
Road safety measures (such as improved signage, reduced speed zones, or turning lanes) be considered to ensure the safety of all road users.


4. Request for Local Access to Energy Benefits
:
If the project is approved, we believe that nearby landowners should not be left to shoulder the burden without benefit. We request that residents living in close proximity to the solar farm be granted access to reduced electricity rates or a portion of the energy produced, as a fair form of local compensation.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input and hope these concerns will be taken seriously in the assessment process. We ask to be kept informed as the proposal progresses and to be included in any community consultation processes.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

Adrian and Ansia Klavins

Save Our Surroundings (SOS) objects to this project.

There are so many issues with the term Renewables because it is predominately the industrial wind and solar works, BESS, pumped hydro and associated new transmission infrastructure elements that create complexity in presenting the problems with these to people with little understanding of Australia's transition to a new but not better electricity network.

For instance, industrial wind and solar works, BESS, pumped hydro and new transmission infrastructure (Ruinables) ruin many dozens things from national security to ever higher electricity prices to consumers (refer to the Attachment for 33 examples). This proposed Ruinables project will only add to these examples, unless the Proponent can provide factual evidence to the contrary.

It appears that South Australia is the "canary in the mine" and the examples 1 and 2 in Appendix B clearly demonstrate that, as many engineers, economists, consultants, analysts, commentators and others have stated, an electricity system dominated by wind and solar electricity generation, even with storage, cannot even meet SA's demand let alone the whole of Australia.

Sun and wind droughts are natural occurrences which can last for short or very long periods and occur simultaneously across the entire NEM grid, as occurred on 4/6/2024 and other occasions.

The inevitable consequence of a transition to a Ruinables-based energy system, which Australia is already experiencing, is an expensive, unreliable, unstable, high security risk energy system that is destroying environments and the economy for no measurable benefit.

Attachment is provided detailing reasons for my objection

The Brewongle Solar farm offers no compensation or benefit to the rural neighbours whose properties are affected. I propose in the attached a solution that would benefit the community .

Looks like a good project to me.