Cobbora Solar Farm

Given the scale, risks, uncertainties and irreversible impacts, then why has the proponent not committed to a guaranteed minimum generation and battery dispatch output over its first 5 years, backed by a bank guarantee or performance bond, with clawback provisions for under‑performance?

project have a high risk of technology obsolescence and stranded asset.
In the 30‑ to 50‑year life of the facility, battery and solar technology may evolve, this project may become obsolete and uncompetitive. If operators abandon or underutilise it, the damage is irrevocable. This plan does not include adaptation or upgrade strategies in a changing tech environment.

Here is a huge lack of “fallback alternative” scenario or lower‑impact option
The EIS does not adequately consider smaller scale, distributed renewable alternatives, or less invasive siting options. Instead, it pushes :- all or nothing. I object to the project’s failure to present a credible lesser impact alternative. Such as small nuclear or thermoelectric.

Hazard of chemical leaching in extreme weather or flooding. local councils are sending out extreme preparedness notification.
In extreme rainfall or flood events, panel backing materials, battery electrolytes, heavy metals or other chemicals may leach into soils and waterways. The EIS does not convincingly model or prevent worst‑case chemical release under flood conditions. There is simply insufficient safeguards.

Impact on property values, lifestyle, health and amenity of neighbours are not properly address unless they can by bought to make them go away
Nearby landowners will endure visual intrusion, noise, dust, fire risk fear, lighting, glare and economic uncertainty. The EIS undervalues social and amenity costs. I object that affected neighbours have disproportionately high burdens while gains are diffused.

what are the impacts on ground fauna, subterranean ecology and mycorrhizae.
Large-scale impervious surfaces and trenching will disrupt subterranean fauna e.g. earthworms, invertebrates, fungal networks, soil microbes. The EIS does not assess these non-charismatic but ecologically critical communities. This shows a real ignorance of subterranean ecology.

Every core principle of Ecologically Sustainable Development is discarded by this project.
There is no intergenerational equity, no precautionary approach, no conservation of biodiversity, and no responsible valuation of environmental costs.

This project reflects a complete departure from responsible planning and is the antithesis of sustainable development.

Inadequate monitoring, enforcement and accountability provisions are present.
Even if the EIS proposes mitigation, there is no binding, transparent, publicly monitored enforcement regime, audit triggers, or penalties. I object to the weak to existent accountability mechanisms.

This plan fails to adhere to the Commonwealth PFAS BAN - including PFOS and other related PFAS chemicals - explicitly banned under Australian law due to their persistence and toxicity.

Yet this project relies on unethically sourced, PFOS-coated solar panels, wiring, and inverters — primarily imported from China.

This is an illegal chemical loophole, enabled by regulatory negligence, and must be halted immediately.

There is absolutely inadequate emergency response planning. It will all be left to the local to defend the home if a fire happen on the installation. Will the developer be providing adequate help if catastrophe happened?
If a battery fire or explosion or major failure occurs, the region may lack nearby dedicated emergency capacity. The EIS does not commit to local fire services, specialised training, or guaranteed response times. there is complete absence of a binding emergency response plan.

There is a huge risk to groundwater recharge and aquifer interactions.
While the site is claimed ,free from flooding and ecological constraints, this is in total contradiction to the local council & the NSW government current sending resident community meeting timetables for flood preparedness mapping in the month of October. Don't your government department talk to each other??
Groundwater recharge zones may be intercepted, and subsurface flow altered. The EIS fails to sufficiently examine aquifer interactions. Total inadequate hydrogeological modelling.

Disturbance to soil, geomorphology, erosion and compaction lasting for years
Construction will compact soils, reduce infiltration, alter drainage, cause erosion and degrade landform stability. The EIS does not provide rigorous geotechnical or erosion control plans under heavy rainfall or storms. this installation has insufficient soil/erosion safeguards.

this is totally incompatibility with Aboriginal and cultural heritage values
Large land use conversion may damage unknown or under‑recorded Aboriginal cultural heritage sites, sacred places, song lines, artefact scatters or landscapes. The EIS does not guarantee full, independent surveying or consultation. The areas cultural heritage risk is being undervalued.

there is a lack of biodiversity offsets or compensation commensurate with risk
Given the high environmental risk, any mitigation plan should include offsets or compensation that are measurable, enforceable and conservative. The EIS’s proposed offsets are vague or insufficient. There's an absence of defensible offsets proportional to potential species losses.

This project blatantly contravenes the National Electricity Law (NEL) Objective by failing to deliver safe, secure, reliable, and affordable electricity.

It introduces dangerous intermittency, national security vulnerabilities, and fire risks, while imposing huge long-term costs on consumers and communities.

This is an abuse of planning policy that sets a reckless precedent.

Compete failure to quantify greenhouse gas life‑cycle emissions properly
The EIS projects CO₂ savings, but fails to account for embodied emissions ; manufacturing panels, batteries, material transport, maintenance, eventual disposal. Without full life‑cycle accounting, the claimed Clean Energy benefits are overstated. This is totally misleading emissions claims.

The lithium-ion BESS and solar infrastructure contain dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ which are known to leach into groundwater and surface water.
This directly violates the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and places communities and agricultural lands at risk of irreversible contamination — a public health disaster in the making.

NSW Fire Services say Solar and BESS Fires are highly toxic and uncontrollable - with BESS often burning for days.

Fire and Rescue NSW has issued an alarming warning about large-scale lithium battery installations:
•there is no consistent guidance,
• no reliable extinguishing methods,
•no local firefighting capacity for such complex chemical fires.

This project poses an extreme hazard to the emergency services and communities around it.

This plan violates the Paris Agreement.

By consuming valuable agricultural land and introducing contamination threats, the project directly contradicts Article 2.1(b) of the Paris Agreement, which requires climate action to proceed "in a manner that does not threaten food production."

This is climate policy in reverse — sacrificing food for failed green optics.

I am a resident of Elong Elong and have attended a number of meetings locally held by Cobbora solar so I have a reasonable understanding of this project and its potential impact on our community.

My objections to this solar development are:-
- the impact of panels and chemical leeching on rural land. When questioning representatives regarding toxicity and leeching the comment was made these panels are ok as they are new and don’t have this issue. With further questioning the representative was unable to refer to any research that supported this comment.
- we are completely off grid with solar since 2011 and have no confidence in the capability of solar as a reliable source of power. Despite installing high quality components we have first hand experience on the limited life span of solar components. We rely on a large diesel generator on overcast or rainy days. We know that as one component needs replacement its replacement part is always no longer is compatible with our system.

The rural land in our community is prime agricultural land and is managed by generational farming families who have an affinity with the land and with the water sources that support them. Converting this land to an industrial energy zone will lead to the loss of these farming families and their expertise and knowledge.

As with all the current development proposals the risk to local water supplies has become contentious. Initial boastings by developers that water will be carted in has quickly turned to accessing underground bore water. Our underground water systems are the life blood of the local agricultural industry. Our area underwent a severe protracted drought with all water sources becoming scare in recent years. This drought eliminated water not just for agricultural purposes but also domestic with aid and charity agencies supporting farming families resupply water tanks for their families- basic water for drinking, cooking and washing. The importance of water security in our communities cannot be underestimated and cannot just be ‘winged’ and local sources tapped into and then depleted.

Finally our small community is a very caring community and the actions of developers has created a division across families and neighbours. We rely upon each other, our social connection, so that when adversity hits we have some resilience in store.