Culcairn Solar Farm

I strongly object the Culcairn solar proposal
I regularly visit Culcairn because I have good friends that live there, I believe the solar project will completely change the whole area, it is prime agricultural land and should stay as is for crops and livestock.The solar proposal will affect the climate which will in turn will affect the agriculture. There must be better places in Australia where we can`t grow anything that we can place these solar farms on, places where their are no residents living nearby.
I am extremely concerned about the impact it would have on local wild life, there are a number of local frog species believed to be living in the area that are endangered-for example the sloanes froglet.
Also to have a solar farm along the billabong creek isnt appropriate as it tends to flood.
It may also affect tourism -people visiting Morgans lookout will be extremely dissappointed to have a view of solar panels instead of beautiful farmlands.
I cannot stress enough that this is just the wrong area for the solar proposal, I am not against solar but it just needs to be in the right place away from residents and farmlands

I support the prosperous development of solar in Australia and support the project because of its options for dual land use

The need for renewable energy sources is not in question. In fact the vast majority of the population would agree that this has to be the way forward. The issue with the Culcairn site is the proposed size and the potential cost to the community. For developers Neoen, the choice of site is very straight forward as it is flat country and close to existing infrastructure that the organisation does not have to fund. Do they have to maintain this infrastructure? Will they be around for the long term to foot the bill for replacement of the infrastructure?
Neoen is promoting how well they consulted with the local community. To make representatives of the organisation available doesn’t mean the consultation was complete or ethical. In fact my experience was that they were there to put forward their point of view on the situation and promote the positives of the development many of which had huge holes in it or were very short term and short sighted views. They quoted positives from other areas such as agriculture and grazing could continue. Reality is not to the same extent, the ground cannot be cultivated in the same way to produce quality feed for stock and we fail to see how anything else but hand tools could be used for agriculture. Quoting that the solar panels take up less than 20% of the land is a misuse of fact. What about the space above ground level? The arguments are well rehearsed and in so many cases representatives have made simple and convincing statements, leaving the potentially negative detail out. They also talk about compensation to those affected by the development, quoting an amount of $200,000 to $300,000 without the explanation that this would be divided amongst everyone who applies and it would be for the life of the development. Compensation offered is certainly not enough to relocate and make a fresh start at another location. In our opinion the promise of cheaper reliable power, funds coming back into the community and to local government is a way of buying support and adds to the smoke and mirrors that surround their so called consultation.
Twenty to thirty years is a long time to promise that the land will be reinstated to the productive land that now exists. Will the company still exist? Will Neoen develop the site and then sell it for profit? Why should we believe Neoen’s promise, circumstances and people change over time? What is the backup plan, will Local, State or Federal governments take responsibility for the clean-up and any compensation that may be required? As tax payers we are not in favor of this prospect. What legislation or contract is in place to protect us and the environment?
Solar panels are constructed with a known carcinogenic material. This is a dangerous health hazard. What will happen to the solar panels at the end of their life? What if they are damaged by bad weather, how can safety be ensured? We know that technology is changing at a rapid rate. How long will the solar panel technology last? In recent history we humans have made decisions that have a negative impact and go ahead with initiatives for the sake of financial gain without considering the consequences for our future and that of other living things. The world thought fibro was safe. Chemicals, plastics, paint and other man made products have all been used and down the track have been found to cause serious health issues. Do we have to continue to make the same mistakes by putting financial gain ahead of our children and future generation’s safety and wellbeing?
It has been stated that this is one of the largest solar developments in NSW. What about the impact of additional heat generation when there are so many panels in a concentrated area? With a development of this size there will also always be an increase of noxious weeds such as panicum effusum commonly known as hairy panic. This grass is toxic for animals particularly sheep. This space cannot be used for grazing. It also creates a tumble weed that builds up around structures and is very dangerous in the event of a fire. Rural Fire Service (RFS) brigade members in the area are concerned about the increased fire threat and the issues of fighting a fire in and around a solar farm. Safety issues such as toxic exposure and electrocution are frightening issues. How will be the issues of weeds and fire control be managed and by whom? Valuable farming land should be protected to help meet the growing need in the world for food and fibre. Consider other locations on more marginal farming country even if it may have less financial gain for the developers. We have so many buildings, why can’t they be used to accommodate solar panels. Start with new buildings.
We do not see how the establishment of the solar farm can boost the economics of the local community in the long term. This is one of the selling points of the Neoen representatives. Work will be available in the establishment, but this would be for contractors that will move on when the facility is completed. Both of the speakers at the Greater Hume Shire Council meeting February 19 may have been local, but were talking about the work they were doing on a similar development away from the area. Did they take their team with them or did they employ locals? If they employed locals, how long did/will the employment last?
Most people do not respond to important issues because it doesn’t really affect them or they are not sure of all the facts. Consider the visual impact for those living nearby, the depreciation in value of their land and homes because the solar farm is close by. Most importantly consider the physical and mental health of land owners. Most have put their life into these properties and stand to lose so much. No one would choose to have a solar farm in their backyard so why should we support this development to be imposed on others in our community. Would you choose to live or have a holiday beside a solar farm?
If a thorough, honest and environmentally satisfactory answer to the questions in bold can be given then maybe the project should be given consideration. Answers that will not have a negative impact on future generations and without any consideration of short term financial gain to a company that is not even Australian. This is our written objection to the establishment of the large scale solar farm at Culcairn for obvious reasons.

I object to the proposed Culcairn Solar Farm for the following reasons:

1. The negative impact of the 1317 hectare solar plant on the productivity of the underlying farming land which would be converted into non-agricultural and for the life of project, typically 30 years; For example disturbances of soil microbiology as a result of lack of UV light as a result of solar panel installation;
2. Negative impacts to neighboring agricultural land including sediment run-off, impacts from the ongoing removal of vegetation, biodiversity impacts and loss of natural habitats, pest control limitations, impact on ability to treat invasive weeds, suppress bushfires and radiant heat effects.

4. We need to keep our most productive land for our future food security for the growing world population.

I object to the proposed Culcairn Solar Farm for the following reasons:

1. The negative impact of the 1317 hectare solar plant on the productivity of the underlying farming land which would be converted into non-agricultural and for the life of project, typically 30 years; For example disturbances of soil microbiology as a result of lack of UV light as a result of solar panel installation;
2. Negative impacts to neighboring agricultural land including sediment run-off, impacts from the ongoing removal of vegetation, biodiversity impacts and loss of natural habitats, pest control limitations, impact on ability to treat invasive weeds, suppress bushfires and radiant heat effects.

4. We need to keep our most productive land for our future food security for the growing world population.

I have lived in the Culcairn area for almost 30 years since marrying a local farmer. During that time our country has experienced drought, flood and fire, as well as many favourable seasons. Regardless of climate extremes we have always been fortunate enough to have crops to harvest because we are in an agriculturally "safe" area. You do not have to travel far from this area to find this not the case and to see communities and individuals suffering considerable hardship. For this reason I find it hard to believe that the Culcairn site would be considered for a solar farm!!! We are a food bowl for this country and we would far prefer to produce our own food (for humans and livestock) than to have to import it. Why not utilise more marginal areas, particularly to the west of us, to build a solar farm??? If the infrastructure for transferring generated power doesn't currently exist perhaps this is an opportunity to develop it...much like we saw with the construction of the Snowy Mountain Scheme last century.

From a farming perspective there is also much concern about weed management in such sites. Spray units cannot adequately cover these areas and neighbouring farms currently spend a lot of money on chemicals to reduce this problem. Having a large expanse of land with potentially many noxious weeds, that is not adequately managed by someone who truly understands the issues, is a major concern to other farmers.

I also feel extremely sorry for the people close by who have to look out their windows at an eyesore every day. Some are farmers who have lived on properties for several generations, others moved onto farms for the lifestyle and closeness to nature. Regardless, they will now have imposed on them an expanse of panels that isn't exactly pleasing to the eye and certainly not what they expect. Again, if the solar farm was built further west, where farms are larger, it would be possible to have them out of direct sight of neighbours.

I realise there is benefit to the community....but once the initial building is finished the long term impact of a minimal operating crew will be relatively small compared to the cost to our farm land and production.

1: the solar farm will be installed on the productive farming land, which will be a very big influence for the farming land quality;
2: we also worry about the fire safety;
3: there will be lots of harms for the native vegetation and the threatened ecological communities.

1. Loss of Important Agricultural Land
The EIS refers to the land on which the proposed development is to be built as soil capability Class 4. This is not accurate and misleading with the subject land to be mapped as Important Agricultural Land under the Riverina Murray Draft Important Agricultural Land Mapping Project. The importance of this land for agricultural use is also reflected in the significant uplift in values. Rural land values in the Greater Hume Shire have increased more than 90% since 2016. Local farms are predominantly being purchased by other local farmers as they understand the importance of reliable, productive agricultural land.

The proposed development has no regard to the agricultural importance of the land. The EIS indicates that underground cabling is to be left insitu when the proposed development is decommissioned. This does not align with the NSW DPI which supports removal of all above and below ground infrastructure once the solar farm is decommissioned so that the land can be returned to agricultural production. The loss of important agricultural land to the proposed develop also differs from the objectives of the Greater Hume Local Environmental Plan 2012 for RU1 Zoned land.
 
2. Economic Impact
The Economic Impact Statement estimates Capital Investment of $640m and total Economic Benefits during Construction and Operational Phases of $84.3m (over 30 yrs). These figures are ESTIMATES and not fact. Gross revenue generated from the subject land in 2019 was approximately $1,650/ha (hay, straw, grain and grazing). If multiplied over 1,300ha and after the ABS Related Economic Activity Multiplier (x 2.1788) = $140m (over 30 yrs). So this development actually has a significant negative economic impact to the Community! Furthermore, actual farm gross income is based on 2019, which was limited due to the ongoing drought conditions.

The reliability of the “Economic Benefits” is also questionable. The Australian Energy Market Operator has recently scaled back the input available to renewable energy operators and have indicated there may be a 7 year wait before generating income because of weakness in the national grid. Downer, one of the biggest solar contractors and constructors of large-scale solar farms in Australia has also recently signaled an exit from the solar business citing “the large-scale solar market had all but evaporated over the last 12 mths”. The risk of large power loss factors, grid stability and equipment performance is too large. Another large-scale solar developer, RCR Tomlinson was liquidated in 2018 after delays and cost overruns. There is no guarantee that these developments will continue in the medium-long term given technological advances. This sort of technology will soon become outdated and therefore we are at risk of making a long term decision based on short term information.

3. Environmental & Social Impact
There has been little research on large-scale solar developments. During the construction of solar panels the metal cadmium is compressed between sheets of glass. Cadmium is a known carcinogenic and considered 10 times more hazardous than lead which is also present in a typical photovoltaic panel. Once absorbed, it is associated with lung, kidney and bone damages, whilst exposure to lead can cause damages to the nervous system. When shattered, panels can break into tiny fragments and after time will transform into a dangerous health hazard. Examples are the recent damage incurred at the Oakey 2 Site in SE QLD in 2018 and the 16,000 panels wiped out by hurricane Irma in the Virgin Islands in 2017. Imagine this but across the proposed 1.1 million panels! The unknown impact to the health of the Community and the Environment is just not worth it. If not destroyed by wild weather these panels will last about 2 decades and then become useless toxic waste that cannot be recycled. The EIS fails to address the end of life strategy of the development and therefore the Take-Make-Consume-Dispose system undermines the renewable status of this technology.

I am against solar plants on highly productive farming land.We use solar panels on our property for bores,electric fences and have solar on a shed so solar is not the issue to me. It is where the solar`plants are positioned. Our area has produced so much fodder for drought affected regions over the last two years when there was very little production in a lot of other areas in our state. With climate change and less rainfall areas like ours will become more important for food and fibre production. There are so many areas in the state where solar would be perfect, looking long term. Our area has a lot of cloudy, foggy days during the winter. Weeds will be a problem on this site as there are two weeds that grow on one of the properties that can be toxic to sheep at certain stages of the plant's growth.I fail to see how sheep can be successfully run on the site. We have property downstream on the Billabong Creek and wonder what impact the solar area will have on the speed of the run off water from the site. There are very many different areas impacted including the environment and especially the loss of old trees which are irreplaceable We have planted 30000 trees on our property in the last 30 years so protecting our future in not new to us.We are well aware of the changing climate and the need for alternative energy but not on PRIME FARMING COUNTRY.

Substantial investment in alternative energy like Solar Energy is vital to all Australians.

I believe its placement must however be carefully located well away from current farming land.

The Culcairn Solar Farm is potentially very damaging to working farms and their families living and working this particular arable land in Cummings Road, Culcairn.
I strongly request this project be relocated to marginal land, well away from existing working farms. Farming people and farming families need strong support, protection and open encouragement to maintain their best practices on successful arable land. This project would totally undermine this endeavour.

Sincerely

Gracemary Huntley

We support the project!

I support this initiative - and others like them - for its for capacity for creating sustainable energy, producing jobs, opportunity for mixed farming and diverse farming practices. Australia is uniquely placed to undertake these types of projects where the actual establishment of the project will still permit grazing and some farming. In particular it will be necessary in the future to transition workers from traditional energy creation to this type of renewable energy creation and there is scope for transitioning a highly skilled workforce into new and environmentally sustainable energy production. It will also benefit local rural communities and hopefully as more are established and realise their benefits the resistance in communities will decrease and these initiatives will be welcomed

Response Attached

Submissions to oppose the Culcairn Solar Farm

Mark Giffin
Managing Director
AGnVET Services
PO Box 209
West Wyalong NSW, 2671

19th February 2020
Planning Services,
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

To Whom It May Concern,


Objection to Culcairn Solar Farm – Application Number SSD-10288


I wish to formally communicate my objection to the proposed application Number SSD-10288 to develop a solar farm at Culcairn. I represent AGnVET Services, a privately owned agribusiness employing in excess of 400 people which provides agricultural inputs and services to farming enterprises through out regional New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania.

Our business relies on the ability of farmers to succesfully produce high quality food & fibre for a growing population. From a farming production perspective we cannot afford to sacrifice good, highly productive farming land for the development of a solar farm.

From a small rural village point of view, if this application proceeds, it will directly affect our business in Culcairn and Henty and unfortunately would lead to potential job losses as a result of the loss of farming inputs. We provide inputs such as fertiliser, seed, agri-chemicals and animal health products to farmers in the nominated area. As solar farms do not require any of these inputs this will have a direct impact on our long term position and viability.

I acknowlegde the importance of expanding our nations ability to produce renewable energy, however,what I cannot accept is why we need to consider the destruction of prime agricultural land at the expense of the development of this solar farm.

Australia is a large country with a considerable amount of arid land that this project would be far more suited to.

My objection to the proposed project is based on my concerns for the local farming communities of Henty and Culcairn, its people and the role that my business plays in ensuring farmers are both profitable and productive to meet the global challenges of feeding our population.

I declare that I have not made any political donations within the last two years


Yours sincerely,


Mark Giffin
Managing Director

I have visited this area for many years, and have close friends who are 5th generation farmers, who are suffering due to this plan. There are opportunities for sensible renewable energy projects, but not in such prime farming areas. Why is this not being planned for arid land rather than rich, fertile farming land? Who knows the long term impact this may have on the health of the land, animals and people living nearby? Can you guarantee this will not have ANY negative impact on any aspect of the lives and future health and well being of these people and the flora and fauna around them with a project of this scale? This project will turn a beautiful area of Australia into a massive industrial and construction zone. What effect will this have on the future generations? What about the effect on small businesses, such as Orange Grove Gardens, who will now have views of a solar farm from their Function room. What will this do for all the businesses in the area? People will not visit if there is an eye sore, and potential health hazard, like this. A construction site for 12 - 18 months will have a huge negative effect on visitors to the area. I , for one, will not be bringing my children back to this are if this monstrosity is built. What about the farmer who will have 7km of frontage to what will be around 1,100,000 solar panels?They will be surrounded by panels around their farm, which they have worked on for generations. I am definitely pro sustainable energy, but in an appropriate area where it will not affect the families in the area. There are massive areas of arid land to the west and north which could be better utilised for this endevour. Please think about the well being of the local people and do not allow this project to go ahead. You encourage people to 'Live a Greater Life in Greater Hume'. This is not the way to do that. The negative inpact this is having on your community needs to be addressed, and the project binned as soon as possible.
Thanksyou for your time.

I would like to state I am opposed to the Culcairn solar development in the Greater Hume Shire Council and I would like my name and address to be withheld.
For the following reasons:
1. AGRICULTURE
The loss of productive land will be detrimental to the local and Australian economy, this land that is involved in the proposed development supports the health of cattle, horses, sheep and pigs along with providing large amounts grain and hay. With most of the country in drought and many rural communities affected by fires, this land has still produced good yields helping to supply farming communities less fortunate then us.

I am mindful of the impacts this development is having on neighbouring landholders and the impact this development will have on their ability to produce in the future and their ongoing mental state.


2. ENVIRONMENT
The proposed development will be a total change from a rural outlook to an industrial site. I am concerned about who is responsible for Weed and Pest control? Drainage? Effect on wildlife? Fire Management?
I believe this development will have detrimental effect on the Billabong Creek. The Billabong Creek is known to be the longest creek in the world and home to many vulnerable bird and wildlife species.

The removal of 99 established native trees is criminal; these trees are a safe haven to all kinds of wildlife.


3. NEIGHBOUR IMPACTS
The properties surrounding this development will be most affected and I do not believe much has been done to correct this. They never asked for this development to be put in their backyard, but they seem to be the ones that have the biggest impact. Planting of small tube stock trees will take years to block the horrendous industrial view.
Increased traffic I be an ongoing problem for local neighbours and I do not think the proposed width would be wide enough nor would a light seal on the dirt surfaces be adequate to cope with such high levels of traffic.
Construction times should also be looked at and possibly reduced to help near neighbours cope with noise and dust.

Attached is my objection to the Culcairn solar farm project.

Objection to the project.

This is an excellent opportunity for this area to undertake such a huge project. To date Neoen has been open and honest with the neighbouring properties and the EIS is comprehensive and informative for everyone. This company has the best interests of the community at the forefront and if local councils continue to reject proposals of this kind, they will no longer be offered. There are so many positives from renewable energy and in the foreseeable future there will be so many more projects of this kind. We need to look ahead and not try to stop progress and change.

I fully support the submission. I support renewable energy and even though I live in Queensland, I will directly benefit from the clean energy this solar farm exports to the National Electricity Market. We urgently need to reduce emissions and I believe this proposal offers significant economic and environmental value for both the project proponents and wider community.