Forbes Solar Farm

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Forbes Solar Farm development.

While I understand the importance of renewable energy, I have serious concerns regarding the potential impacts this project may have on our community and the land we have nearby.

1. Land Contamination
There is significant concern about the potential for land contamination both during construction and over the life of the project. This includes possible chemical leaks, panel degradation, and end-of-life disposal of materials. Our agricultural land is valuable and productive, and any contamination risks could have long-term consequences for soil health, groundwater quality, and future land use.

2. Increased Insurance Premiums
Large-scale infrastructure projects such as solar farms may lead to increased insurance premiums for surrounding landowners. The potential fire risk, infrastructure damage, and associated liabilities could result in higher household and farm insurance costs, placing additional financial strain on residents.

3. Fire Risk
Rural communities like ours are already vulnerable to bushfires. Solar farms introduce additional fire ignition risks through electrical faults, inverter stations, battery storage systems, and maintenance equipment. In high-risk weather conditions, this could pose a serious threat to neighbouring properties, livestock, and residents. Clear evidence of fire mitigation strategies, emergency access, and responsibility for damages must be addressed.

Given these concerns, I respectfully request that this proposal be reconsidered or subjected to far more rigorous independent environmental and safety assessments before any approval is granted.

The long-term environmental, financial, and safety impacts on local residents must be prioritised.

Sincerely,
Eliza Fahey
65 Gunning Ridge Rd Daroobalgie NSW 2871

I object to the current project application based upon, the project EIS & Primary hazard analysis under ranks the likelihood of events, and the appropriate control measures are inadequate such as Fire and the appropriate mitigation measures.
The current 2025 ~ 2026 fire season has demonstrated in effective and insufficient onsite fire management and control resources.
1000L water pod and 20kL firefighting capacity is inadequate, the project submission places undue responsibility onto the local RFS.
The fire extinguishment period and water capacity to contain a BESS fire must be provided and maintained by the proponent.

Neighbouring Property and also run a Local Stock and Station Agency
Three Major concerns for the project:
1. Meat and Livestock Industry (MLA) Food Safety & Contamination Risk Concerns of grazing livestock in and around solar farms
2. Bushfire Hazard, especially after recent local solar farm fire
3. Visual Impact and long term plans for the site.

Highlighted Concerns - Explained
1. Food Safety & Contamination Risk Concerns - , Recent updates to LPA farm risk assessments templated and livestock accreditation processes included solar panels livestock producers must consider when evaluating food safety and on-farm risks. This was interpreted by some in the industry as implying a potential contamination risk if equipment leaks or degrades on farmland.
Renewable projects have pointed out to fears that degrading infrastructure could release materials that, if ingested by livestock, might impact food safety or animal welfare. This concern was reflected in media coverage where industry affiliates warned about such risks and sought assurances over long-term safety and export access.
A major concern for our Liverstock Agency whom sole income relies on red meat industry and any potential risk to the industry and its ability to meet food grade measures is jeopardised then I would 100% oppose this project.
This issue is a very active investigation currently in progress with LPA (Livestock Production Assurance) who now encourage property risk assessments to now formally prompt producers to consider renewable infrastructure on their land, some farmers feel this adds complexity or uncertainty to compliance and food safety documentation. This has created anxiety that markets might discount meat if consumers perceive food safety risks from nearby solar farms.
2. Bushfire Hazard, especially after recent local solar farm fire - at Jemalong site (in Forbes district) has created another concern for me directly as a property landowner close proximity to the proposed site. This recent event has raised large concerns for the location of this solar site. It will be in very close proximity to over a dozen small farms, all in which residents reside. The site is surrounded by residences in all directions so a clear fire hazard plan should be required.
Also a clear plan on maintenance of the solar site on both infrastructure and vegetation. Ie Fire breaks, automatic shutdown systems, fire resident equipment, regular inspections, battery fires and lighting strikes, overheating on equipment (post some 45+ degree days)
3. Visual Impact and long-term plans for the site. Solar farms are temporary 25-40 years, what is the clean up plan for the site? Will the land be restored afterwards? Consideration for current landowners and there potential reduction value for resale or transfer of neighbouring properties well into the future. This solar farm also changes the rural identity in this area, where small lifestyle block and hobby farms will change to a more industrial appearance, the proposal of screening with trees doesn't eliminate the visual change this Solar Farm will have on the rural identity in the area and surrounding farms.

Also, no consultation has been made with me our any persons that resides on my property regarding this plan. Regardless the scope of this plan stating multiple times that neighbouring properties up to a 5km radius would be addressed, this has not occurred in my case.

Where’s the essential RISK RESEARCH to ensure Public Health and Safety and retention of essential, irreplaceable agricultural land when there’s 248,000 toxic, heavy metal leaching, BANNED PFOS-coated Solar panels - planned to be installed across the 270 ha site.

Cumulative degradation of this fragile infrastructure that is now being estimated to last only 11 years - presents credible risks of silver and other heavy-metals leaching into soils and waterways relied upon by Forbes Shire farmers for life-ksustaining food production.

It’s totally irresponsible to keep pretending that toxic contaminating, heavy-metal leaching, BANNED PFOS coated Solar - with 248,000 panels planned to be installed across this productive 270 ha RU1 site has anything to do with “clean, sustainable” energy.

The cumulative degradation over decades presents credible risks of silver and other toxic heavy-metals and PFOS leaching into soils and waterways - poisoning these essential resources - that are relied upon by Forbes Shire farmers for sustenance and healthy food production.

Industrialised Solar and Lithium-ion BESS are extreme Fire Hazards which should never be approved anywhere near food growing areas due to the toxic risks which ensure that coexistence is a dangerous misnomer.

As well as the carcinogenic and teratogenic Solar Factory and 120 MW / 960 MWh lithium battery facility at 207 Hoopers Road - this represents a large-scale fire and explosion hazard, capable of releasing toxic gases lethal to our lungs and particulates that will contaminate agricultural land forever.

Objection to Forbes Solar Farm – Rural Character & Safety Risk
To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Forbes Solar Farm (SUB-106455471)
Location: 61 Gunning Ridge Rd Forbes NSW
From: Amy Strudwick
Address: My home is – approx. 700m from approved solar farm
Date: 20 February 2026

1. Core Concern
I live approximately 700 metres from the proposed solar farm boundary, elevated with full line-of-sight to the proposed development. My primary objection is the permanent loss of rural character and safe lifestyle for my family over the next 30 years.
This is not ideological — it is evidence-based, grounded in visual dominance, industrialisation, and documented risks of large-scale solar plus battery infrastructure in the Forbes region.

2. Key Risks
a. Industrialisation & Loss of Rural Character
• The project will transform open farmland into a visible industrial precinct.
• Security fencing, BESS containers, and solar panels will dominate the rural landscape.
• No natural screening exists between my property and the site. Screening is proposed but would need care and water to ensure trees reach maturity to provide screening.
b. BESS Fire & Plume Hazard
• Lithium-ion batteries can experience thermal runaway.
• Rural atmospheric conditions can trap smoke near the ground.
• Worst-case scenario modelling and emergency response capacity appear incomplete.
c. Long-Term Lifecycle & Soil Risk
• Panel degradation over decades may release microplastics or chemical residues.
• Decommissioning and remediation financial assurance is unclear and potentially inadequate.
d. Cumulative Infrastructure & Expansion Risk
• Original approval does not appear to model grid curtailment, future expansion, or additional substation works, which could further industrialise the landscape.
e. Local Precedent: VAST Solar Farm Failure at Jemalong
• Abandoned solar infrastructure near Forbes has caused fires, exposed farmland to hazard, and left remediation responsibility unclear.
• This demonstrates that current risk assumptions may be overly optimistic, highlighting the need for independent verification.

3. Request for Independent Review
Given these documented risks and the precedent of unmanaged solar infrastructure failures, I request an independent third-party review prior to construction. This review should:
1. Reassess BESS fire and plume hazards under worst-case rural conditions.
2. Verify adequacy of emergency response capabilities.
3. Review decommissioning bonds and financial assurance for enforceability.
4. Assess cumulative long-term industrialisation impacts on rural character and safety.
This independent review is necessary because the current EIS and approval process did not fully account for long-term, evidence-based risks that have already manifested locally.

4. Conclusion
I respectfully request that construction not proceed until the independent review addresses these critical risks. This submission highlights real, measurable consequences to rural residents that cannot be mitigated solely through standard planning conditions.
Sincerely,
Amy Strudwick

The extensive site footprint of Forbes Solar with approximately 248,000 unethically produced, PFOS (BANNED) coated, Chinese Solar panels planned - which Border Force admits are pouring into Australia UNREGULATED - just like the BANNED ASBESTOS in the TOXIC CONTAMINATING Wind Turbines - clearly increases the probability that any leak, fire runoff, or panel degradation will contaminate the agricultural land and aquifers essential for food production, irrigation and livestock within Forbes Shire.

STOP Dodgy DPHI and complicit IPCN’s TOXIC SOLAR WASTELAND SCAM!

I object to this useless and incapable, toxic contaminating, intermittent Forbes Solar + BESS plan that undermines Energy Security, Food Security and National Security.

Forbes Solar will never reliably, affordably, safely or securely produce electricity most of the time - never at night, underperforms on cloudy days and in winter - meaning even with a 960 MWh battery, it cannot provide sustained firm power during typical darkness at night - every night - 365 days of the year and prolonged low-solar periods.

Our local Hay community strongly objects to the invasive, unnecessary TransGrid Interconnector nightmare and all associated industrialised
ruin-a-bull Solar/Wind/BESS SWINDLE FACTORIES anywhere - including in Forbes Shire - who are already cursed with far too much toxic Solar junk and Vast’s hazardous, long abandoned, Thermal Solar mess that’s causing fires and contaminating the Jemalong area - with nobody taking any responsibility for ever cleaning it up.

Irresponsible plans like Forbes Solar with no decommissioning or remediation bond ensure electronic garbage will be left strewn throughout rural NSW/Australia and result in toxic wasteland forever.

Inflicting such destructive plans like this on our rural communities AGAINST OUR WILL, WITHOUT CONSENT is unconscionable as they are the antithesis of ensuring Public Health & Safety and Intergenerational Equity.

Gullible, pariah hosts and Councils who’ve failed to do their Due Diligence are burdening communities with foreseeable, tragic outcomes by deliberately ignoring the toxic contamination facts and their local community’s objections - just like the dodgy Hay Council hierarchy have done when they never genuinely consulted the locals - instead they cooked up their evil plans with Climate 200, RE-Alliance, predatory TransGrid and fellow Fake Green Vested Interests.

Australia needs to immediately dump the “Renewable” Rort, Dump the Paris Agreement and build new Australian base-load Coal and future Nuclear power plants with minimal environmental footprint before Australia is weakened further and we’re all in forced servitude to Communist China.

I am an occupant of a property directly neighbouring the proposed development site at Hoopers Road, Forbes. Due to our proximity, this development will have a direct and ongoing impact on our family, livelihood, and enjoyment of our property.

While we acknowledge the importance of renewable energy generation, we object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1. Visual and Amenity Impacts
As neighbouring landholders, we will experience significant visual impact from extensive solar panel arrays, security fencing, lighting, and associated infrastructure. This will alter the rural outlook and amenity of our property and negatively affect our quality of life.

2. Fire Risk and Safety Concerns
The proposed 120 MW / 960 MWh battery energy storage system (BESS) raises serious concerns regarding fire risk, emergency response capability, and cumulative hazard exposure in this location. Large-scale lithium-ion battery facilities carry a recognised risk of thermal runaway events and prolonged, difficult-to-extinguish fires. While mitigation systems are proposed, the risk cannot be eliminated. In a rural setting already subject to seasonal bushfire conditions, the consequences of such an incident would be significant.

Our concerns include:
- The adequacy of separation distances between the BESS, neighbouring homes, agricultural land, and the nearby waste facility.
- The potential for fire escalation between sites in extreme weather conditions.
- Whether local emergency services have the specialised equipment, training, and water supply required to manage a battery-related fire incident.
- The potential loss of homes, livestock, crops, farm infrastructure, and long-established family livelihoods in the event of fire spread.
- The impact of toxic smoke and contaminants that may be released during a battery fire event.

As neighbouring landholders, the consequences of any fire would directly affect our family, property, and livelihood. Given the surrounding land uses — including residential dwellings and the nearby waste depot — we believe the cumulative fire risk has not been adequately assessed or transparently addressed.

3. Construction Impacts
Hoopers Road is an unsealed, narrow rural road with multiple crests, limited sight distance, and trees positioned close to the road edge. It is unsafe at the best of times, even under normal local traffic conditions. The road was not designed or constructed to accommodate sustained heavy vehicle movements associated with a large-scale industrial development of this nature.

The proposed construction of a 166 MW solar farm and 120 MW / 960 MWh battery energy storage system will inevitably require frequent heavy vehicle and oversized transport movements. Introducing significant construction traffic onto an already constrained dirt road presents serious and unacceptable safety risks.

Our concerns include:
- Reduced visibility at crests and bends, increasing the likelihood of head-on collisions.
- Inability for heavy vehicles to safely pass agricultural machinery, school buses, or resident vehicles.
- Increased dust generation on an unsealed surface, further reducing visibility and creating hazardous driving conditions.
- Accelerated road deterioration, including rutting and corrugation, which will make the road even more dangerous.
- Increased risk to children, livestock movements, and local residents who regularly use this road.

Given the physical limitations and existing safety concerns associated with Hoopers Road, we do not believe it is suitable to accommodate the volume and type of traffic required for this development. The safety risks to neighbouring landholders and road users have not been adequately addressed.

4. Property Value and Long-Term Impact
The introduction of large-scale industrial renewable infrastructure adjacent to our property may have implications for property value and long-term land use viability.

Given the scale and proximity of this development, we believe the impacts on neighbouring landholders have not been adequately addressed or mitigated. For these reasons, we object to the proposed development.

The poisonous impacts to our essential, irreplaceable agricultural land and life giving water supplies as well as hopeless, weather dependent fragility, reliance on unethical supply chains and our biggest geopolitical threat - the CCP - ensure Forbes Solar would cause toxic consequences for the public and food supplies, contribute to grid collapse and guarantee a National Security Disaster.

Reliance on imported panels, inverters, and battery systems embeds foreign-manufactured critical infrastructure into Australia’s electricity network.

Digitally connected CCP reliant BESS and inverter systems create cyber vulnerabilities within essential grid infrastructure which is a totally unacceptable risk.

I am an occupant of a property directly neighbouring the proposed development site at Hoopers Road, Forbes. Due to our proximity, this development will have a direct and ongoing impact on our family, livelihood, and enjoyment of our property.

While we acknowledge the importance of renewable energy generation, we object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1. Incompatibility with Surrounding Agricultural Land Use
The proposed 166 MW solar farm and large-scale battery energy storage system represent an industrial-scale development within a predominantly rural and agricultural landscape. The loss of productive agricultural land and the introduction of industrial infrastructure are inconsistent with the existing rural character of the area.

2. Visual and Amenity Impacts
As neighbouring landholders, we will experience significant visual impact from extensive solar panel arrays, security fencing, lighting, and associated infrastructure. This will alter the rural outlook and amenity of our property and negatively affect our quality of life.

3. Fire Risk and Safety Concerns
The proposed 120 MW / 960 MWh battery energy storage system (BESS) raises serious concerns regarding fire risk, emergency response capability, and cumulative hazard exposure in this location. Large-scale lithium-ion battery facilities carry a recognised risk of thermal runaway events and prolonged, difficult-to-extinguish fires. While mitigation systems are proposed, the risk cannot be eliminated. In a rural setting already subject to seasonal bushfire conditions, the consequences of such an incident would be significant.

Of particular concern is the proximity of the proposed development to the Forbes Recycling and Waste Depot, residential properties, and active agricultural operations. The waste facility itself may contain combustible materials, and the combination of multiple potential ignition sources within close proximity raises cumulative risk concerns. The introduction of a large-scale battery storage facility in this context increases the potential severity of any fire event.

Our concerns include:
- The adequacy of separation distances between the BESS, neighbouring homes, agricultural land, and the nearby waste facility.
- The potential for fire escalation between sites in extreme weather conditions.
- Whether local emergency services have the specialised equipment, training, and water supply required to manage a battery-related fire incident.
- The potential loss of homes, livestock, crops, farm infrastructure, and long-established family livelihoods in the event of fire spread.
- The impact of toxic smoke and contaminants that may be released during a battery fire event.

As neighbouring landholders, the consequences of any fire would directly affect our family, property, and livelihood. Given the surrounding land uses — including residential dwellings and the nearby waste depot — we believe the cumulative fire risk has not been adequately assessed or transparently addressed.

4. Noise and Operational Impacts
Battery storage systems and associated inverters can generate operational noise. As close neighbours, we are concerned about cumulative and ongoing noise impacts, particularly during evening and night time periods.

5. Construction Impacts
Hoopers Road is an unsealed, narrow rural road with multiple crests, limited sight distance, and trees positioned close to the road edge. It is unsafe at the best of times, even under normal local traffic conditions. The road was not designed or constructed to accommodate sustained heavy vehicle movements associated with a large-scale industrial development of this nature.

The proposed construction of a 166 MW solar farm and 120 MW / 960 MWh battery energy storage system will inevitably require frequent heavy vehicle and oversized transport movements. Introducing significant construction traffic onto an already constrained dirt road presents serious and unacceptable safety risks.

Our concerns include:
- Reduced visibility at crests and bends, increasing the likelihood of head-on collisions.
- Inability for heavy vehicles to safely pass agricultural machinery, school buses, or resident vehicles.
- Increased dust generation on an unsealed surface, further reducing visibility and creating hazardous driving conditions.
- Accelerated road deterioration, including rutting and corrugation, which will make the road even more dangerous.
- Increased risk to children, livestock movements, and local residents who regularly use this road.

Given the physical limitations and existing safety concerns associated with Hoopers Road, we do not believe it is suitable to accommodate the volume and type of traffic required for this development. The safety risks to neighbouring landholders and road users have not been adequately addressed.

6. Property Value and Long-Term Impact
The introduction of large-scale industrial renewable infrastructure adjacent to our property may have implications for property value and long-term land use viability.

Given the scale and proximity of this development, we believe the impacts on neighbouring landholders have not been adequately addressed or mitigated.

For these reasons, we object to the proposed development.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding the proposed Forbes Solar Farm. I am a landholder with property directly adjoining the site, identified as R5, located approximately 1 km from the proposed development area. Additionally, my son and his family reside northwest of the site, depicted by R101, 4 km from the proposed site. Unfortunately, I must characterise the level of consultation and communication throughout this process as inadequate and limited at best. Although I attended the face-to-face drop in session in Forbes on Tuesday 27th February 2024 and spoke with staff, clearly communicating my concerns, also verifying my email was accurately recorded to receive future communications, my concerns have not been acknowledged in the report.

My concerns with the proposed project include, but are not limited to:

Fire risk
Who will be responsible for maintaining the perimeter fire breaks and managing vegetation beneath the proposed solar panels? Additionally, the construction of batteries and energy storage facilities introduces further fire risks. What is the proposed Fire Safety Plan to address these concerns? I am concerned that in the event of a fire, the response time (potentially delayed due to limited staff on site) could lead to catastrophic consequences for neighbouring properties.

Biosecurity
I am concerned that involving a large number of staff from various locations during the construction of the proposed project could increase the risk of transporting non-local noxious weeds to the area.

Feral animal and pest control
The proposed site and location could potentially create new shelter or food sources for some feral animals, which could encourage their presence and increase their populations. This could attract other feral animals due to changes in vegetation or shelter availability. This potential lack of control of feral animal and pests may affect adjoining landholders and infrastructure such as damage to fences.

Visual affects
The report includes some assumed and measured visual impact. However, I would like to formally record the fact that such a large proposed site, will significantly change the natural appearance of the environment, impacting scenic views. The large number of solar panels may produce glare or reflections, which can affect neighbouring properties. The security and operational lighting at night may introduce artificial light into previously dark areas, affecting the night-time environments.

Impact on property values
The establishment of a solar farm near agricultural and residential properties may influence local property values; as a result of changes in visual landscape, perceived or actual noise from the facility, concerns about environmental effects, and possible restrictions on land use. What modelling has been conducted regarding this issue? As a neighbouring landowner with a shared boundary to the proposed site, I am concerned that I will be adversely affected.

End of life plan for the site and decommissioning and restoration
The report states best practice rehabilitation and ‘standard construction and management techniques are considered highly reversible’. I would like to see supporting evidence of the decommissioning process along with case studies and peer reviewed literature, where this has been successfully executed elsewhere? We farm with the ethos to leave the land in a better way then we found it, for further generations to enjoy, my grandsons included. I question what this process may look like and would like to see a detailed end of life plan post the proposed solar farm.

In addition, I am yet to see what the proposed boundary fencing and potential buffer zones may look like and as a direct neighbour with adjoining fences, I am seeking further clarity. Also, the report states the ability to co-exist with agriculture activity and that the applicant is exploring options that would allow for continuation of existing sheep grazing of the development footprint. I would like to see peer reviewed literature where this has been successfully implemented. In addition, the schematic of the solar panel depicts the base of the panel 500mm from ground height. How will this allow for livestock to co-exist and graze under these panels efficiently?

I would also like to comment on some report inaccuracies. Table 2-1 page 14 of the Scoping Report states that the Forbes Iron bridge weather station is approximately 5 kms from the project site. This is factually incorrect and contradicts the EIS Main Report where the Iron Bridge is not depicted anywhere near the 5km buffer zone. I would like to highlight this inaccuracy, and if this is represented in the reports and it’s findings, what other inaccuracies are included?

In summary, I am extremely concerned at the proposed location of the Forbes Solar Farm. I am disheartened to read the Scoping report which states ‘Specific management commitments would accompany the final project description to ensure that impacts that cannot be avoided would be minimised to an acceptable degree’ (page 14). I would like to know who defines and determines this acceptable degree?

I welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion.
Regards

Grant Allen

Take a look at the Jemalong solar mess and this is what Forbes Solar will look like. No one will be responsible; ACE Power owner Tag Energy would likely have onsold it numerous times and the owner when it all goes belly up will leave it in the state that Jemalong Solar was left. So green and so good for the environment????? Anyone who thinks that should question their motives or their sanity.

These solar 'developers' are foreign owned and controlled.

Stop wrecking our environment.

It’s a very evil plan to occupy a 270 ha site of food growing land with toxic contaminating Solar panels and hazardous Lithium-ion Batteries that leak poisonous chemicals - all of which are a Public Health and Safety disaster.

It’s non-sensical to exchange our limited food resource land for graveyards of fragile electrical junk that soon degrades, burns or gets storm damaged - poisoning the land and water.

The predatory crooks making their billions out of these dodgy Swindle Factories all deserve the harshest condemnation and punishment for deliberately torturing us with austerity and hardship.

Halt All Further processing of Forbes Solar Farm- a ground-mounted solar project, part of a 2023 deal Ace Power struck with Osaka Gas Energy Oceania to jointly develop a portfolio of solar and battery projects with a total capacity of more than 500 MW in NSW and QLD. Osaka Gas Energy Oceania is a wholly owned subsidiary of Japan-headquartered gas and power company Osaka Gas, which has a global presence in the energy sector.
FSF and BESS were given the green light
by Federal Environment Minister Watt - the all-clear given JUST 19 DAYS after being referred for assessment under the EPBC Act and determined “not a controlled action” by Minister Watt, freeing it from full assessment under the EPBC Act, yet BESS are in View, yes BESS - toxic toxic toxic Risk Risk Risk!
Watt said about the 141 MWdc solar farm and up to 120 MW / 480 MWh BESS
“By choosing to build this facility on disturbed agricultural land with little native vegetation, the proponent set themselves up for success,” he said. “Their planning has paid off with this rapid approval.."
Who is he, Minister Watt? Ex Agricultural Minister, Federal nb. Look at his Record thank you. Poor quality Yes.
I Demand Minister Watt resign.
Cost of Living Crisis reasons due to the cost of electricity rising why. Why? Well, why?
Why offer Japan free Access to Our Catchments Murray Darling Basin?
I would like an inquiry thank you.
There is no such thing as disturbed agricultural land you see. All Agricultural Land can be offered Care, Care, and Never Solar Farms Ever. Rooftops Only for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS thank you! BESS are Toxic in environments Globally yet Minister Watt has Enabled BESS and Lithium Ion batteries in Our Own Nation Despite Risks Overseas, and given a rapidly offered green light to Yet Another BESS development on in over across Our Precious Farmlands!
I Demand Minister Watt Resign. Threat to the Nation reasons. Forbes is Not in a REZ you see. Keep Renewables OFFSHORE from Now.
Rooftops Only in Australia for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS nb FROM Now.
No More Solar Farms and No More BESS I Demand.
Rooftops Only in Australia for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS nb FROM NOW.
Ban BESS.
Ban Lithium-ion batteries.
Research easy to find on Toxicity issues in association with BESS and Lithium Ion batteries.
I Demand Minister Watt resign, and include:-
Forbes Council
Mayor Forbes Council
Mob Forbes region being ??? Destruction of Lachlan River Catchments reasons.
Wake up.
Clean up your act, gov.au Federal, State and Local.
Green your environment.
I will you All responsible.
Rooftops Only for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS nb FROM NOW thank you.
You see - Alternatives Exist at Far Less Cost to your Fellow Australians, nb, the Lachlan River into Murrumbidgee River, the Sacred Murrumbidgee not Cared for at all in a time where Nobody can Cease and Desist Renewable Energy transition and offer Rooftops Only for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS because because because for Whatever reason, Labor politicians believe Renewables can stop address tackle climate change when they cannot at All nb.
Resign Minister Watt, and you too, Minister Sharpe, threatening OUR Catchments for No reason when Alternatives exist at Far Less Cost all round. Keep Coal in the Hunter-Centeal Coast REZ. Build one to two Brand New Low Emissions Coal Fired Power Stations in Muswellbrook region.
Cease Trade with China Immediately Immediately.
Care for Next 8 Generations Australian. Cease All Gas Exports to Japan and also Cease any relationship with Japanese Government for reasons being the Take Over of Catchments for Nation Building in Japan nb - At Our, Australians Ours, Cost!
Cease and Desist Global Control of Australia Lands, owned by owned by hmmm....RE developers um...paid a lot of Money WE pay back, nb - WE the People nb.

Rooftops Only for all wind and solar energy generation for HOUSEHOLDS nb FROM NOW.
Save Save Save Costs Costs Costs and Repair Farmlands Murray Darling Basin.
How Dare You Minister Watt suggest Agricultural Land is "disturbed (?), with minimal native vegetation.
Lachlan River is a Catchment region all the way to Murrumbidgee lakes area - a Precious lakes area nb.
I Demand an Immediate Moratorium on All Solar Farms because using an Excuse to set up Multinationals Global GAS EXTRACTORS of OUR Country is Pathetic coming from an ex Federal Agriculture Minister nb , now in charge of OUR Nations Water, sadly, and Environment, sadly. Sack him. Why? 800 reasons. Thereabouts. Do you want to know what they are? No ? Of course you don't,gov.au Federal, State and Local.
None of you Care.
Not one of you.
You may not but Some of Do.
We Care about Water in the Australian environment nb.
And We Care about Water in Other People's Nations Environments. Not one of you does.
I cannot have Any of you deciding OUR Futures into 500 years from now nb.
Lachlan River Lock Up and Away from Law gov.au nb.
Give it to L o r e Way thanks.

Fix it up.
Mulloon Institute will fix it up.
Sack yourself Minister Watt.
Um...weren't you Agriculture Minister? SLACK, eh ! Get out of gov.au because you, Minister Watt, No Care for OUR Precious Farmlands we will need 800 years from now nb nb nb Nb.
Solar can be Rooftops Only Now from Now.
OK.
Get off Our Precious Lands thanks.
I know where this is you see. Where is it? On Prime Agricultural Lands Australia's.
Cease and Desist Forbes Solar farm Immediately.
Cheap Costs hey. IMPORTS COST Us Australians Highly at whose Expense? Cease Trade Outright. Why haven't you, gov.au Federal, State and Local? Because you are liars and thieves who No Care To The All On Country Lands Waterways and Communities Australian and World's

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Forbes Solar Farm SSD 72383210.
As an owner-occupier of a property directly neighbouring the proposed 166 MW solar farm and 120 MW / 960 MWh battery energy storage system at 207 Hoopers Road, Forbes, I have significant concerns regarding the scale, location, and long-term impacts of this development on my family, surrounding landholders, and the broader Forbes district.

While our community recognises the importance of transitioning to renewable energy, we do not believe that a project of this industrial scale is appropriate for this location. The proposal poses unacceptable risks to neighbouring families, agricultural operations, and the rural character of the area.

My objections are outlined below.

1. Industrialisation of Rural Land and Impact on Local Families
The proposed development represents a substantial industrialisation of productive rural land immediately adjacent to established homes, lifestyle blocks, and small agricultural properties. A project of this magnitude is incompatible with the existing rural character and amenity of the area.

Residents are concerned about:
• Loss of rural character and landscape
• Visual and noise impacts from large-scale industrial infrastructure
• Increased industrial activity near homes
• Reduced enjoyment, privacy, and use of private land

These changes will permanently alter the lived experience of families who have cared for this land for generations.

2. Road Safety and Traffic Risks
Hoopers Road is unsealed, narrow, and includes steep hill crests with limited visibility. It is not designed to safely accommodate the heavy vehicle traffic required for construction or ongoing operations.

Increased industrial traffic poses serious risks to:
• Local residents
• Livestock
• School bus routes and rural road users
• Visitors and service vehicles

The current road infrastructure is inadequate to support the level of industrial traffic associated with this project.

3. Fire, Battery Safety and Pollution Risks
Battery energy storage systems carry known fire risks, including thermal runaway events. In a rural, bushfire-prone environment, the consequences could be severe.

Concerns include:
• Fire ignition from battery systems or electrical infrastructure
• Smoke and chemical release during battery failure
• Soil and water contamination from damaged or degrading solar panels
• Long-term pollution risks during decommissioning

These risks require independent assessment, not assurances from the project proponent.

4. Land, Water and Environmental Contamination
The community holds serious concerns about potential contamination during construction, operation, and decommissioning.

Key questions remain unanswered:
• Who is responsible for site rehabilitation at end-of-life?
• What happens if the operating company enters receivership?
• How will contamination risks be monitored and reported?
• What safeguards will prevent outcomes similar to the Vast Solar Farm at Jemalong, where fire hazards and contamination concerns have been raised?

These concerns relate directly to the long-term safety of our land, water, and agricultural productivity.

5. PFAS and Emerging Chemical Regulations
With national PFAS restrictions commencing 1 July 2026, the consent authority must ensure that no PFAS-containing components are incorporated into the project.

The community seeks clarity on:
• Whether the project could legally include PFAS-containing materials if approved before July 2026
• What certification will be required to guarantee compliance with current and future chemical regulations

Residents deserve certainty that no harmful chemicals will be introduced into the local environment.

6. Property Values and Insurance Impacts
The proximity of large-scale industrial infrastructure to lifestyle and agricultural properties is likely to:
• Reduce neighbouring property values
• Increase public liability and home insurance premiums
• Limit coverage due to elevated fire and industrial risk
• Create financial burdens borne entirely by local families

These economic impacts are significant and long-lasting.

7. Health, Amenity and Buffer Distance Concerns
Other communities living near large solar installations have reported:
• Headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and sleep disturbance
• Concerns about electromagnetic fields (EMF)
• Heat generation and microclimate changes
• Toxic substances released from degrading panels

Residents require clear, independent answers regarding:
• Minimum buffer distances from dwellings
• Noise modelling for inverters and battery systems
• EMF exposure levels
• Heat generation and microclimate impacts

These are reasonable expectations for families living directly beside the proposed development.

8. Decommissioning and Long-Term Responsibility
The community requires assurance that:
• A legally enforceable decommissioning plan exists
• Sufficient funds are secured upfront to guarantee site restoration
• Responsibility cannot be avoided through corporate restructuring or insolvency

Without binding safeguards, the long-term burden may fall on the community rather than the proponent.

Request for Independent Review
Given the scale of the risks and uncertainties, I respectfully request an independent review of:
• Fire and safety risks associated with the battery storage system
• Environmental contamination risks during operation and decommissioning
• Road safety impacts from increased heavy vehicle traffic
• Economic impacts on neighbouring property values and insurance costs

Conclusion
While alternative energy development has an important role to play, this proposal—at this scale and in this location—poses unacceptable risks to neighbouring families, agricultural operations, and the rural character of the Forbes district.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD-72383210 be refused, or alternatively relocated to a site that provides adequate separation from established rural residences and agricultural enterprises.

Kind Regards

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to formally object to the Forbes Solar Farm SSD 72383210.

As an owner‑occupier of a property neighbouring the proposed construction and operation of the 166 MW Forbes Solar Farm and 120 MW / 960 MWh battery energy storage system at 207 Hoopers Road, Forbes, I have serious concerns regarding the scale, location, and long‑term impacts of this project on my family, surrounding landholders, and the hobby farms that make up the Forbes district.

While our community recognises the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels, we believe that renewable energy development in this form and at this location is not suitable. I object to this proposal on the following grounds:

1. Impact on Local Families and Rural Lifestyle
The proposed development represents a large‑scale industrialisation of productive rural land immediately adjacent to established family homes and small agricultural properties. A project of this magnitude is not consistent with the existing rural character of the area.
Residents are concerned about:
• Loss of rural character and landscape
• Visual and noise impacts from industrial infrastructure
• Increased industrial activity near homes
• Reduced enjoyment, privacy, and use of private land
These changes will have long‑term consequences for families who have cared for and invested in this land for generations.

2. Land and Water Contamination Concerns
Community members hold serious concerns regarding the potential for land and water contamination during construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of the development. Key questions remain unanswered:
• Who is responsible for site rehabilitation at end of life?
• What happens if the operating company enters receivership or restructures?
• How will contamination risks be monitored, reported, and enforced?
• What safeguards will prevent outcomes similar to the Vast Solar Farm at Jemalong, where concerns have been raised about fire hazards and land contamination?

These concerns relate directly to the long‑term safety of our land, water, and agricultural productivity.

3. PFAS and Emerging Chemical Regulation
With national PFAS restrictions taking effect from 1 July 2026, the consent authority must ensure that no PFAS‑containing components are incorporated into the development.
Clear certification should be required confirming that all materials comply with current and forthcoming chemical regulations to protect soil, groundwater, humans, and livestock.
The community seeks clarity on whether this project could legally incorporate PFAS‑containing components if approved before 1 July 2026. We deserve certainty that no harmful chemicals will be introduced into the local environment.

4. Property Values and Insurance Impacts
Residents anticipate significant reductions in property values due to the industrialisation of surrounding agricultural land. Additionally:
• Proximity to the solar farm may increase public liability insurance costs
• Fire risks will rise due to electrical infrastructure, panel ignition, and vegetation management challenges
• Neighbouring landholders may face higher premiums or reduced coverage
These financial burdens fall directly on local families, not the project proponent.

5. Health, Amenity, and Buffer Distances
Communities living near other large‑scale solar installations have raised concerns about:
• Headaches, dizziness, fatigue, and sleep disturbance
• Potential exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF)
• Heat generation from large solar arrays
• Long‑term risks from degrading or disposed solar panels releasing toxic substances into soil
Residents require clear, evidence‑based answers regarding:
• Minimum buffer distances from dwellings
• Noise modelling from inverters and battery systems
• EMF exposure levels
• Heat generation and microclimate effects
These are reasonable and necessary questions for families living directly beside the proposed development.

6. Decommissioning and Long‑Term Responsibility
The community needs assurance that:
• A legally enforceable decommissioning plan exists
• Sufficient funds are secured upfront to guarantee site restoration
• Responsibility cannot be avoided through corporate restructuring or insolvency
Without binding safeguards, the long‑term burden may fall on the community rather than the proponent.

Request for Independent Review
Given the scale of this proposal, the proximity to established homes, and the number of unresolved environmental, health, and financial risks, I formally request that the consent authority commission an independent, third‑party review of:
• Environmental and contamination risks
• PFAS compliance and chemical safety
• Fire and emergency management
• Noise, EMF, and heat‑related impacts
• Property value and insurance implications
• Decommissioning and rehabilitation obligations
An independent assessment is essential to ensure transparency, community confidence, and an unbiased evaluation of the risks associated with this development.

Conclusion
While alternative energy development has an important role to play, this proposal—at this scale and in this location—poses unacceptable risks to neighbouring families, agricultural operations, and the rural character of the Forbes district.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that SSD‑72383210 be refused, or alternatively relocated to a site that provides adequate separation from established rural residences and agricultural enterprises. At a minimum, an independent review must be undertaken before any determination is made.

Kind regards,

Forbes Solar negatively contributes to the cumulative poison from the regional RenewaBULL industrialisation that’s outrageously encroaching like a horrible cancer across rural NSW - transforming productive farmland into toxic wasteland - filled with electronic garbage forever.

STOP THE GOVERNMENT’S WAR ON FARMERS!
DUMP THE PARIS AGREEMENT!
DUMP THE UNClean ENERGY COUNCIL!
DEFUND ‘Anything But Credible’ ABeijingC!
JOIN FARMERS FIGHTBACK!
VOTE FOR ONE NATION!