Glenellen Solar Farm

See attached

I Stirling Moll declare that I have not made any political donations in the last 5 years.
I would like to state my objections to the Glenellen solar farm for the following reasons.
The introduction of the large scale solar plants have been rushed in Australia with poor planning evident with this installation. Population density is too great in this area for such an installation and it will dwarf the township of Jindera. The communities of Glenellen and Jindera deserve to be known for the great communities they are with great amenities, not the little town and community with a giant solar “farm” next door.
Site selection is a for a quick hook up to the grid for the proponent alone, mitigating any other negative impacts or obstacles for such a poor site would endure, for example excessive fog in the winter months. There are plenty of more suitable areas out west (e.g 200km west of here) and in more arid areas that would suit these installations, with less populations density the installation would almost go unnoticed. Given the tighter seasons out there the installation would prove a viable income for the land holder as opposed to the Greater Hume Shire where we have a thriving agricultural sector.
440 truck and dog aggregate deliveries alone, plus whatever masses of trucks and vehicles used for the construction works is totally unacceptable, I have children growing up on Glenellen road as do many other people. Glenellen road is in no shape for this sort of traffic and is already bad enough being a B double route due to the now pointless load limit placed on the Gerogery road. Two trucks passing each other on Glenellen road, you could easily see one run off the road due to the road conditions.
As a primary landholder next to the installation I did not even receive a copy of the EIS, I have since heard from the department that it was returned to sender, how can the project even go on exhibition if all adjoining land holders have not been notified? I found out from social media that the project was on exhibition which is very disappointing to say the least. It has also been during our hay and harvest season, which is or busiest time. This is clearly an opportunity they wanted to take hoping we would be busy to make submissions.
No community consultation, prior to the release of the EIS, very disappointing to say the least, seems as if the project is being snuck on the radar? I believe the project should not be able to proceed until community consultation is undertaken, as plenty of people in the Jindera and Glenellen area’s do not even know of the projects existence. This has been made clear to me when I have been talking to members of the community of the last few weeks.
Trina Solar being a Chinese owned company does not appeal to me one bit with the current trade ban on Australian commodities, such as coal, barley, copper ore, sugar, timber wine and lobster with wheat now looming also. So here we have as Chinese company that wants to lease Australian prime agricultural land to generate power to sell to us with it components now not likely to even be made using Australian resources, how are we even meant to fathom that?
Our company Queltara Pty Ltd farms 750Ha with an intense cropping and livestock operation adjacent to this proposed installation which we are the fourth generation to most this land and proud of it. With heritage aplenty and legacy of striving for excellence while being on the forefront of agriculture with a mix of permanent and casual employees. We cannot get any accurate information about micro climate/ heat island effects the installation will have on our agricultural enterprise from the proponent. Also with our land being downstream from the proposal and given the increased water shed rate of the panels we will no doubt be susceptible to increased flooding in wet years. These two environmental factors coupled with a unknown weed build up around the installation and Increased fire risk makes this installation very undesirable to have next to our farming operation, if the project was to proceed we feel it would vastly affect our practices and ability to produce a viable income.
The amount of large paddock trees that will be removed for this project is absurd, these trees are the natural pumps keeping salinity down and rising water table at bay, also being the home many birds. If the proponent and the developer really cared for the environment they would make sure all these large trees stayed in place and would work around them.
The visual impact is somewhat of a concern to myself and my family, the installation will be clearly visible to me at my place of residence at 352 Glenellen road and even more visible to us and our employees at our place of operation and mothers residence at 167 Fielder Moll road with 38 meters of elevation the north facing panels will be nothing but an eyesore. We do not live and work here to be in plain sight of a large scale industrial zone or power station. This part of the Greater Hume Shire has tranquil views with a rural/semi-rural lifestyle for most residents. The project is also on low lying ground with a lot of properties overlooking it, nobody needs to be looking at an extensive industrial area/zone in a rural setting.
The installation is doing nothing more than taking good farm land out of production and turning it into an industrial zone to generate electricity and I am led to believe from a TransGrid consultation that the installation will not even be able to supply its full capacity into the grid with the current infrastructure, so the question has to be asked what indeed is the point of having such a large installation here at the current time or if ever? Also the power generated is not available to local residents it is all going to the major cites to make them feel better about offsetting their “carbon footprints”. If this is so the case then why are city folk not embracing solar on every rooftop? Residential, Industrial/manufacturing, sporting etc? Instead it is getting pushed through on poorly planned projects such as this so they can feel better about things and meet our Paris agreement targets.
A project of this size and nature will no doubt cause a downturn in land prices in its immediate vicinity, nearby residents will be stuck with and unsightly view and most likely unable to sell their properties for what they should be worth which will cause much angst and stress and the mental health component of this issue should not be overlooked. Those of us that operate on equity will have our borrowing capacity severely limited as our capital will not be what it once was, this also could lead to stress and some mental health issues. If the project were to proceed I feel all affected nearby residents will need ongoing financial compensation.
The project may bring some short turn financial gain to the local economy, but many of these projects bring their own workers with them which may spend some money in the local community but in the case of the Finley solar project one contractor almost sent a local automotive repair business broke due to not paying for bills. Once the project has been completed the land that was used for the project will likely put back even less than it previously was to the local economy due it having just one or two care taking staff compared to when it was fully agricultural it would have been contributing to the likes of local rural merchandise suppliers, stock and station agents, contractors etc. The VPA looks nothing more than an extravagant bribe to get the local community on board with the project.
Conclusion:
I am not against renewable projects such as this, I am however against poorly planned projects such as this. The blatant push by these companies to get these projects approved where they are not needed or suited to an area is disheartening to say the least. Solar energy requires good sun light not good farm land with good rainfall that is a valuable commodity and yes this land being so close to Jindera could one day be classified for sub division, it would be far better to see more rate payers in the Greater Hume Shire that would go on to bolster the local economy than some one off Chinese owned solar industrial zone where much of the profits were going straight of shore. Being a proud fourth generation farmer next door to the proposal it is heart wrenching to think that the land next door can be turned into sea of industrialisation. I would ask you to examine the points I have raised thoroughly as I feel if this project is approved it will have a long lasting negative effect on our local community and our ability to farm sustainably.

Yours sincerely, Stirling Moll.

The site for the proposed solar farm is inappropriate because of its likely negative impact on the village of Jindera and the residents of Glenellen, especially on those living in close proximity (within 2 km) to the development who will be impacted by noise, dust and traffic during construction and longer-term effects such as visual impact and negative effects on the environment and possible reduction of property values. There are a relatively large number of households impacted within a 2 mile radius as this proposed development is close to a new housing subdivision on the edge of Jindera.

The proposed solar farm would have a negative effect on the amenity of the area, especially through the visual impact. The developers propose to use solar panels up to 5 metres high. This is higher than other solar farms proposed for the area and it is obvious that the panels will have significant visual impact. Vegetation screens, where planted, will take many years to grow sufficiently to mitigate the visual impact of these high panels.

In addition, the topography of the surrounding area which includes rolling hills and ranges with views of the flatter areas such as that proposed for the solar farm, mean that many neighbouring properties and drivers on nearby roads will have views affected by glint and glare. The developers posit that there is low impact if this affects only a few people but I feel that this is dismissive of the real impact on the community members who would have significant views of the proposed farm.

The Glenellen Solar Farm would be less than 500 metres from the proposed Jindera Solar Farm. If both are approved there would be a cumulative visual and social impact. The area will appear to be covered by a sea of solar panels. They will surround the north east of Jindera, limiting future development in this direction and creating an unattractive industrial environment. For the residents of Glenellen there will be even more impact, with some of these surrounded by solar panels. This outlook is certainly not what they expected when they chose to live in the area.

One issue with using the land on this site for a solar farm is that the land is relatively low-lying and is fog-bound on many winter mornings. Often the fog does not clear for a many hours. This will limit the amount of solar power that can be produced at these times. This is such a significant problem that a proposal to build a new Albury airport on adjoining land in the 1970’s did not proceed because the area is so fog bound in winter.

This proposal, if approved, would result in the large scale removal of a large number of paddock trees, many that are mature and have hollows for fauna. This will reduce the habitat for birds and other fauna which would take many years to replace.

It is proposed that the area set aside for the solar farm is levelled and this will result in changes to water run-off that has previously feed into the three creeks involved. Dead Horse Creek is very close to the northern part of the proposed development and I feel the set-backs from it and also Bowna Creek are insufficient, especially as these creeks may flood following heavy rainfall.

I have significant concerns about traffic management during the construction stage. In my opinion, Glenellen Rd is not suitable as an access route for heavy vehicles. It is narrow and not well formed and there would be significant safety issues if trucks were to use this. The safely of local residents, especially children, some of whom use Glenellen Rd as a route to and from school, is paramount and , therefore, another route should be used if this development is approved.

In summary, I do not support the proposed development because of the negative impacts on the local community and the environment.

I am writing as a bike enthusiast who rides regularly on local roads. I am also a retired early childhood teacher of 30 years.
I appose the Glenellen solar farm because of safety concerns due to the amount of traffic including heavy vehicles that will be travelling on these local roads. The Glenellen road is a popular route for local cyclists as well as Albury cyclists who do a loop from albury and back again.
I am also concerned that the increased volume of traffic including heavy traffic will impact on the safety of school children and their families as there are many school buses that use these roads.
I also feel that the constant flow of heavy vehicles and the increased volume of traffic will damage the roads and create further safety issues
My concern is SAFETY

Not against solar , but wrong location here. Not good for our communities that have worked hard to farm the land. This should be a community decision. It will have no real benefit to our wider community.

Whilst being a strong supporter of renewable energy development in general, the proposed GHSC solar "farms" (Culcairn, Walla Walla, Jindera and Glenellen) are prime examples of a lack of forward planning by the NSW government departments in that industrial scale projects are being imposed on a large number of (mostly) small landholders and households against their wishes and over their objections, based purely on the short-term attraction of lower costs associated with the existing transmission lines and substation. This is NOT planning and no amount of box ticking and "addressing concerns" can ameliorate the loss of visual and environmental amenity that will be foisted on the objectors if this is allowed to proceed.
These proposed developments will pitch neighbour against neighbour and diminish the quality of life for those close to the "farms", most of whom made conscious decisions to locate to this area for its rural appeal. That large companies can over-ride these concerns and have it "signed off" by a "Planning" department is extremely disturbing.
The many submissions concerning loss of productive farm land, native vegetation and dams are repeated. The building disruption to those nearby is just the prelude to the long-term detrimental effects of these developments should they be allowed to come to fruition. Put the "farms" where they will have minimal impact on others. THAT would be true planning.

I note the estimated investment of the Glenellen Solar Farm is $250,000,000. This will involve great economic benefit to the local area including employment opportunities, contractual services requirements, accommodation needs, food, fuel and other services. It will also be a significant income for the landowners involved, and that is a good thing.
I live approximately 5 kilometres from the proposed development and own and operate a small farm. I am concerned about the loss of relatively good agricultural land, because the rainfall in this area is relatively good compared to the great majority of Australia.
If the project is to go ahead I believe the following should be factored into the proposal -
1. Glenellen Road is proposed to be the main road into the site for large trucks. This road is already unsafe with much of it very rough as the foundations must have been inadequately done many years ago and the road verges are rough and not built up enough. There is not a white line on the middle of the road to allow the safe passing of vehicles. Currently, in parts, it must be one of the poorest main roads in the Greater Hume Shire. It needs ripping up, new foundations laid to modern standards and resealed. Adequate funds need to be provided by the developers to Greater Hume Shire to do this upgrade.
2. This is a major project judged to be of state significance, and therefore approved by state government rather than local government. For a number of local residents it will be an inconvenience and change the outlook of their properties to some extent. It will certainly be different to the rural environment they bought into. For this reason I believe the residents within a 2 kilometre radius of the site be provided with free electricity for the 30 year term of the investment, or alternatively be paid a significant lump sum to compensate them for their loss of amenity.
3. There should not be ugly security fencing along the roadways where the site is - the security fencing should be behind the screening to hide it.
4 There should be adequate screening along the roads and near the residences adjoining the project site. Also there should be built in checks to ensure there are significant penalties if the owners of the project don't maintain the screening and means by which the local shire can enforce this.
5. The clearing of existing trees should be minimized so that the existing outlook is maintained to a degree.

This project will have significant impact on the rural landscape of Jindera and the surrounding areas. It will bring many heavy vehicles through the main road of Jindera which is the direct access for 3 schools (2 Primary schools and 1 K-12 college) making the roads more dangerous for the children of the town.

Over the last few years, solar energy technology has advanced leaps and bounds. Never has it been so environmentally friendly yet cost-efficient to turn to solar energy sources. Below are just a sample of the benefits of solar farms:
• Solar farms use a reliable, clean energy source. The simple fact of the matter is that the sun is not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. However, the same cannot be said for energy sources such as fossil fuels and coal.
• Solar farms do not cause pollution. While there are some emissions associated with the construction of a solar farm, they equate to nearly nothing in comparison to most conventional energy sources.
Due to the raised point above this solar farm would be a valuable asset.

I strongly object this project and I believe this has been rushed and planned for the wrong area just because of the infrastructure that is already here not for any other reasons.
Good farming land will be taken up for this project that was still profitable when NSW was in drought. I live in the area and it is good farming land that can produce good crops livestock to help feed the population. I will be able to view this project from this property, this is not why I live here. I live here because of the farmland, the views and this will be an unsightly industrial eye sore. It has the potential to decrease land values in the area. This project is a direct neighbour of my family farm and it effects my families future immensely as the effects of this have not been researched properly.
I am worried it will make a micro climate effect and make it hotter.
I really do not think the roads in the area are not up to scratch with all the traffic this project will bring. I live on Glenellen Road and I believe this road will be become busy with trucks during the building of this project. It will be very unsafe as I believe the road is not up to having trucks pass each other.
To run a good farm you need to put money into lots of local services, stock agents, agronomists, farm machinery and vehicle servicing etc these will lose out. The money from these projects will go back overseas, and not back into our local community.
I am not against renewable energy like solar, but I just believe this is not the place for it.

Letter attached

I object to the Glenellen Solar Farm proposal in the strong agricultural shire of Greater Hume and in the nearby location of the township of Jindera.
The massive footprint of large scale solar projects should be located in renewable energy zones with low agricultural production value and not locations in the close proximity of growing townships. This development will have a significant number of associated receivers including some elevated views.
Convenient infrastructure to minimise cost to developers is not an excuse for the inappropriate location of these developments.
This development opposes aims of the Greater Hume LEP to protect and retain productive agricultural land and the developer confirms that the land will be mapped as Important Agricultural Land which under the NSW Solar Guidelines should be an area of constraint.
The Greater Hume LEP also aims to provide opportunities for the growth of townships that would potentially be inhibited by the large footprint of this development. The township of Jindera has been a strong growth area of Greater Hume that could be disrupted by multiple massive solar projects.
The proponents claim that the development will unavoidably impact up to 11.4 ha of native vegetation and 81 paddock trees does not meet the Greater Hume LEP aim to protect, conserve and enhance natural assets.
And what of the RU1 zone objectives to maintain the rural landscape character of the land. Solar is most definitely NOT a part of the rural landscape and is an absolute visual eyesore.
I would like to ask, what is the point of the Greater Hume LEP if we are not going to take any notice of it? Why should local people have to abide by this if Foreign Companies do not? The agriculturally and environmentally wealthy Greater Hume Shire is not the place for these developments. The eclipse of the Infrastructure SEPP should not overtake all other matters of planning, the intent of all instruments should be considered.
Climate alarmism is creating nonsensical rushed action without serious sensible planning. Massive developments in the Pilbara and Northern Territory may potentially see our country provide power to Asian countries yet for our own use we are allowing these developments to be slapped all over valuable agricultural land in areas that have reliable rainfall when other areas of the state suffer from drought. It is my view that these developments in the north and west using undersea cables eradicate the transmission loss argument for solar development over long distances. If climate concern is to be the driver of renewable energy projects then in turn structured planning should include the protection of agricultural land due to the impact of climate change on food security. Drought and irrigation issues will continue if our climate is severely affected and food will be hardest hit, a reason to put these developments on arid land. Solar can go elsewhere but farming CAN NOT!
A hasty, financially appealing money grab by Foreign companies and opportunistic landowners is being put before our planning instruments, policies and plans that promote the protection of agricultural land for primary production. The companies make opportunity of clever marketing terms twisting the construction impacts and installation of industrial, mined metal structures into agricultural retention through “sunshine harvesting” and diminished sheep grazing. Should we throw the Rural SEPP and the Ministerial Direction for Rural Lands out the window and forget about protecting the agricultural production value of rural land or supporting the actions outlined in the New South Wales Right to Farm Policy?
The environmental impact is overlooked for a so-called saviour of the environment. It is hypocritical. Offsets, environmental trade offs such as ecosystem and species credits cannot overcome the local impact to the environment which will be great in this area.
Tubestock vegetation proposed in developments is useless as a mitigation strategy as trees take many years to grow. Many rows of mature visually dense trees will be necessary as a precaution to ensure heat issues are not endured by surrounding properties.
Drainage and water issues should be strongly considered including the potential for damaged panels to leach toxic chemicals into waterways should severe storms or hail be destructive. Again the precautionary principle should prevail.
Fire issues must be of primary concern and Emergency and Fire Management Plans should be provided as a matter of planning rather than just a condition of consent. If towns and neighbours are at increased risk this should form part of the determination. Severe weather conditions as seen in Culcairn yesterday 29/11/2020 with extreme winds could have been catastrophic if not due to the fast action of Rural Fire Service Members. There is no way that this kind of fire suppression could be applied in rows and rows of solar panels without great risk to firefighters and the subsequent risk to neighbouring properties and towns will be greatly increased.
Cumulative impacts of two developments close to town must be considered and traffic through the busy hive of Jindera will create a safety issue for the town. Glenellen road would need major upgrade for construction use with the estimated number of trucks and Greater Hume and its ratepayers should not bear the brunt of this cost.
With many developments proposed for Greater Hume and even hearing of some that may not be yet on the table I would ask are we truly headed for a solar waste explosion in the future. There are many questions about grid capacity and transmission issues that are not explained and downturn in profitability could see these foreign companies disappear leaving the true cost to our local community and the remaining landowner who may not have the capacity to decommission such a massive development. Financial Guarantee should be a requirement of government not just a promise.
I truly believe that the NSW Department of Planning will not be able to ensure compliance with the huge number of developments on the table leaving our local Council to pick up the pieces in the future or when issues arise.
I strongly recommend that the true cost to our community be considered in determining the solar developments in Greater Hume shire and that the NSW Department of Planning seriously consider that the short term financial construction benefit should NOT be the sole driver of any approval as opposed to the long term benefits of viable agriculture.
Personally, I am becoming repulsed by the lack of long term vision, risk mitigation and absolute truth as to how these developments will actually benefit our community into the future, or will they just be to our detriment. Our local area is not broken, it does not need these developments. I ask that you please consider the true cost rather than place priority on the short term financial benefit of few.

To whom it may concern,
Renewable energy is a must in our future because the science is unanimous on human-induced climate change. This project will add much needed low-carbon electricity generation into the NEM and from what I understand includes the co-location of agriculture and solar electricity generation. That commitment has the potential to showcase the co-existence of agriculture and solar electricity generation without having to face the often misrepresented scenario of "either-or". Both agriculture and solar plants have the potential to impact land negatively if not done right, however given the amount of studies, planning, company commitments, binding operational conditions, and compliance scrutiny on the solar plant, it is likely that the project's impacts on land can be managed to within the same level (if not lower levels) of impacts on land from agriculture. With the correct amount of rehabilitation and decommissioning planning it is also likely that the land will remain for future agricultural use after the solar plant reaches its useful life (the land isn't being taken away) - something that would not be possible if the land was consumed by small-lot rural residential subdivision which often takes agricultural land permanently out of production.
Overall I believe this project provides benefits that outweigh the impacts if appropriate management measures are put in place.

As a long term resident of Jindera I strongly oppose this solar development; Important agricultural land not used to its full potential. And the EIS being released once again in the most busiest season for farmers and land owners. To have these Industrial plants being planned in built up areas of our Jindera community is ill planned and should have been protected by the Guidelines and the mapping of Important Agricultural Land mapping.

The Glenellen Solar Farm is inappropriately located on important agricultural land. Solar PV should be located on house rooves and large solar should be in the desert where nothing grows. Not on good farm land that grows food.
Fire risk of these large projects should not be in close proximity to townships nor should neighbouring properties be at risk of multiple impacts.
This project will affect future growth of Jindera and traffic during construction will be a safety issue.
Good neighbouring property owners should not be at loss, they own their property in the RU1 zone being a rural landscape and they should not be subjected to the industrialisation of ugly metal solar infrastructure.

I am a strong supporter of solar power farms. We need a steady supply of clean electricity in this country, to cater for the growing population. I am supportive because the site has good characteristics and because of the large substation at Jindera it allows the power that’s generated to reach the grid.

A supporter of solar power farms which are close to existing sub-stations and close to towns, renewable energy is an alternative to coal power stations.
I am supportive because this project from what I have read appears to be well planned and will benefit the local community.
Australia with our environment needs more solar farms now.

Hopefully my attachment will actually attach today, this site is rather cumbersome and not very user friendly.
I sit here currently aghast and dismayed, I have just checked out my Barley crop (probably the best I have ever grown) and I am wondering is someone from the Department can enlighten me as to what I am going to do with it, as currently China are weilding their bully stick and have issued trade sanctions on Australian agriculture, forestry, seafood and a host of others to the tune of over $10 billion dollars, and then you are going to approve the instillation of these proposed industrial plants whose entire origin comes from China, you cant be serious, the sad irony for us is you dont have to harness markets for your product, you get paid whether you perform well or not, we dont, total smack in the face if you allow these projects to go ahead, we cant sell our produce to China and will have to live with the rest of our income opportunities being downgraded by chinese products, I'm gutted and so tired of this.
Anyway there is work to be done.