Gundary Solar Farm

The project is located within 10 km of our picturesque and historical city of Goulburn
As a rule , I do not object persae to solar farms , but this proposal will change the landscape and ambiance of our beautiful city forever , and the proposed location is clearly not appropriate.
The location on Gundary Plains is primarily the home of about 108 lifestyle blocks - where residents purchased it built homes to enjoy the charming and quiet country lifestyle
This massive project ( which is over 2/3 the size our city ) will completely destroy the rural country outlook - and replace it with a sea of solar panels as far as the horizon

Please consider the implications both at a personal level to the residents of Gundary , and the greater community- and do not allow the solar farm to proceed at this proposed location . There are various other locations / including the property “Rosedale “ owned by the same proponent - which would be more suitable and impact far less residents

I object to the Gundary Solar Farm. Please view attached submission below for detailed comments.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for further discussion.
Peter Coles

EIS has not addressed the issue of damage to panels and panel infrastructure of strong winds and storms.

The location of the project is completely wrong. It is nestled in the surrounds of a rural lifestyle community approved by councils to be just that with small rural lots of land looking down onto the project. Well within the 12km legal radius of a city. The road cannot handle 600 more vehicle movements per day, the local council cannot upgrade the road with internal funding and the project most certainly has not allowed for such. The owner of the property is already a billionaire who is a CEO for Macquarie Bank and has sought out this parcel of land whom he acquired off the Fife family as justification to RSPCA for his neglected and starving cattle at Hanworth Station to put them into a property that had pasture to avoid animal cruelty prosecution. Since then, the commercial relations between himself and BP have taken a turn toward the local project only because of self opportunity and zero to do with to with the local community or the environment. He has also acquired another 1300Ha nearby property approved for a subdivision to keep a lid on more vocal locals from speaking out against the project.
I have been involved in 80% of renewable projects in NSW over the last 15yrs and this site is just in the wrong location. There are many other sites approved and begging for the opportunity to host such a project under the same powerlines on flat country 30km to the west of Goulburn with very little neighbours, better topography, willing hosts, direct access off the freeway without having to have thousands of vehicle movements on narrow country roads and best of all not in amongst 75 odd direct neighbours that completely object to the project. Absolutely zero benifit to the city of Goulburn or the neighbouring properties only to that of a wealthy businessman who cares nothing for the local land only to more profit for himself.

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to make my objection to the Gundary Solar Farm (or any alias under which it is known) clear.
I earnestly hope that you will read this, and try to understand my point of view.

Gundary Plains is a beautiful area with arable land, which is a prime attraction for people wishing to downsize and live on small lifestyle blocks. I myself grew up on one of these small plots of land, which have become increasingly residential since 1997 when I first moved to Windellama Road. The bus now is apparently so full of kids that there are two buses that head out that direction for the school run. There is a thriving community and we look out for our neighbours, we wave to each other on the road as we pass each other by, we check in on each other. At least, that is how things are for now.

I would prefer to use the term solar factory (because let's be honest, a farm pertains to living things, and the sun's rays are not alive and nor is the technology of solar panels) for what has been proposed for this prime residential land for what is a growing city. Did you know that the site is only 10 kms from the city of Goulburn, a city which has grown significantly over the past few decades (check Google Maps if you don't believe me!). With Goulburn set to grow more as people move away from expensive city living, why on earth would we not continue out that direction of Windellama Road with homes, as there are already over 100 lifestyle blocks around the site, let alone along the rest of the road. I dread the thought of hearing the noise of the solar panels moving, creaking, apparently as loud as chainsaws, which will echo across the rolling plains in an industrial shriek. The sheer scale of the proposed solar 'farm' site is enormous, inappropriately so for an area full of families.

And for what benefit, when Goulburn is known to be a COLD, overcast, windy place? No offence, but surely somewhere with some decent sun would be a better investment?

Furthermore, when only 6% of Australia is arable, I do not understand why we are likely destroying that land for a solution that could be implemented more effectively elsewhere. The eventual degradation of the solar panels over time is not just a possibility, but rather, a certainty. How will the business take responsibility AND action to prevent ecological contamination via chemical residue? This is of particular concern if the grass is maintained by livestock, as the potential for contamination of their food source becomes dangerously high (and therefore OUR food source too, let's be real).

On the topic of degradation and contamination, I am also concerned about the potential for run-off of said contaminants from the solar factory into Gundary Creek, which I believe flows into the overall catchment for drinking water and may extend to Sydney drinking water as well. To my knowledge, there is no financial commitment by the developer for the decommissioning and remediation of the site, which likely means this infrastructure will be left to rot when it is inevitably outdated.

When I take my young son to visit his grandparents at their home on Windellama Road, I will be terrified during the bushfire season. In the hot, dry summer, I doubt that cattle grazing will be enough to keep the fire risk at bay. What responsibility does the company have for protecting this highly flammable solar panel equipment, which immediately becomes a bigger fire hazard and risk to life in the increasingly populous area of Gundary? We know that climate change is making weather more extreme, which means we need to be planning ahead for the dangers of hotter temperatures. Putting a solar farm in an area where there are people trying to live their lives in peace is going to cast an ominous shadow when there are extreme weather events in the future.

In my closing remarks, I want to thank you for reading my submission to object to the Gundary Solar Farm. Seeing as the spirit of this project is supposed to be clean energy, I as a young person feel that this project is not part of the way forward. Please consider the negative health impacts this will have on the community, from stress about bushfires, to contaminants that could cause a range of health issues in animals and people, to the fact that it's also going to be just plain ugly and devalue peoples' previously beautiful land and homes. I personally feel devastated at the thought that my son and any future children are losing out on a beautiful, peaceful sanctuary in my parents' home as it is now, and I feel so cheated that this supposedly "green solution" will be the cause of such destruction, devaluation and risk, for little forseeable reward.

ATTN: Cameron Ashe
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: Gundary Solar Farm project (SSD 48225958)

Delivered via NSW Planning Portal 12 December 2024

Gundary Solar Farm project (SSD 48225958)

I write to you to express my strong objection to the proposed building of a solar farm on the Gundary Plains. I am daughter-in-law of the owner, and the wife of the farm manager of “Bullamalita” pastoral company a 4000-acre grazing and cropping property. This property has been in the Peden family since 1923. “Bullamalita” neighbours “Rosedale”, and will be directly affected, given its proximity to the proposed development. I am also an essential services worker (registered nurse and midwife).

The first objection I make is that this proposed development is not even within the published Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) published by the NSW Government. The REZs were developed based on extensive planning, mapping, and consultation to identify areas where renewable energy projects are most suitable. Expanding outside of these zones without clear reasoning could undermine the purpose of this planning. If the REZs are to be a foundational part of the state's renewable energy strategy, it’s essential that any development outside those zones be rigorously justified and aligned with broader policy objectives.

The size of the project is substantial. Its effect on the surrounding area would be significant. This land has been farmed, both in terms of grazing and cropping, since the very early beginnings of agriculture in NSW. It has proved to be some of the best land available in NSW for the growing of fine wool, and has developed into an exceptional producer of fat lambs for slaughter. These lambs are grown for both export and domestic consumption.

“Bullamalita” is in fact, is the home of “The Big Merino” an iconic 15.2 metre, three storey concrete and steel monument that was built in 1985 as a celebration of the Goulburn and surrounding district’s fine wool industry. The life-like Ram structure was modelled on “Rambo,” stud ram that was bred by Robert Peden (owner of Bullamalita).

“Bullamalita” is run on a large successful commercial scale, by the same family, for in excess of 100 years. I do not accept the proposition that sheep are able to graze under the panels and that there is no loss of grazing area. That is a fundamentally ludicrous assertion evidently made by someone with little to no understanding of farming practices, nor by someone who understands livestock.

My second objection is that the proposal will have significant impact on native wildlife such as the South-Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo, Spotted-tail quoll and the superb Lyrebird. These three specific endangered national treasures are local species in the area and there are existing NSW initiatives active to ensure their safety. “Bullamalita” participated in the Rivers of Carbon (ROC) / Greening Australia initiative to fence off critical habitat area and plant native vegetation to attract and house the South-Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo. ‘Quollidor’ (NSW Saving our Species program) is an additional conservation project that is being pursued by state Government – Environment and Heritage to acknowledge and monitor the Quoll on the South Coast crossing to the Blue Mountains, NSW. Solar Farm infrastructure would have devastating impacts on these vulnerable species.

My third objection is that the proposal is less than 10 kilometres from the township of Goulburn. The area already has a significant number of residents in and around it, with the current population of Goulburn Mulwaree at 32,710, with a 0.87% population growth noted (Goulburn Mulwaree Council, 2023). The loss of amenity, not only during construction, but also during operation, would be enormous. Of additional concern, is that the same owner of the land on which the current development is proposed to be constructed has just purchased the property known as “Rosedale”. The only logical assumption that can be drawn from that purchase is clearly a longer-term plan to expand the current proposal. Though this is obviously not yet published, it is most clear that this is within frame of mind. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of commercial reason.

The transport of machinery and the solar panels to site will have a detrimental effect on the single lane carriageway of Windellama Rd. The road is already busy during the year, and particularly so during school holidays when many people use it as part of the journey to the South Coast. The potential for collisions between multiple trucks servicing and delivering to the proposed site, and domestic traffic, is a major concern. Similarly, the construction and operation of the solar farm would present an immense challenge to the operation of the surrounding farms. Naturally, the implementation of various road blocks and the like would halt the transportation of stock, sowing and harvesting machinery as between farms. To stultify the local agricultural operations in such a way for the purposes of a solar farm, which is more than likely soon to be obsolete, is not only a waste of taxpayer funds, but will have a self-evident effect on the broader community.

My fourth objection is the considerable fire risk posed by the development. Fire activity is significant in dry years, and the fire-risk presented by lithium batteries is well documented; so too is the nature of the fire that breaks out from such batteries, and the difficulty of extinguishing such a fire. Should any major fire break out in the battery storage facility, there is a very real question as to whether the local bush fire brigade, made up predominantly of volunteer local farmers, would have the equipment, and indeed know how to combat such an occurrence. I am not aware if the NSW Fire Brigade’s Goulburn station commands ability to provide trained fire fighters and the appropriate apparatuses should such a fire require their intervention. The effects of such fire on the agricultural surrounds needn’t be stated.

My fifth objection is a financial one. It is undeniable that the construction of such a facility, particularly on the scale proposed, will have a devaluing effect on surrounding properties. Persons wishing to live, or seeking a place to live in the country, are not going to choose to purchase a property whose main visual feature is a view over almost three quarters of a million solar panels. For those of us who live here, we have invested considerable capital in developing our own farms to make them as productive as they can be. That capital investment will be considerably depleted by the unarguable fact that no one will want to live next to a solar factory.
I do not accept that the proposal will provide large scale local employment. Having lived in the area for a long time, I have encountered numerous crews who have been employed to build windfarms within the shire. In my experience, these crews are made up of either foreign working visa holders, or persons who are not local area residents. Once the project is complete, they leave, and make no further contribution to the town. It is not a criticism of them, it’s just a fact. I note the proposed staffing level for the farm, once complete, is minimal. It is not right to present this benefit to the community knowing that not to be the experience in like-projects of the past.

My sixth, and in some ways most serious concern, is the lack of any detail regarding the decommissioning of the site. Solar has not proved to be a huge producer of renewable energy. It is hamstrung by the fact that it only operates during daylight hours, and battery technology has not developed to the point that all the power produced can be stored (and certainly not on a scale that can sustain base load power over the length of the night time period). Windellama is notorious for soup-like fogs for a number of days each year, and in addition is prone to hail. It is inevitable that there will be a number of days in which the contribution to the power grid from this proposal would be nil.

The panels themselves seem to have a life span of 10 years. The disposal of used panels has proved very problematic to other operators. Recycling does not appear to be an option. Of greater concern is that it is likely that Lightsource Development Services will at some stage seek to sell the development. Any agreement as to the rehabilitation or remediation of the land upon the decommissioning of the site will be made much less tenable in the very likely event that BP elect to sell the project at some stage in the future. Whilst I have no difficulty with BP making a profit from its investment, it is the indeterminacy of the enforceability of those conditions on future purchasers that concerns me. Should the solar farm become economically unviable due to a change in technology, age, or because it is outstripped by other sources of generation, it can hardly be a financially attractive option to any owner at that time to spend the millions that would be required to bring the land back to its current state.
It is for these reasons I am opposed to the development as currently proposed.

I declare that no reportable political donations have been made by me in the last two years. I acknowledge acceptance of the Department’s disclaimer and declaration.

Yours sincerely
Emma Gill Peden

Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation

I am a neighbour of the proposed Gundary Solar Farm and will be directly affected by it.
I fully support the project on environmental and social grounds.
Directly affected neighbours should be compensated by Lightsource BP and a community fund should be established benefiting the wider community over the life of the project.

We have seen some changes in the proposed plan since Lightsource bp and UMWELT took our concerns from the community engagement sessions. Notwithstanding, the major issues haven't been addressed so far. We collated those in the attached file.
Residents and the broader community are well versed and voiced their concerns since the proposal of the solar installation. There is no “perceived inability”, MANY people spoke up, wrote, voiced, discussed. Lightsource bp was contacted many times on many occasions. It’s been shocking at the community consultation meeting to experience the missing of relevant information, competence, and engagement on behalf of the consultation firm UMWELT. With this submission we want to get concrete answers to the mentioned problems as they still stand.

ATTN: Cameron Ashe
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: Gundary Solar Farm project (SSD 48225958)

Delivered via NSW Planning Portal 12 December 2024

RE: Gundary Solar Farm project (SSD 48225958)

I write to you to express my strong objection to the proposed building of a solar farm on the Gundary Plains. I am the owner of “Bullamalita” pastoral company a 4000-acre grazing and cropping property. This property has been in the Peden family since 1923. “Bullamalita” neighbours “Rosedale”, and will be directly affected, given its proximity to the proposed development.

The first objection I make is that this development is not even within the published Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) published by the NSW Government. This begs the question - why go to the trouble of publishing such zones if it is your intention to consider developments that are outside the very areas you designated?

The size of the project is substantial. Its effect on the surrounding area would be significant. This land has been farmed, both in terms of grazing and cropping, since the very early beginnings of agriculture in NSW. It has proved to be some of the best land available in NSW for the growing of fine wool, and has developed into an exceptional producer of fat lambs for slaughter. These lambs are grown for both export and domestic consumption.

“Bullamalita” in fact, is the home of “The Big Merino” an iconic 15.2 metre, three storey concrete and steel monument that was built in 1985 as a celebration of the Goulburn and surrounding district’s fine wool industry. The life-like Ram structure was modelled on “Rambo,” stud ram that was bred by Robert Peden (owner of Bullamalita).

"Bullamalita" is run on a large successful commercial scale, by the same family, for in excess of 100 years. I do not accept the proposition that sheep are able to graze under the panels and that there is no loss of grazing area. That is a fundamentally ludicrous assertion evidently made by someone with little to no understanding of farming practices, nor by someone who understands livestock.

My second objection is that the proposal will have significant impact on native wildlife such as the South-Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo, Spotted-tail quoll and the superb Lyrebird. These three specific endangered national treasures are local species in the area and there are existing NSW initiatives active to ensure their safety. “Bullamalita” participated in the Rivers of Carbon (ROC) / Greening Australia initiative to fence off critical habitat area and plant native vegetation to attract and house the South-Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo. ‘Quollidor’ (NSW Saving our Species program) is an additional conservation project that is being pursued by state Government – Environment and Heritage to acknowledge and monitor the Quoll on the South Coast crossing to the Blue Mountains, NSW. Solar Farm infrastructure would have devastating impacts on these vulnerable species.

My third objection is that the proposal is less than 10 kilometres from the township of Goulburn. The area already has a significant number of residents in and around it, with the current population of Goulburn Mulwaree at 32,710, with a 0.87% population growth noted (Goulburn Mulwaree Council, 2023). The loss of amenity, not only during construction, but also during operation, would be enormous. Of additional concern, is that the same owner of the land on which the current development is proposed to be constructed has just purchased the property known as “Rosedale”. The only logical assumption that can be drawn from that purchase is clearly a longer-term plan to expand the current proposal. Though this is obviously not yet published, it is most clear that this is within frame of mind. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of commercial reason.

The transport of machinery and the solar panels to site will have a detrimental effect on the single lane carriageway of Windellama Rd. The road is already busy during the year, and particularly so during school holidays when many people use it as part of the journey to the South Coast. The potential for collisions between multiple trucks servicing and delivering to the proposed site, and domestic traffic, is a major concern. Similarly, the construction and operation of the solar farm would present an immense challenge to the operation of the surrounding farms. Naturally, the implementation of various road blocks and the like would halt the transportation of stock, sowing and harvesting machinery as between farms. To stultify the local agricultural operations in such a way for the purposes of a solar farm, which is more than likely soon to be obsolete, is not only a waste of taxpayer funds, but will have a self-evident effect on the broader community.

My fourth objection is the considerable fire risk posed by the development. Fire activity is significant in dry years, and the fire-risk presented by lithium batteries is well documented; so too is the nature of the fire that breaks out from such batteries, and the difficulty of extinguishing such a fire. Should any major fire break out in the battery storage facility, there is a very real question as to whether the local bush fire brigade, made up predominantly of volunteer local farmers, would have the equipment, and indeed know how to combat such an occurrence. I am not aware if the NSW Fire Brigade’s Goulburn station commands ability to provide trained fire fighters and the appropriate apparatuses should such a fire require their intervention. The effects of such fire on the agricultural surrounds needn’t be stated.

My fifth objection is a financial one. It is undeniable that the construction of such a facility, particularly on the scale proposed, will have a devaluing effect on surrounding properties. Persons wishing to live, or seeking a place to live in the country, are not going to choose to purchase a property whose main visual feature is a view over almost three quarters of a million solar panels. For those of us who live here, we have invested considerable capital in developing our own farms to make them as productive as they can be. That capital investment will be considerably depleted by the unarguable fact that no one will want to live next to a solar factory.

I do not accept that the proposal will provide large scale local employment. Having lived in the area for a long time, I have encountered numerous crews who have been employed to build windfarms within the shire. In my experience, these crews are made up of either foreign working visa holders, or persons who are not local area residents. Once the project is complete, they leave, and make no further contribution to the town. It is not a criticism of them, it’s just a fact. I note the proposed staffing level for the farm, once complete, is minimal. It is not right to present this benefit to the community knowing that not to be the experience in like-projects of the past.

My sixth, and in some ways most serious concern, is the lack of any detail regarding the decommissioning of the site. Solar has not proved to be a huge producer of renewable energy. It is hamstrung by the fact that it only operates during daylight hours, and battery technology has not developed to the point that all the power produced can be stored (and certainly not on a scale that can sustain base load power over the length of the night time period). Windellama is notorious for soup-like fogs for a number of days each year, and in addition is prone to hail. It is inevitable that there will be a number of days in which the contribution to the power grid from this proposal would be nil.

The panels themselves seem to have a life span of 10 years. The disposal of used panels has proved very problematic to other operators. Recycling does not appear to be an option. Of greater concern is that it is likely that Lightsource Development Services will at some stage seek to sell the development. Any agreement as to the rehabilitation or remediation of the land upon the decommissioning of the site will be made much less tenable in the very likely event that BP elect to sell the project at some stage in the future. Whilst I have no difficulty with BP making a profit from its investment, it is the indeterminacy of the enforceability of those conditions on future purchasers that concerns me. Should the solar farm become economically unviable due to a change in technology, age, or because it is outstripped by other sources of generation, it can hardly be a financially attractive option to any owner at that time to spend the millions that would be required to bring the land back to its current state.
It is for these reasons I am opposed to the development as currently proposed.

I declare that no reportable political donations have been made by me in the last two years. I acknowledge acceptance of the Department’s disclaimer and declaration.

Yours sincerely
Maree T Peden

Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation

ATTN: Cameron Ashe
Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
RE: Gundary Solar Farm project (SSD 48225958)

Delivered via NSW Planning Portal 12 December 2024
Gundary Solar Farm project (SSD 48225958)

I write to you to express my strong objection to the proposed building of a solar farm on the Gundary Plains. I am the farm manager of “Bullamalita” pastoral company a 4000-acre grazing and cropping property. This property has been in the Peden family since 1923. “Bullamalita” neighbours “Rosedale”, will be directly affected, given its proximity to the proposed development.

The first objection I make is that this development is not even within the published Renewable Energy Zones (REZ) published by the NSW Government. This begs the question - why go to the trouble of publishing such zones if it is your intention to consider developments that are outside the very areas you designated?

The size of the project is substantial. Its effect on the surrounding area would be significant. This land has been farmed, both in terms of grazing and cropping, since the very early beginnings of agriculture in NSW. It has proved to be some of the best land available in NSW for the growing of fine wool, and has developed into an exceptional producer of fat lambs for slaughter. These lambs are grown for both export and domestic consumption.

“Bullamalita” in fact, is the home of “The Big Merino” an iconic 15.2 metre, three storey concrete and steel monument that was built in 1985 as a celebration of the Goulburn and surrounding district’s fine wool industry. The life-like Ram structure was modelled on “Rambo,” stud ram that was bred by Robert Peden (owner of Bullamalita).

"Bullamalita" is run on a large successful commercial scale, by the same family, for in excess of 100 years. I do not accept the proposition that sheep are able to graze under the panels and that there is no loss of grazing area. That is a fundamentally ludicrous assertion evidently made by someone with little to no understanding of farming practices, nor by someone who understands livestock.

My second objection is that the proposal will have significant impact on native wildlife such as the South-Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo, Spotted-tail quoll and the superb Lyrebird. These three specific endangered national treasures are local species in the area and there are existing NSW initiatives active to ensure their safety. “Bullamalita” participated in the Rivers of Carbon (ROC) / Greening Australia initiative to fence off critical habitat area and plant native vegetation to attract and house the South-Eastern Glossy Black Cockatoo. ‘Quollidor’ (NSW Saving our Species program) is an additional conservation project that is being pursued by state Government – Environment and Heritage to acknowledge and monitor the Quoll on the South Coast crossing to the Blue Mountains, NSW. Solar Farm infrastructure would have devastating impacts on these vulnerable species.

My third objection is that the proposal is less than 10 kilometres from the township of Goulburn. The area already has a significant number of residents in and around it, with the current population of Goulburn Mulwaree at 32,710, with a 0.87% population growth noted (Goulburn Mulwaree Council, 2023). The loss of amenity, not only during construction, but also during operation, would be enormous. Of additional concern, is that the same owner of the land on which the current development is proposed to be constructed has just purchased the property known as “Rosedale”. The only logical assumption that can be drawn from that purchase is clearly a longer-term plan to expand the current proposal. Though this is obviously not yet published, it is most clear that this is within frame of mind. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of commercial reason.

The transport of machinery and the solar panels to site will have a detrimental effect on the single lane carriageway of Windellama Rd. The road is already busy during the year, and particularly so during school holidays when many people use it as part of the journey to the South Coast. The potential for collisions between multiple trucks servicing and delivering to the proposed site, and domestic traffic, is a major concern. Similarly, the construction and operation of the solar farm would present an immense challenge to the operation of the surrounding farms. Naturally, the implementation of various road blocks and the like would halt the transportation of stock, sowing and harvesting machinery as between farms. To stultify the local agricultural operations in such a way for the purposes of a solar farm, which is more than likely soon to be obsolete, is not only a waste of taxpayer funds, but will have a self-evident effect on the broader community.

My fourth objection is the considerable fire risk posed by the development. Fire activity is significant in dry years, and the fire-risk presented by lithium batteries is well documented; so too is the nature of the fire that breaks out from such batteries, and the difficulty of extinguishing such a fire. Should any major fire break out in the battery storage facility, there is a very real question as to whether the local bush fire brigade, made up predominantly of volunteer local farmers, would have the equipment, and indeed know how to combat such an occurrence. I am not aware if the NSW Fire Brigade’s Goulburn station commands ability to provide trained fire fighters and the appropriate apparatuses should such a fire require their intervention. The effects of such fire on the agricultural surrounds needn’t be stated.

My fifth objection is a financial one. It is undeniable that the construction of such a facility, particularly on the scale proposed, will have a devaluing effect on surrounding properties. Persons wishing to live, or seeking a place to live in the country, are not going to choose to purchase a property whose main visual feature is a view over almost three quarters of a million solar panels. For those of us who live here, we have invested considerable capital in developing our own farms to make them as productive as they can be. That capital investment will be considerably depleted by the unarguable fact that no one will want to live next to a solar factory.

I do not accept that the proposal will provide large scale local employment. Having lived in the area for a long time, I have encountered numerous crews who have been employed to build windfarms within the shire. In my experience, these crews are made up of either foreign working visa holders, or persons who are not local area residents. Once the project is complete, they leave, and make no further contribution to the town. It is not a criticism of them, it’s just a fact. I note the proposed staffing level for the farm, once complete, is minimal. It is not right to present this benefit to the community knowing that not to be the experience in like-projects of the past.

My sixth, and in some ways most serious concern, is the lack of any detail regarding the decommissioning of the site. Solar has not proved to be a huge producer of renewable energy. It is hamstrung by the fact that it only operates during daylight hours, and battery technology has not developed to the point that all the power produced can be stored (and certainly not on a scale that can sustain base load power over the length of the night time period). Windellama is notorious for soup-like fogs for a number of days each year, and in addition is prone to hail. It is inevitable that there will be a number of days in which the contribution to the power grid from this proposal would be nil.

The panels themselves seem to have a life span of 10 years. The disposal of used panels has proved very problematic to other operators. Recycling does not appear to be an option. Of greater concern is that it is likely that Lightsource Development Services will at some stage seek to sell the development. Any agreement as to the rehabilitation or remediation of the land upon the decommissioning of the site will be made much less tenable in the very likely event that BP elect to sell the project at some stage in the future. Whilst I have no difficulty with BP making a profit from its investment, it is the indeterminacy of the enforceability of those conditions on future purchasers that concerns me. Should the solar farm become economically unviable due to a change in technology, age, or because it is outstripped by other sources of generation, it can hardly be a financially attractive option to any owner at that time to spend the millions that would be required to bring the land back to its current state.
It is for these reasons I am opposed to the development as currently proposed.

I declare that no reportable political donations have been made by me in the last two years. I acknowledge acceptance of the Department’s disclaimer and declaration.

Yours sincerely
Michael Scott Peden

See attached objection.

At 8.1.2 of the EIS (Suitability of the Site), LightSource BP (LSBP) states:

“In preliminary phases of the Project, Lightsource bp undertook a site constraints and opportunities analysis to identify the most appropriate site.”

That report cannot be located in the EIS which means that persons with an interest in the proposal have not had an opportunity to respond to it.

In the interests of full transparency, and to ensure LSBP’s compliance with the mandatory considerations in the SEPP, we believe that this report should be publicly available.

LSBP should be instructed to provide a copy of that document, or any documents forming part of the ‘analysis’, to the Dept. of Planning and the Environment and the impacted residents.

Should that document/s refer to matters that are commercial in confidence. the analysis could be provided with any redactions that are appropriate to protect the commercial interests of LSBP.

LSBP cannot rely on a document that the impacted residents and the Dept. of Planning and the Environment cannot access.

Ann Moore
Gundary

I object to this project as there have been no plans put in place regarding emergency safe exit in event of a fire with only a one lane dirt road leading out. properties to the east would be at the mercy of a grass fire with the prevailing strong westerlies that sweep across the Gundary plain. I have seen no evidence of any reports of wind speed tests being performed or what wind speed the panels can withstand

I see this project having a major positive impact on the Goulburn economy.
I strongly support more renewable energy projects.
I want to see the best possible benefits flow to the Goulburn community.
I do not see this land as anything more than marginal agricultural land.
Goulburn is ideally placed for renewable energy re wind, solar energy and electricity infrastructure.
Yours Sincerely
Robert Favaloro

My brother and sister-in-law live adjacent to the project area and i am fearful of the threat to their health and well being as a result of the electronic noise, fire threat and loss of value to their property. It is causing them untold grief and ongoing health problems even befor ethe project is approved. I object wholeheartedly to this project being placed on prime farming land and adjacent to so many people living close by.

To qualify my submission, I am the president of the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party, Goulburn Branch. As a political party our core is to support country communities, the products and goods produced on the land, and the lifestyle people in rural NSW enjoy. The name given Gundary Solar belies the flawed logic of the entire project. It is not a farm. It grows no agricultural products, be it crops or livestock. Instead, it is an industrial installation that is being greenwashed to try and slip it into an unsuitable location.
There are a litany of reasons why this is the wrong place for this solar installation to be built.
1. The first is that it is being built amongst residential blocks. It's highly unsuitable and will ruin the entire character of the land surrounding. A solar installation is being jammed into the middle of small hobby farms and lifestyle blocks that people have bought to enjoy the pastoral idyll. This project will insert a sea of steel and glass into one of the nicest pieces of land in the Southern Tablelands.
2. It clashes with the Housing Strategy of Goulburn Mulwaree Council which has already set out the usage of land on the Gundary Plain and in areas bordering it.
3. It does not comply with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW), specifically the State environmental planning policies (SEPPs) which do not allow projects like Gundary Solar to be as close to town without satisfying much more stringent criteria. This project does not satisfy the criteria required to be this close to Goulburn.
4. There is a significant impact on residents that cannot be resolved by compensation payments. Land values will plunge, the constant vicinity to the panels is not peaceful. The stress/mental health pressures upon residents has already caused significant issues and if the project were approved it would increase drastically.
5. Gundary Plain is a flood zone and concrete and other pollutants will wash into local waterways. As Goulburn flows into the Sydney Catchment area Gundary Plain is an entirely inappropriate location for the project.
6. Bushfire is a real risk in most country communities. Certain parts of the location are no thru roads and it will be impossible to evacuate residents or workers should a fire set in. The proposed batteries are a significant fire risk, as are the power systems linking the panels. Once these catch fire the Rural Fire Service will not attempt to put them out as they do not have the resources to do so, causing risk to surrounding residents and bushland. No serious fire plan has been put together yet.
7. Economic opportunism is the theme of this project, like so many other 'renewable' energy projects. At end of life how will the panels be recycled? Where are these panels made that makes them less toxic than other forms of energy? How, being shipped from overseas, are these in terms of a carbon footprint? None of this has been established.
8. Weather; Approximately 65% of the year Goulburn does not have sunny weather. That means for roughly 240 days of the year this solar farm will yield zero energy. That's crazy efficiency for any project.
This entire project is based on the priority given by state and federal governments to install solar and wind projects because of the government incentives. It is a grab for taxpayer funds. If solar is to be employed it should pay for itself. The community will not benefit from the solar energy created. It is barely a drop in the ocean for the energy used in the region. This has been dumped on the location and purely for the planning, housing, environmental and especially the fire issues this project should not be passed. State Significant Project status should not be used to ram projects like these onto unsuspecting rural locations. A project like this should be located in the middle of paddocks in Western NSW where the weather is primarily sunny. Instead it's being shoved close to existing power lines to benefit from government incentives. At best, the project will yield a small amount of energy for the community for roughly a third of the year. At worst residents or workers could die due to the fire risk. It reflects the broken renewable policy across NSW and Australia that will cost taxpayers billions across the next several decades.

The fire risk for such a project so close to rural residential properties is unacceptable. As a Rural Fire volunteer we have been advised that the batteries and components will exude toxic fumes and fires will spread quickly to surrounding areas. How the government can allow such a project in this location is beyond belief- unless of course it fulfils a monetary gain for a company supporting the government. i object strongly to this project.

Robyn Galvin and Kerry Dempster oppose the Gundary Solar Factory. The have attempted to lodge their objections but have found the Planning Portal too difficult to navigate and therefore have emailed me with their objection. I have both Robyn's and Kerry's physical addresses and there phone numbers should you require, however they do not wish their contact details to be made public.
I am attaching their email to me and this serves as their submission objecting to the proposal.